Will the i7-5820K price will drop more in short time?

[justbenice]

Hi All,
I am planning to build a new computer and i am thinking of getting a 6700K or i7-5820K , i wonder with a new 6th gen Skylake CPU, will the i7-5820K price drop more in the short time ?
Thank you !

 

[drescherjm]

i wonder with a new 6th gen Skylake CPU, will the i7-5820K price drop more in the short time ?

I say very unlikely.

 

[zaniix]

I say very unlikely.

I agree

The price isn't going to drop, these chips will most likely retain full value until they stop selling them.

 

[justbenice]

Thank you. in this case. 5820k and 6700k, which is smart buying ?

 

[Araxie]

Thank you. in this case. 5820k and 6700k, which is smart buying ?

depend, what are you going to do with the machine?.

 

[drescherjm]

Thank you. in this case. 5820k and 6700k, which is smart buying ?

I say that depends on your usage. If this is just a gaming rig. 6700K. If you do encoding or other tasks that could benefit from 12 threads then the 5820k.

 

[GotNoRice]

Yeah, Intel never really lowers the price on their CPUs as long as they are available to buy new. Where any "price drop" might come from is when there are a lot of used chips on the market. That is, of course, assuming that you are willing to buy used. You will probably see a lot of 5820k chips on the used market when Broadwell-E and/or Skylake-E launches.

Thank you. in this case. 5820k and 6700k, which is smart buying ?

Which you should get depends on your usage really. I went Haswell-E (5820k) because in every situation i've ever had the chance to go with more-cores over fewer, faster cores, the move to go with extra cores has always paid off in the long-run. That held true when I got my first dual-CPU rig, even back when all games never used more than one thread. It held true through the dual and quad-core transitions. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't still be true now, especially when games are starting to make quite good use of multiple cores. If you don't do anything but gaming though, you can build a skylake rig cheaper and gaming performance (at least in the short term) will be slightly better.

You will also want to take into account the PCIe lane configuration. Both the 6700k and the 5820k have 36 PCIe lanes to work with. With the 5820k you get 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes from the CPU, and 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes from the PCH (x99). With the 6700k you get 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes from the CPU, as well as 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes from the PCH (Z170). X99 (5820k) motherboards have a lot more variation because the CPU lanes can be used for graphics OR motherboard features, whereas lanes from the PCH are not used for graphics generally. It's up to the motherboard layout to determine how those CPU lanes are used in that regard. 6700k actually gets you more 3.0 lanes total, but only 16 come from the CPU. Only those lanes can be used for SLI, so you are limited to 2-way SLI with a 6700k unless you get an expensive board with a PLX chip. That still leaves you a lot of room for extra things on the motherboard like M.2 slots, SATA Express ports, etc. 5820k has more lanes directly from the CPU, which means that depending on the board layout, it IS possible to do 3-way SLI with a 5820k just using CPU lanes. That would mean sacrificing M.2 slots, etc on the boards that are configured for that slot layout.

It also depends on if and to what extent you are planning to overclock. The difference in per-core performance between a 6700k and a 5820k at stock clocks is much greater than the difference between a 6700k and a 5820k when they are both overclocked near their maximum potential.

 

[TMCM]

Depends on what your main use will be. I thought about going with a 5820 but decided that a 6700 would be better for my use. My computer is an HTPC that also plays games. (6700 was definitely overkill) I would rather have 2 less cores clocked much higher than 2 more clocked lower

 

[justbenice]

Thank you all of your guys !
I am building this new computer for gaming. First i though i gonna go with the 5820k because i just want to have a 6 core CPU first time in my life, But it look like the 6700k will be better choice in this case, rite? If i don't OC, what cpu will have more heat when full load ?

 

[drescherjm]

If its gaming, the 5820k will most likely be rarely (if ever) at full load on all 12 threads. The 6700k will use less power and is more efficient but has a better chance of hitting full load on all cores although few games will make full use of the 8 threads it has.

 

[GotNoRice]

Thank you all of your guys !
I am building this new computer for gaming. First i though i gonna go with the 5820k because i just want to have a 6 core CPU first time in my life, But it look like the 6700k will be better choice in this case, rite? If i don't OC, what cpu will have more heat when full load ?

Well if you don't OC, then you should go with a 6700k. Stock clock of a 6700k is 4Ghz, with 4.2 turbo clock. 5820k stock is 3.3Ghz with 3.6Ghz turbo clock. Average overclocks between these chips, however, bring that gap down to a few hundred Mhz at most; a much smaller difference.

5820k will almost always put out more heat due to having more cores, whether stock or overclocked.

6700k is a better bet for gaming *right now*, but the difference is very small, and the future is clearly moving in the direction of games using more and more cores. While a 6700k can potentially give you more performance in current games, that assumes the game is CPU limited. In reality, most current games are GPU limited, in which case you would see no difference at all. The reason most current games would potentially perform better on a 6700k (if not GPU limited) is because the games are limited in the number of cores they can use. A main cause of that is simply due to how DirectX11 works. DirectX12 largely fixes this, which is why many expect DX12 to dramatically increase core utilization. Of course, even just with DX11, games are becoming much more multi-threaded. Games like GTAV can already mostly max out a quad core.

Recall back to when the choice on the high-end was between an E8400 (faster dual core) and a Q6600 (slower quad core). At the time the Dual-Core was faster in almost all games, as few games made use of multiple threads. In the end, however, no one who chose a Q6600 was ever held back in any game they played, and the Q6600 remained an effective gaming processor for years after the E8400 became irrelevant. 6700k might get you a bit of extra performance now, but betting on extra cores (5820k) is always a pretty safe bet for the future.

 

[defaultluser]

And if all you want is a competent gaming box with a single GPU, then the i7 is likely a waste of money. You can get by just fine with the Core i5.

They can even handle 2 GPUs, although you may be processor-limited in some rare games.

 

[justbenice]

Thank you guys.

 

[coconutboy]

If you have a microcenter near you and can get a 5820k for $299, then no, price ain't dropping anytime soon. At newegg tho, I could see another ~$20 or so being knocked off before xmas. Depends on how much moolah buyers throw around in the next 2 months. black friday isn't necessarily worth waiting for the past several years, because lot of the best deals are before black friday. Outside of the huge retailers like amazon/newegg/BB, a lot of the smaller companies have aggressively pursued wrapping up customer's $ before black friday, or else they're faced with stiff competition and lack of attention. That's why there seems to be an endless string of ~$130-150 500GB ssd deals all summer long. Retailers are trying to secure that money now even if their margins dip.

And if all you want is a competent gaming box with a single GPU, then the i7 is likely a waste of money. You can get by just fine with the Core i5.

They can even handle 2 GPUs, although you may be processor-limited in some rare games.

I touch on the cpu limitations in some games like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 and gta5 in this thread (second bullet point). I was pretty surprised to see how huge some of the differences were between various i5/i7 cpus running at 4.4GHz and beyond.

 

[defaultluser]

I touch on the cpu limitations in some games like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 and gta5 in this thread (second bullet point). I was pretty surprised to see how huge some of the differences were between various i5/i7 cpus running at 4.4GHz and beyond.

Right, but those are MINIMUM frame rates above 45 fps at stock for all games. The minimum frame rate is above 60fps for SEVEN OUT OF NINE games you have bench marked there. All that at stock.

Yeah, I know we all pretend to play at 120 Hz or bust here on the forum, but most of us would be satisfied with 45fps minimum. It's hard to justify spending an extra $100 for a few corner cases when the OVERCLOCKED i5 minimum frame rate drops to 59 fps!

So basically, you still can't make a justification for the Core i7 except for driving SLI/CFX.

 

[coconutboy]

You took the time to post the full-size version of the image from my post, but completely failed to actually read my text. Good job distorting the context while essentially repeating what I said.

 

[defaultluser]

You took the time to post the full-size version of the image from my post, but completely failed to actually read my text. Good job distorting the context while essentially repeating what I said.

But KazeoHin already satisfied your thread. The 6700k makes absolutely no sense. Either go budget with the Core i5, or go big with the 5820k.

I mean, if you're worried about isolated corner case games that make use of more than 4 major threads, then the 5820k is the only way to go. It also leaves the ddoor open for Twitch streaming if you ever decide to do it.

The 6700k is really just for people who are too lazy to overclock

 

[coconutboy]

Those guys hadn't answered till after I posted here, but thanks for the heads-up since I hadn't noticed.

I get what your saying about the 6700k, although I don't really agree that 3 AAA games (Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 and gta5) are "isolated corner case games" since my point in the other thread was that those games are current indicators of cpu bottlenecks, which could in turn become much larger bottlenecks for games arriving in the next 2-3 years. Probably won't matter more than a few percentage points, but for people building a new computer with the intention of holding onto it for ~4+ years, it can be big deal to think about these details.

Another way of looking at it is, compare the kWh usage between a stock 6700k and a 5820k @ 4GHz over 4 years of 24/7 usage. Depending on your power bill/bracket, that alone can make the decision since the haswell-e has the potential to guzzle a lot more wattage for the same work done. Overclockers usually don't think much about this stuff, but it adds up. There are definitely reasons for some people to buy the 6700k over 5820k. Even comparable mobos cost ~$100 difference on newegg which can put off a lot of people. 6700k can cut a middle ground between the 6600k and an oc'd 5820k.

 

[justbenice]

I do like the 6700k because i think 4 core with higher clock will have better game frame rate, but if i don't buy the 5820k it mean i miss a 6core CPU again in my life
Love to have 6 core CPU But 4 core CPU with higher clokc will have better game experience at this time.

 

[kirbyrj]

Those guys hadn't answered till after I posted here, but thanks for the heads-up since I hadn't noticed.

I get what your saying about the 6700k, although I don't really agree that 3 AAA games (Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 and gta5) are "isolated corner case games" since my point in the other thread was that those games are current indicators of cpu bottlenecks, which could in turn become much larger bottlenecks for games arriving in the next 2-3 years. Probably won't matter more than a few percentage points, but for people building a new computer with the intention of holding onto it for ~4+ years, it can be big deal to think about these details.

Another way of looking at it is, compare the kWh usage between a stock 6700k and a 5820k @ 4GHz over 4 years of 24/7 usage. Depending on your power bill/bracket, that alone can make the decision since the haswell-e has the potential to guzzle a lot more wattage for the same work done. Overclockers usually don't think much about this stuff, but it adds up. There are definitely reasons for some people to buy the 6700k over 5820k. Even comparable mobos cost ~$100 difference on newegg which can put off a lot of people. 6700k can cut a middle ground between the 6600k and an oc'd 5820k.

Hardly anyone uses their computer 24/7/365, so the power argument is moot. Plus the people that do use it that way are usually doing tasks that require more processing power, so the 5820k makes more sense for them anyway. Yes, it will use more power, but it gets the task done faster so it's not running 100% as long as the 4C would.

I see these arguments as people trying to justify a 6700k purchase. 6600k...I get it. 6700k? Not so much. Just buy the 5820k.

 

[ochadd]

I would agree that the 6700k doesn't make much sense for the price. The 5820k and X99 will have legs that go on for the next many years. By the time the 5820k gets long in the tooth you'll have the ability to pick up the ridiculous 8 - 18 core Xeon line on Ebay for next to nothing that will drop right into your motherboard.

 

[justbenice]

Anyone know where i can get a combo 5820k and Mobo for best price ?

 

[TMCM]

Microcenter

 

[zaniix]

Microcenter

yeah you really can not beat MC if you happen to have one within an hour or so go do that.

Otherwise keep checking newegg for combo deals, but right now I only see skylake combos

 

[justbenice]

Thank you guy. I can' go microcenter. i Only can buy online.

 

[linuxdude9]

Are you going to overclock or not? I have one for sale that's the worst of the three I cherry picked for low-voltage 4.5ghz operation. It'd be fine for stock or a moderate overclock.

 

[defaultluser]

Thank you guy. I can' go microcenter. i Only can buy online.

Then you pay through the nose for 6 cores, or pay $200-300 less for Core i5:

$200 less for i5 6600k + high-end Z170,
$300 to $350 less for i5 6600 + mid-range to low-end Z170

Really, the 5820k crowd is mostly fueled by Microcenter. But people looking for a value gaming build always come back to the Core i5. I already showed earlier in the thread that it could maintain 45fps minimum in the worst-optimized game on the planet. As long as you don't see yourself needing to live stream your game sessions (or can live with the quality loss of NVENC), and as long as maxing-out a 120 Hz monitor is not your new hobby, you should be okay with 4 cores.

And it gets even faster if you overclock.

 

[kirbyrj]

Then you pay through the nose for 6 cores, or pay $200-300 less for Core i5:

$200 less for i5 6600k + high-end Z170,
$300 to $350 less for i5 6600 + mid-range to low-end Z170

Really, the 5820k crowd is mostly fueled by Microcenter. But people looking for a value gaming build always come back to the Core i5. I already showed earlier in the thread that it could maintain 45fps minimum in the worst-optimized game on the planet. As long as you don't see yourself needing to live stream your game sessions (or can live with the quality loss of NVENC), and as long as maxing-out a 120 Hz monitor is not your new hobby, you should be okay with 4 cores.

And it gets even faster if you overclock.

*gasp*...I thought you were going to recommend an i3 again . Like he said though, either get the 6600k or the 5820k. A "full price" 5820k is $379 and a "full price" 6700k is $339. For the $40, you get 2 extra cores. Doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff.

 

[zaniix]

*gasp*...I thought you were going to recommend an i3 again . Like he said though, either get the 6600k or the 5820k. A "full price" 5820k is $379 and a "full price" 6700k is $339. For the $40, you get 2 extra cores. Doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff.

plus a more expensive x99 motherboard and a lower base clock

 

[kirbyrj]

plus a more expensive x99 motherboard and a lower base clock

Here we go again...justify your 6700k purchase all you want.

I saved money on my motherboard
It's clocked higher at stock
It uses less power
Etc.

At the end of the day, if you NEED the 6700k, you can probably do what you need better on the 5820k. If you don't NEED a 6700k, you should just buy the 6600k. The 6700k is in price limbo compared to their other products.

 

[linuxdude9]

plus a more expensive x99 motherboard and a lower base clock

A high-end Z170 board is typically slightly less feature filled than a low-end X99 board for a similar price. Plus the X99 platform provides more GPU usable PCI-E lanes, and more sata ports. X99 boards also provide more ram slots and typically come with more visualization features enabled in the BIOSes.

If you're overclocking both, the 5820k is a much better value. 4.5ghz overclock on a 5820k vs a 4.7ghz overclock on a 6700k, plus almost double the cache on the 5820k(15MB vs 8MB). The 5820k has a much thermal interface material than the ones used in the Skylake.

 

[coconutboy]

If you're overclocking both, the 5820k is a much better value. 4.5ghz overclock on a 5820k vs a 4.7ghz overclock on a 6700k, plus almost double the cache on the 5820k(15MB vs 8MB). The 5820k has a much thermal interface material than the ones used in the Skylake.

There's plenty of other considerations, even if many of you don't agree with them, but considering this is the [H], the above quote is the most relevant. While I still overclock, very few people I went to college with back in the 90's still overclock unless it's on a computer for their kids or a gaming box etc. That's just one of the reasons the 6700k is still worthwhile for many; because not everyone has the same needs or usage. Plenty of people need performance, but won't touch overclocking. Plenty of people are willing to pay for the 6700's 8 threads vs 4, even if it's only future-proofing because they don't feel like upgrading every two years or whatever.

It's bizarre that some of you can't understand that even if the 6700k is overpriced (and it is. The price would be lower if AMD was competitive), there's still valid logic behind other people's purchasing decisions.

Here we go again...justify your 6700k purchase all you want.

I saved money on my motherboard
It's clocked higher at stock
It uses less power
Etc.

At the end of the day, if you NEED the 6700k, you can probably do what you need better on the 5820k. If you don't NEED a 6700k, you should just buy the 6600k. The 6700k is in price limbo compared to their other products.

Why would he need to justify his purchase? And why do you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong? I'd almost suspect you're trolling, but fuggit, I'm done paying attention. This thread's usefulness ended awhile ago.

 

[Silentbob343]

Microcenter

They are selling selling the 5820k for $299, with two combos less than $500. At that price it seems to be an obvious choice.

 

[JohnleMVP]

Fry's also had it for $299 last Saturday. It made my decision simple.

 

[justbenice]

Newegg have this combo for 685$ :

Intel Core i7-5820K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.3GHz CPU, MSI X99 SLI Plus USB 3.1 MOBO, Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 2400 MEM

Do you guys think this is a good offer?

 

[tbg]

The only truly reasonable choice is to get both a i7-5820K and i7-6700k, then you are covered no mater what you are doing at the moment.

 

[GearChoices]

The only truly reasonable choice is to get both a i7-5820K and i7-6700k, then you are covered no mater what you are doing at the moment.

5820k and 6700k running in SLI-mode sounds good to me too.

 

[tbg]

Fry's has the i7-5820K today at $295 with the Saturday promo code if you didn't go for the Newegg combo.

 

[foxhound2001]

Fry's has the i7-5820K today at $295 with the Saturday promo code if you didn't go for the Newegg combo.

Thanks for the heads up, had to drive to 2 different Frys just to get one at this bargain of a price, you saved me from a lot of headaches.

Now I only have to deal with Amazon about the 5960x that I ordered from the market place that seem to have been sold by a scammer, and the 5930k that also never got delivered from ebay, two weeks prior to the amazon fiasco.