i5-6600k or i7-6700k? What is better for Gaming?

[Laurence Brenner]

Im thinking about getting me a new PC. But I can't decide on what CPU I want - while it should be either a i5-6600k or a i7-6700k. The question I have here is: Do current and upcoming games utilize more than 4 cores decently or is a quad-core still the way to go?

[Slottr]

The i7 will help in a fair amount of cases - If you can afford it, why not go for it? If not, the i5 will also do a very good justice for gaming.

[Guest lilbman]

1 minute ago, Laurence Brenner said:

Im thinking about getting me a new PC. But I can't decide on what CPU I want - while it should be either a i5-6600k or a i7-6700k. The question I have here is: Do current and upcoming games utilize more than 4 cores decently or is a quad-core still the way to go?

Games won't be utilizing the 6700ks hyperthreading for a loooong time now.  Regardless of which one you get, you'll have a new CPU by that time anyway that probably has hyperthreading.

 

I'd say it doesn't matter as of now.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

The i7 is better at everything, for some things more than others, but the 6700K outperforms the 6600K in all tasks.

Hence, the only question left is how much are you willing to pay for the performance difference. $100 for 1%? $1 for 100%? We can't tell you how much you value the additional performance.

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Games won't be utilizing the 6700ks hyperthreading for a loooong time now.  Regardless of which one you get, you'll have a new CPU by that time anyway that probably has hyperthreading.

 

I'd say it doesn't matter as of now.

GTA 5, Battlefield 1 and Witcher 3 all show benefits of hyperthreading, that consensus is becoming old, i7 is actually now becoming the preferred CPU, ofc that is if the budget allows

[HorrorCosmic]

3 minutes ago, Laurence Brenner said:

Im thinking about getting me a new PC. But I can't decide on what CPU I want - while it should be either a i5-6600k or a i7-6700k. The question I have here is: Do current and upcoming games utilize more than 4 cores decently or is a quad-core still the way to go?

I always see it like this. Speaking about the K models, on the i7 you can always disable hyper threading. which will lower temps and power consumption and still get the higher cache and clock speed. That heading from disabled HT means you can possibly get a decent overclock. I use to do that on my 4770k. I would disable HT because i didn't use anything multi-threaded heavy (like video editing) so i benefit from the headroom gained from disabling HT.

[Laurence Brenner]

Well I will be going for something around 1.500€ in total so both wouldn't be unrealistic.

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, Laurence Brenner said:

Well I will be going for something around 1.500€ in total so both wouldn't be unrealistic.

If you can fit the i7 without crippling your GPU definitely take it

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Laurence Brenner said:

Well I will be going for something around 1.500€ in total so both wouldn't be unrealistic.

It will depend on what you want out of your build: monitor? what resolution? Do you care for a massive SSD? How about a beautiful (expensive) case?

 

I would consider a 6700K not the highest priority for performance because it's 50% more expensive but at best 15% faster.

[HorrorCosmic]

4 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

GTA 5, Battlefield 1 and Witcher 3 all show benefits of hyperthreading, that consensus is becoming old, i7 is actually now becoming the preferred CPU, ofc that is if the budget allows

Yeah, but that benefit is by how much? and is it actually hyperthreading and not the larger cache or other differences? 

 

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

Yeah, but that benefit is by how much? and is it actually hyperthreading and not the larger cache or other differences? 

 

Clock for clock in those games and more it performs better, more importantly the number of "low frame rates" is also lower tending to a smoother gameplay. This is more prevalent now with the release of the 1xxx series from NV meaning games are now becoming more CPU bound than GPU bound. Take into account that DX12 prefers cores/threads this picture is only going to become clearer as time moves on, maybe even pushing us towards 6/8 core CPUs (eventually)

[Orianous]

As someone who has gone through three gens of Intel CPUs, I must say the 6600k should be a better move for you. I have gone through a 2nd gen i5, 4770k, and am currently running a 5820k; I decided to upgrade to the i7 series due to my need to edit high resolution videos. If you are looking to build a gaming system with a budget, I'd get a 6600k and use the extra dough to get a higher end GPU. In today's fast paced market, your main bottleneck over time will end up being GPU power most likely.

[Laurence Brenner]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It will depend on what you want out of your build: monitor? what resolution? Do you care for a massive SSD? How about a beautiful (expensive) case?

 

I would consider a 6700K not the highest priority for performance because it's 50% more expensive but at best 15% faster.

Well one of my two monitors(both 1080p) has 144hz so I want to make sure that I get those ~144fps on as many games as possible. My case preferences are mostly based on a decent quality with not a lot of fancy stuff included so I get a good value for my money. And due to my current drives still being good enough for their purpose I'll only get a 1TB SSD.

[kingdomtim]

dont buy the i7, unless you dont mind spending the extra $

[Energycore]

Just now, Laurence Brenner said:

Well one of my two monitors(both 1080p) has 144hz so I want to make sure that I get those ~144fps on as many games as possible. My case preferences are mostly based on a decent quality with not a lot of fancy stuff included so I get a good value for my money. And due to my current drives still being good enough for their purpose I'll only get a 1TB SSD.

If you want to push 144Hz I would definitely try to fit the 6700K then. And a 1070 or similar card (might have to tweak settings for 1080p 144Hz even on a GTX 1080 tbh)

 

If your monitor has Freesync or Gsync, I would definitely take advantage of that so you get tear free, smooth framerates.

[HorrorCosmic]

6 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Clock for clock in those games and more it performs better, more importantly the number of "low frame rates" is also lower tending to a smoother gameplay. This is more prevalent now with the release of the 1xxx series from NV meaning games are now becoming more CPU bound than GPU bound. Take into account that DX12 prefers cores/threads this picture is only going to become clearer as time moves on, maybe even pushing us towards 6/8 core CPUs (eventually)

With DX12 i'll give you that, however i do not agree with the notion that games are going cpu multi-threaded heavy when most barely uses 2 cores at 100%, more than likely that small gain is the OS offsetting to the last cores which will free cores 0 -1 for the game, but If a game becomes multithreaded then that load will be balanced among all cores and then you'll have to really see if there is a considerable difference that merits the price of HT in gaming.

 

Not sayiing i'd go with the i5, i stated to go with the i7 as well, but at a different viewpoint is all.

[Laurence Brenner]

5 minutes ago, Energycore said:

If you want to push 144Hz I would definitely try to fit the 6700K then. And a 1070 or similar card (might have to tweak settings for 1080p 144Hz even on a GTX 1080 tbh)

 

If your monitor has Freesync or Gsync, I would definitely take advantage of that so you get tear free, smooth framerates.

I am definitly going to get a 1080 even if it pushes me a bit beyond the 1.500€ budget. So I dont want the CPU to not be a limiting factor if possible.

[stealth80]

5 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

With DX12 i'll give you that, however i do not agree with the notion that games are going cpu multi-threaded heavy when most barely uses 2 cores at 100%, more than likely that small gain is the OS offsetting to the last cores which will free cores 0 -1 for the game, but If a game becomes multithreaded then that load will be balanced among all cores and then you'll have to really see if there is a considerable difference that merits the price of HT in gaming.

 

Not sayiing i'd go with the i5, i stated to go with the i7 as well, but at a different viewpoint is all.

Ok watch this, then think its during titan X/980/970 era, meaning the newer GPU's place much more emphasis on the CPU. Also consider were advising people here to build a PC that will last at least a couple of years

 

 

[stealth80]

4 minutes ago, dieegoperi said:

1TB SSD woah... I mean, damn dude, I only install a few games (2-3), the OS and my everyday programs, why would you buy a 1TB SSD? I mean, in my HDD I only store movies, most games and trash

Okey, listen, if you get +5fps with the i7, will the +100€ worth it? If your answer is yes then go for it, if your answer is no (because you know, the difference between 125 and 129 fps is... none?) then go for the i5

a reference for your maximum performance difference, Witcher 3 takes almost full CPU performance so

You need to remember that example is on a 970, a card which struggled with ultra textures (I know I had 1 and then 2x in SLI and I loved them). Now consider

 

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

Ok watch this, then think its during titan X/980/970 era, meaning the newer GPU's place much more emphasis on the CPU. Also consider were advising people here to build a PC that will last at least a couple of years

 

 

 

[HorrorCosmic]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Ok watch this, then think its during titan X/980/970 era, meaning the newer GPU's place much more emphasis on the CPU. Also consider were advising people here to build a PC that will last at least a couple of years

 

 

Results may vary.

 

Also, yes we are advising a new pc but we also have to consider pricing to performance..

[SirWendall]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Ok watch this, then think its during titan X/980/970 era, meaning the newer GPU's place much more emphasis on the CPU. Also consider were advising people here to build a PC that will last at least a couple of years

 

 

It looks like when you OC the i5 you get about the same performance the i7 does.

[Guest lilbman]

2 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

Extremely wrong. Worst comment I've ever read on this forum. Games have been utilizing hyperthreading for quite some time already and the 6600K shows bottlenecking signs against the 6700K when both are paired with a GTX 1070 equivalent card. 

Worst comment you've read on this forum, eh?

 

Funny you say that, you have a 6600K and a 1070.  If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for him.

[Energycore]

7 minutes ago, Laurence Brenner said:

I am definitly going to get a 1080 even if it pushes me a bit beyond the 1.500€ budget. So I dont want the CPU to not be a limiting factor if possible.

I agree to go for a 6700K if you're gonna get a 1080.

 

But hear this: if you're not gonna buy today, you should wait to see what AMD has to offer, because there's a chance it's about the same performance for less. Might not be the biggest of chances, but it's certainly worth waiting for now that it's close.

[stealth80]

Just now, HorrorCosmic said:

Results may vary.

 

Also, yes we are advising a new pc but we also have to consider pricing to performance..

You didn't even watch it .... I just seen a scene in B4 where the i7 6700k at 4.5 ghz had a 32FPS lead on a 6600K at the same clock speed, that was around 30% (138 vs around 104) That's BF4, an old title. I would sacrifice an AIO cooler for the extra 4 threads and add a cooler later if it came to the actual budget

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, GamerMan said:

It looks like when you OC the i5 you get about the same performance the i7 does.

watch the whole video, FPS is similar yes, there are times like during BF4 when the i7 had a 30% lead in one scene. Notice how the reviewer speaks about frame times low frame time? its not just about FPS