Need Help Picking new Processor - Rendering and Games

[NOFEAR10199]

Ok, Please help me with my CPU issue and Thank You in advance.
I have my Current CPU with a 3930k OC 4.6 which I use to do Acad and Chief Architect (Rendering) and I also play games on it. I recently built a Second New CPU with a 6700k OC 4.5 which is used by Staff & Family to do occasional work and gaming. I loaded both with the same file and rendered it, I had all the settings the same and the 6700k was almost twice as fast? I did some other side by side tasks and the 6700k would either match or blow the 3930k out of the water. So now I want to build a new computer that I would like to spank the 6700k. I would spend $2k-$3k on this CPU but I don't want to do that if i would only see a small improvement over the 6700k. Or is there something that can be done to the 3930k it has 2 additional cores and higher GHz? Please help me pick the correct processor as Intel is taking to long to design one that is hands down better than the rest.

Current CPU: 3930k O.C. 4.6 on water h80, (4) 16gb ddr3 1600 ram, Asus P9X79 Deluxe, 480 SSD & Evga 1080 FTW. 850psu

New CPU: 6700k O.C. 4.5 on water H100i, (2) 16gb DDR4 3400 ram, ASRock Z170 gaming-itx/ac, M.2 Samsung 950 512gb, Evga 1070 FE

 

[muz_j]

I'm curious about this. What did you do the rendering on in terms of your test ? AutoCAD ?
re: AutoCAD - this seems to explain it (it's doesn't support multiple cores and it's not properly multi-threaded)
Support for multi-core processors with AutoCAD | AutoCAD | Autodesk Knowledge Network

The architectural improvements between the new CPU vs the older 12 core one would explain the performance difference, unless you're actually using a properly multi-threaded application that takes advantage of all those extra cores.

I'd suggest clarifying exactly what the software you're using supports in terms of multi-threaded and also GPU acceleration.

 

[NOFEAR10199]

I am Rendering in Chief Architect X8 which does support Multiple cores. Note: AutoCAD was faster openning and plotting drawings to PDF's.
The 6700k was upto 15 seconds faster on each process which is alot when your openning 10 drawings and then plotting them.

I have been looking at upgrading to a 5820k, Asus x99-A II with Samsung 950 pro but still searching for the DDR4 ram. I can reuse my case, PSU, Dvd, and storage drives.

 

[NOFEAR10199]

I think the ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING is a better MB (thoughts?) but I'm still can't decide on the Processor. And I wonder what kind of Improvements I expect on this build. My hope is that i will have a 25% improvement and can do a total new build in a year after Intel builds a 5.0Ghz 20 core Processor for $250 LOL.

 

[muz_j]

I am Rendering in Chief Architect X8 which does support Multiple cores. Note: AutoCAD was faster openning and plotting drawings to PDF's.
The 6700k was upto 15 seconds faster on each process which is alot when your openning 10 drawings and then plotting them.

How is cpu core utilisation configured within the application?
This article from their knowledge base (I appreciate it's a different version, but still pretty recent), suggests that the application itself has some configuration settings around how many cores it will utilise?
https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/4962-processor-core-usage-in-chief/

Are you running these app's on Windows? If so, what version exactly?
If you are, then I'd double check the process affinity settings for the Chief Architect X8 application on your 3930k computer. You can do this within task manager, as well as other tools.

Ultimately though there's a 4 year gap (with corresponding architectural changes) between the two CPU's. The 3930k might be struggling to match the 6700k purely due to the optimisations that have been made within the chip's design. Eg: the bus speed is significantly faster on the 6700k - that's going to have a significant impact on data transfer from the memory to the CPU.

Intel® Core™ i7-3930K Processor (12M Cache, up to 3.80 GHz) Specifications

Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.20 GHz) Specifications

 

[muz_j]

So now I want to build a new computer that I would like to spank the 6700k.
I would spend $2k-$3k on this CPU but I don't want to do that if i would only see a small improvement over the 6700k.

If you're seriously trying to do that, then I'd be looking at something like one of these:

This would be lower end of the spectrum, in terms of showing up your 6700K:
Intel® Core™ i7-6850K Processor (15M Cache, up to 3.80 GHz) Specifications

This is right in the high end and it's obviously not cheap.
Intel® Core™ i7-6950X Processor Extreme Edition (25M Cache, up to 3.50 GHz) Specifications


Asus ROG boards are very, very good. I'm a big Asus fan and don't think you could far wrong with that board (I run an older generation Asus board myself).
If I were you, I would try and find some application benchmarks using the above CPUs versus a 6700K and try to quantify what the expected performance increase is likely to be. If you can't find benchmarks of those applications, then try to find something as similar as possible. There's nothing like real world testing to quantify performance gains - versus looking at specifications online etc.

Bottom line though - beating your 6700K isn't going to be a cheap exercise - it's a really good CPU.

 

[eclypse]

I'd go with the asus deluxe II x99 board. I believe has more lane options when you use a 40 lane cpu like the 6850k cpu. Which is another cpu I'd go with or the 6900k.

More lanes give you more options with using faster drives or raid cards.

I've read that the deluxe II will let you do 16x/16x/8x.

Though I could be way off since you never mentioned runing 2 graphics cards at 16x ea and a m.2 PCIE card If not the strix will prob be fine.. just check the manuals for ea and be sure you'll be fine with the way your board will share lanes and usually using a u.2 ssd will disable the m.2 port and vice versa.

 

[muz_j]

I think it's worth reading the comments in this benchmark too - esp. the comment re: the 6700K, which reiterates my earlier comments - it's going to difficult and expensive to beat that CPU.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-5960X/3604vs2580
"Because of its ridiculously high MSRP of around $2,000, this CPU only makes sense for very niche use cases which could include top end graphics design or video production workstations. Comparing the 6950X and 6700K shows that for typical desktop use the 6950X only offers a gain of around 20% for a whopping 6 fold price increase. This is because desktop computing largely depends on single core performance and the Skylake i7-6700K is both clocked higher and has higher IPC due to its one generation lead over the 6950X. That said, if you want the most powerful desktop processor money can buy, then the 6950X hits the spot."

Obviously if you can exploit multi-threaded app's that can take advantage of the huge core count on the 6950X, then the results will change - but I've made my point. The 6700K is one of the best performing CPUs and offers much more in terms of "bang for your buck".

 

[wildpig1234]

if you have a heavily threaded app that's used often, you should build a lga 2011 based WS. a dual E5-2670 v1 with 128GB ram can be built for around $700. This thing will beat the crap out of 5960x

Building a 32-Thread Xeon Monster PC for Less Than the Price of a Haswell-E Core i7.