• 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???

Caracus2k said:
No sensible person is going to argue that a the cheapest Z170 /6600k setup is not cheaper than the cheapest x99/ 5820k combo but its an apples vs oranges comparison for the following reasons

1) the cheaper x99 boards have generally superior features to the cheaper z170 boards. When comparing boards with similar features there is far more price parity

2) you're comparing a six core/ twelve threaded CPU with a four core/ four thread cpu that's 50% more cores and 100% more threads in cpu's that will have a comparable overclock.



If you want to buy into a socket that may 'last for a while' the z170 could be an awful choice

Currently it has modern chipset features but is limited to 4c/8t chips now and and in the future it also has less potential pci-e lanes in a more restrictive layout then x99 (with the lanes being split between cpu for - gpu's only and chipset for everything else - but not for gpu's). X99 gives you up to 40 lanes to allocate as you wish and has provides access to the same features as z170.

So sure if you want a cheap to buy system now go for skylake (why stop at the 6600k there's even cheaper cpu's you could slap on a z170 board) But don't be under any illusions that you are not buying into an inferior setup both now and for the future.

Sticking with the 6600k and assuming you buy a semi decent motherboard with feature parity to an x99 motherboard the difference in price between this setup and an x99 5820k setup will solely be in the CPU (you could even use the same dual channel memory kit on x99 with little performance loss assuming its not a super slow kit to start with). The difference would therefore be circa. £80 which given the overall cost of the respective platforms is hardly 'way more expensive'
Click to expand...

Again you're spreading misinformation.

The 5820k only has 28 PCI-E V3 lanes. It does't have 40 - only the much more expensive 5930k and 5960X have 40.

Skylake actually has more PCI-E lanes in total compared to a 5820k.

16 for GPU's (from the CPU), and 20 for SSD's (from the chipset).

When you consider that Skylake is faster than a 5820k in games at stock, and if you're overclocking then Skylake clocks much higher than the 5820k, so again retails it's gaming advantage.
 
Dave2150 said:
Again you're spreading misinformation.

The 5820k only has 28 PCI-E V3 lanes. It does't have 40 - only the much more expensive 5930k and 5960X have 40.

Skylake actually has more PCI-E lanes in total compared to a 5820k.

16 for GPU's (from the CPU), and 20 for SSD's (from the chipset).

When you consider that Skylake is faster than a 5820k in games at stock, and if you're overclocking then Skylake clocks much higher than the 5820k, so again retails it's gaming advantage.
Click to expand...

For someone that critised someone else's reading earlier in the thread I think you need to re read the post where I specifically say up to 40 lanes on x99 I don't claim this for the 5820k, I should know I own the CPU!. If you're buying a 6700k which I assume you mean when you say 'Skylake' then you would be ill advised to run it at stock as pretty much the major selling point of the ' k' cpu's is the overclocking ability.

Overclocked a 5820k trades blows with an overclocked 6700k where the 6700k excels and comprehensively beats it where the 5820k excels. You seem to consistently ignore hard referenced facts instead preferring snide posts with little substance. The 5820k may have a sum total of 28 pci-e 3 lanes bit there are more flexible then the sum total of 36 on skylake as they can be allocated to whatever is needed and the chipset itself supports up to 40 lanes which again are totally flexible unlike skylake. The fact that haswell-e as a percentage overclocks far more than skylake just shows how much you have been taken in by Intel's marketing machine. A 6700k is already stock' clocked near to its limit whilst the more complicated hex core 5820k can be clocked to within 200mhz on average of a 6700k overclocked.

It is you that's peddling untruths I have posted benchmarks that show that a 6700k does not provide any consistent or meaningful performance increase over a5820k when both are overclocked. If your are a 'gamer' and you are scared of overclocking ill say it clear right now neither the 5820k or 6700k are for you.(the 5820k may still be a contender at stock for people that need more cores/threads etc)
 
Last edited:
To add as well that even the 'Expensive' 5930k is now only £80 more expensive currently on ocuk, which I would say relatively is a bargain for a CPU with 50% more cores and threads attached to a chipset that will give it both more PCI-e lanes and more flexibility whilst overclocking to within 200mhz or so of an overclocked skylake
 
Like I said, my i7 870 (ancient I know now) does me fine at the moment.

Well, kind of... the psu is dead but I'll know for sure tomorrow when the new one comes.

If it turns out to be a problem with the board I will sell the board and chip and buy into something DDR4.

As I stated I do not care for multiple GPU setups and I will only really care that it has ddr4 (I only upgrade when newer ram comes out, that rule suits me well generally)

So the price difference between buying into x99/z170 blurs but the minimum buy into x99 is £460 (+ £130~ for RAM) whereas I can buy into z170 i5 6600k for £310 (+ RAM)

Now I run an old i7 and when doing cpuboss comparisons i get smashed. Yet I find the speed acceptable, with SSD and a 970 GTX I game pretty damn well.

IF I need to buy into a processor I don't think I will ever need the additional buslanes and the extra haswell-e offers. Its a nice to have.

So if someone can explain this to me :

Why is 1151 unlikely to be refreshed to have 6 cores like haswell-e? I'd like to buy into the 6600k at 4c/8t and be able to upgrade cpu at some point to have more lanes IF I need to add it for dual GPU gfx cards or if i have to bite the bullet and buy into dual cards.
 
Caracus2k said:
For someone that critised someone else's reading earlier in the thread I think you need to re read the post where I specifically say up to 40 lanes on x99 I don't claim this for the 5820k, I should know I own the CPU!. If you're buying a 6700k which I assume you mean when you say 'Skylake' then you would be ill advised to run it at stock as pretty much the major selling point of the ' k' cpu's is the overclocking ability.

Overclocked a 5820k trades blows with an overclocked 6700k where the 6700k excels and comprehensively beats it where the 5820k excels. You seem to consistently ignore hard referenced facts instead preferring snide posts with little substance. The 5820k may have a sum total of 28 pci-e 3 lanes bit there are more flexible then the sum total of 36 on skylake as they can be allocated to whatever is needed and the chipset itself supports up to 40 lanes which again are totally flexible unlike skylake. The fact that haswell-e as a percentage overclocks far more than skylake just shows how much you have been taken in by Intel's marketing machine. A 6700k is already stock' clocked near to its limit whilst the more complicated hex core 5820k can be clocked to within 200mhz on average of a 6700k overclocked.

It is you that's peddling untruths I have posted benchmarks that show that a 6700k does not provide any consistent or meaningful performance increase over a5820k when both are overclocked. If your are a 'gamer' and you are scared of overclocking ill say it clear right now neither the 5820k or 6700k are for you.(the 5820k may still be a contender at stock for people that need more cores/threads etc)
Click to expand...

Once again your post is incorrect, you really don't have a good idea how these CPU's work, do you?

The X99 chipset only has 8 lanes of PCI V2.0 (DMI 2.0).
5820k has 28 lanes of PCI-E V3 from the CPU

Z170 chipset has 30 PCI-E V3.0 lanes (DMI 3.0).
6700K/6600K have 16 lanes of PCI-E V3 from the CPU

So, for example, both CPU's are limited to running an SLI config at 8x/8x. BOTH have extra lanes left over to use with M.2 PCI-E SSD's.

Also, do you have any idea how high the 6700k's even overclock to? 4.6Ghz is the minimum - as confirmed by 8 pack. My samples does 4.9Ghz, there have been many people on forums getting 4.8-5.0 on similar cooling to what x99 users use.

There's no way in hell the average 5820k is going to clock to 4.7-4.9Ghz on AIO water coolers - only the most golden samples have any hope at this.
What does your own 5820k clock to I wonder? 4.3Ghz-4.4Ghz is my bet.

So again, overclocked 6700k vs overclocked 5820k - in games the 6700k is going to win, due to it's increased clock speed and greater IPC. This is due to games not being able to fully utilize the extra 2 cores of the 5820k, and isn't about to change any time soon.

Regarding the price, yes at the moment the 6700k is way overpriced, though I believe it will come down to £300 (it's launch price) quite soon, as retailers are currently price gouging due to limited stock.
 
mikelkite said:
Like I said, my i7 870 (ancient I know now) does me fine at the moment.

Well, kind of... the psu is dead but I'll know for sure tomorrow when the new one comes.

If it turns out to be a problem with the board I will sell the board and chip and buy into something DDR4.

As I stated I do not care for multiple GPU setups and I will only really care that it has ddr4 (I only upgrade when newer ram comes out, that rule suits me well generally)

So the price difference between buying into x99/z170 blurs but the minimum buy into x99 is £460 (+ £130~ for RAM) whereas I can buy into z170 i5 6600k for £310 (+ RAM)

Now I run an old i7 and when doing cpuboss comparisons i get smashed. Yet I find the speed acceptable, with SSD and a 970 GTX I game pretty damn well.

IF I need to buy into a processor I don't think I will ever need the additional buslanes and the extra haswell-e offers. Its a nice to have.

So if someone can explain this to me :

Why is 1151 unlikely to be refreshed to have 6 cores like haswell-e? I'd like to buy into the 6600k at 4c/8t and be able to upgrade cpu at some point to have more lanes IF I need to add it for dual GPU gfx cards or if i have to bite the bullet and buy into dual cards.
Click to expand...

Z170 could be refreshed to support a 6 core Kabylake CPU - there is nothing physical stopping Intel from doing so, as pin count doesn't have anything to do with additional cores.

Though I highly doubt Intel will do so, unless AMD's Zen is an absolute monster.
 
iv not been on here for a while, but i was pleased when i read your posts dave2150, you hit the nail on the head and i dont think they can comprehend what your trying to tell them, mind you there all very proud x99/5820k owners and and you will be damned if you tell them that theres a better processor out there for gaming and general use!
 
thesuperlouis said:
in my opinion and a lot of other peoples opinions, the i5 6600k is the sweetspot for cpu's at the moment! ** No competitor talk/prices or hinting **
Click to expand...

I think most people agreed the 6600k was the best buy for gaming. But you claimed you sent one back and you were gonna buy a 6700k...then you decided you weren't buying any.

It's funny how far this descended.
 
And dave2150, other than all the technobabble you pretty much repeated what had been said before you. You quoted caracus then went on to say 6700k will score better in gaming. Caracus had already said that. He just said 5820k would trade blows with it. ie. Barely noticeable differences. But not beat it.

I think in simple terms it's like..

Gaming-5820k = 95% 6700k =100%
CPU hungry application-5820k =100% 6700k=70%.

6700k outpowers by a lesser margin in gaming than the 5820k out powers in cpu intensive.

Not sure anyone can argue that.
 
there is normal discussion then there is the this discussion, Why do you care if one person thinks skylake is better than Haswell-E? or the other way around, it's their money let them buy what they want. You don't have to keep going round in circle trying to change the other persons mind and agree with you lol, Time to step away from the keyboard and go and get some fresh air ;)
 
Well isn't this thread the gift that keeps giving.......

mikelkite said:
So if someone can explain this to me :

Why is 1151 unlikely to be refreshed to have 6 cores like haswell-e? I'd like to buy into the 6600k at 4c/8t and be able to upgrade cpu at some point to have more lanes IF I need to add it for dual GPU gfx cards or if i have to bite the bullet and buy into dual cards.
Click to expand...



Mike id be glad to explain to you why you wont see a six core processor for socket 1151. Socket 1151 will support two generations of processors Skylake and Kaby Lake. Cannonlake the chip due after Kabylake will require a whole new chipset currently called Union Point '200' series

see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonlake

'Cannonlake will be used in conjunction with Intel 200 Series chipsets, also known as Union Point. The platform as a whole will be named Union Bay'

Now in the past with an intel socket you generally had two generations of compatible CPU's. Normally starting with a new CPU design based on the same manufacturing node as the previous gen chip (i.e. Skylake is a new CPU design on a 14nm process which is the same as the previous gen Broadwell) you would then get a die shrink of the same CPU design ( i.e. Broadwell is a 14nm shrink of Haswell).


This is referred to as intel's 'tick/tock' release schedule.

This started to falter with the release of Devils Canyon which was neither a die shrink or a CPU redesign. It was a 'tweak' of an existing design to improve it a bit (you will notice that Devils Canyon remains a '4000' series CPU the same as Haswell consumer CPU's to reflect this i.e. 4770k/ 4790K)

In this fashion in looks strongly like Kabylake will be to Skylake what Devils Canyon is to Haswell - a 'tweak' Intel will not be redesigning the whole CPU and will not be making it on a smaller manufacturing process. The early indications are that most of the effort will go towards improving the iGPU with the addition of an 'L4' cache (ala Broadwell) on the CPU which will mainly help you if you are using the onboard graphics. The only other known difference over Skylake is native USB 3.1

see here http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-to-release-third-core-i-line-at-14-after-skylake,2.html

So what does this all mean?

Well Intel designed Skylake to work in conjunction with the Z170 chipset and Kabylake is just a tweaked Skylake. Consumer Skylake is a four core CPU. That's it there are no deactivated unused cores in there Intel have designed it from the ground up as a four core CPU. To make a six core CPU for socket 1151 (assuming its even possible) Intel would need to completely redesign the CPU from the pretty much the ground up as the die arrangement would radically change to accommodate two extra cores. That before we get to whether it even possible.......

X99 has 2011 pins in a standard socket to Skylakes' 1151 for multiple reasons. Some are to do with the larger quad channel memory interface, some may be down to the larger amount of PCI-E 3 lanes that can come from some compatible chips (40 vs 16 on Skylake) [calm down Dave I said 'some'!!!!] but some of them are due to the need to supply more power to keep six cores juiced with a suitably stable current. Asus even added contacts for more than 2011 pins on their X99 motherboards to supply even more power to the CPU to aid overclocking!

see here: http://rog.asus.com/347222014/rampa...usive-oc-socket-extra-pins-extra-performance/

For this reason I think it may not even be practically possible to make a hex cored socket 1151 processor simply because the socket was never envisaged to support it. I'm not saying its necessarily impossible but you have to understand that adding two cores to a CPU to make in a hex core and then trying to overclock it like a quad is going to place much more demand on a chipset and motherboard especially when the CPU is manufactured on the same manufacturing process size as there would be no reduction in per core power requirements in this scenario.


Basically if you want a hex core + CPU in a mainstream socket then wait for more news re Cannonlake/ Union Bay which may support more than four cores

Now onto Dave..........


Dave2150 said:
Z170 could be refreshed to support a 6 core Kabylake CPU - there is nothing physical stopping Intel from doing so, as pin count doesn't have anything to do with additional cores.
Click to expand...

So you don't need any extra pins to supply stable power to a more energy hungry CPU (assuming you expect to clock it somewhere near the quad)? I think you will find that pin count does have something to do with the amount of cores the socket is designed to support given that Asus actually activated even more pins to provide extra power to CPU's on their board to assist in overclocking as above. Want to support more cores at a similar overclock (or stock clock) on the same manufacturing process??? - going to need more pins for stable power delivery

Dave2150 said:
Once again your post is incorrect, you really don't have a good idea how these CPU's work, do you?

The X99 chipset only has 8 lanes of PCI V2.0 (DMI 2.0).
5820k has 28 lanes of PCI-E V3 from the CPU

Z170 chipset has 30 PCI-E V3.0 lanes (DMI 3.0).
6700K/6600K have 16 lanes of PCI-E V3 from the CPU
Click to expand...

My post is incorrect? Z170 does not have 30 PCI-E lanes coming from the chipset it has 20!!!

Are you sure you have any idea how these CPU's work?





a 5820k/X99 as a total of 28 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (from the CPU) and 8 PCIE 2.0 lanes (from the chipset)

a 6700k/Z170 has 16 PCIE-E 3.0 lanes from the CPU (solely for GPU use) and 20 PCIE-E 3.0 lanes from the chipset (that cant be used for GPU's)

I clearly used the phrase 'up to' for this very reason in my previous post.

when it comes to GPU's the 5820k is still superior and more flexible because it can run the following (ignoring X4 AMD usage)

X16
X16 X8 - SLI
X8 X8 X8 - tri SLI

the 6700k can run

X16
or
X8 X8 SLI

assuming no PLX chips are used


Dave2150 said:
So, for example, both CPU's are limited to running an SLI config at 8x/8x
Click to expand...

Math's fail, a 5820k is not limited to X8 X8, it can do X16 X8 and still have four lanes spare for a PCI-E SSD attached to a 3.0 slot (whilst still also having eight PCI-E 2 lanes available as well


Dave2150 said:
Also, do you have any idea how high the 6700k's even overclock to? 4.6Ghz is the minimum - as confirmed by 8 pack. My samples does 4.9Ghz, there have been many people on forums getting 4.8-5.0 on similar cooling to what x99 users use.

There's no way in hell the average 5820k is going to clock to 4.7-4.9Ghz on AIO water coolers - only the most golden samples have any hope at this.
What does your own 5820k clock to I wonder? 4.3Ghz-4.4Ghz is my bet.
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of reading my sig where I state [email protected]???

And would that be the same 8pack that said:

'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. '

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


http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18685403



If I pump over 1.4 volts into my CPU I can run some benchmarks at 4.6ghz but I don't bother because 1.4 volts+ is too much for daily use

Reviews don't seem to suggest that the average overclocked 6700k beats the average overclocked 5820k by more than circa 200mhz

5820k
========

'4.5Ghz seems to be a safe bet for most 5820K chips' (1.3 volts)
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-5820k-haswell-e-6-core-cpu-review/2/

'The Intel Core i7-5820K clocked higher (4.6 GHz stable)' (voltage not given)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-5960X_5930K_5820K_Comparison/3.html


4.4ghz on a 5820k (At 1.3V)
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i7_5820k_review/1



'CPU | Frequency | Voltage

5960X | 4.6GHz | 1.30V = Good Result (given below for 5820k - 4.7ghz - 4.8 ghz)

5960X | 4.5GHz | 1.30V = Average Result (given below for 5820k - 4.6ghz - 4.7 ghz)

5960X | 4.4GHz | 1.30V = Fair Result (given below for 5820k - 4.5ghz - 4.6 ghz)

Overall for the 5960X we’re looking at around 100MHz lower than the (Ivy-E) 4960X, but with two extra cores in tow, which is more than respectable.

For those of you wondering about the K parts. They are easier to OC on air and water due to having fewer cores, thus less heat to contend with and higher voltages are possible. The end result is the possibility of overclocking the 6-core K series CPUs 100~200MHz higher than the 8-core 5960X.'

http://rog.asus.com/365052014/overclocking/rog-overclocking-guide-core-for-5960x-5930k-5820k/

6700k
========

'4800 MHz stable but we needed a rather high ~1.450 Volts for that.' - well if you're happy running 1.45 volts through your CPU for more than a few suicide runs then feel free!!!
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,18.html


'To add to the mix, I have had two different manufacturers (MSI and ASUS) both confirm that internally they are seeing the majority of their samples hit around the 4.6 GHz mark, and it seems to be very consistent. A couple of my fellow reviewers have also been in contact with what they have, with more reports around the 4.6-4.7 GHz mark, some at 4.8 GHz and one even at 5.0 GHz at 1.45 volts, although I wasn’t told of the stability at that point.'
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/6


'4.8GHz from our retail 6700K chip while using a 1.4V core voltage'
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-6700k-i5-6600k-skylake-cpu-review/3/




So 5820k's overclock in the region of 4.4 - 4.6ghz and 6700k's in the region of 4.6 - 4.8ghz i.e. about 200mhz difference on average. I highly doubt you have a 6700k that can stably run anything at 5ghz.

I have consistently stated that the average overclocking difference between the two chips is around 200mhz. Shock horror CPU with more cores doesn't clock quite as well as CPU with 50% less cores!

I have posted lots of referenced links to support my position Dave you have referenced nothing but your own opinion. Care to show some references to support your claims or are you just full of bluster and marketing nonsense?
 
Last edited:
He's just going to go back to his cheat sheet and completely ignore any corrections you trip him up on.

Keep fighting the good fight though.
 
Skylake = Another Intel marketing demonstration - How lack of competition facilitates charging a premium for tweaked repetition.

Personally speaking, I see this platform as a complete waste of time. Made obsolete by the little difference in price of X99.
 
thesuperlouis said:
bluntwrapped you must have no idea about what you are talking about and must have been brainwashed by the 5820k clan
Click to expand...

Dude, both processors are high end, if you choose either you aren't really gonna notice much difference.

Stop stirring things up all the time. Its boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom