CPU Question For Someone Out Of The Loop

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Exactly how long will a 5820k longevity last? Im in the same boat considering an upgrade for long term from, a 2700k and it looks like Im gona hold on, an ivybrige would help for PCI gen 3 but short of MM which I dont have access to they are hard to find especially brand new as a short term upgrade on Z77 to utilise a second 980ti. However long term I would like to see a processor that would handle 3 screens at 4k each gaming in a few years when GPU"s can realistically manage that. Would a 5820K be capable then? If not then if i was buying now ild go for 6700k just for the best there is now cause I would need to replace the 5820k anyway at some point.

The Core i7 6700K is a rubbish value CPU at £300+ and makes a Core i5 6600K at £200 or a Core i5 4690K at £170 look awesome value.

But look at how much the Core i5 6600K is now on OcUK?? That price is not far off IB and Haswell Core i7 CPUs.

Even in gaming benchmarks the Core i7 5775C can do well against the Core i7 6700K due to its L4 cache and is usually cheaper,and you do not need fast DDR4 RAM to make the most of the platform,and will work fine in socket 1150 motherboards.

You even have a decent IGP for backup too.

Any of the newer quad cores without HT are perfectly fine for gaming and if you need extra multi-threaded performance the Core i7 6700K will get destroyed by a Core i7 5820K - plus the platform will be supported with 14NM CPUs too. If the HT on the Core i7 6700K is "important for gaming" then imagine how the extra cores on the Core i7 5820K would help??

The Core i7 6700K is just nowhere in its product segmentation. The ST performance on the Core i5 6600K is similar,and the extra money can go towards a better graphics card,or a better cooler to get a better overclock and the Core i7 5820K might lose some ST performance but destroys it for multi-threaded performance.

If I were you,I would stick with your Core i7 2700K especially if its overclocked TBF.

The whole Skylake pricing structure is ridiculous.

It just comes across as companies like Intel wanting to milk desktop PC enthusiasts,so they can spend billions on subsiding things like Atom tablets. It doesn't help AMD is not really competing either.

 

[rossiboy001]

The Core i7 6700K is a rubbish value CPU at £300+ and makes a Core i5 6600K at £200 or a Core i5 4690K at £170 look awesome value.

But look at how much the Core i5 6600K is now on OcUK?? That price is not far off IB and Haswell Core i7 CPUs.

Even in gaming benchmarks the Core i7 5775C can do well against the Core i7 6700K due to its L4 cache and is usually cheaper,and you do not need fast DDR4 RAM to make the most of the platform,and will work fine in socket 1150 motherboards.

You even have a decent IGP for backup too.

Any of the newer quad cores without HT are perfectly fine for gaming and if you need extra multi-threaded performance the Core i7 6700K will get destroyed by a Core i7 5820K - plus the platform will be supported with 14NM CPUs too. If the HT on the Core i7 6700K is "important for gaming" then imagine how the extra cores on the Core i7 5820K would help??

The Core i7 6700K is just nowhere in its product segmentation. The ST performance on the Core i5 6600K is similar,and the extra money can go towards a better graphics card,or a better cooler to get a better overclock and the Core i7 5820K might lose some ST performance but destroys it for multi-threaded performance.

If I were you,I would stick with your Core i7 2700K especially if its overclocked TBF.

 

[rossiboy001]

Yeah its overclocked to 4.5 ghz everyday use and at that the most demanding game I play is BF4 where the highest core reaches 57 degrees on a GT110i Which looking at afterburner typically is in the region of 70% core usage across all cores pretty similar. I just know one day my ultimate gaming goal is 3 triples at 4k 144 mhz playing ultra. Wondering will by the time we have single of sli/crossfire strength cards a 5820k will be able to power the cards and resolution? For now though yep wont need to change the 2700k unless I look at top end SLI cause oif the PCI gen 2 bandwith issue. If I just stay single card top end them im sure it will be good for another two years of GPU offerings.

 

[Dave2150]

All true, although it's only that much faster in benchmarks due to the i7-920's low stock clock. You'd be looking at an ~80% increase in performance assuming both are clocked sensibly (4 GHz i7-920 & 4.5 GHz i7-6700K).


This is all true but assumes X99 has a price premium. Right now it doesn't really because Skylake prices are mental. Also remember that despite there being a minor hit in single-threaded performance now, X99 is more likely to last longer than Skylake (and thus save even more money in the long term) - just look at the longevity of X58!

Both CPU's can be overclocked. My I7 920 was a C0 stepping (the original, from december 2008) and maxed out at 3.8Ghz, no matter the voltage. It was the later stepping (D0) of the 920 that allowed an easy 4Ghz clock for most.

Comparing the performance of my 920 @ 3.8Ghz to my 6700k @ 4.7Ghz, is literally double the performance in most CPU benchmarks, some show even more than this, if they use AVX etc.

This is all true but assumes X99 has a price premium. Right now it doesn't really because Skylake prices are mental. Also remember that despite there being a minor hit in single-threaded performance now, X99 is more likely to last longer than Skylake (and thus save even more money in the long term) - just look at the longevity of X58!

The 6700k or 6600k are not that much more expensive than their haswell counterparts, if you shop around. Also worth noting that Haswell 4790k etc won't be available forever, I'd expect stocks to dry up by the end of the year, then this will be a non issue.

As for Haswell-E - again I reiterate my point that these CPU's are only worth it for video editors, streamers, folding at home etc - buying one of these for gaming is IMO a waste, as their true power is never realised (no games show a performance benefit from 6 cores yet). Far better to have a high IPC CPU such as Skylake for gaming.

If you compare the price of a 5820k, a beefy heatsink/AIO watercooler to cool it, a decent x99 motherboard, 4 sticks of DDR4 (quad channel kit needed to use quad channel memory controller) it still ends up more expensive than a z170/Skylake setup. In particular the dual channel DDR4 kits are cheaper than the quad channel equivalents (lookup 3000Mhz 16GB 2X8GB kits, compared to 4X4GB 16GB kits).

Skylake's price is inflated now because of the supply issue with the 14nm process. Once it ramps up, prices will return to the Haswell 4790K range, probably around the same time these Haswell CPU's are permanently out of stock.

 

[Caracus2k]

I upgraded from a i7 920 12gb ram system (bought december 2008) to a 6700k system a few months ago on release and couldn't be happier.

It's over twice the performance in benchmarks, uses much less electricity, runs much cooler and the chipset (motherboard) features it offers are really nice.

I'd only consider X99 (Haswell-E) if you a professional video editor or streamer, otherwise the additional CPU cores just go to waste.

No games need a 6 or 8 core - and no games show a tangible performance benefit. The 6700k is pretty much the fastest gaming CPU out there, for those using 1-2 GPU's.

Its kind of been pointed out already but going X58 to Z170 and then saying that X99 is not worth getting for a lot of people is a slight odd position to take.

X58 = enthusiast platform
X99 = enthusiast platform
Z170 = Consumer/mainstream platform

At current UK prices there's very little difference between a X99 setup and a Z170 setup

Now given that your last 'enthusiast' platform lasted for so long and with no price premium over a comparable Z170 setup why not go with the platform likely again to have more longevity

 

[DragonQ]

Its kind of been pointed out already but going X58 to Z170 and then saying that X99 is not worth getting for a lot of people is a slight odd position to take.

X58 = enthusiast platform
X99 = enthusiast platform
Z170 = Consumer/mainstream platform

At current UK prices there's very little difference between a X99 setup and a Z170 setup

Now given that your last 'enthusiast' platform lasted for so long and with no price premium over a comparable Z170 setup why not go with the platform likely again to have more longevity

To be fair, some people got X58 because for the first year-ish there was no alternative aside from a dead platform (Yorkfield). Lynnfield came later.