6700K or 5820K?

[Arachnotronic]

Wow, looks like X99 + 5820K has won by a large margin. Very interesting.

 

[YBS1]

Wow, looks like X99 + 5820K has won by a large margin. Very interesting.

I would imagine a lot of people still remember what happened with Core2Duo vs. Core2Quad and how that eventually turned out. Add to that the fact that the prices between these two combos are strikingly close and that CPUs don't just benefit games and it's not all that surprising.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I would imagine a lot of people still remember what happened with Core2Duo vs. Core2Quad and how that eventually turned out. Add to that the fact that the prices between these two combos are strikingly close and that CPUs don't just benefit games and it's not all that surprising.

Yeah. I remember having to seriously debate a 2.4GHz C2Q v.s. a 3GHz (?) C2D and I went with the Q6600. That puppy lasted until I upgraded to Lynnfield, and I didn't upgrade for lack of CPU perf; the mobo was just super flaky and it was time for a new platform.

 

[SPBHM]

I remember the hard choice being e8400 OC (3.6-4GHz) vs Q6600 OC (3-3.4GHz OC) :biggrin:

anyway, it's not the same here, since the 6700 can run with a cheaper platform...

the 5820K is good, but if you are willing to go with a $100 and lower MB, it can have a decent price advantage, also you can keep your 1155-1150 cooler

and as soon as DDR3L MBs are available you might even be able to reuse your old memory, if the CPU can work at 1.5v (I know it's out of the specifications, but if it works it works) or you can undervolt the ram...

 

[Dislikeyou]

I am happy with my 6700k so far.

I was thinking to go x99 instead but after reading about the problems with USB and XMP profiles on the cheaper x99 boards I decided to keep Skylake.

ASUS Z170 boards comes with a CPU installation tool to make sure you don't bend the socket pins.

 

[Berryracer]

Did you not mean 28 for the 5820K? Your keyboard must miss occasionally as might mine.

yeah sorry was typing fast.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I would imagine a lot of people still remember what happened with Core2Duo vs. Core2Quad and how that eventually turned out. Add to that the fact that the prices between these two combos are strikingly close and that CPUs don't just benefit games and it's not all that surprising.

There you had a 100% increase in cores and now it is only 50% increase.

Also I would argue that the point of diminishing returns from higher threaded software is closer now with your starting point of a 4 core, 8 thread CPU, than when your starting point was a 2 core, 2 thread CPU.

 

[escrow4]

Pfft ROG and 6700K. An Extreme 4 and 5820K would knock it down once you start hammering threads. What USB issues? Only X99 issues I saw/see are the wonky OC socket on Asus X99 murdering those poor hexa cores and wonky BIOS's on Gigabyte's X99 boards.

 

[froggermuted]

I am happy with my 6700k so far.

I was thinking to go x99 instead but after reading about the problems with USB and XMP profiles on the cheaper x99 boards I decided to keep Skylake.

ASUS Z170 boards comes with a CPU installation tool to make sure you don't bend the socket pins.

What problem with usb and xmp profiles? and is the x99-a usb 3.1 concern by those issue? I bought yesterday the asus x99-a and F4-2800C16Q-16GRK. I was not aware of those kind of issue.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

stock/stock skylake is probably faster for gaming.

Overclocked I think the 5820K, the big cache will help it in games that aren't well threaded, and the extra 2 cores will increase the lead in those that are.

The 6700K is a very fast cpu, but it's priced too close to the 5820K imo. For skylake I'd probably get the 6600K.

 

[StrangerGuy]

stock/stock skylake is probably faster for gaming.

Overclocked I think the 5820K, the big cache will help it in games that aren't well threaded, and the extra 2 cores will increase the lead in those that are.

The 6700K is a very fast cpu, but it's priced too close to the 5820K imo. For skylake I'd probably get the 6600K.

Oh please what sort of gamer buys a 5820K and doesn't overclock?

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Oh please what sort of gamer buys a 5820K and doesn't overclock?

Wouldn't surprise me if there are a few. Most pc gamers never even change ingame settings.

 

[cbn]

It is not wise to overclock a machine that is used for productivity.

I know the LGA 1366 W3680 Xeon had an unlocked multiplier.

So whether overclocking was good or not Intel at least gave the person the choice in the past.

Now, beginning with E5 Xeon, all the production processors are locked down (even for bus overclocking*).

*Only very minor adjustment is possible. I think the most I have seen is something like a 10% gain (with 5% being more typical).

 

[Idontcare]

The Workstation LGA 1366 Xeons had unlocked multipliers.

So whether overclocking was good or not Intel at least gave the person the choice.

Now, beginning with E5 Xeon, these processors are locked down (even for bus overclocking*).

*Only very minor adjustment is possible. I think the most I have seen is something like a 10% gain (with 5% being more typical).

I remember once I overclocked a bunch of AMD processors that I was using for computational chemistry and the results came out very unexpected. My professor was all sorts of skeptical, I was not...but my professor had no idea I was OC'ing the CPUs at the time.

Then I set the CPUs back to stock clocks and re-ran the calculations. Lo and behold the results came back very very different.

That day I learned that there is a reason processors are tested, validated, and binned for their operating parameters. Just because the damned thing doesn't crash when OC'ing doesn't mean it won't compute 1+1=3.

 

[Dave3000]

Oh please what sort of gamer buys a 5820K and doesn't overclock?

A gamer that buys a 5820k for school work, business, and gaming but only wants to have one system that does it all, maybe due to a lack of funds or lack of space for a 2nd PC.

 

[LTC8K6]

I remember once I overclocked a bunch of AMD processors that I was using for computational chemistry and the results came out very unexpected. My professor was all sorts of skeptical, I was not...but my professor had no idea I was OC'ing the CPUs at the time.

Then I set the CPUs back to stock clocks and re-ran the calculations. Lo and behold the results came back very very different.

That day I learned that there is a reason processors are tested, validated, and binned for their operating parameters. Just because the damned thing doesn't crash when OC'ing doesn't mean it won't compute 1+1=3.

It's not really overclocked until the benchmarks get worse. 😀

 

[Shmee]

As mentioned before, if going the X99 route, the 5930k would be a wiser choice if you want a PCIE SSD and > 1 video card.

 

[know of fence]

Wow, looks like X99 + 5820K has won by a large margin. Very interesting.

Well, the results are a reflection of the desire of people to rationalize their purchase in hindsight, and Skylake is barely available, while plenty of folks heavily invested into the X99 platforms.
In actual use unless you stream video, or have to do regular encoding, number crunching or some kind of special circumstances, there is little reason to go with a cut down Xeon with a meager 3.3 GHz base. OC'ing which ramps the already high power consumption into the realm of 5 GHz FX-chips.

Don't get me wrong it's an alternative, and it's soldered as well. I'm even considering a mini-ITX X99 build myself, but at the end of the day regardless of how much money you blow on this rig, just knowing that there is a 5960 for "a cool grand", will make it feel inferior. 😀

 

[ClockHound]

I remember once I overclocked a bunch of AMD processors that I was using for computational chemistry and the results came out very unexpected. My professor was all sorts of skeptical, I was not...but my professor had no idea I was OC'ing the CPUs at the time.

Then I set the CPUs back to stock clocks and re-ran the calculations. Lo and behold the results came back very very different.

That day I learned that there is a reason processors are tested, validated, and binned for their operating parameters. Just because the damned thing doesn't crash when OC'ing doesn't mean it won't compute 1+1=3.

And this is how the stress-testing discipline was created.

This 'penicillin moment' for computational chemistry would prove that different isn't necessarily wrong, and lay the chemical foundation for the unexpected possibility that computer systems could use cases with colors other than beige.

 

[RussianSensation]

As mentioned before, if going the X99 route, the 5930k would be a wiser choice if you want a PCIE SSD and > 1 video card.

If we dive deeper into various motherboards, we can see this isn't the case, yet what you said keeps being repeated on forums like gospel.

1) Scenario with a lower end X99 motherboard - For example Asrock X99 Extreme 4:

5820K has 28 lanes. That means on most motherboard, it can work as 16x/8x + M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 configuration.

16x for the 1st GPU
8x for the 2nd GPU
4x for the PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 SSD

"*If you install CPU with 28 lanes, PCIE1/PCIE3/PCIE5 will run at x16/x8/x4.

What happens when we insert the M.2 PCIe SSD? The 3rd PCIe slot gets disabled - but this is for the 3rd videocard so it's irrelevant.

**If M.2 PCI Express module is installed, PCIE5 slot will be disabled.
***If you install CPU with 28 lanes, 3-Way SLI™ is not supported.
****To support 3-Way SLI™, please install the CPU with 40 lanes."
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99 Extreme4/?cat=Specifications

Going from PCIe 3.0 x16 to x8 is a 0-1% performance hit.

In this case, on a lower end X99 board, 5930K is only necessary when running 3 GPUs or 3GPUs + PCIe SSD or if running 2 GPUs + 2x PCIe SSDs, etc.

2) Scenario - higher end X99 motherboard such as Asrock X99 Professional:

It gets better, some higher end boards can do Tri-SLI/Tri-Fire + M.2 PCIe SSD with a 5820K.

"* If you install CPU with 28 lanes, PCIE1/PCIE2/PCIE3/PCIE4/PCIE5 will run at x16/x0/x4/x8/x0 or x8/x8/x4/x8/x0, and PCIE5 will be disabled.
** To support 3-Way CrossFireX™ and 3-Way SLI™ when using CPU with 28 lanes, please install VGA cards to PCIE1/PCIE2/PCIE4 (x8/x8/x8). * If Ultra M.2 PCI Express module is installed, PCIE3 slot will be disabled."

That means it's possible to run 5820K + GTX980 Tri-SLI in PCIe slots 1, 2, 4 and still have PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty X99 Professional3.1/

In conclusion, if someone is buying a 5930K over 5820K for dual GPUs and a single M.2. PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD, they are just wasting $ that could be used towards better cooling, monitor, games, etc. Since some boards can even support 8x/8x/8x + x4 on a 5820K, it requires additional research to be able to discount the 5820K as well.

In actual use unless you stream video, or have to do regular encoding, number crunching or some kind of special circumstances, there is little reason to go with a cut down Xeon with a meager 3.3 GHz base. OC'ing which ramps the already high power consumption into the realm of 5 GHz FX-chips.

Don't get me wrong it's an alternative, and it's soldered as well. I'm even considering a mini-ITX X99 build myself, but at the end of the day regardless of how much money you blow on this rig, just knowing that there is a 5960 for "a cool grand", will make it feel inferior. 😀

For mini-ITX (in the living room), wouldn't the 35W i7-6700T be a cool option too? 🙂

In that case why even buy an i7 over the i5? Another way to look at it is going from an i5-6600K to i7-6700K just adds a bit more cache, HT and slightly higher clocks. Paying a bit extra over the i7-6700K adds 2 more cores. What do you think is going to matter more over the next 5 years?

1) $110 extra to get HT + 2MB cache and slightly higher clocks
2) ~ $80-100 extra to get 2 more cores that have HT and even more cache?

You are right that if power usage is a key factor and you want this rig in your living room, don't want to OC, i7-6700k is a safer choice. Having said that I don't think people are picking 5820K over 6700K just to justify their purchase. Even for someone who doesn't own either, it's not a clear slam dunk for the 6700K for now imo. I will say that some people buying X99 sometimes have the urge to buy $400-550 boards which completely destroys the value proposition of the X99 platform. In that case 6700K will start to pull away significantly in terms of bang-for-the-buck. I've seen some people buy a 5820K with a $550 board which is just absurd and a complete waste of $. I feel like those boards are made specifically for 5930K or even 5960X.

However difficult the choice is now with 5820K, it's only going to get worse for 6700K if Intel launches Broadwell-E in Q1 2016 and it's going to get ever harder to recommend the 6700K once Skylake-E launches in Q3/4 2016 if the overall platform premium will be just $100. I foresee Skylake-E overclocking well and running cooler than 6700K OC since it'll have solder and better binned chips. There might be a 200-300mhz disadvantage at the top speeds but from nearly every review I've read, 6700K OC is hitting 80-92*C when all the CPU is maxed out and that's on great coolers like Noctua NH-D14/15, Corsair H100/110i. These temperatures are probably fine and won't kill the CPU since Intel tends to rate them to 100*C but still, sounds like the use of TIM, no matter how good the TIM is, was a low blow again!

Maybe Intel has a cunning plan to get more PC gamers to move to the workstation platform since they make more $ selling chipsets on those boards than they would on Z170.

Also, I think a lot of gamers are not ready to discount DX12. If DX12 games come through, we could start to see 6-core CPUs provide a tangible advantage over quads over the next 5 years. Consider another scenario where you have 20-50 tabs open, a bunch of Excel/Word/PDF documents for work, and you decide to launch a game. Are you going to close all of that just to play a game for 1-2 hours? With a 6-core, you probably don't even have to think about it.

I just think a lot of budget/younger gamers are going to pick the i5 series since they are more likely to allocate the savings towards a better monitor/videocard. Someone looking for an i7 is probably not so much concerned about budget and if performing work on their computer is more likely to consider spending just a bit more for the 6-core. I think the i7-6700K is overpriced for what it is. I feel like Intel should have clocked it at 4.4Ghz or maybe allowed all 4 cores to hit 4.2Ghz on all motherboards. I guess they are saving it for Kaby Lake.

 

[cytg111]

I remember once I overclocked a bunch of AMD processors that I was using for computational chemistry and the results came out very unexpected. My professor was all sorts of skeptical, I was not...but my professor had no idea I was OC'ing the CPUs at the time.

Then I set the CPUs back to stock clocks and re-ran the calculations. Lo and behold the results came back very very different.

That day I learned that there is a reason processors are tested, validated, and binned for their operating parameters. Just because the damned thing doesn't crash when OC'ing doesn't mean it won't compute 1+1=3.

I'd like an in-depth explanation article, some day, of how that can happen. In my mind it should crash all week all day long before consistently spitting out wrong arithmetic. There is arithmetic performed with addressing as well, why one should 'fail' and the other not... Maybe its division, taylor approx, simdx - specifically that borks.. Dunno, would like to know (and why) 🙂.

 

[utahraptor]

I really was ready to build a new PC, but with this thread and others I can't help but feel that this is the absolute worst time to build a new rig. Broadwell e is right around the corner, but I hear it will use the x99 dinosaur chipset. Skylake comes with some pretty mobos, but Intel has essentially admitted its a half baked release and Kaby Lake is the one to get. Getting Haswell e just feels wrong. That is like paying full price for a 2 year old steam game.

 

[jpiniero]

Where's the Skylake-C option? I'd vote for Skylake-C because of the edram. And that compute power... still wondering when Intel will add legit HSA features to at least make use of it. Probably will have to wait until AMD is gone.

I really was ready to build a new PC, but with this thread and others I can't help but feel that this is the absolute worst time to build a new rig. Broadwell e is right around the corner, but I hear it will use the x99 dinosaur chipset. Skylake comes with some pretty mobos, but Intel has essentially admitted its a half baked release and Kaby Lake is the one to get. Getting Haswell e just feels wrong. That is like paying full price for a 2 year old steam game.

Kabylake is really a stopgap measure and you shouldn't expect much from it other than a Gen10 IGP. Maybe very small clock speed and/or TDP tweaks.

 

[Maximilian]

Add DX-12 multithreding in games and anyone going for a Quad(HT or not) in 2025 will run in serious trouble soon.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I really was ready to build a new PC, but with this thread and others I can't help but feel that this is the absolute worst time to build a new rig. Broadwell e is right around the corner, but I hear it will use the x99 dinosaur chipset. Skylake comes with some pretty mobos, but Intel has essentially admitted its a half baked release and Kaby Lake is the one to get. Getting Haswell e just feels wrong. That is like paying full price for a 2 year old steam game.

Completely disagree; this is a good time to build a new PC.

Kabylake will be an iGPU improvement only most likely, no improvement on CPU. Broadwell-E is on the way, but it probably won't be that big of an upgrade over Haswell-E.