yes: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-CPU-Test-1068140/
HT should also work great on the 2600, or older I7 with the game patched
When I first got the game, I had a 2600K, and enabling HT didn't do squat for it. On my 4771, HT gave me about a 5fps increase. I thought that Haswell might have been 'better at HT' than Sandy Bridge, but I later read something about Crysis 3 receiving a patch that improved it's use of HT. That was probably released between my 2600K and 4771 experiences. But this 4790K can do ~20fps higher with HT enabled!
"Impossible" is a moving target.The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to suspect that it is indeed a fact that 4K + full scene 8xSSAA is impossible on any currently available consumer GPU solution at playable framerates.
Open-ended?The problem is that you're trying to use this completely open-ended criteria. There's practically no limit to the resolution one can use, or the amount of AA one can pile on to a game.
Realistic isn't up for debate - I think your settings are unrealistic but that's opinion, and not my point here.The equivalent would be if I expanded my criteria to include all potential .ini modifications etc. You can't tell me, with a straight face, that playing a game with 4K + 8xSSAA is as realistic a proposition as playing a game with all it's in-game detail* settings configured to their maximum values
4xSSSA? At what resolution? A single GTX780TI will slideshow at that setting at my in-game settings, much less your very_high_maxed_out settings.I think I had settled on 4xSGSSAA. I spend hours testing various AA schemes before I gave up on my first Haswell system (courtesy of Asus' z87 RTC bug), and now I'll have to do it all over again because I neglected to document the outcome.
Finite menu options? Like resolution and AA you mean? Or do those menu options grow infinitely long on your system when you click them in Crysis?*When I say 'details', I mean standard finite menu options like draw distances, physics, etc, excluding the potentially infinite realm of resolution and filtering. Sorry if this wasn't clear. I wouldn't call something like AA 'detail', as it doesn't add any new detail, but enhances existing detail (not to downplay it's importance). I guess one could argue semantics (eg. higher resolution can resolve finer, and arguably 'more', detail purely by virtue of having more lines) , but I've now outlined my use of the terminology.
There's a combined pool of performance made up of collective CPU and GPU performance. With the way you run your games, it's no wonder you have constant performance problems.But I don't agree on the objects being negligible, and I don't know why you choose to compare that setting to SSAA, which is entirely GPU dependant. My last post was clearly relating to CPU dependant settings. You don't 'give up' CPU intensive detail for GPU intensive filtering.
Jeez, you do a whole ton of legwork, share the interesting results for free, and people still whine and bitch about it.A minimum by itself is worthless since any random event can affect it given it's a single point in time (by definition).
You either need sustained minimums or some kind of frame over time analysis graphs. Both were outside the scope of this exercise, which is primarily to test games nobody else does.
wouldnt it be better to turn on HT to see if that makes a difference? Its no secret that a sandy bridge quad core performs the same in games as a haswell quadcore, but i wanna know how it performs with HT on.
Is any sense to change 3770K to 4790K? I want to upgrade. And i am only playing . Will be some performance gain?
please pay more attention. the 4790k runs at higher clocks than the 3770k. if you have your 3770k oced then you not see that difference.I have 780 Ti. Check this out, i found a some review,where between 3770K vs 4790K ( both stock clocks ) was 10 fps differences:
http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_core_i74790k_devils_canyon_szybki_jak_diabli?page=0,8
So there is any sense to change 3770K to 4790K? ( because of 10+- fps differences )
I am planning to buy I7 4790K and to not oc. Can i use with it cooling from box? Its not any danger to damage cpu ? I read some reviews that cooling from cpu box are very bad.
it should be fine as long as you have decent case and you are not in very hot room. usully its crazy not to oc a k cpu but with the 4790k it will already boost to 4.2 on 4 cores and 4.4 on single core which is good as or better than many people could get overclocking the 4770k.I am planning to buy I7 4790K and to not oc. Can i use with it cooling from box? Its not any danger to damage cpu ? I read some reviews that cooling from cpu box are very bad.
Can i be safe using stock cooling from box of 4790K?
No sorry, I generally don't overclock except in certain "semi-sanctioned" cases, such as enabling XMP on my RAM.Have you done any testing with the 2500K overclocked (to about the common 4.4-4.5 speeds or more)?
So why not get the non-K version? better resale value?
Well it makes sense for the 4790K, but the 2500 and 2500K are at the same values.4790, 3.6 and 4.0 turbo. 4790K, 4.0 and 4.4 turbo.
So when should I upgrade my i7-860? LoL.