Hello. I am planning to upgrade my current computer. I watched the video the Wendell did on the linux virtualization on arch. I would like a system for just that. Linux then running windows in a vm and gaming on it. I understand I need a dedicated GPU for the vm. I'm curious about which CPU and motherboard I should get. If I should go skylake, I was thinking of the i5 - 6600K. Thank you!
I would go for the 6400 and clock up via BCLK. Just multiply 27 by the BCLK and you have a frequency that your processor will run at.
I.E.: 27x175 would be 4.725ghz
i dont think that that would exaly work.
6600K is a good choice.
i5 is great if you do not need the extra threads.
i7 if you want over kill.. to be honest
THe i7 can be handy for the virtualization.
If you can afford it, i would definitely recommend it.
Why would the lock the BCLK? Wouldn't that limit RAM faster than 2133?
Id say if you were going Hard Core VX then id say X99 is a better route but yeah
Yes and No, depends, with skylake or haswell mainstream you do get an igpu.
which you can use to keep the linux video server up.
This will save you money for an extra gpu basicly.
Yeah that would help. I was just speaking to the virtualization croud. KVM runs very nicely on the 5960X
yeah ofc X99 would be a great choice aswell, if you can afford it, with 2 sepperate gpu´s.
Well thats the question, would intel cut their fingers, and fully unlock the BCLK on non K cpu´s or not?
I can't find any info about it.
You can:
"According to WCCFtech, that Skylake non-K (or non-unlocked) CPUs will feature base overclocking support with an adjustable BCLK, overclockable memory and iGPU overclocking. This will include the i3 CPUs, which is a great feature should it be true. With an adjustable BCLK, the i3 might finally be the bang-for-your-buck (gaming) CPU again, which is a great thing."
Edit: "should if be true"
well i found an opposit comment in a topic at toms.
So i dont know, i´m skeptical.
Thanks for the clarification. That sucks
Conflicting information everywhere:
"That article actually says the processors don't have an unlocked BCLK multiplier, which is correct wink.gif However BCLK overclocking is done by the motherboard and isn't a function of the CPU. Theoretically it's possible for the microcode to set the board in such a way to lock the BCLK adjustments on the board without a K CPU installed but I don't think they have done this--I think it is just like it was with Nehalem. The reason this can be done again is BCLK is no longer tied directly to PCIe so OCing the BCLK doesn't put other things out of spec. This is the way it was on Sandy Bridge-->Broadwell, making BCLK OCing unstable, unreliable, and effectively unusable. Locked multiplier CPUs were in effect locked completely. Now that BCLK has been "freed" again, you should be able to OC with that just as you could on first gen Core iX processors."
Yeah well Pentium´s are overclockable, this was also possible with the haswell pasts, so thats not a suprise.
Only the guy in the topic at toms hardware, said that with the locked i5, it did not seem to work for him.
So yeah idk, i need to look into it more closely.
It would be awesome if its possible to overclock locked i5's.
Someone managed it on a 6400...
https://mobile.twitter.com/momomo_us/status/641282674695409664
Sorry for hijacking the thread.
yeah well wenn i look at the screen, it looks to me that they have just pinned its turbo speed on just 2 cores.
With some motherboards, and some particular bios versions you can pin a locked cpu at its max turbo speed.
Brian from Techyes city did this with his Xeon E3-1231-V3 on the Asus B85 pro gramer mobo.
He was able to pin the Xeon at 3.8Ghz.
If i look at the screen the stock clock of the i5-6400 is 2.7GHz stock - 3.3GHz turbo.
So they just managed to pin that cpu on its max turbo speed.
Not sure if they could get it any higher, would be awesome.