Upgrading from FX-8350 to I7-6700K

[Nacho95]

Hi, i am planing to change my cpu from the fx8350 to an intel model.
My doubt here is that i thought that the fx8350 was better than the i7 6700k for a workstation and multitasking because of its extra cores, but according to some bechmarks the i7 6700k beats the amd cpu.
I known that for better multitasking performance i should bought the i7 6800k because it has more cores. But the 6800k has a higher TPD and it will probably reach higher temperatures than the 6700k.

My questions are these:
-both i7 are better for multitasking than the fx8350?
-the 6800k is hotter than the fx8350?
-the socket 1151 will have more lifetime than the 2011-v3? (i read that 1151 will work for future Kaby Lake processors)

If the 6700k is already better than the cpu i currently have i dont want to waste money on an more expensive cpu and mother.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Ethanh100]

A skylake i5 will destroy a fx 8350 in single and multithreaded benches. That being said a 6700k will be even more powerful over the 8350. They have the same core count with hyperthreading, but the 6700k has much better single core performance, and more cache. For single threaded applications, including games, the 6700k is the most powerful cpu you can get, and will even do better than something like the 6950x. However for multithreaded applications in a workstation environment the 6800k will be better. So if you are using programs that take good advantage of multiple cors, go for the 6800k. Kaby lake will be released soon, but is very likely to still use the 1151 socket and the top end chipset of z170.

 

[Eximo]

Kaby Lake will come out with 200 series motherboards, but will work in LGA1151 boards from what I hear. Just going to be some more I/O options on the 200 series. In terms of CPU performance there probably won't be much of a difference between a 6700k and a '7700k'

FX-8350 8MB cache 8 cores, 8 threads, however each pair of cores shares resources. 2012 32nm
i7-6700k 8MB cache, 4 cores, 8 threads 2015, 14nm
i7-6800k 15MB cache 6 cores, 12 threads 2016 , 14nm

Basically the IPC and performance per watt of the Intel chips is better than an FX series chip. Though I think the Z170 and X99 boards just have better, well, pretty much everything as well. DDR4 being the big one and NVMe for SSDs, M.2 slots, USB 3.1, and so on.

 

[synphul]

About the only task that the fx 8xxx outperforms an i5 in is zipping/unzipping volumes. Even in 'multithreaded' situations an i5 4th or 6th gen keeps up and an i7 4c/8t outperforms it. That's why the processors are priced the way they are, according to performance/value. Ddr4 is the newest tech and will make it easier if/when replacing or upgrading ram going forward. In a very few specific cases it can offer an improvement over ddr3 but in 90-95% of the scenarios there's little real world difference in the ram. pcie x4 m.2 drives are faster than previous m.2's, as Eximo pointed out there's also usb 3.1 type a, type c, thunderbolt and a variety of other things that are more current tech if you make use of them.

It would help to know what programs you use or type of tasks you do since there may be comparative performance benchmarks out there to try and give you an idea of the real differences between cpus. Workstation is a bit vague and could mean any number of things.

The 6800k does have a slightly higher tdp, intel cpu's in general have hotter core temps but they also have higher thresholds for temps. An fx 8350 running at 60c sounds hot and it is since it begins throttling at 60-65c. An intel running at 60c isn't a problem, it doesn't begin throttling until 100-105c. Hard to compare apples to apples because they're apples and oranges. Per core it would seem intel is hotter since a 6c cpu is hotter than an amd 8c. Then again an intel 4c outperforms an amd 8c so it doesn't require as many cores to get the same performance and overall heat output could be lower in contrast. 95w vs 125w. Amd doesn't have anything to directly compete with the 6700k much less the 6800k.

I wouldn't worry about socket lifetime, there's little gain to be made moving 1 generation in cpu. It's a side grade at best. No real justifiable reason to go from a 4770k to 4790k, 4670k to 4690k or 6700k to 7700k or whatever kabylake is numbered. Intel's cpu's have a history the past several generations of remaining competitive and viable for 4-5yrs whether an i5 or i7. By the time several years have passed you're going to be looking at a whole new cpu, socket and motherboard and moving ahead 1 cpu generation after a number of years isn't going to improve much if anything. Consider it more like buying a cpu/motherboard combo as a set and when it's outdated, time to buy a new set.

An example would be people with an i5 2500k or i7 2600k. Enough time has passed and improvements made where a new cpu makes sense, maybe a 6600k or 6700k. That means they skipped 3rd gen ivy bridge, 4 gen haswell, haswell refresh, devil's canyon, they skipped broadwell, they skipped the entire lga 1150 socket and are moving forward to an lga1151 platform along with needing ddr4 ram. It's not just a cpu upgrade, it's a whole system upgrade.

 

[Nacho95]

About the only task that the fx 8xxx outperforms an i5 in is zipping/unzipping volumes. Even in 'multithreaded' situations an i5 4th or 6th gen keeps up and an i7 4c/8t outperforms it. That's why the processors are priced the way they are, according to performance/value. Ddr4 is the newest tech and will make it easier if/when replacing or upgrading ram going forward. In a very few specific cases it can offer an improvement over ddr3 but in 90-95% of the scenarios there's little real world difference in the ram. pcie x4 m.2 drives are faster than previous m.2's, as Eximo pointed out there's also usb 3.1 type a, type c, thunderbolt and a variety of other things that are more current tech if you make use of them.

It would help to know what programs you use or type of tasks you do since there may be comparative performance benchmarks out there to try and give you an idea of the real differences between cpus. Workstation is a bit vague and could mean any number of things.

The 6800k does have a slightly higher tdp, intel cpu's in general have hotter core temps but they also have higher thresholds for temps. An fx 8350 running at 60c sounds hot and it is since it begins throttling at 60-65c. An intel running at 60c isn't a problem, it doesn't begin throttling until 100-105c. Hard to compare apples to apples because they're apples and oranges. Per core it would seem intel is hotter since a 6c cpu is hotter than an amd 8c. Then again an intel 4c outperforms an amd 8c so it doesn't require as many cores to get the same performance and overall heat output could be lower in contrast. 95w vs 125w. Amd doesn't have anything to directly compete with the 6700k much less the 6800k.

I wouldn't worry about socket lifetime, there's little gain to be made moving 1 generation in cpu. It's a side grade at best. No real justifiable reason to go from a 4770k to 4790k, 4670k to 4690k or 6700k to 7700k or whatever kabylake is numbered. Intel's cpu's have a history the past several generations of remaining competitive and viable for 4-5yrs whether an i5 or i7. By the time several years have passed you're going to be looking at a whole new cpu, socket and motherboard and moving ahead 1 cpu generation after a number of years isn't going to improve much if anything. Consider it more like buying a cpu/motherboard combo as a set and when it's outdated, time to buy a new set.

An example would be people with an i5 2500k or i7 2600k. Enough time has passed and improvements made where a new cpu makes sense, maybe a 6600k or 6700k. That means they skipped 3rd gen ivy bridge, 4 gen haswell, haswell refresh, devil's canyon, they skipped broadwell, they skipped the entire lga 1150 socket and are moving forward to an lga1151 platform along with needing ddr4 ram. It's not just a cpu upgrade, it's a whole system upgrade.

thanks for your answers, specially to you synphul for that complete explanation. The software that i use is mainly Maya (for animation and rendering) and after effects

 

[synphul]

Here's some skylake benchmarks, shows comparisons to 4th gen intel and amd's fx 9xxx and 8xxx cpu's. Skylake i5's have an advantage over the amd cpu's.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-8.html

Here's a look at graphics acceleration in maya 2014 comparing the previous platforms, x79 workstation and z87 mainstream.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/AutoDesk-Maya-2014-Professional-GPU-Acceleration-509/

The gtx titan fell behind the workstation gpu's by quite a bit even compared to a k2000 or k4000. I'm not overly familiar with maya but depending on the tasks being done it seems gpu also plays a significant role. If looking to also game on this pc, a workstation card may or may not be a good idea an all around gpu. If not gaming and only doing workstation tasks or doing these things more as a profession than hobby a workstation gpu may be something to also consider.