i5 6600 or 6500?

[Mr_Furball]

Hey guys!

I'm almost buying all my components, but one thing is in my mind. Is the non k 6600 worth the price difference from the i5 6500? I saw some benchmarks on digital foundry and the performance between the 6500 and a non overclocked 6600"K", that is 3.5ghz on stock, was minimal.

Thank you already!

 

[genthug]

Imo it's not. Some will tell you it is worth it, but it's typically $30-40 for 100MHz. That's an expensive 100MHz...

 

[Mr_Furball]

Imo it's not. Some will tell you it is worth it, but it's typically $30-40 for 100MHz. That's an expensive 100MHz...

And what you think about the pratical performance, man?

 

[genthug]

100MHz isn't going to give you anything noticeable. If someone's going to grab a 6600, I would typically just tell them to get a 6600k instead as that's actually worth the price. Between the 6500 and 6600 however, no difference.

 

[lakimens]

Get the 6600k if you're overclocking, otherwise get the 6500.
0.1Ghz is not worth $30.
Give us your full build, we'll give an opinion.

 

[synphul]

If the benchmarks you saw between the 6500 and 6600 appeared minimal to you then only you can decide if it's worth it based on the prices you're considering. I would personally go with the 6500 based on the prices I'm seeing for the u.s., there's a $29 difference and the 6600 is only 300mhz faster. By contrast the 6500 is 300mhz faster than the 6400 and there's only a $10 price difference between those two cpu's.

This has traditionally been the case and it was the same way with haswell. The cost difference between the 4460 and 4590 was minimal with the 4590 having faster clock speeds and the 4690 non k was considerably more with only having minor clock speed improvements making the locked 4690 fairly poor value (imho). Same thing with skylake.

If you have a microcenter nearby you may want to check them out. You'll have to check your local store to see if prices match but the website is showing the 6600k for 180, even with say 8% sales tax (you'd have to pay tax) it makes the 6600k the same price as what I'm seeing the 6500 listed for online shipped. You may find out a 6600k is within your budget and at that price would be the best choice. Even a mild overclock (with a z170 board) would make it a solid value. They also have the i7 6700k for $259 though that may be outside of your budget (it's on sale for less than the older 4790k or locked 6700).

Edit: I'm not sure where people seem to think there's only 100mhz difference between the 6500 and 6600. You should check the specs. The 6500 is up to 3.6ghz, the 6600 is up to 3.9ghz.

http://ark.intel.com/products/88188/Intel-Core-i5-6600-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/88184/Intel-Core-i5-6500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

 

[Mr_Furball]

100MHz isn't going to give you anything noticeable. If someone's going to grab a 6600, I would typically just tell them to get a 6600k instead as that's actually worth the price. Between the 6500 and 6600 however, no difference.

So the 6600 is just like a 8gb version of the rx 470, right? Haha Just to make more money.

 

[lakimens]

If the benchmarks you saw between the 6500 and 6600 appeared minimal to you then only you can decide if it's worth it based on the prices you're considering. I would personally go with the 6500 based on the prices I'm seeing for the u.s., there's a $29 difference and the 6600 is only 300mhz faster. By contrast the 6500 is 300mhz faster than the 6400 and there's only a $10 price difference between those two cpu's.

This has traditionally been the case and it was the same way with haswell. The cost difference between the 4460 and 4590 was minimal with the 4590 having faster clock speeds and the 4690 non k was considerably more with only having minor clock speed improvements making the locked 4690 fairly poor value (imho). Same thing with skylake.

If you have a microcenter nearby you may want to check them out. You'll have to check your local store to see if prices match but the website is showing the 6600k for 180, even with say 8% sales tax (you'd have to pay tax) it makes the 6600k the same price as what I'm seeing the 6500 listed for online shipped. You may find out a 6600k is within your budget and at that price would be the best choice. Even a mild overclock (with a z170 board) would make it a solid value. They also have the i7 6700k for $259 though that may be outside of your budget (it's on sale for less than the older 4790k or locked 6700).

It's not even .3Ghz, when boosting all cores the boost is very small, will add .1Ghz to all cores at most.
The labeled turbo boost speed can happen if only one core is being utilized.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Hey guys!

I'm almost buying all my components, but one thing is in my mind. Is the non k 6600 worth the price difference from the i5 6500? I saw some benchmarks on digital foundry and the performance between the 6500 and a non overclocked 6600"K", that is 3.5ghz on stock, was minimal.

Thank you already!

That's a question only you can answer as worth is an individual decision. All I can do is give ya the numbers.Here they tested the 6600, 6600k and 6500. Don't think it's a 2 way race... they tested 3 processors, just that results were same for 6600 and 6600k as they didn't OC. Start at about 00:51 mark in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0tN_n5ek1Y

@ 10% fps increase according to these guys .. same as difference between a 470 and 480 ($100)
+6 fps in AC w/ 6600
+5 fps (10 %) In Crysis
+6 fps in FC4
+4 fps in GTAV
+8 fps in Witcher 3
+5 fps in Watch Dogs

For $10... Id buy the 6600k ... proverbial "no brainer"

http://www.microcenter.com/endeca/CompareV2.aspx?returnUrl=L3NlYXJjaC9zZWFyY2hfcmVzdWx0cy5hc3B4P049NDI5NDk2Njk5NSA0Mjk0OTY0NTY2JnBhZ2U9MQ%3D%3D

$170 (Save $60) Intel Core i5-6500 SkyLake 3.2GHz LGA 1151 Boxed Processor
Save $30 when bundled with a compatible motherboard
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451887/Core_i5-6500_SkyLake_32GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

$180 (Save $90) Intel Core i5-6600K SkyLake 3.5GHz 1151 Boxed Processor
Save $30 when bundled with a compatible motherboard
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451885/Core_i5-6600K_SkyLake_35GHz_1151_Boxed_Processor

 

[Mr_Furball]

If the benchmarks you saw between the 6500 and 6600 appeared minimal to you then only you can decide if it's worth it based on the prices you're considering. I would personally go with the 6500 based on the prices I'm seeing for the u.s., there's a $29 difference and the 6600 is only 300mhz faster. By contrast the 6500 is 300mhz faster than the 6400 and there's only a $10 price difference between those two cpu's.

This has traditionally been the case and it was the same way with haswell. The cost difference between the 4460 and 4590 was minimal with the 4590 having faster clock speeds and the 4690 non k was considerably more with only having minor clock speed improvements making the locked 4690 fairly poor value (imho). Same thing with skylake.

If you have a microcenter nearby you may want to check them out. You'll have to check your local store to see if prices match but the website is showing the 6600k for 180, even with say 8% sales tax (you'd have to pay tax) it makes the 6600k the same price as what I'm seeing the 6500 listed for online shipped. You may find out a 6600k is within your budget and at that price would be the best choice. Even a mild overclock (with a z170 board) would make it a solid value. They also have the i7 6700k for $259 though that may be outside of your budget (it's on sale for less than the older 4790k or locked 6700).

Edit: I'm not sure where people seem to think there's only 100mhz difference between the 6500 and 6600. You should check the specs. The 6500 is up to 3.6ghz, the 6600 is up to 3.9ghz.

http://ark.intel.com/products/88188/Intel-Core-i5-6600-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/88184/Intel-Core-i5-6500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

It's because the stock speed is 3.2 and 3.3. So, my budget is limited at the moment and I'm going to buy just a good enough mobo to hold an i5 and gtx 1060, an h110, so I don't plan to overclock either. I live in Brazil and the difference between the 6600k and the i5 6500 is about 40 dollars.

 

[Mr_Furball]

Hey guys!

I'm almost buying all my components, but one thing is in my mind. Is the non k 6600 worth the price difference from the i5 6500? I saw some benchmarks on digital foundry and the performance between the 6500 and a non overclocked 6600"K", that is 3.5ghz on stock, was minimal.

Thank you already!

That's a question only you can answer as worth is an individual decision. All I can do is give ya the numbers.Here they tested the 6600, 6600k and 6500. Don't think it's a 2 way race... they tested 3 processors, just that results were same for 6600 and 6600k as they didn't OC. Start at about 00:51 mark in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0tN_n5ek1Y

@ 10% fps increase according to these guys .. same as difference between a 470 and 480 ($100)
+6 fps in AC w/ 6600
+5 fps (10 %) In Crysis
+6 fps in FC4
+4 fps in GTAV
+8 fps in Witcher 3
+5 fps in Watch Dogs

For $10... Id buy the 6600k ... proverbial "no brainer"

http://www.microcenter.com/endeca/CompareV2.aspx?returnUrl=L3NlYXJjaC9zZWFyY2hfcmVzdWx0cy5hc3B4P049NDI5NDk2Njk5NSA0Mjk0OTY0NTY2JnBhZ2U9MQ%3D%3D

$170 (Save $60) Intel Core i5-6500 SkyLake 3.2GHz LGA 1151 Boxed Processor
Save $30 when bundled with a compatible motherboard
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451887/Core_i5-6500_SkyLake_32GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

$180 (Save $90) Intel Core i5-6600K SkyLake 3.5GHz 1151 Boxed Processor
Save $30 when bundled with a compatible motherboard
http://www.microcenter.com/product/451885/Core_i5-6600K_SkyLake_35GHz_1151_Boxed_Processor

I won't consider the 6600k because I won't buy a z170 for overclocking and the difference of prices where I live it's equivalent to 40 dollars. So... not that easy haha

 

[Mr_Furball]

Get the 6600k if you're overclocking, otherwise get the 6500.
0.1Ghz is not worth $30.
Give us your full build, we'll give an opinion.

I didn't buy the components yet haha but it will be this week. a gtx 1060, Asrock h110m (and I'm not going to overclock), 16 ddr4 2133mhz ram.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Wait ... if you are not going to overclock what in the world is the h110 for ?

a. You don't need to buy a cooler if you are not going to overclock, so why spend $100 (in US) buying one

b. I wouldn't worry about which CPU to buy because if $40 price difference when buying a H110 is essentially tossing money in the trash as it does nothing for you. The cooler that comes with the 6500 or 6600 will do just fine.

c) If it were me ... I'd save the $100 (way more in Brazil I expect) and buy the 6600k and a decent air cooler and overclock the hell out of it. Note that a $60 air cooler will beat the H100 handily in both cooling and noise level.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($190.89 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H110 94.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $290.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-11-18 19:25 EST-0500

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Phanteks PH-TC14PE 78.1 CFM CPU Cooler ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $294.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-11-18 19:28 EST-0500

The 2nd choice will wipe the floor w/ the 1st one ... faster, cooler, quieter.

Even if you don't want to OC now, the $3 lets you change your mind and will greatly increase resale value. On resale, the k can be worth $100

 

[Mr_Furball]

Wait ... if you are not going to overclock what in the world is the h110 for ?

a. You don't need to buy a cooler if you are not going to overclock, so why spend $100 (in US) buying one

b. I wouldn't worry about which CPU to buy because if $40 price difference when buying a H110 is essentially tossing money in the trash as it does nothing for you. The cooler that comes with the 6500 or 6600 will do just fine.

c) If it were me ... I'd save the $100 (way more in Brazil I expect) and buy the 6600k and a decent air cooler.

I don't get it. The h110 is one of the simplest models. For me, you only buy a z170 when you have spare money. I decided to invest on a basic mobo and have a good cpu and gpu. The h110 is actually not made for oc haha
I will just buy a decent deepcool cooler for temp and dba

 

[synphul]

That's not how turbo boost works lakimens. Here is a table showing the frequencies at various loads with 1-4 cores active. As you can see the 6600 and 6600k have the same, with 1 core active they begin at 3.9ghz and as additional cores become active the cpu loses 100mhz frequency. 3.9 1core, 3.8 2 cores, 3.7 3 cores and 3.6 with 4 cores. The 6500 tops out at 3.6ghz with 1 core active, down to 3.3ghz with all 4 cores active. So yes, a 300mhz difference. Please don't spread false information.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

 

[Mr_Furball]

That's not how turbo boost works lakimens. Here is a table showing the frequencies at various loads with 1-4 cores active. As you can see the 6600 and 6600k have the same, with 1 core active they begin at 3.9ghz and as additional cores become active the cpu loses 100mhz frequency. 3.9 1core, 3.8 2 cores, 3.7 3 cores and 3.6 with 4 cores. The 6500 tops out at 3.6ghz with 1 core active, down to 3.3ghz with all 4 cores active. So yes, a 300mhz difference. Please don't spread false information.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

Ohh, this is really interesting, actually. So the 6600 and k version are essentially the same? If you're not overcloking the K?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I don't get it. The h110 is one of the simplest models. For me, you only buy a z170 when you have spare money. I decided to invest on a basic mobo and have a good cpu and gpu. The h110 is actually not made for oc haha

I will just buy a decent deepcool cooler for temp and dba

Ohhh.... I thot you were installing a H110 water cooler ... my bad

I am outta my league there ... we've never built anything with H110 chipset (lowest budget build we ever been asked to do was $850) and I have now idea how that impacts performance and upgrade options other than it usually usually comes with a rather chinsy sound codec (Realtek ALC887)

Again ... there is absolutely no reason to spend any money on a cooler

And yes, the 6600 is essentially a 6600k that doesn't OC

But as you see if ya look at the test .... the 6600/6600k is getting 10% more fps than the 6500 ... again according to the guys who did that test and I'm not saying it's right cause have never looked at the 6500 nor confirmed their results with other sources.

 

[Mr_Furball]

Ohhh.... I thot you were installing a H110 water cooler ... my bad

I am outta my league there ... we've never built anything with H110 chipset and I have now idea how that impacts performance and upgrade options other than it usually usually comes with a rather chinsy sound codec (Realtek ALC887)

Oh hahahaha. So, the differences is just that I will have only one dual channel, less room for ram (but with 16gb I'm set) no sli (which I don't do), overcloking ram and cpu (although, just the z170 has support for that) and other support things. Nothing so important. I think that if you have a limited budget, just buy the mobo that fits your needs and invest more on other components, you know?

 

[Mr_Furball]

I don't get it. The h110 is one of the simplest models. For me, you only buy a z170 when you have spare money. I decided to invest on a basic mobo and have a good cpu and gpu. The h110 is actually not made for oc haha

I will just buy a decent deepcool cooler for temp and dba

Ohhh.... I thot you were installing a H110 water cooler ... my bad

I am outta my league there ... we've never built anything with H110 chipset (lowest budget build we ever been asked to do was $850) and I have now idea how that impacts performance and upgrade options other than it usually usually comes with a rather chinsy sound codec (Realtek ALC887)

Again ... there is absolutely no reason to spend any money on a cooler

And yes, the 6600 is essentially a 6600k that doesn't OC

But as you see if ya look at the test .... the 6600/6600k is getting 10% more fps than the 6500 ... again according to the guys who did that test and I'm not saying it's right cause have never looked at the 6500 nor confirmed their results with other sources.

Seriously? Non? I'm wondering if the stock cooler won't be too loud, and even if I'm not going to oc I still worry about temperatures.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

You bought a product...it comes with a cooler and a guarantee. If it breaks, they gotta give you a new one.

Aftermarket coolers are for overclockers and will serve no other purpose unless, for example, you living in a tent in a desert Unless you puter is constantly exposed to > 100F temps, the stock cooler is fine

 

[lakimens]

That's not how turbo boost works lakimens. Here is a table showing the frequencies at various loads with 1-4 cores active. As you can see the 6600 and 6600k have the same, with 1 core active they begin at 3.9ghz and as additional cores become active the cpu loses 100mhz frequency. 3.9 1core, 3.8 2 cores, 3.7 3 cores and 3.6 with 4 cores. The 6500 tops out at 3.6ghz with 1 core active, down to 3.3ghz with all 4 cores active. So yes, a 300mhz difference. Please don't spread false information.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

Ohh, this is really interesting, actually. So the 6600 and k version are essentially the same? If you're not overcloking the K?

Sorry, I was wrong, but I still don't think it's worth it.
My information comes from some articles read on the internet and a few answers here on tom's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you need 16GB of RAM for gaming, which is what I think you'll be doing.
1 Stick of 8GB is enough for all games, and you have room to upgrade to 16GB.
1060 is a good choice in GPU, won't get you 4K, but it will play all titles on high(if not max) settings.
6500 would be the most I'd go, an i7 can't use it's full potential in games.
H110 motherboard would be the cheapes option here, next are B150 and H170 if you want more RAM slots.
I don't recommend you a cooler for a stock CPU, if it dies send it back on warranty. Very unlikely to happen.
I would recommend an SSD. SSD's are about five times faster than a normal HDD. 850 EVO 120GB goes for $90. This is one of the best SSD's right now, but there are cheaper ones like Kingston V300 or ADATA SP500.
Be sure to choose a quality PSU from this[/url list.
If you're choosing a PSU from your store, search google for reviews on that PSU, I like Johnny Guru's reviews and they review a lot of power supply units.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

1. Again, something's worth is a very individualized decision.... me at $170 for a 6500 and $180 for a 6600k Looking at those benchmarks 10 % increase in frame rates for the $10 cost difference at MicroCenter, I think 95% of folks would do it all the time. As price difference increases, that go for it % will drop accordingly.

2. I didn't see any indication that OP was going for 16GB. Again given the price difference, 8GB vs 16 GB, today not many even consider not getting 16GB. We are seeing significant performance differences between 8 and 16 in games for about 18 months or more. And remember to look at min fps, not just average as this is where faster and more RAM helps

However, using just 1 stick is bad idea... kinda like going outside to have snowball fight with just 1 glove. You can do it, but you can do it better with 2. When ya read DDR ... There's a D for Double data rate but the important D is for dual ... meaning for best performance you need 2 of them. 2 x 4Gb is the direction to go if 8 Gb is budget killer.

No i7 option was under discussion but the potential of a CPU to do other things is not really relevant to the selection process. If the 6500 and the 6700k were the same price ... I don't think anyone would ever say, don't give me the really good one". Because the i7 can do extra stuff that you may not use, that doesn't discount and performance advantage you might have from using it for what you are using it for. So I can't see skipping the 6600k because you don't plan to OC .... why say no to that 10% extra fps from the 6600k just because I might not OC.

Finally, if on a tight budget, the SSD has been the 1st thing to go. It's one of those things ya can always add later. Going from H110 to Z170 later ia a real PITA. If ya can't afford SSD + HD, ya can't skip the HD if ya want to have more than 2 or 3 games. On budget builds, we start with a SSHD. On our 2 testbeds, tho SSDs look great in benchmarks, no one was able to tell the difference between an SSD + HD versus SSHD in actually using the computer.

SSD booted in 15.6 secs / SSHD in 16.5
SSD opened AutoCAD and loaded a 8 GB file in 39 seconds / SSHD was same
SSD loaded MMO and getting to point where toon could move was 45 seconds / SSHD was same

It's certainly faster but you just couldn't observe any gain or benefit unless you did something that most folks don't ever do like load 50 windows in Chrome, or copy / paste 1.2 TB of files. So here i think ya gotta ask, will I benefit from this. It used to be a lot cheaper but now a SSHD costs just about as much as an SSD

If it's not clear by now is that what I am getting at is there is no "correct answer" and no "wrong answer"... whether the difference in performance between two components is "worth it" depends on who you are asking. And much of that will depend on whether ya budget is $500, $1000, 2,000 or even further north.

Now the pertinent part of this is that even then, the answer will not always be the same. A choice that normally cost ya $40 is one that you generally might not take .... but if it's only $10 .. as we saw in the above instance, many of those who previously decline would hop on that.

 

[Mr_Furball]

That's not how turbo boost works lakimens. Here is a table showing the frequencies at various loads with 1-4 cores active. As you can see the 6600 and 6600k have the same, with 1 core active they begin at 3.9ghz and as additional cores become active the cpu loses 100mhz frequency. 3.9 1core, 3.8 2 cores, 3.7 3 cores and 3.6 with 4 cores. The 6500 tops out at 3.6ghz with 1 core active, down to 3.3ghz with all 4 cores active. So yes, a 300mhz difference. Please don't spread false information.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

Ohh, this is really interesting, actually. So the 6600 and k version are essentially the same? If you're not overcloking the K?

Sorry, I was wrong, but I still don't think it's worth it.
My information comes from some articles read on the internet and a few answers here on tom's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you need 16GB of RAM for gaming, which is what I think you'll be doing.
1 Stick of 8GB is enough for all games, and you have room to upgrade to 16GB.
1060 is a good choice in GPU, won't get you 4K, but it will play all titles on high(if not max) settings.
6500 would be the most I'd go, an i7 can't use it's full potential in games.
H110 motherboard would be the cheapes option here, next are B150 and H170 if you want more RAM slots.
I don't recommend you a cooler for a stock CPU, if it dies send it back on warranty. Very unlikely to happen.
I would recommend an SSD. SSD's are about five times faster than a normal HDD. 850 EVO 120GB goes for $90. This is one of the best SSD's right now, but there are cheaper ones like Kingston V300 or ADATA SP500.
Be sure to choose a quality PSU from this[/url list.
If you're choosing a PSU from your store, search google for reviews on that PSU, I like Johnny Guru's reviews and they review a lot of power supply units.

Hey man, Thanks for the tips and I agree with a lot of stuff, but check it out. I'm not the one buying the ram hehe. My dad told when my pc broke 2 years ago (because of ram or mobo. It started with weird lagging above 30 fps and then the machine would restart by itself and then wouldn't even start) and he continuosly postponed that. So he will buy the ram. I though 8gigs was enough, however, battlefield 1 takes almost everything. And since the h110 only has two slots, I need to get 2x8gb for dual channel. I already have a psu too. I wish I could get the i7 but my budget is not ilimited. So great i5 and a great gpu (one of the best mid to high end, right?).
And I don't care about 4k, you know? First, here in Brazil 4k is a distant reality and you need a 1080 to even run some games in this resolution. Mine is actually 900p. I don't think like experts that say that on gpu is made for 1080p, the other for quadhd. I just want to be prepared for the next 3 years at least with games. The 1060 every game on ultra 60fps on full hd "It was made for that", like they would say, and has a boost for 1440p 45fps.
And I don't have money either to ssds.

 

[Mr_Furball]

1. Again, something's worth is a very individualized decision.... me at $170 for a 6500 and $180 for a 6600k Looking at those benchmarks 10 % increase in frame rates for the $10 cost difference at MicroCenter, I think 95% of folks would do it all the time. As price difference increases, that go for it % will drop accordingly.

2. I didn't see any indication that OP was going for 16GB. Again given the price difference, 8GB vs 16 GB, today not many even consider not getting 16GB. We are seeing significant performance differences between 8 and 16 in games for about 18 months or more. And remember to look at min fps, not just average as this is where faster and more RAM helps

However, using just 1 stick is bad idea... kinda like going outside to have snowball fight with just 1 glove. You can do it, but you can do it better with 2. When ya read DDR ... There's a D for Double data rate but the important D is for dual ... meaning for best performance you need 2 of them. 2 x 4Gb is the direction to go if 8 Gb is budget killer.

No i7 option was under discussion but the potential of a CPU to do other things is not really relevant to the selection process. If the 6500 and the 6700k were the same price ... I don't think anyone would ever say, don't give me the really good one". Because the i7 can do extra stuff that you may not use, that doesn't discount and performance advantage you might have from using it for what you are using it for. So I can't see skipping the 6600k because you don't plan to OC .... why say no to that 10% extra fps from the 6600k just because I might not OC.

Finally, if on a tight budget, the SSD has been the 1st thing to go. It's one of those things ya can always add later. Going from H110 to Z170 later ia a real PITA. If ya can't afford SSD + HD, ya can't skip the HD if ya want to have more than 2 or 3 games. On budget builds, we start with a SSHD. On our 2 testbeds, tho SSDs look great in benchmarks, no one was able to tell the difference between an SSD + HD versus SSHD in actually using the computer.

SSD booted in 15.6 secs / SSHD in 16.5
SSD opened AutoCAD and loaded a 8 GB file in 39 seconds / SSHD was same
SSD loaded MMO and getting to point where toon could move was 45 seconds / SSHD was same

It's certainly faster but you just couldn't observe any gain or benefit unless you did something that most folks don't ever do like load 50 windows in Chrome, or copy / paste 1.2 TB of files. So here i think ya gotta ask, will I benefit from this. It used to be a lot cheaper but now a SSHD costs just about as much as an SSD

If it's not clear by now is that what I am getting at is there is no "correct answer" and no "wrong answer"... whether the difference in performance between two components is "worth it" depends on who you are asking. And much of that will depend on whether ya budget is $500, $1000, 2,000 or even further north.

Now the pertinent part of this is that even then, the answer will not always be the same. A choice that normally cost ya $40 is one that you generally might not take .... but if it's only $10 .. as we saw in the above instance, many of those who previously decline would hop on that.

Exactly. Ssds can be added later. And I would buy 8gb in two 4gb sticks and if needed more 8gb, but with a h110 I would have to buy 2x4gb and then when I gathered more money, buy two 8gb. Would have to throw the other two out. My budget is not that tight hahaha if it was, I wouldn't buy a 1060 and a i5 6600 (which here at least are very expensive). But I rathed have a gtx 1060 and add a ssd later like yourself said than to buy a r9 380 (250 dollars equivalent here) now and then have to keep it for a good while. But I'm going for the 6600, man. Was going to buy a cpu cooler, but everyone said that since I'm not overclocking, I don't need to change (is just that I was worried with dba and temperatures).