6700 vs 6700k without overclock

[Martok883]

I'm building a PC for gaming, primarily for VR. Got a GTX 1080 and am trying to decide between the the i7-6700 and 6700k. I have no plans to overclock- other than the overclockability of the k is there any difference between the stock k and the 6700 that I would notice with respect to gaming or VR performance? I know the stock 6700k's clock speed is 600 MHz higher but i don't know what the significance of that would be if any.

 

[UsandThem]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1554?vs=1543

Plus PcPartPicker is showing there is currently a $17 difference between the two CPUs, so it should be an easy decision.

 

[plopke]

Do you plan on using a custom cooling solution or the boxed Intel cooler of the 6700. The K-versions don't come with any cooling solution.

If you sticking with the default cooler/heatsink : I find the price difference of ±20dollars +40-80 USD cooling solution to big for a K version to be worth it if you not overclocking.

If you do plan on buying your own cooling solution then well you get a little bit of performance for not much more money.

 

[ehume]

Has the 6700k been binned as previous top-k chips were? If so, that suggests a 6700k over a non-k.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, if you are spending the bucks for a 1080, I would spend the extra for the 6700k and a Z170 motherboard to get the considerably higher stock clocks as well as the possibility of overclocking in the future. Also be sure to get fast ram, skylake seems to benefit from it. Skylake seems to overclock fairly well, so unless you get unlucky in the silicon lottery, you should be able to fairly easily overclock to 4.4 or 4.5.

 

[Martok883]

If I'm not overclocking will Turbo Boost result in effectively the same clock speed for both processors in applications that predominantly use a single core?

I should add that if I were buying today I would go with the k I think, but I actually bought and installed the 6700 already. But in the time between when I bought it and now I've read up a lot on CPUs and now know enough to wonder about it, I guess you could say. But for that reason taking out the 6700, packaging it up carefully, sending it somewhere else, ordering and installing another CPU would be a huge hassle which is why I want to know more if it would be worth said hassle than if the pedromnace is different per se.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[DigDog]

the answer you are looking for is: no.

there is no difference between 6700 and 6700k. some suggest that the k series might have been binned for overclocking, or " selected as good chips that can hold a higher clock", which would not be weird.

the k series also has a higher resell value; plus, you should not be afraid of overclocking.

modern overclocking will no longer fry your cpu, it will not make your files fail. some motherboards (even some low-end ones, like the MSI Z170-A) come with a "overclock me" button n the bios which does it all for you.
a moderate OC is nothing shocking and, i should add, something that everyone should do - there is no real downside to it.

 

[n0x1ous]

worth it for the stock frequency of the k alone

 

[LTC8K6]

If you have a Z chipset board, I think you can set the 6700 multiplier to 40 and run it at 4.0Ghz.

 

[Ranulf]

If you can justify a gtx 1080, get the K, even if you never overclock. Its still faster, its not hard to overclock these days and buy a decent air cooler for it. It will keep the noise down.

 

[plopke]

Wait, so a non-overclocked 6700k requires a heatsink with 200+ watts of cooling ability? No, it doesn't. Any of the decent heatpipe ~$20 heatsinks sold will keep a stock-clocked 6700k at least as cool as the stock heatsink will keep the non-k 6700. This $20 heatsink will, for instance.

Fair point a good heatsink for none OC is cheaper than I remmember it to be () , so the overal price difference would be ±40 USD

 

[lehtv]

worth it for the stock frequency of the k alone

Not really. All you get is 7% more performance. But you pay much more than that.

 

[StrangerGuy]

It will be really stupid not to get the K version even for not OCing, for the higher stock clocks and better resale value down the road for a part that is going to last for least 3 years. Don't be penny-wise, pound-foolish.

 

[Erithan13]

If you have a Z chipset board, I think you can set the 6700 multiplier to 40 and run it at 4.0Ghz.

I've tried this on my 6700/Z170 combo using multicore enhancement and as far as I can tell you can't do it, the max 4 core turbo is locked at 3.7ghz no matter what. Apparently MCE used to work on non-k cpus and gave a small free overclock but the ability was removed sometime after Sandybridge and before Skylake. Kind of annoying but 300mhz isn't the end of the world.

 

[LTC8K6]

Still works on my Z97 board with a 1231-V3 Xeon set at 3.8Ghz.

Also works with a 4790S set at 4Ghz.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, right now the 6700 and 6700K are the same price at Newegg.

 

[n0x1ous]

Not really. All you get is 7% more performance. But you pay much more than that.

$315 for the k right now and it will have better resale


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Magic Carpet]

Still works on my Z97 board with a 1231-V3 Xeon set at 3.8Ghz.

Also works with a 4790S set at 4Ghz.

It works on some boards, and it doesn't on some the others.

 

[sm625]

Buy a 6700k.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If u already have the 3700 installed like u mentioned on ur second post, then its not worth the hassle selling it and getting a k series!!!

 

[daxzy]

I had the same decision, but my new build was going in a Silverstone ML08 case (really small, 12L displacement). Without overclocking, I choose the i7-6700 because of the lower (65W vs 91W) TDP.

If this were going in a larger mATX or ATX case, I'd probably choose the i7-6700K because a 600 Mhz base clock deficit is quite large. That and the price differential is nearly negligible (6700K was $20 more for me).

 

[ehume]

If I'm not overclocking will Turbo Boost result in effectively the same clock speed for both processors in applications that predominantly use a single core?

I should add that if I were buying today I would go with the k I think, but I actually bought and installed the 6700 already. But in the time between when I bought it and now I've read up a lot on CPUs and now know enough to wonder about it, I guess you could say. But for that reason taking out the 6700, packaging it up carefully, sending it somewhere else, ordering and installing another CPU would be a huge hassle which is why I want to know more if it would be worth said hassle than if the pedromnace is different per se.

I vote that, all things considered, the 6700k is a better buy. But since you have already bought the 6700, keep it: it's a good chip and won't let you down.

 

[Martok883]

But won't turbo boost make up for the lower base clock rate (at least most of it)? Except for the remaining 200-300 MHz depending on how many cores are in use?