why there's so much different in clock speed between i7 6700 and 6700k ?

[l3eatles]

as the topic said
i7 6700k 's clock speed is 4.0 GHz while i7 6700 's is 3.4 Ghz

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700/3502vs3515

so the question is .. is it worth to buy i7 6700k even you're not gonna overclock it, because i7 6700k significantly provides more clock speed itself.

Do i miss something ? Maybe because of their Turbo Clock Speed which the different comes down to 0.2 GHz ( 6700 = 4.0GHz / 6700k = 4.2GHz)

Any explanation ? Thanks you

P.S. Sorry for my English, i'm not a native speaker

 

[Gam3r01]

The base speed on the 6700 is much lower, but the boost speed is only .2GHz behind. The logic being most 6700k users dont need any boost clock as they will OC themselves, whereas the 6700 users benefit from a larger boost clock.

If you dont want to overclock I see no reason not to get a 6700, save the money and invest it somewhere else.

 

[l3eatles]

The base speed on the 6700 is much lower, but the boost speed is only .2GHz behind. The logic being most 6700k users dont need any boost clock as they will OC themselves, whereas the 6700 users benefit from a larger boost clock.

If you dont want to overclock I see no reason not to get a 6700, save the money and invest it somewhere else.

Thanks you for your reply, anyway i get some more questions.

Wont i benefit from more 0.6 GHz that i7 6700k gives at all ? Consider along that 6700k only costs about 30$ more than 6700
Like when people going to get i5 6400, there will be so many suggestions that you should get 6500 instead because it gives more 0.7 GHz of clock speed .. What about 6700 and 6700k, why dont we use the same logic ?

 

[Gam3r01]

Most users will always leave turbo boost on, so the clock gap is not very large. Which is why the .6GHz means nothing.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Intel did this to induce consumers to spring for the extra price premium for the k

The 4770k was 3.5 and 3.9 GHz / 4770 was 3.4 and 3.9
The 4790k was 4.0 and 4.4 GHz / 4790 was 3.6 and 4.0

Why they went to 4.0 and 4.2 / 3.4 and 4.0 makes no sense

 

[synphul]

Another thing to consider, the 6700 comes with a stock cooler while the 6700k doesn't. Many people end up using aftermarket coolers anyway but if you wanted to use the 6700 as an office machine while having the benefit of hyper threading to render the occasional video the stock cooler would likely be just fine.

Pricing depends on your local prices. In the u.s. the 6700k is showing to be around $47 more expensive than the 6700 and an aftermarket cooler is required to run it at all. A worthwhile budget cooler like the 212 evo or cryorig h7 run anywhere from $30-45 at current prices.

Now it's more like a $75-80 difference in price, not factoring the difference between an h170/b150 and a z170 motherboard. There could be another $20-30 difference there. The 6700 wouldn't need the z series board since it doesn't overclock and there isn't enough speed difference at stock to bother with the 6700k on an h170/b150 type board.

 

[l3eatles]

Most users will always leave turbo boost on, so the clock gap is not very large. Which is why the .6GHz means nothing.

ok, this makes sense thanks you again

 

[l3eatles]

Another thing to consider, the 6700 comes with a stock cooler while the 6700k doesn't. Many people end up using aftermarket coolers anyway but if you wanted to use the 6700 as an office machine while having the benefit of hyper threading to render the occasional video the stock cooler would likely be just fine.

Pricing depends on your local prices. In the u.s. the 6700k is showing to be around $47 more expensive than the 6700 and an aftermarket cooler is required to run it at all. A worthwhile budget cooler like the 212 evo or cryorig h7 run anywhere from $30-45 at current prices.

Now it's more like a $75-80 difference in price, not factoring the difference between an h170/b150 and a z170 motherboard. There could be another $20-30 difference there. The 6700 wouldn't need the z series board since it doesn't overclock and there isn't enough speed difference at stock to bother with the 6700k on an h170/b150 type board.

i already have a cpu cooler, so this makes 6700k seem fit to me even more, but as you said upgrading MB and RAM (from 2133 to 3000) to work with K series cost a lot more money too.

thanks so much for your explanation. That helps me a lot 😀

 

[l3eatles]

Intel did this to induce consumers to spring for the extra price premium for the k

The 4770k was 3.5 and 3.9 GHz / 4770 was 3.4 and 3.9
The 4790k was 4.0 and 4.4 GHz / 4790 was 3.6 and 4.0

Why they went to 4.0 and 4.2 / 3.4 and 4.0 makes no sense

Ok, marketing right ?

 

[Ecky]

The reason is actually TDP - the i7 6700 needs to fit within the same 65w TDP as the rest of the non-K CPUs. The 6700K's extra clockspeed comes at a cost of greatly increased power consumption, because it's starting to get out of the high-efficient range.

Here's the power usage vs frequency of my i5. Notice how the power usage starts to go exponential right around the 4ghz mark:

 

[Gam3r01]

I was not aware the 6700 is rated at 65w compared to the 6700ks 91w. That is good to know.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Chicken egg thing ... did they set out to build a 65 watt **rated** CPU or god they just set the TDP based upon the targeted GHz ?