I7

Is there really that big of a difference between the i7 models? Would a 6700K from a couple years ago be future proof for a good amount of time?

Attached: 19-115-224-03.jpg (640x480, 27K)

Literally 2% increment if not less. There is really no reason to buy the most recent models. But you shouldn't go with Intel though, because AMD has simply better CPUs now.

The only way to currently improve performance is to increase the amount of threads, so if nothing new happens we'll require more and more cores in order to gain performance. So in that regard, a quad-core would not be sufficient in the long run. Not to mention on a dead platform.

Better in benchmarking?

>Is there really that big of a difference between the i7 models?
In the older models? No. The latest 9700k tho, yes. It's just 8 cores while the older ones were 4c/8t
>Would a 6700K from a couple years ago be future proof for a good amount of time?
For most people it would be however this will entirely depend on what you do with your computer.

what about 8700k 6c/12t vs 9700k 8c ?

You will literally not notice a difference and the 8700k is marginally cheaper.

The 9700K has improved thermal performance due to a solder TIM and lower thermal density. This means delidding is not necessary, and also impossible without an oven.
General performance is around the same, though.

I upgraded from 4770 to 6700 and it felt the same.
The motherboard with the 6700 died so I went back to the 4770 and brought my gtx 1080 to that machine and it's still barely bottlenecking vidyas

That's more on you being dumb for making the most marginal upgrade in history.

I would def rather have 8 cores over 6 and threads though

Depends on your task. A quad core CPU is much slower in multithreaded tasks than today's 8C CPUs. For other things like games, the difference is small and if you already have a 6700K you can definitely keep using it. That being said, if you're buying and building a new system, I would not choose a 4C CPU. Get at least 6C, ideally 8C. Also wait for AMD to release Ryzen 3000 before making any decisions on what to buy, if you can afford to.

I would wait until Ryzen 3000 series. Intel chips are still being shipped with vulnerabilities and crazy high temps and tdp.

>6700K
That's considered a midrange part these days

2 real cores are better than 6 fake cores

Isn't it better to wait until motherboards with DDR5 are released, which is probably next year (?). I don't like the idea of getting a new PC only for it to become obsolete after less than a year.

8700k does marginally better in some multithreaded workloads like blender renders, but gaming performance between them is the same given the same clock speed. 8700k has the silicon TIM which is a disadvantage stock but if you are willing to delid it can also get marginally better thermals.

For me, it's still gulftown

Attached: Annotation.png (424x416, 38K)

DDR5 isn't happening that soon. Zen 2 won't support it, and Intel isn't making progress on 10nm at all.
I would guess very late 2020 at the earliest, but more reasonably would be mid-2021.

I have an i5 4690K, would the newer i5s be any upgrade?

They're approximately equal, actually. Hyperthreading generally adds 30-40% multithreaded performance, and 2 more cores is 33% more, obviously.
Intel's products right now kind of suck. They keep pushing 14nm but barely have any stock so the prices are always high.
If you're buying a CPU in the next couple years, go Ryzen.

IIRC, the 6700K got hit hardest by Meltdown/Spectre mitigations.

i7 6700k+GTX 1070 here, for GAMING dude you dont need anything else, for streaming and rendering and doing that at the sametime Ryzen 7 even Ryzen 5 is actually great.

Same here, although my CPU's an 2600k edition.

OP, If you are a GAYmen, then I would recommend getting a CPU with more cores and threads, to deal with games such as Apenis legends.