Expectation gaming life of a 6600/6700k and a 5820k

[djsolidsnake86]

I'm really undecided what platform buy.. if x99 with the 6 core 5820k, or the new z170 and a 6600k with the integrated graphic that will be useful for dx12 games!
Do you think that a skylake will be enough for next generation console (ps5 xbox two) or only the 5820k that has 50% more core for future gaming?

 

[dark zero]

Mmm.. X99 might last more years than Skylake due the Core ammount.

 

[ShintaiDK]

DX12 should actually reduce CPU load. And PS5/Next Xbox is many years away. Completely irrelevant.

 

[djsolidsnake86]

DX12 should actually reduce CPU load. And PS5/Next Xbox is many years away. Completely irrelevant.

ps5 xbox two should appear in 3 years

 

[ShintaiDK]

ps5 xbox two should appear in 3 years

That would be an awfully short lifespan of the current consoles.

Got any official information of this?

Current consoles didn't do much I terms of CPU requirement. An i3 is still doing really well.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think either should be more than adequate for the foreseeable future. Personally, I would go with either the 6700k or 5820k. Dx 12 supposedly will use more cores(threads), and the devs will eventually increase the cpu load to take advantage of that. With the 6700k you get a very high base clock and it seems like most overclock to 4.5 or so. With the 5820k you get six *real* cores, but are dependent on the silicon lottery to get high clocks.

Of course, Intel could eliminate this dilemma by bringing out a mainstream skylake hex core, but doesnt deign to do so.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The answer to your question is: they will all be good enough. edit: though if you're going to go LGA1151, I'd recommend the 6700k instead.

Also, if you get the 5820k today, you will have the option of Broadwell-E in the future. So, Haswell-E isn't a dead-end.

 

[Arachnotronic]

5820K probably has a bit more life in it than the 6700K does if you overclock.

 

[Spydermag68]

I jump from a AMD 965 to the 6700k and loving the speed. I have tried a few games and it is just more fluid even though I have not changed my video card. I a few months I will upgrade it.

 

[moonbogg]

For gaming, by the time one of those CPU's is too slow, the other one will also be too slow. I think the 5820 might give you better performance as time goes on, but the other CPU will still be able to run those games just fine. I'd go with the 5820.

 

[djsolidsnake86]

The answer to your question is: they will all be good enough. edit: though if you're going to go LGA1151, I'd recommend the 6700k instead.

Also, if you get the 5820k today, you will have the option of Broadwell-E in the future. So, Haswell-E isn't a dead-end.

lga1151 will also have kaby lake next year

 

[DrMrLordX]

Right, but outside of iGPU improvements, I don't expect that much out of KabyLake. Maybe I'm being needlessly pessimistic.

 

[toyota]

I would NOT get a 6600k at this point if you want to use a high end gpu. some games are completely pegging an i5 at times. you cant wrong with either the 5820k or 6700k and both have a long future ahead of them.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Right, but outside of iGPU improvements, I don't expect that much out of KabyLake. Maybe I'm being needlessly pessimistic.

I hope Intel can get more frequency out of Kaby Lake as the 14nm process matures. A 4.2GHz base/4.6GHz turbo part would be pretty awesome.

 

[tential]

People are still using sandybridge right now... of course Skylake will last a long time.

I would get an i7 though. For how long the processor will last you, you might as well have the extra threads.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I hope Intel can get more frequency out of Kaby Lake as the 14nm process matures. A 4.2GHz base/4.6GHz turbo part would be pretty awesome.

+400Mhz turbo over current chips is unlikely I think. Remember the 6700K is only 4.2Ghz in 1 thread. 2-8 threads and you are at 4.0Ghz.

Maybe if lucky we could get 4.2 with 4.4 turbo.

 

[djsolidsnake86]

why do you suggest the 6700k over the 6600k? the ht performance increase in games is at max 10 percent in games!

 

[jpiniero]

why do you suggest the 6700k over the 6600k? the ht performance increase in games is at max 10 percent in games!

It helps more with the minimums. Then again with DX12 it seems like even 6600K is going to be way overkill for current gen console ports.

 

[Arachnotronic]

+400Mhz turbo over current chips is unlikely I think. Remember the 6700K is only 4.2Ghz in 1 thread. 2-8 threads and you are at 4.0Ghz.

Maybe if lucky we could get 4.2 with 4.4 turbo.

Yeah, you're right. I can dream, can't I?

 

[toyota]

why do you suggest the 6700k over the 6600k? the ht performance increase in games is at max 10 percent in games!

because as I just said, an i5 is pegged at times in some games. that means some stuttering and hitching. you start a thread about gaming expected life on a cpu and you want to be limiting your experience from day one?

 

[tential]

because as I just said, an i5 is pegged at times in some games. that means some stuttering and hitching. you start a thread about gaming expected life on a cpu and you want to be limiting your experience from day one?

I don't get it either. Look how long everyone has kept their intel processor's for. You're keeping this processor for 5 years at times. It's an extra $20 a year for an i7 for FAR MORE flexibility.

I wasn't going to upgrade from a 7950 to a 7970. From an i5 to an i7 it was a NO BRAINER when hearing about how happy other intel owners were and how long they had kept their processors.

Not to mention, since when did everyone run their PC's in benchmark scenarios 24/7. That ONE time you want to do something while gaming on an i5 vs an i7? You don't even worry with the i7, you have a TON of processing power to spare. With an i5, you have half of the thread count to work with.

For Longevity, the i7 is a no brainer to me.

People with i5s and GTX 980Tis make me lol.

 

[Spungo]

I would get an i7 though. For how long the processor will last you, you might as well have the extra threads.

I can agree with this. I'm still using a Phenom II x6 and it works great for games. The computer is 5 years old! If a computer will be used for 5 years, it might as well be a good one. The overall usefulness of the computer also goes long past gaming usefulness. My file server is a Core 2 that I bought in 2006, so it's 9 years old and still working great. Super high end gaming computers seem to last forever.

 

[JAG87]

because as I just said, an i5 is pegged at times in some games. that means some stuttering and hitching. you start a thread about gaming expected life on a cpu and you want to be limiting your experience from day one?

This is a load of crap, pure FUD that only people who build for e-peen need for re-assurance. Example:

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/page5.html

Core i3 with 2 SMT cores is plenty for almost any modern game. Is it ideal? No there are few exceptions, but getting anything more than an i5 for gaming is just FUD. i7, and most certainly 6 core SMT i7s only have value for CPU intensive workloads like rendering or encoding.

And mind you, these tests were at 1080p.... if you step to 1440p or god forbid 4K, the differences become decimals of a percentage. Gaming is 99% GPU bound, when will people learn this?

For Longevity, the i7 is a no brainer to me.

People with i5s and GTX 980Tis make me lol.

If you're building a system to game on, other features will push you to another platform before your CPU even becomes the bottleneck. It's been like this for the past 10 years, and it will keep being like this for the foreseeable future, at least until we keep rendering through DirectX. People with gaming systems with i5s and a 980 are smart, they put the money where it's needed for gaming instead of wasting it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This is a load of crap, pure FUD that only people who build for e-peen need for re-assurance. Example:

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/page5.html

Core i3 with 2 SMT cores is plenty for almost any modern game. Is it ideal? No there are few exceptions, but getting anything more than an i5 for gaming is just FUD. i7, and most certainly 6 core SMT i7s only have value for CPU intensive workloads like rendering or encoding.

And mind you, these tests were at 1080p.... if you step to 1440p or god forbid 4K, the differences become decimals of a percentage. Gaming is 99% GPU bound, when will people learn this?




If you're building a system to game on, other features will push you to another platform before your CPU even becomes the bottleneck. It's been like this for the past 10 years, and it will keep being like this for the foreseeable future, at least until we keep rendering through DirectX. People with gaming systems with i5s and a 980 are smart, they put the money where it's needed for gaming instead of wasting it.

+1 :thumbsup:

Personally I only got the i7 due to stock clocks and cache.

 

[StrangerGuy]

This is a load of crap, pure FUD that only people who build for e-peen need for re-assurance. Example:

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/page5.html

Core i3 with 2 SMT cores is plenty for almost any modern game. Is it ideal? No there are few exceptions, but getting anything more than an i5 for gaming is just FUD. i7, and most certainly 6 core SMT i7s only have value for CPU intensive workloads like rendering or encoding.

And mind you, these tests were at 1080p.... if you step to 1440p or god forbid 4K, the differences become decimals of a percentage. Gaming is 99% GPU bound, when will people learn this?

If you're building a system to game on, other features will push you to another platform before your CPU even becomes the bottleneck. It's been like this for the past 10 years, and it will keep being like this for the foreseeable future, at least until we keep rendering through DirectX. People with gaming systems with i5s and a 980 are smart, they put the money where it's needed for gaming instead of wasting it.

Yup, paying an exorbitant $100 for a long lived part with higher stock clocks and HT is such a complete waste of money, especially with a GPU with such a godawful price/performance ratio like a GTX 980.

BTW average FPS proves nothing without knowing minimums and frame time distributions.