First build 1150 or 1151

[jhud6403]

I'm looking to finally build a gaming pc and I'm stuck on which I should build. Should I stick with a z97 and i7 4790k Or
I5 6600k z170

I plan to use gtx 980 with this

My max budget is 1500

I'm asking this cause I have seen a lot of negitive reviews for the z170 boards and not sure if it's even worth going too if I'm just gonna have a headache with buggy motherboards.

What are good mobo's in z97 or z170

Thank you in advance

 

[Zerk2012]

I've used this board with no problems, make sure you get the right memory 1.2 volt.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/tDVgWZ
For the gaming performance their really no difference in the 6600K and 4690K

 

[Hawkshot]

I would say get the i5-6600k and a Z170 mobo as this give you access to DDR4 ram and its nice to have for future upgrades too. getting the newer architecture is never a bad thing

 

[Zerk2012]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

 

[Hawkshot]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

but if hes doing a new build there is no point going for Haswell over Skylake and they are pretty much the same price where i live why would you get an older chip that doesn't perform as well all be it marginally

 

[Zerk2012]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

but if hes doing a new build there is no point going for Haswell over Skylake and they are pretty much the same price where i live why would you get an older chip that doesn't perform as well all be it marginally

Stop trolling I never said buy the 4690K all I did was answer his question if their were a performance difference and no their not for gaming and very little in anything else.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/intel-cpu-bx80646i54690k%2Cintel-cpu-bx80662i56600k/
27 buck price difference, then comes the extra price for a good motherboard and the extra cost of the DDR4 memory.

 

[Dale_I]

I also have a Gigabyte GA Z170X Gaming 3 mb and find it excellent. I have it paired with a i7-6700k and 24 gb of the G.skill ddr4 2400 rip jaw v memory (2x4 and 2x8). Rock solid, no issues, and I love it.

You'll (marginally) use less power due to the more efficient architecture going into Skylake, as well as create (marginally) less heat. What convinced me to move to the Skylake was that I would, more than likely, be able to upgrade into the next 2 to 3 years of processor improvements. Haswell will probably not be greatly improved upon. Right now there is very little difference. In a few years you'll have options with the Z170 and the Z97 will be old technology.

Just my choice...

 

[Hawkshot]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

but if hes doing a new build there is no point going for Haswell over Skylake and they are pretty much the same price where i live why would you get an older chip that doesn't perform as well all be it marginally

Stop trolling I never said buy the 4690K all I did was answer his question if their were a performance difference and no their not for gaming and very little in anything else.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/intel-cpu-bx80646i54690k%2Cintel-cpu-bx80662i56600k/
27 buck price difference, then comes the extra price for a good motherboard and the extra cost of the DDR4 memory.

I know what the hard specs are for these CPU's but that doesn't tell you the full story of how things perform in games, from test that ive done the smallest difference ive got between these 2 chips is roughly 2.5% on Crysis 3 and the highest increase I ever got was around the 9% on League of legends, with the average over 5 games being around a 5% increase in performance in games overall this is with using the same speed ram and this margin goes up ever so slightly if you have faster RAM, so even though the hard specs of these CPU's are the same the Skylake shows an increase of up to 9% which is nice to have plus the i5-6600k handles overclocking a bit better than the i5-4690k dose.

 

[Xeiros]

I'd also like to note that using PC games, software that by nature use the GPU to a far greater extent than they do multi core processors as a measuring tool to compare two architectures is a flawed methodology. The reason you often only see i5 in modern system requirements for games like Star Wars Battlefront or Fallout 4 is because games aren't made to actually take advantage of what these modern processors offer.

The only real differences between i7 and i5 is a slightly lower clock speed and the latter doesn't have hyperthreading. You don't need the extra logical cores that hyper threading from an i7 grants for games because they aren't made to actually use multiple cores. Most only use one. That's why you'll often see people recommending no more than an i5 if the TC is asking for a "gaming" build.

Video/Picture editing, rendering, general multitasking, etc. That's where you'll see the differences in architectures and single core vs multi core vs multi with hyperthreading performance, not video games.

 

[Zerk2012]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

but if hes doing a new build there is no point going for Haswell over Skylake and they are pretty much the same price where i live why would you get an older chip that doesn't perform as well all be it marginally

Stop trolling I never said buy the 4690K all I did was answer his question if their were a performance difference and no their not for gaming and very little in anything else.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/intel-cpu-bx80646i54690k%2Cintel-cpu-bx80662i56600k/
27 buck price difference, then comes the extra price for a good motherboard and the extra cost of the DDR4 memory.

I know what the hard specs are for these CPU's but that doesn't tell you the full story of how things perform in games, from test that ive done the smallest difference ive got between these 2 chips is roughly 2.5% on Crysis 3 and the highest increase I ever got was around the 9% on League of legends, with the average over 5 games being around a 5% increase in performance in games overall this is with using the same speed ram and this margin goes up ever so slightly if you have faster RAM, so even though the hard specs of these CPU's are the same the Skylake shows an increase of up to 9% which is nice to have plus the i5-6600k handles overclocking a bit better than the i5-4690k dose.

Lets see some video's of your bench results, because your mainly just posting crap League of Legends are you serious that's laughable a simple old P G860 running 3.0 will run it at 141 FPS and upgrading to a i5 at 3.7 only nets 4 FPS more.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/league-of-legends-performance-benchmark,3484-8.html
Again stop trolling you have done no benchmarks.

 

[Hawkshot]

Unless you upgrade to a i7 processor their really nothing to upgrade to buying the newer hardware, by the time a real upgrade is needed their will be newer hardware out that will require a new motherboard anyhow. For DDR4 it's a nonfactor the current DDR3 is just as fast, for gaming it will make 0 difference.

but if hes doing a new build there is no point going for Haswell over Skylake and they are pretty much the same price where i live why would you get an older chip that doesn't perform as well all be it marginally

Stop trolling I never said buy the 4690K all I did was answer his question if their were a performance difference and no their not for gaming and very little in anything else.
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/intel-cpu-bx80646i54690k%2Cintel-cpu-bx80662i56600k/
27 buck price difference, then comes the extra price for a good motherboard and the extra cost of the DDR4 memory.

I know what the hard specs are for these CPU's but that doesn't tell you the full story of how things perform in games, from test that ive done the smallest difference ive got between these 2 chips is roughly 2.5% on Crysis 3 and the highest increase I ever got was around the 9% on League of legends, with the average over 5 games being around a 5% increase in performance in games overall this is with using the same speed ram and this margin goes up ever so slightly if you have faster RAM, so even though the hard specs of these CPU's are the same the Skylake shows an increase of up to 9% which is nice to have plus the i5-6600k handles overclocking a bit better than the i5-4690k dose.

Lets see some video's of your bench results, because your mainly just posting crap League of Legends are you serious that's laughable a simple old P G860 running 3.0 will run it at 141 FPS and upgrading to a i5 at 3.7 only nets 4 FPS more.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/league-of-legends-performance-benchmark,3484-8.html
Again stop trolling you have done no benchmarks.

well considering I work in an it office and build/test computers professionally I'm adamant that I'm not trolling you, yes league can be run on most CPU's due to it being a low spec game but I will continue testing on this game as its so widely played, I don't record youtube videos of benchmarks as I do it in the office although its a good idea and I shall run that past my manager and see if he lets me do it, it maybe good to post a couple on here if im allowed to record it, thanks for the suggestion never thought of doing that before

 

[Dale_I]

I'd also like to note that using PC games, software that by nature use the GPU to a far greater extent than they do multi core processors as a measuring tool to compare two architectures is a flawed methodology. The reason you often only see i5 in modern system requirements for games like Star Wars Battlefront or Fallout 4 is because games aren't made to actually take advantage of what these modern processors offer.

The only real differences between i7 and i5 is a slightly lower clock speed and the latter doesn't have hyperthreading. You don't need the extra logical cores that hyper threading from an i7 grants for games because they aren't made to actually use multiple cores. Most only use one. That's why you'll often see people recommending no more than an i5 if the TC is asking for a "gaming" build.

Video/Picture editing, rendering, general multitasking, etc. That's where you'll see the differences in architectures and single core vs multi core vs multi with hyperthreading performance, not video games.

I guess I was talking about the availability to upgrade in reference to the the OP original question. My opinion only, but if all things are created equal (or nearly equal) with processors, the ability to upgrade in the future exists with the Z170, and doesn't with the Z97. You are correct, and the processing differences between the considered options are negligible when you consider the gaming aspect. But I would still opt for the ability for future upgrade because you just never know what they'll come up with next.

My experience and history will show that once the hardware is available, the software will start using the resources as long as they don't lose the customer base with price point. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Xeiros]

My whole point was simply that you shouldn't use PC games to measure the effectiveness of a CPU. That was all. Both a CPU and a GPU are key players they just play different sports if you will.

I'm in agreement that one should also go for the latest socket/architecture available when building a whole new system in part because while future proofing taken literally isn't possible you're at least as you've mentioned opening your options up for future compatibility.

At the end of the day. The platform is rarely a concern on the GPU side of things. All you have to worry about is how much does it cost and can my PSU handle it. This allows easy upgrades across processor architectures. As such getting the most recent platform covers you both for all current interfaces allowing for more seamless upgrades, but only within a fixed time period. If you wait long enough, upgrades can potentially become was forced to build a whole new system technology had developed so far in that amount of time.

Me, I'm typing this on an i7 920 system I built in late 2008 when it first came out. it was bleeding edge then, but now in late 2015 seven years later nearly every interface has been improved many fold over the years with entirely new ones being introduced as well. I've had it this long partly because I wanted to get everything I could out of it. Get my money's worth if you will. I'd say I have.

SATA 3 to 6 to Express. USB 2.0-3.0-3.1, PCI Express x16 2.0 - 3.0. DDR3-DDR4. M.2 is now a thing. BD drives now are as cheap as a DVD drive was back then. 1080-2k-4k. Every one of them a respectable leap forward in their area.

Of course those are obviously again improvements that came steadily over a seven year period. When people are upgrading from one platform to another, but the time gap is only a year or two the differences can be negligible at best. The longer you wait by staying on one platform the more noticeable the improvements when moving to the latest one will be assuming your increasingly outdated hardware can keep up with the more demanding modern software.

Between the two sockets in consideration the technologies provided by both are nearly identical which is the issue I was talking about earlier in the post. Leaps in innovation take time. When comparing at that point most would look at 1150 see it's cheaper and say to go with that since most everything else is more or less equal.

I'd personally go with 1151, but there's next to nothing this newest platform has that Broadwell doesn't. You honestly can't go wrong either way as both have the potential to be used to build a powerful capable computer system that will handle pretty much anything you throw it at save for a GPU upgrade for games every so often for years to come.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I would say get the i5-6600k and a Z170 mobo as this give you access to DDR4 ram and its nice to have for future upgrades too. getting the newer architecture is never a bad thing

The lower end DDR4 memory is still quite poor. The timings are just really bad with respect to the frequency compared to DDR3. The higher end DDR4 is where it's at - timings are good and frequency is very high. So jhud if you get DDR4, get some a little higher than 2133Mhz.

 

[QuadRings]

Another thing is the price of Haswell. A Xeon 1231V3 on a B85 is a locked i7 for about $300 (Or less) altogether. And it will perform for years, since it can Turbo to 3.8 GHz. Cheaper and better than Skylake in my book. Paired to a good GPU, it wont need an upgrade until the NEXT architecture comes out (Or at least when motherboards and stuff come down in prices).

For those complaining about prices, while partially unrelated to this, it is important to realize that AMD Zen debuts next year, with a spec sheet almost identical to Skylake in things like manafacturing process and TDP. Not mention AMD's habit of piling more cores on it. The new FX may actually pose a threat to Intel domimance, and if they dont lower Skylake prices or add features in "Skylake Refresh" or whatever, Intel will lose market. Of course, with AMD's current state, we could all underestimate them pretty easily. But the point is, we could have more choices for gaming besides Intel. I for one, am all for AM4.

Just my two cents.










(I can already feel the coming of users quoting and criticizing my AMD support... *Braces Self*)

 

[jhud6403]

Thank you everybody for the responses and debate. lol I think I will go with z170 but might look into Xeon 1231V3 to see how cheap it would be. For the z170 gigabyte gaming 3 are the bios the same as the rest of the gaming series boards?

 

[Dale_I]

Thank you everybody for the responses and debate. lol I think I will go with z170 but might look into Xeon 1231V3 to see how cheap it would be. For the z170 gigabyte gaming 3 are the bios the same as the rest of the gaming series boards?

That's one good/bad thing. Get 5 geeks together and you have at least 7 opinions...

I'm not familiar with the rest of the gaming series regarding the BIOS. However, you can visit here:
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5497#manual

and download the manual. It has screen shots of the various BIOS pages and settings.

Side note: One of the deciding factors for me in purchasing the Gigabyte Gaming 3 was the audio. It truly has exceptional audio. They are using the TI Burr Brown operational amplifier, which is somewhat renown in musician circles.

 

[Dale_I]

...

Me, I'm typing this on an i7 920 system I built in late 2008 when it first came out. it was bleeding edge then, but now in late 2015 seven years later nearly every interface has been improved many fold over the years with entirely new ones being introduced as well. I've had it this long partly because I wanted to get everything I could out of it. Get my money's worth if you will. I'd say I have.

SATA 3 to 6 to Express. USB 2.0-3.0-3.1, PCI Express x16 2.0 - 3.0. DDR3-DDR4. M.2 is now a thing. BD drives now are as cheap as a DVD drive was back then. 1080-2k-4k. Every one of them a respectable leap forward in their area.

...

I resemble that remark. Up until a few weeks ago I was on a 2005 build. Grant it, at the time (pre-i3/i5/i7), the Core 2 Duo was "bleeding edge" and (with some minor upgrades) it has faired very well through the years. A popped capacitor causing BSODs allowed my upgrade.

At the time I couldn't imagine either the speed, size, or efficiency of what's going on now.

 

[jhud6403]

Alright thank you everybody this was very helpful