• 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.

Gaming 2500k cpu upgrade? 6700k or 5820k

both valid points yeah. I think my 2500k is pretty maxed atm, back when i OC'd it I remember tweaking a lot, ram included but it didn't behave very well so put it back to standard. the Motherboard i bought was not exactly high end. A mistake i wont make again cheaping out on the board.

i do spend a lot of time gaming, i set up my 2500k must be at least 2 years ago? overclocked it and then never touched a setting again so its been a while lol.

my mindset was 2500k to say 6600k was a mediocre upgrade but 2500k to 6700k/5820k for example would be a bigger worthwhile upgrade. Maybe im looking at it the wrong way
 
OrionTC said:
both valid points yeah. I think my 2500k is pretty maxed atm, back when i OC'd it I remember tweaking a lot, ram included but it didn't behave very well so put it back to standard. the Motherboard i bought was not exactly high end. A mistake i wont make again cheaping out on the board.

i do spend a lot of time gaming, i set up my 2500k must be at least 2 years ago? overclocked it and then never touched a setting again so its been a while lol.

my mindset was 2500k to say 6600k was a mediocre upgrade but 2500k to 6700k/5820k for example would be a bigger worthwhile upgrade. Maybe im looking at it the wrong way
Click to expand...

The 5820K is just as good for gaming as the 6700K plus you will also have the extra cores for rendering and other stuff that take advantage of the extra cores.

It is a no brainer to go with x99 in my opinion ;)
 
if i was going to upgrade then 6 cores makes sense, really your looking at a stars aligning max of 30% gain going to 6700?

while 6 cores gives you 50% right away on the right tasks...
 
OrionTC said:
both valid points yeah. I think my 2500k is pretty maxed atm, back when i OC'd it I remember tweaking a lot, ram included but it didn't behave very well so put it back to standard. the Motherboard i bought was not exactly high end. A mistake i wont make again cheaping out on the board.

i do spend a lot of time gaming, i set up my 2500k must be at least 2 years ago? overclocked it and then never touched a setting again so its been a while lol.

my mindset was 2500k to say 6600k was a mediocre upgrade but 2500k to 6700k/5820k for example would be a bigger worthwhile upgrade. Maybe im looking at it the wrong way
Click to expand...

5820k is a waste of money because of single core to single core speed it is no better and the only way that the 5820k will be any good to u if where going to do rendering/hdr decoding&encoding on a large scale otherwise is a lot of money for no gain

6700k is ok but y spend the money if the cores ant going to be used as most games atm and next 2 years will be daul/quad core focus still, and with games like WoW,STO and that are all old game engines using a single core so stuff like 2500k are more cpu than you need.

why may i ask do you think ur 2500k is maxed out on ur current work load ??? at 4.4ghz ?
 
Last edited:
Got to be the 5820k. Single core perf will be similar (likely only 10% lower ish, probably less clock for clock but the 6700k will likely clock a few 100mhz higher) but for the same price, you get two more cores/4 more threads.

In the right programs a 5820k is nearly 50% faster than a 6700k at similar clocks so it would seem silly to spend the same money for potentially 50% less performance.

X99 still has uprade paths too seen as Broadwell E is out this year and will use the same socket and chipset.

Obviously most games won't show much difference from a 4.4ghz i5 but there are some that definitely will and games using multiple cores will likely only become more abundant this year.
 
Last edited:
Recently upgraded from an overclocked 2500k (4.4) to a 5930k @ 4.3 and its certainly helped the rendering times by quite a chunk. Definitely OC it, I went from 1min 42 render time to 58sec on the same scene while stress testing my setup.

Games its hit and miss, the ones that actually utilise the extra cores is obvious, otherwise just expect to see a lower usuage % but a higher temp.

Was it worth it?I would say so, plus it was in the sales. :D

As for recording game sessions, having used both I actually prefer AMD's Gaming Evolved all to Shadow play as it is simple and automatic to start where as I am yet to find a way to auto enable SP on startup.
 
Jono8 said:
Got to be the 5820k. Single core perf will be similar (likely only 10% lower ish, probably less clock for clock but the 6700k will likely clock a few 100mhz higher) but for the same price, you get two more cores/4 more threads.

In the right programs a 5820k is nearly 50% faster than a 6700k at similar clocks so it would seem silly to spend the same money for potentially 50% less performance.

X99 still has uprade paths too seen as Broadwell E is out this year and will use the same socket and chipset.

Obviously most games won't show much difference from a 4.4ghz i5 but there are some that definitely will and games using multiple cores will likely only become more abundant this year.
Click to expand...

Spot on :) If anyone is in doubt then just ask 8 Pack which route to go and he will tell you the same as me.
 
Last edited:
Andy7 said:
Spot on :) If anyone is in doubt then just ask 8 Pack which route to go and he will tell you the same as me.
Click to expand...

This. - Quote from Pack

"What was surprising for me about these results is that as expected on all multi threaded stuff the X99 platform smashes the Z170 Skylake. Terregan and Cinebench both heavily multi threaded benefiting from both cores and threads as do games based physics or combined tests.

What I did not expect and what is certain is in 3D game based benches the FPS was very very close indeed with Skylake faster yes but only by around 2-3% in 3D mark 11 and Firestrike. This makes X99 look amazing value considering its other benefits.

Wanting to explore this further I switched out the 980 Ti for a 970 which is the current mid priced gaming card of choice for the masses. In both Heaven and Valley which are only game tests run maxed out at 1080p the X99 system with a 970 clocked equally on both gave less than 1 FPS difference when benched.

For me at this specific price point X99 is king and does not need high speeed DDR4 to achieve this position.

i5's are not really my realm of interest but I can confirm the i5 Skylake samples I tried using these same basic settings all hit at least 4.5ghz. This consistency is much welcomed.

X99 Anyone "
 
faceman123 said:
This. - Quote from Pack

"What was surprising for me about these results is that as expected on all multi threaded stuff the X99 platform smashes the Z170 Skylake. Terregan and Cinebench both heavily multi threaded benefiting from both cores and threads as do games based physics or combined tests.

What I did not expect and what is certain is in 3D game based benches the FPS was very very close indeed with Skylake faster yes but only by around 2-3% in 3D mark 11 and Firestrike. This makes X99 look amazing value considering its other benefits.

Wanting to explore this further I switched out the 980 Ti for a 970 which is the current mid priced gaming card of choice for the masses. In both Heaven and Valley which are only game tests run maxed out at 1080p the X99 system with a 970 clocked equally on both gave less than 1 FPS difference when benched.

For me at this specific price point X99 is king and does not need high speeed DDR4 to achieve this position.

i5's are not really my realm of interest but I can confirm the i5 Skylake samples I tried using these same basic settings all hit at least 4.5ghz. This consistency is much welcomed.

X99 Anyone "
Click to expand...

I think we can close the thread lol ;)
 
Andy7 said:
I think we can close the thread lol ;)
Click to expand...

to be fair benchmarking is only really for seeing cpu bottlenecking and proformance limits, not real world gaming and day to day using by the average user which is all game bais is on not on the next biggest multicore unit.

but that said if u are hdr/cad/rendering on large scale where time is money then yeah 5820k or 5930k is the way but at the prices they are makes them a very focused market processor when only less then 8-10% single core diff which is most programs like games are still using single/daul core engines (apart them the very few engines using multi core processing like 4 core and more that show proformance diff) then stuff like 5820k just pub talk really when a 4690 or a g3258 would do just as well in single core running if not better.

also as orion has said his main focus is gaming so 5820k is overkill like hunting with a rpg lol
 
Last edited:
Was choosing between these chips, and I chose the 5820k, simply because A) It will give better overall performance B) Was like £40 cheaper for my bundle at the time C) Futureproofing lol
 
NightFox976 said:
also as orion has said his main focus is gaming so 5820k is overkill like hunting with a rpg lol
Click to expand...

He mentioned encoding in his opening post, so a 5820k could be a good fit if he's willing to spend the money. As he said himself, its around £550 with a cooler. Sounds about right I think.

Ballpark, a 6700k setup could be had for just under £500, and a 6600k for under £400. Not huge differences.
 
Last edited:
bfar said:
He mentioned encoding in his opening post, so a 5820k could be a good fit if he's willing to spend the money. As he said himself, its around £550 with a cooler. Sounds about right I think.

Ballpark, a 6700k setup could be had for just under £500, and a 6600k for under £400. Not huge differences.
Click to expand...

u are also missing the point of cost to proformance gains so 500-600quid for about 8-10% gain most usage and then now and then hdr encoding/decoding which the 2500k can do quite happy and only having to wait a little longer?

i know what i would do invest in ssd and possable gpu upgrade depending on what orion has already
 
Last edited:
plus 500-600 can get some real nice upgrades for a cpu thats not even max out yet as proven with my anandtech post with a 290x and a 980
 
Last edited:
NightFox976 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/22

point made and show it more clearly instead of me type it all out for weeks lol
Click to expand...

Link doesn't work but you said a G3258 could be faster than a 5820k - "5820k just pub talk really when a 4690 or a g3258 would do just as well in single core running if not better."

Just one brief google for a gaming situation:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-4.html

Other than if a G3258 is clocked far higher than a 5820k when will it be faster please?
 
Jono8 said:
Link doesn't work but you said a G3258 could be faster than a 5820k - "5820k just pub talk really when a 4690 or a g3258 would do just as well in single core running if not better."

Just one brief google for a gaming situation:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-4.html

Other than if a G3258 is clocked far higher than a 5820k when will it be faster please?
Click to expand...

try this :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/22

as in there arma3 is one of those games where like i have said before a multi core game and that show this,

the g3258 was only used in the ref as to show that even a dual core chip over a hex core chip that single core thread clock to clock it either proforms the same if not better as well all know g3258 is a bricked haswell 4600 series chip with some ach changes. ( remember the g3258 is £56 vs 5820k £320!)

this shows this:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-9.html
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Shows what, that a stock G3258 somehow outperforms an overclocked one? Clearly gpu bound or some other factor affecting those results.

The fact is a G3258 will not be better than a 5820k in any situation. I just wanted to clear that up :)
Click to expand...

LOOK at all the game results PLEASE!!! and it show it quite clear that spending 5.7x the cost of a dual core g3258 to justify game proformance which you where, so pound for pound the g3258 is as good if not better because the saved cost can be used else where in this case however as orion has a very good cpu already 2500k why the hell would any1 want try and justify 320quid for no real game proformance gain ?????

and the end of the day is his choice to get cpu iam not forcing a cpu change,
when the user has a very usable and good cpu to start with and proving that single core running (which is 85% of games atm) he would see no to little diff and that possable that the funds could be used either in other upgrades or wait for this year chip releases and see what happens to chip prices to justify a change !

point made and done !
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom