6600k vs 6500k for Gaming?

[Cavasi]

I have an FX 8350 and I feel like it's upgrade time.

 

I live by a Microcenter, and they offer fantastic deals on both of these processors.

Here is my dilemma:

I have a 144hz (ASUS VG248QE) monitor and an r9 290. I play CS:GO (and obviously utilize the 144hz), Overwatch, Battlefield 1, GTA V, and H1Z1. 

Do I go for the i5 6500, or do I go for the $100 more expensive (when bundled with motherboard) 6600k?

I don't plan on overclocking either unless I get the 6600k, then I obviously would overclock when it starts wearing down in like 3-5 years. 
What do I do?

 

I plan on adding a Vega (RX 580/590?) or  Volta GPU (1170?) when they arrive

 

Also, I really don't care about getting 144hz in any game but Counter-Strike and Overwatch(Which i currently do), every other game is enjoyable how it is even if I'm not hitting 144FPS.

 

 

[3 Lions]

I'd say get the 6600K with a Z170 motherboard and get a GTX 1070 as Volta won't be out for another year (2018) in 2017 they will only release the 1080Ti. 

[losBaumos]

I think I would go with the i5 6500 cause both are good cpus and they shouldn't have that much on an impact for you.

 

[Guest Kloaked]

Your CPU won't "wear down". You can get a 6600k and overclock it to the usual 4.5Ghz and it'll be fine for years.

 

With that said, you would more than likely be fine with a 6500. Just make sure to get decent memory.

[Cavasi]

2 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

I'd say get the 6600K with a Z170 motherboard and get a GTX 1070 as Volta won't be out for another year (2018) in 2017 they will only release the 1080Ti. 

For what reason?

[3 Lions]

1 minute ago, Cavasi said:

For what reason?

Because the 6600K is overclockable and the 6500 isn't. 

[typographie]

5 minutes ago, Cavasi said:

I don't plan on overclocking either unless I get the 6600k, then I obviously would overclock when it starts wearing down in like 3-5 years.

It shouldn't "wear down" unless it's defective or dying. What may change is that games in 3–5 years may demand more from your CPU than games today do, though.

 

Since you've got a 144 Hz monitor, I would suggest to get the 6600K and overclock. You can get over a 1 GHz advantage above an i5-6500. Even games that don't care so much about CPU performance at 60 FPS start to care a lot about it when you're trying to maintain 120+ FPS. I know Overwatch and Battlefield 1 in particularly really seems to like fast CPUs.

[Energycore]

There's the new AMD CPUs coming out that might be a good value for gaming so why not wait for January for news on it? You can then buy the new GPU and choose Intel or AMD for CPU.

[Cavasi]

38 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

Because the 6600K is overclockable and the 6500 isn't. 

Whats so good about over clocking thats my biggest sell point right here. I don't know if it's worth $100 to get a few extra fps in games by overclocking

[3 Lions]

Just now, Cavasi said:

Whats so good about over clocking thats my biggest sell point right here. I don't know if it's worth $100 to get a few extra fps in games by overclocking

Overclocking the CPU means you'll have slightly better performance in games than if it was on stock clocks. 

[Cavasi]

38 minutes ago, typographie said:

It shouldn't "wear down" unless it's defective or dying. What may change is that games in 3–5 years may demand more from your CPU than games today do, though.

 

Since you've got a 144 Hz monitor, I would suggest to get the 6600K and overclock. You can get over a 1 GHz advantage above an i5-6500. Even games that don't care so much about CPU performance at 60 FPS start to care a lot about it when you're trying to maintain 120+ FPS. I know Overwatch and Battlefield 1 in particularly really seems to like fast CPUs.

But really what does that advantage mean for gaming? At most like 5-10 fps 

[typographie]

5 minutes ago, Cavasi said:

But really what does that advantage mean for gaming? At most like 5-10 fps 

It depends on the game and the raw number of frames per second would vary moment by moment, but I know how my 6600K at 4.5 GHz does in Battlefield 1, and while I'm happy with my performance I know I wouldn't want to go much slower than that. If I had a 144 Hz monitor and an uncapped framerate, I'd actually want a 6700K in that game.

 

I'm not saying you can't get by with a 6500, it's just that the 6600K is not going to be wasted. The framerate per dollar proposition is up to you, but I will say the difference is non-zero and more significant in some games than in others.

[Cavasi]

5 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

Overclocking the CPU means you'll have slightly better performance in games than if it was on stock clocks. 

Thats what I'm saying. Slightly is the keyword here. Is a couple frames really worth $100 or so extra ?

 

[3 Lions]

Just now, Cavasi said:

Thats what I'm saying. Slightly is the keyword here. Is a couple frames really worth $100 or so extra ?

 

Personally yes but if you can't justify it then go with a locked CPU. 

[dizmo]

On a budget, or a casual gamer? Go 6500.

Is it your main hobby, and what you spend most of your time doing? Or do you play really competitively? 6600k.

 

1 hour ago, Cavasi said:

Thats what I'm saying. Slightly is the keyword here. Is a couple frames really worth $100 or so extra ?

 

Only you can really answer that. It's a personal question, not a matter of fact.

To some, yes. To others, no.

It's just like asking if strawberry ice cream tastes good.

[Cavasi]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Is it your main hobby, and what you spend most of your time doing? Or do you play really competitively? 6600k.

I'm quite good at CS:GO and Overwatch - worth the 6600k then?

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, Cavasi said:

I'm quite good at CS:GO and Overwatch - worth the 6600k then?

Only you can answer that. I'm not you.

 

[Cavasi]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

Only you can answer that. I'm not you.

 

Well I guess my question is then how much better performance will I be getting between the two CPUs