6700k vs 5820k

Caracus2k · 29 Oct 2015 at 20:06

McGraw said:
Anyway, seeing as you've made a thing of this, how many games are there out there that will run better on an a 5820k at say 4.5 vs a 6700k at 4.7?

I play mostly CPU limited games and whilst I would have considered x99 for my build, the fact is I would have had worse performance for more money, regardless of my ITX requirements.

Very few currently benefit currently...... going forward I strongly suspect hex core CPU's will move into the 'sweet' spot currently occupied by quad core CPU's

But given they cost about the same and that X99 is almost certain to perform better going forward I say its a no brainer before you even consider any non gaming use

only use 1 GPU , play games/ browse the web etc.... buy a 6600k and save they difference for a better GPU now or in the future... another no brainer

setter · 29 Oct 2015 at 20:11

whyscotty said:
I hope your using your Swift whilst posting

Yup, just going through a bit of setting up.

whyscotty · 29 Oct 2015 at 20:15

Use those settings that Greg posted - makes a massive diff

Soz for the off topic

McGraw · 29 Oct 2015 at 20:18

Caracus2k said:
Very few currently benefit currently...... going forward I strongly suspect hex core CPU's will move into the 'sweet' spot currently occupied by quad core CPU's

But given they cost about the same and that X99 is almost certain to perform better going forward I say its a no brainer before you even consider any non gaming use

only use 1 GPU , play games/ browse the web etc.... buy a 6600k and save they difference for a better GPU now or in the future... another no brainer

Read my previous post regarding your second paragraph.

thesuperlouis · 29 Oct 2015 at 21:04

5820k is a video rendering/editing beast, the 6700k is a gaming beast, simples! btw guys just so you know this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to there opinion so dont go getting ur knickers in a twist cos i aint bigging up your x99/5820k

Caracus2k · 29 Oct 2015 at 21:56

thesuperlouis said:
5820k is a video rendering/editing beast, the 6700k is a gaming beast, simples! btw guys just so you know this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to there opinion so dont go getting ur knickers in a twist cos i aint bigging up your x99/5820k

Problem for an overclocked 6700k is a an overclocked 5820k is a gaming beast as well as a video/ editing beast for less money for the CPU and about the same money with a motherboard and memory......

lamboman · 29 Oct 2015 at 22:22

Haswell-E. The reality is that for gaming and every other "everyday" task you throw at it, the 5820K will match the performance of the 6700K. For any task that is heavily multithreaded, the 5820K will be significantly quicker.

There is no reasonable justification for Skylake unless the prices are significantly below that of Haswell-E (as they were before). Benchmarks will clearly show this as fact as opposed to opinion.

Hedge · 29 Oct 2015 at 22:56

It's probably a 5% difference in gaming fps but a 15%+ difference in rendering / heavily threaded applications.

I'd sacrifice the unnoticeable fps gains for the noticeable gains in demanding none gaming situations.

theaterix · 29 Oct 2015 at 23:19

thesuperlouis said:
5820k is a video rendering/editing beast, the 6700k is a gaming beast, simples! btw guys just so you know this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to there opinion so dont go getting ur knickers in a twist cos i aint bigging up your x99/5820k

There you are 'super Louis' missed you mate LOL.

theaterix · 29 Oct 2015 at 23:19

Now thats out of the way, lets get down to these replies to all you lads!

theaterix · 29 Oct 2015 at 23:26

Looking online at various benchmarks, the 5820k does beat out the 6700k at various games, albeit by .3 fps haha and that is margin of error at best.
The 5820k sounds like it is for the future, which is really what i want as i wont be doing large overhauls like i am this year for maybe 4 years as i finish my GCSE's and then start an apprenticeship in September so wont really have stupid amounts of money to throw on pc's (I say this now hehe).
Heres my current spec:

AMD 8320 (running stock clocks as i had it at 4.4 but windows kept crashing, put it back, still crashes lmao)
MSI 990FXA-GD65
8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz
Sapphire Reference R9 290
Corsair CX750M (fit the bill at the time, defiantly gonna upgrade to something more reliable)
Xigmatek Alfar Windowed case (defiantly needing a new case)
May aswell include the monitor - LG 29UD65 (nicest and best stand of them all)

What do yous think should be included in the overhaul, and could yous spec me some recommended upgrades up.
Looking to spend about 900 ish overall.
Factor this in. The 5820k I am getting is £126, dont ask how, family member, board of directors at Intel.
So theres like 770 left for the rest ISH.
I would like a 144hz monitor aswell if possible for CS:GO

thesuperlouis · 30 Oct 2015 at 00:09

a 6 threaded i7 6700k would be nice

theaterix · 30 Oct 2015 at 00:21

thesuperlouis said:
a 6 threaded i7 6700k would be nice

Anyone else want to cry at him commenting everywhere?

Tephnos · 30 Oct 2015 at 00:35

thesuperlouis said:
a 6 threaded i7 6700k would be nice

6 core*

And that's Skylake-E, due for X(xxx) series in 2017.

Hedge · 30 Oct 2015 at 06:56

theaterix said:
Anyone else want to cry at him commenting everywhere?

He's gotta be having a laugh by now. Amazing how someone can be so annoying on such a subject.

DazQ87 · 30 Oct 2015 at 08:53

It's almost as if history is repeating itself: reminds me of the Core2duo vs Core2Quad situation a few years back, some people would recommend the higher clocked dual cores because you only needed 2 cores for gaming. Yet those people who went for say a Q6600 were able to get massive lifespans out of their chips because of the extra cores, despite being lower clocked out the box.

Dave2150 · 30 Oct 2015 at 09:55

DazQ87 said:
It's almost as if history is repeating itself: reminds me of the Core2duo vs Core2Quad situation a few years back, some people would recommend the higher clocked dual cores because you only needed 2 cores for gaming. Yet those people who went for say a Q6600 were able to get massive lifespans out of their chips because of the extra cores, despite being lower clocked out the box.

HBM, eDRAM, stacked memory etc will mean none of the currently available CPU's will have the legendary lifespan of the i7 920 x57 from 2008, IMO.

For the uninformed, Knights Landing features 16GB (yes, GB) on package memory (8 stacks of HBM). Here's a picture:

Obviously it will be a few years until we get enthusiast/consumer versions of this (with much less than 16GB at first) though the performance will be out of this world.

Even Broadwell I7 5775C with 128MB of eDRAM was able to out perform the 4790k, despite a much lower clock speed, due to only 128MB of on package memory.

rossiboy001 · 30 Oct 2015 at 10:11

Question for me will a 5820k be able to run appropriate strength single card or dual sli/crossfire for triple 4K screens 144mhz on high profile games like battlefield 5 or 6 ect in the future say 5 years when I estimate that might be viable with the development of GPU technology. Something that's reachable for more of us rather than now with a quad titanx setup on a £1000 CPU? That is the measure of future proofing to me on the gaming side.

thesuperlouis · 30 Oct 2015 at 11:41

i dont understand why im being so annoying to u aetrix? i really am starting to think you really just dont have a clue.

Caracus2k · 30 Oct 2015 at 12:22

Dave2150 said:
HBM, eDRAM, stacked memory etc will mean none of the currently available CPU's will have the legendary lifespan of the i7 920 x57 from 2008, IMO.

For the uninformed, Knights Landing features 16GB (yes, GB) on package memory (8 stacks of HBM). Here's a picture:

Obviously it will be a few years until we get enthusiast/consumer versions of this (with much less than 16GB at first) though the performance will be out of this world.

Even Broadwell I7 5775C with 128MB of eDRAM was able to out perform the 4790k, despite a much lower clock speed, due to only 128MB of on package memory.

Although I agree that in the future consumer products will likely move to products with the system memory incorporated into the CPU package I would not expect it for a good few years yet. For at least the past 10 years I have been reading about how we will all be buying cpu's with memory onboard in a 'few' years. Needless to say will still aren't and there's no announced consumer or enthusiast products in the pipeline. Knights landing comes with many low clocked cores and is for rather special massively parallel application's where the the onboard memory can make a big difference.

Knights landing is the spiritual successor to Intel's 'Larrabee' gpu concept that never took off. It includes a large amount *up to 72* of Intel Atom' cores and as such has more in common with a modern consumer gpu, which include a large amount or lower clocked parallel 'processors' opposed to a modern consumer CPU which has far fewer processing cores clocked at a far higher speed. Its no surprise therefore that both gpu's and knights landing have been announced coming with hbm as they perform, in a computational manner, very similar roles I.e massively parallel computing. Consumer and enthusiast cpu's are completely different propositions and x99 quad channel memory supplies more than enough bandwidth for an eight core CPU. You will note as well that knights landing includes large amounts of of die memory as well so the 16gb on board is a bit of a super cache for very high end use