This is also good news for us on x99, means the six core broadwell-e cpu's may come in at sub £400 at launch!
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
6700k vs 5820k
- Thread starter rodrigox
- Start date
This is also good news for us on x99, means the six core broadwell-e cpu's may come in at sub £400 at launch!
wow buddy, do you really have to defend every post that is anyhow damaging team x99. I own a x99 platform and a z170 platform, and i have no favourite, its your PC, not your new born baby lol.
Why would you compare the cheapest z170 board with a mid range x99 board and expect it to have similar board features (specifically USB 3.1 as you stated)
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...cket-2011-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-652-as.html
x99 board represents a decent feature list compared to...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-647-as.html
which is the Z170 equivalent in terms of brand and factory build quality.
£117 vs £210, clearly not the same
My point is the price per feature, a mid range (~£120) z170 board has all features an average user will need, i.e. 1x 16X GPU slot, 1x m.2 Gen3 X4, usb 3.1 (type-c), (and SATA-e maybe
). Try find a x99 motherboard for £120 with all those features.
Some people may see the value of the extra PCI-E lanes, quad channel RAM etc and I have no problem with that.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 2,301
- Location
- North West
Sorry I didn't mean to start a war, I only said X99 because of the extra cores and the cheaper price. Haha
Hehe, to be honest it is very fatiguing to read the same arguments over and over again on this forum, but i just can't stop
Just some individuals just swear by one side or the other. I have no problem with either, lets just all enjoy our computers.
wow buddy, do you really have to defend every post that is anyhow damaging team x99. I own a x99 platform and a z170 platform, and i have no favourite, its your PC, not your new born baby lol.
Why would you compare the cheapest z170 board with a mid range x99 board and expect it to have similar board features (specifically USB 3.1 as you stated)
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...cket-2011-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-652-as.html
x99 board represents a decent feature list compared to...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-647-as.html
which is the Z170 equivalent in terms of brand and factory build quality.
£117 vs £210, clearly not the same
My point is the price per feature, a mid range (~£120) z170 board has all features an average user will need, i.e. 1x 16X GPU slot, 1x m.2 Gen3 X4, usb 3.1 (type-c), (and SATA-e maybe
Try find a x99 motherboard for £120 with all those features.
Some people may see the value of the extra PCI-E lanes, quad channel RAM etc and I have no problem with that.
Your changing your story now..... you claimed that z170 motherboards had more features (like m.2 slots and usb 3.1) than x99 motherboards.
a totally untrue statement as I pointed out.
Usb 3.1 is not native to the z170 chipset (or x99) it can be added via a motherboard chip or expansion card. X99 motherboards can and do have (multiple) m.2 slots. Are you sure you own a x99 setup as you seem pretty poorly informed re what the chipset does and does not offer...
I was not comparing the z170 boards and the x99 boards on price the headings are quite clear to show that you can buy x99 boards with usb3.1 and z170 boards without, to demonstrate that your claims if z170 boards having more features was nonsense and entirely dependant on the individual board being purchased. I am obviously a little biased towards x99 but mostly I have found a lot of people have been talking an awful lot of nonsense about z170 and x99 of late....
Re the price situation ocuk don't have the largest selection of x99 boards and but I can buy a board or comparable spec to the z170 elsewhere for £160 odd still more expensive but depending on what happens to the price of the 6700k going forward potentially still cheaper as a package....
Over the past few weeks a 6700k has consistently been £40
more expensive than a 5820k. The lower price may or may not be a one off ....
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 161
- Location
- United Kingdom
I went with a 5820k to "move down" all my rig components this was purely due to it being (at that point in time the offer of the 5820k and X99M G5 board for £350 was too good to pass) cheaper and the pushing factor of not being able to source a Z77-M replacement board for my HTPC. Pretty pleased with it but I don't think I'd have felt I was missing out on anything if I'd gone down the Skylake route (and vice versa); it just suits the circumstances and I'm still enjoying my gaming.
If it was new though I'd just buy to a max budget based on what I do day to day; sure I'd still feel my skill suck increasing whether it was x99 or z170 based.
If it was new though I'd just buy to a max budget based on what I do day to day; sure I'd still feel my skill suck increasing whether it was x99 or z170 based.
When I was deliberating on whether to upgrade my overcloked i7 3770k (4.5Ghz) I looked at both platforms, the Z170 and X99.
As the 6700k started to increase in price, or so it seemed, from launch to be beyond that of the 5820k it then made me consider the X99 as a potential upgrade.
I did find the motherboards for the 5820k to be a lot more expensive compared to those for the Z170 CPU's when looking at those with the equivalent feature set.
Maybe the X99 would offer greater longevity over that of the Z170, especially if the multi-core support is of use to the purchaser....?
My friend has just just upgraded his CPU to a Xeon x5650 and has it running at 4.2Ghz in his X58 board along with a R9 Fury unlocked. So that quite impressed me at what can be possible with a pretty old "X" chipset board.
But, thankfully says my bank account, I see very little point in me upgrading to either platforms as my overcloked 3770k still more than holds its own with my GTX 980.
As the 6700k started to increase in price, or so it seemed, from launch to be beyond that of the 5820k it then made me consider the X99 as a potential upgrade.
I did find the motherboards for the 5820k to be a lot more expensive compared to those for the Z170 CPU's when looking at those with the equivalent feature set.
Maybe the X99 would offer greater longevity over that of the Z170, especially if the multi-core support is of use to the purchaser....?
My friend has just just upgraded his CPU to a Xeon x5650 and has it running at 4.2Ghz in his X58 board along with a R9 Fury unlocked. So that quite impressed me at what can be possible with a pretty old "X" chipset board.
But, thankfully says my bank account, I see very little point in me upgrading to either platforms as my overcloked 3770k still more than holds its own with my GTX 980.
http://i.imgur.com/lg3M6kC.png x99 motherboard
http://i.imgur.com/acxxo22.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/P0bRAi9.png?1 old picture of z170 build in same case
Come on m8y, I've been around for a while and defiantly not the type to boast for e-pen. Again I have no problem with any opinions (bias or not).
Maybe i got the wording wrong (i.e. 'feature-rich') but there is no need to go forum police. I still standby my opinion on mid-range z170 boards represent decent value. Why can't you accept other people can have other opinions.
I'm going to step away, it is a boring Saturday afternoon but i'm sure i can find something better to do then getting sucked into this any further
.
Last edited:
http://i.imgur.com/lg3M6kC.png x99 motherboard
http://i.imgur.com/acxxo22.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/P0bRAi9.png?1 old picture of z170 build in same case
Come on m8y, I've been around for a while and defiantly not the type to boast for e-pen. Again I have no problem with any opinions (bias or not).
Maybe i got the wording wrong (i.e. 'feature-rich') but there is no need to go forum police. I still standby my opinion on mid-range z170 boards represent decent value. Why can't you accept other people can have other opinions.
I'm going to step away, it is a boring Saturday afternoon but i'm sure i can find something better to do then getting sucked into this any further
The top part of my post was not opinion it was fact you implicitly claimed that Z170 boards had features that X99 features did not like USB 3.1 and M.2 slots - most X99 boards have an single m.2 slot as do most Z170 boards
I pointed out that this is untrue as USB 3.1 is not part of the Z170 chipset and like X99 has to be added by a secondary chipset or an add in card just like X99. I also demonstrated that X99 can and does have (multiple) M.2 slots.
Re the price aspect this is obviously a but more subjective and dependant on comparing prices across the web which we cant properly do on OCUK's forum for good reason.
X99 boards do tend to bottom out around £150 - £160 and Z170 boards obviously go lower than this. When you start to look at the feature rich boards that I would imagine most people would go for if there buying an I7 6700K then the price gap narrows/ disappears. You will notice that high end boards for both Z170 and X (excl dual socket boards) top out at a similar price of around £400.
Last edited:
I had a thread about this a few months ago when I was considering the options and the result was 5820k which is what I bought.
Considering the fact the next range will also run on x99 for the top end chips, I think its a wise choice
Considering the fact the next range will also run on x99 for the top end chips, I think its a wise choice
http://i.imgur.com/lg3M6kC.png x99 motherboard
http://i.imgur.com/acxxo22.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/P0bRAi9.png?1 old picture of z170 build in same case
Come on m8y, I've been around for a while and defiantly not the type to boast for e-pen. Again I have no problem with any opinions (bias or not).
Maybe i got the wording wrong (i.e. 'feature-rich') but there is no need to go forum police. I still standby my opinion on mid-range z170 boards represent decent value. Why can't you accept other people can have other opinions.
I'm going to step away, it is a boring Saturday afternoon but i'm sure i can find something better to do then getting sucked into this any further
The top part of my post was not opinion it was fact you implicitly claimed that Z170 boards had features that X99 features did not like USB 3.1 and M.2 slots.
I pointed out that this is untrue as USB 3.1 is not part of the Z170 chipset and like X99 has to be added by a secondary chipset or an add in card just like X99. I also demonstrated that X99 Boards can and do have (multiple) M.2 slots. Most x99 boards have one m.2 slot just like most Z170 boards...
Re the price aspect this is obviously a but more subjective and dependant on comparing prices across the web which we cant properly do on OCUK's forum for good reason.
X99 boards do tend to bottom out around £150 - £160 and Z170 boards obviously go lower than this. When you start to look at the feature rich boards that I would imagine most people would go for if there buying an I7 6700K then the price gap narrows/ disappears. You will notice that high end boards for both Z170 and X99 (excl dual socket boards) top out at a similar price of around £400.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
if your use is gaming, then the 6700k would be your best option at this moment in time, the 6700k core v core is a lot more powerful than the 5820k and offers far better and newer architecture than the 5820k, as i say it depends what your going to be doing, if your doing a lot of video/photo editing then the 2 extra cores are going to come into use on the 5820k.
I went with a 5820K/x99 when making the same decision a few months ago. I was coming from AMD so either would be a massive upgrade for me.
I went with the 5820k for two reasons really.
I do a fair amount of video encoding/capping/streaming. So the extra cores are good for that. This was the main reason.
X99-SLI/5820K bundle was £390 at the time, which made the decision a little easier as well.
I went with the 5820k for two reasons really.
I do a fair amount of video encoding/capping/streaming. So the extra cores are good for that. This was the main reason.
X99-SLI/5820K bundle was £390 at the time, which made the decision a little easier as well.
If you're just playing games with the PC, then Skylake 6600k/6700k are the best choices once they return to normal prices.
If you stream, render video, encode video, run any kind of productivity workload, then the 6/8 core X99 systems are the best choices.
If you stream, render video, encode video, run any kind of productivity workload, then the 6/8 core X99 systems are the best choices.
My only issue with recommending the 5820k would be the reports of USB and memory channel failures. A colleague is looking for a new PC as his apparently 'fogged' his room (quite literally) when he turned his on after a week's absence. He is now trying to chose between 5820k and 6700k (at present).
I am also concerned that the lower clocks on the 5820k would put it at a disadvantage as he has no interest in SLI/Crossfire.
I am also concerned that the lower clocks on the 5820k would put it at a disadvantage as he has no interest in SLI/Crossfire.
Is he going to overclock?