- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
caracus you really do have a thing for the x99 mobo and the "more pci-e lanes" cant you get over the fact that the z170 mobos are the future?
-
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.
skylake processor, which one???
- Thread starter thesuperlouis
- Start date
Ill assume your trolling as its quite evident why X99 has more upgradability and therefore likely more 'future' than Z170
but ill highlight it again in case you missed it
1) more cores and threads - your stuck with 4 cores/ eight threads with Z170 and will be going forward to. I can stick an 18 core 36 threaded CPU on my motherboard now. You will also be stuck at 14nm with a minor refresh 'Kabylake' sometime maybe next year. X99 will get a 14nm die shrink with Broadwell-E which is likely to offer a bigger improvement in CPU power over Haswell-E then Skylake to Kabylake will.
2) More PCI-e lanes - better for multi GPU setups or adding new card for I/O or upcoming PCI-E based SSD's etc
3) More memory bandwidth
You seem to be confusing new with automatically better... Skylake is a 'consumer' CPU to fit a mainstream socket/ chipsets i.e. Z170
X99/ 2013 - 3 is an 'enthusiast' chipset/ socket combo aimed at more high end users with a superior (if older) chipset.
still given that you posted this...
you clearly have not done your research...you do know that X99 uses DDR4 as well? There is not one feature on the Z170 chipset that cannot be covered as well with the X99 chipset the same cannot be said in reverse...
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
im certainly not trolling caracus, and i done extensive research thanks.. the general consensus i was picking up is that if your building a new gaming pc... the z170 is the way to go.. i have heard a lot about the x99 and it is certainly up there... but skylake is the future and so is the mobos, im gathering you have an x99 mobo and arre looking for away to make yourself feel better about the fact that its gonna cost u a fair bit to upgrade to the 6th gen system lol
If anything about Intels history of iterations lately is anything to go by banking on any socket being "the future" or an investment is very short sighted. For higher resolution gaming the difference between any recent Intel CPUs clock for clock is far less clear cut than 720p or 1080p benchmarks (where Skylake often does excel).
Not actually entirely true - on nVidia hardware (not seen on the AMD cards tested) 6 cores was an advantage over 4 or 8 in certain DX12 benchmarks.
http://techreport.com/review/29090/fable-legends-directx-12-performance-revealed/4
EDIT: Due to the way nvapi, etc. works and nVidia's penchant for optimising certain functions in software at driver level its quite likely that for high end nVidia setups 6c/12t setups could be beneficial down the road (though not something I'd bet the house on) whereas it isn't looking so much the same with AMD.
Not actually entirely true - on nVidia hardware (not seen on the AMD cards tested) 6 cores was an advantage over 4 or 8 in certain DX12 benchmarks.
http://techreport.com/review/29090/fable-legends-directx-12-performance-revealed/4
EDIT: Due to the way nvapi, etc. works and nVidia's penchant for optimising certain functions in software at driver level its quite likely that for high end nVidia setups 6c/12t setups could be beneficial down the road (though not something I'd bet the house on) whereas it isn't looking so much the same with AMD.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I bought a x99/5820k setup WELL after Skylake launched precisely because Skylake is such a poor choice. For gaming, as in getting a discrete GPU, the reason I hadn't spent over 200 to upgrade from a 2500k previously was I'd be gaining exactly no cores, 4 threads and with each generation a higher percentage of the core was dedicated to the iGPU, which I'll never, ever use.
So my option was £320+ on a 6700k of which almost half of the transistors, die space and cost was on an iGPU I would never once touch or spending in the end well below £300 for 6 actual cores of which I could use all of them. Do all games use all cores, nope, do some, yup, will more in the future, yup.
I do use xfire, and I bought a x4 pci-e ssd all things that meant the x99 was noticeably superior to Skylake. In the future as prices drop I may well by another pci-e ssd, would have to be one that uses a proper pci-e slot instead of M2 as that is now filled but, you know what, the lanes and slots are there on this mobo to be used. Quad channel memory providing near double the bandwidth a 6700k can.
For the 6700k to be even remotely viable for me it needed to offer a 25% IPC improvement to make up for having 2 less cores even before factoring in price, which in reality the cheaper chip is offset by more expensive motherboards.
There isn't a single compelling feature about Skylake, for the future... if you aren't going to use the iGPU, then there is nothing for the future. Games use 4 cores, if they use more in the future a 5820k has them a 6700k does not. Presuming you want to stick with the platform into the future, x99 has the bandwidth to feed 8 or more cores, z170 doesn't. x99 has the pci-e lanes to add another gpu, and in 2-3 years the bandwidth usage and performance of 16-10nm gpus with 20billion + transistors will make the extra pci-e lanes useful, lanes the z170 doesn't have. It has the lanes to add more higher performance SSDs. With the newest revisions of the x99 motherboards they had usb 3.1 added as well. Z170 motherboards really have no features x99 doesn't but misses several it does.
So my option was £320+ on a 6700k of which almost half of the transistors, die space and cost was on an iGPU I would never once touch or spending in the end well below £300 for 6 actual cores of which I could use all of them. Do all games use all cores, nope, do some, yup, will more in the future, yup.
I do use xfire, and I bought a x4 pci-e ssd all things that meant the x99 was noticeably superior to Skylake. In the future as prices drop I may well by another pci-e ssd, would have to be one that uses a proper pci-e slot instead of M2 as that is now filled but, you know what, the lanes and slots are there on this mobo to be used. Quad channel memory providing near double the bandwidth a 6700k can.
For the 6700k to be even remotely viable for me it needed to offer a 25% IPC improvement to make up for having 2 less cores even before factoring in price, which in reality the cheaper chip is offset by more expensive motherboards.
There isn't a single compelling feature about Skylake, for the future... if you aren't going to use the iGPU, then there is nothing for the future. Games use 4 cores, if they use more in the future a 5820k has them a 6700k does not. Presuming you want to stick with the platform into the future, x99 has the bandwidth to feed 8 or more cores, z170 doesn't. x99 has the pci-e lanes to add another gpu, and in 2-3 years the bandwidth usage and performance of 16-10nm gpus with 20billion + transistors will make the extra pci-e lanes useful, lanes the z170 doesn't have. It has the lanes to add more higher performance SSDs. With the newest revisions of the x99 motherboards they had usb 3.1 added as well. Z170 motherboards really have no features x99 doesn't but misses several it does.
Incredibly childish response to a guy giving you straight sensible advice. No such thing as "futureproof" so you should stop saying it. A few extra cores for less cash is always going to be the better option in regards to having options and longevity out of your system. Clock both systems and you'll see negligible differences in real-world gaming, but when it comes to rendering/encoding then the 5820 is going to surge ahead.
Having a go at the guy because you perceive that he regrets his purchase is pretty lame when all he's trying to do is get you more bang for buck and have you avoid paying a "mug" tax on Skylake because AMD don't have a horse in the current race to keep prices sensible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
Last edited:
Are you and thesuperlouis the same person?
I can't believe how people are behaving over a cpu choice lol.
I went for x99 this week because the gaming difference is so minimal that the power and scope for video encoding etc just made it seem a more versatile chip to me. I could be totally wrong but I got a nice board for a fair price too so it's not all bad.
6700k is going for around £320 right now. I got the 5820k for £260.
Motherboard prices are a jump. Mid to high end x99 push 250-300. Skylake about 150-180.
I think the difference between the two doesn't really require such hostility lol.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,632
- Location
- Rutland
Well we've reached a new low in the thread.
This thread seems to be justify your overpriced new purchase thread despite everyone else giving you more sensible opinions.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
His reason for Skylake, as given, was due to him being mistaken so the correct answers as given are still very much on topic. He's had good advice from many people but he and two other guys (one who has decided he knows more about overclocking than 8pack...) are disputing this and making spurious claims that don't match actual performance. Give he opened by saying "dont want to spend more than i need" it was entirely appropriate for people to point out he was doing exactly that and then follow up on why more recently released doesn't mean future-proofed when the discussion went that way.
Ultimately only one thing matters in CPU choice, which is that the buyer is happy - and he only wants skylake regardless of the reason. As such he should buy a skylake chip - in which case the i5 is better value, though overpriced and not 'future-proof' as he puts it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
5820K is
-slower
-hotter
-more expensive (x99 build vs z170)
-higher power consumption (stock vs stock)
-less headroom in OC
I dont have a 6700K i do have a 6600K
-Faster
-Runs cooler
-less Power consumption (At stock, OC'd it draws about the same as 2011-3)
-Cheaper (z170 build vs x99)
-Decent OC room
With that said, 16 PCI-E lanes is enough for a 2way sli/xfire. The difference is not noticeable.
If you're strictly going for Gaming, go with z170 Builds
sure extra 2 cores, but in games you wont be taking an advantage of it. even if it is an extreme cpu using game.
4 Faster cores will outperform 6 slow ass cores.
I have been able to OC my skylake 6600K to 4.6ghz and its stable, running a bit hot but I believe with better Bios update and more tweaking I can bring the vcore down slightly more. I see skylakes similar to sandies in OC headroom.
Ive had every generation from sandy till now.
with 3 pc's not, trying to CL off 2
4960x and 4790k build
Im keeping the skylake build, its going to stay compared to the other builds.
-slower
-hotter
-more expensive (x99 build vs z170)
-higher power consumption (stock vs stock)
-less headroom in OC
I dont have a 6700K i do have a 6600K
-Faster
-Runs cooler
-less Power consumption (At stock, OC'd it draws about the same as 2011-3)
-Cheaper (z170 build vs x99)
-Decent OC room
With that said, 16 PCI-E lanes is enough for a 2way sli/xfire. The difference is not noticeable.
If you're strictly going for Gaming, go with z170 Builds
sure extra 2 cores, but in games you wont be taking an advantage of it. even if it is an extreme cpu using game.
4 Faster cores will outperform 6 slow ass cores.
I have been able to OC my skylake 6600K to 4.6ghz and its stable, running a bit hot but I believe with better Bios update and more tweaking I can bring the vcore down slightly more. I see skylakes similar to sandies in OC headroom.
Ive had every generation from sandy till now.
with 3 pc's not, trying to CL off 2
4960x and 4790k build
Im keeping the skylake build, its going to stay compared to the other builds.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
I paid £265 for my Skylake on release day.
Pretty much this^
Looks like 5820k buyers feeling threatened about us 6700k users being happy with our better preforming chip. Believe what you will. Enjoy your X99 chipset. I'm done
Last edited:
Are we still on release day? I'm glad you're done because you're not really an asset to the forum.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
Like I really care. Were all here to give each others own opinion. Even yours.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Except the 5820k for most uses is faster, at the moment is often cheaper even including the board (hint: 'low' end 2011-3 boards are feature-heavy already - you'd have to go very low on Z170 to make it cheaper overall given the large disparity in CPU price) and has more OC headroom. Had you wanted to write a valid statement in favour of the 6700k you could have said it's faster at stock and when clocked likely to still marginally edge it in single-threaded situations.
Yep, it's hotter and uses more power, though being soldered helps a fair bit. Your other points are simply mistaken. I don't own either so have no vested interest in 'defending my choice' or whatever your second account was saying, but there have been many reviews and they do not back your opinion.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,635
Z170 isn't as good as x99 due to lack of PCI express lanes. With the the arrival of m.2 etc. my dual 980tis will be going in a 5820k build and I'll upgrade again should I need the horse power. 8 core broad well looks taste. Like I said can a z170 run sli 980ti with x32 gen 3 m.2 drives ? Once both platforms are over locked the difference will be negated by the PCI express lanes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
For single GPU users more lanes is pointless. Even for SLI users (which are low numbers) there's not much difference 8x8
I don't know how much the likely '6' series '6820k' broadwell-e CPU will cost and neither does any one else yet. But if Intel's current pricing structure sticks it probably wont be far of the price of the top end consumer 'kabylake' cpu (7700k?) still I guess you'll then be able to come back and say its a better cpu as its a '7' series cpu and therefore must be better than a mere '6' series CPU right? Because Intel's marketing and release schedule is such that bigger numbers and newer cpu's / chipsets are always better right? /sarcasm
Last edited:
So if things are so similar it should come down to cost really. Going by today's prices what's the differences.
I'd say people won't really go wrong with either. They are both enthusiast level and have similar outlays involved.
For me it would be
5820k =260
Asus sabertooth x99 =208
Ram = 50 on mm.
How much was your 6700k builds?
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...rboard-bundle-50-pounds-saving-bu-020-gi.html
430 for x99
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...rboard-bundle-36-pounds-saving-bu-022-gi.html
489 for z170
Can use the same ram in both so doesn't matter
X99 is still 59 cheaper.
How are people working out x99 is slower as well? mine went to 4.5ghz without even trying just set the multiplier to 45 1.3v and it never goes above 70c with a noctua d14 on it never mind if it was water cooled.
X99 pro's
More pci-e lanes
More Cores / Threads
Better heat spreader (soldered)
Cheaper
Tri / quad sli
lower end motherboards have lots of top end features
Quad channel memory w/ 8 slots
Better at rendering
X99 cons
Slower IPC
Doesn't quite overclock as high as a z170
Runs a little hotter
Not many games use more than 4 cores (at the moment)
Uses more power