6600k vs 6700k - 'futureproof'

[Narta]

Hey, 

 

I'm building new computer with GTX 1070 in it. Deciding what GPU I want was pretty easy (at least for me) but I'm still not sure what CPU and MB to choose. 

I'd like my computer to have as long lifespan as possible eventhough I'm aware that's not easy to achieve.

 

My line of thought is that if I buy better CPU now, then in 4-5(??) years it would be possible to just upgrade the GPU (or in 2-3 years just buy another 1070, but that's not necessary).

 

Do you think this attitude will work or is it better to buy cheaper computer now and be ready for full upgrade in several years? (btw I know then just now 6600k is more than enough for the games but that is not the question  )

 

Regardless of the answer - could you recommend some MB for these CPUs? 

 

Thanks. 

 

(and sorry for my english, I'm not native  )

[Morgan MLGman]

6700K, 6600K could limit the 1070 in some games at 1080p and will definitely last you for a shorter time.

[HKZeroFive]

Sounds like a good attitude to have. The i7 6700K should last you longer than 5 years if current CPU trends are anything to go by.

 

The i5 6600K already limits the GTX 1070 in some games at 1080p 144Hz, so more reason to go for the i7 6700K.

[AresKrieger]

Do you have a budget in mind for the motherboard and do you have a color or feature requirements?

 

(I agree with the others on 6700k if you want longer lasting performance it's why I have a 4790k myself)

[Harshil1996]

Dont go for an i5 always buy i7. I already experience a lot of problems with 6600k as it gets max out on all 4 core especially in cpu intensive games like the witcher 3 novigrad (you can see lots of videos on you tube) so which results in great frame drops but currently i exchanged it with 6700k and everything is buttery smooth now.

 

Even i7 4790k is better if you get a good deal.

[Narta]

9 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Do you have a budget in mind for the motherboard and do you have a color or feature requirements?

 

(I agree with the others on 6700k if you want longer lasting performance it's why I have a 4790k myself)

it's going to be paired with EVGA FTW (most likely), so something that fits.. (just black or black + silver/white)

 

price is bit tricky in eastern Europe but I think roughly 150$

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, Narta said:

it's going to be paired with EVGA FTW (most likely), so something that fits.. (just black or black + silver/white)

 

price is bit tricky in eastern Europe but I think roughly 150$

I'm from eastern europe as well (Poland), I know what you mean with prices...

 

As for the thread, an i7-6700K would be the best, if it's too expensive for you, get an i7-6700 and a H170/B150/H110 motherboard. It's gonna cost around the same as the 6600K + Z170 + a good cooler for overclocking.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

34 minutes ago, Narta said:

Hey, 

 

I'm building new computer with GTX 1070 in it. Deciding what GPU I want was pretty easy (at least for me) but I'm still not sure what CPU and MB to choose. 

I'd like my computer to have as long lifespan as possible eventhough I'm aware that's not easy to achieve.

 

My line of thought is that if I buy better CPU now, then in 4-5(??) years it would be possible to just upgrade the GPU (or in 2-3 years just buy another 1070, but that's not necessary).

 

Do you think this attitude will work or is it better to buy cheaper computer now and be ready for full upgrade in several years? (btw I know then just now 6600k is more than enough for the games but that is not the question  )

 

Regardless of the answer - could you recommend some MB for these CPUs? 

 

Thanks. 

 

(and sorry for my english, I'm not native  )

I'll be the devil's advocate

 

Both will last you more or less equally long. The worst thing that can happen is that effectively there is a trend towards using more cores everywhere, but both are quad cores, so the difference is the application-dependent boost HT can give you.

Otherwise, either you benefit from an i7 today, or you are fine with an i5 today. If what you do is fine with an i5, you'll continue to do your i5ish tasks for some years. If you see a substantial benefit from i7 today, get the 6700k and do your i7ish task for some years.

Yes, other things equal the i7 is better. But other tings are not equal: there's a $100? $150? difference, to be precise. Maybe when "the future" comes you have a better use for that money.

[smokefest]

i7 6700k Will last longer, obviously !!!

6600k Will runs games just perfectly too, could use a little overclock.

People saying you NEED an i7 for a gtx 1070 is not true. An i5 runs it pretty smoothly for any games, even tho you will get a few more fps with an i7 , specially in more CPU intense games.... But its an error to say the i5 bottlenecks the 1070. And with a 144 hz monitor, it dosnt change anything unless if you're talkin about not reaching 144 fps....

Obivously go for the i7 if price isnt a problem !!!

For a motherboard @ 150$ :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132567&cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-132-567-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130900&cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-130-900-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128941&cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-128-941-_-Product

I suggest one of these, but I havn't read any reviews, you should review them first !

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, smokefest said:

But its an error to say the i5 bottlenecks the 1070. And with a 144 hz monitor, it dosnt change anything unless if you're talkin about not reaching 144 fps....

It's correct. If you get more performance and less stuttering with the same graphics card, but another CPU, that's a CPU bottleneck.

[smokefest]

Yes but the term bottleneck is overused IMO...

I would say a i3 bottleneck. Getting 3 fps less is not a bottleneck IMO. I know in some games it can get up to 10+ fps, but its like 1% of games...

Like almost 95% of games have the same exact FPS with an i5 or i7...

I could say the i7 bottlenecks the card cuz an i7 extreme is gettin 3 fps more...

Thats my 2 cents..

To me , a bottleneck is when a cpu can run a card @ less than lets say 90 %

A cpu that runs the card at his 95% power, to me, is not a bottleneck, but I can the point

I just dont think the extra fps is worth the 150$ more. If we do the mats, 150$ more out of 300$ is a lot, for very few fps, ( i didnt do the math but still )

[smokefest]

Oviously, the i7 is better. Just dont like when people clal the bottlneck thing, it feels like you will not get good performance but its not true, u get awesome performance with the i5, there just will always be better option.. 

I guess in the next years we will see if the hyper threading is really worth it or not depending on games

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

It's correct. If you get more performance and less stuttering with the same graphics card, but another CPU, that's a CPU bottleneck.

Nah, that's just a better CPU. A bottleneck would be if you get the same performance from two different GPUs, i.e., the CPU prevents you from getting any advantage from the better GPU, or at least any noticeable advantage. 

A Volkswagen isn't a bottleneck because a Ferrari is faster; a bunch of Ferraris or Volkswagens stuck in a narrow street is.

[smokefest]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Nah, that's just a better CPU. A bottleneck would be if you get the same performance from two different GPUs, i.e., the CPU prevents you from getting any advantage from the better GPU, or at least any noticeable advantage. 

A Volkswagen isn't a bottleneck because a Ferrari is faster; a bunch of Ferraris or Volkswagens stuck in a narrow street is.

Ur wrong, the guy's post is correct. IF you get more performance with the same graphic card with a different cpu, it means the older cpu was bottelnecking it, as the better performance comes from the new CPU being able to gives the video card all the power it required, compared to the old cpu that couldn't give enuff juice...

That said, not because a cpu can run a card at its 99% power or 95% means its a bad cpu, that kind of bottlenecking shudnt be noticed unless you are a FPS ultimate fan boy SLI ULTRA performance maniac guy dat gets annoyed because he cud get 5 more fps in a game he had 92 fps he cud get 97.... lol 

[paps511]

Go big or go home.

 

It seems to be about a $75-100 jump. If you can make that extra expenditure without significant burden, do it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, smokefest said:

Ur wrong, the guy's post is correct. IF you get more performance with the same graphic card with a different cpu, it means the older cpu was bottelnecking it, as the better performance comes from the new CPU being able to gives the video card all the power it required, compared to the old cpu that couldn't give enuff juice...

I understand what you say, and I understand it's the same he said. I disagree with both of you. I understand that many people use the term "bottleneck" the way you describe, so it is useful to have that definition in mind when reading stuff on the internet. But that makes "bottlenecking" in PC something different to any other form of "bottlenecking" in life. It's like saying "look, in PC slang speed means heat". If everybody does this, I guess it will, but while the two concepts are related t's misleading.

 

So I restate my definition of bottleneck base on, well, the neck of a bottle, and the use of the term everywhere else: a bottleneck is when the performance of element A becomes irrelevant due to the restrictions imposed by element B. A faster car becomes useless if it's stuck in traffic. Traffic induces the bottleneck by making a Ferrari equivalent to a Volkswagen.

When you have room to improve performance by improving element A (the GPU, or the car itself), it's not a bottleneck, it's just a better component. You need something to be wasted to have a bottleneck (like a 980 doing as well as a 970, or a Ferrari driving at Volkswagen speeds). That's how the general idea of bottleneck would directly translate to PC terms.

[smokefest]

31 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I understand what you say, and I understand it's the same he said. I disagree with both of you. I understand that many people use the term "bottleneck" the way you describe, so it is useful to have that definition in mind when reading stuff on the internet. But that makes "bottlenecking" in PC something different to any other form of "bottlenecking" in life. It's like saying "look, in PC slang speed means heat". If everybody does this, I guess it will, but while the two concepts are related t's misleading.

 

So I restate my definition of bottleneck base on, well, the neck of a bottle, and the use of the term everywhere else: a bottleneck is when the performance of element A becomes irrelevant due to the restrictions imposed by element B. A faster car becomes useless if it's stuck in traffic. Traffic induces the bottleneck by making a Ferrari equivalent to a Volkswagen.

When you have room to improve performance by improving element A (the GPU, or the car itself), it's not a bottleneck, it's just a better component. You need something to be wasted to have a bottleneck (like a 980 doing as well as a 970, or a Ferrari driving at Volkswagen speeds). That's how the general idea of bottleneck would directly translate to PC terms.

"  a bottleneck is when the performance of element A becomes irrelevant due to the restrictions imposed by element B  "

Element A is the GPU.

Element B is the CPU

If a stronger " element B " makes the "element A " faster, it means the element A was getting bottlenecked by element B , just as you stated.

So you just confirmed what I told you  lol

Lets have anoter exemple :

If an "element A (gpu) " Dosnt gives more fps when matched with a better "element B (cpu) , then it means the graphic  card wasnt getting bottlenecked by the first cpu used.

In that case, you are using a better cpu, but no gains because there was no bottleneck with the oldest cpu. If you gain performance from the GPU by putting a new CPU into the system, it means the oldest cpu was bottlenecking.

I hope its clear now

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, smokefest said:

"  a bottleneck is when the performance of element A becomes irrelevant due to the restrictions imposed by element B  "

Element A is the GPU.

Element B is the CPU

If a stronger " element B " makes the "element A " faster, it means the element A was getting bottlenecked by element B , just as you stated.

So you just confirmed what I told you  lol
 

No, you changed one step. That is not what I said.

 

Element A is the GPU

 

Element B is the CPU

 

if a stronger element A makes no difference, then it is bottlenecked by element B. That's what I stated. See the difference?

 

 

4 minutes ago, smokefest said:

In that case, you are using a better cpu, but no gains because there was no bottleneck with the oldest cpu. If you gain performance from the GPU by putting a new CPU into the system, it means the oldest cpu was bottlenecking.
 

 

It's the same issue with the other example: keep the CPU constant. Put a CPU (let's say a 6600K) and start from any GPU (let's say, GTX 1050). Then swap the GPU. Is performance better with a 1060? No bottleneck. Is performance better with a 1070? no bottleneck. Is performance better with a 1080? No bottleneck. Is performance the same with a 1070 and a 1080? Then you have a bottleneck: the 6600k would be a bottleneck past 1070 because it prevents you from benefiting from better GPU.

 

Swapping CPUs and getting better performance is not a bottleneck, nor an absence of bottleneck: it's just what you expect from using better hardware. A bottleneck is the anomaly when using better hardware doesn't translate into better performance.

[smokefest]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, you changed one step. That is not what I said.

 

Element A is the GPU

 

Element B is the CPU

 

if a stronger element A makes no difference, then it is bottlenecked by element B. That's what I stated. See the difference?

 

 

 

It's the same issue with the other example: keep the CPU constant. Put a CPU (let's say a 6600K) and start from any GPU (let's say, GTX 1050). Then swap the GPU. Is performance better with a 1060? No bottleneck. Is performance better with a 1070? no bottleneck. Is performance better with a 1080? No bottleneck. Is performance the same with a 1070 and a 1080? Then you have a bottleneck: the 6600k would be a bottleneck past 1070 because it prevents you from benefiting from better GPU.

 

Swapping CPUs and getting better performance is not a bottleneck, nor an absence of bottleneck: it's just what you expect from using better hardware. A bottleneck is the anomaly when using better hardware doesn't translate into better performance.

 " if a stronger element A makes no difference, then it is bottlenecked by element B. That's what I stated. See the difference? "
Its the exact same thing that I stated, but its fine  We both agree.
I feel like we are repeating ourselves, lol

Good day to you all

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, smokefest said:

 " if a stronger element A makes no difference, then it is bottlenecked by element B. That's what I stated. See the difference? "
Its the exact same thing that I stated, but its fine  We both agree.
I feel like we are repeating ourselves, lol

Good day to you all

I don't see how A=B, but whatever, I think we already did our best at explaining ourselves, so I do agree with your last sentence  

[smokefest]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't see how A=B, but whatever, I think we already did our best at explaining ourselves, so I do agree with your last sentence  

Same bro ! I feel like we met the same but i have hard time explaining due to english not my first language, Wish you best !

[Harshil1996]

Whoever doesnt believe that i5 bottlenecks gtx 1070 or any other high end card just turn the witcher 3 and go to novigrad and check cpu usage and gpu usage you will understand why the games love i7 from now on.......

[Sintezza]

it realy depends on your day to day workloads.

If gaming is your main thing, then the 6700K or the 7700K wenn that comes out will be your best choice.

If you do gaming and some productivity workloads then the extra cores of the 6800K will come handy.

 

X99 basicly isnt realy that interesting for most gamers.

Because intels current mainstream i7´s are faster core for core clock for clock then the enthusiast chips.

Remember that X99 platform is allready 2 years old.

And basicly allready EOL.

 

Skylake-E will be the next big thing.

The only question is wenn intel?

it has been pretty silent arround Skylake-e.

[corrado33]

Personally, I don't think it matters.

 

The 6600K and 6700K are going to superseded very shortly by newer technology, so their prices will drop. By the time you'd ever have to replace the 6600K a ton of cheap/really good 1155 chips will be available. 

[Harshil1996]

I dont think that 6th gen will replace shortly as any gen of i7 lasts very long even i had saw some people running i7 2nd gen with dual 980ti and titans etc. So if you buy an i7 you got futureproof for next 5-6 years to come! As faster cards are releasing constantly and to co op with them i7's HT and higher clocks are benefeicial.Further i7 will have major advantage with DX12 in future so it is always good to go for i7 if you dont intend to upgrade anytime soon.