Three CPUs.....One Choice.....

[CrashPad]

Ok.....I swore I would not post one of these.....but...I have no choice as I need to make a decision.

I have long upgrade cycles. I do not really intend to over clock.
My current PC....is well.....let us not mention it.

I have procrastinated for too long and relly need to take the plunge.

So, three builds. What is quite interesting is that the builds are not too far apart in terms of cost.

My main requirement are somthing that will last 5+ years. Somthing that will be able to handle video and picture archive/editing and light gaming.

These three builds should pretty much do that...but which is best price/performance?

Build 1 - i7 - 6700k (£301) Asus 170 pro (£112) Corsair Vengence 16GB (£87) Geforce 450 Ti (£99). Samsung Evo 256 (71.38)

Along with other items - the build comes to £987

Build 2 - Swaps out the cpu and mob for a i7-5820k (£289) and and ASRock x99 Extreme 3 (£168) Total around £1007

Build 3 - i7-4790k (£259) Gigabyte ud5h black (£134) 16gb corsair DDR3 (£69) Total £919

I did not expect the prices to be so close. Hence my procrastination and dilema.

Thoughts? Is a x99 over kill? I do not know how heavy my video editing load will be. It is not for professional (constant) use. So is even an i7 overkill.

Or will a decent i5 actually do all the things I want!

Help....and force me to buy one.....my aged machine will not last too much longer.....

 

[stockwiz]

Tough call... I'd say either a 6700K or a 5820K depending on your usage... if intel had better thermal compound or soldered the IHS on the skylake parts I'd give the edge to skylake... 6 cores running at 4.4 ghz or 4 cores running at 4.6 ghz with newer architecture?

If you game mostly, take the skylake part... if you do a lot of video encoding or other work that tasks the CPU to 100%, take the haswell-E part.

Either part will last you years with the above mentioned processors. Personally I would not get the 6600K but that's me.

You can always hold off on the video card and use the IGP on the 6700K for now.

 

[jhu]

What programs will you run on the new machine?

 

[Ken g6]

Geforce 450 Ti (£99).

I know this is the CPU forum, but that's quite an old GPU, for an excessively high price. Unless you already own it, you should get something better. Perhaps you meant 750 Ti?

Edit: On-topic, the i7 6700 non-K is out, costs less, and is only a little slower.

 

[alcoholbob]

Kaby Lake will be great, but Skylake TIM is terrible. During idle it runs about 10C cooler than a comparable Haswell, but during load it's like 15C hotter. Once delidded they run way cooler than Haswell chips so it's just poor TIM.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I'm biased, but if you're willing to overclock the 5820K is the better overall choice. The price difference between all three is negligible over a 5 year span.

 

[TeknoBug]

lol that Geforce 450 Ti had to be a typo.

 

[know of fence]

I don't even consider old node tech for a second, when the new stuff is out.

In five years you won't try to remember, "After the Brigdes, there were Wells: Has and Broad and then there was a Lake in the Sky." No. You'll look at CPU-Z and think, 22 nm, sheeeeet must be ancient!

 

[ehume]

Now is a tough time to be faced with a dilemma. I had to replace a mechanically damaged 4790k recently. I went with another 4790k because I could just drop it in and go. The new CPU surprised me by being a better chip new than the old chip of the same model was when new.

I have a Haswell -- i7 4770k. It's nowhere near as good as the Devil's Canyon chips. As I see it, Skylake is in the same position as Haswell -- gimped by inferior sub-IHS TIM. We are all anticipating Kaby Lake will represent the same improvement over Skylake that Devil's Canyon was over Haswell.

So, I'd wait if I could. I myself am waiting for Kaby Lake so I can replace my Haswell.

But if you have to upgrade now, you choices are:

6700 (new tech, but gimped)
5820 (older tech but 6-core)
4760 (same older tech and has been improving during the year since it was released)

When you say "Something that will be able to handle video and picture archive/editing and light gaming," and we focus on the "editing," that says "use as many cores as possible." So: wait or get the 5820.

 

[myocardia]

This one is pretty simple, Crashpad. If you already have 16GB of decent DDR3, then build #3 is for you. Since it doesn't sound as if you already have DDR3, cross #3 (4790K) off your list. Now, if you plan on gaming most days, and very occasionally doing video/picture editing, then build #1 (the 6700k) is the build for you. However, if you plan on spending the majority of your time doing video editing, then build #2 (the 5820k) is the build for you. The slower clockspeed 5820k will be by far the fastest at doing video creation/editing/transcoding, because it has 50% more cores than the other two options, even if you don't overclock it.

They will all be just fine for gaming, although the 5820k will be considerably slower in most games, unless you overclock it (with a few standouts like GTA V, BF4, and The Witcher 3, where the 5820k will be the fastest, even if you don't overclock). They will all also be just fine for photo editing, plus or minus a few seconds, here or there.

edit: BTW, it sounds as if even the slowest of the three choices will be many, many times faster than your current system.

 

[alcoholbob]

There's also some scaling for Frostbite engine above 4 cores (I think. Either that or it's the additional cache):

4790K @ 4.8GHz = 42fps

5820K @ 4.6GHz = 51fps

 

[DigDog]

wait .. what?
early news said skylake would have zero TIM issues. something like.. "Intel has learned from past mistakes, yadda yadda.."

 

[ShintaiDK]

There's also some scaling for Frostbite engine above 4 cores (I think. Either that or it's the additional cache):

4790K @ 4.8GHz = 42fps
5820K @ 4.6GHz = 51fps

Most likely cache/quadchannel.

 

[lyssword]

weird seeing 42 vs 51 fps, I mean that scene doesn't look like 64 players blowing shit up, what is taking up all the cpu cycles?

 

[alcoholbob]

weird seeing 42 vs 51 fps, I mean that scene doesn't look like 64 players blowing shit up, what is taking up all the cpu cycles?

Probably the rain in the scene is my guess. I believe it's 60fps during clear weather.

 

[lyssword]

Probably the rain in the scene is my guess. I believe it's 60fps during clear weather.

Ah, makes sense

 

[sm625]

weird seeing 42 vs 51 fps, I mean that scene doesn't look like 64 players blowing shit up, what is taking up all the cpu cycles?

Probably the pine needles.

 

[CrashPad]

Thanks for the thoughts

Yes....the Geforce was a typo - I ment to put 750ti. Good price/performance ratio and not to power hungry. I do not intend to do any heavy gaming.

The whole build it leaning towards content creation.

One thing confuses me.

When so many programmes (and I am talking real life and not synthetic benchmarks) seem to be so poorly coded that they do not make use of a four core (8 thread machine). How is it the case than a 6 core machine is more suited for them?

Adobe is a case in point. I have seen numerous reviews which point out that adobe still performs best in single core use ...most of the time.

I am unsure about avid and sony vegas....

I always find it an odd contradiction.....more cores for multimedia use is always best but the software is often not optimised for 4 cores...never mind more.

 

[Ken g6]

Adobe is a case in point. I have seen numerous reviews which point out that adobe still performs best in single core use ...most of the time.

I am unsure about avid and sony vegas....

I always find it an odd contradiction.....more cores for multimedia use is always best but the software is often not optimised for 4 cores...never mind more.

It's true, a 6 core machine isn't always best, particularly for Photoshop. Also for many games.

The slower clockspeed 5820k will be by far the fastest at doing video creation/editing/transcoding

But not at Photoshop.

I'm biased, but if you're willing to overclock the 5820K is the better overall choice.

If you overclock, the 5820K can reach speeds similar to a 4790K. That would also make it a good choice for Photoshop.

On the other hand, I've seen some benchmarks indicating that Photoshop in particular runs much better on the 6600K/6700K than on a 4790K.

 

[lyssword]

Probably the pine needles.

Do you think it's the DX api calls for each needle? I mean it seems like inneficient programming to require 12 top-end threads just for to be barely playable

 

[tweakboy]

If you do video editing your going to need more then that POS 450 ... I dont know much on ATI's side but I can recommend you get a 760 Ti GTX ,,, make sure to get a 4GB version. the 760 crushes that 450 into many pieces... GL

 

[tweakboy]

Also Photoshop will be smoother and faster of course.
Premiere or Vegas will use your GPU as well.

Sandy 2600k is a beuatiful CPU that will go hand in hand. My father uses those Adobe apps and has never complained about speed or bugs. It will not be a bottleneck I ashure you that. gl

 

[saraz]

build 2 looks like a winner