5820k vs 6700k - OverClocking and ingame performance

[0wN3r]

Hello there,

At first I'd like to mention that I am new user to this forum, however I have been browsing the topics here for a while. I decided to create this topic after a long awaited video went online (5820k vs 6700k or otherwise X99 vs Z170, by LinusTechTips). To be honest it disappointed me a little, since it didn't anyhow solved my problem of choosing between those two chips.. What I'm really curious about is not what is the performance between just those two chips, but which of them will turn out more efficient and future proof when it comes to the OC. Some question I hope will be answered are:

- Will overclocked 5820k be more efficient when it comes to gaming, than overclocked 6700k?
- Are the differences in X99 and Z170 so colossal, that one would rather choose it over the other?
- What might be the performance difference between those two overclocked setups (chips/chipsets)?
- How does the pricing vary when it comes to performance/price ratio at overclocked speeds?

To mention, I've been seeking for such a topic on the forum but didn't find one so far, please refer to them if I missed some. I would really appreciate any feedback on this topic and some shared experience as well. Also I'm much more likely to go with air cooling such as Dark Rock PRO 3, rather than water loops.
 

[manikyath]

- no, 5820k will actually perform worse in most cpu-heavy games, because of its lower performance per core. it makes up for this in multi-threaded applications by having more cores.

- X99 is a platform for people that got crazy - 3-way SLI setups, heavy cpu workloads, etc. are all things where X99 shines.

- X99 will do better in applications that can use more than 4 cores, Z170 will outperform by a decent margin in all other scenarios.

- from my experience X99 is a decent chunk more expensive, and when overclocking you also need to take into account the 5820K is a considerably higher wattage, so you'll need to spend more on cooling it.

 

for those who want a rough technical breakdown:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-5820K/3502vs2579

[theereal]

The 6700K has a passmark score of 2,290 vs the 5820K's 2,009. But those are at stock speeds. And the 5820K does have the advantage of more cores. Id personally go for a 4790K If It's cheaper than the 6700K.

[SeanAngelo]

Hello there,

At first I'd like to mention that I am new user to this forum, however I have been browsing the topics here for a while. I decided to create this topic after a long awaited video went online (5820k vs 6700k or otherwise X99 vs Z170, by LinusTechTips). To be honest it disappointed me a little, since it didn't anyhow solved my problem of choosing between those two chips.. What I'm really curious about is not what is the performance between just those two chips, but which of them will turn out more efficient and future proof when it comes to the OC. Some question I hope will be answered are:

- Will overclocked 5820k be more efficient when it comes to gaming, than overclocked 6700k?

- Are the differences in X99 and Z170 so colossal, that one would rather choose it over the other?

- What might be the performance difference between those two overclocked setups (chips/chipsets)?

- How does the pricing vary when it comes to performance/price ratio at overclocked speeds?

To mention, I've been seeking for such a topic on the forum but didn't find one so far, please refer to them if I missed some. I would really appreciate any feedback on this topic and some shared experience as well. Also I'm much more likely to go with air cooling such as Dark Rock PRO 3, rather than water loops.

 

for gaming, the 6700k will perform better. the 6700k is more than enough these days.

 

X99 is only for people who want to use more than 4 cores for faster production, such as rendering, editing etc.

 

If you're only going to be playing games, you dont need 6 cores. 4 is enough.

[theereal]

 

 

If you're only going to be playing games, you dont need 6 cores. 4 is enough.

Saying you "dont need 6 cores" is wrong, in a way... Games in the future will be able to take advantage of more than 4 cores, so 6 cores would be a nice "futureproof" idea, HOWEVER, single core performance @ stock speeds on the 5820K is worse than on the 6700K.

[MegaDave91]

 

If you're only going to be playing games, you dont need 6 cores. 4 is enough.

4 without hyperthreading, to boot, so a 6600K will do OP good.

[Lays]

Saying you "dont need 6 cores" is wrong, in a way... Games in the future will be able to take advantage of more than 4 cores, so 6 cores would be a nice "futureproof" idea, HOWEVER, single core performance @ stock speeds on the 5820K is worse than on the 6700K.

 

Single core performance will be worse no matter what, the 6700k is a new architecture and supports higher memory speeds and cache can OC higher.

[Denned]

I just bought a 6700k over the 5820k. The price is pretty much the same, so that's why I had trouble choosing!

I ended up with the 6700k because it uses less power, gets less hot and performs better in most real world applications. The only thing the 5820k would win, would be something like rendering video or benchmarks like cinebench.

 

As for z170 vs. x99, you'd have more PCI lanes, so if you're going for 3-4 way SLI, then that would be a better option.

[theereal]

Single core performance will be worse no matter what, the 6700k is a new architecture and supports higher memory speeds and cache can OC higher.

Havent seen any test on OC'ed 5820K so I couldnt say anything there

[Lays]

Havent seen any test on OC'ed 5820K so I couldnt say anything there

 

 

Haswell E is based on haswell's architecture, which has lower single thread than Skylake.

 

It's common sense lol

[theereal]

Haswell E is based on haswell's architecture, which has lower single thread than Skylake.

 

It's common sense lol

As I said, I hadnt done any research into It, so I didnt wish to make a statement and then find out It was false, Isnt that better? Muricans and their brains...

[SeanAngelo]

Saying you "dont need 6 cores" is wrong, in a way... Games in the future will be able to take advantage of more than 4 cores, so 6 cores would be a nice "futureproof" idea, HOWEVER, single core performance @ stock speeds on the 5820K is worse than on the 6700K.

its gonna be a while till games start needing 6 cores... most games nowdays dont even use up all 4 cores....

 

4 cores is enough for upcoming years.

[theereal]

its gonna be a while till games start needing 6 cores... most games nowdays dont even use up all 4 cores....

 

4 cores is enough for upcoming years.

If it takes around 2 years for games to start using more than 4 cores the 5820K will be too old anyways.

[Gofspar]

its gonna be a while till games start needing 6 cores... most games nowdays dont even use up all 4 cores....

 

4 cores is enough for upcoming years.

Linus's benchmark results says otherwise

[manikyath]

The 6700K has a passmark score of 2,290 vs the 5820K's 2,009. But those are at stock speeds. And the 5820K does have the advantage of more cores. Id personally go for a 4790K If It's cheaper than the 6700K.

passmark is one of the least reliable benchmarking sources i know.

[typographie]

Saying you "dont need 6 cores" is wrong, in a way... Games in the future will be able to take advantage of more than 4 cores, so 6 cores would be a nice "futureproof" idea, HOWEVER, single core performance @ stock speeds on the 5820K is worse than on the 6700K.

I personally don't think the "games in the future" argument is strong enough yet to really warrant a purchase like a 5820K. The trend may be going toward more cores being used, but not necessarily more cores being needed. In reality, the vast majority of games are GPU-bound (especially when aiming for 60 FPS), and if anything it looks like that will be even more true in DirectX 12. I personally think a 6700K (or 6600K for that matter) is still a very safe bet.

[i_build_nanosuits]

IPC is king when it comes to gaming, always been and always will be.

 

So...for a gaming i would build Z170 and i7-6700K if budget allow, hands down.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Everyone says Haswell-E is a waste for gaming, but when I go check CPU benchmarks on GameGPU.ru most of the time the i7-5960x is at the top despite it being only 3.0 GHz. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jumper118]

you say ipc is king, but the 6700K still doesn't make sense. in the case of people saying ipc is king, you would get a 6600K not a 6700K. anything that uses the hyperthreading of the 6700K is probably going to use all the cores and threads on the 5820K so the 5820k will always be faster unless not multi threaded in which case the 6600K will be faster as its a cooler cpu so you should be able to oc higher. and you have a good upgrade path with x99.

[0wN3r]

Thank you for all the replies, I am glad many of you made some good points in here; surely will think about it some more and tell you what I decided to buy, for now bellow I post some OC'ed benchmark of 5820k which I ran into today. Seems like the GPU is the limiting factor out there, both 3.6 and 4.4 GHz options end up with the nearly same FPS... Keep on digging! 

[Schoolofmonkey]

Thank you for all the replies, I am glad many of you made some good points in here; surely will think about it some more and tell you what I decided to buy, for now bellow I post some OC'ed benchmark of 5820k which I ran into today. Seems like the GPU is the limiting factor out there, both 3.6 and 4.4 GHz options end up with the nearly same FPS... Keep on digging! 

 

Man as a owner of a 5820k@4.3Ghz when I saw this I considered dropping my OC back to stock.

Wow just wow...

[0wN3r]

Man as a owner of a 5820k@4.3Ghz when I saw this I considered dropping my OC back to stock.

Wow just wow...

Just bear in mind, that this applies only to GPU intensive applications (such as GTA:V or Witcher 3), all the CPU bound programs will take advantage of higher speeds and thus result in better performance!

[3570tech]

Have the exact same problem as you... Don't know what to do.

[0wN3r]

So I thought I would post a reply here after having bought the 5820k a mont ago...

I was totally wotth it since I have OCed to 4.1 With no problem and everythings runs smooth. this OC was applied byy motherboard and I certainly can go further with my asus x99 sabertooth and Thermaltake Water 3. Ultimate.

The +s are having no trouble with stuttering, better multitasking and simply everthing related to cpu intensive content creation.

while the -s are long boot up time on x99 (~25-30s), higher temps.

I would still go for this CPU if I had to choose again. Recommend it to everyone who's struggling between 4790(k), 6700(k) and 5820k/5930k

[Schoolofmonkey]

So I thought I would post a reply here after having bought the 5820k a mont ago...

I was totally wotth it since I have OCed to 4.1 With no problem and everythings runs smooth. this OC was applied byy motherboard and I certainly can go further with my asus x99 sabertooth and Thermaltake Water 3. Ultimate.

The +s are having no trouble with stuttering, better multitasking and simply everthing related to cpu intensive content creation.

while the -s are long boot up time on x99 (~25-30s), higher temps.

I would still go for this CPU if I had to choose again. Recommend it to everyone who's struggling between 4790(k), 6700(k) and 5820k/5930k

 

 

I concur, my last post was October, though I regret the MSI x99a Gaming 7 choice and wished I did wait for the Sabertooth the platform is doing everything I want it to.

My overclock is 4.3Ghz@1.25v, but it will do 4.2Ghz@1.18v.

In gaming I compared the system to my old (no wifes) 4790k Firestrike results and honestly the 5820k@4.3Ghz vs 4790K@4.4Ghz (all cores), the 5820k actually beats it by 1000 points consistently. 

 

Boot times are a little slower than the 4790k, but that's due to the x99 platforms overhead (memory training, clock speed test etc etc), but from the x99 completed BIOS checks to Windows boot times are the same.