Enthusiast vs standard i7s

[adithyay328]

Hello, everybody! So, what's the exact difference between an i7 on, for example, z1151 vs 2011-v3? I don't seem to get it; is it just the extra pcie lanes? Also, if I were to create a high-end build with hard overclocking, which platform would be better, and why? Thank you! 

[Kobathor]

an i7 on LGA 1151 maxes out at 4 cores 8 threads. i7s on LGA 2011-v3 max out at 10 cores 20 threads. You also get way more I/O on 2011-v3.

[Electronics Wizardy]

you get more pcie, more ram, and more core. If you don't know why you need 2011-3, get 1551.

[STRMfrmXMN]

2 minutes ago, adithyay328 said:

Hello, everybody! So, what's the exact difference between an i7 on, for example, z1151 vs 2011-v3? I don't seem to get it; is it just the extra pcie lanes? Also, if I were to create a high-end build with hard overclocking, which platform would be better, and why? Thank you! 

"Z1151" - Think you mean Z170 or LGA 1151

 

You get more PCI lanes, better power phase designs (basically required to run those heftier chips), generally more features, more cores, generally poorer single-threaded performance compared to a top-of-the-line consumer grade unlocked i7, and bragging rights.

[Cyndre1033]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

Hello, everybody! So, what's the exact difference between an i7 on, for example, z1151 vs 2011-v3? I don't seem to get it; is it just the extra pcie lanes? Also, if I were to create a high-end build with hard overclocking, which platform would be better, and why? Thank you! 

Depends what you are doing it for. While non enthusiast chips might have less cores/threads and less cache, they are cheaper and unusually have better single-core performance over their high core count brothers. If you are using your CPU for multi reader applications and video edition for example a i7 6800k/ i7 6950X or something extreme like that would be better, for gaming go for i7 6700k. 

[adithyay328]

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

an i7 on LGA 1151 maxes out at 4 cores 8 threads. i7s on LGA 2011-v3 max out at 10 cores 20 threads. You also get way more I/O on 2011-v3.

 

 

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

you get more pcie, more ram, and more core. If you don't know why you need 2011-3, get 1551.

Ok, so I was partially correct. However, like I asked, if my build was water cooled(which is the plan) and I want to OC it hard, which platform would be the best bet for me?

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

 

Ok, so I was partially correct. However, like I asked, if my build was water cooled(which is the plan) and I want to OC it hard, which platform would be the best bet for me?

id go 1151.

[adithyay328]

1 minute ago, Cyndre1033 said:

Depends what you are doing it for. While non enthusiast chips might have less cores/threads and less cache, they are cheaper and unusually have better single-core performance over their high core count brothers. If you are using your CPU for multi reader applications and video edition for example a i7 6800k/ i7 6950X or something extreme like that would be better, for gaming go for i7 6700k. 

 

LOL worse single thread on lower end, my god what did dey do....

[ARikozuM]

Just now, adithyay328 said:

LOL worse single thread on lower end, my god what did dey do....

Nothing. You sacrifice clock speed in order to get more cores and maintain stability.

[Cyndre1033]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

LOL worse single thread on lower end, my god what did dey do....

You got it backwards, worse single core on high end

[adithyay328]

2 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

"Z1151" - Think you mean Z170 or LGA 1151

 

You get more PCI lanes, better power phase designs (basically required to run those heftier chips), generally more features, more cores, generally poorer single-threaded performance compared to a top-of-the-line consumer grade unlocked i7, and bragging rights.

 

LOL z1151, you right man, I got confused there. And again, OC support in terms of mobos on each platform? Which is better for OC?

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

 

Ok, so I was partially correct. However, like I asked, if my build was water cooled(which is the plan) and I want to OC it hard, which platform would be the best bet for me?

Kaby Lake is best for overclocking, and those are only on LGA 1151 (Z170/Z270 chipsets) for now.

[adithyay328]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Nothing. You sacrifice clock speed in order to get more cores and maintain stability.

Gotcha

[adithyay328]

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

Kaby Lake is best for overclocking, and those are only on LGA 1151 (Z170/Z270 chipsets) for now.

 

3 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

id go 1151.

 

4 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

"Z1151" - Think you mean Z170 or LGA 1151

 

You get more PCI lanes, better power phase designs (basically required to run those heftier chips), generally more features, more cores, generally poorer single-threaded performance compared to a top-of-the-line consumer grade unlocked i7, and bragging rights.

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

[adithyay328]

3 minutes ago, Cyndre1033 said:

You got it backwards, worse single core on high end

Yeah sry, kinda sleepy right now, can't think as well I normally do. Still, that seems interesting to me.

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

because you need less power, so you don't need as much power on the board.

 

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

Becasue you can upgrade to KAby lake in fact I would wait either for zen or wait a week for KAby LAke and z270

[mark_p8]

1 minute ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

I think he is talking about the enthusiast chip

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, adithyay328 said:

However, like I asked, if my build was water cooled(which is the plan)

Buy the absolute best CPU that you can afford. Make a build with a 5820K or 6800K on X99 and then a 6700K on Z170 build and compare the two. From what I hear doing upgrades on a custom water-cooling build sucks unless you're using flex tubing.

[STRMfrmXMN]

2 minutes ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

It's hard as shit to get a 10-core CPU to 5 GHz while it's not at all unheard of to get a 6700k to 5 GHz. You need a larger quantity and higher quality power phases for an X99 chip to hit crazy clocks. You can actually find Z170 boards with killer power phase designs like the Z170M OC from Asrock however.

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

depends on what sort of performance you're aiming to get from that OC...

 

sometimes it's just for a high number on a leader board no one really cares about.

Other times it's to get a faster stable multi-core clock to render video in less time while staying in a budget...

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, adithyay328 said:

 

 

But why 1151? STRM stated that 2011v3 had better power phase designs; how would a platform with worse power phase design beat the better one in OC? Can someone explain? Thanks!

because bigger chip essentially means lower clocks, this is why the extreme OC folks disable cores to gain more clock speed.

 

also, you could probably gladly OC 2011v3 beyond what 1151 offers, its just that intel has standards in terms of out the box power consumption (looking at the FX9590 users here) and the people going for 6 or 8 (or even 10) core processors usually have a workload that wont notice those few hundred MHz difference over the extra cores.

[Shiv78]

Gaming = Z170/270

Production and other professional work = X99

[adithyay328]

5 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

It's hard as shit to get a 10-core CPU to 5 GHz while it's not at all unheard of to get a 6700k to 5 GHz. You need a larger quantity and higher quality power phases for an X99 chip to hit crazy clocks. You can actually find Z170 boards with killer power phase designs like the Z170M OC from Asrock however.

 

 

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

depends on what sort of performance you're aiming to get from that OC...

 

sometimes it's just for a high number on a leader board no one really cares about.

Other times it's to get a faster stable multi-core clock to render video in less time while staying in a budget...

 

 

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

because bigger chip essentially means lower clocks, this is why the extreme OC folks disable cores to gain more clock speed.

 

also, you could probably gladly OC 2011v3 beyond what 1151 offers, its just that intel has standards in terms of out the box power consumption (looking at the FX9590 users here) and the people going for 6 or 8 (or even 10) core processors usually have a workload that wont notice those few hundred MHz difference over the extra cores.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Shiv78 said:

Gaming = Z170/270

Production and other professional work = X99

 

Thank you all! You guys explained it in a great way that's understandable to me. STRM explained the entire 10 core 5ghz vs quad core 5hz thing to me. And yes, I am planning to do pretty frequent editing and rendering on this PC. I think I'm going with x99 so that I can render faster with more cores, thank you all!