5820k vs 6700k - Having a hard time deciding!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

BabyJenny

Commendable
Mar 26, 2016
9
1
1,510
Hello!

I've been trying to decide on what CPU to get for my new build. I'm currently deciding between the 5820k and the 6700k, since they are similar in price.

I use my machine mainly for 3d programs (zbrush, 3ds max, maya, etc), so viewport speed is important. I also do a fair amount of offline rendering (VRay).

From what I understand, hands down the 5820 is better for offline rendering. What I do a lot more of however, is Zbrush, and i'm having a hard time tracking down how many cores it uses effectively. I'm wondering if the 6700k would be better for zbrush since each core is clocked faster.

I also plan on doing a lot of GPU rendering. I plan on buying a 980 Ti, but I also plan on putting an old Quadro 4000 (2gb) in the machine (since most GPU renderers get a linear performance increase, even without SLI). I read a bit about the amount of lanes in each CPU, and I didn't fully understand what meant but it seemed to have some bearing on the amount of GPUs you can put in your machine? I'm not sure if this has a bearing on which CPU to get, so I put it here just in case.

I don't play a lot of games at the moment, but I do plan on playing a few games in the future when time permits. That being said, I don't want gaming to be the main decider for this, as from what I've seen both CPUs preform well with most games out today.

Here's what I currently have on my parts list, if that helps:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/NwwpZL

If you have any other info that you need clarified, I'll do my best to answer.

Thank you so much!
Mike
 
Solution
Darkbreeze
I believe that newer bios for that board allows it, as there are several M.2 and NVMe specific bios updates on the page for that board here:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20X99X%20Killer/?cat=Download&os=BIOS


So I would be surprised if it did not, but I think that honestly I'd suggest going with the Skylake platform for a few reasons.

One, there are future processors, at least one additional generation and possibly two, that will be released for the LGA 1151 platform. For the Haswell-E platform, there are none. So whatever happens, unless you want to spend 600-1000 dollars on a higher end chip with the same core performance, you have nowhere to go with X99/Haswell-E.

Two. The overall cost once you factor in the CPU and...
Sort by date Sort by votes
That build looks pretty good, and the fact that the minimum "recommended" CPU for the very CPU intensive Zbrush is only an i5 means that either the Skylake or Haswell-E chips are not only sufficient, but probably overkill, which is good. 32GB of RAM is good, as Zbrush can utilize it.

I think I might consider an M.2 drive over a SATA SSD though, as Zbrush makes extensive use of writing temporary files, and the extremely fast speeds of a PCIe or M.2 drive, specifically, the 950 Pro, which demolishes any other consumer drive on the market right now, might be an effective improvement if you want to assure yourself of the best possible performance if this is a professional endeavor and time is money.

The 850 EVO is good, and is fast, I have one myself and have installed many of them into client machines, but the results from the 950 Pro, which I do NOT have but have recently seen phenomenal results from as one of our other moderators recently got one and shared his results, just blows the 850 away entirely.

The 950 Pro is not cheap, certainly more expensive by far than the 850 EVO, in fact, double for a 512GB model, only a few bucks more than the 500GB 850 EVO if you go with a 256GB 950 Pro though. It's worth it though as simultaneous and random reads and writes are all magnitudes faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the recommendations!

A quick followup question, does the Fatal1ty Gaming Fatal1ty X99X Killer have native support for the M.2 SSD? It looks like it does, but I wonder if it can boot from NVMe. Sorry I don't know a lot about this, but I want to make sure it's fully compatible with the mobo before I dive in!

Thanks!
Mike
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I believe that newer bios for that board allows it, as there are several M.2 and NVMe specific bios updates on the page for that board here:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20X99X%20Killer/?cat=Download&os=BIOS


So I would be surprised if it did not, but I think that honestly I'd suggest going with the Skylake platform for a few reasons.

One, there are future processors, at least one additional generation and possibly two, that will be released for the LGA 1151 platform. For the Haswell-E platform, there are none. So whatever happens, unless you want to spend 600-1000 dollars on a higher end chip with the same core performance, you have nowhere to go with X99/Haswell-E.

Two. The overall cost once you factor in the CPU and motherboard, is, on average, less expensive with Skylake. X99 boards are significantly more expensive than Z170 boards.

Power consumption on Skylake is half of Haswell-E, with the 5820K being a 140w chip at stock settings and easily exceeding 200w when overclocked, while the 6700k is only 91w at stock settings and my 6700k@4.5Ghz has not exceeded 150w even under stress. If you want to take a 5820k to 4.5Ghz, you're probably looking at about 220w, similar to FX-9xxx series chips, which an insane power draw comparable to high end graphics cards.

Both are certainly viable, and have specific advantages, but for me, I'm glad I went with Skylake because I was on the fence about it too before I made the decision. And I know the Z170 boards support booting from NVMe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
FWIW - I built a PC last November using the ASRock Fatal1ty X99 Professional with a Samsung 512Gb 950 Pro in the M.2 slot. I didn't need to do any updates - the drive was recognized and Win 10 installed and booted without any issues at all.

I'm using a 5960x at easy 4.3Ghz OC and hit 160w with AIDA64 testing. I have OC'd to 4.5Ghz where I did just get to 200w stress testing - this obviously with 8 cores vs 6 cores in the 5820k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Of course, that will be a variable, since not every chip is going to require the same voltage to achieve any given overclock speed. But my figures were just estimates based on data I've looked at. I have not had the opportunity to do any overclocking with the 5820k.

This is what I get with my 6700k and an R9 280. Kill-A-Watt results.


Skylake i7-6700k at stock 4.5Ghz with 1.325v.

119w startup draw.
45w at idle with 5-100% processor power management setting and Intel speedstep enabled.
120w running Prime95 Small FFT
240w running Furmark fullscreen.
275w running Furmark and Prime95 Small FFT simultaneously.


At stock speeds, it was hitting about 95w running Prime.


What were you basing your usage figures off of, actual measurements using a meter or sensor readings in HWinfo or another utility?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I get 165w with Prime95 Small FFT. I do most of my testing with AIDA64 using stress CPU and stress FPU simultaneously which is where I get 160w. My 4.3Ghz OC is at 1.18v - I don't game but have a couple of video/photo processing apps that will hit 100% CPU for several minutes - these do not draw near the power that the stress testing does.

I'm monitoring CPU power and usage with AIDA64 and HWMonitor Pro.

So with the Kill-A-Watt I'm presuming you are measuring total PC power consumption (CPU, fans, GPU, hard drives, etc.). I have an R9-390 - I would obviously get much higher wattages using a Kill-A-Watt and running both CPU and GPU stress tests simultaneously (with the GPU representing the largest power draw) - I was strictly speaking to CPU power which is directly related to heat and longevity for the processor itself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Makes sense. I was wondering why those figures seemed so low. I was like, huh, no way. But if those were CPU only estimates, then that seems appropriate. Those figures from my Kill-A-Watt ARE whole system figures, so even when the GPU is mainly at idle, there is some draw from the GPU card as well. Even so, the number on Skylake are pretty good, all things considered.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Indications are, they won't. But we really don't know yet, as that information has as yet not been released. I'm not sure I've EVER heard that Skylake-E would be compatible with that chipset. Broadwell-E was rumored to have been intended to use it, but Skylake I think was not. Again, no way to know for certain either way at this point, but also no reason to believe it will.

This is about the only thing I've seen either way, and it's by no means concrete.


Intel’s roadmap also gives a update on their High-End desktop platforms. We know from past reports that Intel is launching Broadwell-E in Q1 2016 which will be support by the current X99 chipset based motherboards that feature the LGA 2011-3 socket. The next update arrives in the form of Skylake-E that will launch in Q3 2016. No details are provided but it is expected that the platform will issue a new series of chipsets and a different socket layout as compared to X99.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Broadwell-E will be compatible with 2011-v3. And, with -E processors you get more cores. You want more cores for CAD and 3d applications. With Haswell-E you will be getting the ability to upgrade as well, and if you look the 5820K is cheaper in some situations than the 6700k. With Haswell-E you get the ability for more ram as well, which also is needed in rendering 3D. The only tradeoff with the 5820k is only 28 PCIe lanes, which will only be a problem if you are running more than 2 graphics cards or expansion cards. Personally, I say go for the 5820k. That platform is HIGHLY upgradeable (You can get up to 18 cores!) and Broadwell-E and possibly even Skylake-E will use it, and you most certainly won't regret it.
To sum it up:

Skylake:
-More PCIe lanes
-Faster (slightly) single core performance, worse multithread performance
-4 cores max, 8 threads max
-newer
-Kaby Lake and Cannonlake may be compatible

Haswell-E
-Less PCIe Lanes (Except for any processor besides the the 5820k)
-Slightly worse (negligible, if not better with some OCing) single threaded performance
-Better multithread perfomance
-up to 18 cores, 36 threads
-Broadwell-E will be compatible, Skylake-E possibly compatible
-Supports more ram
-5820K is around $50 cheaper in most situations

Best CPU in your case: i7 5820K
The graphics cards will run at PCIe x8 on the board, which is only a small drop in performance (about 1-2FPS) Check here:https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

Price of 5820K, on Newegg.com: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117402&cm_re=core_i7_5820k-_-19-117-402-_-Product
Price of 6700K, on Newegg.com ($20 more expensive) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G3UK4240&cm_re=core_i7_6700k-_-19-117-559-_-Product
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Thank you so much
5820k is the way to go then.... would i be able to SLI and use a M.2 ssd with this 28 lane processor?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks everyone for your input! After a lot of reading I think I'm going to go down the 5820k route! But now darkbreeze has planted it in my mind that I need a M.2 SSD, so I have to decide if I need that or not! Hard decision 😉.

@HardwareExtreme: Does that mean if I get an x99 board I can have up to 36 threads, even though the board I get will only be a 1 CPU board?

Thanks again!
Mike

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


There are few, very few, applications and processes that can actually benefit from more than a 4/8 CPU, aside from synthetic benchmarks. If the application isn't specifically optimized to do so, it won't. I see people recommend MOAR cores all the time without even knowing what specific applications are intended to be run or whether they've been proven to benefit from this.

Since most workstation and high end CPUs are NOT more than 4/8 (ie, most i7 and Xeon processors) it stands to reason that developers optimize code for the hardware that will PROBABLY be most common. Personally, while I won't argue that the Haswell-E processors may well not benefit your particular usage, I will say that that platform is a dead end and it clearly won't outperform Skylake on anything that will run optimally on a four core/four hyperthread CPU.

The fact that an upgrade path through not just one, but probably two generational upgrades is likely for LGA 1151, I can't see choosing a platform that's already two years old and is a dead end with no upgrade path.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
An x99 board can handle the 18 core Xeons. It should also be able to handle 2 way SLI and a m.2 SSD as well, but the graphics cards will run at x8, which should be a fairly insignificant decrease in performance. If you need more lanes, such as for 3 way SLI or 4 way, or additional expansion cards, you may want to look at a 5930k, or something like a Xeon E5-1650 V3, or even a -1680 v3 for 8 cores. These Xeons (apparently) can be overclocked, and if you get them used, you can get them cheaper than the i7 5960X and 5820K, with the same amount of PCIe lanes (AKA you can run 4 way SLI or expansion cards with your m.2 ssd) And by the way, darkbreeze, Broadwell-E will support X99. Check here: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-e-specifications-leaked-core-i7-6950x-flagship-processor-10-cores-20-threads-core-i7-6900k-core-i7-6850k-core-i7-6800k-detailed/
It says there that it will run on x99. It will die about the same time as 1151, since the Kaby Lake processors will be compatible and then Intel will likely change platform. And there is still the chance that Skylake-E may be compatible.
You may say that a 4 core will have better performance, but Haswell-E is getting cheaper and is still a viable option. After all, it still uses DDR4, and still has the features of Skylake, and maybe Skylake is newer, but Haswell-E is older and more mature, with the majority of the problems worked out already.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nobody asked about, or discussed, Broadwell-E. In fact, the question that was asked in regard to Skylake-E wasn't even posted by the OP, and is probably only loosely on topic. Threads need to stick to discussions of the topic or topics raised by the original poster, not other members. If the other member has further questions, they can start their own thread and PM links to that thread to the other involved members they think may be able to contribute resolutions to THEIR questions.

And by the way, Haswell-E does NOT have all the features of Skylake. It's an entirely different architecture, using and entirely different chipset and has entirely different core performance and instruction set support. Skylake-E, which was asked about a few posts back, will again be entirely different from Skylake, and really can't be commented to or addressed, as we simply don't know anything about it yet including what socket or chipset it's going to use. You need to probably NOT quote or link to wccftech, or at least not put too much stock into what you read there, as time and time again it's been shown to not be based in reality or offer reliable information. Kind of a running joke as tech sites go really.

I did make a quick reference to a quote from there earlier in this thread, but only because it was about the only, even loosely relevant, information regarding Skylake-E and I have no doubt that it's entirely conjecture based not on fact but supposition.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"One, there are future processors, at least one additional generation and possibly two, that will be released for the LGA 1151 platform. For the Haswell-E platform, there are none. So whatever happens, unless you want to spend 600-1000 dollars on a higher end chip with the same core performance, you have nowhere to go with X99/Haswell-E."
Click to expand...

Wrong, X99 has Broadwell-E due 2nd quarter of this year (computech I believe)

"Two. The overall cost once you factor in the CPU and motherboard, is, on average, less expensive with Skylake. X99 boards are significantly more expensive than Z170 boards."
Click to expand...

Only half wrong. The 5820k is generally about $10-20 cheaper in the states. Meanwhile, most 6700k users are going to be purchasing a Z170 mobo that will allow them to fully utilize their ~$350 chip. x99 is NOT "significantly more expensive" than z170, with the cheapest mobos coming in ~$40 apart.


"Power consumption on Skylake is half of Haswell-E, with the 5820K being a 140w chip at stock settings and easily exceeding 200w when overclocked, while the 6700k is only 91w at stock settings and my 6700k@4.5Ghz has not exceeded 150w even under stress. If you want to take a 5820k to 4.5Ghz, you're probably looking at about 220w, similar to FX-9xxx series chips, which an insane power draw comparable to high end graphics cards."
Click to expand...

This is true, power consumption absolutely favors the skylake. Whether or not this matters comes down very much to personal preference. Most personal users wont mind the extra operating cost but the added wattage can be very important in small form factors.

"Both are certainly viable, and have specific advantages, but for me, I'm glad I went with Skylake because I was on the fence about it too before I made the decision. And I know the Z170 boards support booting from NVMe."
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, though NVMe is supported on the majority of newer bios revisions for x99 AFAIK.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

i know the board can handle, i'm asking about the 5820k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Darkbreeze, Broadwell-E is relevant. This is so because it was previously said that X99 will no longer have any following generations. A 5820k may be of a different architecture, and be older, but suprisingly, the only instruction set not shared between the 5820k and 6700k is TSX. This is something not even commonly used. And, Skylake is still using a modified Haswell core, being shrunk in process size and having more included, including integrated graphics.
Darkbreeze, you need to seriously do some research before posting. Your claims are largely suspect and you have little support backing your claims. Your information is misleading, such as you saying that Broadwell-E has no bearing, and that X99 will no longer be supported in the future. This is shameful since you are supposedly a "moderator" and it violates the terms of use (Section L of use)

It is really irritating when moderators try to "moderate" forum activity with no basis for what they are doing. And then, you bash on the comments of other people, instead of respectfully disagreeing or agreeing. The information presented is most certainly viable and should be considered. If you make a claim that it is not something important, please prove it. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and everyone elses' time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The last I had read, Broadwell-E was NOT going to be released, and they were going to skip that architecture due to the late date in which they would be able to bring it to market. Now it seems MAYBE it is going to be released. So I'll retract the statement that there are no pending upgrades for the X99 platform. My appologies on that. The rest, I stand by. And since you're new to this forum, I'll give you a pass on your badmouthing my moderator "etiquette".

Mostly I'm here to try and help the OP. Not to have conflicts of opinion with you. If you have something further to add, please do so. Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand and leave censure of the moderation team to those better equipped to do so. Or simply don't post. Your choice.


This, is relevant:

Broadwell-E is relevant. This is so because it was previously said that X99 will no longer have any following generations. A 5820k may be of a different architecture, and be older, but suprisingly, the only instruction set not shared between the 5820k and 6700k is TSX. This is something not even commonly used. And, Skylake is still using a modified Haswell core, being shrunk in process size and having more included, including integrated graphics.
Click to expand...


This, is not:

Darkbreeze, you need to seriously do some research before posting. Your claims are largely suspect and you have little support backing your claims. Your information is misleading, such as you saying that Broadwell-E has no bearing, and that X99 will no longer be supported in the future. This is shameful since you are supposedly a "moderator" and it violates the terms of use (Section L of use)

It is really irritating when moderators try to "moderate" forum activity with no basis for what they are doing. And then, you bash on the comments of other people, instead of respectfully disagreeing or agreeing. The information presented is most certainly viable and should be considered. If you make a claim that it is not something important, please prove it. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and everyone elses' time.
Click to expand...

and you'll refrain from making further disparaging remarks about myself or others here, or you'll quickly find, you're not here anymore. That's not a threat, that is simple fact. We don't tolerate disparaging behavior. I never made any comments specifically regarding or directed towards you, of a personal nature, and I'd expect you to do the same. Funny how you expect me to "respectfully agree or disagree", whilst flinging a personal insult my direction. End of story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


No. This is incorrect. The cheapest X99 board is the Gigabyte GA-X99-SLI at 164.99. The cheapest Z170 board is the ASRock Z170 ProS at 82.98. An 82 dollar difference.

The most expensive X99 board is ASRock X99 WS-E /10G at 698.99. The most expensive Z170 board is the Asus MAXIMUS VIII EXTREME/ASSEMBLY at 598.99. A hundred dollar difference.

And just as an example, in the middle, of two fairly equally matched quality overclocking budget boards, the ASUS X99-A is 239.99 while the Z170-A is 153.99, an 86 dollar difference. The Gigabyte Z170x-Gaming 5 is 149.99 while the X-99 Gaming 5 is 299.99, a 150.00 difference.

Checking the comparisons at similar price ranges do not offer similar expectations, quality or features, as there are very good Z170 boards to be had between 100 and and 150 dollars, but only the very lowest quality X99 board can be had near that, and is still twenty dollars higher. For me, twenty bucks IS significant if I can get a board of equal or better quality, with similar features, for twenty or forty, or in most cases, a lot more, less. Maybe we just don't see eye to eye on what prices are significant and what prices are not. To me, that extra twenty or forty bucks might be the difference between a so-so cooler and an exceptional one, or going with Ripjaws instead of moving up to Trident Z modules.

Just my thoughts on that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
X99 Boards aren't very much more expensive than Z170. For example, look at this build. The motherboard was $140.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($351.98 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.49 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X99-SLI ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($138.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $515.45
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-30 09:14 EDT-0400

Or, look at this 6700K build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($363.79 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.49 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z170A-X1 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($92.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $481.26
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-30 09:14 EDT-0400

As you can see, the prices are nearly identical (about $20 difference). If you are using CAD such as maya and 3dsmax, you could get by on a 6700k, but more cores is always better. If you are going to multitask or render or edit video/images, go for the 5820k. There is very little separating the 6700k from the 5820k, other than a slightly worse performance of the 5820k. The choice is yours. You may spend more for X99, but you will get better rendering and CAD performance. Otherwise, get the 6700k which will be faster in gaming. Both can run DDR4, can support m.2 SSDs, and support SLI, or just dual graphics cards.

I am stepping away from this thread. If you need help, feel free to PM me. I have heavily researched this topic for when I build my computer.

My tip to you, darkbreeze, is to accept the answers of other people, or kindly disprove them. As the wise proverb says, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I have no quarrel with the moderators. In fact, I respect them for the job they do. It is just fairly irritating when they try to do their job in the way that isn't the best. But, I guess that is just a problem with us humans; we all make mistakes.

Anyways, keep researching. You will eventually find what is right for you. It all depends on what you are looking for and what you need. That is why I cannot directly say that the 5820k is for you, or the 6700k. Or maybe, you will find another processor that fits your situation better. Anyways, best of luck with your build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom