i7 6700K Upgade or Hold

[Tinkers2004]

I have just upgraded from a 6700K which was running at 4.4Ghz, to an i7 10700K with Z490 Aorus Master and have noticed a massive difference in system responsiveness and my video editing times, not massive difference in fps in games but there is a difference with much better minimum frame rates. And a considerable gain in 3D mark CPU score. Also running an Aorus RTX 2080 Super, just waiting for a new monitor now the Samsung Odyseey G7 to be released to run games at the high frame rate. I am very happy with my upgrade.

 

[Vimes]

My 6700k was running at 4.7ghz and I changed that to a 9900k. Even when the 9900k was running at 5Ghz I have noticed little difference in my use.
The 6700k went to upgrade our Sons old PC and he was well impressed with that change.
Overall I do have some regrets that I didn't go over to an AMD build this time.

 

[Beerstalker]

Glad I found this thread. I applied it copiously to my upgrade itch and I feel a lot better. Can't believe I bought my i7 6700k 4 years ago for under £300 OC'd at 4.5. You can still buy it now but its over its £300(howz that work).
I'm primarily a gamer with a 2080 rtx and 2k sync monitor. Hopefully that will keep going for another couple of years until I break out in upgrade hives again.

 

[Surprise-Mother]

Would recommend holding

 

[Dave2150]

Glad I found this thread. I applied it copiously to my upgrade itch and I feel a lot better. Can't believe I bought my i7 6700k 4 years ago for under £300 OC'd at 4.5. You can still buy it now but its over its £300(howz that work).
I'm primarily a gamer with a 2080 rtx and 2k sync monitor. Hopefully that will keep going for another couple of years until I break out in upgrade hives again.

6700k is the last CPU that fully supports Windows 7. This also means it's the fastest CPU for Windows 7, for official support. This will mean it's value probably appreciates over time. Businesses that need to keep Windows 7 environment around (for some line of business software no doubt) are forced to use supported CPU's.


I'm also very happy with how my 6700k @ 4.7Ghz is holding up. Had mine since August 2015, so pretty much 5 years old now! My last CPU before this was the i7 920, which lasted me 7 years!

 

[benjii]

I've got a 6700k at 4.8Ghz, which I'm also looking to upgrade. However, I shall be waiting for Ryzen 4000. The 6700k still does the job and I feel like I'd just lose out if I got impatient.

 

[Dave2150]

I've got a 6700k at 4.8Ghz, which I'm also looking to upgrade. However, I shall be waiting for Ryzen 4000. The 6700k still does the job and I feel like I'd just lose out if I got impatient.

DDR5 is just around the corner too, so personally I'm waiting for either LGA 1700 (Alder Lake, with DDR5, PCI-Ev5) or AMD's AM5 socket (Ryzen 5000, with DDR5, PCI-Ev5).

Both platforms are going to have 5 year+ longevity, AM5 will probably last 4-5 CPU generations going off AM4.

 

[benjii]

DDR5 is just around the corner too, so personally I'm waiting for either LGA 1700 (Alder Lake, with DDR5, PCI-Ev5) or AMD's AM5 socket (Ryzen 5000, with DDR5, PCI-Ev5).

Both platforms are going to have 5 year+ longevity, AM5 will probably last 4-5 CPU generations going off AM4.

That is true. However, I don't want to be an early adopter on DDR5 and AM5, if DDR4 and AM4 are anything to go by. Not that they were bad on release, just extra headaches. I'm happy to wait a generation before moving over.

 

[dazeRR]

[email protected] here, even though i'm really tempted to jump to AMD i'm waiting until there new processors arrive

 

[Dave2150]

That is true. However, I don't want to be an early adopter on DDR5 and AM5, if DDR4 and AM4 are anything to go by. Not that they were bad on release, just extra headaches. I'm happy to wait a generation before moving over.

Intel tend not to make mistakes with memory compatibility. The vendors all work together when it's Intel, to ensure 100% compatibility with XMP etc. My 6700k ran XMP DDR4 3000Mhz C15 from August 2015, day one, with no booting issues or other crap.

AMD on the other hand, still get treated like dirt by the vendors, and it's still happening today. Take a look at this for an example (different subject, but same attitude towards Intel/AMD imo):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hv48p4/blocked_air_vents_for_amd_and_real_ones_for_intel/

Intel version of the same laptop = air vents are "open", as you'd expect, for good thermals
AMD version of the same laptop = air vents "closed" - wonder why!

As much as it sucks for AMD, I'm not prepared to be a Guinea pig for a brand new AMD platform, so will very likely go for Intel's Alder Lake LGA 1700 DDR5 platform (hopefully vendor attitude towards AMD improves in the meanwhile...)

 

[jigger]

Intel tend not to make mistakes with memory compatibility. The vendors all work together when it's Intel, to ensure 100% compatibility with XMP etc. My 6700k ran XMP DDR4 3000Mhz C15 from August 2015, day one, with no booting issues or other crap.

AMD on the other hand, still get treated like dirt by the vendors, and it's still happening today. Take a look at this for an example (different subject, but same attitude towards Intel/AMD imo):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hv48p4/blocked_air_vents_for_amd_and_real_ones_for_intel/

Intel version of the same laptop = air vents are "open", as you'd expect, for good thermals
AMD version of the same laptop = air vents "closed" - wonder why!

As much as it sucks for AMD, I'm not prepared to be a Guinea pig for a brand new AMD platform, so will very likely go for Intel's Alder Lake LGA 1700 DDR5 platform (hopefully vendor attitude towards AMD improves in the meanwhile...)

Intel have had some serious DRAM compatibility problems and suffer a fair number of mistakes*

Ive seen some interesting Intel compatibility quirks even when following jedec spec. I doubt Intel will be keen to move to DDR5.

 

[MissChief]

6700k is the last CPU that fully supports Windows 7. This also means it's the fastest CPU for Windows 7, for official support. This will mean it's value probably appreciates over time. Businesses that need to keep Windows 7 environment around (for some line of business software no doubt) are forced to use supported CPU's.


I'm also very happy with how my 6700k @ 4.7Ghz is holding up. Had mine since August 2015, so pretty much 5 years old now! My last CPU before this was the i7 920, which lasted me 7 years!

Intel never reduce prices of old CPU's, even when they're EoL. This leads to a very expensive second hand market for their chips. Good for sellers, not so good for buyers but when you can get £150-£180 for a 4-5 year old CPU like the 6700K it works out great for an upgrade not costing an awful lot.

 

[Joxeon]

Intel tend not to make mistakes with memory compatibility. The vendors all work together when it's Intel, to ensure 100% compatibility with XMP etc. My 6700k ran XMP DDR4 3000Mhz C15 from August 2015, day one, with no booting issues or other crap.

AMD on the other hand, still get treated like dirt by the vendors, and it's still happening today. Take a look at this for an example (different subject, but same attitude towards Intel/AMD imo):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/hv48p4/blocked_air_vents_for_amd_and_real_ones_for_intel/

Intel version of the same laptop = air vents are "open", as you'd expect, for good thermals
AMD version of the same laptop = air vents "closed" - wonder why!

As much as it sucks for AMD, I'm not prepared to be a Guinea pig for a brand new AMD platform, so will very likely go for Intel's Alder Lake LGA 1700 DDR5 platform (hopefully vendor attitude towards AMD improves in the meanwhile...)

There was some problems with first gen ryzen and the 300 series boards were low quaility but a lot of that was because board vendors wasn't expecting much from ryzen going by AMDs track record from the previous few years.

Now I would argue that AMD has the better quality boards over Intel with more features and very good ram compatibility even on the lower end boards like my £100 B450 tomahawk max able to run ram overclocked to 4400mhz. Intel boards around that price mark don't even allow for ram over 3000mhz

This time around come DDR5 AMD will be the market leader in the enthusiast segment with Intel playing catch up so I would expect ram compatibility to be good right off the bat barring the few teething issues that both companies will likely face. That said I still think it would be wise to wait a year to give DDR5 time to mature with the ram speeds going up and prices coming down.

 

[Dave2150]

Intel have had some serious DRAM compatibility problems and suffer a fair number of mistakes*

Ive seen some interesting Intel compatibility quirks even when following jedec spec. I doubt Intel will be keen to move to DDR5.

Please provide your source for the "serious DRAM compatibility problems". I've used Intel CPU's growing up, and during my professional career, and have yet to hear of such an issue.

Ryzen on the other hand, there were thousands of threads, posts, regarding getting XMP to work. There were countless microcode updates from AMD, and UEFI firmware updates from the motherboard manufactures, before these were resolved. It took many months, if not years, for these to be ironed out.

Intel on the other hand, don't have the same issues. I bought into X58 on release, this used DDR3 when it was practically brand new, in a triple channel setup. Worked out of the box with XMP. I bought into Z170/Skylake on release (August 2015), when DDR4 was brand new. Again, no issues.

 

[Joxeon]

same issues. I bought into X58 on release, this used DDR3 when it was practically brand new, in a triple channel setup. Worked out of the box with XMP. I bought into Z170/Skylake on release (August 2015), when DDR4 was brand new. Again, no issues.

I don't think a sample size of 2 is enough to say there has never been issues with Intel.

 

[Dave2150]

I don't think a sample size of 2 is enough to say there has never been issues with Intel.

Those were my personal examples of early adoption. I was asking the person I quoted for their sources, in regards to Intel's alleged mass "serious DRAM compatibility problems". So far there hasn't been a reply.

Do you have any sources for this? I could provide thousands of sources for Ryzen's massive DRAM/XMP compatibility issues upon release.

 

[Joxeon]

Those were my personal examples of early adoption. I was asking the person I quoted for their sources, in regards to Intel's alleged mass "serious DRAM compatibility problems". So far there hasn't been a reply.

Do you have any sources for this? I could provide thousands of sources for Ryzen's massive DRAM/XMP compatibility issues upon release.

The XMP profiles were all configured for intel though so no supprises they caused some issues on ryzen platforms.

Also the memory controller was quite bad on first gen but AMD have made some big advances since then so I doubt the issues will be repeated on AM5.

 

[jigger]

Please provide your source for the "serious DRAM compatibility problems". I've used Intel CPU's growing up, and during my professional career, and have yet to hear of such an issue.

Ryzen on the other hand, there were thousands of threads, posts, regarding getting XMP to work. There were countless microcode updates from AMD, and UEFI firmware updates from the motherboard manufactures, before these were resolved. It took many months, if not years, for these to be ironed out.

Intel on the other hand, don't have the same issues. I bought into X58 on release, this used DDR3 when it was practically brand new, in a triple channel setup. Worked out of the box with XMP. I bought into Z170/Skylake on release (August 2015), when DDR4 was brand new. Again, no issues.

Search yourself. X99 X58 are particularly fussy.

 

[Dave2150]

Search yourself. X99 X58 are particularly fussy.

Not how it works bud. If you make an outlandish claim, it's up to you to provide a source for it.

X58 had no, to quote you, "serious DRAM compatibility" issues. I know, as I bough it on release in 2008, and built countless builds for friends and clients. I also frequented this forum, and saw no widespread major issue.

X99 released a long time after DDR was released, DDR4 was more mature then, so X99 is completely unrelated to the point I was making when you quoted me.

 

[jigger]

Not how it works bud. If you make an outlandish claim, it's up to you to provide a source for it.

X58 had no, to quote you, "serious DRAM compatibility" issues. I know, as I bough it on release in 2008, and built countless builds for friends and clients. I also frequented this forum, and saw no widespread major issue.

X99 released a long time after DDR was released, DDR4 was more mature then, so X99 is completely unrelated to the point I was making when you quoted me.

It’s you making outlandish claims against common knowledge. Intel don’t make mistakes...

X58 boards had plenty of DRAM compatibility issues.