For gaming 6600k or 6700k

V

Vudaz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
173
Hey guys,

It's time to upgrade my old gaming rig and I was wondering if I should go i5 or i7.

Is there any difference as far as FPS?

Thanks
 
6700K got a lot higher base clock. 4.0/4.2 vs 3.5/3.9 besides +2MB cache and hyperthreading.
 
In terms of IPC, if you overclock the 6600k to the same clock speed as the 6700k, there will be little to no performance difference. If a particular title utilizes hyperthreading, however, the i7 will pull ahead.

So the answer depends on which specific titles you plan to play, and whether that's worth an extra $100 to you.
 
depending on what games you play, and if you will use mgpu, then a 6700k could be a better choice
 
PontiacGTX said:
depending on what games you play, and if you will use mgpu, then a 6700k could be a better choice
Click to expand...

Dota 2, BF 1, CS:GO

I would like to have something that I could play anything without any concerns...
 
Terpfen said:
In terms of IPC, if you overclock the 6600k to the same clock speed as the 6700k, there will be little to no performance difference. If a particular title utilizes hyperthreading, however, the i7 will pull ahead.

So the answer depends on which specific titles you plan to play, and whether that's worth an extra $100 to you.
Click to expand...

IPC?

Sorry for the dumb question but what is this stands for?
 
Vudaz said:
But how exactly this impact in the games FPS?

Ps.

I'm running a 1070 gfx.

Thanks
Click to expand...

In games you are CPU limited it will be faster, unless you OC the 6600K to the same levels and run with 4 threads or below. The 6700K may be a tiny tad faster tho in that case due to bigger cache.
 
Shintai said:
In games you are CPU limited it will be faster, unless you OC the 6600K to the same levels and run with 4 threads or below. The 6700K may be a tiny tad faster tho in that case due to bigger cache.
Click to expand...

So basically the 6700k will give more FPS and will delivery a better performance.
 
If you can afford a 6700K get one.

I upgraded from a 5 yr old clocked 2500K to a 6600K because I was CPU limited in a few games when trying to achieve constant 60fps, ie no judders ever, a smooth immersive experience.
(Project Cars, Witcher 3 and a few others)
It was a great upgrade, well worth the money but I found I was still CPU limited at times.
Tomb Raider came out and had a few glitches, there still was the odd issue with Project Cars, Modded Fallout 4, GTA V ...
With DX12 purported to allow easier use of more cores I decided to help a friend upgrade with my 6600K and I got a 6700K.

This made games smoother despite clocking 100MHz lower. I put this down to the larger cache and more cores, even though I'm not using DX12.
Some DX11 games can use more than 4 cores effectively.
And certain things in Windows completed faster as well. Windows became a bit nippier and smoother.
I'm not sure of the DX12 gain of the extra 4 cores. If anything DX12 has a negative impact for my uses. But that is an aside, it is sure to change.

ps
In the interests of clarity...
I remained on Windows 7 (the best OS :p) so you might not see the same OS differences on Windows 10.
 
Nenu said:
If you can afford a 6700K get one.

I upgraded from a 5 yr old clocked 2500K to a 6600K because I was CPU limited in a few games when trying to achieve constant 60fps, ie no judders ever, a smooth immersive experience.
(Project Cars, Witcher 3 and a few others)
It was a great upgrade, well worth the money but I found I was still CPU limited at times.
Tomb Raider came out and had a few glitches, there still was the odd issue with Project Cars, Modded Fallout 4, GTA V ...
With DX12 purported to allow easier use of more cores I decided to help a friend upgrade with my 6600K and I got a 6700K.
Click to expand...

So I'm in the same boat as you. I currently have/had a 2500K with a GTX 970, however I just upgraded to a 1070 Sea Hawk. This upgrade process all started because my 11 year old monitor took a dump. I purchased a 34" UltraWide @ 3440x1440 because I wanted something that would last another 10+ years if possible. It's not 4K and I'm okay with that. I chose this particular monitor because I thought my 970 would be okay running at native resolutions, but that wasn't the case hence why I got the 1070.

Now I can run anything at native resolutions and ultra quality, and I'm happy. However, I'm a bit torn here. I spent all this money, and yet I feel my CPU is holding my 1070 back. I'm not talking about games that rely on CPU, I'm talking about the actual CPU holding back the 1070. In benchmarks like Time Spy I see my graphics score slaughtered, by my friends 980Ti, which I find kind of odd. I would think I would at least be able to keep up with him, if not outscore him by a small margin. Of course it's true to say his CPU score is even killing me by a higher margin than the GPU score, (he has a 4790k @ stock clocks)

So with all this said, would it be worth spending another $600 bucks for a 6700k CPU/Mobo/Memory? Will I notice better FPS in games that I'm already happy with, or will this just future proof me for a another year or two? 600 bucks might be better used buying more storage or even another Sea Hawk... I just don't know. Hope I could get some insight on what to expect if I were to upgrade to a 6700k.

Thanks
 
Oh, and I forgot to mention.. I have a 2600k not a 2500k, and I cannot for the life of me, OC my 2600k over 3.7GHZ. So that's got me down and that alone has me bummed out.
 
The reason we dont use 3DMark to assess how games perform is because it isnt capable of that.
It tests the max performance of every part of your system.
The scores do not relate to gaming fps.

If you are happy with your gaming performance, that is all that matters.

ps
very low overclocks are usually bad cooling, too low or too high voltage.
 
If 6600k isn't enough you should be looking at x99 stuff. 6700k is overkill for z170. 6600k works fine for me.
 
Okay Nenu, thanks man.
BTW, my inability to OC isn't due to cooling or instability, it's like the OS will not let the CPU go past 3.7 despite the fact in BIOS I have it set at a very conservative 4.0. While in BIOS I can see the CPU and all it's cores operate at those 4.0 clocks, but once I boot into Windows no dice.

I was going to boot into Ubuntu and see if I get the same problem for a troubleshooting technique, but I got busy this weekend playing a new game I bought. Maybe tonight I'll do more troubleshooting. But yea, I got this board and CPU used off a friend, and never even bothered to OC it until a couple days ago, and that's the problem I ran into and kinda bummed me out because I know how easy it is to OC this CPU on air. I do have a very nice cooler, so that's definitely not the problem.

So yea, my frustrations isn't worth going out and wasting $600 bucks. Thanks for a little slap of reality there. :)
 
I'm too lazy to find & link the actual statistic benchmarks out there but it's on the internet somewhere.

6600k is actually better for gaming than the 6700k for 3 reasons:

-Hyperthreading actually decreases gaming performance by 1-5% because you're essentially splitting 1 core into 2 threads. You get more performance out of 1 core working at 99% versus 2 threads working at 99%. Even if I had a CPU with hyperthreading, i'd disable it.
-The 6600k will typically overclock faster than the 6700k. Yes the 6700k is clocked higher out of the box but it's more limited to overclock.
-The 6600k costs cheaper. Put that money into a GTX 1080 or a Titan X Pascal if not already.

You can buy pre-overlocked CPU's from Siliconlottery.com. Notice they have 5.0Ghz 6600k's for sale but can't get the 6700k's past 4.9Ghz.
 
Seyumi said:
I'm too lazy to find & link the actual statistic benchmarks out there but it's on the internet somewhere.

6600k is actually better for gaming than the 6700k for 3 reasons:

-Hyperthreading actually decreases gaming performance by 1-5% because you're essentially splitting 1 core into 2 threads. You get more performance out of 1 core working at 99% versus 2 threads working at 99%. Even if I had a CPU with hyperthreading, i'd disable it.
-The 6600k will typically overclock faster than the 6700k. Yes the 6700k is clocked higher out of the box but it's more limited to overclock.
-The 6600k costs cheaper. Put that money into a GTX 1080 or a Titan X Pascal if not already.

You can buy pre-overlocked CPU's from Siliconlottery.com. Notice they have 5.0Ghz 6600k's for sale but can't get the 6700k's past 4.9Ghz.
Click to expand...
Swings and roundabouts.
For newer CPU limited games its the opposite, I suppose its where you put your values.
Quite a few games are smoother with 8 cores.

Also bear in mind you can disable HT if its really needed.
You cant add HT to a 6600K.
My 6700K without HT clocks the same as my old 6600K.
 
Vudaz said:
Dota 2, BF 1, CS:GO

I would like to have something that I could play anything without any concerns...
Click to expand...
For BF1, BF4, BF Hardline, Battlefront the 6700k will make a difference, but CS GO and Dota 2 maybe doesnt
 
Nenu said:
If you can afford a 6700K get one.

I upgraded from a 5 yr old clocked 2500K to a 6600K because I was CPU limited in a few games when trying to achieve constant 60fps, ie no judders ever, a smooth immersive experience.
(Project Cars, Witcher 3 and a few others)
It was a great upgrade, well worth the money but I found I was still CPU limited at times.
Tomb Raider came out and had a few glitches, there still was the odd issue with Project Cars, Modded Fallout 4, GTA V ...
With DX12 purported to allow easier use of more cores I decided to help a friend upgrade with my 6600K and I got a 6700K.

This made games smoother despite clocking 100MHz lower. I put this down to the larger cache and more cores, even though I'm not using DX12.
Some DX11 games can use more than 4 cores effectively.
And certain things in Windows completed faster as well. Windows became a bit nippier and smoother.
I'm not sure of the DX12 gain of the extra 4 cores. If anything DX12 has a negative impact for my uses. But that is an aside, it is sure to change.

ps
In the interests of clarity...
I remained on Windows 7 (the best OS :p) so you might not see the same OS differences on Windows 10.
Click to expand...


Thanks for share your experience.
 
And just a reminder. If I save in the CPU I could spent in something else.

Like a bigger SSD M.2
 
I'm running 6600k with GTX 1070 and they work fine for me. Save that extra $ for better GPU. No real gain with 6700k if you only play Dota 2, BF 1, and CS:GO.
 
CS:GO and Dota wont be that different, i went from a 2600k to a 6700k and i saw no performance increase in CS:Go and thats at 1440p maxed out. Newer games though might benefit from HT, honestly if $100 is not that much extra to you i would just get the 6700k because as others said, you can turn of HT on the 6700k but you cannot add it on a 6600k.
 
Tornlogic said:
Oh, and I forgot to mention.. I have a 2600k not a 2500k, and I cannot for the life of me, OC my 2600k over 3.7GHZ. So that's got me down and that alone has me bummed out.
Click to expand...

You have the world's worst 2600k - almost all I have ever seen clock to at least 4.4Ghz - most do 4.6Ghz (and a 2600k @4.4Ghz is nothing to sneeze at).

There has to be something with your setup that is hampering your OC (old bios, bad stick of ram etc).
 
I concur with others....I'd save the $100 and spend it elsewhere. Heck that is almost have the difference from a 1070 to a 1080. Bigger bang for the buck with that upgrade.
 
Nenu said:
If you can afford a 6700K get one.

I upgraded from a 5 yr old clocked 2500K to a 6600K because I was CPU limited in a few games when trying to achieve constant 60fps, ie no judders ever, a smooth immersive experience.
(Project Cars, Witcher 3 and a few others)
It was a great upgrade, well worth the money but I found I was still CPU limited at times.
Tomb Raider came out and had a few glitches, there still was the odd issue with Project Cars, Modded Fallout 4, GTA V ...
With DX12 purported to allow easier use of more cores I decided to help a friend upgrade with my 6600K and I got a 6700K.

This made games smoother despite clocking 100MHz lower. I put this down to the larger cache and more cores, even though I'm not using DX12.
Some DX11 games can use more than 4 cores effectively.
And certain things in Windows completed faster as well. Windows became a bit nippier and smoother.
I'm not sure of the DX12 gain of the extra 4 cores. If anything DX12 has a negative impact for my uses. But that is an aside, it is sure to change.

ps
In the interests of clarity...
I remained on Windows 7 (the best OS :p) so you might not see the same OS differences on Windows 10.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons why i laugh at people who think a 2500k or 3750k is fast. Also windows 10 has dx 12 and is superior to win 7
 
UnrealCpu said:
This is one of the reasons why i laugh at people who think a 2500k or 3750k is fast. Also windows 10 has dx 12 and is superior to win 7
Click to expand...

Please point out the plethora of games that currently take real advantage of DX12.
 
Chas said:
Please point out the plethora of games that currently take real advantage of DX12.
Click to expand...



alot of upcoming games in the making

upgrade that monitor and video card and you might be hard ocp quality for gaming
 
Chas said:
Please point out the plethora of games that currently take real advantage of DX12.
Click to expand...

Even without DX12 I think 100% of my games run noticeably better under windows 10.. I haven't found yet a game that runs worse in windows 10 versus windows 7... not only in performance but games that used to be choppy are also buttery smooth, the CPU scheduler, and overall hardware scheduler and management in windows 10 is just far superior than windows 7 that by itself make better gaming experience.

And that's not only me, I know for sure lot of people here noticed the same behavior in games under windows 10 I can't go back to Win7 ever..
 
UnrealCpu said:
This is one of the reasons why i laugh at people who think a 2500k or 3750k is fast. Also windows 10 has dx 12 and is superior to win 7
Click to expand...
I didnt say anything that was worth laughing and both those CPUs are fast. They get 5/6 of the performance of Skylake or better when clocked the same.
It only matters if you cant stand to drop below 60fps with modern games, not worth a smirk.
I guess we can disregard what you say.
 
Nenu said:
I didnt say anything that was worth laughing and both those CPUs are fast. They get 5/6 of the performance of Skylake or better when clocked the same.
It only matters if you cant stand to drop below 60fps with modern games, not worth a smirk.
I guess we can disregard what you say.
Click to expand...

You're clearly delusional if you believe a 2500K is 5/6 the performance or better compared to a 6700k. Having gone from Windows 7 to 10, Windows 10 is faster across the board for games when compared to Windows 7.
 
i run 144hz+ on a haswell 4790k and not only does 2500k ivy/sandy bridge suck on dolphin wii emulation , the IPC clearly shows its superior in performance for min and max fps on skylake i7 . I will be upgrading to a kaby lake in a few months.

also anyone looking for a i7 4790k that can do 4.8 stable games-4.9 benches, delided and lapped let me know lol
 
psy81 said:
You're clearly delusional if you believe a 2500K is 5/6 the performance or better compared to a 6700k.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?
Before pulling delusional, dont change to a different argument.

Having gone from Windows 7 to 10, Windows 10 is faster across the board for games when compared to Windows 7.
Click to expand...
When you already have the performance needed, this doesnt matter.
 
UnrealCpu said:
alot of upcoming games in the making

upgrade that monitor and video card and you might be hard ocp quality for gaming
Click to expand...

Please make note of my original post.

Chas said:
Please point out the plethora of games that currently take real advantage of DX12.
Click to expand...

Translation, stuff coming down the pipe in 2-5 years means jack shit to someone building a system right now.


Araxie said:
Even without DX12 I think 100% of my games run noticeably better under windows 10.. I haven't found yet a game that runs worse in windows 10 versus windows 7... not only in performance but games that used to be choppy are also buttery smooth, the CPU scheduler, and overall hardware scheduler and management in windows 10 is just far superior than windows 7 that by itself make better gaming experience.

And that's not only me, I know for sure lot of people here noticed the same behavior in games under windows 10 I can't go back to Win7 ever..
Click to expand...

Sorry. I really am not going to waste time with anecdotal "it feels faster" arguments. I'm looking for data. Not feelz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top