• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

6700K or 5820K?

X99 + 5820K or Z170 + 6700K

  • X99 + 5820K, no question!

  • Z170 + 6700K, without a doubt!

  • I'm not sure.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
With Skylake reviews out, I'm interested in seeing which setup everyone here finds to be the better buy for their purposes: an X99 board + 5820K or a Z170 board + 6700K.

Please vote in the poll and, if you're so inclined, include an explanation in a post!
 
I'm not sure. I want a beefy computer. I want it to run distributed computing and video encoding fast. I want it to run multiple VMs at once.

I also want it to fit in a mini-ITX case, and to run cool and quiet and not heat up the room too much in the summer.

Considering I'm doing all of the above except multiple VMs on a Core 2 Quad with 4GB RAM, I think Skylake would work fine for me. And I waited for Skylake so I could fit at least 32GB RAM in 2 slots at some point. But six cores on a mini-ITX board has an undeniable appeal. :hmm: I just don't know how noisy the cooler would be, or how cool I could get it to run in the summertime?
 
Last edited:
Ken g6 said:
I'm not sure. I want a beefy computer. I want it to run distributed computing and video encoding fast. I want it to run multiple VMs at once.

I also want it to fit in a mini-ITX case, and to run cool and quiet and not heat up the room too much in the summer.

Considering I'm doing all of the above except multiple VMs on a Core 2 Quad with 4GB RAM, I think Skylake would work fine for me. And I waited for Skylake so I could fit at least 32GB RAM in 2 slots at some point. But six cores on a mini-ITX board has an undeniable appeal. :hmm: I just don't know how noisy the cooler would be, or how cool I could get it to run in the summertime?
Click to expand...

You can turn off the HyperThreading in Summer time and still have 6 Cores 6 Threads, which will still be faster than 4 cores 8 threads 😉
 
X99+5820K all the way to the bank for me.. More cores equals more work done and faster for video and audio encoding. Plus when you wanna upgrade later on you can always grab yourself a 8c/16t-12c/24t cpu for more horse power down the road..
 
I've been debating the same. The pricing will be similar overall for both builds. I like the idea of 6 real threads, but I am not sure if there's anything in the Z170 board that is worth having. I need to do more research.
 
Last edited:
Going by UK prices, a 5820K/X99 set-up is currently only about £40 more expensive than a 6700K/Z170 set-up. And if it stays like that - hopefully it's just early adopters getting price-gouged, but I've got a horrible feeling that retailers are using the 5775C as an excuse to permanently jack up the price of the top-end desktop chip - then the former is the better deal, no question of it.
 
From the other thread, three posts down, on the same topic:

JM Popaleetus said:
g3Qacog.jpg


KitGuru also has what we're looking for: http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-6700k-i5-6600k-skylake-cpu-review/

DBr63rn.png

KrrIrhZ.png

k28Jr02.png

CoKgZjg.png

Utzbn03.png

p8soYUY.png

d6HbJaR.png

kmmiy2o.png

Wy7qjqk.png
Click to expand...
 
Yeah but thats showing a overclocked 6700k vs a stock 5820k.. when both are overclocked the 5820K would rip the 6700K a new hole..
 
Add DX-12 multithreding in games and anyone going for a Quad(HT or not) in 2015 will run in serious trouble soon.
 
If you don't OC I vote for Core i7 6700K. If you plan to OC unless you heavily rely on per core performance go Core i7 5820K. It should be noted that after the launch frenzy we might see cheaper and tempting Skylake-S combos.
 
BigDaveX said:
Huh? I thought DX12 was meant to put less strain on the CPU, not more?
Click to expand...

It does put less strain on the CPU API and driver wise, but that doesn't mean that DX12 will automatically become less taxing..

Developers will find ways to tap the increased availability of CPU power believe me, whether through better A.I, physics and or higher levels of detail..
 
Carfax83 said:
It does put less strain on the CPU API and driver wise, but that doesn't mean that DX12 will automatically become less taxing..

Developers will find ways to tap the increased availability of CPU power believe me, whether through better A.I, physics and or higher levels of detail..
Click to expand...

But thats not going to happen before we got pure DX12 games with no DX11 or below path.

For that to happen Windows 10 rollout adoption must be massive. if Windows 10 adoption for some reason fails, then the cardhouse collapses.
 
ShintaiDK said:
But thats not going to happen before we got pure DX12 games with no DX11 or below path.

For that to happen Windows 10 rollout adoption must be massive. if Windows 10 adoption for some reason fails, then the cardhouse collapses.
Click to expand...

DX12 is automatically backward compatible with DX11.3, just like DX11 was automatically backward compatible with DX10. You just have a reduction of features.

Regarding the Windows 10 rollout adoption, so far it has been extremely successful. There are already tens of millions of PCs with Windows 10 installed on them..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top