RejZoRActually, if overclocked, these old quads are still incredibly capable. In games, there will often be hardly any difference. It's the apps that usually show the highest differences...

That's where Intel i7 users usually say, when AMD's name is in the conversation, that the CPU is a bottleneck, a useless piece of junk that destroys the graphics cards performance.

In fact in the majority of cases, when GPU is having a hard time with a game, an old quad core Intel or an AMD can perform more than good enough compared to a i7 Haswell, and the money you save from NOT going to newer and more expensive platform, can buy you a much faster card. With DX12, quad cores like the Q6600 could have a second chance as really capable gaming CPUs.

RejZoRIn games, there will often be hardly any difference.

"Often" is a relative term. There often will be a noticeable difference.

john_In fact in the majority of cases, when GPU is having a hard time with a game, an old quad core Intel or an AMD can perform more than good enough compared to a i7 Haswell, and the money you save from NOT going to newer and more expensive platform, can buy you a much faster card.

That used to be the case, but stopped with the last generation of GPUs, IMO. The software side has been rather stagnant for a few years now. So most of the games that have been released aren't GPU bound at 1080p like the old times, even maxed out. We are at a point where the mid-range cards can do 60FPS+ at 1080p in almost every game max settings. And don't give me the "what about higher resolutions" argument, because if they can't spend the money on a new platform they aren't likely to spend the money on a new 1440p or 4k monitor.

And if they take that $2-300 and spend it on a better GPU, that better GPU will definitely be held back by even a highly overclocked C2Q CPU.

>Intel's upcoming 5th generation Core processors targeted at PC enthusiasts, the Core i7-5775K, and the Core i5-5675K, will be available in the retail channel on June 1st (NA, EMEA), and June 2nd (APAC).

>Based on the swanky new 14 nm "Broadwell" silicon, the i7-5775C and the i5-5675C are quad-core chips.


What is it now ? K or C ?

On the subject of running old quads with modern cards, a hardworking user of beyond3d forums did a very nice comparison between SB i5, Q9550 and a lynnfield i7, all overclocked. You can see his results here: GTX 970@1.5Ghz and 2500k vs Q9550 in 70+ benchmarks (+bonus i7-860) . So yea, unless you are running a gtx660 or something similar and slower you will be bottlenecked by C2Q, 1st gen i7 is a different story tho. It is kind of sad that review sites don't do these kind of tests.

newtekie1"Often" is a relative term. There often will be a noticeable difference.

That used to be the case, but stopped with the last generation of GPUs, IMO. The software side has been rather stagnant for a few years now. So most of the games that have been released aren't GPU bound at 1080p like the old times, even maxed out. We are at a point where the mid-range cards can do 60FPS+ at 1080p in almost every game max settings. And don't give me the "what about higher resolutions" argument, because if they can't spend the money on a new platform they aren't likely to spend the money on a new 1440p or 4k monitor.

And if they take that $2-300 and spend it on a better GPU, that better GPU will definitely be held back by even a highly overclocked C2Q CPU.

No one says that the CPU will not held back the GPU. But the performance you will get from a much faster GPU, for example a 290 instead of a 285, or a 970 instead of a 960, will give you the chance to play more games at higher settings than spending much more money for replacing the whole platform and at the end having to compromise with a slower GPU.

As for the "what about higher resolutions" argument, why isn't this an argument? If we are not talking about..... $2 difference(really???), but $200 or $300 if not more, considering the price for a completely new platform(cpu+mobo+ram), even after removing what someone can get for selling an old Q6600 system(a Phenom II,or a Nehalem) the money will be enough not just for a better GPU, but also for part of the price of a brand new 1440p monitor.
Anyway, just my opinion. I could be wrong.

rainzorOn the subject of running old quads with modern cards, a hardworking user of beyond3d forums did a very nice comparison between SB i5, Q9550 and a lynnfield i7, all overclocked. You can see his results here: GTX 970@1.5Ghz and 2500k vs Q9550 in 70+ benchmarks (+bonus i7-860) . So yea, unless you are running a gtx660 or something similar and slower you will be bottlenecked by C2Q, 1st gen i7 is a different story tho. It is kind of sad that review sites don't do these kind of tests.

Nice tests, but I would have liked to see also a 960 in those charts. Then someone could compare the combination Q6600+GTX970, or i7-860+GTX 970 with the combination i5-2500K+GTX960 and see if in games a GPU upgrade should be considered first, before replacing the whole platform.

hojnikb>Intel's upcoming 5th generation Core processors targeted at PC enthusiasts, the Core i7-5775K, and the Core i5-5675K, will be available in the retail channel on June 1st (NA, EMEA), and June 2nd (APAC).

>Based on the swanky new 14 nm "Broadwell" silicon, the i7-5775C and the i5-5675C are quad-core chips.


What is it now ? K or C ?

C-series chips are going to have Iris Pro in them with that fancy 128MB eDRAM last level cache, that's really the only difference I'm aware of.

RejZoRI don't see any reason to upgrade my Core i7 920 with any currently existing quad with HT. Waiting for something that will deliver 12 or 16 threads (and be from new 14nm generation).

Haswell-E? Should be launched very near to Skylake assuming the yields are indeed fixed...

Well I have just replaced my i7-950 with Xeon x5650, clocked at 4GHz with 6c/12T I think I won't need an upgrade for next 2 years. 1st gen xeon still looks promising!!

john_No one says that the CPU will not held back the GPU. But the performance you will get from a much faster GPU, for example a 290 instead of a 285, or a 970 instead of a 960, will give you the chance to play more games at higher settings than spending much more money for replacing the whole platform and at the end having to compromise with a slower GPU.

Again, that isn't really true anymore. The 960 can literally max every game out at 1080p. Moving to a higher GPU would only yield better framerates, which you wouldn't actually get if you have CPU as old a a Q6600, even if it is overclocked.

john_As for the "what about higher resolutions" argument, why isn't this an argument? If we are not talking about..... $2 difference(really???), but $200 or $300 if not more, considering the price for a completely new platform(cpu+mobo+ram), even after removing what someone can get for selling an old Q6600 system(a Phenom II,or a Nehalem) the money will be enough not just for a better GPU, but also for part of the price of a brand new 1440p monitor.
Anyway, just my opinion. I could be wrong.

It isn't an argument for the reason I said it wasn't. Most people that aren't willing to spend money on a platform upgrade aren't willing to spend it on a higher resolution monitor. Plus, you aren't going to find a 1440p monitor anywhere for the $200 it would cost to upgrade to a 1150 platform that would crush any C2Q in gaming.

My problem with sacrificing CPU performance (especially single thread) is that I still play games (in fact there are many games still released) which are very single thread dependent. Secondly, CPU bottlenecking is far more detrimental to GPU bottlenecking, especially for a competitive gamer as GPU bottlenecking is far more predictable and CPU bottlenecking causes stuttering, which is far more problematic in competitive play and IMO far more annoying in everyday play.

Obviously, if you are playing games that are well threaded and very heavily GPU dependent, you can afford to stick on older CPUs. (My E7200 ran Crysis quite admirably with my 670) However the lack of single thread performance is very noticeable in games on engines such as Quake, HL2, and crappily optimized games. Obviously the E7200 is terrible in multithreaded performance, but the C2Q is adequate in quite a few modern games.

As for spending money on more expensive GPUs, I don't really see the point. I spent 120 quid on my 670, sure I can't max the most demanding games with AA on, but from the perspective of a competitive gamer, again there is no reason to go with anything much more, BF3, probably the most demanding game that is played heavily competitively is easy to run at 120FPS.

That said, the only reason I went with a 4790k over a 4690k is that I want the CPU power for encoding.

pjl3213) I'm happy with what I've got

for the moment...!

The only time I had issues because of CPU was back with Celeron 333MHz, like 16 years ago. After I've bought AMD Athlon 1GHz, it all shifted to graphic card and it really remained the same. CPU is the same and only thing that I change are graphic cards. I've tried Killing Floor 2 using stock Core i7 920 and it was just as smooth as when I was running the same CPU at 4,2GHz. On Ultra at 1080p! Probably I lost few frames, but it was still equally smooth.

Only place where I could really see the difference was in apps like 7-zip, resizing massive images in Paint.NET, encoding MP3's and videos etc. So, when I'll upgrade, I'll make it big and keep that for like another 5+ years like this one, upgrading just graphic card and other small things, keeping the same mobo and CPU.

rainzorOn the subject of running old quads with modern cards, a hardworking user of beyond3d forums did a very nice comparison between SB i5, Q9550 and a lynnfield i7, all overclocked.

Lynnfield was a good platform. I was using an AMD Phenom system, and then I won a complete i7-870 PC from a website.
Once I started using that, I was lost to the Darkside. LOL!

I still have that Lynnfield 870 and it works fine running my Linux distro.
Q9590 was a CPU that I wanted at the time, but I didn't have the cash to get it.

RejZoRThe only time I had issues because of CPU was back with Celeron 333MHz, like 16 years ago. After I've bought AMD Athlon 1GHz, it all shifted to graphic card and it really remained the same. CPU is the same and only thing that I change are graphic cards. I've tried Killing Floor 2 using stock Core i7 920 and it was just as smooth as when I was running the same CPU at 4,2GHz. On Ultra at 1080p! Probably I lost few frames, but it was still equally smooth.

Only place where I could really see the difference was in apps like 7-zip, resizing massive images in Paint.NET, encoding MP3's and videos etc. So, when I'll upgrade, I'll make it big and keep that for like another 5+ years like this one, upgrading just graphic card and other small things, keeping the same mobo and CPU.

Sounds like a good plan. I don't have the cash flow to upgrade everything regularly. GPUs always make a good upgrade.

RejZoRI don't see any reason to upgrade my Core i7 920 with any currently existing quad with HT. Waiting for something that will deliver 12 or 16 threads (and be from new 14nm generation).

erm..Haswell-E is pretty good ;)
Even Ivy-E is a significant upgrade.
For that matter,an x5650 or x5660 has 12 threads,OC's really well,and would run on the platform you already have.

Gonna wait for Skylake as we still haven't seen significant CPU performance improvements since Sandy Bridge. I have the 2700K.

All I care about with my rig are gaming framerates and the CPU does bottleneck a fair bit on modern games when shooting for a solid 120fps at 1080p. I'm waiting for a CPU that will significantly lift those bottlenecks.

Any chance for z87?

I dunno. that looks worse than my 4690 CPU.

But it will be interesting to see how it performs, and if that i7 and the Edram does anything. if its heaps faster I might grab one. However I think the I7's should come with a few extra lanes, no matter how many pins the CPU has. I7 even on 1150 Socket. should be able to run a few more lanes! even if it was 2-4 more over the std 16 so you could use a M.2 PCI.E at good speeds while retaining 16 lanes for GFX card.

DBGTAny chance for z87?

Nope.

DBGTAny chance for z87?

BorisDGNope.

Not quite. Intel hasn't explicitly ruled out Broadwell on 80 series chipsets, and when pressed on the issue, have said that there should be nothing stopping an 80 series chipset from running Broadwell CPUs aside from the obvious UEFI updates you'd need.

It's already confirmed that only Z97 will support Broadwell. Bios updates came already for supported motherboards.

BorisDGIt's already confirmed that only Z97 will support Broadwell. Bios updates came already for supported motherboards.

H97 will support Broadwell as well (no pun intended :D).

Intel said Devil's Canyon was 9-Series only too. Their tune changed very quickly once the board manufacturers proved it was BS.

So, 'Fresher Refresh?'

newtekie1Intel said Devil's Canyon was 9-Series only too. That time changed very quickly once the board manufacturers proved it was BS.

Yes, but Devils Canyon is same CPU, just soldered IHS... Broadwell is different chip. Also after the "gift" to all Z87 users with Devil Canoyn, now with Broadwell won't happen. ;)

RealNeilSo, 'Fresher Refresh?'

Nope. Shirinked refresh.