5820k or 6700k for editing and gaming?

[gabriel_p]

I know they will probably have the same performance for gaming but what about video editing?

 

[Eldy]

i would go with the newer, 6700K, but that means you will have to get LGA 1511 motherboard which cost a bit more, but it would be worth it.

 

[Karadjgne]

Lga1151 has access to the newer m.2 ssds like the Samsung 950 pro and a few other things like some added instruction sets that are not present in the 2011-3 cpus. Lga1151 us also currently 1st Gen, there's an upgrade path from skylake to cannon Lake, which should also improve performance. With what's possible, I'd say the 6700k has the better options when it comes to video editing.

 

[azaran]

Without knowing the software you're planning on running its hard to say for sure. For gaming you wont notice a difference. If the video editing program can make use of the extra cores, the 5820k will be a huge jump in performance over the 6700k.

 

[azaran]

Lga1151 has access to the newer m.2 ssds like the Samsung 950 pro and a few other things like some added instruction sets that are not present in the 2011-3 cpus. Lga1151 us also currently 1st Gen, there's an upgrade path from skylake to cannon Lake, which should also improve performance. With what's possible, I'd say the 6700k has the better options when it comes to video editing.

LGA 1151 boards are not the only boards that can make use of the 950 Pro. Z97 boards with the right M.2 interface and the Z99 boards the OP would need for the 5820K can use them as well.

 

[Karadjgne]

Well that's true, but, I've been reading that many are having problems with the interfaces themselves, to the point where more than a few were getting worse read/write numbers than their older Sata SSDs.

 

[johnplow]

hey gabriel_p,

I would go X99 on this one. The previous posts did mention some great points though, particularly about gaming. There would be no real difference. If you REALLY wanted to split the hair you could say the 6700 would perform better in games because of its slightly faster core clock which.... again we are splitting hairs here.

I am personally running a i7-5930k and I do a lot of 3D modeling, animation, rendering, video editing, and motion graphics and I can tell you from experience that more cores is what you want even though they have lower clock speeds. Programs like Maya and Aftereffects will leverage the extra CPU cores and be able to finish tasks much quicker. So even though the skylake CPU is technically faster, it is still a quad core. The 5820k is only 0.4Ghz slower but offers you 2 more physical cores (and remember with hyperthreading that's 2 cores 4 threads).

Hope this helps!

P.S. I also like my game time and I am not hurting for FPS 😉

 

[Karadjgne]

So it boils down to priorities then. If the pc is needed more for 3d/editing/rendering then go for the core count. If games are the priority, go for the 6700k.

 

[gabriel_p]

hey gabriel_p,

I would go X99 on this one. The previous posts did mention some great points though, particularly about gaming. There would be no real difference. If you REALLY wanted to split the hair you could say the 6700 would perform better in games because of its slightly faster core clock which.... again we are splitting hairs here.

I am personally running a i7-5930k and I do a lot of 3D modeling, animation, rendering, video editing, and motion graphics and I can tell you from experience that more cores is what you want even though they have lower clock speeds. Programs like Maya and Aftereffects will leverage the extra CPU cores and be able to finish tasks much quicker. So even though the skylake CPU is technically faster, it is still a quad core. The 5820k is only 0.4Ghz slower but offers you 2 more physical cores (and remember with hyperthreading that's 2 cores 4 threads).

Hope this helps!

P.S. I also like my game time and I am not hurting for FPS 😉

I guess i could overclock the 5820k anyways, thanks for your help

 

[Knightsh1ft]

I guess i could overclock the 5820k anyways, thanks for your help[/quotemsg]

Hey Mate,

The 5820k will generally clock to around 4.5 at least (just got mine stable at 4.64). Once overclocked you have the best of both worlds - solid single thread speeds (just a whisker behind 6700k, roughly equal to 4790k) and monstrous multi-thread performance (equal to 5960x which costs nearly 3 times as much, at stock speeds). So long as you have decent cooling the 5820k gives a good balance of single core, multi core and per dollar performance.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Lga1151 has access to the newer m.2 ssds like the Samsung 950 pro and a few other things like some added instruction sets that are not present in the 2011-3 cpus. Lga1151 us also currently 1st Gen, there's an upgrade path from skylake to cannon Lake, which should also improve performance. With what's possible, I'd say the 6700k has the better options when it comes to video editing.

If I'm correct there are some LGA 2011 v3 boards with M.2. I can almost swear I've seen them.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

From a price standpoint, I do think the 5820K is the better processor. You still get DDR4 RAM, as gabriel said just a whisker difference in single-core performance once overclocked, and you get 12 threads instead of 8.

 

[Knightsh1ft]

Yeah x99 (2011-3) boards usually have m.2 slots. The 5820's 28 pci lanes means you could theoretically run 3x gpus at x8 plus an m.2 drive using x4 pci lanes, so plenty of room for expansion

 

[gabriel_p]

I guess i could overclock the 5820k anyways, thanks for your help

Hey Mate,

The 5820k will generally clock to around 4.5 at least (just got mine stable at 4.64). Once overclocked you have the best of both worlds - solid single thread speeds (just a whisker behind 6700k, roughly equal to 4790k) and monstrous multi-thread performance (equal to 5960x which costs nearly 3 times as much, at stock speeds). So long as you have decent cooling the 5820k gives a good balance of single core, multi core and per dollar performance.[/quotemsg]

Thanks man you have made my decision a lot easier

 

[Karadjgne]

Yes, there are lga1150 boards that have m.2 slots, the Asus pro gamer is one, but they also have limited pcie bandwidth available, so if you use an m.2 slot on those boards, you share bandwidth with the pcie slots, just as using a pcie x1 slot shares bandwidth with the second x16 on most of the cheaper boards regulating the 2nd pcie to x2 or x4. The 2011-3 boards have much greater bandwidth capability, easily accomplishing x8/x8/x8/x4 on some boards, x16/x16/x8/x4 on others etc, so the inclusion of an m.2 would not touch an sli setup, nor use up an available Sata port as some do.

And there is differences in m.2 tech. The older m.2 is really no different than a regular Sata SSD, just a different connection, speeds are still @500/500 or so. The newer NVMe like the Samsung 950pro can see speeds of 1k/1k and are supposedly fully supported on the 2011-3 boards, which have the bandwidth ability, whereas can require the use of adapters on lga1150 which many have shown kill that speed, actually reducing it to less than sata2 speeds in some cases.

For serious rendering/editing /modeling work, that's going to hurt. Cpu aside, in this instance a 2011-3 setup would be much more desirable