6700K a lot more expensive than the 5820K???

[xaephod]

Funny, originally I was going to get a 5820, but it was more expensive and I don't do that much rendering, etc. So, in the end I figured on the 6700K, its cheaper and better in gaming. So, I go to check pricing....6700K=$413.90. 5820K=$374.99!!

$40 more for the 6700K?

What is going on? Go for the 5820K?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Yes get the 5820K! I don't know what Intel is doing with the 6700K processor prices. They were originally $350, and now they are $420 minimum. 5820K is far better, 6 cores 12 threads, can overclock to nearly match 6700K single-core performance.

 

[Supernova1138]

The 6700k is still having a shortage and there is a lot of price gouging going on. Given the price difference you mentioned, you might as well get the 5820k, you'll have to spend a bit more on a motherboard compared to the 6700k, but with that kind of price difference you'd probably wind up spending the same amount of money either way, so you might as well get the extra 2 cores.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I'd get the 5820K even if it was $25 more than the 6700K. Even if it was $50 more.

 

[Gamer1985]

The 5820k and 6700k are the top choices for processors. Although the 5820k is more suited for multicore applications. The 6700k overclocks quite better though, some have gotten 4.8ghz stable and I have heard crazy enthusiasts get theres past 5. The 5820k usually maxes out around 4.5. And yes the 6700k is a little more expensive then the 5820k but the motherboards are cheaper then the x99 platform so you basically make up for the difference in this scenario. If I didnt buy the 6700k I would have gone 5820k as I think theyre the best options on the market today. I do however wish I had the additional cores, although my workflow on my computer wouldnt even utilize it so Im happy with the higher core clocks on the 6700k. You wont be dissappointed with either option.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The 5820k and 6700k are the top choices for processors. Although the 5820k is more suited for multicore applications. The 6700k overclocks quite better though, some have gotten 4.8ghz stable and I have heard crazy enthusiasts get theres past 5. The 5820k usually maxes out around 4.5. And yes the 6700k is a little more expensive then the 5820k but the motherboards are cheaper then the x99 platform so you basically make up for the difference in this scenario. If I didnt buy the 6700k I would have gone 5820k as I think theyre the best options on the market today. I do however wish I had the additional cores, although my workflow on my computer wouldnt even utilize it so Im happy with the higher core clocks on the 6700k. You wont be dissappointed with either option.

You don't need multi-threaded programs to take use of multiple threads. if you have, say, 6 single-threaded applications running, Windows, utilizing the CPU drivers, will spread each of those threads across an individual core.

 

[Gamer1985]

While I understand what you are saying, there is a big difference between multithreaded applications and applications that can utilize or are optimized for multi core processors.

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1271568

As the OP is mostly using his rig for gaming, no game currently will utilize all 6 cores. Thus a quad core would be more then efficient enough. However, I agree that a 5820k would not be a poor choice whatsoever, even with the lower core clock speeds, as mentioned he can overclock it to the factory clock speed of the 6700k.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

It's not going to hurt to have more cores. If I need to buy a gumball, it's not going to hurt if I have 4 quarters instead of one. Perhaps when the gumball price is increased to $1, I'll have enough quarters then.

More cores will only help in the future.

 

[Gamer1985]

Absolutely, I wasnt disagreeing with you. The additional cores will be beneficial for the future and in some applications will be beneficial, though Ive read some applications performed worse with the additional cores due to the way the software was written, as it wasnt utilizing the cores in parallel optimization. Either way a 5820k is a good recommendation, especially for future proofing your build.

 

[xaephod]

How is it future proof if the chipset is a gen behind Skylake? You won't be able to upgrade to anything other than a faster Haswell-E.

 

[Gamer1985]

Its futureproofed because of the specifications of the processor. Were not speaking of the aged architecture. Your speaking in terms of general upgradability. We are speaking in terms of the mutli cores and the future use of them.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The X99 chipset isn;t really "behind" Skylake, I'd say it's one-to-one with it. Intel's upcoming processors before Kabylake is going to be Broadwell Extreme, which means the I7-6800K (6 cores 12 threads), I7-6850K (6 cores 12 threads), I7-6900K (10 cores 20 threads), and I7-6950X (12 cores 24 threads) are going to be released for the X99 platform. That means Intel's latest processors will be X99, they should be released pretty soon. Even though they're based off the Broadwell architecture (as the current ones are Haswell), the architectural gains from Skylake are minimal compared to the cores on the extreme processors.

 

[Gamer1985]

Im kind of saddened the new upcoming CPUs for the 1151 series will not expand to more then Quad core to be honest. I figured they would introduce something more intriguing. But I guess if I wanted more then quad core, I should have gone x99, which I very well might in the near future.