is a 6700k more powerful than a 5960x

[Egad]

If Person A bought a 5960X, stuck it in a motherboard and has done nothing with it, while Person B has a 6700K running at stock clocks then Person B has the better gaming rig.  Both whoever are dopes for paying a premium to run stock clocks and should feel bad.

 

If however Person A has a 5960X with a beefy cooling solution, they should either be clearing 4.0 GHz base clock easily and have very competitive single core scores with a 6700K.  Depending on who had a better silicon lottery ticket, cooling, OCing, etc will determine the final score.  Although if we want to play that game, there are some Pentium Anniversary Editions running really impressive overclocks that would like a word with both chips.  

 

Ultimately single core performance is a binary thing, you either have an acceptable level or you don't.  No one runs just one thread these days.  Operating systems and background programs need love too.

[Octavialicious]

But it WILL. The 5960X is an embarrassment to Intel; it's single core performance is shite. And single core performance is what matters most for your CPU in gaming. His friend is half right.

again, why so many bad replies

 

You can overclock the 5960X to 4.0 GHz+ with ease, placing it near the 4790K in single core performance. What's your deal?

 

even with it at 3GHz it would be MORE than fine with even a 980Ti....

[The Official Czex]

again, why so many bad replies

 

You can overclock the 5960X to 4.0 GHz+ with ease, placing it near the 4790K in single core performance. What's your deal?

 

even with it at 3GHz, I would be surprised to see it bottleneck 

 

My point wasn't that it was a lot worse, my point was that it performed marginally worse in applications such as gaming. You can also OC the 6700K or 4790K and still outrun the OCed 5960X in said applications.

[Octavialicious]

My point wasn't that it was a lot worse, my point was that it performed marginally worse in applications such as gaming. You can also OC the 6700K or 4790K and still outrun the OCed 5960X in said applications.

You're not getting the point, it will be so minuscule it doesn't matter... you call it's IPC "shit" even though it could handle 2x 980Ti's and switching to a 6700K would yield barely any performance increase. What are you arguing for?

[r1Ns3]

For any workload that uses more than 4 cores, and / or is completely memory bound, you are correct, 5960x > 6700k.

 

However, for pretty much anything else that can only use up to 4 cores, AND is not affected by RAM bandwidth, then the 6700k will just eat the 5820k for breakfast.

Yea for gaming it is usually 6700K because games don't usually use more than just a few cores but for like rendering or other stuff that use multiple cores, 5960x or other 6/8/12 cored cpus will desimate the 6700K

[Zeruel]

6700k is more powerful for gaming but in heavily multithreaded applications NO.

[Clyne]

Clock to Clock in single threaded then the performance is around the same between the 5960X and the 6700K..........

If the 5960X was at 3GHZ and 6700K at 4.2GHZ then the 6700K will gain some performance in single threaded........

[Deli]

You can use the same argument 6700K is more powerful than Xeon E5 2699 v3. It can beat the crap out of the Xeon on single thread task. But this is completely missing the point.

 

Anyone say 6700K is more powerful than Xeon E5 2699 v3 and 5960X should go home and fxxk himself.

 

2699 v3 is for server, 5960X for workstation. Not intended for gaming.

[Zeruel]

You can use the same argument 6700K is more powerful than Xeon E5 2699 v3. It can beat the crap out of the Xeon on single thread task. But this is completely missing the point.

 

Anyone say 6700K is more powerful than Xeon E5 2699 v3 and 5960X should go home and fxxk himself.

 

2699 v3 is for server, 5960X for workstation. Not intended for gaming.

 

 

It was never clarified though how the processor was being used. 

 

Gaming or Work station use. People need to specify.

[harrynowl]

Well OP said single core performance in the OP but not title, the 6700k is slightly faster in single core.

[Elapo]

Is no one paying attention to the 6700K being more powerful in gaming?

 

Are you really trying to prove your point by linking to results of a render test.

Sure, it's single core, but the calculations a renderer needs to make are a fair bit different to those that a game require.

[buddy_boyo]

FACT: 6700k is better at single-thread applications, which in real world translates to better gaming performance due to how most games are using the CPU

FACT : 5960x is better for heavy multi-core applications, which in real world translates way better results in those intense workload applications

What is there to argue, there are different processcors for different purposes. Buy 6700k if you want to use it for gaming, or buy 5960x if you need those extra cores for heavy rendering and so on.

[NumLock21]

Some just see the clock speed of a cpu, but fails to see the whole picture. 6700K is for those "I want performance now" and when they see a single thing beating a 5960X they go huzzah! I spend way less and my cpu is faster.

Clock speed play a part in the performance of a cpu, but more cores is what determines the life span of your cpu. This is why even though the 2699 v3 running has a clock speed of just 2.3GHz gets the highest score in CB15,  due to its number of cores it has.

Tell your friend to paint 2 stripes on his 6700K, so it can run faster. lol

[typographie]

Yeah, maybe the 6700K does beat the 5960x in gaming benchmarks, but what does the difference really make?

 

It's negligible.

 

No ones going to be saying, "I bought the wrong CPU, it's 2FPS less than a 6700K, Oh no! What should I do?" People are going to be playing and having fun.

 

But those same people could end up saying, "I bought a $1000 CPU that is as fast and occasionally slower than a $360 one in the tasks I'm actually using it for."

 

In all likelihood, the number of people on this forum who have a 5960X could be counted on one hand, and those few who do probably did not purchase it for gaming, or are too wealthy to care.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Stupid thread...IMO

 

OP stated its for Gaming, this STOPS ALL OTHER USAGE TYPES BEING RELEVANT.

 

OP states two CPU's, with different variables, knowing how games respond to Frequency VS Cores..WITH THAT USAGE SCENARIO, the question answers itself.. even amateur PC builders would get this point....and the right answer in seconds!

 

Answer is blatantly obvious, not even needing a thread.

/Thread

[Jumper118]

But it WILL. The 5960X is an embarrassment to Intel; it's single core performance is shite. And single core performance is what matters most for your CPU in gaming. His friend is half right.

3/10 the ipc is the same as haswell. the only reason it looks bad on graphs is because they clearly didn't overclock it. anyone who uses a 5960x for gaming who overclock it (unless they were ignorant). if you disable 4c and 8t on it, you will just have a fairly high binned 4790K........ so a goood 6700K at the same clock speed will not be noticeably faster. 

[jjohnthedon1]

The 6700 is the best choice for gaming and up to 2 gpu's

The higher single core speed is what counts, only a retard would but a 5960x for pure gaming.

A 6700 will cause a gpu bottle neck in most games even with 2 Titan x's and games that are cpu bound are only running 1 or 2 cores so the faster 2 cores of the 6700 will still beat the 5960x

The 5960x is for extreme rendering and content creation

The 6700/4790k are the best gaming CPUs for 2 cards preform the same as the 4690k and 6600k in games that don't take advantage of hyper threading

[trandana]

Stock clock for clock a 6700k will beat a 5960x in single threaded games. But as soon as you begin to over clock the 5960x or are running with two or more video cards the 5960x creates a clear lead. Especially now that more games are starting to use many cores these days. The cry engine for example uses all 8 cores. 5960x CPUs are intels extreme brand, and they are designed for content creators who also play games and or have to test the games they design on the same computer. They are MEANT to be overclocked. They are underclocked for when you are creating content and don't need the high clock speeds, thereby increasing the cpu life, and decreasing heat and power consumption. Then when you need to play/test your game you hit your overclock hotkey and boost your speeds up above 4ghz. The 5960x can hit 4.5 with ease in most cases with a good cooler. And obviously in any multi threaded applications the 5960x will be a lot faster than a skylake. A 5960x (or any 5xxx series could) at 4.5 will beat a skylake at 4.5. So while the skylake might beat it at stock by 5-10% the 5960x will beat the skylake by the same percentage when OC'd and 40-50% in multithreaded apps. That's why it costs so much

[App4that]

Since when single thread performance matter, are we still on single threaded apps or games ?

I know right? I have no idea where this is coming from.

[BrightCandle]

Its not even remotely true that the 6700k is always better in gaming. It depends entirely on the game. A lot of the modern games get quite a significant boost from 6 cores verses 4 (Mad max, metal gear solid V etc) and as a result the two CPUs tend to trade places. One is a lot more expensive and in other applications that do use those additional cores well the 5820 will be quite a bit faster but its not fair to say that in gaming the 6700k is faster. The 6700k is better value, sometimes faster and sometimes slower.

[minbcrafter]

if u use mulit-thread apps u get a 5960X if u use gaming u get a 6700k

[Nena Trinity]

Gaming maybe but not for work!