Associate
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 123
Yeah not sure what to get. Ideally I am a gamer and just want good performance and for the cpu to last me long as the i7 920 did.
-
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.
Old I7 920 go for 6700k or 5930
- Thread starter nadesicod25
- Start date
5830K is almost entirely pointless unless you run at least 3 nvidia cards AND additional PCI-E stuff such as sound cards, PCI-E storage etc, or 4 nvidia cards.
6700K is pointless, skylake is a complete flop.
Doesn't matter for AMD cards as they allow x4 bandwidth crossfire, but nvidia don't allow x4 SLI.
5820K or a 4790K. You won't notice any difference in gaming, in fact the 4790K might be a bit better as it clocks higher, would also mean you save money on the motherboard and the RAM too. DDR4 RAM so far has no benefit over DDR3 RAM, at least unless you buy the stupidly expensive DDR4 kits, but even then the difference is very small.
Personally I would go with the i5 4690K over the 4790K, save you another £100 for pretty much no difference outside of multi-threaded benchmarks. Although if you are running 3/4 GPU's at a high resolution (1440p+, including multi-monitor), or 2 GPU's at a low resolution (1080p) I would recommend the i7 as the CPU usage is quite high.
I only just avoid CPU bottlenecking with my setup at 4K in BF4 64 player games, but that is an extreme example, most games don't come close to using the CPU that much.
If you use nvidia cards the CPU overhead is also lower so I really wouldn't worry about it then.
6700K is pointless, skylake is a complete flop.
Doesn't matter for AMD cards as they allow x4 bandwidth crossfire, but nvidia don't allow x4 SLI.
5820K or a 4790K. You won't notice any difference in gaming, in fact the 4790K might be a bit better as it clocks higher, would also mean you save money on the motherboard and the RAM too. DDR4 RAM so far has no benefit over DDR3 RAM, at least unless you buy the stupidly expensive DDR4 kits, but even then the difference is very small.
Personally I would go with the i5 4690K over the 4790K, save you another £100 for pretty much no difference outside of multi-threaded benchmarks. Although if you are running 3/4 GPU's at a high resolution (1440p+, including multi-monitor), or 2 GPU's at a low resolution (1080p) I would recommend the i7 as the CPU usage is quite high.
I only just avoid CPU bottlenecking with my setup at 4K in BF4 64 player games, but that is an extreme example, most games don't come close to using the CPU that much.
If you use nvidia cards the CPU overhead is also lower so I really wouldn't worry about it then.
Last edited:
done it on a cheap as well , havent played any games on it yet as im awating for my water cooler.
Go for the 5820k some games already benefiting from more than four cores/eight threads. The 4790/6700k will generally overclock better (300-500mhz) dependant on silicon lottery and cooling but the 5820 will only be a few fps behind in current games that don't benefit from more cores and will totally dust them in games /apps that can benefit from more cores so imo better long term buy
Last edited:
I've been in a similar boat. Skylake feels totally underwhelming and I'm Pretty sure for a totally new gaming build I'm now going for x99 and a 5930k. I want it to last, don't want any compromises and the more cores the better for future games. I'm unlikely to use more than 2 graphics cards ever, but even so I want max lanes....
As I understand it, On a 5820k and if using 2 graphics cards, one card will run at x16 and one at x8. Unless you can lock both cards to the same x8 and x8, I may be naive but I can see this possibly causing issues!
5930k removes any such worries. I'm also thinking that the true next gen graphics cards - pascal etc may benefit more from pcie3 x16. Only maybes granted, but for only £120 more (when I'll be spending shed loads anyway on a whole build) I think I may as well go for 5930k.
As I understand it, On a 5820k and if using 2 graphics cards, one card will run at x16 and one at x8. Unless you can lock both cards to the same x8 and x8, I may be naive but I can see this possibly causing issues!
5930k removes any such worries. I'm also thinking that the true next gen graphics cards - pascal etc may benefit more from pcie3 x16. Only maybes granted, but for only £120 more (when I'll be spending shed loads anyway on a whole build) I think I may as well go for 5930k.
Last edited:
"6700K is pointless, skylake is a complete flop."
It's just not true !
Skylake outperforms just about every other processor on a single core basis. It might outperform them on two or even four cores, but the test results just aren't available.
When are you going to run an application which uses 6 cores at once?
DX12 - overhyped probably is never ever going to use more cores than 99% of gamers have access to - 4 at most.
Most games only use a single core, a few use a couple and although more might be in the pipeline it's still a long way off.
It's just not true !
Skylake outperforms just about every other processor on a single core basis. It might outperform them on two or even four cores, but the test results just aren't available.
When are you going to run an application which uses 6 cores at once?
DX12 - overhyped probably is never ever going to use more cores than 99% of gamers have access to - 4 at most.
Most games only use a single core, a few use a couple and although more might be in the pipeline it's still a long way off.