5820k 4.5 vs 4.7 6700k

Andy7 · 18 Dec 2015 at 18:44

If I was looking to upgrade at the moment I would go with the 5820K for the extra cores.

RockoSRI · 18 Dec 2015 at 19:31

Andy7 said:
If I was looking to upgrade at the moment I would go with the 5820K for the extra cores.

This.

Perfect_Chaos · 18 Dec 2015 at 19:51

What about the DF benches that show a boost with the 6700k in a few games? Are those cpu bottlenecked or would one still get a large boost in min/avg fps from a newer gpu even with a previous gen cpu?

setter · 18 Dec 2015 at 20:01

New gpu will always help more than a cpu. Particularly as cpu development has stagnated a bit in recent years.

bfar · 18 Dec 2015 at 21:01

Jono8 said:
This totally depends on what he is using it for. In some applications a 5820k will be a HUGE amount faster than a 2500k

Yes, the op said it was for gaming. You're quite right though

Perfect_Chaos · 18 Dec 2015 at 21:10

setter said:
New gpu will always help more than a cpu. Particularly as cpu development has stagnated a bit in recent years.

The DF results led me to believe that any gpu released in the future won't increase minimum/average fps if used in those more cpu intensive games, they used a Titan x in their testing. I must not have a full understanding of it. That or they are exaggerating the results.

Participant · 19 Dec 2015 at 08:05

Andy7 said:
If I was looking to upgrade at the moment I would go with the 5820K for the extra cores.

This seems to be common wisdom at the moment, but for years people have been saying that games that truly take advantage of multiple cores are 'just around the corner'. However even today, games that properly utilise four cores aren't that common, let alone six.

By the time games make use of so many cores and threads, there'll be cheaper six core options so I don't see that a 5820k is necessarily the sweet spot, though I'm sorely tempted for the peen.

8 Pack · 19 Dec 2015 at 11:12

This is a downgrade. 5820 all the way.

theaterix · 19 Dec 2015 at 14:09

Was stuck between the 5820 and 6700, and chose the 5820 and Gigabyte X99-SLI bundle, reason was, why take less performance and pay more...? You may get some faster cores, but bear in mind your getting 4 less threads so multitasking wont be as fast, and gaming will be negligible difference, with your GPU making the difference and the CPU's not bottlenecking ANYTHING.
Get the 5820k and dont look back!!

Mariusz · 19 Dec 2015 at 19:01

Agree with the above. Very happy with my i7 5820K, runs cooler than my delided i7 4770K and has extra cores for that rainy day with games need them.

robin66 · 19 Dec 2015 at 19:27

faceman123 said:
i've had the 2500k,2600k,3570,4770k,4790k,4690k,5820k

i'm so bored. nothing between the i7's. Guess it's about time i stuck with a build for more then 7 months =(

Looking at this and setters list reminds me oh how I once was. I tend not to upgrade anything now unless it's two years old and I need the performance increase.

bfar · 19 Dec 2015 at 20:22

I've been looking at these for a while, my only hangup with a 5820k is that when overclocked it would be a very hot, noisy and power hungry system, and pretty much rules out mini itx, which is actually a bit of a shame.

setter · 19 Dec 2015 at 20:27

It will use more power yes, but tbh I've found it to be a cool running chip. And noise isn't a big issue, but of course that will depend on the fans you use.

Perfect_Chaos · 19 Dec 2015 at 20:46

I was actually thinking of doing a 2nd system with a 6700k, but really it would likely be a waste for me as the games i play are mostly gpu intensive.. and whenever Source 2 games show up i guess Vulkan/DX12 will make it a lot more efficient and mainly use the gpu anyway.

uscool · 19 Dec 2015 at 23:17

i myself came from AMD 8350, so was a big jump, and wanted a newer platform and i only game, if i had a 2500k , i would not have changed, just would have GPU upgrade and i got the 6700k at £250 on release, i also reckon when games do actually start using more cores by that time will be newer cpus

faceman123 · 20 Dec 2015 at 03:42

Guess i'll stick with it, tbh don't even notice diffference on the nvme drive :\. Technology has slowed down..........

Perfect_Chaos · 20 Dec 2015 at 04:39

faceman123 said:
Guess i'll stick with it, tbh don't even notice diffference on the nvme drive :\. Technology has slowed down..........

Well if you've come from a decent regular SSD you wouldn't really notice the difference with the current nvme drives anyway, the IOPS are barely any better are they? That's why I'm waiting for the 3D Xpoint drives next year, they are (supposedly) going to be a lot faster for overall system speed.

David Bisset · 20 Dec 2015 at 09:02

bfar said:
I've been looking at these for a while, my only hangup with a 5820k is that when overclocked it would be a very hot, noisy and power hungry system, and pretty much rules out mini itx, which is actually a bit of a shame.

Soldered chips & large die area, they're not hot. Your cooling needs to be decent to handle the power use, but if it's up to it they'll be cooler running than mainstream chips.

Jono8 · 20 Dec 2015 at 12:01

bfar said:
I've been looking at these for a while, my only hangup with a 5820k is that when overclocked it would be a very hot, noisy and power hungry system, and pretty much rules out mini itx, which is actually a bit of a shame.

Hot and noisy? They run, if anything, cooler than the 4 core i7's as they have a soldered heat spreader.

My 5820k runs cooler than my 3770k did.

Ok they might use a bit more power under load if you are loading all the cores but i think generally your apprehensions are unfounded.

passey89 · 20 Dec 2015 at 12:16

bfar said:
I've been looking at these for a while, my only hangup with a 5820k is that when overclocked it would be a very hot, noisy and power hungry system, and pretty much rules out mini itx, which is actually a bit of a shame.

my 5820K at 4.3ghz only hits 69c rendering premiere videos & 100% usage for 20 mins. coolest chip I have ever had.