Intel 6950X (and product line)

MarkAnthony

Just popping this here for reference and discussion.

For the people coming here looking for build advice I think it's worth having threads like this to show sometimes less is more for gaming rigs!

jonerkinsella

What's the point in this post ?

Even the video is pointless. If a consumer has the money to buy a better cpu ,then let them buy it . The more cores you can afford ,the more future proof and flexible you are.

ED E

No need to get snarky.

With their release pricing you're better off with a Xeon setup in a lot of cases.

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

What's the point in this post ?

Even the video is pointless. If a consumer has the money to buy a better cpu ,then let them buy it . The more cores you can afford ,the more future proof and flexible you are.

That's actually absolute rubbish and is the very point of the post.

If you have, for example, €2000 to spend on a machine to last you five years you are far better off spending €1000 now and €1000 in 30 months time than you are spending €2000 on something like a 6/8/10 core CPU which actually hurts gaming performance.

BloodBath

Intel are taking the piss anyway but that's what happens when you have little competition for so long.

AMD need to hurry up and get Zen out there. I wouldn't mind a nice 8 core/ 16 thread Zen to replace my i5 3570k if it's priced reasonably.

frozenfrozen

The top end one has always been in the more money than sense category. They've caught on to the fact that people with that kind of money will pay $1700 dollars just as quick as they would previously have spent $1000 on the '3960X' category.

Their pricing is probably also there to not make video editors / graphic designers / 3d whatever people consider the consumer chip over a xeon. It's at the price point that it makes more sense to go dual xeon for them

jonerkinsella

MarkAnthony wrote: »

That's actually absolute rubbish and is the very point of the post.

If you have, for example, €2000 to spend on a machine to last you five years you are far better off spending €1000 now and €1000 in 30 months time than you are spending €2000 on something like a 6/8/10 core CPU which actually hurts gaming performance.

On that basis of logic then ,you don't need a 480 because a 6950 will still play most games . You don't need a 1080 ,you don't need a 6700k as a e8400 still works , etc ,etc ,etc.

A lot of the ppl that come into this section are enthusiasts . We are well aware that you can spend crazy amounts of cash on a pc . We choose not to if we don't want to . The very large majority of the ppl that will buy a cpu like the 6950x will buy it because they will use it and will be able to afford it. If someone that comes into this section of the forum for advice on a build ,I do not believe that they are gonna hear a suggestion from someone in here saying " You really need a 6950x to play minesweeper mate " and then they are gonna run out and buy one.

The video is completely pointless as there is no point in it. You commented in your first post " For the people coming here looking for build advice I think it's worth having threads like this to show sometimes less is more for gaming rigs! " . Do you not think that if someone is considering buying this cpu they have enough cash to buy it ...and so what ,let them . Its their cash.

I'm not being sarky , I'm wondering what the point is.

ps , As for you comment about multi cores ruining game performance ...that is total rubbish . With Win 10 ,games will utilize multi core cpu's a lot more and then the benefit of more cores will be realized , not too far from now. Do you remember the arguments about the e6600 vs the q6600 , look how that ended up within 1-2 years later .

Digital Solitude

That's another ridiculous statement :rolleyes: It's more like saying a 1080 is no good for 1080p as a 480 will do the same, or a 6 core i7 is no good as an i5 will do the same, it's the same difference.

We do actually get a nice few people coming here looking for hex core i7s to "future proof"

Clearly when that's what you're after you haven't a bulls notion of what cpu requirements currently are, or how they're changing.

IMO that's the point of the post, hopefully people will see it and stop telling us they need this for future proofing, along with their 2000w PSU

jonerkinsella

Digital Solitude wrote: »

That's another ridiculous statement :rolleyes: It's more like saying a 1080 is no good for 1080p as a 480 will do the same, or a 6 core i7 is no good as an i5 will do the same, it's the same difference.

We do actually get a nice few people coming here looking for hex core i7s to "future proof"

Clearly when that's what you're after you haven't a bulls notion of what cpu requirements currently are, or how they're changing.

IMO that's the point of the post, hopefully people will see it and stop telling us they need this for future proofing, along with their 2000w PSU

You post is confusing

In the first part you agree with my point and then in the second you make the statement " Clearly when that's what you're after you haven't a bulls notion of what cpu requirements currently are, or how they're changing.

IMO that's the point of the post, hopefully people will see it and stop telling us they need this for future proofing, along with their 2000w PSU "

You assume that anyone that buys a multicore cpu hasn't got a clue what they are at .

A bit presumptuous I think .

frozenfrozen

/unfollows thread

Lu Tze

I don't think I have seen anybody coming in here looking for a hexacore or octacore Intel for gaming or being advised towards that. Most people looking for those have specific non gaming purposes in mind that can take advantage of the multiple threads/cores. I run some not very common, CPU intensive programs, but a lot of them barely load extra cores/threads. ****ing lazy devs!

Only time they could be recommended is if they have something that will utilise it enough to provide a benefit, or running multiple heavy duty stuff simultaneously

justsomebloke

It really is an odd processor, if for no other reason then it is restricted to 128GB of RAM. There is always going to be a small percentage of the Enthusaist community that need the most prosessors with the highest clock speed possible and this 'could' potentially be it. But even of the people with €1700 to spend on a processor that percentage going wfor this is going to be tiny as you could nearly buy a 20 core machine for the same price and not be capped by the small RAM limit.

Digital Solitude

jonerkinsella wrote: »

You post is confusing

In the first part you agree with my point and then in the second you make the statement " Clearly when that's what you're after you haven't a bulls notion of what cpu requirements currently are, or how they're changing.

IMO that's the point of the post, hopefully people will see it and stop telling us they need this for future proofing, along with their 2000w PSU "

You assume that anyone that buys a multicore cpu hasn't got a clue what they are at .

A bit presumptuous I think .

I was agreeing with your general point I guess, but your specifics are way off, saying the difference between an i5 and an i7 is the same as between a 6950 and a 1080 is wildly inaccurate, which is what I was trying to say.

Where did I say anyone buying a multi core CPU hasn't got a clue? I try to fit an i5 into every build I can, is 4 cores not multicore?

I'm talking about people looking for 6 or more Intel cores to future proof gaming machines. Now I'm speculating with this point but IMO by the time a 6 core cpu has a noticeable advantage over a 4 core, we won't be using anything being sold today in our PCs

Cuddlesworth

jonerkinsella wrote: »

As for you comment about multi cores ruining game performance ...that is total rubbish . With Win 10 ,games will utilize multi core cpu's a lot more and then the benefit of more cores will be realized , not too far from now. Do you remember the arguments about the e6600 vs the q6600 , look how that ended up within 1-2 years later .

Your argument is very flawed. Games have only started demanding more then 2 "threads" in the last 4 years with a small number of titles like Far cry 4 implementing hard coded limits. Up until that point, dual core processors were still good for gaming assuming their IPC were high enough. Christ the G3258 still works well for a lot of games. I have only seen 1 game not do this



which was the Division. And look how that turned out.

Dual core with hyperthreading still works well, quad core without works better and with average resolutions going up, the bottleneck will continue to be the graphics card for a long time to come.

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

ps , As for you comment about multi cores ruining game performance ...that is total rubbish . With Win 10 ,games will utilize multi core cpu's a lot more and then the benefit of more cores will be realized , not too far from now. Do you remember the arguments about the e6600 vs the q6600 , look how that ended up within 1-2 years later .

`

Watch the video - the point is it'll put you right on that argument. The additional cores need to be clocked slower which hurts gaming performance, by the time 6/8 cores are needed hopefully we'll have seen process improvements that increase clock speed.

jonerkinsella

First hit when searching for " Dx 12 use more cores "
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/hardware/tested-how-many-cpu-cores-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html

...And that is with software from a few months ago. Core utilization will increase very quickly in the coming year or two .

Clock speed will not be so relevant in the not so distant future ,core count will.

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

First hit when searching for " Dx 12 use more cores "
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/hardware/tested-how-many-cpu-cores-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html

...And that is with software from a few months ago. Core utilization will increase very quickly in the coming year or two .

Clock speed will not be so relevant in the not so distant future ,core count will.

So moving back to the original point - just pointing out the many points discussed :pac: - you're better off buying an i5/i7 quad core now and then looking at upgrading later.

jonerkinsella

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So moving back to the original point - just pointing out the many points discussed :pac: - you're better off buying an i5/i7 quad core now and then looking at upgrading later.

No . You are better off buying the cpu that best fits your requirement.

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

No . You are better off buying the cpu that best fits your requirement.

Absolutely, so for gaming that's an i7 Skylake. If system requirements change with DX12 maturing you then upgrade to something else rather than sinking silly money into a 6/8/10 core now.

I'm not sure what your point is?

jonerkinsella

The point is that the video you posted says , here's a cpu . Its not good for abc . That is a pointless video as the cpu is not designed for abc . Hence the thread is a pointless discussion about the video.

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

The point is that the video you posted says , here's a cpu . Its not good for abc . That is a pointless video as the cpu is not designed for abc . Hence the thread is a pointless discussion about the video.

And yet you're still here, discussing it at length. I think it was worthy of a discussion and you've rather proved that theory.

jonerkinsella

I am discussing the waste of bandwidth this thread is .

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

I am discussing the waste of bandwidth this thread is .

Look at what you've written above, you've made several arguments other than that, all argued against by everyone else but your welcome to your opinion, hence why people start discussion threads.

jonerkinsella

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Look at what you've written above, you've made several arguments other than that, all argued against by everyone else but your welcome to your opinion, hence why people start discussion threads.

Please ,please explain to me what the point of this thread is about ?

Are you trying to say that a 6950x is a waste of money ,are you trying to say that a Skylake is better . What is YOUR point in starting this thread ?

Most of the comments that are not mine seem to be saying to the likes that nobody needs a 6950x ,therefore there is no need for it to exist .
A 6700k is not a 6950x and never will be . A 6950x is a far superior cpu , FOR ITS INTENDED USE . Can you see that point and accept it ?

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

Please ,please explain to me what the point of this thread is about ?

Are you trying to say that a 6950x is a waste of money ,are you trying to say that a Skylake is better . What is YOUR point in starting this thread ?

Most of the comments that are not mine seem to be saying to the likes that nobody needs a 6950x ,therefore there is no need for it to exist .
A 6700k is not a 6950x and never will be . A 6950x is a far superior cpu , FOR ITS INTENDED USE . Can you see that point and accept it ?

You're trying to inject a point that hasn't been made in an attempt to back peddle on your position. This thread has always been about gaming, that and you being snarky for no real reason.

Cuddlesworth

jonerkinsella wrote: »

If a consumer has the money to buy a better cpu ,then let them buy it . The more cores you can afford ,the more future proof and flexible you are.

jonerkinsella wrote: »

No . You are better off buying the cpu that best fits your requirement.

Those 2 statements seem at odds. And while its a good article about DX12 performance, 3D mark as not been a accurate representation of game performance and ashes is quite frankly a freak. Those guys seem to enjoy messing around in their game engine. Its unlikely to see primarily dx12 games for a couple of years. Most will be half assed patches of existing engines.

jonerkinsella

I don't see how my above comments are contradictory .

Dx 12 is coming and it will suit cpu's with more cores and not rely clock speeds . Amd is starting to look good with dx12 because of their many core approach , who'd of thunk that last year , ay .

MarkAnthony

jonerkinsella wrote: »

I don't see how my above comments are contradictory .

Dx 12 is coming and it will suit cpu's with more cores and not rely clock speeds . Amd is starting to look good with dx12 because of their many core approach , who'd of thunk that last year , ay .

Of course not or you wouldn't have made them, that doesn't, however, change the objective facts.

Almost every point you're making is contradictory. Firstly you're making points in this 'pointless' thread. Secondly pretty much everything you've written above above, thirdly indeed Zen is looking very promising so is DX12, so tell me the point in buying a very expensive CPU now which is a poorer performer in games vs. waiting, saving your money and investing in either Zen or Intel - the first time Intel will have had competition in the best part of a decade - is what?

I'm always up for a lively debate and I learn a lot from people here, even when I don't agree with them. If you feel I might be getting at you a bit it's because I tend to respond the way I'm initially engaged. While I don't wish to backseat Mod so I'm purely speaking for myself here; had you engaged without the pointless comment I think this would have been nicer all round.

I've said my piece now so I'm going to draw a line under this back and forth with us.

Serephucus

Speaking as someone who's bought Extreme Edition chips in the past... They are (read: were) kind of nice. My QX9650 cost an arm and a leg, but back in those days, it did make things a bit easier, as there was only so far the FSB would go, but you could always get an extra notch or two with the unlocked multiplier, and it played nicely with RAM timings too.

But yeah, Intel are playing the game I think NVIDIA are just now starting to catch on to: "Sure, if they'll pay €1,000, let's just price it something mad, for the lols - Someone will buy it."

Wouldn't mind a decent Zen CPU myself down the line. I really was going to pick up a 1070 or 80, but with the way prices have been going recently... I think I'm going to just sit this out for a while. I'm more interested in peripherals these days than raw horsepower anyway.

jonerkinsella

Which all brings us back to my original point.

What is the point of this thread and what is the point of the video.

Scenario ...

I want to buy a new pc , hmm , I think I'll buy a 6700k because it seems to be a good cpu and a lot of ppl are buying it ...or wait , I just seen an ad for a cpu that costs 7 times more . Maybe I should buy the more expensive one just in case . Hang on ...I better go onto Boards and ask the lads what they think.

That's not gonna happen .

The video is a useless exercise as it has no real world situation where it is relevant to anyone.

TerrorFirmer

I can see your point that the video is somewhat pointless, as no-one is going to recommend or seek such a processor in gaming build. It's designed for specialized use and, of course, for those who have enough money that it's not any concern to drop that sort of money - more money than sense isn't really a fair appraisal I don't think, realistically we even see people on these forums spending €500 on GTX1070's for 1080P 60hz which arguably is equally as redundant as buying a six core Intel CPU would be. Sometimes people have the money to spare and they simply want the best, price to performance ratio doesn't come into it at that level.

The multi-core argument has been raging since 2006 with the Q6600 in particular. "You'd be foolish not to buy quad-core at this point" was the thinking in a lot of parts around 2007 when gaming builds were sought. Here we are ten years later and dual cores (with HT) are still holding up excellently.

All the hype around Zen is great but I'm not convinced in the slightest. Unless single core performance beats Intel, AMD are sunk in my opinion.

I'm sick of that 'but games now will start to make more uses of more cores so speed won't matter' - it's ten years old now. I'll believe it when I see it but I certainly am putting zero faith in Zen based on whats, ifs, buts and maybes.

Intel have a tried and proven track record - they have nothing to prove but AMD has to pretty much pull a golden rabbit out of the hat. Like with their GPUs, their CPUs have to do more than just be 'decent' for people to switch back to AMD in large numbers. They need to be exceptional.