ah?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
ah?
6700k, 5820k is meme at the moment.
5820k is more expensive when you factor in motherboard cost. It has better multithreaded performance, but worse per core performance.
If you do actual work, you'll probably find the extra cores and threads somewhat useful, but if you only play video games, shitpost on 4chan and watch youtube videos there's almost no reason to get the 5820k.
>>54798018
>6700k costs as much as a 5820k
>literally 4790k with nearly no improvement
>5820k has an OC expectancy of 4.4ghz
>single core performance becomes same or even better with OC
>multi core is better even at the crippled stock clocks
If the tiny amount of extra money that you have to pay for the motherboard isn't a problem, just get an 5820k.
>>54798147
OC the 6700K then.
that was hard, nice try tough.
>>54798174
>6 cores at 4.4+ghz vs 4 cores at 4.7ghz at most
Wow that was hard.
>>54798018
got lucky with my silicon chip, 4790k @5.0 GHz
bretty much destroying 6700k's even if OC'd
>>54798027
Nice argument
6700k for gaming, 5820k for everything else.
Doesnt the 5820k have a better upgrade path should he need it 4 years down the line?
>>54798344
it performance test its all the same. in fact the gains are so minimal on anything you can actually say if you got a i7 4770 dont bother upgrading
intel went to shit after they couldnt produce even a 12 nm line. so no more nm advantage and no more "all we got to do is cram more transistors into them solution" = no real new chips from intel
sadly 4770s are not on the market any more
http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-skylake-i7-6700k-tested-a-smart-upgrade-despite-small-gaming-gains/
quotes from the article
>"Is it worth upgrading from Haswell/Devil’s Canyon? No. You’re looking at virtually no CPU performance increase on an investment of $500+ between processor, motherboard and RAM."
>"Is it worth upgrading from Ivy Bridge? Not really, at least not for gaming. Skylake gaming performance is only marginally better than Devil’s Canyon on average, and the bump from Ivy Bridge to Haswell delivered the standard 5-10 percent increase in overall performance. Remember that games are more often bottlenecked by the GPU, not the CPU. Gaming performance between the Haswell 4770K (2013) and Ivy Bridge 3770K (2012) is virtually identical across many games."
>>54798388
>no GPU
>750W
>>54798388
>solid build
>no gpu
May i reccommend nVidia GT 420? Its based on Fermi and its Blazing yo, blazing fast.
>>54798470
>>54798465
Don't worry about the GPU my friends , I'll save my actual shit GPU until the 1070 and 1080 come out and I decide what to choose
At all , the computer isn't for full gamming , I don't care so much about that
>>54798018
You wait for broadwell-e
For the same cost as the 5820K you can get the much better Xeon E5-2666v3 ES instead.
>>54798499
Do you believe that waiting for the 6800k be worth?
>>54798484
>only one gpu
>750w
>>54798545
Best PSU ;)
Full modular ;)
>>54798565
>best psu
>not bequiet
>>54798518
Its a die shrink, so yes
>>54798581
suggestions?
you dumb niggers arent going to be using 6 cores to do shit
so either one if going to work
>>54798630
>>54798609
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA68V39G8981&cm_re=bequiet-_-9SIA68V39G8981-_-Product
although i was just shitting you, your evga is perfectly fine too. at least you are not one of those faggots buying corsair psus
>>54798678
I was just looking about the same power supply right now ;)
>>54798696
the dark rock pro cpu cooler is great as well although as far as I know it's not a huge difference to the noctua
>>54798018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwwaVGUFtk
/thread
>>54798726
Who say's we want the CPU for gaming?
>>54798785
Because you'd need to be a fucking retard to be asking this question otherwise. I realise that's still a strong possibility on /g/.
>>54798791
THE RETARD OF 4CHAN
You don't need a 5820k. Stick to the 6700k. Unless you have specific multicore needs, you'll be happier with the 6700k.
The 6800k also comes out very soon, literally tomorrow if I am not mistaken. If you want LMAO MORE CORES then get that if you're willing to spend a little more.
>>54798018
>>54798995
WTF?
>>54799014
If you haven't seen Spirited Away, you're missing out. Check it out when you have a chance!
>>54798855
The 6800k is nearly identical to the 5820k, only thing it has is the 5-10% IPC improvments from moving to 14nm. Wooo.
The problem is at launch it will cost $100 more than the 5820k. I paid $310 for my 5820k. The 6800k is supposed to release at $440.
>>54799287
>tfw a 5820k costs $506 in my shitty country
Hold me /g/
>>54799545
370e here , (411$)
>>54798388
Getting a high end processor.
Cheaping out on getting fastest ram to save 50 bux.
>>54799073
fuck you and your anime faggot
>>54799555
For what you want fastest RAM?¿¿ The performance difference is not worth the price
Wait for 8 core zen for a bit more money.
The 5820k was a good choice when the 6700k cost some $440.
The 6700k is about 40% better in single threaded performance while being within 15% of the 6 core 12thread 5820k. Overclocking a 5820k also requires some high-end cooling and it won't even get you that far. 4.5ghz is typical but going further is a terrible idea both because of stability and the fact that you'd have a 350W housefire dissipating enough energy to provide you with central heating. The 5820k has too low a clock to compete with a 6700k when it comes to 1-8 threads. Anything above 8 threads would see the 5820k win but not by much. Very optimistically it would be 20% at most. 15% is more realistic if you factor in OCing of both. Not only is the 5820k more expensive but so are the motherboards relatively to a proper skylake setup.
You can reach an extremely stable 4.6ghz on 6700k 99.9% of the time and be within 5% of the 5820k's (stock) multithreaded performance. That's practically within the error of margin while consuming significantly less power and producing much less heat.
The 170 platform isn't really a good idea if you're considering keeping it for at least 5-7 years. Neither is the x99 but it's the best of the worst in that regard. Not because of the 5820 but because of the 6800k and the other upcoming broadwell-E processors.
Pic related is a 4.6ghz (15% OC) 6700k running at 21C under no particular load. A 5820k sporting a 20% OC at 3.7ghz scores 10600 multi and 1600 single thread (stock i7 scores 2100). Given that the 6700k is cheaper (as are its motherboards),runs cooler, consumes less energy, has more OC headroom, has much higher single threaded performance (and most likely mutli to up to 8 threads), and is within 8-20% (depending on OC) multi threaded performance even though the 5820k has 50% more cores... well, it's not really a choice now is it. The 5820k is marginally better at the thing it's meant to impress with. Not impressive at all.
>>54799615
WHy you say this myfriend?
>The 170 platform isn't really a good idea if you're considering keeping it for at least 5-7 years
>>54799615
Lol i'm stil waiting on your Cinebench R11.5 scores anon, I know you're the same retard from yesterday trying to pretend cores mean nothing.
>>54799615
>muh power consumption
At idle the power consumption difference is negligible.
At load it understandably consumed more power because it's significantly faster.
>>54799660
Why are you so rude anon? I'll get to it eventually. You're always here anyway, not like you'd miss it.
>>54799655
Well I think that by that time more and more programs would scale better at multithreasing and I doubt the 6700k would be ok without considerablr OCing. In that case a x99 is a better choice since newer E processors are still going to be on the x99 platform. This shouldn't matter if you don't render 3d models/video editing. The 6700k will be faster for almost everything else.
>>54799566
It's your loss.
>>54799615
>A 5820k sporting a 20% OC at 3.7ghz
a 20% OC for a 5820k is 4GHz.
(3.3*0.2=0.66. 3.3+0.66= 3.96)
You need to check your math
>within 8-20% (depending on OC) multi threaded performance even though the 5820k has 50% more cores
At 4.4GHz against your 4.6GHz it is ~25% faster (10,100 vs 12,650) for multi-threaded tasks.
Even if you managed 4.8GHz which would be a pretty extreme OC for that chip, though possible, you would still be under this score. And I can OC to 4.6GHz+ and get 13,500+.
So for literally anything well threaded (encoding, rendering, working with multiple VMs, etc). The extra cores are going to be far more useful than a slightly increased single core performance.
For gaming right now you're right, the 6700k is going to be better. But considering DX12 and Vulcan appear to scale fairly well with 6 core CPUs, it will only get worse as more games are built using the new APIs.
>>54799731
>I'll get to it eventually
If you're trying to break 11.50 you'll need over 4.8GHz btw.
The best R11.5 Cinebench i've seen from a 6700k is 11.37, so even assuming your chip can hit that, you're still a good ~30% slower than my score (14.82)
>>54799924
Stop making fun of corelets
>>54799950
I feel sorta bad, the guys just trying to rationalize his 6700k purchase over the 5820k despite them being nearly identical in price.
Hell, if he lives near a microcenter he might even be considering suicide since you can get a 5820k + motherboard for under $460.
Is air-cooling better than the water cooling meme?
>>54799791
>At 4.4GHz against your 4.6GHz it is ~25% faster (10,100 vs 12,650) for multi-threaded tasks.
That's a 34% OC against my 15% OC. Difference in OC is 20% which is by how much your multithreaded performance is higher so things are scaling well.
Also the numbers say 20% faster not 25%, which I already stated would be the difference between the two in my earlier post
>very optimistically it would be 20% at most
The 6700k can do 4.7-4.8 just fine on air, it's only when you go above that where it becomes a problem. Most 6700k's can hit 4.8ghz stable. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a 5820k not needing high end liquid cooling to manage that much, while also consuming half your PSU's power, if it can manage that much without being a golden chip.
>4.6GHz+ and get 13,500+
A 12% OC (3.7/3.3) gave a score of 10600.
A 34% OC (4.4/3.3) gave a score of 12652.
That's an OC difference of 22%. Your score on 4.4ghz should have been 12932 so scaling isn't perfect, obviously, and is closer to 85% (12932/12652).
Assuming perfect scaling at 85% (it will be lower), a 4.6ghz/4.5% OC would give you a multi score of 13221, not 13500. Besides the fact that a 34% OC is still lower than a stock 6700k on single threaded performance (again, probably multi too to up to 8threads), you have huge electricity demands that you have to be sure your motherboard can support comfortably (i.e. expensive motherboard), your cooler (good watercooler) and enough fans inside for dissipation. Those will cost you some $220 extra over a 6700k (inc. CPU price). Enough to get a GPU or 4-6tb of storage.
The OC difference would still be within 20% even with a terrible 33% OC scaling for the 6700k at 4.8ghz vs the 5820k 4.6ghz.
>So for literally anything well threaded (encoding, rendering, working with multiple VMs, etc).
By a 15-20% margin unless you go balls to the wall OC 5ghz+. There's a 6700k at 4.8ghz & 13.72 points, 7.5%.
>than a slightly increased single core performance.
40% isn't slight.
>>54800599
>40% isn't slight.
Please show me literally any example of 40% better single core performance when clocked at the same speed.
Also, still waiting on that cinebench 11.5
>>54798027
>No vt-d
It's shit.
>>54800499
they have their pros and cons.
high end air coolers and closed loop water coolers have nearly identical performance.
high end air coolers are typically large which is a problem for compact builds and some coolers can block ram/pcie slots. they're also quite heavy which could put too much stress on some motherboards. for low power systems you could get away with not mounting fans on the heatsink, as long as you have some airflow in your case.
closed loop water coolers take up less space over the motherboard, and the water block weighs almost nothing. overall airflow in the case is much better with a water cooling system (less fans, less turbulence). there are more points of failure. a seal could break and the liquid could fry components, or the pump could die and your CPU would constantly thermal throttle.
sorry if this is worded strangely. i'm writing this on one hour of sleep.
>>54800632
hwbot.org/submission/3224456_samuel_cinebench__r11.5_core_i7_6700k_13.72_points
Once you go past 5ghz the scaling is much more noticeable, but the fact remains that's territory most people (including you) won't (can't) charter. So essentially a difference of 7% for multi-threading with much better single-threaded performance.
>>54798018
is this even a question faggot?
5820k all day
>>54798018
lol devils canyon better
>>54800839
>>54800722
No anon that was great thank you maybe there is hope for /g/ after all thanks
>>54800727
that's 11.72, not 13.72 a BIG fucking difference
>>54800963
Which is still 20% like I keep saying. I'd further argue that the 6700k can performs better up to 8 threads.
>>54799615
>You can reach an extremely stable 4.6ghz on 6700k 99.9% of the time
And here I am just trying to get it to 4.5 stable.
>>54801158
What voltage
>>54802450
Tried manual between 1.315 and 1.335 in .005 steps. Began at 1.325 from recommendations. Going 1.330 or higher definitely leads to it being less stable. Windows crashes sometimes before even being able to start benchmarking. The 1.325 feels the most stable, can do benchmarks and stresstests just fine. Then I come back to the PC and it's rebooted while idle. Tried disabling c-state, didn't seem to make a difference.
Going to just keep plugging away at it.
>>54799073
>check out this weebshit
X99
>>54802709
XXx-DDdddD fucking weeb shit XX-DDDdd kill yourself weeb
Is it even worth getting either of these for video gaymen?
Currently thinking of going with an i5-6500 just because its far cheaper and afaik the performance difference is minimal for the things I'd be using it for.
>>54802630
Is going over 1.3v safe for a long term OC? I've been keeping my 5820k under 1.275v, I hadn't heard safe voltages on the 6700k but assumed they'd be lower.
>>54802709
I'm sorry your perception of Japanese animation has been ruined by an endless stream of ultra-low-quality shows filled with fanservice and filler.
But this film is not part of that. Spirited Away is insanely popular. It made $290 million at the box office, received a high-quality English dub overseen by John Lasseter (Pixar), and won an Oscar.
You are very likely to enjoy it, regardless of your thoughts on anime in general.
Other fantastic anime films include (almost) anything directed by Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, and the late Satoshi Kon.
>overclock 2550k to 4.4 GHz or something around there
>my temps shoot through the roof and my fans have to run at 80% even just sitting idle at desktop
>no noticeable performance improvements
Is overclocking ever worth it?
>>54802886
Yeah as long as you assign adaptive voltage.
>>54802630
It's not just about vcore
5820k or you're a fucking retard.
>>54798388
>He fell for the Samsung Evo meme
>Overpaying for shitty TLC when he could get an MLC HyperX Fury for less
>He fell for the 16GB RAM meme
>He fell for the i7 meme
LIterally a memelord.
5820K is $60 more expensive than 6700K over here...
>>54802884
>just for gaymen
No, stick with the i5. I'd even recommend an i3 if you really need to cut back on the budget because $200 for a CPU is really pushing it if all you're going to do is game on it.
>>54803332
Thanks for the advice anon I'll keep this in mind
>>54803116
meme this
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TWHJ7h
>>54802912
Why the fuck are you shilling your shitty weeb film here, fuck off.
>>54802886
I've read 6700k is safe as long as you keep it under 1.4v.
>>54803001
Which is probably why I'm going to just say nevermind to the whole thing, and go back to default settings if I can't get it working well enough in the next few days. It gets up to 4.2 with default settings anyways. A 7% boost would be nice, but not worth trying this out indefinitely.
>>54803116
>look guys I used the word again am I funny yet
>>54800655
both of them have vt-d you fuckwit
>>54803683
>only 7k total
not even worth my time unless we're going into double digit numbers here m8
>>54804751
>build value dictates how good it is
Fuck off with your consumerist gaymer shit. Not everything has to be wrapped in LEDs with the pricetag jacked up by a few hundred shekels
>>54804806
Are you seriously being baited by this? Or is this reverse baiting because I'm responding to someone who is unironically responding to my ironic shitpost?
>>54804806
But I like LEDs.
>>54804840
Yes
>>54798147
You completely ignored the fact that it's DDR3 vs DRR4, DDR4 has double the density of DDR3. Also faster stock speeds.
>>54798018
6820k, hands down.
>>54807440
It's the 6800k and it's priced at $430
I bought my 5820k foot $310
>>54807666
It's the price you pay for modern hardware, mr Satan.
>>54807800
When is the 6900k going to be released?
>>54807860
A week
>>54807860
Tomorrow it's announced, should release soon after.
>>54807867
>>54807880
Oh shit maybe I won't get a 5820k then still x99 right?
>>54807919
It's still x99, they might even do the next one X99 too, but I wouldn't count on it.
I wouldnt drop money on the 6800k unless you really think you will need that 5-10% IPC increase, it's basically the same chip besides that, the 5820k can be had for pretty cheap these days, at least in the US, and if the rumored MSRP of $430 is right, then the 6800k just wont be worth it at launch.
So 5820k s still a fine buy right now. As long as you keep your motherboard in good shape you can always pick up a broadwell-e or ep xeon in a few years on ebay for cheap .
>>54807979
Thanks senpai there will be no price decrease in 5960x or 5820k?
>>54808075
There could be some sales, but there is no guarantee, in the US at microcenter they already have it for $320.
>>54798018
6700k
Newer better chipset (ddr4, more usb 3 points, better mem throughput)
Supposedly has the best single core performance you can get right now.
Just more future proof desu
>>54808148
Sadly I don't live near one thanks for all the information appreciate it
>all of these retards who don't know X99 also uses DDR4, and that most of the DDR4 available is actually optimized for X99 not Z170
Stop posting any time.
If it boils down to it and you are doing more than gaming then you should get the 5820k it's pretty close in price to the 6700k and kicks ass in things like rendering. That being said if all you are going to do is game you might as well as get an i5
What if I want to virtualise windows for gaming/proprietary tools?
>>54798388
5820k doesn't have onboard graphics
Gonna wait until Computex to check out some new x99 mobos otherwise this is it /g/.
>>54809368
EYYYY ITSA PIZZA PASTA FORCE FETTUCINI ALFREDO
>>54809782
Very nice system, too little RAM and storage for my taste, but very nice.
>>54809782
Tempted to get something similar but I want to see about Polaris first
>>54809782
>6850k
Why? It's $200 more than the 6800k for the only difference being PCIe lanes (which you aren't using)
Also, 1000w PSU is overkill by like 300w.
>>54809898
That's not the only difference. 6850k has higher clock and is better for gaming.
Each Strix uses 300w, quite a bit more than reference 1080s.
![[gasping for air].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Q41s7AI.jpg "[gasping for air].jpg")
>>54809898
Anon, he bought the 1080 Prescott Edition. He needs every last watt that thing can put out.
>>54809898
PSUs degrade over time.
>>54810007
>6850k has higher clock and is better for gaming
They're both unlocked, I have a 5820k it overclocks to 4.5GHz. No reason to get the 6850k unless you need the PCIe lanes.
>>54798018
Have a 6700k with the Corsiar H110 AIO Cooler.
Still need to overclock it, but amazing so far.
what is a good mobo to pair with the 6700K
Gigabyte GA-Z170MX-Gaming 5
Maybe this ?
>>54810065
Time is the universal solvent.
>>54808215
>most of the DDR4 available is actually optimized for X99 not Z170
You have no idea what you just said. How exactly would RAM that is "optimized" for X99 be less good for Z170?
Spoiler: it's not. They're just matched sets.
>>54810264
Must be the same OP that buys Monster cables too, they are optimized for HD signals!
Why is the 4930k so much more than a 5820k?
>>54810762
Because the 5930K is the 4930K's direct successor
