# Skylake 6600 vs 6600k



## taox (Nov 15, 2015)

If i dont over clock and i get the 6600. will the notice a different while gaming? 
6600 3.3ghz turbo 3.9ghz
6600k 3.5ghz turbo 3.9ghz


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 15, 2015)

6600K is 4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz turbo.

I think that 700 MHz will only make a difference on really old, single-threaded games.  Modern games, it won't matter because they'll use 3-4 cores and the GPU will bottleneck before the CPU.


----------



## taox (Nov 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 6600K is 4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz turbo.
> 
> I think that 700 MHz will only make a difference on really old, single-threaded games.  Modern games, it won't matter because they'll use 3-4 cores and the GPU will bottleneck before the CPU.


Those ghz are for the i7 6700k


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 15, 2015)

Ohhh, my bad.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/88188,88191

200 MHz isn't much and the TDP on the 6600 is 65w versus 91w.  6600 also has several business technologies implemented that 6600K does not.

There's absolutely no reason to get 6600K if you never intend to overclock.  6600 all the way.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 15, 2015)

taox said:


> If i dont over clock and i get the 6600. will the notice a different while gaming?
> 6600 3.3ghz turbo 3.9ghz
> 6600k 3.5ghz turbo 3.9ghz


 As he said, not any reason to get it as you will likely not see any difference (Even if you did it would be a very small percentage).


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 15, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There's absolutely no reason to get 6600K if you never intend to overclock. 6600 all the way.


There is one - resale value.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 15, 2015)

If you don't overclock you will not notice a difference.
If you get the K and overclock you will notice a massive difference.
There's games that don't even run smooth at less than 4.4Ghz.


----------



## CjStaal (Nov 15, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> If you don't overclock you will not notice a difference.
> If you get the K and overclock you will notice a massive difference.
> There's games that don't even run smooth at less than 4.4Ghz.


Bullshit. What games then?


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 15, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> There's games that don't even run smooth at less than 4.4Ghz.



Coming from a 4.2 OC on a sandy CPU, I call you on that one. Utter nonsense.

Unless you mean on the iGPU, in which case, its not the best for taxing gaming.


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2015)

thebluebumblebee said:


> There is one - resale value.



This is actually a very valid point. Sandy Bridge i5's can be had for about €40, the K versions are at least twice that. Sandy i7k's are at least +€100.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 15, 2015)

CjStaal said:


> Bullshit. What games then?


Crysis,Bethesda games,Rockstar games.
Any heavy "real" games. 
You could be missing out on up to 30+ FPS if you don't overclock.
I'll throw in ARMA variants, too.
Bioshock..Wolfenstein..Metro..
Any real game.
You can cry all you want.It is the way it is.
You play @ 3.3 and I'll play @ 4.4 ok?
It's not like I haven't experienced this first hand-yesterday.


----------



## taox (Nov 15, 2015)

ok guys i bought the 6600k for $246 including tax.  i could of saved over $25 if i bought the 6600 on newegg taxfree+promo
i read somewhere it says oc cpu wont really help gaming. its just about bragging, for fun etc. anyway if i oc the cpu to 4.4 can i leave the voltage alone?


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 15, 2015)

taox said:


> ok guys i bought the 6600k for $246 including tax.  i could of saved over $25 if i bought the 6600 on newegg taxfree+promo
> *i read somewhere it says oc cpu wont really help gaming. its just about bragging, for fun etc. anyway if i oc the cpu to 4.4 can i leave the voltage alone?*


You may need to bump voltage.OC does really help gaming.It's not about bragging;It's about smooth gameplay.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 15, 2015)

taox said:


> ok guys i bought the 6600k for $246 including tax.  i could of saved over $25 if i bought the 6600 on newegg taxfree+promo
> i read somewhere it says oc cpu wont really help gaming. its just about bragging, for fun etc. anyway if i oc the cpu to 4.4 can i leave the voltage alone?


50-50 chance.



Schmuckley said:


> Crysis,Bethesda games,Rockstar games.
> Any heavy "real" games.
> You could be missing out on up to 30+ FPS if you don't overclock.
> I'll throw in ARMA variants, too.
> ...



Games are designed for multiple CPUs, and the actual requirements are listed on the package of any game. No game asks for 4.4 GHz. Some titles will get a benefit from added CPU power, sure, but requiring it? Absolutely not.



Schmuckley said:


> You may need to bump voltage.OC does really help gaming.It's not about bragging;It's about smooth gameplay.



That points to other problems in your system. I game pretty regularly with no OC, and very rarely do I notice the difference of a few added FPS.

BTW, my current gaming rig has a 6700K with dual GTX 980, and because I notice no difference with added CPU clocks, I run the system at stock, because I can use lower fan speeds.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 15, 2015)

Only game I have ever seen benefit in every way from an Overclock has been the Total War series. Its the only series of games where an Overclock really does mean playable vs unplayable in certain situations.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 15, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 50-50 chance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok,Do you play Fallout?
If I let my comp go to sleep;It goes back to stock..for some reason..
And if i wake it up and try to game.It's terribad.
Yeah,stock frequencies suck for gaming.
What problems do I have with my system?
It's a 5820k @ 4.6ghz with 16gb ddr4 2800 @14-15-15-341 2t on a x99 OC Champion.Where is the weak link?
Oh and a HD 7950


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Ok,Do you play Fallout?
> If I let my comp go to sleep;It goes back to stock..for some reason..
> And if i wake it up and try to game.It's terribad.
> Yeah,stock frequencies suck for gaming.
> ...



Probably the 7950. ROFL. Nevermind that Fallout4 is a bit buggy, and needs a few matches before reaching real "AAA" quality.

Anyway, you need a 980 or a 390X to understand what I mean. Your GPU is quite dated for modern titles. Its the same as CPU OC, if it is needed it points to something else as the problem.

Like you mentioned Rockstar games earlier... but GTAV has to be one of the best optimized games in history. My son played it on a mid-grade laptop from 3 years ago with decent framerates.


With a single 980, I get 60+ FPS in nearly everything. My system would have a CPU bottleneck, given I have less CPU power, but more GPU power than you, but I have yet to experience it. You also have a bottleneck... your GPU.

You do also need to keep in mind that my old gaming rig was a 5930K that clocks to 5 GHz, with 3200 MHz memory Oc'd to 3300.

I'm not saying the added CPU power is useless, quite the contrary. But the fact of the matter remains that OC is not needed to game with reasonable framerates. Changing settings in the game can also give you reasonable framerates.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

No,You are wrong sir.The GPU I'm using can run any game on highest settings.
The factor is the CPU clock.
When it's lower;about 37 fps.
OC'd well? smooth as silk.
I even downclock my GPU because it's not necessary.
"need 980" bite me.For fact #1 That just is not true.
I could do it with a 5870 2gb or 7870 2gb..
Maybe a gtx 770;too
Should be able to run Fallout* 3* @ highest settings.
I can drum up a few other GPUs that should be able to do it, too.
For 1:780 Ti;For another: 560 Ti 2gb


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> No,You are wrong sir.The GPU I'm using can run any game on highest settings.
> The factor is the CPU clock.
> When it's lower;about 37 fps.
> OC'd well? smooth as silk.
> ...


I run benchmarks so often, both stock and OC, you'll have a hard time convincing me. Top answer why OC benefits you so well with a GPU from a couple of years ago? Driver draw call problems. Hence the whole "Mantle" usefulness. I have used a 7950 before, am quite familiar with them. I kept a Matrix 7970 and have it running in a rig still, too. I have many rigs, and bench them all regularly.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> *I run benchmarks so often, both stock and OC,* you'll have a hard time convincing me. Top answer why OC benefits you so well with a GPU from a couple of years ago? Driver draw call problems. Hence the whole "Mantle" usefulness. I have used a 7950 before, am quite familiar with them. I kept a Matrix 7970 and have it running in a rig still, too. I have many rigs, and bench them all regularly.


Yeah,wanna bet I've run more than you? Go ahead and run Fallout 3 @ 3.3 Ghz on any cpu and let me know how well that goes for you.
I want livestream action.You can use a gtx 980,too,Ti even.I know what will happen.
Without the CPU backbone..the GPU will falter.
That's how it is.Try it.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

Meh. Works fine on my system, other than the bugs that users have complained about for this title specifically.







That's the thing, not every game behaves the same way. So to make a blanket statement to say "you need 4.4 GHz" doesn't make sense to me. you are right that a good CPU helps for sure, even 3.3 GHz on AMD vs Intel is the obvious way to example that. But that does not mean it is required. Fallout3 launched in 2008, and STILL has bugs. You need a better example as to why 4.4 GHz is required for gaming.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 16, 2015)

going off topic now i see
Popcorn ready for the bitch fight


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> going off topic now i see
> Popcorn ready for the bitch fight


Nope.

OP:



> ok guys i bought the 6600k for $246 including tax.  i could of saved over $25 if i bought the 6600 on newegg taxfree+promo
> *i read somewhere it says oc cpu wont really help gaming. its just about bragging, for fun etc.* anyway if i oc the cpu to 4.4 can i leave the voltage alone?


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

4.4 GHZ or you're blowing smoke


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> There's games that don't even run smooth at less than 4.4Ghz.



Wow, I haven't seen anything that was that stupid since...IKD, but I'm sure it was one of your other posts.

You can't name a single game that requires 4.4GHz to run smoothly, because there isn't one.

Stop trolling already, we're getting tired of it.


----------



## taox (Nov 16, 2015)

umm so i should of bought the non-k version instead and save myself $25?


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

Eric_Cartman said:


> Wow, I haven't seen anything that was that stupid since...IKD, but I'm sure it was one of your other posts.
> 
> You can't name a single game that requires 4.4GHz to run smoothly, because there isn't one.
> 
> Stop trolling already, we're getting tired of it.


Crysis,GTAV,GTAIV,Stalker SOC,Stalker ..next,Fallout 3,Fallout New Vegas,Crysis 2,Crysis Warhead,
Far Cry 2,Far Cry 3,
ARMA,... Now what were you saying? L.A. Noire.. Metro...Bioshock...
ALL benefit from overclocking.Do you you wish to compare some OC'd game benchmarks with whatever GPU you have against my "mighty" (weak) 7950 but my cpu is OC'd and yours isn't?


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

taox said:


> umm so i should of bought the non-k version instead and save myself $25?


No. Getting the "K" chip was the correct choice.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

Overclocking increases framerates..quite dramatically.


----------



## Eric_Cartman (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Crysis,GTAV,GTAIV,Stalker SOC,Stalker ..next,Fallout 3,Fallout New Vegas,Crysis 2,Crysis Warhead,
> Far Cry 2,Far Cry 3,
> ARMA,... Now what were you saying? L.A. Noire.. Metro...Bioshock...
> ALL benefit from overclocking.Do you you wish to compare some OC'd game benchmarks with whatever GPU you have against my "mighty" (weak) 7950 but my cpu is OC'd and yours isn't?



I didn't think I stuttered, I said you can't name a single game that requires 4.4GHz to run smoothly, and you still haven't.

Not a single one of those games requires 4.4GHz to run smoothly.

They might benefit from a CPU overclock, by a few unnoticeable frames, but they will be perfectly smooth with CPU clock speeds well below 4.4GHz.

Now you are just trying to change the argument to benefits from CPU overclocking because you know your original statement was full of shit.

That is what trolls do.

They make a bullshit statement to start and argument, then keep changing their side to try to keep the argument going.

It is called moving the goal posts, are you a Republican by any chance?


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 16, 2015)

I just find it funny some random dude is arguing with the Motherboard / Memory reviewer for this site. You know the guy that runs more benchmarks and tests than probably any user on this forum.  :

Can a CPU overclock improve gaming performance? Sure
Is a CPU overclock necessary to get playable frame rates? Nope

Only games that need a CPU overclock that I have ever found was Total War Rome II and Total War Atilla. Due to animation sub system being locked to 1 core. Minimum fps would plumment out of control down to single digits even with high end CPUs. An overclock could literally improve minimum frame rate by 30-50% getting it into an acceptable range. However that is pretty much the only game I have ever encountered where a CPU overclock was needed for playable frame rates.  Even then only in very large battles in certain conditions. 

I digress Dave is right other dude is kinda butthurt.  The answer is not black and white.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 16, 2015)

taox said:


> umm so i should of bought the non-k version instead and save myself $25?



I hate to be blunt here, but this whole discussion is getting silly.

Getting the K chips was a good choice.  Overclocking can make a decent computer viable for a long time, as in how Sandy Bridge is functionally as good as Haswell and within spitting distance of Skylake despite going on 5 years old.

You'll be happy with a 6600k for the foreseeable future.  When paired with a decent GPU, there's no reason gaming should be any issue at all.  That extra $25 can likely buy you another year or two of usage, without being forced to upgrade.



There are games which require higher clocked processors, but in order to get to that point you've got to be poorly optimized and have settings high.  Crysis has had an issue with being poorly written DX10, Fallout has run like crap because it's a project by Bethesda, and the other examples generally only require high CPU overclocks whenever you've decided to set all options to high and have a GPU that can't handle it.  If that's your logic, try booting up Prototype on a modern CPU.  I'll wait...

The known issue here is the same as the one with New Vegas and Fallout 3.  These games fail whenever presented with anything more than a single thread (check around, there are a list of .ini tweaks that the community has made for these games, to compensate for poor code).  Piss poor code produces piss poor games.  Fixing poor code with higher clocks isn't an acceptable solution.  It's throwing a bandage onto a gaping hole in your arm, and assuming that's good enough. 






Side note:
@cadaveca , is your signature supposed to be the equation for a mandelbrot series?  It's bothered the crap out of me, because I've always taken it as some sort of simple statement, but never been able to understand why.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, correct?


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> I just find it funny some random dude is arguing with the Motherboard / Memory reviewer for this site. You know the guy that runs more benchmarks and tests than probably any user on this forum.  :
> 
> Can a CPU overclock improve gaming performance? Sure
> Is a CPU overclock necessary to get playable frame rates? Nope
> ...


Yeah,whatever.I stand where I stand,Mr. Where do you stand?
I run more benchmarks than many,many people.I also have seen how games react.

If you don't think so;You would be mistaken.Notice the delidded Sandy bridge in my Avatar.Yeah,I did that.
Some random dude ranks higher than anyone on TPU's bench team.Not that I don't like TPU.but my allegiances are elsewhere.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Side note:
> @cadaveca , is your signature supposed to be the equation for a mandelbrot series?  It's bothered the crap out of me, because I've always taken it as some sort of simple statement, but never been able to understand why.
> 
> 
> ...




That's my perverse sense of humour showing itself. You cannot display this equation here on the forums without making it a picture; code required doesn't parse in the forum.



Schmuckley said:


> Some random dude ranks higher than anyone on TPU's bench team.Not that I don't like TPU.but my allegiances are elsewhere.



Yeah, HWBOT and competitive benchmarking is not a common thing here. Not many users care about running benchmarks outside of informational pieces to guide purchasing decisions. I was one of the first HWBOT members, but haven't posted anything in years, since I left the XS team. The whole Andre incident left a bitter taste in my mouth.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Yeah,whatever.I stand where I stand,Mr. Where do you stand?
> I run more benchmarks than many,many people.I also have seen how games react.
> 
> If you don't think so;You would be mistaken.Notice the delidded Sandy bridge in my Avatar.Yeah,I did that.
> Some random dude ranks higher than anyone on TPU's bench team.Not that I don't like TPU.but my allegiances are elsewhere.



Sounds butthurt to me. 

All i can think is "oooooooh he benches hardware.... NEXT!"  Just because you bench and your on HWBOT is not really impressive nor is a de lid of a CPU.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

Doesn't mean the FPS doesn't stay the same.What hardware do you bench? How far do you push your stuff? Thought so.

Until you offer up something benchworthy,you have 0 rights to criticize me


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Until you offer up something benchworthy,you have 0 rights to criticize me


He's the cooler reviewer here. He doesn't need to justify himself. LuLz. Anyone is welcome to an opinion, but also, those opinions should not be a direct "attack" of other users. HIs opinion, like many other users in this thread, is that your opinion does not reflect truth. No big deal, just agree to disagree.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

Ain't no "attacks" going on.Prove me wrong,then you'll have room to talk.
Psst:You can't
So are you saying this guy get free hardware to review? I don't get that.
I pay for my hardware and rape it.
This somehow makes him more validated than me?
I don't think so.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Ain't no "attacks" going on.Prove me wrong,then you'll have room to talk.
> Psst:You can't


I never said there was. I was merely regurgitating the rules of our forum here preemptively. So what's your point?


----------



## CjStaal (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Ain't no "attacks" going on.Prove me wrong,then you'll have room to talk.
> Psst:You can't
> So are you saying this guy get free hardware to review? I don't get that.
> I pay for my hardware and rape it.
> ...


Can we ban this dude for a bit?


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

My point is: Why was you regurgitating?
Yah
Overclocking increases framerates...I don't care what they say.It does.Quite significantly.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 16, 2015)

I actually in a way agreed with you. Does overclocking help? yes usually minimum frame rates improve.  Avg performance not so much. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/...view-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/7
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1565&page=18 


Depending on game a minimum FPS improvement of 5-20%.  Typical Avg FPS improvement? 1-5% on average.

Does that improve gameplay? Sure.  But when a minimum frame rate moves from 14 to 17 its not exactly amazing. nor is going from 130 to 133 or 110 to oh yeah 110.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

CjStaal said:


> Can we ban this dude for a bit?


You want to ban me for speaking the truth?
The truth is the truth,and I will speak it.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 16, 2015)

The truth is your acting like an ass over 5% avg performance or realistically speaking 2-5 fps.

Unless all the review sites and hardware sites are in cahoots to keep the Overclocking Gamer down and under their thumb. YAY Conspiracy theories


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> The truth is your acting like an ass over 5% avg performance or realistically speaking 2-5 fps.


Not really.
We're talking a diff of over 35 fps from OCing vs stock frequencies.
It's nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Dead_Again (Nov 16, 2015)

I sincerely hope OP got the answer s/he was looking for, before it all got derailed...


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Not really.
> We're talking a diff of over 35 fps from OCing vs stock frequencies.
> It's nothing to sneeze at.



Yeah what Game? solitare? where its getting 1000 FPS and it went to 1035 lol


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

Dead_Again said:


> I sincerely hope OP got the answer s/he was looking for, before it all got derailed...


Op got the answer and made the right decision.


----------



## Dead_Again (Nov 16, 2015)

Only OP can answer that one, so please stop trolling the thread...


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

@ taox Go ahead and OC your CPU within the thermal limits.I may be banned for speaking the truth.I don't care;and I will say it anyway.Get the most performance out of what you have for the dollar.Peace.


----------



## taox (Nov 16, 2015)

i will oc to the point where doesnt effect the temp. i just want 60fps at ultra settings 1080p.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 16, 2015)

taox said:


> i will oc to the point where doesnt effect the temp. i just want 60fps at ultra settings 1080p.


That should be around 4.3-4.4 Good luck! 
I've taken mucho flak already..but i guarantee you this:I ain't wrong.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Yeah,wanna bet I've run more than you? Go ahead and run Fallout 3 @ 3.3 Ghz on any cpu and let me know how well that goes for you.












OMG!  What is that!?!  Is that Fallout 3 running at a constant 60FPS, so as smooth as it will ever be, on a 3.3GHz processor!?!  I must be a witch!

Seriously, with almost all games, certainly all first person shooters, you can get 60FPS@1080p with max settings with a potato as a CPU.


----------



## HammerON (Nov 16, 2015)

Please move along. Opinions have been stated. No need to continue arguing.
If I had the power to close this thread I would (and give warnings/delete posts). A mod that does moderate this section will take care of that for me


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 16, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Ain't no "attacks" going on.Prove me wrong,then you'll have room to talk.
> Psst:You can't
> So are you saying this guy get free hardware to review? I don't get that.
> I pay for my hardware and rape it.
> ...




It's almost like you've done absolutely no searching, and made an assertion that google would completely disprove.  If I were to test everyone's assertions, with say a 3930k and 760 card I might have proof.  Heck, if I look back through this thread nobody, including you, has provided anything other than "because I said so."  For the record, that includes myself.

On an entirely separate note (*sic*), let's have some facts.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1290679/gtx670-cpu-scaling-tests-3930k-3-5ghz-5-1ghz


First off, Crysis isn't particularly in need of a beastly CPU:






Next off, Skyrim shows that Bethesda tradition of crappy performance.  Despite which, and only running a 760, 4.0 GHz is functionally the same as 4.5 (where 3.5 is entirely acceptable by the 60 FPS average standard):





Wow, we have a contrary example, of which nobody has stated, Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty:







So what conclusions can we come to?
1) Most games aren't CPU dependent.  The examples that could be found are RTS games which offload lots of calculation onto the CPU. Even with a 5.1 GHz overclock the minimum dips below 60 FPS.
2) Virtually no mainstream games "require" a 4.4 GHz overclock to reach 60 FPS average.  On top of that, most games rarely go under 30 FPS at their minimum even at 3.5 GHz.
3) Assuming you've got a 6000 or 6000k you're running with hardware well beyond a 3930k (for the purpose of gaming).  It's therefore silly to conclude that with greater IPC, better interconnection (SSDs make hard drive banging a joke), and a more modern video card that you're really required to overclock the thing just to get "playable" games.
4) If you're running 1920x1080 (as most people are), these results are worse than what you'll see.  They tested at 1920x1200 at a minimum (Crysis), so you'll actually see better performance.



At this point, there is no more debate.  The proof stands, that 4.4 GHz is only necessary if you're a Starcraft/RTS junkie and need to be well above 30 FPS at all times.  To say that even a large portion of games require a 4.4 GHz overclock is living inside a very unique bubble.  If you can make a counter claim, and back it with facts, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.  Until then you haven't proven anything, you've stated we have to prove you wrong.  I believe the ball is in your court.  Personally, I'd suggest getting performance for Shogun Total War II, Hearts of Iron III, and Starcraft II.  That's honestly all the counter examples I can think of off the top of my head, and the dozens (if not hundreds) of other games I can name would support the other side of the discussion.


Edit:


HammerON said:


> Please move along. Opinions have been stated. No need to continue arguing.
> If I had the power to close this thread I would (and give warnings/delete posts). A mod that does moderate this section will take care of that or me



Apologies.  Would you like me to delete this post?


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 16, 2015)

HammerON said:


> Please move along. Opinions have been stated. No need to continue arguing.
> If I had the power to close this thread I would (and give warnings/delete posts). A mod that does moderate this section will take care of that for me


Thank you..... I have so seeing as the Op has his answer and appears happy, this mess is ended.


----------

