So is a 7 year old X58 system obsolete. Lets get some numbers and see.

[jaggerwild]

There is a similar thread to this one at Anand, wonder if its the same poster. Yeah that's why I posted my 6700K score cause OP asked for anyone to post so as to compare

 

[EarthDog]

I missed that.. completely my bad.

 

[BigPaPaRu]

I gotta admit, OP, You have some pretty rad scores. Wouldn't have expected that from 3+ year old rig. Here I am, thinking about upgrading to 6700K or 5630K, When my 4790K is just fine. Thank you for this post. I like to have the newest tech, but that would just be foolish to upgrade.

 

[Schmuckley]

I'm not liking the newer stuff.
Thinking of going back to 1366 or maybe x79.

 

[vega22]

i was just guessing tbh

i thought sandy was about +15% and ivy very little then hw another +10% or so.

skylake being another jump in the same +10/15% region.

 

[Tomgang]

Sorry i have been away, but the last two weeks has been not so funny to say atleast. First my granma passed away and last week i got a flu. But im back now.

I gotta admit, OP, You have some pretty rad scores. Wouldn't have expected that from 3+ year old rig. Here I am, thinking about upgrading to 6700K or 5630K, When my 4790K is just fine. Thank you for this post. I like to have the newest tech, but that would just be foolish to upgrade.

Yearh upgrade from a I7 4790K would be a big whaste of money. you would be better of just overclock the sucker you have now.

And i have 2 new benches.

First super Pi mod.

Tried out Monster hunter online benchmark also.

Single card run.

Two cards run.

 

[EarthDog]

For reference, my stock 6700k..http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/

 

[Tomgang]

For reference, my stock 6700k..http://www.overclockers.com/asus-maximus-viii-extreme-motherboard-review/

I7 6700K is faster and i would not have it be any way else. After 7 years it would be pretty sad if there not are a different at all. So will i get a I7 6700K?
No it is faster but the price tag is also up in the sky and i can not get my self to upgrade from one quad-core to another quad-core. I want more cores than that and lower clock speed on cpu whit more cores, you can always clock the cpu any way.
So if or when i upgrade i would go X99/broadwell E and get a 6 or 8 core chip or wait until 2017 for a new socket the socket after LGA 2011-V3. I think that would be a good time to upgrade then. New socket and a new generation of chips at the same time mostly means the biggest performence gain.

But thanks for your input. And overclokket I7 6700K is non the less an impressive Quad-core. But it is still only a quad-core. 10 years after the first quad-core came out quad beside dual-cores is still the most used CPU type even to day. I would not have exspected that ten year after. Already back in 2011 i whas considering to get a i7 970 but dropped it. Today i would at least get at hexa core and even better an octa core.

 

[trog100]

ten years ago the first quad cores were a waste of space.. three (slower) cores sat there doing nothing.. its taken a long time for the software to catch up with the hardware.. in fact most of it still hasnt fully caught up with quad core even yet..

benchmarks paint a rosie picture but its a false one.. it always has been..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

I7 6700K is faster and i would not have it be any way else. After 7 years it would be pretty sad if there not are a different at all. So will i get a I7 6700K?
No it is faster but the price tag is also up in the sky and i can not get my self to upgrade from one quad-core to another quad-core. I want more cores than that and lower clock speed on cpu whit more cores, you can always clock the cpu any way.
So if or when i upgrade i would go X99/broadwell E and get a 6 or 8 core chip or wait until 2017 for a new socket the socket after LGA 2011-V3. I think that would be a good time to upgrade then. New socket and a new generation of chips at the same time mostly means the biggest performence gain.

But thanks for your input. And overclokket I7 6700K is non the less an impressive Quad-core. But it is still only a quad-core. 10 years after the first quad-core came out quad beside dual-cores is still the most used CPU type even to day. I would not have exspected that ten year after. Already back in 2011 i whas considering to get a i7 970 but dropped it. Today i would at least get at hexa core and even better an octa core.

choice is yours of course... but, what's the point of buying more cores when you don't use them? Though the premium isn't that much, it's still a premium and for little to no reason. A quad with HT will be a fine CPU for years to come.

The real gains are in IPC which skylake SMOKES nehelam AND has faster clock speeds both stock and overclocked.

X58 is certainly a viable platform, but there isn't a doubt it's long in the tooth and puts a glass ceiling on some games and setups.

Don't forget, the i7 920s MSRP was 285. MSRP for 6700k is $350. Really, that isn't a huge difference...especially considering it's been 8 years and looking at the MSRP for previous gens...2600K was $316....4770K was $350 MSRP...so is the price really out of line??? Seems that's normal to me.

benchmarks paint a rosie picture but its a false one.. it always has been

depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them.

Blanket statements FTL.

 

[R-T-B]

Don't forget, the i7 920s MSRP was 285. MSRP for 6700k is $350. Really, that isn't a huge difference...especially considering it's been 8 years and looking at the MSRP for previous gens...2600K was $316....4770K was $350 MSRP...so is the price really out of line??? Seems that's normal to me.

Except the i7 920 was the low-end enthusiast chip of the time. You'd be better off comparing it to a 5820k, rather than a 6700k.

 

[trog100]

"depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them.

Blanket statements FTL."

###

you have to be an expert to do this.. most folks aint and benchmarks (and review sites) power the entire "enthusiast" scene..

but higher benchmarks scores do motivate places like this.. they motivate me even though i know its all bollocks.. he he

the psychology of an "enthusiast" aint quite the same as that of a sane individual..

is five year old technology good enough in the real world.. yes it is.. its only in the benchmark world that it aint..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

Except the i7 920 was the low-end enthusiast chip of the time. You'd be better off comparing it to a 5820k, rather than a 6700k.

good call, and no problem. The price is the same or $10/20 different.. It doesn't change anything really.

"depends totally on the benchmark.. some are useless in that rspect, others just show the truth.... always has been. You just have to know which benchmarks are good for what and how to read them.

Blanket statements FTL."

###

you have to be an expert to do this.. most folks aint and benchmarks (and review sites) power the entire "enthusiast" scene..

but higher benchmarks scores do motivate places like this.. they motivate me even though i know its all bollocks.. he he

the psychology of an "enthusiast" aint quite the same as that of a sane individual..

is five year old technology good enough in the real world.. yes it is.. its only in the benchmark world that it aint..

trog

jesus trog, you can't even quote people right, lol!

Expert? Hardly. Just need to know what matters. Plenty of non experts can figure that out.

Again, not all bolloks, I explained why. Most, or at least MORE people here are enthusiasts. We are not talking about the majority of tbe populous that would be fine with a NUC.

 

[trog100]

"Again, not all bolloks, I explained why. Most, or at least MORE people here are enthusiasts. We are not talking about the majority of tbe populous that would be fine with a NUC."

which does kind of bring us back to the thread topic..

even the "enthusiasts" on here differ somewhat.. the ones that have just bought the "latest and greatest" who try and justify doing it.. the ones that bought the latest and greatest a while back and try and justify keeping it.. and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..

i recon the all in one machines (my son just bought one for the family and kids) will becomes mass market devices they make a lot of sense..

its easy to move back a few years in cpu time just nip in the bios and lower a few settings.. i do this from time to time just to see if i can spot any "real world" difference.. so far i cant which brings us back to the all important benchmark thing..

there is one simple sanity test.. how many times per day does a person run a benchmark.. "normal" users never run them at all.. he he

trog

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

even the "enthusiasts" on here differ somewhat.. the ones that have just bought the "latest and greatest" who try and justify doing it.. the ones that bought the latest and greatest a while back and try and justify keeping it.. and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..

i dont fall into any of those categories.

You should add another one.

"smug Xeon owner who bought a $ 1440 chip for $ 90"

http://ark.intel.com/products/47920/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5670-12M-Cache-2_93-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

 

[dorsetknob]

ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..

=ME

 

[SystemViper]

and at the bottom of the chain the ones that cant afford the latest and greatest but still lust after it..

I just love hardware, but i have to agree that the software is just starting to really push i7's, so anything over 6 cores is for very specific jobs. But you got
to love them... For the longest time you could get away with a highly overclocked i3 and a good video card and you would rock just about every game.
Not true anymore but from what i have read that most games are just pushing the limits of the i7 and a select few use up to 6 core's. But anything over that
as far as gaming goes is not used.

What a crazy ride, software was the limiting factor for the longest time and Intel took advantage of our LUST for newer, faster and more cores with
their Tick / Tock mentality with small incremental increases and limited full blown unlocked chips for a premium. It just crazy that the X58 is still a
banging core for a nice gaming system so many years later.... I think the GPU chip makers are starting to do the same thing more toooo and just give us a little more each time
with each one just a little different, OC, SSC, Turbo, Ultimate Extreme, Lightning, Classified, military grade, unlocked voltage, LN2 setting and on and on......
then adding different memory amounts too, so many choices and so little difference when you really come down to it...

The basic formula of chip/board selection plus target output (1080p, 144, 120, G-sync) will give you the range for your optimal card but with so many choices
it just gets very confuzing, then you add in the bling/ego factor then oh should i make it future proof too.

ARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

[dorsetknob]

People are Realizing intels strategy and the graphics makers
and are no longer so keen to be sucker bit in the up grade race
Hardware Sales have Slumped as people ( and Corporate ) Realize there is little % gain to upgrading
Even the Microsuck arm twist upgrade to 10 in collaboration is causing sales to slump
Semi serious rant over ( or is it )

 

[trog100]

owning a 4790K plus two 980 tI cards i 100 % disagree that modern games are pushing any half decent cpu..

my chip is at 4.6 gig.. i can and have (just to see) slowed it down to not much over 3 gig.. my gaming performance is still perfectly okay.. my cpu isnt working that hard with any current game.. tis pretty much all down to the gpu.. or in my case the two of them..

the bottom line is simple.. a better gpu provides noticeably better gaming performance.. a better cpu might turn 140 fps into 150 fps but for sure no bugger will notice that..

trog

 

[SystemViper]

there is no doubt that the greatest factor in gaming is the GPU, i think that is pretty much undisputed

 

[R-T-B]

there is no doubt that the greatest factor in gaming is the GPU, i think that is pretty much undisputed

Unless you are playing some hardcore strategy game with huge map sizes and long AI threads, pretty much true.

 

[SystemViper]

I just downloaded World of warships, don't know if it's hardcore but it looked like fun.....

 

[R-T-B]

I just downloaded World of warships, don't know if it's hardcore but it looked like fun.....

I didn't mean hardcore in any sense other than "will rape your CPU." Few games actually manage this, but I have seen a few.

 

[hat]

Talking solely CPU side, I think x58 is still a good performer, but today's offerings will definitely surpass it not only in performance (where applicable, not so much gaming) but also in efficiency. Then there's the newer features like M.2 ports and whatnot.

 

[EarthDog]

owning a 4790K plus two 980 tI cards i 100 % disagree that modern games are pushing any half decent cpu..

my chip is at 4.6 gig.. i can and have (just to see) slowed it down to not much over 3 gig.. my gaming performance is still perfectly okay.. my cpu isnt working that hard with any current game.. tis pretty much all down to the gpu.. or in my case the two of them..

the bottom line is simple.. a better gpu provides noticeably better gaming performance.. a better cpu might turn 140 fps into 150 fps but for sure no bugger will notice that..

trog

While for the most part, that is right, there are some games that show scaling well over the CPUs (talking Intel here) clock speed. Be it from IPC or more cores, there are a few modern titles that push halfway decent CPUs. More so on current AMD CPUs.

With multiple GPUs, where the user doesn't neuter his own cards (read you trog), the more CPU you have the more FPS you tend to get in many titles. SO with multiple GPUs, its a glass ceiling.

You also have to consider, not everyone owns a top end CPU. The G3258 and i3's in several titles, show FPS improvements as clockspeeds go up.

So if you don't have two high end GPUs, and are sitting with much lower frame rates, it can make a difference in some titles.

I suggest looking at techspot.com and looking at the game reviews, the CPU benchmarks. Again, for the most part that is right, but to 100% disagree with it, is wrong.