Choosing my Intel CPU

[Daltanian]

This is a continuation of a thread (http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/451675-the-age-old-debate/#entry6056458). So I have decided to buy Intel over AMD. This will primarily be for gaming and future video rendering. So now I must decide what CPU to buy. I am looking to run 3 monitors, one of which (the middle one) would be 4k and the other 2 on each side at 1080p. 

 

I7-4790k, i7-5820k, i7-5930k, i7-4790, i7 5960x, i7-4770, i7-4930k, i74760s.

 

^^^ This isn't the half of them. Intel CPUs go on and one with tons of different models. Some are old. Some are new. What is still relevant? What do I need?

 

I want to direct this thread in the direction of what Intel CPUs are used for what circumstances and where does the price to performance ratio drop as we creep up the hierarchy of each "better" CPU.

 

When is it justifiable to drop $1100 on a i7-5960x for just the CPU? Or are you better off with the i7-4790 because of the bang for your buck?

 

That's what I'm here to find out. What ya got peoples?

Feel free to post links to other threads where this has been touched on before or from personal experience.

 

Cheers and I'm looking forward to your answers!

 

[AresKrieger]

If rendering i7-5820k is your best bet

[Avalen]

For rendering 5820K is your best bet. Even a 4790K will do pretty well at it.

 

It is almost never justifiable to drop $1100 on a CPU. If you're needing a CPU that expensive you should really be looking at Xeons anyway. Typically the Intel 'X' CPU's are made for a very niche enthusiast market and don't really offer much performance for the money. If you really want more performance than a 5820K has you could take a look at the 5930K but I doubt you'd really need it.

[Suffokation]

For rendering 5820K is your best bet. Even a 4790K will do pretty well at it.

 

It is almost never justifiable to drop $1100 on a CPU. If you're needing a CPU that expensive you should really be looking at Xeons anyway. Typically the Intel 'X' CPU's are made for a very niche enthusiast market and don't really offer much performance for the money. If you really want more performance than a 5820K has you could take a look at the 5930K but I doubt you'd really need it.

I disagree. Any Xeon in the $1100 range will be a ten core, with an extremely low clockspeed.

Even with 2 less cores, the clockspeed will make a bigger difference. Especially seeing as the 5960X could be pushed possibly up to twice as fast as the Xeon.

 

I do agree with your point about the 5820K however.

[PlayStation 2]

I disagree. Any Xeon in the $1100 range will be a ten core, with an extremely low clockspeed.

Even with 2 less cores, the clockspeed will make a bigger difference. Especially seeing as the 5960X could be pushed possibly up to twice as fast as the Xeon.

 

I do agree with your point about the 5820K however.

Xeons like that are for high-threaded low-clockspeed workloads like 3d rendering, where the workloads can be infinitely threaded

[Suffokation]

Xeons like that are for high-threaded low-clockspeed workloads like 3d rendering, where the workloads can be infinitely threaded

I agree, but in a rendering situation, the clock-speed isn't something to be disregarded, and will make a substantial difference.

[Daltanian]

I disagree. Any Xeon in the $1100 range will be a ten core, with an extremely low clockspeed.

Even with 2 less cores, the clockspeed will make a bigger difference. Especially seeing as the 5960X could be pushed possibly up to twice as fast as the Xeon.

 

I do agree with your point about the 5820K however.

In the specs below your post it says you have an i7-5820k at 4.8GHz. Are you overclocking 1.3GHz? 

[PlayStation 2]

I agree, but in a rendering situation, the clock-speed isn't something to be disregarded, and will make a substantial difference.

Same.

But normally, most render rigs and render farms where a Xeon could be in normally want really good multithreaded performance over single-core performance as they don't need the ridiculous task of handling one really hard task over them needing multiple sectors of an image to be pushed out. 

 

Clockspeed can and will make a difference, but it's generally better for a 2.0GHz 10-core processor to render a frame rather than a 4.0GHz 4-core processor because it can split that workload.

[BigDay]

it just depends on how much you want to spend

 

how much do you want to spend?

 

edit:

 

the 5820k has 6 cores and 12 threads with 28 pci express lanes

 

the 5930k has 6 cores and 12 threads with 40 pci express lanes

 

the more you spend, the better the performance

 

basically, you should get one of the following:

 

4790k, 5820k, 5930k, 5960x

 

you could get a xeon, but the clock speed will be lower. the higher the xeon's clockspeed, the more expensive it is

 

edit:

 

if you want a xeon with ecc memory so you can get up to like 700+ gb of memory, take a look at the Intel Xeon E5-1650 V3

 

comparison sheet: http://ark.intel.com/compare/82765,82932,82931,82930

[Suffokation]

In the specs below your post it says you have an i7-5820k at 4.8GHz. Are you overclocking 1.3GHz? 

It is currently running at 4.3GHz, but it is stable at 4.8GHz.

[Daltanian]

it just depends on how much you want to spend

 

how much do you want to spend?

 

edit:

 

the 5820k has 6 cores and 12 threads with 28 pci express lanes

 

the 5930k has 6 cores and 12 threads with 40 pci express lanes

 

the more you spend, the better the performance

 

basically, you should get one of the following:

 

4790k, 5820k, 5930k, 5960x

 

you could get a xeon, but the clock speed will be lower. the higher the xeon's clockspeed, the more expensive it is

 

edit:

 

if you want a xeon with ecc memory so you can get up to like 700+ gb of memory, take a look at the Intel Xeon E5-1650 V3

 

comparison sheet: http://ark.intel.com/compare/82765,82932,82931,82930

 

So this is a prime example of why I am asking. Between 4790k, 5820k, 5930k, and the 5960x, they all have different clock speeds but this seems to have absolutely no correlation with performance. I guess it just seems CPUs from the same company would share more of a relation between clock speed and performance. However, this seems to having little baring at all. The price in the comparison sheet listed seems to reflect price almost strictly from the amount of cores you have in your CPU. Am I wrong? Or does this all end up being chalked up to simply saying it because of architecture? Again... lol

[BigDay]

So this is a prime example of why I am asking. Between 4790k, 5820k, 5930k, and the 5960x, they all have different clock speeds but this seems to have absolutely no correlation with performance. I guess it just seems CPUs from the same company would share more of a relation between clock speed and performance. However, this seems to having little baring at all. The price in the comparison sheet listed seems to reflect price almost strictly from the amount of cores you have in your CPU. Am I wrong? Or does this all end up being chalked up to simply saying it because of architecture? Again... lol

 

how much do you want to spend?

 

edit:

 

the more money you spend, the better the performance

 

simple