Jump to content


Photo

ENBSeries (by Boris Vorontsov)


  • Please log in to reply
181 replies to this topic

#181 Dark_wizzie

Dark_wizzie

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 10:38 AM

.

I have no plans to move away from Windows 7 or Haswell for some time. Windows 7 support will completely end in 2020. I'll likely remain on Windows 7 for at least until SSE is more fully supported by the modding community. As for my processor, the Haswell architecture has been shown to outperform it's successors in many applications. I have yet to even have the need to apply an overclock to my K-version i5. The minimal gains have yet to be worth the time and effort. The main benefit of the Haswell successors are the lower TDPs which I'm not concerned about.

Haswell outpwerforming Skylake? The only time I've ever heard of people saying that is with sketchy Passmark data. The PC building community and all of the review sites (along with my own Skyrim benchmarks) show that Skylake is faster. A 4.8ghz Skylake would be 6.66% higher clockspeed than a 4.5ghz Haswell, combine that with a 5% increase in IPC would be 11%+ difference. (Then maybe 15%? 18%? 20%? For Kaby lake vs Haswell.) As far as CPU performance improvements go, that's pretty big. Skyrim for the most part runs fine for me but I want to minimize the worst 1% or allow myself to push for crazier things in Skyrim. And of course, Oblivion is even worse... I get down to like 35 FPS in the mage place in the Imperial City because the CPU is way too slow. I want to try Kaby Lake with some DDR4 4000 to see how it goes.

 

So yea, in terms of actual CPU performance of Haswell vs Skylake or Haswell vs Kaby Lake I'd have to totally disagree there. The more interesting question is why Skyrim struggles when it does. Of course it's relatively old code now, but surely the game will respond to better hardware? Or maybe not, or too little to matter, depending on what's going on under the hood. But surely if I got higher FPS in my Skyrim benchmark it will translate somewhat to actual gameplay.


Edited by Dark_wizzie, 30 September 2016 - 10:47 AM.

  • 0

#182 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,953 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 11:04 AM

You can't compare apples to oranges. In real-world tests, if you're going to compare two processors it has to be at the same clock speed, else the results are skewed in favor of the processor with the higher clock regardless if it is their stock speeds or not. This is why most generic benchmarks will say that Haswell successors are faster. I'm also specifically referring to gaming. I'm sure the successors are more efficient in some more heavily CPU oriented applications, but 90% of consumers do not run such applications nor do "hard-core" gamers or "power users". Such applications are geared toward professionals and enthusiasts.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users