4690K or 6600K or 7600K

[Gaged197]

If I buy a 6600K or 7600K its more expensive because I don't have DDR4 on hand while my current G3258 setup has 16 GB of DDR3 and would be about 100 dollars less. I'd need a new motherboard (I want to overclock,) new cpu cooler, new processor and/or new ram. Would the DDR4 setup or the DDR3 setup be more worth it for the 100 dollar difference? Thanks!

 

[synphul]

So long as you're using win10 the 7600k would be the best option as it's the newest. It may not be fully compatible with older versions of windows (win7, win8.1). If you're using win8.1 maybe consider the 6600k. There's not a whole lot of difference between them.

Here's the difference between the 6600k and 7600k in several benchmarks, mostly due to the higher clock speed of the 7600k out of the box (300mhz).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1828

Between the 4690k and 6600k
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1261

You can also use that site to select the 4690k and compare it to the 7600k. Just be sure to read what the benchmark is testing, in the 4690k vs 6600k comparison the wider differences in performance of the tests near the bottom of the page are comparing integrated graphics which were improved from one generation to the next. A non issue if you're using dedicated graphics.

Overclocking is a roll of the dice but you may achieve higher clocks with the newer 6600k/7600k. Just don't be disappointed with the 7600k, as noted it's faster out of the box. The 4690k and 6600k were base speed of 3.5 with a turbo up to 3.9, the 7600k is 3.8ghz base speed and turbo's up to 4.2ghz. It may not have as much headroom since it's already 300mhz faster than the 6600k.

 

[Ecky]

My opinion, drop a 4790K into your current board and call it a day. You won't be able to OC, but the 4790K comes from the factory with a 4.4ghz turbo and very little overclocking headroom, and it will very easily crush all of the other listed CPUs in performance, and probably come out cheaper too.

 

[indsup]

The current gen is the 7600k so i would say you should go with that. If you wanted any kind of upgrade path in the future. Of course that doesn't guarantee that you would have one if you get the 7600k but you would have more of a possibility. Going from the G3258 you will definitely see a difference in speed. Processor is faster, memory is faster etc. For the 100 it would be worth it in my opinion.

 

[Gaged197]

So long as you're using win10 the 7600k would be the best option as it's the newest. It may not be fully compatible with older versions of windows (win7, win8.1). If you're using win8.1 maybe consider the 6600k. There's not a whole lot of difference between them.

Here's the difference between the 6600k and 7600k in several benchmarks, mostly due to the higher clock speed of the 7600k out of the box (300mhz).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1828

Between the 4690k and 6600k
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1261

You can also use that site to select the 4690k and compare it to the 7600k. Just be sure to read what the benchmark is testing, in the 4690k vs 6600k comparison the wider differences in performance of the tests near the bottom of the page are comparing integrated graphics which were improved from one generation to the next. A non issue if you're using dedicated graphics.

Overclocking is a roll of the dice but you may achieve higher clocks with the newer 6600k/7600k. Just don't be disappointed with the 7600k, as noted it's faster out of the box. The 4690k and 6600k were base speed of 3.5 with a turbo up to 3.9, the 7600k is 3.8ghz base speed and turbo's up to 4.2ghz. It may not have as much headroom since it's already 300mhz faster than the 6600k.

Well, I can get a 6600K for 199.99, a 7600K for 229.99, or a 4690K for 189.99 at Micro Center Houston excluding everything else. Ecky suggested a 4790K which costs 279.99 at the Micro Center. I'm thinking toward 4790K as it IS an i7 and the hyperthreading will act like 8 cores, which will serve me well for a while in the CPU market.If I go that route though over an i5, it'll be about the same cost as an i5 DDR4 model. I think I'l go with the 4790K and a new cooler and motherboard.

 

[Ecky]

Replacing your motherboard to gain overclocking ability will have very minimal performance returns. You might expect another 2-4%, which will be completely invisible. If you're doing it for some other reason, such as getting more USB or SATA ports, or maybe a better onboard audio solution, it's easier (for me) to justify.

 

[synphul]

The i7 wouldn't be a bad choice either. I agree with ecky, the mobo replacement isn't really worth the little bit of gain from overclocking. The 4790k will generally oc a little higher than its i5 counterpart by around 200mhz or so. The trouble is the 4790k is 500mhz faster out of the box so there's less oc headroom than an i5.

As an example, you might get a 4790k to 4.8ghz which is around 600mhz over max speed with all 4 cores and turbo working out of the box. (Max turbo of 4.4 will only be reached if 1 core is active, if all 4 cores are fully active the max turbo will drop to 4.2ghz. The i5 does the same.) An oc'd 4690k on the other hand might reach 4.6ghz which would be around 900mhz over stock turbo speeds.

Those are just examples, overclocking isn't a guarantee. You could get an i7 that struggles above 4.6ghz and an i5 that will reach 4.8ghz or an i5 that will struggle to get to 4.4ghz and an i7 that will reach 4.9ghz. Just so you realize those were theoretical and decent overclocks I mentioned in that example while remaining within the realm of possible and ignoring extremely great or poor overclock speeds.

Hyper threading can help in some applications but it adds around 30% improvement. The additional threads show up as 'logical cores' but aren't actually cores. They improve the efficiency of the existing 4 cores, it's not really like an 8 core cpu. If it were like an 8 core cpu than it should perform 100% faster assuming all cores/threads were maxed out.