Been looking at jumping to Intel from my FX 6350 for a little while now. Last night while browsing Microcenter, I saw they have the 5820k for $300. Would it be realistic to upgrade now, and have X99 for 4-5 years, or would it be better to just wait for Skylake/Zen to make an upgrade decision?
Wait for the new generation of cpus. Depending on the development of DirectX and Vulcan you can decide later and save money for now.
depends allot on what you are using your system for.
For mainaly gaming X99 would not be worth it.
Its better to upgrade to Z97 4790K, or Z170 Skylake 6700k for gaming.
If you do gaming + productivity then X99 would be a logical upgrade.
X99 now, skylake wont bring anything worthwhile.
X99 already has M.2 pcie, NVME and so on.
5820k now, wait 5 years and nab a broadwell-e chip 18-24 core for cheap off ebay.
It would just be for gaming, I don't do any productivity. The reason i want to switch to Intel is I have been playing alot of ARMA 3 due to joining a realism unit and my FX just doesn't cut it. If I went 1150, would a 4690k be a better choice than an i7 since I don't do productivity?
I've got an 8320 playing Arma III just fine. Maybe just upgrade with the board you have and then when the next series of CPU's are out you can look into a system overhaul.
if you dont really plan to do any overclocking then the E3 series of Xeons are a good buy for the 1150 socket. they are only a little more expensive than the i5 BUT have hyperthreading like an i7. only big difference between i7 and E3 is that most E3's dont have on board graphics
depending a bit on what kind of games you play.
But X99 is not worth it at all for gaming.
4690K would be a better choice,
However if you can afford a 4790K then i would concider that realy.
The 4790K is the best cpu for gaming at the moment.
It comes with a 4Ghz stock clock, and 4.4Ghz turbo boost, so you basicly dont need to overclock it at all.
I have my 6350 OC'd to 4.7ghz and runs ARMA well on single player, but when I get into large scale co-op (100-150 players plus vehicles and enemy AI) my FPS takes a nose dive. Whatever CPU I get would be OC'd as I just spent $80 on a Lepa 240 AIO. Most people I play with say they can get 30 fps steady in operations with an Intel chip, most run a 4790k.
EDIT: I run ARMA on standard quality at 1080p with a HD7950, but from my research video card has little to do with it, as there are people running it on $150 cards.
The 280 now costs around $150 and is the same as the 7950 sooooooo.
well ARMA in particular there wont be much of a diffrence between the 4690k or 4790K, if they run on the same clock speeds.
Arma only utilizes just a few cores.
But overall the 4790K is a better allround chip for gaming.
A 5820k will perform worse then both a 4690K and 4790k in ARMA.
On stock speeds atleast.
ARMA is realy a game that loves high clock speeds, on just a few cores.
If that's the case I'll probably just pick up a used 4690k and decide on a long term upgrade between Skylake/Zen in the next year or two. I really don't want to play 20fps ARMA for the next year lol.
Thats also the reason why ARMA3 doesnt run as well on AMD FX then on intel haswell.
AMD FX cpu´s have more core´s, but the the performance of those cores individualy is basicly awfull compaired to intel haswell cpu´s.
Haswell cpu´s have way better per core performance and ipc.
And thats the mean reason why ARMA3 simply runs better on Intel.
This wasn't in multiplayer as that is very inconsistent, but here you go. A 4690k should be plenty.
