# Likelihood of 6 or 8 core Skylake (LGA1151)?



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

So, I'm in a dilemma of just dropping the ball and buying a new system for quite few days now. Was determined to buy 6700k because it's brand new, but then got steered away by the 5820k with its 6 cores but slightly older platform. Don't like the idea of buying a platform that still has bunch of USB 2.0 ports and all that.

Now I'm back to 6700k, but this time because I'm wondering how likely it is for LGA1151 receiving a 6 or 8 (preferably with 12 and 16 HT threads) core CPU in the future (lets say mid to late 2016)? Any Intel charts on their future plans regarding this?

Because if I grab 6700K now and replace it with a 6 or 8 core later, this would be great. New platform with newer lithography and more cores at a later point. But if Intel only releases 4C/8T CPU's for the LGA1151, that will be s*it. And now I can't decide what to go for since I can screw myself pretty badly if there won't be 6 or 8 cores...

This will be a ~1000€ upgrade so I want to think this through thoroughly, that's why I'm asking about it on so many ends and regarding so many things...


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

5820K with solid cooling and a decent overclock = 6 cores at a small premium from a 4C/8T Skylake that you would intend to upgrade again later.

I wouldn't even have any doubts. I wouldn't worry about 5-8% performance differences at this level, especially since you can OC. Also you get yourself a better platform with more PCIE lanes, only DDR4 is something you may want, but I don't see a big advantage there.

All things considered, do YOU think it is realistic that Intel will change their product stacks in the foreseeable future? I don't see a 6C/12T Skylake non-E processor, ever, and I wouldn't put my money on Zen to change that all too soon either. You know how long the birds are singing the 'multi threaded' song now, but we're still looking at 4 core mainstream.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

I've just noticed some info on Broadwell-E which is supposedly scheduled for 2016 and will be 14nm on LGA2011-v3 socket, meaning I could use the X99 and still get the new 14nm node CPU. Until then, I'd be using 22nm 5820K. Hm.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I've just noticed some info on Broadwell-E which is supposedly scheduled for 2016 and will be 14nm on LGA2011-v3 socket, meaning I could use the X99 and still get the new 14nm node CPU. Until then, I'd be using 22nm 5820K. Hm.



Makes a lot more sense to me. If you do more than gaming, that's a much better choice than placing a bet on Skylake.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 31, 2015)

Sooooo, what do you need those cores and PCI-E lanes for again? Realistically most people don't need more than a quad, which includes gamers. 16 3.0 lanes is enough for two GPUs as well. Not quite sure what the OP would be "gaining" by going to skt2011-3 instead of skt1151.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

Erm, isn't DX12 suppose to utilize more threads? Since I'm looking for a long term upgrade, I'm also taking that into account. Also, the fact that 6700K is already clocked so high, you don't get much room to work with. Clocking a 4.2GHz to 4.7GHz isn't exactly what I'd call a huge gain. It's stuck at pretty much what you buy. Where 5820K goes to 4-4.2GHz easily and has 2C/4T more from the start.

Like the thread suggests, LGA1151 only makes sense if Intel plans on releasing 6 or 8 thread Skylakes. But then again, I'm suspecting they'll be clocked lower to accomodate more cores. Which then brings you back at stock 5820K so to speak.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Erm, isn't DX12 suppose to utilize more threads? Since I'm looking for a long term upgrade, I'm also taking that into account. Also, the fact that 6700K is already clocked so high, you don't get much room to work with. Clocking a 4.2GHz to 4.7GHz isn't exactly what I'd call a huge gain. It's stuck at pretty much what you buy. Where 5820K goes to 4-4.2GHz easily and has 2C/4T more from the start.
> 
> Like the thread suggests, LGA1151 only makes sense if Intel plans on releasing 6 or 8 thread Skylakes. But then again, I'm suspecting they'll be clocked lower to accomodate more cores. Which then brings you back at stock 5820K so to speak.



I notice you are always trying to predict the future when you are about to make a purchase. My advice: stop doing that. You will get disappointed every single time 

Also, to chime in on the gaming aspect; if you think you should buy into E- because your games will run better, stop dreaming. Not a single gamer with sensible spending is running on enthusiast Intel, games are not optimized for 6C/12T but rather for the mainstream 4C/4T. If all you do is gaming, get the highest IPC processor, end of story. DX12 isn't going to change jack shit, Microsoft's marketing is working far too well on you. Games will always optimize for the lowest common denominator and DX12 isn't going to automagically give players more cores. I'm still running on 3570k and a bottleneck is nowhere to be seen, my cores are chillin' and relaxin' at 60-70% utilization and a healthy 50 degrees celcius on a 20-euro cooler, while my GPU is working overtime. It has never been different, which is another reason I keep saying DX12 won't change gaming.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

I wasn't disappointed when I predicted that going with more expensive LGA1366 instead of cheaper LGA1156 was the way to go. It served me brilliantly for more than 5 years. Since I'm again thinking for the same long term usage, thinking about the future isn't a silly thing at all. If I buy 6700K I'm basically stuck with that and hardly any OC potential. Unless Intel is going to release a 5GHz Skylake or something... which seems very unlikely scenario if you ask me. And with DX12 down the 5 years lane, cores will matter. Hell, they already do matter in quite some games.

If you change whole platform every 2 years, 6700K is an absolute no brainer. But for up to 5 years, I'm not so sure anymore.


----------



## qubit (Aug 31, 2015)

Go Skylake. Don't look backwards.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Erm, isn't DX12 suppose to utilize more threads?


Only for draw calls. Nothing more AFAICT. It's not going to myseriously make every game utilize a bunch of threads as we're talking about only rendering. DX12 does nothing for game logic from what I can see. Sure, there might be some gain but, it probably won't be worth the extra cost. I suspect DX12 gains will still be had on i7s with hyperthreading. Either way, I see very little reason to try to plan for the future based on information that is sketchy at best. I've had my quad core 3820 for 2 and 1/2 years now and I have no plans on upgrading. I seriously don't think the extra cost incurred with skt2011-3 will be of any benefit to you.

+1 to this.


Vayra86 said:


> I notice you are always trying to predict the future when you are about to make a purchase. My advice: stop doing that. You will get disappointed every single time


And agreement on this:


qubit said:


> Go Skylake. Don't look backwards.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I wasn't disappointed when I predicted that going with more expensive LGA1366 instead of cheaper LGA1156 was the way to go. It served me brilliantly for more than 5 years. Since I'm again thinking for the same long term usage, thinking about the future isn't a silly thing at all. If I buy 6700K I'm basically stuck with that and hardly any OC potential. Unless Intel is going to release a 5GHz Skylake or something... which seems very unlikely scenario if you ask me. And with DX12 down the 5 years lane, cores will matter. Hell, they already do matter in quite some games.
> 
> If you change whole platform every 2 years, 6700K is an absolute no brainer. But for up to 5 years, I'm not so sure anymore.



Sandy Bridge release was 4,5 years back, jan 2011. People who run SB today are still not running into bottlenecks on a 2500k with a half-decent OC. I'm sorry but it really doesn't matter for gaming, no matter what you want to tell yourself. But hey, if you want to go back to Intel E- just to play games nobody is stopping you.

The tech world is crying 'moar cores' for almost a decade and we are still running games without bottlenecking on 4 cores just fine. 8-core FX is the biggest pita in CPU history, and when i7 came out every nerd with a lot of money burned 100-150 bucks extra on HT only to find out it is just about worthless in gaming. Only now do engines scale (SOME engines) somewhat OK on 4+ cores, but when they do, none of those cores are running at 100% load. So what's the point? You and I are already at the top of the food chain with regards to gaming, you don't need a workstation PC to play some games, stop fooling yourself.

If you were going all out crazy on Quad SLI and you needed those lanes, sure, otherwise, go for the highest IPC like every sensible guy out there.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 31, 2015)

I don't know about the arguments you are getting here...  IPC isn't everything it's more about how you like to upgrade.  It's more a matter of how long you want to go before the next mobo upgrade in particular.  If you don't want to upgrade your mobo frequently, like me, the Haswell-E (or any enthusiast line product) has always made more sense from a future proofing perspective.  It's not like the IPC is that much higher anyhow...  and then you can look forward to other upgrade options, such as possibly SLI in the future (this was my line of reasoning)


----------



## Woomack (Aug 31, 2015)

For me 5820k is better option in similar price. I mean you get more cores ( some new games and other soft can use it ) and higher memory bandwidth ( this actually barely counts in games ) and everything else is almost the same. Also every X99 motherboard is actually a high end what I can't say about Z170 boards.
I haven't seen any 6 core+ CPUs for 1151 socket in Intel plans and I doubt they will be released. For 2011-3 will be probably more 8 cores when Broadwell/Skylake-E will be released.
Just to be clear, I have both platforms.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I don't know about the arguments you are getting here...  IPC isn't everything it's more about how you like to upgrade.  It's more a matter of how long you want to go before the next mobo upgrade in particular.  If you don't want to upgrade your mobo frequently, like me, the Haswell-E (or any enthusiast line product) has always made more sense from a future proofing perspective.  It's not like the IPC is that much higher anyhow...  and then you can look forward to other upgrade options, such as possibly SLI in the future (this was my line of reasoning)



That is the whole point. On mainstream you can also SLI two cards, you can overclock your 4 cores to a higher frequency (making single thread run even further ahead of an Enthusiast proc of the same gen, now Skylake is one gen ahead of that as well) and the price is generally lower. If all you do is gaming, that IS the most powerful platform you can buy into. If you do more / workstation related business, you could defend X99 much easier. For just gaming however, it is sub-par... Now motherboard quality is debatable, but X99 may be the breaking point for that too seeing as there is a little price war going on there now that pricing is close to Skylake/mainstream.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 31, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> it's more about how you like to upgrade.


The point is that there may be no point in upgrading by the time he would need to. Do you think @qubit is disappointed with the 2700k years later? Probably not. All we're saying is that Skylake is going to offer the same experience so you might as well go with the cheaper option. Plus, Skylake has that new and improved PCH that uses DMI 3.0 so I/O on 1151 is bound to be pretty slick. So all in all, if I were choosing, I would go with Skylake.


Woomack said:


> For me 5820k is better option in similar price. I mean you get more cores ( some new games and other soft can use it ) and higher memory bandwidth ( this actually barely counts in games ) and everything else is almost the same.


The CPU is similar price. X99 (like X79,) has expensive motherboards. Also the 6700k is bound to overclock better as well. Why pay more for things you won't be using?


Vayra86 said:


> If you do more / workstation related business, you could defend X99 much easier. For just gaming however, it is sub-par...


It's not that skt2011-3 is sub-par, it's just that you're paying for a lot of things you very well might never use. This isn't about performance, it's about cost. Going 2011-3 is going to cost more for no gain.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

Ok, so this is what I was aiming for in parallel...

*X99 setup:*
5820K + Sabertooth X99 + 16GB/32GB RAM = ~900-1000€

*Z170 setup:*
6700K + Maximus VIII Hero + 16GB 2666-3000MHz RAM (2x8GB) = ~720€
6700K + Sabertooth Z170 + 16GB 2666-3000MHz RAM (2x8GB) = ~720€

*Any idea why Sabertooth Z170 only has 2400MHz RAM listed here but Maximus Hero has 3600+?*
http://www.asus.com/microsite/best-100-series-motherboards/compare/

I've now also thrown cooling into consideration and 6700K does look tempting from this aspect. It's a 95W CPU, meaning I'll be able to keep my single rad Antec 920 at crazy low RPM (silence!).

Considering how super brand new Z170 is, it would be absolutely stupid if Intel wouldn't release any CPU for it with more cores or even higher clocks at a later time. They usually have CPU's up to 140W TDP, meaning we surely can expect something being released at a later time for LGA1151.

I think you guys kinda have a point here. 6700K will be a cheaper build with same high end grade components, I'll be able to keep my current cooler and to some degree I can expect new faster CPU's for LGA1151 where I can then invest the difference I'll save up with the Z170 platform.

I'll have to sleep this through a bit, but I think you guys convinced me. Now I just have to decide between Sabertooth and Maximus...


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 31, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> The point is that there may be no point in upgrading by the time he would need to. Do you think @qubit is disappointed with the 2700k years later?



No, but I also don't think the past is indicative of the future.

I guess it's a matter of trying to predict the future, which both RejZor and I were very lucky in doing with X58...  Maybe we'll be wrong this time, maybe he'll go with Skylake and be happier for it, only time will tell.  My point is speculating on the future is pointless, do what sounds good to you and make an educated judgement based on the facts available.

I personally also have a weighting factor of the fact I run a 24/7 game server on my machine that eats a fair bit of 2 cores, so the additional 2 cores make my decision cut and dry, lol.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

Prediction is not pointless. I'm doing this for everything I buy and so far I haven't really burned myself. If done riht, you can save some money and have a great system that can last you for several years.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2015)

Prediction isn't pointless, but I am probably just like you; I scour the internet looking for every bit of info on my purchases and more often than not, that gets you dragged into an endless weighing of almost nonsensical details.

After all these years I am convinced that 'keep it simple, stupid' is the most cost-effective way of going about it. And I am also convinced that future predictions with regards to 'big changes' are almost always later than expected, more often than not SO much later that they don't matter at all. Look at multi threading in games... we've been waiting for quadcore optimized engines for over a decade  Economical arguments are actually the most influential of them all regardless of what 'us gamers' or 'us consumers' say we want to badly - if there is no economical sense in having 'more' of something, it's not going to be a good purchase. The more cores argument falls into this and still holds true.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Prediction is not pointless. I'm doing this for everything I buy and so far I haven't really burned myself. If done riht, you can save some money and have a great system that can last you for several years.



I meant more speculating with certainty is pointless.  You can of course make educated guesses.

I don't think I need to remind you of the "eat my shoes" incident.


----------



## Woomack (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Ok, so this is what I was aiming for in parallel...
> 
> *X99 setup:*
> 5820K + Sabertooth X99 + 16GB/32GB RAM = ~900-1000€
> ...



Anything above 3200 has been tested by ASUS only on 2x4GB and I can already tell you that most memory kits won't work good above that clock ( already tested 7 or 8 memory kits on M8 Hero and Ranger ). 3200 is working on probably every X99 motherboard using 4x8GB kits.
Not all Z170 motherboards will handle anything above 3466. For example Ranger can't run in dual channel above that point. There are also huge differences between max clocks on each memory slot. For example on my board ( right now it's Hero ) 1/3 slot can make 3600+, 2 slot can make 3800+, 4 slot can make 4000+. These are max clocks on 4GB modules. Max on 8GB is lower.

X99 will cost about the same as Z170 but if you want Sabertooth then you will pay more. There are other boards, not worse than Sabertooth in about the same price as Maximus VIII Hero ( or you have weirdly high prices in your country ).

It just looks like you are looking for more reasons to stick to Skylake 



> I've now also thrown cooling into consideration and 6700K does look tempting from this aspect. It's a 95W CPU, meaning I'll be able to keep my single rad Antec 920 at crazy low RPM (silence!).
> 
> Considering how super brand new Z170 is, it would be absolutely stupid if Intel wouldn't release any CPU for it with more cores or even higher clocks at a later time. They usually have CPU's up to 140W TDP, meaning we surely can expect something being released at a later time for LGA1151.



I'm using the same cooling for Z170 and X99 but I stick to the same water cooling kit which I got couple of years ago.

CPUs at higher TDP and higher core count are dedicated for 2011-3 platform. You pay premium but get more. As I said, on intel roadmap there are not 6 core+ 1151 CPUs. Maybe they will release something on new core but it will take some time.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 31, 2015)

To answer the topic of this thread: nil. LGA-1151 will never have more than 4 physical cores, anything more would cannibalise Intel's more expensive HEDT segment.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> *Any idea why Sabertooth Z170 only has 2400MHz RAM listed here but Maximus Hero has 3600+?*
> http://www.asus.com/microsite/best-100-series-motherboards/compare/



Sabertooth isn't an memory overclocking board, never has been. It's about the ultimate in longevity and stability with modest clocks. If you want memory OC, buy the ROG series, and for serious OC, only the Extreme will do (limits on BIOS options in the least).



Woomack said:


> Anything above 3200 has been tested by ASUS only on 2x4GB and I can already tell you that most memory kits won't work good above that clock ( already tested 7 or 8 memory kits on M8 Hero and Ranger ). 3200 is working on probably every X99 motherboard using 4x8GB kits.
> Not all Z170 motherboards will handle anything above 3466. For example Ranger can't run in dual channel above that point. There are also huge differences between max clocks on each memory slot. For example on my board ( right now it's Hero ) 1/3 slot can make 3600+, 2 slot can make 3800+, 4 slot can make 4000+. These are max clocks on 4GB modules. Max on 8GB is lower.




Memory OC above 3466 is only BIOS-limited, nothing else. Ranger COULD run 3600 with the right BIOS (probably coming soon). NO board would run 3600 when I first got my 3600 MHz sticks... now every board I have does.


----------



## Woomack (Aug 31, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Sabertooth isn't an memory overclocking board, never has been. It's about the ultimate in longevity and stability with modest clocks. If you want memory OC, buy the ROG series, and for serious OC, only the Extreme will do (limits on BIOS options in the least).



Not even all ROG boards as Ranger is not good for memory overclocking. My board stuck at 3466 in dual channel and I replaced it to Hero which runs at 3733+ in dual and 4000+ in single channel. I haven't seen any special limits in Hero BIOS ( which should be about the same as Gene or Extreme in this case ). I could reach 3600 on Ranger but only on 1 memory stick in last slot.

Memory OC can be limited by BIOS but if manufacturer won't release any version with additional options then it doesn't change anything. ASUS usually cares to improve overclocking only for the highest boards what in this case is Hero/Gene/Extreme. I just don't think that Ranger will have similar support.

I have Hero for 2 weeks now and it was working at 1st BIOS up to 4000+. Actually I haven't seen any improvements on newer releases.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 31, 2015)

Woomack said:


> Not even all ROG boards as Ranger is not good for memory overclocking. My board stuck at 3466 and I replaced it to Hero which runs at 3733+ in dual and 4000+ in single channel. I haven't seen any special limits in Hero BIOS ( which should be about the same as Gene or Extreme in this case ).


It's a BIOS problem. Most users on Ranger won't pay $300-$300 for 2x 4 GB 3600 MHz sticks, so ASUS hasn't bothered to tune BIOS yet, just like they didn't both to make it possible to install Win7 without creating custom OS install disc.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Sabertooth isn't an memory overclocking board, never has been. It's about the ultimate in longevity and stability with modest clocks. If you want memory OC, buy the ROG series, and for serious OC, only the Extreme will do (limits on BIOS options in the least).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually I didn't have overclocking in mind. Just sticking a RAM that is already factory clocked at that rate. It's then just a matter of board actually supporting that.

I have rather cheap G.Skill 3000MHz CL15 16GB 2x8 kit in my sight because why not. I mean, why pay almost the same price for 2133MHz if I can get 3000MHz at same timings for like only 5-10 € more...


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 31, 2015)

That's a good way to look at it. 3000 MHz gives nice bandwidth too, better than the best DDR3 offers, although with slightly added latency in comparison


----------



## Woomack (Aug 31, 2015)

@RejZoR , If you think about Ripjaws V 3000 15-15-15 then I just got one for review and it's working fine @3200 16-16-16 1.35V on Hero what is offering higher memory performance. It won't change much but wanted to add it as an info.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 31, 2015)

There is, to my knowledge, no plans to go with a 6 core mainstream offering in the next three years.  That will cover Skylake, and its successor.

The argument can be made that this may happen when the enthusiast level hardware moves to offering 8 cores to start, but that seems like an ask.  Intel is focusing an inordinate amount of its resources toward a competent iGPU on the mainstream chips, and with 4K being their future target the CPU portion of their CPU is going to become a smaller and smaller chunk of each die.



As far as a 5 year plan, meh.  Skylake seems to be uniformly torpedoing any Haswell upgrade plans.  Whether Intel allows something in the Broadwell-e family to release, or mirrors the mainstream offerings of functionally nothing in Broadwell, seems to be a toss-up.


Given that Skylake is still in the price gouging phase of its existence, I'd wait another month or two to make any decisions.  The 920 in your specifications isn't exactly nothing.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 31, 2015)

Woomack said:


> I have Hero for 2 weeks now and it was working at 1st BIOS up to 4000+. Actually I haven't seen any improvements on newer releases.



Yeah, I had both boards and actual 3600 MHz since before the launch, so I got to see the changes.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> The argument can be made that this may happen when the enthusiast level hardware moves to offering 8 cores to start, but that seems like an ask.  Intel is focusing an inordinate amount of its resources toward a competent iGPU on the mainstream chips, and with 4K being their future target the CPU portion of their CPU is going to become a smaller and smaller chunk of each die.



This is the deciding factor for me. You could compare Haswell-E and Skylake like SKT 1366 and 1156. 1366 has held up, 1156...not so much. The iGPU chip is not really meant to be the top performer; it'll largely end up in office boxes and mid-grade systems, while Haswell-E's lack of iGPU and the added cost of adding video connectivity will limit its adoption on a wide scale except for those that have actual use for the added cores.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

I know that RAM speed doesn't add up much, but if I get it cheap, why not. I assume 6700K doesn't have linked BCLK and DRAM clocks? Only reason I've gone for higher spec 1600MHz with i7 920 was because overclocking BCLK also increased DRAM clock. So, if you had 1066MHz RAM you had to actually push it over the spec. Where with 1600MHz, you were merely getting it up to spec.

So, if they aren't linked on 6700K, then even 2400MHz max is ok on the Sabertooth Z170...


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Aug 31, 2015)

I was psyched for Skylake, but after seeing the mediocre benches, I'm waiting to see what Zen will be like. I'm not really planning to do my core upgrade until Pascal or an AMD equivalent comes out anyway.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

I had same plans but unexpected things happened in between and I have to change the platform ahead of time.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I assume 6700K doesn't have linked BCLK and DRAM clocks?


I forgot about that little perk. I think the 6700k doesn't have the DMI and PCI-E clock based off of the BCLK anymore which makes it super flexible like in the 775 days iirc. Someone else should probably confirm that though before I start running my mouth about something I know very little about.


Frag Maniac said:


> I was psyched for Skylake, but after seeing the mediocre benches, I'm waiting to see what Zen will be like. I'm not really planning to do my core upgrade until Pascal or an AMD equivalent comes out anyway.


Mediocre compared to Intel's own lineup. Flexibility and a different overclocking experience could be worth it IMHO. I remember something about Haswell being a PITA to overclock? Once again, I shouldn't say too much about something I know very little about.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 31, 2015)

PCIe isn't an issue for quite some time now, however it seems that every CPU that has IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) has DRAM inherently linked to the FSB/BCLK. If this one goes up, DRAM clock also goes up. Which in my book means you have to buy a faster RAM from the start to avoid stability issues on the RAM front.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 31, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> PCIe isn't an issue for quite some time now, however it seems that every CPU that has IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) has DRAM inherently linked to the FSB/BCLK. If this one goes up, DRAM clock also goes up. Which in my book means you have to buy a faster RAM from the start to avoid stability issues on the RAM front.


Nope, doesn't work that way, since you aren't limited by CPU multi. You could run 100 BCLK and 80x CPU multi, and get 8 GHz, so ram has no impact on available speed, other than by the load it places on the system.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 1, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Now I'm back to 6700k, but this time because I'm wondering how likely it is for LGA1151 receiving a 6 or 8 (preferably with 12 and 16 HT threads) core CPU in the future (lets say mid to late 2016)? Any Intel charts on their future plans regarding this?


The day pigs fly.

Broadwell-E (Q1 2016) -- I'm still not convinced Intel didn't scrap it.
Zen (Q1 2016)
Skylake-E (Q3 2016)

Go 6700K and be happy.  It's really the best option...for now...or you can wait until 2016.

I have a 920 and decided to take the plunge.  I will probably upgrade again next year to Zen or Skylake-E.


----------



## blunt14468 (Sep 1, 2015)

still kinda happy with my 2700k. I'm trying to hold out for Skylake-E.  I feel the same way as the OP as far as core count is concerned.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Sep 1, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Mediocre compared to Intel's own lineup. Flexibility and a different overclocking experience could be worth it IMHO. I remember something about Haswell being a PITA to overclock? Once again, I shouldn't say too much about something I know very little about.



No, you're right actually, but then no one's going to compare to anything BUT Intel with AMD's current lineup being so unimpressive. What got me besides the actual CPU's performance was that DDR4 itself showed slightly worse performance in games.

Whether that will improve over time with lower CAS modules, better chipset drivers, or AMD's Zen CPUs and chipsets, I'd like to see before I make my decision.


----------



## horik (Sep 1, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> I was psyched for Skylake, but after seeing the mediocre benches, I'm waiting to see what Zen will be like. I'm not really planning to do my core upgrade until Pascal or an AMD equivalent comes out anyway.


 
Same here, so I just got a new 16GB memory kit and will save for later those 700€ i was about to spend.


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 2, 2016)

I realize it's been 6 months since this thread has been active. Reading through this I was able to get many of my questions answered. 

I would love some input from you guys on whether or not I should wait or upgrade now. 

Current set up:

i7 920 @ 4.2ghz stable (can get it up to 4.4 but restarts every few days) 
Gigabyte ud3r x58 v.1
18gb of ddr3 1600mhz
Corsair h80i
500 GB ssd crucial mx200
EVGA 980ti hybrid 
3 x 22" 1680x1050 monitors for triple 
1x37" 1080p lcd monitor (used to game on this but fell in love with triple monitor gaming since getting my 980 ti hybrid) 
monitor gaming

I want to upgrade my screens to g-sync's with one ultra wide 2560x1080 middle monitor & 2x 1920x1080 monitors for either side of the ultra wide. Also Considering the predator 35" g-sync as a total replacement for triple monitor but would prefer the wider view point of a triple monitor set up. 

Everywhere I've looked 1x 980 ti can't do 6400x1080 is this something I can't do with nvidia period or do I just need to add another 980 ti? 

The bigger question is I'm trying to decide between skylake and Haswell. I plan to get another 980 ti hybrid for sli. I want to upgrade but would like your input if I should wait for what's coming from Intel?

I run couch potato, sickbeard , sabnzbd+, I'm also a graphic designer, Web Developer,  and I do some video editing. I want to be able to have Photoshop,  Dreamweaver, 20+ tabs on 3 different browsers open,  and not have to close everything out to game. 

As it stands I'm able to run most games maxed out with no lag on triple monitor, latest game I've done this with is dying light. Also 2013 version of tomb raider, dishonored, shadows of mordor. 

Currently considering for the upgrade:

5930k
5820k
6700k

My main focus is performance! 

What say you? Thanks in advance!


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 2, 2016)

Don't bother with 6700K. 5930K only if you plan on using multi-GPU or M.2 NVMe. Which leaves you with 5820K. It's a damn fine CPU. I guess all of them clock to 4.5 GHz easily. Anything beyond this depends on the batch. 6 core at 4.5 GHz ain't bad at all.

Though, AMD Zen is really close now I think, would you be willing to wait or are you too eager to upgrade like I was back in autumn 2015 ?


----------



## trog100 (Apr 2, 2016)

i get the urge to upgrade.. its an urge that comes on no matter you already have.. the daft bit is tying to justify it financially.. 

or in any other way apart from scratching an itch that deep down you know will come back in six months time no matter what you buy now.. he he

trog


----------



## Devon68 (Apr 2, 2016)

> Though, AMD Zen is really close now I think, would you be willing to wait


Really hope Zen will be awesome. Lately most of the hyped things turned out to be MEH after release.


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 2, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Don't bother with 6700K. 5930K only if you plan on using multi-GPU or M.2 NVMe. Which leaves you with 5820K. It's a damn fine CPU. I guess all of them clock to 4.5 GHz easily. Anything beyond this depends on the batch. 6 core at 4.5 GHz ain't bad at all.
> 
> Though, AMD Zen is really close now I think, would you be willing to wait or are you too eager to upgrade like I was back in autumn 2015 ?



I'm itching to upgrade, but I'm fine waiting a bit, I would be ok, getting the monitors, and being content with that for a while, and maybe spending what I would spend now on the entire upgrade of the core components cpu, ram, mobo, m.2 drive, etc... on a 2nd 980 ti hybrid, I'd have to change my case or mount the 2nd hybrids radiator on the window of my current case. I really want better monitors right now. and that's looking like quite a hefty investment if I get decent sized g-sync monitors. 

how long until Zen comes out?  I feel like I made the right descision going with x58 way back in 2011. But tbqh, I have the exact same CPU I did when I built this system, and it's been a beast of a machine thus far, I mean hitting 4.2 stable on a 2.8 cpu is really good in my book, I was only hoping for a 4ghz overclock! This was the 1st intel system I'd ever built, and I don't miss AMD one bit, I did re-purpose my old AMD gaming rig x6400(now phenom 9950) original crosshair Mobo, to my media rig which houses all my plex content.  I also see that AMD GPU's have less issues with different resolution monitors like My described set up above.

IDK, like I said, the main focus for me is performance, and keeping performance high even when multi tasking.  If I'm being honest I've been leaning toward the 5930, because of the extra lanes, more established market etc... but I hear skylake has better single threaded performance and that the multitasking difference is nil, unless I'm encoding video 90% of the time, which I am not.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 2, 2016)

Khary said:


> I realize it's been 6 months since this thread has been active. Reading through this I was able to get many of my questions answered.
> 
> I would love some input from you guys on whether or not I should wait or upgrade now.
> 
> ...



As a fellow X58/I7 920 user i can relay to you. Im not in to say what you shut do, but there is another option for you also. I dont no if you have the need for the newer spec like USB 3, sata 3, M2 support and so on.

if not have you considered upgrading your I7 920 to a 6 core X58 CPU like a xeon or I7 970, 980, 990X chip and overclock the crap out of it. The Xeon can whit a little luck be found to a low price on ebay and whit that a very cheap cpu upgrade.
Get a second used GTX 980 Ti for som sli and you still have at killer gamer pc or you cut wait for the next GPU generation from nvidia/amd and se how these things performe.
And when there is maybe even still money for your G-sync monitor by selling your old monitors.

Take a look at my old rig just whit two GTX 970 in sli. This thread can maybe help you to deside what to do.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...bsolete-lets-get-some-numbers-and-see.220831/


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 2, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> As a fellow X58/I7 920 user i can relay to you. Im not in to say what you shut do, but there is another option for you also. I dont no if you have the need for the newer spec like USB 3, sata 3, M2 support and so on.
> 
> if not have you considered upgrading your I7 920 to a 6 core X58 CPU like a xeon or I7 970, 980, 990X chip and overclock the crap out of it. The Xeon can whit a little luck be found to a low price on ebay and whit that a very cheap cpu upgrade.
> Get a second used GTX 980 Ti for som sli and you still have at killer gamer pc or you cut wait for the next GPU generation from nvidia/amd and se how these things performe.
> ...


Man o Man, can't wait to read this.. thought about this option a few months back.. but kinda forgot about it! I would be ok waiting if this gave me some performance gains.


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 2, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> As a fellow X58/I7 920 user i can relay to you. Im not in to say what you shut do, but there is another option for you also. I dont no if you have the need for the newer spec like USB 3, sata 3, M2 support and so on.
> 
> if not have you considered upgrading your I7 920 to a 6 core X58 CPU like a xeon or I7 970, 980, 990X chip and overclock the crap out of it. The Xeon can whit a little luck be found to a low price on ebay and whit that a very cheap cpu upgrade.
> Get a second used GTX 980 Ti for som sli and you still have at killer gamer pc or you cut wait for the next GPU generation from nvidia/amd and se how these things performe.
> ...



So what would yield a better upgrade? 

980x or x5690


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 2, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Though, AMD Zen is really close now I think, would you be willing to wait or are you too eager to upgrade like I was back in autumn 2015 ?



This was my thought exactly. Zen might be pretty good.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 2, 2016)

Khary said:


> So what would yield a better upgrade?
> 
> 980x or x5690



X5690 are pricey. I have had X5650 and X5670.

Value for money......go for X5650 if you are sticking with X58 platform.

I am not ashamed to call myself a Xeon fanboy.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 2, 2016)

Khary said:


> So what would yield a better upgrade?
> 
> 980x or x5690



Well the 980X has unlocked multiplier = easy to overclock but back then the cpu whas pretty exspensive whis makes it more rare to find just as the newer 990X, If you want a I7 chip try look for a I7 970 or 980 whit out X. Locked multiplier but whas cheaper and by that more easy to find and since you already are used to overclock by the bus alone whit the i7 920 you shut be find there.

About Xeon´s they tend to overclock better but some xeons where also exspesive. I agreed whit CAPSLOCKSTUCK if you go xeon go for X5650 or X5670. Just as whit the I7 part cheaper = more easy to find + are cheaper to buy. And when overclokket to the same clocks the performence is the same what ever you get a xeon or at I7 chip any way.

So go after I7 970/980 or the cheaper Xeons X5650 and X5670 CAPSLOCKSTUCK suggest. That would be my move atleast.


----------



## arbiter (Apr 2, 2016)

I doubt will see 1151 skylake 6core+ cpu's. at this point in time there is no need for them. Intel cpu's are fast enough that adding more cores doesn't help less you are do those kinda tasks that can use them. Most normal users won't make use of those. Hence why you need to go 2011 to get one. You can build a 2011 machine for not much more current 1150 machines, that doesn't count fact of needing ddr4 memory now but likely would need to buy that for future platforms anyway.


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 2, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> X5690 are pricey. I have had X5650 and X5670.
> 
> Value for money......go for X5650 if you are sticking with X58 platform.
> 
> I am not ashamed to call myself a Xeon fanboy.



I get that the x5690's are pricey but if I could find a i7 980x extreme for around the same price as a x5690, wouldn't that preform much better than the x5650? I'm looking to get better performance across the board, and I feel like the x5650 would yield better multitasking due to the 2 added cores, but be the same clock for clock as my current 920.

So if I was to stay with the x58 what would be the best processor to go with for best performance until I upgrade in a year or 2?


----------



## Toothless (Apr 2, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> X5690 are pricey. I have had X5650 and X5670.
> 
> Value for money......go for X5650 if you are sticking with X58 platform.
> 
> I am not ashamed to call myself a Xeon fanboy.


Oh, we know.

Ger the King of OC'd Xeons.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 2, 2016)

Khary said:


> I get that the x5690's are pricey but if I could find a i7 980x extreme for around the same price as a x5690, wouldn't that preform much better than the x5650? I'm looking to get better performance across the board, and I feel like the x5650 would yield better multitasking due to the 2 added cores, but be the same clock for clock as my current 920.
> 
> So if I was to stay with the x58 what would be the best processor to go with for best performance until I upgrade in a year or 2?



Xeon x5690 and i7 980x extreme are more or less the same chip. 980X just have unlocked multiplier while the xeon part has an ekstra QPI link so it can work whit other CPU's and support for much more memory. else the chips are the same just as the performence is. X5690 is more likely to the 990X part as they share the same clock frekvens aswell where the 980X is clokket just a bit under by 133 MHz.

Here are the spec for the I7 aswell as the Xeon in the links. So can you study the spec and compare them.

i7 parts:

http://ark.intel.com/products/47933...ocessor-12M-Cache-3_20-GHz-4_80-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://ark.intel.com/products/58664/Intel-Core-i7-980-Processor-12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-4_8-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://ark.intel.com/products/47932...Edition-12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://ark.intel.com/products/52585...Edition-12M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

Xeon parts.

http://ark.intel.com/products/47922/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5650-12M-Cache-2_66-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://ark.intel.com/products/47920/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5670-12M-Cache-2_93-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

http://ark.intel.com/products/52576/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5690-12M-Cache-3_46-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

Oh and dont forget to se what bios version your motherboard has. An bios update is maybe need to support the 6 core chips and if you need to do it so do it before you change CPU. That can save you from alot of trouble


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 2, 2016)

In my experience X5650 are the best "bang for the buck" as our American friends would say.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 2, 2016)

I, for one, do like Intel's current focus on iGPU.  I am gaming less and less and most of games I do like don't require insane GPU. (Crusader Kings 2, Football manager series, Kerbal space program etc)

At this rate, I will be able to get rid of dedicated GPU all together and build a really compact build that is already much smaller than my current rig or even just get a high-end NUC and be done with it.

4core + HT is okay but still painfully slow in rendering. I'd love 8core but TDP requirement is going to be near 140w just for cpu and that ain't good news for SFF builds. I am crossing fingers for maybe 2 generations ahead where Intel's iGPU will be good enough to match x50 GTX of Nvidia.


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 3, 2016)

Intel has already stated they will not continue the TIC TOC release of new CPU"S in the future. Only thing I wanted to say to the OP is X99 is older then Sky lake( it doesn't matter)but it is info.....


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 3, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> Xeon x5690 and i7 980x extreme are more or less the same chip. 980X just have unlocked multiplier while the xeon part has an ekstra QPI link so it can work whit other CPU's and support for much more memory. else the chips are the same just as the performence is. X5690 is more likely to the 990X part as they share the same clock frekvens aswell where the 980X is clokket just a bit under by 133 MHz.
> 
> Here are the spec for the I7 aswell as the Xeon in the links. So can you study the spec and compare them.
> 
> ...



Ok so I'm seriously leaning towards the 980x & 990x if I can upgrade to either of them for under $500, do you guys think it's worth it (considering I'd pause on the upgrade front for a year or two once something that will really kick the sh!t out of anything else that's out hits), they retail for $999 right now on many sites?

THinking worse case scenerio I could replace my media rig with my current set up with the 920 or the 980/990x , and be able to readliy serve the media on my network to the multiple streaming devices in the house.

Do you guys think I'd be able to hit 4.6-4.8 or even 5ghz overclocking one of those with my h80i?

Also any recommendations for gsync monitors 24" or better?


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 4, 2016)

BiGg RiE said:


> Ok so I'm seriously leaning towards the 980x & 990x if I can upgrade to either of them for under $500, do you guys think it's worth it (considering I'd pause on the upgrade front for a year or two once something that will really kick the sh!t out of anything else that's out hits), they retail for $999 right now on many sites?
> 
> THinking worse case scenerio I could replace my media rig with my current set up with the 920 or the 980/990x , and be able to readliy serve the media on my network to the multiple streaming devices in the house.
> 
> ...




No dont bay those I7 from new. Way to much to pay for and old cpu. Try and found one of them used on ebay, maybe try ask here on TPU or some else where. The same goes whit the Xeons. Beside these CPU´s where stopped selling from new years ago. paying 500 USD for an old I7 980X/990X is to much. if you end up bay it from new, so try push the seller to go down in price cause these CPU's are also old and a store is properly desperate to get ridt of these old CPU´s. Så push them down in prise and when you sell it in a year or two and have payed 500 USD, you will never come close to get that price for it when selling it again. So before bay a new one, try and find a used one. much cheaper and you will nok lose as much money when selling it again.

Hitting 5 GHz is not impossible whit and I7 990X i have seen it, but at those clocks you will need custom water cooling. I dont think an H80I can handle 5 GHz. Whit that cooler i think you shut be happy if you can hit around 4,5-4,6 GHz.

About monitors i am not the right person to answer that since i havent look at monitors the past 3-4 years.


----------



## BiGg RiE (Apr 5, 2016)

Looks like I should get a 2nd 980 ti hybrid,  upgrade my monitors and stick with my i7 920 for now and revisit in a year. 

Another question if I wanted to get m.2 speeds could I use a pic expansion slot adapter for it?


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 6, 2016)

BiGg RiE said:


> Looks like I should get a 2nd 980 ti hybrid,  upgrade my monitors and stick with my i7 920 for now and revisit in a year.
> 
> Another question if I wanted to get m.2 speeds could I use a pic expansion slot adapter for it?



An i7 920 will be a bottleneck for two GTX 980 TI card. I7 920 is a nice cpu but feeding two GTX 980 TI is to much to ask. You can run the cpu whit them, but you will not get the full potential whit a I7 920 also if it is overclokket.

About your second question, i dont know. I have not used M.2 my self, så cant say much about.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Apr 6, 2016)

Only M.2 "Ultra" drives (x4) suck up Pci-Ex slots on your MB. The only way to get more Pci-Ex slots, is via specially made MBs that have chips built in to expand how many you have, but many have argued you pay for it in increased latency. The only way to be sure to avoid such problems is to go with an elite chipset MB, such as X99, which has more lanes by design, vs via an adapter chip.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 6, 2016)

Frag Maniac said:


> Only M.2 "Ultra" drives (x4) suck up Pci-Ex slots on your MB. The only way to get more Pci-Ex slots, is via specially made MBs that have chips built in to expand how many you have, but many have argued you pay for it in increased latency. The only way to be sure to avoid such problems is to go with an elite chipset MB, such as X99, which has more lanes by design, vs via an adapter chip.


I think the question was if he could get a PCI-E to mini-PCIe (M.2) adapter for a M.2 SSD card and run it on his current machine. The answer would be yes *but*, only for PCI-E M.2 drives as you described. Also, if the motherboard isn't UEFI, it may not be able to boot from it either.


----------

