6700K or 5820K?

[PliotronX]

I went through this decision last week and came to the conclusion that the 5820k was a better fit for me but you'll have to decide. Gaming will favor the higher potential clockspeed while anything else will dig the hexacore. You also have more slots to fill with nummy DDR4 in the X99 platform. However, do keep in mind that the X99 is likely a dead platform as in Skylake-E will likely not work with it so the best you'll get is probably the 5820k because Broadwell-E looks to be a disappointment and might even be skipped in favor of Skylake-E.

 

[Dave2150]

This is what I found odd, it's directly oppositional to what you are arguing in here. With the 6700k you're gaining only 4 logical cores. With the 5820k you're gaining 2 physical cores and 4 logical cores for about the same price difference again. Granted with a very slight ipc penalty, but still.

You also have to bear in mind heat and power consumption. Granted, there are many who will not care about either, though there are quite a few that do care about it.

A 5820k has to be overclocked and overvolted quite a bit to reach adequate clockspeeds to be compared to a 6700k, producing a high amount of heat and burning through the electricity.

Meanwhile a 6700k can do 4.5Ghz on stock volts, producing far less heat and using less electricity.

For those of us without air conditioning (In the UK for example, where it's not common place) I greatly prefer my study to be a cooler room, rather than an inferno in the summer/autumn.

I will add that for anyone buying a CPU for productivity (encoding, streaming etc) then of course X99 is the only option worth considering.

 

[moonbogg]

Of course it all depends on the game. Current games that are CPU heavy (lots of AI threads/schedules) do happen to scale well beyond 4 cores. A good example is Novigrad in Witcher 3, or Assassin's Creed Unity.

RPG genre in the future looks like it will be helpful for more cores.

Next CPU is an 8 core Skylake. That settles it.

 

[YBS1]

8? They better have a 10.

 

[moonbogg]

8? They better have a 10.

No way we could we keep a 10 core cool enough...OR COULD WE?

 

[DXtreme]

Thanks for the discussion here. I got my new 5820K box running. Very happy with the results and completely stable. Temps are reasonable 30C idle & stress testing never exceeds 70C on air with Noctua NH-D15.

5820k @ 4.5 @ 1.28v
Corsair LPX 3000 16GB @ 3200 @ 1.35v 16-18-18-36-1T

Still doing some final tweaking to it. Next gotta work on the cache.

I really like the Asus X99-A/3.1 motherboard. I didn't have any issues with it.

This box completely smokes my old 2500k box.

Again, Thanks for all the input.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Thanks for the discussion here. I got my new 5820K box running. Very happy with the results and completely stable. Temps are reasonable 30C idle & stress testing never exceeds 70C on air with Noctua NH-D15.

5820k @ 4.5 @ 1.28v
Corsair LPX 3000 16GB @ 3200 @ 1.35v 16-18-18-36-1T

Still doing some final tweaking to it. Next gotta work on the cache.

I really like the Asus X99-A/3.1 motherboard. I didn't have any issues with it.

This box completely smokes my old 2500k box.

Again, Thanks for all the input.

Enjoy!

 

[readers]

greed....

because if u really required the power of a 5960X u would pick up a 2S server instead....

5960x users are a product of a greed.
Same can be said with any black label CPU.

Black Label Processor buyers do not look at the cheapest option, or most suitable option..

They look for the TOP Tier option, just cuz its top tier.

This is why i said most of the 5960X dont require them.
If they did require them again.... its a 2 socketed server machine.

Trust me.... no one really ends up buying a 5960X because they absolutely needed it.
If you absolutely need the power, you got yourself a 2S server... 2 socket, which can support 2 of those 8 - core processors on 1 board.
If you needed the speed, well, again if its multi threaded... then the 2S server is a better option, while if your after single core speed, you again got the wrong cpu.
5960X has a X which means Xtreme Edition, aka... black label.... no one NEEDS these cpu's... they are like the prettiest girls at the party, that never get asked to dance, in which most will never get to fully stretch their legs out besides that initial screen cap with 4.4+GHZ on prime testing...



My imagination? really?
If you know what cpu's can do, you would get a server 2S because u would do better off on a 2x6 socket 2S machine with 12cores and not 8core.
If you need the GHZ... well... 5960X has the lowest GHZ @ 3.0ghz...
If you wanted single core speed... again... i dont think that is a reason why u got a 5960X.

so what's left?

Guy A: bro, i hear the 5960X is the flag ship.... the top tier.
Guy B: cool, i'll get that since i have money to burn and its the best. I also want to inflate my ego...
[no offense to anyone who owns a 5960X, but you need to admit that u mostly got the processor cuz its the Top Tier, vs required the cores.]

or...
Guy A: Dude im getting a Alienware PC from DELL!!!

need i say more?

What a judgmental prick.

What if I do lots of video encoding but also want to game on my PC?

 

[cmdrdredd]

What a judgmental prick.

What if I do lots of video encoding but also want to game on my PC?

Don't necessarily need a $1000 CPU for that. Though you don't need $1000 GPUs for gaming either so meh.

 

[tential]

I felt that at least having an i7 8 threads was a good start for video encoding. For me anyway for a time to encode to price. It really depends on what you're encoding and how long it takes and how often you encode. For me, I just made sure that I could finish my encodes during a time I wasn't using my PC, and I felt 4 threads vs 8 threads was a pretty big difference.

You can decide if it's worth the jump to you. If you want to encode WHILE you game (I dunno why but hey, do it!), then definitely get the 5820k.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

I've seen some impressive posting of 5960K score's, but X99 is almost if not more then 6 months old. So I'll wait to see what 2016 brings in, still have a 3930K to play with.

 

[tenks]

Broadwell-E looks to be a disappointment and might even be skipped in favor of Skylake-E.

Broadwell-E is not being skipped and from recent rumblings is looking to be a pretty great chip.

I've seen some impressive posting of 5960K score's, but X99 is almost if not more then 6 months old. So I'll wait to see what 2016 brings in, still have a 3930K to play with.

try 6x2. x99 is 12 months old as of this month.

 

[readers]

Don't necessarily need a $1000 CPU for that. Though you don't need $1000 GPUs for gaming either so meh.

So? A gaming PC can easily be 3K, what if I want spend 500 more to get 1 few more fps, and more importantly, increase my productivity by something like 20%????

 

[cmdrdredd]

So? A gaming PC can easily be 3K, what if I want spend 500 more to get 1 few more fps, and more importantly, increase my productivity by something like 20%????

You failed to see my point. You don't need a $1k part to do the tasks but there are people who buy them just because. Look at the people running Titans and such for gaming.

 

[tential]

So? A gaming PC can easily be 3K, what if I want spend 500 more to get 1 few more fps, and more importantly, increase my productivity by something like 20%????

Gaining 1-5 fps is what some people need sometimes. For me that would put some games at the exact 30 fps minimum I need to be happy playing.

 

[Absolute0]

People also buy Lamborghini's. They don't "need" them. This is America. Need has little to do with it. We buy crazy hardware cuz it's fun.

Maybe it's cuz I used to post a lot on Xtremesystems where being extreme was... FUN! People wanted you to have the best hardware and get the best benchmarks. Nobody there saying "You don't need that much power!" Because everybody understands, it's not really about *NEEDING* it. Although it's nice to have. Like a Lamborghini .

 

[readers]

You failed to see my point. You don't need a $1k part to do the tasks but there are people who buy them just because. Look at the people running Titans and such for gaming.

And you hadn't needed a new computer for past 8 years.

You are the one who keep refusing to see the point here.

 

[readers]

People also buy Lamborghini's. They don't "need" them. This is America. Need has little to do with it. We buy crazy hardware cuz it's fun.

Maybe it's cuz I used to post a lot on Xtremesystems where being extreme was... FUN! People wanted you to have the best hardware and get the best benchmarks. Nobody there saying "You don't need that much power!" Because everybody understands, it's not really about *NEEDING* it. Although it's nice to have. Like a Lamborghini .

Wrong example, most of the time a Lambo can't legally or practically use it's full speed or acceleration.

A 5960x is allowed to run at MAX at ALL time.

 

[Absolute0]

My point is more about need and I think it's hard to make the argument for *needing* a $1000 cpu but the point is if you want one, go for it.

I was actually considering a 5960x because I could get a super good deal on one and it seems uber future-proof. Just didn't like the power consumption.

 

[cmdrdredd]

And you hadn't needed a new computer for past 8 years.

You are the one who keep refusing to see the point here.

Stop being obtuse about what I'm saying. You guys are getting ridiculous now.

Anyone who says "I need a $1000 CPU" is kidding themselves. There is no need, only want unless you're buying it strictly for work usage and 8 cores vs 6 makes a huge difference for whatever you're doing and will save you time and money in the long run. This probably doesn't apply to people buying it for gaming just because they can.

Also yeah I needed a new computer, not want but actually need. You have to buy newer hardware to keep up with the latest games and keep frame rates up. I could not imagine still trying to run a Socket 939 board still for new titles.

 

[guskline]

My two rigs below are clearly "wants" not "needs". Nonetheless, I enjoy them.

 

[cmdrdredd]

My two rigs below are clearly "wants" not "needs". Nonetheless, I enjoy them.

Exactly

 

[TheProgrammer]

I voted 5820K, because CPUs have flatlined in gaming for a while now.
Check out this review, at 1080P and a TitanX, no difference worth crying about between Bloomfield and Skylake. http://www.maximumpc.com/bloomfield-takes-on-skylake/#page-2

Its been this way forever, review sites have to use Intel Guides on "how" to review CPUs "properly" so they look good.

That's why FX chips like Vishera aren't that bad. They'll beat Nehalem and grant you the only real advantage there is anymore- moar coars. People have been duped bigtime that they need a new CPU for years now.

If my CPU dies on me, I'm going for an octocore, otherwise may as well just get whatever quadcore.. they're all the same for gaming at 1080P on a TitanX. No TitanX here, but 1080P is a reasonable res that a large portion of folks are using, including myself. And I don't plan on leaving 1080P either.

I'm waiting for AMD Zen, which will be more than enough IPC and octocore. But if my rig died today I'd just pickup a FX-8320 and use that. The only reason I'd go for the 6600K over it is because of the IGP. Would cover me well enough if my current GPU died until 16nm GPUs hit.

So my vote was for the 5820K, no brainer between this and the 6700K. If you're going 6700K, may as well go 6600K, OC it a bit higher and put that money towards a bigger SSD or LCD.

 

[Anteaus]

I ordered a i7-5280k, X99, and 32GB ram earlier today.

Like many of you I kept going back and forth as to the best upgrade path for me. Since I am coming from a 2600K, my upgrade is definitely more about want than need. My biggest problem wasn't overal performance, but limitations of my P67 in regards to some of the things I wanted to do, such as using trim in Raid 0 and more stable USB3 ports.

I ultimately went with the 5280K for a few reasons, some of them subjective.

First, in spite of the current state of software (mostly games) preferring fewer, more powerful cores, I believe we are in a transition and those extra two cores (four logical cores) will become increasingly beneficial over time. For those that use their PCs purely for gaming, then the 6700K is the more logical choice, especially in the short term. That said, at this level performance is more heavily skewed toward GPU choice, and the small advantage that the 6700K has in single core operations won't be apparent in real world usage.

Second, if you use your machine for anything outside of gaming, those extra cores become lucrative. Another minor benefit are the additional PCIe lanes. This means less to those that don't use multiple graphics cards, yet it still provides flexibility should I want to add a SAS controller without robbing lanes from the GPU.

Third, the memory bandwidth that quad channel provides might not be apparent in most cases, but I like that it is there. It is one less bottleneck that might crop up over the years. Again, these are minor benefits but at this level these are the types of features that some people head toward.

Here was my bottom line:

Worst case, the 5820K will lag behind the 6700K a bit in single core performance in some games, though I doubt it will be noticeable outside of benchmarks. For everything else, the 5820K/X99 will prove to be the superior platform until Skylake-E shows up. All in all, X99 for gaming is in a virtual tie with Z170, beats it in multithreading hands down, and has more features on top. Price points are also far more competitive than they were earlier in the year.

This is what I ordered today:

i7-5820K $389.00
ASRock X99M Extreme4 $204.99
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 X 8GB) $214.00

To close, please remember that I did not mention overclocking nor am I saying that every day gamers should go this route. We are splitting hairs on the upper echelon of CPUs. If money is a concern, the logical route is the 6600K.

That's my two cents, based purely on a subjective analysis of what I want to do with my machine and what I think I need. Benchmarks can make for good objective comparisons, but if you get bogged down in the numbers all you'll end up doing is getting annoyed.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I ordered a i7-5280k, X99, and 32GB ram earlier today.

Like many of you I kept going back and forth as to the best upgrade path for me. Since I am coming from a 2600K, my upgrade is definitely more about want than need. My biggest problem wasn't overal performance, but limitations of my P67 in regards to some of the things I wanted to do, such as using trim in Raid 0 and more stable USB3 ports.

I ultimately went with the 5280K for a few reasons, some of them subjective.

First, in spite of the current state of software (mostly games) preferring fewer, more powerful cores, I believe we are in a transition and those extra two cores (four logical cores) will become increasingly beneficial over time. For those that use their PCs purely for gaming, then the 6700K is the more logical choice, especially in the short term. That said, at this level performance is more heavily skewed toward GPU choice, and the small advantage that the 6700K has in single core operations won't be apparent in real world usage.

Second, if you use your machine for anything outside of gaming, those extra cores become lucrative. Another minor benefit are the additional PCIe lanes. This means less to those that don't use multiple graphics cards, yet it still provides flexibility should I want to add a SAS controller without robbing lanes from the GPU.

Third, the memory bandwidth that quad channel provides might not be apparent in most cases, but I like that it is there. It is one less bottleneck that might crop up over the years. Again, these are minor benefits but at this level these are the types of features that some people head toward.

Here was my bottom line:

Worst case, the 5820K will lag behind the 6700K a bit in single core performance in some games, though I doubt it will be noticeable outside of benchmarks. For everything else, the 5820K/X99 will prove to be the superior platform until Skylake-E shows up. All in all, X99 for gaming is in a virtual tie with Z170, beats it in multithreading hands down, and has more features on top. Price points are also far more competitive than they were earlier in the year.

This is what I ordered today:

i7-5820K $389.00
ASRock X99M Extreme4 $204.99
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 X 8GB) $214.00

To close, please remember that I did not mention overclocking nor am I saying that every day gamers should go this route. We are splitting hairs on the upper echelon of CPUs. If money is a concern, the logical route is the 6600K.

That's my two cents, based purely on a subjective analysis of what I want to do with my machine and what I think I need. Benchmarks can make for good objective comparisons, but if you get bogged down in the numbers all you'll end up doing is getting annoyed.

Mostly true, but it should be said that the 5820k has 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes while a 6700k on Z170 has 36 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The 5820k has all it's lanes provided by the CPU and the 6700k has 16 lanes for GPU and the Z170 chipset has an additional 20 for additional cards and M.2 PCIe SSDs.

My biggest hangup is overclocking a 5820k on air. I always overclock my components and I think it will be much easier to get a 6700k to at least 4.5 on air than a 5820k. I know there are IPC improvements so that a few hundred Mhz won't be a big difference in performance when compared to my 3570k at 4.5Ghz. I'm just not sure how far I can push a 5820k on air cooling.