|
incoherent posted:They use entire intel stack, thunderbolt+phy+wifi. True but none of that is worth charging hundreds more. And its not like there aren't systems out there with Intel components in a similar sized form factor for the prices I was talking about either. Sure it doesn't have a dGPU but the bottom tier dGPU in that NUC isn't worth much anyways. Those NUC's just don't make sense at those high prices.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Question guys. I'm going to be doing a new CPU build here in a few weeks which I'm likely going to overclock. I haven't done any overclocking in 6-7 years I think. Attached is a thumbnail of what my 3570k is OC'd to. Since I'm doing a new build soon I started googling stuff about overclocking and I pulled up some results people had for my chipset back in 2013. In almost all circumstances most people were running a higher Vcore than I did. I don't think I even messed with my voltage at all if I recall correctly, just the multiplier really. I see a lot of people were running ~1.2V, maybe less, but none really as low as mine. So what I'm asking is what does this mean exactly? For the past years, could I have bumped the Vore up higher, and maybe had a better clock? Was I, in-fact better off leaving it where I've left it? I'm just basically trying to go back and figure out what I did right, and what I did wrong ~6-7 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
If you didn't mess with VCore at all, just the multiplier, chances are the setting in your BIOS is set to AUTO and your motherboard's been setting the VCore for you all these years. Some boards will juice a CPU as high as 1.4-1.5v, but my guess is you lucked out on the Silicon Lottery. I can almost guarantee that that 3570K is not pulling only 1.064v under full load, just right at that moment when CPU-Z took the reading, that's where it was. You also have the fact that you're only running at x43 in your favor. I've run my 2500K for ~7 years now at x44 @ AUTO and it's been solid with spikes in the the 1.38v range. If you watch the VCore window in CPU-Z you'll see it fluctuate, too. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jul 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
So it does look like the voltage does change based on usage. I thought enabling offset mode in BIOS would have set it at a fixed value?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Zotix posted:So it does look like the voltage does change based on usage. I thought enabling offset mode in BIOS would have set it at a fixed value? You are looking for static Vcore mode. Offset simply modifies the default dynamic scaling by a given offset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Offset is generally better once you have a stable voltage dialed in. You can save a bunch of heat and power while idle which is most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
I got an rx580 and I haven’t played a single game on it. Not even solitaire or minesweeper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
I have my old card (780 Ti) in flight to EVGA for a 2070 - was going to get a 1660/2060, but their exchange program put the 2070 in reach so reach I did. So now my cool newly overclocked Haswell CPU is feeding my old rear end backup card like never before. Things that will play on a 650 Ti in 2019, at 1080p, include Prey at low settings, Deus Ex Mankind Divided but it looks like it was rendered on an abacus and runs at like 30 fps tops, and quite capably Earth Defense Force 4.1 (my kiddo and I love co-op in that one, over the top). I am especially impressed that it runs Prey with decent smoothness, though it has to be on the Low graphical preset to do it. I think the higher ones overfill its very modest 1GB of VRAM, and paging is not a fast process on this card. Right now I'm just nervous that Cyberpunk is going to have some kind of nutty CPU usage and my 4770K won't hold up even OC'd. But, I looked at benchmarks of games using high end cards and modern games with CPUs from 2011-2013 and it seems like it mainly stops really really high framerates from being possible, not going to get in the way of putting out 60 FPS at 1080p outside of really extreme graphics scenarios that get GPU limited anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
I have a 6600k i5 and it seems like I'm maxing it out a lot. Is it worth it to go for the 6700k or 7700k i7 from that era or would I not get much improvement from it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
I would get an actual 6 or 8 core processor, hyperthreading seems to have fallen out of favor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Ah ok, seems like that would require getting a new motherboard as I'm on a Z170 board. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I have a 6600k i5 and it seems like I'm maxing it out a lot. Is it worth it to go for the 6700k or 7700k i7 from that era or would I not get much improvement from it? Plugging in an i7 could eliminate some microstuttering in games like Battlefield, but it's not worth throwing more money down that hole. 6 cores is the new standard 199$ gaming CPU, no one knows how long that'll be enough until it's moving to 8 or bust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
I could have gotten a 8700k 2 years ago before the shortage and price increase. gently caress me for buying all that reddit amd hype.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:I could have gotten a 8700k 2 years ago before the shortage and price increase. gently caress me for buying all that reddit amd hype.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:I could have gotten a 8700k 2 years ago before the shortage and price increase. gently caress me for buying all that reddit amd hype.  e: if you had bought two years ago you would've had to spend twice as much money on RAM though, like easily $100 extra for 16GB TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I don't think you would've been unhappy if you had, but on the other hand if you spend $330 today you'll get a 3700X, which isn't exactly a worse deal in any way Have you seen the gaming benchmarks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:Have you seen the gaming benchmarks? Yes, and they're not meaningfully different. The situation now is the same as the situation two years ago: you'll be well over 120fps with any high end CPU and it doesn't matter exactly what kind of fps figure you hit beyond that, because surely you have a variable refresh rate monitor already if you're spending this much money. What you'll get now that you didn't get two years ago are two extra cores, which may or may not be useful to you. If you were waiting for a CPU that would let you get 240fps instead of 140, I think you had only yourself to blame for setting unrealistic expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:Have you seen the gaming benchmarks? 8700K was a good buy on launch day and is still holding up very well but I suspect its viability will drop off a cliff once game engines start to hammer 8 threads simultaneously and/or more security vulnerabilities force even consumers to disable HT. I'm hoping that DDR5 platforms are out by then, warranting a complete upgrade. Right now I feel like gamers shouldn't buy a new Intel CPU + Motherboard over Zen 2 until the price cuts and/or some super high FPS edge cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yes, and they're not meaningfully different. Yeah it's pretty close. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah it's pretty close. And in anything other than gaming, well, you've probably seen how that panned out
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Awesome. No need to gently caress with overclocking
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:Have you seen the gaming benchmarks? Have you seen the difference in gaming benchmarks when jumping from 1080 to 1440? A lot of those gaps close considerably, even if 9900k/9700k manage to eek ahead sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Awesome. No need to gently caress with overclocking Zen 2 doesn't have any OC headroom to speak of. But it's also insensitive to memory speeds: expensive DDR4-3600 over trash 2400 is only gives like 5% improvement, and the power consumption of the 3700X and the cheaper 3600 is so ridiculously low that you can put them in any entry level AM4 mobo without worrying about overloading the VRM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
According to this leak of Intel's Comet Lake desktop lineup, 8 Cores will cost $339 and 6 Cores $179. Do you think it's fake? https://wccftech.com/intel-10th-gen-comet-lake-desktop-cpu-lineup-leak-lga-1159-socket-rumor/amp/
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:According to this leak of Intel's Comet Lake desktop lineup, 8 Cores will cost $339 and 6 Cores $179. Do you think it's fake? I hope not. I'll probably be doing my build in late August or early September as it stands, and if they're right that this would launch this year, we should know by then whether or not this is true. Right now, when I compare the 9900K with the 3900X, I'm favorably inclined toward the latter because the multi-thread performance edge is just enormous. But my usage is actually more single-thread based, so if they can close some of that multi-thread gap with a 10/20 model and extend their single-thread lead and do so at the same price point, I'd have to pretty seriously consider going with Intel. I figured they were pretty much screwed until 2021 based on what I was hearing around here, but this launch would be super interesting if it's real. surf rock fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:According to this leak of Intel's Comet Lake desktop lineup, 8 Cores will cost $339 and 6 Cores $179. Do you think it's fake? Pullin out the fun part:  New socket supposedly. A lot of it looks competitive, if its real. The thing that makes me think it might be fake is the names. The names are so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Heyyyyyy, if that's true, Intel finally got it in their head that if they keep saying 2666 is their limit then people are going to keep benchmarking their poo poo with 2666 even if it strangles the performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Otakufag posted:According to this leak of Intel's Comet Lake desktop lineup, 8 Cores will cost $339 and 6 Cores $179. Do you think it's fake? I'm mildly confused about how wccftech gets the 9900k's price wrong, though. It's $440-$450 now in the US. I think it's probably fake. Intel just recently announced the 9900ks and it's not even out yet. At the very least, I wouldn't expect something like this until sometime in Q2 2020. At that point AMD is preparing for the 7nm+ zen3 launch. Khorne fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Hyperthreading on all SKUs would be a surprise after recent security concerns. The recent lineup (8600K, 9700K) gave me the impression that Intel is trying to move away from it for that reason, some Mac SKUs also dropped it from all but the very high end CTO configs. I don't need to upgrade but there's no way I'd buy into a new socket for a 14nm CPU with AMD moving so fast in IPC, efficiency and overall performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
eames posted:8700K was a good buy on launch day and is still holding up very well but I suspect its viability will drop off a cliff once game engines start to hammer 8 threads simultaneously and/or more security vulnerabilities force even consumers to disable HT. I'm hoping that DDR5 platforms are out by then, warranting a complete upgrade. Remember that Intel decided to put off implementing the latest batch of mitigations until after Zen2 launch reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Pullin out the fun part:
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
I thought the 14+++ thing was a joke, but there it is in Intel's slides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
craig588 posted:I thought the 14+++ thing was a joke, but there it is in Intel's slides.  it's fake (or I'm getting whooshed) Theris fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
14 nm SUPER + series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
"Leaked slides" and spec sheets are the most popular form of fake trolling so take it with a grain of salt. We'll know it's real when Wccftech throw their watermark on it. ufarn fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Heyyyyyy, if that's true, Intel finally got it in their head that if they keep saying 2666 is their limit then people are going to keep benchmarking their poo poo with 2666 even if it strangles the performance. Intel limits to jedec spec and 3200 is the latest jedec ddr4 memory speed
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Biggest sign it's faked? No PCIe4 support
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
They might just skip to pcie5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:They might just skip to pcie5. Yah, PCIe 4 is gonna be like 2 but skipped over even faster. Gonna be on enterprise cpus but consumer? Nah (apart from the top end Zen2). Not really a huge need for it anyway. Main driver for faster PCIe links right now are the top end 200/400GbE cards for datacenters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Didn't the leaked Huawei roadmap for Intel show a direct jump to DDR5 and PCI-e 5?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:57
|
|