The 6700/6700k are neglected CPUs for budget builds and the 6600k is a farce.

[[DHT]Osiris]

30 dollar boards are exactly how people end up on 'help me' forums with random bluescreens, non-booting systems, memory errors, and FSM know what else going wrong with their systems.

Seriously, mow two more yards or help someone move a couch upstairs and get a $100 board at minimum.

 

[Thinker_145]

30 dollar boards are exactly how people end up on 'help me' forums with random bluescreens, non-booting systems, memory errors, and FSM know what else going wrong with their systems.

Seriously, mow two more yards or help someone move a couch upstairs and get a $100 board at minimum.

Nobody was talking about $30 board but $50 boards from well known brands! If you have some proof of those boards causing the problems then share some with us.

 

[Thinker_145]

So in your budget oriented view, the $350 i7 6700 @ 4Ghz is not quite as good as the $410 i7 6700k @ 4.2Ghz (since one is arguably better than 6600k, while the other is downright superior). You do realize by doing this you just advised budget gamers to spend $60 for a measly 5% improved CPU performance, with probably no perceivable impact in gaming performance.


You want a good argument in favor of 6600k? It offers the best ST performance at the lowest price. Whether that is convincing or needed by a budget gamer is indeed debatable, but the 6600k is hardly a farce.

Because boost numbers are overrated, they are likely not going to be there when you really need it.

The 6700 is a 3.4Ghz CPU and the 6700k is a 4Ghz one. That's how it should be seen and it is a pretty significant difference.

 

[Thinker_145]

I beg to differ on the 6600k. 85-98% of the performance clock-for-clock for 2/3 the cost makes more sense to me. The HT tax is ridiculous.

The 6600k isn't worth it due to it's extra motherboard and cooling costs. It's not merely a 2/3 cost thing.

 

[coercitiv]

Because boost numbers are overrated, they are likely not going to be there when you really need it.

The 6700 is a 3.4Ghz CPU and the 6700k is a 4Ghz one. That's how it should be seen and it is a pretty significant difference.

This post is quite inaccurate, and also makes me wonder how you still prefer the i7 over i5 considering your negatively skewed view on i7 boost clocks.

First, the boost clock for 6700 when all cores are loaded is 3.7Ghz. It will work at least at this speed while gaming on a dGPU, no exception.

Second, since we are talking about squeezing performance out of a budget system, most desktop motherboards allow the user to force the max multiplier even when all cores are loaded. Therefore, for the purpose of our discussion, the i5 6500 is at 3.6Ghz, i7 6700 is at 4Ghz, and i7 6700K is at 4.2Ghz.

The 6600k isn't worth it due to it's extra motherboard and cooling costs. It's not merely a 2/3 cost thing.

As outlined in previous posts, the 6600K is a $350 build, the same cost as the budget i7 6700 build. While it loses HT, it does provide a 12-15% increase in frequency which helps mitigate some of the throughput disadvantage and may also provide superior performance in a number of games.

As I previously stated, you have yet to provide a solid argument to prove 6600K is a farce.

 

[Thinker_145]

This post is quite inaccurate, and also makes me wonder how you still prefer the i7 over i5 considering your negatively skewed view on i7 boost clocks.

First, the boost clock for 6700 when all cores are loaded is 3.7Ghz. It will work at least at this speed while gaming on a dGPU, no exception.

Second, since we are talking about squeezing performance out of a budget system, most desktop motherboards allow the user to force the max multiplier even when all cores are loaded. Therefore, for the purpose of our discussion, the i5 6500 is at 3.6Ghz, i7 6700 is at 4Ghz, and i7 6700K is at 4.2Ghz.


As outlined in previous posts, the 6600K is a $350 build, the same cost as the budget i7 6700 build. While it loses HT, it does provide a 12-15% increase in frequency which helps mitigate some of the throughput disadvantage and may also provide superior performance in a number of games.

As I previously stated, you have yet to provide a solid argument to prove 6600K is a farce.

I just care about the clock speed at full workload which apparently I am wrong on the 6700. You do realize that makes the 6600k worse right?

There is no way you are getting 4.5Ghz with stock Intel cooler which is what you will get in $350. You will need to spend at least $370. The argument is pretty simple. It is simply not worth limiting yourself to 4 threads for such an immaterial price difference and ST performance compared to the 6700k.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[nerp]

This post is quite inaccurate, and also makes me wonder how you still prefer the i7 over i5 considering your negatively skewed view on i7 boost clocks.

First, the boost clock for 6700 when all cores are loaded is 3.7Ghz. It will work at least at this speed while gaming on a dGPU, no exception.

My non-K i7-6700 boosts to 3.9ghz and stays there while encoding or gaming.

 

[PingSpike]

Overclocks are not guaranteed, and they take time to properly test. And its my feeling the "average" overclock has always been exaggerated. People come on and brag about great overclocks. People come on and post their overclocks that are only stable enough to run a cpu-z cap before crashing. People who get lame overclocks after running extensive tests for hours probably don't post them in their sig. People in forums are always recommending some one (often with little experience)

I'd say shoddy not-actually-stable overclocks that users were told were "guaranteed" by some guys on a forum before they bought such and such chip are the real most common cause of blue screens and unexplained crashes these days, not cheap motherboards.

But we'll never know for sure!

 

[Erithan13]

My non-K i7-6700 boosts to 3.9ghz and stays there while encoding or gaming.

Huh. Mine won't budge one bit above 3.7ghz when highly loaded. Multicore enhancement (supposed to get all cores to 4ghz not just one) doesn't do anything either, seem to recall reading that feature was nerfed for non-k CPUs since Haswell? Not that 300mhz makes a huge difference but the extra speed would be nice if it's for free.

 

[coercitiv]

I just care about the clock speed at full workload which apparently I am wrong on the 6700. You do realize that makes the 6600k worse right?

I do realize that, but I also thought we are having this debate in order to establish truths based on facts... for the good of the anonymous budget gamer.

There is no way you are getting 4.5Ghz with stock Intel cooler which is what you will get in $350. You will need to spend at least $370.

This point was already covered in a previous post, you can add whatever cooler you chose for the 6700K on the 6000K and it will overclock, provided that the unit can efficiently cool the 6700K @ 4.2Ghz in the first place.

The argument is pretty simple. It is simply not worth limiting yourself to 4 threads for such an immaterial price difference and ST performance compared to the 6700k.

May I humbly remind you the topic of the thread: CPU choice for budget gaming. Since when has the most expensive mainstream CPU become an immaterial addition to a budget gaming rig?

 

[coercitiv]

Overclocks are not guaranteed, and they take time to properly test. And its my feeling the "average" overclock has always been exaggerated. People come on and brag about great overclocks. People come on and post their overclocks that are only stable enough to run a cpu-z cap before crashing. People who get lame overclocks after running extensive tests for hours probably don't post them in their sig. People in forums are always recommending some one (often with little experience)

Very interesting point of view, can you come up with some data as to the real overclock potential of the average 6600k?

I'd say shoddy not-actually-stable overclocks that users were told were "guaranteed" by some guys on a forum before they bought such and such chip are the real most common cause of blue screens and unexplained crashes these days, not cheap motherboards.

So you would argue that overcloking is what's really wrong in the PC industry nowadays, as it has always been the case?

 

[whm1974]

To me, budget CPUs are the Pentium G4400/G4500 and the i3-6100. Not the i5 and i7 CPUs. What is the OP smoking? I mean really, just who in their right mind would consider $200 to $300+ CPUs to be budget?

 

[Ansau]

To me, budget CPUs are the Pentium G4400/G4500 and the i3-6100. Not the i5 and i7 CPUs. What is the OP smoking? I mean really, just who in their right mind would consider $200 to $300+ CPUs to be budget?

This.
With the rest of a pc (8GB RAM, ssd+hdd, case and PSU) costing near 300 bucks, a +300 cpu+motherboard combo is a no-go for a budget build if you still have to add gpu price.

And the 6600k isn't a farce. A lot of people play games (mmo, rpg, simulators) or work with professional software (CAD, CAM, simulation) that doesn't benefit from HT and demand as much single core performance as you can. For these situations, the 6600k is the best price/performance cpu out there...

 

[Headfoot]

Given how much better the 2600k is holding up over a 2500k today, and how slow CPUs are advancing, you could very easily keep a 6700k for years longer than a 6600k due to the 8 threads. 100% worth the small increase in price.

 

[whm1974]

I agree that the 6700/6700K is a good value long term, but it's silly to cripple them with a cheap H110 board.

 

[Boze]

Just because Intel now has a $1750 "Enthusiast" processor doesn't mean $300 - $350 is now the budget arena.

I define budget CPUs in a similar breakdown of pricing structure as I define budget GPUs. $500 - $1000 is your top-end arena for GPUs, $300-$500 is your mid-range, and $100 - $300 is your budget area.

For CPUs, $75 - $150 seems to be the budget area, $150 - $250 is the mid-range, and $250+ is your high-end. Not sure what world we're living in where desktop CPUs with 4 cores / 8 threads are considered "budget", but its not the real world. The average person buying the pre-built system at Sam's Club or Best Buy for $500 gets a Core i3-6100, or an AMD A10 variant. Maybe an i5 if they're lucky. To even step into i7 territory, you've gotta drop $700 or more.

You guys need to remember that if you're even reading this forum, you're an enthusiast, not an average consumer.

 

[coercitiv]

So mate, trust me, get the 6700K for $60 more now even if means you have less than 150$ left for your GPU. The difference is peanut money, in a few months you can invest more in a real GPU just like the real CPU you have, and you'll be cruising. In fact you can save quite a few bucks by not buying the next few AAA games and upgrade even faster! It's genius: don't play games and your rig will become ever more powerful!

The text above doesn't ring a bell? Try making a brand new $1000 PC for gaming, with nothing to start - no software license, no monitor, no case or PSU - clean start. I'd say that's a budget right there. Feel free to do the same for $1200 and/or $1500 and see how options change. Some may finally realize CPU choice cannot be made in a vacuum and the most expensive CPU is not always the best choice at the moment of purchase, even if it were so from a theoretical long term investment point of view.

 

[nerp]

Huh. Mine won't budge one bit above 3.7ghz when highly loaded. Multicore enhancement (supposed to get all cores to 4ghz not just one) doesn't do anything either, seem to recall reading that feature was nerfed for non-k CPUs since Haswell? Not that 300mhz makes a huge difference but the extra speed would be nice if it's for free.

Maybe I'm lucky. I figured that was normal. It will pop 3.7ghz when i'm loading a web page but will jump to 3.9 while gaming and encoding. Well, 3.88ghz to be exact.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree. For a high performance build you really want those extra threads, but in truth, the best value is the Haswell Refresh Xeon E3-1231 V3. It's nothing less than a 4770 without integrated graphics.

$244 for the CPU, $37 for a cheapo Gigabyte H81 board. $281 in total for a 4C/8T 3.4/3.8GHz Haswell Refresh CPU.

Although if it were me, I would pair it with an $80 Z97 board and DDR3-2400.

Well, that's what I did.

 

[HumblePie]

Umm, as for cooling, I can speak a bit for various cooling for the 6700K and overclocking with my experience. As I've gone through a few with a big order to build myself a system and systems for a few friends all at once. Basically the 6700K will always reach 4.4Ghz regardless of the cooling solution used in my experience. Getting over 4.4Ghz is the rub though. Better board helps a little, better cooling helps a little, but even with the best board and really good cooling, you might get 100Mhz more on a 6700K if that is the absolute max of that chip. The 6700K really is luck of the draw on overclocks. Some can reach 4.9Ghz with shit cooling on shit boards. Others won't go over 4.4Ghz with the best setup. Even turning off HT does nothing for the overclocking potential of 6700Ks. It's a massive pain in the ass lottery. I hadn't tried the 6600K series, but from what I read/heard it is similar for overclocks.

So when people say the average overclock for a 6600K is 4.5Ghz and the average for a 6700K is 4.4Ghz that is pretty damn spot on. Going over those is basically winning the lottery. My current rig was the best of the lot of 6700Ks I tried. Of which I tried about 5 of them. It hits 4.7Ghz, but ran hotter and with higher voltage than I would like even if it was stable with at least 24 hour prime95 stability and a few other burn/stability tests. But at 4.6Ghz it does so at much lower voltage and lower temps for stability. So I leave it there. Of the other chips only 1 could do 4.6Ghz stable but it was hot and high volts. 2 others hit 4.5Ghz no problem but weren't stable at all over that. The last one ran beautifully at 4.4Ghz, but wouldn't go a lick over it. Wouldn't even post regardless of what I tried with it. I could under volt it at 4.4Ghz and it ran cool, quiet, and stable, but anything over 4.4Ghz was a complete no go.Very strange chips these 6700Ks. Anyone that has good low voltage/temp 6700K chips over 4.6Ghz are very lucky bastards.

Still, over all I can't tell a real performance difference between 4.4Ghz and 4.7Ghz with a 6700K when I was doing all my testing. So while I kept the "best" of the bunch for personal bragging reasons, I didn't feel like I was giving my friends shit because their cpus didn't reach 4.6Ghz or higher. In fact I left them all at 4.4Ghz on purpose because it was just nicer for them really as the temps and volts were better that way. Most of them opted for cheaper air cooling solutions anyhow and for the most part their systems were quieter than my water setup with that fans on my rad.

 

[scannall]

My idea of a budget build is $500 or less. The Intel parts are nice and all, but not a budget build. Perhaps a well thought out mid-range though.

 

[coercitiv]

The 6700K really is luck of the draw on overclocks. Some can reach 4.9Ghz with shit cooling on shit boards. Others won't go over 4.4Ghz with the best setup. Even turning off HT does nothing for the overclocking potential of 6700Ks. It's a massive pain in the ass lottery. I hadn't tried the 6600K series, but from what I read/heard it is similar for overclocks.

AFAIK it is quite similar for 6600k: you can reliably poke around 4.5Ghz, but going over that depends on chip quality.

This overclocking thread has some very nice insights into what to expect from overclocking Skylake chips. Median oc is 4.7Ghz, median voltage is 1.38V, however the value with the highest degree of confidence is still 4.5Ghz. I expect values have improved over time, in the sense that newer chips may be able to reliably hit higher frequencies (100-200Mhz higher, nothing drastic and likely not affecting top overclocks).

 

[HumblePie]

My idea of a budget build is $500 or less. The Intel parts are nice and all, but not a budget build. Perhaps a well thought out mid-range though.

I do budget builds with used parts, not new parts.

 

[Boze]

Some may finally realize CPU choice cannot be made in a vacuum

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. People always talk about how it only costs X amount of dollars, where "X" is always some poorly defined variable which is not inclusive of reasonable situations and use cases.

Perfect example is the jump to 4K. If you invest in a 4K monitor, you're looking at a minimum of $500 for a GPU that can drive games at 30-60 FPS at medium or greater quality settings, and with high-end GPUs like that, you absolutely must have a high-end CPU, which has been addressed several times here at AnandTech in articles.

My rig is a great example of this; I wanted 60 FPS at 4096 x 2160, and the only way to consistently and reliably achieve that was with 3 GTX 980 Ti cards.

 

[Smoblikat]

Because id rather have a $100 2500K and a Z68/Z77 board for another $120.