Come on Hexus, the improvements over haswell are pathetic and it's not the same pricing, they are currently £320 at ocuk and scan. Massive fail. It's as if they they want to clear the slightly cheaper haswell stock.
raven1001, Intel's official pricing is cheaper in US Dollars than the equivalent Haswell Devils Canyon parts (the strength of the USD and lack of cooling are good reasons for this). The early retailer fleecing will quickly subside.
Would have liked a 5820K to be in the comparison charts - i'm still not sure whether to go 5820K or for this 6700K for gaming and video editing purposes. All depends on the price of the new motherboards I guess as CPUs are a similar price.
Another underwhelming CPU launch from Intel, no surprise there; but this is arguably the 4th such launch in a row.
The question is: Is this just Intel keeping it's power dry and raking in the money, or are we reaching the limits of current silicon technology?
'[DW
Cougho;3511397']Another underwhelming CPU launch from Intel, no surprise there; but this is arguably the 4th such launch in a row.
The question is: Is this just Intel keeping it's power dry and raking in the money, or are we reaching the limits of current silicon technology?
To be honest in the desktop space it feels like “We are number one so why try harder?”
Notable on mobile where they actually need to compete we are getting big improvements in power saving and GPU.
Still, thinking of building a new PC platform and want it as futureproof as possible? Skylake is where you start.
Spot on - some of us aren't upgrading from recent chips, we're looking for a new build with DDR4 and a decent motherboard with lots of lanes, SSD benefits and so on, and this is worth a look for me (though I'd probably rather go with the non-K version).
I keep waiting for a reason to upgrade from my i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, but it just doesn't seem to be happening… guess I'll have to keep waiting…
Rip off! I'd rather go for X99, since the Core i7-5820K is cheaper and has 2 more cores. Perfect for my rendering needs.
Ebuyer have i5 pricing cheaper than Haswell refresh.
Would be nice to have seen some some FX 8370 benchmarks in there, see how far down the charts my old machine has slid. That would seem far more relevant that the APU results when FX is still AMDs fastest CPU. I think my wife's Phenom II 965BE may be going this way though.
DanceswithUnix
Ebuyer have i5 pricing cheaper than Haswell refresh.
And the 6700K at £263.99 is only 3 pound more than the 4790K at ebuyer.
If going for a new build then a half decent mobo, i5 and memory can be had for a shade under £400 on Ebuyer, which works out at about a £50 quid premium over the current Haswell kit, which isn't bad seeing as a chunk of that price is the premium paid on DDR4.
Intel will carry on with these minor 10% improvements until AMD force them to go for broke (like what happened last time) and make a processor that wipes the floor. Unfortunately that still seems pretty far away so while Intel has no real competition it's not going to bust a gut for massive performance gains when it's so far ahead already
Glad to see it so underwhelming. If it blew my current one out the water than I'd want to upgrade…but there is absolutely no need to.
My PC is primarily for gaming, as I assume is the case for most people here. So you'd be paying out at least £300 for what would realistically be an FPS increase in the single digits. If you have a CPU that is <10 years old, that money makes WAY more sense to be spent on a GPU.
Gotta love that our problem with this is that it's not making our current kit obsolete ;)
Wow almost as fast as my i7 Ivybridge system. Intel offers nothing again…….
Another expensive Intel non-event.
Pats 3770k reassuringly.
My 3570K will do for at least one more CPU generation then.
The platform update looks good.
Can you now boot from NVME RAID running on the Z170?
Also there appears to be a good chunk of performance in reserve that needs further tweaking to unlock with options for baseclock, cache speeds and memory speeds as well as just raising the multiplier to increase frequency.
It'll be interesting to see where prices settle though, as it may be priced a little close to the X99 platform with a minimum 6-core CPU - a platform that offers the possibility to scale up to 18 cores, even if it means a late-life upgrade once second-hand xeons are available on the cheap - wheras at best you may see a 6-core on Z170 with Kaby Lake.
Still punting masses of USB 2.0 ports. WHY???? for crying out loud if USB3 is backwards compatible. Use the bandwidth to increase 3.0. Where is USB 3.1? No more PCIe lanes than current? Why should I even consider it? My 4690K goes to 4.4 out of the box. Thank you but no thank you. I'll await the next gen and maybe the one after and the bandwidth and connectivity will determine my decision, not a CPU that is about the same in all aspects.
would be nice to see some AM3 results (on Windows 10 as well) - a 9590 ;)
Well, at least one thing has increased …the price.
Gunbuster
The question is: Is this just Intel keeping it's power dry and raking in the money, or are we reaching the limits of current silicon technology?
Well, it will bite them on the bum as who in their right mind would upgrade, requiring CPU, RAM and motherboard for a slight performance increase?
I would assume that since almost all of intel's money is made from selling to the large computer manufacturers (dell/hp/etc) they simply don't give a ****.
Myss_tree
Well, it will bite them on the bum as who in their right mind would upgrade, requiring CPU, RAM and motherboard for a slight performance increase?
If I upgraded CPU, RAM and motherboard it would be a significant performance increase in some tasks, not slight.
Bambooz
Same for me.. http://valid.canardpc.com/byk3u4
But that's what happens if intel has zero competition. AMD currently sucks at everything they do. They're either building barely competitive power hogs or slow niche stuff..
Was wondering when the first “it's all AMD's fault” post would come. :clapping:
Sure it's AMD's fault that games have been stuck on single threads for the best part of a decade. Oh wait no it's not, they created Mantle so that multiple cores could be used effectively. It's Intel who has been selling 8 cores at a huge premium for 5 years because of the lack of such. What exactly do they have to gain? Nothing, more cores = more die space = less profits for them.
Intel owns x86 and that's why you get crap “upgrades” year after year so get in line with the rest of us who have been saying “meh” for the best part of 4 years since SB launched.
Myss_tree
Well, it will bite them on the bum as who in their right mind would upgrade, requiring CPU, RAM and motherboard for a slight performance increase?
This is precisely why desktop sales are plummeting. I stopped caring at Ivy Bridge and didn't even know this was being launched today. I'd love to know how many views this has had compared to say, the Nehalem or SB launch articles.
Interest in PC's is all but dead because Intel won't go to mainstream octo-cores until they are forced. Well until octo-cores are mainstream I won't be upgrading and I was buying a new CPU every couple of years up until SB.
I don't think Intel want huge increases in performance. Most PC's are replaced after many years, the performance increase will be really noticeable over original Core I parts, Pentiums etc. I think these older machines are the primary targets.
It sucks for entusiasts (who hope for 25% +) gains, but we're a very small proportion of their customers - (and we'll buy it anyway for the Z170 chipset advances).
Skylake's power draw is good but just incremental gains elsewhere. Fine if you're building a new pc, but to be honest if you have a Sandy Bridge or later cpu, you may as well stick with it.. I was expecting a bit more! Thanks Hexus for a pretty extensive review.
Gunbuster
'[DW
Cougho;3511397']Another underwhelming CPU launch from Intel, no surprise there; but this is arguably the 4th such launch in a row.
The question is: Is this just Intel keeping it's power dry and raking in the money, or are we reaching the limits of current silicon technology?
To be honest in the desktop space it feels like “We are number one so why try harder?”
Notable on mobile where they actually need to compete we are getting big improvements in power saving and GPU.
mobile is a completely different game though, we know those chips can always improve, because we can always look at desktop performance as a comparison and eventual goal, but the desktop performance cap has barely budged over the years, especially if you're on sandy bridge and OC it to modern day speeds.
kalniel
Myss_tree
If I upgraded CPU, RAM and motherboard it would be a significant performance increase in some tasks, not slight.
Best to check as to whether your Sinclair ZX Spectrum may need a little more than the three mentioned components. ;-)
zsde
Still punting masses of USB 2.0 ports. WHY???? for crying out loud if USB3 is backwards compatible. Use the bandwidth to increase 3.0.
Any motherboard with all USB3.0 ports would never get purchased by myself.
So many things are still having issues with USB 3.0 drivers. Until those issues are resolved and everything plays nice, I want SOME USB 2.0 ports.
I upgraded to a 980 ti a few weeks back and still have the i7 2700k cpu. Looks like my cpu will last a few more years for gaming :P
Scow Captain;3511484
And the 6700K at £263.99 is only 3 pound more than the 4790K at ebuyer.
Just a day later it's up to almost £300 and you can find the i7-4790K for £240 :censored:. The i5-6600K isn't too badly priced compared to the i5-4690K at £185 to around £180 though the i5-4690K was available on Amazon for £160 for a couple of days last week.
Really like to see a Hexus review of the 6600K to see how it compares to the 6700K and 4690K before I start making any decisions on my new PC.
zsde
Still punting masses of USB 2.0 ports. WHY????
Because USB 2.0 doesn't have the interference issues that USB 3.0 does with adapters for wireless keyboards and mice for starters. Unless they're properly shielded a wireless adapter in a USB 3.0 makes it useless
HalloweenJack
would be nice to see some AM3 results (on Windows 10 as well) - a 9590 ;)
hear hear, i currently use a fx 8350 and i wanted to see how much better skylake is compared to this and i can only see A10 processors here which quite frankly is way below fx chips in terms of speed. Why does all the benchmarks here only compare to A10? :<
ValkyrieTsukiko
hear hear, i currently use a fx 8350 and i wanted to see how much better skylake is compared to this and i can only see A10 processors here which quite frankly is way below fx chips in terms of speed. Why does all the benchmarks here only compare to A10? :<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk
Katar
Just a day later it's up to almost £300 and you can find the i7-4790K for £240 :censored:.
Good catch. CCL seem to the ‘cheapest at 289.99 now. One of the reviews I read stated these two chips are going to be in short supply for a while - being charitable the retailers could just be setting the pricing at a level where they won’t run out of supply before their next shipment.
I do wonder how anyone can buy at these prices though. If you want similar performance buy Haswell, Z97, DDR3 and you'll save around a hundred quid. If you need the extra Z170 features such as more PCI-E lanes and DDR4 then buying X99 and a 5820 seems the smarter choice.
Bambooz
Oh look.. the AMD fanboy that ruined the other thread is posting nonsensical garbage again..
Actually it's the clueless and tech-ignorant who tend to ruin threads by
repeating inane BS that they read on some low-brow tech forum. I'm just here to fix your mistakes incase anyone else actually believes the crap you keep spouting.
Broadwell was only out for 5 minutes. I wonder if we'll see Skylake-E or if they'll skip it and just release Kaby Lake-E or Cannon Lake-E even.
DanceswithUnix
The FX comes off better than I was expecting tbh. Guess I keep it another year :)
Surprised me as well tbh.
Scow Captain;3512300
Good catch. CCL seem to the ‘cheapest at 289.99 now. One of the reviews I read stated these two chips are going to be in short supply for a while - being charitable the retailers could just be setting the pricing at a level where they won’t run out of supply before their next shipment.
The price has dropped back down on ebuyer to £268 but they are showing they won't have any stock until the 31st.
I wonder how many first time builders are going to get caught out by the retail versions of Skylake chips not coming with a heatsink anymore. Or maybe that just shows how long it has been since I built my last PC.
In general the ‘blame AMD for Intel progress’ is misinformed nonsense in terms of outright performance as I've said a few times now. Things like pricing are affected by competition and easy to change, core architectures are most certainly not.
It takes years from start to finish to design and manufacture a processor core; the manufacturer needs to plan years in advance and predict what sort of applications they'll target, and if they get it wrong it takes years to change things as the following designs will also be too far down the pipeline. See Pentium 4 and Bulldozer as examples of where this happened to varying degrees, and for different reasons.
Processor designed is essentially pipelined - future designs will be at an earlier stage of development before the earlier uarch is released, so even if a major issue is realised on a shipping processor, it may not be rectified until a couple of generations later. A recent example of this is the TSX instruction bug on Intel processors - it was discovered in Haswell but the bug was also present in earlier Broadwell steppings, and this was a relatively minor bug which would have been fixable later in the production pipeline.
Simply put, the assumption that Intel is simply not bothering to push some performance metric because of competitive reasons makes little sense from a development standpoint and TBH it's probably a little insulting to the engineers working at the likes of Intel. As a company you'd be essentially stuck with that decision for many years to come - you can't just push out an ‘oh wait we need something faster now’ SKU overnight.
Even for things like core count, last-level cache size, uncore which can be changed relatively quickly, it would still be on the order of years as it would have to go through the manufacturing stages.
Random thought….
We hit peak clock speed in about 2004.
Maybe, we've hit peak (or near peak) IPC in 2011-2014(ish).
Therefore there is only one direction left, more cores.
well its better than my P4. I will upgrade but when !
I'd wait for the retailer price gouging to subside first, and maybe for the non-k versions unless you want to OC.
abaxas
Random thought….
We hit peak clock speed in about 2004.
Maybe, we've hit peak (or near peak) IPC in 2011-2014(ish).
Therefore there is only one direction left, more cores.
Well IPC and cores are somewhat interchangeable - if your code is multithreaded you can increase IPC by increasing cores. If it's not, then IPC increases through other architectural tricks aren't necessarily guaranteed either. Intel do appear to be testing the waters of an AMD like approach of having the ‘GPU’ carry out vector stuff but that could be classed as just increasing the cores for a particular type of problem I guess.
Bambooz
Yeah. Eff you too, Mr. Knowitallbetter.
I'd prefer you to stay so that I could school you some more. I find that most flaws can be cured with education, granted you'll be a harder task than most.
abaxas
Random thought….
We hit peak clock speed in about 2004.
Maybe, we've hit peak (or near peak) IPC in 2011-2014(ish).
Therefore there is only one direction left, more cores.
It's pretty much the case. There is no clock headroom left and IPC gains can't go on. New instructions etc are mostly for benchmarking purposes it seems. Look at how often Skylake basically just draws with Haswell in some of them.
Also GPU is where it's going. Basically speaking it's impossible for AMD not to match Intel with Zen, at least in gaming terms. If they can't equal that they might as well give up. With Dx12 and any kind of decent single threaded performance the fps charts with each CPU basically equal except in extreme corner cases. Later on when devs start using the API properly, more cores will matter. Gaming is what is selling desktop CPUs, nothing else.
The end of dual cores is finally coming, with quads set to be the new entry point. Not before time, and not because Intel wanted to push the industry forward, that's for sure.
In some cases, performance scaling with cores is fairly good and in those cases it often makes sense to use a greater number of smaller cores; the smaller cores being generally more efficient, cheaper, etc.
For instance you can get almost four ARM A7 cores in the die size/power budget of a single A15 core. If you're after single-threaded performance it won't do you much good but with highly multi-threaded apps you're laughing. Extracting single-threaded performance from a core and keeping execution resources fed takes a lot of work with diminishing returns as you continue to push, so for embarrassingly parallel applications like graphics rendering we have GPUs which use a huge number of smaller cores (in very simple terms anyway, of course it's more complex than that in reality).
For a given die size/transistor count, the theoretical throughput of a GPU can easily be many times greater than that of a CPU, but of course not everything is as parallelisable as graphics. Amdahl's law is based on this and the relationship of potential performance gains vs how much of your code is inherently serial i.e. if a part of your code can't be spread across cores, at some point it will end up being a bottleneck for further performance increases. We saw something along those lines with DX11 and earlier - they've had some limited multithreading support but as long as some of the code is stuck waiting on a single thread you'll be stuck in terms of how much additional threads help.
Going back a few years Intel were talking about the concept of essentially having larger and smaller cores suited to different tasks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2580/14Of course we have something not all that different to that now with ‘APUs’ i.e. CPU and GPU. A remaining problem is getting software to play nice with such architectures. Standards would help and while AMD is pushing HSA with a few other companies, software support is still catching up and of course it doesn't really help you much having a potentially very powerful architecture if developers either won't or can't effectively make use of it.
Looking at it from a slightly different angle, mobile processors are a good example for having certain common functions performed in dedicated hardware instead of running on the CPU. For instance video encode/decode, ISP, audio DSP, cryptography and so on are well-suited to hardware implementations and can be many times faster and more efficient than software would be.
Cinebench- Almost breaking through the 1,000-mark barrier ….
In what way is it a barrier? It's in your mind…..
Well the issue is in my view that we are stuck with developers often refuse to adopt new tech. Look at how long operating systems devs refused to give us a 64 bit os.
When AMD released the 64 bit cpu which we are using every day, it was hard to find programs which acutally made use of the 64 bit power. True it does not work on every thing available and actually microsoft was dead right about running office as 64bit is an absolute waste.
But those like me who actually had programs running in 64 bit saw huge performance gains.
This is also the issue for 8 core or higher cpu's no the 6700 is not an 8 core its a 4 core with HT
If intel would release a real 8 core you all start crying that it burns so much energy, because thats the main reason why the AMD FX is actually using much more energy.
True the AMD suffers from its shared cache design, because it has been proven that this hold back the cpu. Anyway as long as there is no need to scale up for normal programs we probably not going to see any improvement at all. Saying that its a long term project to develop is true. But we are at a point that intel does not need to upscale as well. They have no competition so besides the quest to get the cpu's use less power for the same performance intel is not going to release anything they have in the pipeline in coming years other than this kinda silly updates.
So either the need has to change in the programmers world where more cores is going to give a performance increase or AMD must find a way to wake the giant again to move its developing muscles. But i am certain they do not need to worry, hell if it goes on like this their only competition is going bancrupt, because they are in red numbers again. If i read all the comments many of you would love to see AMD disappear, but i bet if it happens you will be stuck for a lot longer with no real development. Then all of you can cry why AMd was so stupid to go bancrupt.
uBronan
This is also the issue for 8 core or higher cpu's no the 6700 is not an 8 core its a 4 core with HT
If intel would release a real 8 core you all start crying that it burns so much energy, because thats the main reason why the AMD FX is actually using much more energy.
Intel Xeon E5-2630v5 would like a word. 8C/16T. 85W TDP.
This seems really expensive for a Mainstream socket cpu, its almost as expensive as a i7 5820K, for maybe €50 more you can get a 5820K and a X99 Mobo that has way more PCIe lanes which is the only new thing Z170 brought.
Have been itching to upgrade from my current 3770K/Maximus V Formula based build. I had figured I'll go for a new build due to the then new LGA1150 platform. I was initially excited at the arrival of 6700K, but am not too sure now. I am still keen on a new build on the latest 1151 platform, but am now left wondering if I should hold out a little while longer and in the meantime settle for a 980 GPU upgrade on my current 3770K rig instead.
Daheelah
Have been itching to upgrade from my current 3770K/Maximus V Formula based build. I had figured I'll go for a new build due to the then new LGA1150 platform. I was initially excited at the arrival of 6700K, but am not too sure now. I am still keen on a new build on the latest 1151 platform, but am now left wondering if I should hold out a little while longer and in the meantime settle for a 980 GPU upgrade on my current 3770K rig instead.
Why ? You're looking at about a 5-10% increase in performance for CPU based tasks. I literally cannot think of a single sane reason to upgrade from 3770K. It'd cost you £400 to get such a slither of performance gain. If you're loaded and like having the newest parts then sure go ahead I'd do the same if I had the money tbh, but then I'd go for X99. The upgrade you're talking about is just…I can't wrap my head around it.
Put the money into a GPU, a faster SSD, more storage, a better or second screen, anything except this upgrade. You'll feel the benefits much more than you would otherwise
Tunnah
Why ? You're looking at about a 5-10% increase in performance for CPU based tasks. I literally cannot think of a single sane reason to upgrade from 3770K. It'd cost you £400 to get such a slither of performance gain. If you're loaded and like having the newest parts then sure go ahead I'd do the same if I had the money tbh, but then I'd go for X99. The upgrade you're talking about is just…I can't wrap my head around it.
Put the money into a GPU, a faster SSD, more storage, a better or second screen, anything except this upgrade. You'll feel the benefits much more than you would otherwise
I totally agree with your reasoning. But I just want the new beasty as it has arrived at an opportune moment for me plus the future-proof factor. In addition to my lame excuse, the truth though is I still need to build a new rig to replace a now struggling maxed-out Dell Inspirion 531 to stop my four geeky kids from queuing and fighting for my current 3770K rig. I considered getting a console at considerably less cost but they cannot understand why I won't let them have my 3770K rig while I keep the suggested console….! Lol!
Daheelah
I totally agree with your reasoning. But I just want the new beasty as it has arrived at an opportune moment for me plus the future-proof factor.
What future-proof factor? Speed is the future-proof factor - chips have been x86 compatible for years and will continue to be so :p If a new chip isn't any faster then it isn't any more future-proof ;)
kalniel
What future-proof factor? Speed is the future-proof factor - chips have been x86 compatible for years and will continue to be so :p If a new chip isn't any faster then it isn't any more future-proof ;)
Well, future-proof in the sense that my maxed out Dell Inspirion 531 has been struggling for a few years now, while my 3770K rig still very capable and has decent mileage left in it yet.
kalniel
If a new chip isn't any faster then it isn't any more future-proof ;)
I cannot argue with you there!!
Daheelah
I totally agree with your reasoning. But I just want the new beasty as it has arrived at an opportune moment for me plus the future-proof factor. In addition to my lame excuse, the truth though is I still need to build a new rig to replace a now struggling maxed-out Dell Inspirion 531 to stop my four geeky kids from queuing and fighting for my current 3770K rig. I considered getting a console at considerably less cost but they cannot understand why I won't let them have my 3770K rig while I keep the suggested console….! Lol!
Ah fair enough. TBH I'd suggest building the kids an AMD equipped system and save yourself several hundred quid. A quad core AMD will save you about 200 quid and the most you'd lose between that and a high end Intel, assuming a discreet GPU is in place, would be about 10fps. Also going to assume as it's kids you have it hooked up to a TV ? So as long as it's not 4K the most they'll need to push is 1080p, meaning an AMD quad core and a GTX960 would give them 60FPS no matter what. Just a suggestion, if you wanna spoil em (and give you an excuse to give yourself an even higher end rig) go ahead ha.
Tunnah
Ah fair enough. TBH I'd suggest building the kids an AMD equipped system and save yourself several hundred quid. A quad core AMD will save you about 200 quid and the most you'd lose between that and a high end Intel, assuming a discreet GPU is in place, would be about 10fps. Also going to assume as it's kids you have it hooked up to a TV ? So as long as it's not 4K the most they'll need to push is 1080p, meaning an AMD quad core and a GTX960 would give them 60FPS no matter what.
I have considered that idea (as the old Dell is AMD based) though not necessarily the same specs. Alas, I concur with your reasoning and your suggested spec is very sound. :(
And just when common sense was about to prevail, I saw your closing statement. :)
Tunnah
Just a suggestion, if you wanna spoil em (and give you an excuse to give yourself an even higher end rig) go ahead ha.
Yeah my man, now you're talking. You sure get my drift!! You hit the bull smack in the eye with the statement in the brackets :) :)
We are all fixin' to get spoilt..! Lol!
Daheelah
I have considered that idea (as the old Dell is AMD based) though not necessarily the same specs. Alas, I concur with your reasoning and your suggested spec is very sound. :(
What sort of CPU is in that system? A lot of older systems could see a significant uplift in performance by installing a basic SSD as HDD clutter and hundreds of Windows updates tend to drag down performance a fair bit.
@Article author: What setup are you using for your Handbrake test? You mention QuickSync in the article but they look more like software results. Presence of QS would have no impact on software encoding.
Also QS results can't really be compared to software results for obvious reasons; you're comparing two completely different encoders and x264 generally offers considerably better quality/compression than hardware.
watercooled
What sort of CPU is in that system? A lot of older systems could see a significant uplift in performance by installing a basic SSD as HDD clutter and hundreds of Windows updates tend to drag down performance a fair bit.
Hello Watercooled, sorry for the slow response.
Dell Inspirion 531 (2007) Original Specs:
AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core PROCESSOR 6000+
2GB (2X1024MB) 667MH
320GB SERIAL ATA HDD
NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT
Vista Home
Current Specs:
4GB (4X1024MB) 667MH
Added 1TB WD HDD
GeForce GTX 750
Win 8.1 Pro
Yes adding an SSD is probably a move I might make thanks, as it should improve things somewhat but I am not sure the net increase will be great because the machine's struggle is by no means limited to read/write intensive tasks. I suppose I could always utilise the SDD elsewhere should it prove to be wasted on the Dell.
In any case it still has some mileage left in it and is not being fully retired yet; rather, it is for now being relieved of a host of duties. Thanks for the idea!
Tunnah
Ah fair enough. TBH I'd suggest building the kids an AMD equipped system and save yourself several hundred quid. A quad core AMD will save you about 200 quid and the most you'd lose between that and a high end Intel, assuming a discreet GPU is in place, would be about 10fps. Also going to assume as it's kids you have it hooked up to a TV ? So as long as it's not 4K the most they'll need to push is 1080p, meaning an AMD quad core and a GTX960 would give them 60FPS no matter what. Just a suggestion, if you wanna spoil em (and give you an excuse to give yourself an even higher end rig) go ahead ha.
Belated thanks for your useful input!!!