6700k vs 5820k for pure gaming, a quick help before I order.

[Rashi12]

Hey:)

I post here because I cant find my self to be able to decide what to take for my newst gaming build.

6/10 posts I read say 5820k is alot better than the 6700k both for gaming right now and for future gaming. due to DX12 might use more cores etc.

Spoke to x2 salesmen and they both say the 6700k is the best option since its brand new.

What Iam afraid of is childissues, smaller problems that usually accurs when a new product arrives. 

I choose between
6700k and a asus z170-a
or a 
5820k and a asus X99-deluxe board
The computer will run 32Gb RAm and 1 or two 980ti Cards.
Keep in mind I know the 5820 build is alot more expensive. but that´s not an issue atm!

is it stupid to spend so much money on 5820 and just go with the skylake?

Thanks in beforehand!

[LegacyStijncat]

i5-4690K.

 

EDIT: if you HAVE to choose, 5820K

[Oshino Shinobu]

Go for the 5820K. The 6700K is technically faster for games right now, but both will give the same FPS, and you get a better platform with X99, as well as a more powerful CPU for things other than games. 

 

EDIT: However, if you're purely gaming, a 4690K would probably be a better option. Overall, it will be cheaper and perform the same. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

since price is not an issue fr your get the best,  5820k or higher if possible although, for gaming only an i5 is required currently

[pwn_intended]

Only time will actually tell. They are probably quite evenly stacked with the 6700k being slightly better due to higher OC potential and better IPC. That being said, IF WHEN games start being more multithreaded (ie taking advantage of more than 8 threads) then the Haswell-E cpus will be a little better.

[thekeemo]

NEVER listen to salespeople EVER

5820k

[LIGISTX]

I totally vote 6700k. You are paying more for x99 for stuff you just don't need, and even with DX12, a 6700 will still kill games. It will be a LONG TIME before the extra cores on the x99 platform outweigh the higher clock speeds you can get on a 6700k after overclocking it. Plus, 8 threads on the 6700k is still not a trivial amount, that is a lot of potential power, especially when you run it at like 4.6 GHz....... 6700k for sure!

[CostcoSamples]

I would say they are pretty equal.  z170 may have some of the latest features not found on most x99 boards.  USB 3.1 comes to mind (which is available on a limited number of x99 boards).  z170 may also feature better support for things like NVMe drives which might not be a big deal for you right now, but could be in the future.

 

6700k has higher clock speed, so it gets my vote.  4 cores/8 threads is plenty for high end gaming.  The trade off is more cores vs higher clock speed.  For gaming, higher clock speed wins.  

The only thing is,if you are set on running 3 or 4 way SLI, or even 2 way SLI plus a PCIe SSD.  In that case, you'll want the x99 because of the extra PCIe lanes.  

[bomerr]

5820k owner here.

 

Go with the 5820k. 

 

Asus deluxe is really overpriced mobo. Go with a 5820k and a cheaper mobo like the asus x99-a or x99-pro. 

 

 

Only time will actually tell. They are probably quite evenly stacked with the 6700k being slightly better due to higher OC potential and better IPC. That being said, IF WHEN games start being more multithreaded (ie taking advantage of more than 8 threads) then the Haswell-E cpus will be a little better.

 

Modern games such as GTA V and Witcher 3 already take advantage of 6 cores. It's just that they aren't bottlenecked by 4C/8T just yet. 

[DarkSmith2]

For Gaming, get fastest for Gaming, 6700k

5820k is slow as fuck for gaming unless you watercool and absurdly overclock it.

[JetPowerss]

The 5820K has 28 PCI lanes whereas the 6700K only has 16 PCI lanes. If you plan to SLI then X99 will be better in that case especially with the increase of PCI-E storage and other devices using the PCI lanes.

[typographie]

I'm a bit confused by all the 5820K proponents coming out of the woodwork lately. In games that "only" scale with 8 threads (most don't even do that) the 5820K was already equal to or even slightly slower than an i7-4790K. Why on earth would it be faster than a 6700K now?

 

Same advice as always as far as I'm concerned: if you don't need the extra cores for productivity, you don't need three or more GPUs, and you don't need 128 GB of memory, go with the mainstream platform.

[Dinkleberg]

I vote 6600K, it's the best CPU for pure gaming, don't waste your money on i7 in pure gaming rigs, i7 CPUs (like AMD CPUs) have no place in a gaming rig. You can get an i5 6600K and a Noctua NH-D15, Phanteks PH-TC14PE or be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 for the price of a 6700K and you can easily overclock it to 4.5-4.6 GHz and it'll perform better than an i7 in games.

The 5820K has 28 PCI lanes whereas the 6700K only has 16 PCI lanes. If you plan to SLI then X99 will be better in that case especially with the increase of PCI-E storage and other devices using the PCI lanes.

20 PCIe lanes*

[JetPowerss]

I vote 6600K, it's the best CPU for pure gaming, don't waste your money on i7 in pure gaming rigs, i7 CPUs (like AMD CPUs) have no place in a gaming rig. You can get an i5 6600K and a Noctua NH-D15, Phanteks PH-TC14PE or be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 for the price of a 6700K and you can easily overclock it to 4.5-4.6 GHz and it'll perform better than an i7 in games.

20 PCIe lanes*

http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

 

Also I agree with you there. An i5 is plenty for gaming. Anything more is for different work loads. Also the extra threads aren't used by games. My i5 4690K is out performing a i7 4790K at stock speeds as I've overclocked it over the speeds of a i7 and I don't need the other cores in games.

[bomerr]

I vote 6600K, it's the best CPU for pure gaming, don't waste your money on i7 in pure gaming rigs, i7 CPUs (like AMD CPUs) have no place in a gaming rig. You can get an i5 6600K and a Noctua NH-D15, Phanteks PH-TC14PE or be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 for the price of a 6700K and you can easily overclock it to 4.5-4.6 GHz and it'll perform better than an i7 in games.

20 PCIe lanes*

 

http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

 

Also I agree with you there. An i5 is plenty for gaming. Anything more is for different work loads. Also the extra threads aren't used by games. My i5 4690K is out performing a i7 4790K at stock speeds as I've overclocked it over the speeds of a i7 and I don't need the other cores in games.

[bomerr]

I'm a bit confused by all the 5820K proponents coming out of the woodwork lately. In games that "only" scale with 8 threads (most don't even do that) the 5820K was already equal to or even slightly slower than an i7-4790K. Why on earth would it be faster than a 6700K now?

 

Same advice as always as far as I'm concerned: if you don't need the extra cores for productivity, you don't need three or more GPUs, and you don't need 128 GB of memory, go with the mainstream platform.

There are only a few games where the faster single core 4790k beat out haswell-e and even then it was only by a few FPS. For most games it was a draw as either CPU gave enough CPU performance to not bottleneck the GPU.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

[Lays]

The 5820K has 28 PCI lanes whereas the 6700K only has 16 PCI lanes. If you plan to SLI then X99 will be better in that case especially with the increase of PCI-E storage and other devices using the PCI lanes.

 

 

I vote 6600K, it's the best CPU for pure gaming, don't waste your money on i7 in pure gaming rigs, i7 CPUs (like AMD CPUs) have no place in a gaming rig. You can get an i5 6600K and a Noctua NH-D15, Phanteks PH-TC14PE or be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 for the price of a 6700K and you can easily overclock it to 4.5-4.6 GHz and it'll perform better than an i7 in games.

20 PCIe lanes*

 

All storage devices on Z170 boards are handled by the chipset, which has 20 PCI lanes, the CPU still has 16.

 

So if you run SLI, 2x8 will be on the CPU, and all storage devices will be put onto those 20 PCI lanes the chipset has.

 

 

Go watch OC3D's review of skylake, he explains how it all works.

[typographie]

There are only a few games where the faster single core 4790k beat out haswell-e and even then it was only by a few FPS. For most games it was a draw as either CPU gave enough CPU performance to not bottleneck the GPU.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

 

Right, a few FPS one way or another depending on the game, and that was before we add in the (albeit mild) IPC improvement in Skylake. So why spend more for X99?

[DarkSmith2]

There are only a few games where the faster single core 4790k beat out haswell-e and even then it was only by a few FPS. For most games it was a draw as either CPU gave enough CPU performance to not bottleneck the GPU.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

Dude SLI is bad.

[NumLock21]

Both runs on DDR4, how much are you actualy saving by going with 6700K? It's not like a there is a huge difference when it was DDR3 vs DDR4. Go with thh 5820K, you get 6 cores, 12 threads, and quad channel ram. And it supports 3-way SLI if you want to use it, Even though Skylake has more lanes, 36 in total, it will only run in 2-way SLI.

[DarkSmith2]

Both runs on DDR4, how much are you actualy saving by going with 6700K? It's not like a there is a huge difference when it was DDR3 vs DDR4. Go with thh 5820K, you get 6 cores, 12 threads, and quad channel ram. And it supports 3-way SLI if you want to use it, Even though Skylake has more lanes, 36 in total, it will only run in 2-way SLI.

it doesnt matter how much more cores and threads it has. Its slower on gaming. Even if dx12 pushes it a little bit, the 6700k still will be faster for gaming. And ofc Dual Channel scales much better then Quad channel.

 

SLI in general is a bad idea under any circumstance take the bigger single Card. Dont take two, dont take 3. >.<

[bomerr]

Right, a few FPS one way or another depending on the game, and that was before we add in the (albeit mild) IPC improvement in Skylake. So why spend more for X99?

CPU usage.

 

The 6 (or 8) core Haswell-e CPU will have ~2/3rds the CPU usage of a 4 core haswell or skylake cpu. CPU usage is ultimately what bottlenecks the system and forces a cpu upgrade. Therefore a Haswell-E CPU will take a longer time to bottleneck compared to it's haswell or Skylake Counterpart. 

[bomerr]

Right, a few FPS one way or another depending on the game, and that was before we add in the (albeit mild) IPC improvement in Skylake. So why spend more for X99?

Let me rephrase myself.

 

 

it doesnt matter how much more cores and threads it has. Its slower on gaming. Even if dx12 pushes it a little bit, the 6700k still will be faster for gaming. And ofc Dual Channel scales much better then Quad channel.

 

SLI in general is a bad idea under any circumstance take the bigger single Card. Dont take two, dont take 3. >.<

 

I agree with you on the SLI front but not the core count.

 

Let me explain.

 

With current benchmarks the 4790k/6700k and 5820k are both beneath 100% CPU usage so in theory they should achieve the exact same FPS. However we see a slight gain, 5 fps in BF4 105 vs. 110 fps, for the 4790k. The reason for this is because scaling from 4 cores to 6 cores, so 4 strong cores preform slightly better. 

 

So now you are wondering why get the 5820k over the 4790k if it preforms slightly worse and the answer to that is CPU usage. Those 4 cores are pushed a lot closer to that magical 100% limit compared to the 6 core, about 50% higher to be exact as 4 to 6 cores is a 50% increase. So when the 4790k/6700k hits 100% CPU usage the FPS will drop heavily while on the 5820k usage will only be about 66% and so the FPS will remain high. 

 

In short the 4790k will bottleneck sooner than the 5820k. 

 

(Also I'd like to point out that stock for stock the the 5960x is only 3.5ghz and the 5820k 3.6 while the 4790k is 4.4 so there is an 800-900mhz difference between the CPUs. OC'd drops the gap to about 400-500mhz difference. )

[typographie]

 

Let me rephrase myself.

 

 

 

I agree with you on the SLI front but not the core count.

 

Let me explain.

 

With current benchmarks the 4790k/6700k and 5820k are both beneath 100% CPU usage so in theory they should achieve the exact same FPS. However we see a slight gain, 5 fps in BF4 105 vs. 110 fps, for the 4790k. The reason for this is because scaling from 4 cores to 6 cores, so 4 strong cores preform slightly better. 

 

So now you are wondering why get the 5820k over the 4790k if it preforms slightly worse and the answer to that is CPU usage. Those 4 cores are pushed a lot closer to that magical 100% limit compared to the 6 core, about 50% higher to be exact as 4 to 6 cores is a 50% increase. So when the 4790k/6700k hits 100% CPU usage the FPS will drop heavily while on the 5820k usage will only be about 66% and so the FPS will remain high. 

 

In short the 4790k will bottleneck sooner than the 5820k. 

 

(Also I'd like to point out that stock for stock the the 5960x is only 3.5ghz and the 5820k 3.6 while the 4790k is 4.4 so there is an 800-900mhz difference between the CPUs. OC'd drops the gap to about 400-500mhz difference. )

 

 

CPU usage.

 

The 6 (or 8) core Haswell-e CPU will have ~2/3rds the CPU usage of a 4 core haswell or skylake cpu. CPU usage is ultimately what bottlenecks the system and forces a cpu upgrade. Therefore a Haswell-E CPU will take a longer time to bottleneck compared to it's haswell or Skylake Counterpart. 

 

Maybe the reported "overall" CPU usage percentage of the 5820K would be lower than the 4790K, but if you were to actually look at core usage you'd see a similar situation in both cases: the cores actually in use would probably report a similar, relatively high utilization, the others not so much. And while it's true that the 5820K might report a lower overall usage percentage because it has more idle resources than the 4790K, it's an issue of whether or not those extra resources could be used to any great effect by the game in the first place. In most cases that's going to be a no.

 

So once again it comes back around to whether or not you want to bet money on the idea that games released within the useful lifespan of a 5820K will have a significant advantage on a 6/12-core processor compared to a 4/8-core processor. That's not a bet I'd personally take. I think that the greater IPC and clock frequency of an i7-6700K is going to make a better purchase for gaming in the majority of titles.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Unequivocally FOR DX11 GAMES THE 6700K IS MASSIVELY BETTER.

UNEQUIVOCALLY FOR DX12 GAMES THE 5820K WILL BE AT LEAST MARGINALLY BETTER.

end of question.