New 6600K GTX1080 Build - feedback wanted!

[Thunderball]

Did you bother watching? The GPU was hitting 100% with the i5 750, the CPU was starting to cap at 1440p and above on the witcher, with the GPU still under 100% load, so it's going to have no issue with the 6600k/1080. That's my point. They're fine getting a 6600k and putting the money somewhere else, or saving a bit on overall cost.

Yes, his GPU has not been maxing out except for 4K (which is irrelevant here). You can say that it was in Witcher 3, but Witcher 3 is quite a balanced game and will eat up all the hardware you will feed it. However it scales so much better with a processor as you can lower heavy postprocessing options to significantly decrease GPU load (especially on higher resolutions) but with the processor load there is not much you can do.

[Kagthul]

Yes, his GPU has not been maxing out except for 4K (which is irrelevant here). You can say that it was in Witcher 3, but Witcher 3 is quite a balanced game and will eat up all the hardware you will feed it. However it scales so much better with a processor as you can lower heavy postprocessing options to significantly decrease GPU load (especially on higher resolutions) but with the processor load there is not much you can do.

Youre literally just spewing nonsense words together hoping to sound smart.

You do -not- need an i7 (of any stripe) to take full advantage of a GTX 1080. The VAST majority of games do not scale much, if at all, past four cores, and the few exceptions (like he last Battlefield game, which will make decent use of lots of cores) still run well over 100fps - all the extra core support did really was allow AMD CPUs not to fall as far behind.

Just... Stahp, ffs.

[Thunderball]

Youre literally just spewing nonsense words together hoping to sound smart.

You do -not- need an i7 (of any stripe) to take full advantage of a GTX 1080. The VAST majority of games do not scale much, if at all, past four cores, and the few exceptions (like he last Battlefield game, which will make decent use of lots of cores) still run well over 100fps - all the extra core support did really was allow AMD CPUs not to fall as far behind.

Just... Stahp, ffs.

Can't really explain anything to someone who doesnt have enough brain cells to understand.

Infracted

[Kagthul]

Can't really explain anything to someone who doesnt have enough brain cells to understand.

Infracted

Does the fact that not a single person on this forum - including half a dozen of us that actually do this for a living (or at least income) - supports you or has said that you're correct not sunk in?

How many dozens of benchmarks do you want me to post that show that an i7 isn't going to perform any better than an i5 at identical clock speeds?

I can probably dig up at least 30

[Thunderball]

I can probably dig up at least 30

Please, at least one. Can even be a GTX 1070, not GTX 1080.

[st33l]

Reason I went for the 1080 is because I also want 144hz gaming, or at least above 110 for G-sync at 1440p resolution. I think the 1070 can deliver that a bit less consistently, definitely on other games such as shooters.



Thanks! I'll try and look for deals. The site I'm buying from seems the cheapest in my country (Netherlands) so not sure if I can find much. PC parts are more expensive in Europe than in the US, unfortunately.

Keep in mind that 2 regular GTX 1070's are about $100 more than just one good GTX 1080.
Typically the only reason to go for a 1080 is if you really need SLI GTX 1080 and want to run 4k games @ 144fps.

[Mythbredor]

Keep in mind that 2 regular GTX 1070's are about $100 more than just one good GTX 1080.
Typically the only reason to go for a 1080 is if you really need SLI GTX 1080 and want to run 4k games @ 144fps.

Honestly for anyone that's got the money to blow on a GPU I'd just go ahead and get a 1080, it leaves wiggle room for the future if he plans to move onto 4k gaming. And there are plenty of reasons to get a 1080, it's a really good card for 2k-4k gaming. Even a single 1080 can run games at 4k 60 fps within reason. And SLI causes more problems then it solves in most cases.

[Droodid]

Yes, his GPU has not been maxing out except for 4K (which is irrelevant here). You can say that it was in Witcher 3, but Witcher 3 is quite a balanced game and will eat up all the hardware you will feed it. However it scales so much better with a processor as you can lower heavy postprocessing options to significantly decrease GPU load (especially on higher resolutions) but with the processor load there is not much you can do.

Yeah. Ok.

Only if they plan on streaming would I suggest getting the 6700k. If they're just planning on gaming, there is absolutely no reason to spend the extra money.

[Lathais]

Yeah. Ok.

Only if they plan on streaming would I suggest getting the 6700k. If they're just planning on gaming, there is absolutely no reason to spend the extra money.

Even when streaming, with things like intel quicksync and NVENC encoding, you can really minimize the hit you take. Even without using those though, when I stremed with my 4690k and just a GTX960, I noticed no performance hit when streaming. I guess if you are a twitch partner and are making good money from your stream it's not a bad idea to go for an i7, but at that point I'd think you want 2 separate systems, a gaming and a streaming system with a capture card.

[Droodid]

Even when streaming, with things like intel quicksync and NVENC encoding, you can really minimize the hit you take. Even without using those though, when I stremed with my 4690k and just a GTX960, I noticed no performance hit when streaming.

I really don't see a difference when I went from testing a 4690k -> 4790k either, but I only stream WoW and Rocksmith 2014, so neither really demand much. I imagine if they stream everything they're doing, they might want the extra power, but may be able to OC the i5 to get that anyways. At that point, it's probably just preference.

[Lathais]

I really don't see a difference when I went from testing a 4690k -> 4790k either, but I only stream WoW and Rocksmith 2014, so neither really demand much. I imagine if they stream everything they're doing, they might want the extra power, but may be able to OC the i5 to get that anyways. At that point, it's probably just preference.

Well, with WoW they demand more from the CPU than most other games on the market, so if no effect there, I would imagine not a large effect anywhere else. I know that in FFXIV there was literally no change in my FPS though.

[Kagthul]

Keep in mind that 2 regular GTX 1070's are about $100 more than just one good GTX 1080.
Typically the only reason to go for a 1080 is if you really need SLI GTX 1080 and want to run 4k games @ 144fps.

... or if you want to get your money's worth in the 30-40% of games that dont use SLI/Xfire at all, or have serious issues with it.

A single faster card is always the better choice. As we move forward into DX12 (where Multi-GPU support has to be in the game engine itself, something developers have shown almost zero interest in given the paucity of people it will help) even less games will support it.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, at least one. Can even be a GTX 1070, not GTX 1080.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaB1dqYv_I

Yes, it is an older Titan X (not the Titan XP), but that's kinda moot since the 1070 is almost exactly the performance of the Titan X (just a little slower, actually).

Notice the i5 @ 4.5Ghz and the i7 @ 4.6ghz... and how the framerates are identical or nearly so?

d'oh. And this is with them artificially altering the settings to put more stress on the CPU.

[Deleted]

Go for an M.2 ssd instead of the SATA drive you have in there. They are only a tiny bit more expensive, take up no space and their speed isn't capped by the SATA interface

EUH no you are wrong, you have m.2 xith sata interface too.. Pci models are much more expensive then normal ssd!!!

[Thunderball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaB1dqYv_I

Yes, it is an older Titan X (not the Titan XP), but that's kinda moot since the 1070 is almost exactly the performance of the Titan X (just a little slower, actually).

Notice the i5 @ 4.5Ghz and the i7 @ 4.6ghz... and how the framerates are identical or nearly so?

d'oh. And this is with them artificially altering the settings to put more stress on the CPU.

I asked for a GTX 1070/1080 (which are both faster than Titan X) test but I guess Titan X will do. I notice at least 10 FPS disparity, have no idea what have you been looking it (the narrator even talks about it). But most importantly - this video doesnt show GPU and CPU loads, which what the main point. See, PC is not a console, it's bound to have something running in the back ground, which will work the processor too.

You can argue that we're talking about disparity where FPS is high on both of them. It's true, but we're also talking 144Hz monitor here. Most modern FPS titles are optimized to run with high FPS (so you can take advantage of higher refresh rate monitors) and to do that they have to be optimized for multithreading. Most of modern AAA multiplayer titles are like that. That means that "high" FPS is not enough, high enough is needed.

[Lathais]

Please, at least one. Can even be a GTX 1070, not GTX 1080.

Hard to find any with that specific setup, however, this guy has plenty of benchmarks with a 780ti that show in most games, having HT on with the i7 actually lowers performance.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...g-test.219417/

Seeing as the FPS he is getting in most of these game is beyond what anyone needs, having a more powerful GPU than the 780ti would not make much of a difference. The few games that it does, just ever so slightly increase performance, the min FPS is well above 60 and the min FPS difference is still pretty small. So there goes your argument. The i7, in fact, actually hurts performance in most games, due to the overhead needed to run the virtual cores likely.

and here's some more benchmarks, with the 290x and the 980 that show very little difference. In some games, the i5 beats the i7, in the ones where the i7 wins, it's a very very small difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/i...-generation/22

Really interesting is that the G3258 actually outperforms both the 6600k and the 6700k in Shadows of Mordor. In most games in fact, the G3258 really holds it's own. Sure, there is an increase in performance going to the i3, and yet another gain going from the i3 to the i5, but the increase from going from i5 to i7 is just not there, again in some cases reducing performance. The i5 is the sweet spot for gaming. If you do other tasks that require an i7, sure, go for it, but it has been proven time and time again that HT is not needed for gaming and in fact hurts a lot of games.

[Svens]

Yes, his GPU has not been maxing out except for 4K (which is irrelevant here). You can say that it was in Witcher 3, but Witcher 3 is quite a balanced game and will eat up all the hardware you will feed it. However it scales so much better with a processor as you can lower heavy postprocessing options to significantly decrease GPU load (especially on higher resolutions) but with the processor load there is not much you can do.

Well my 1080 is maxing out with 99% usage on 4K with WoW with vsync off, while my i5 6600k is sitting comfortably on 35%-50% usage per core, I fail to see how an i7 is required to max a 1080.