I see alot of benchmarks showing that the 6700k beats the 4790k in alot of games. Like far cry 4 and GTA V. Can anyone comfirm this?
Games that utilize the cpu will see an increased performance. Not by a whole lot, but the per-core performance is better in Skylake vs. previous generations: So yes, I can confirm this.
In real life usage you will not feel a difference. Going from a 3820 to a 4790k I felt 0 change.
It's really not going to matter, you'd want an i7 6700 in most cases anyways just to get the updated platform
its a toss up, straight IPC wise the 6700 is marginally faster clock per clock.
the 6700k does have some dedicated hardware features that the 4790k lacks, and is a newer platform.
if you can get a good deal on some Z97 board and a sub <300$ 4790k, I would go for it, otherwise just wait or get Skylake.
6700K is indeed slightly faster, but nothing too mindblowing.
If you currently allready rocking a 4790K, it makes totaly no sense to upgrade.
okay :P had me thinking I can upgrade to skylake instead of a second ti lol
I dont realy see the point of doing that tbh.
Atleast not from a raw cpu performance perspective.
I was like (if I upgrade to 6th gen than I can make up that little few fps inGTA V btw I just bought crisis 3 and damn.. this 980ti destroys it)
people kept telling me Crysis 3 eats GPU's for lunch :P
Crysis 3 is still one of the most gpu heavy games yes.
Should probably get a 4k display over a 2nd 980ti if you don't already have one.
Streetguru Why are you so fixed on 4K gaming. its the same experience as looking at a single 1080p screen. You just take a Big performance hit. If your okay with the dip in fps then on the 1080p side you could just enable Dynamic super resolution and or aa. The 4k revolution seems like a gimmick if your gaming, because for less than one 4k monitor you can have 3 1080p IPS monitors and run infinity. Now for work flow its really cool. A 4k monitor would be great for cad, video editing. creating music, and other arts. The 4k monitors just seem to expensive to justify you can get a really nice G-sync monitor for less or you could get 3 free-sync monitors for a little more and both solutions will dramatically change the gaming experience. were 4k just doesn't in my opinion.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160273&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker,%20LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=
http://www.microcenter.com/product/439999/XB270H_Abprz__27_Full_HD__G-Sync_LCD_Display
Ps sorry for hijacking the thread.
that's why I believe its better to have a 1080p 144hz Gsync panel
\
Because you can fit so much more on the screen with a 4k display over a 1080p display
You can get a 4k IPS free-sync display for around $550, 200 less for a 24" but that's just silly
https://pcpartpicker.com/part/lg-monitor-27mu67
A 1080p 144hz G-sync panel runs about $350, and the first 1440p display costs more than even the display above
https://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-90lm00u0b01370
A high refresh rate monitor is only going to be worth it if you're heavily into competitive gaming, otherwise, you can invest in a 4k display, and basically never have to buy a new display until 8k is the standard.
Plus you don't really need 2 980tis to run competitive games at high fps to saturate a 144hz display
I don't play competitive games I play single player games
So then 4k's higher detail and better general productivity I'd imagine would be more useful overall
I use windows 10 for frame scaling is not a problem and I have slightly bad vision. and I'm spoiled if I don't get more than 60FPS I cant play it. it looks like garbage. and to get the 60FPS at 4K you have to reduce the settings to medium or low in some games. and it looks like garbage no matter the res
No reason to upgrade unless you want more pci-e lanes or want a laptop that has improved battery life. The new skylake laptops... hnnnnnnnnnnnng.
Oh and DDR4.
too bad its boring as shit.......
Witcher 3 is more intensive.