# X99: will it still be good when Skylake is here?



## husseinHr (Jul 13, 2015)

So yeah... Skylake is coming soon with that Z170 stuff. Had no clue about this until recently...

Should I stick to plan A (X99 build) or wait till Skylake comes? I personally think I'll be fine with X99, but I don't know the prices, etc, of the new chipset or whatever.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2015)

Yeah you're fine. Skylake would actually be more of a downgrade IMO.


----------



## hat (Jul 13, 2015)

People are still using SB-E (x79 skt 2011) happily. Hell I'm happy with my 1155 i5 2400.


----------



## FireFox (Jul 13, 2015)

hat said:


> People are still using SB-E (x79 skt 2011) happily. Hell I'm happy with my 1155 i5 2400.


+1 
I am more than happy with my 1155 + my i7 3770K


----------



## m6tzg6r (Jul 13, 2015)

skylake is only quad core at best so there is only so much it can do compared to x99 with its 6 or 8 core options.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 13, 2015)

I'd go X99...  But I've been on a six-core binge since X58.


----------



## Frick (Jul 13, 2015)

INSTG8R said:


> Skylake would actually be more of a downgrade IMO.



This.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

X99 has hexacore processors and more importantly, more PCI Express lanes (depends on processor).  If you intend to install more than one graphics card, X99 is going to be the obvious choice.

There are rumors Intel scrapped Broadwell-E in favor of Skylake-E.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> X99 has hexacore processors and more importantly, more PCI Express lanes (depends on processor).



Looking at the Asus X99 E WS product page, it seems to imply processor makes no difference as to the lanes the board can supply. Could be marketing madness, and I have not tried to fill more slots to see what lanes I get, but this is how it reads to me.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 13, 2015)

sneekypeet said:


> Looking at the Asus X99 E WS product page, it seems to imply processor makes no difference as to the lanes the board can supply. Could be marketing madness, and I have not tried to fill more slots to see what lanes I get, but this is how it reads to me.



5820k can offer max of 24 lanes
5930k can offer 40 lanes
5960k can offer 40 lanes. 

Depending on the chip you have depends on how many pcie lanes you have and how the pcie slots are setup for multi GPU.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 13, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 5820k can offer max of 24 lanes
> 5930k can offer 40 lanes
> 5960k can offer 40 lanes.
> 
> Depending on the chip you have depends on how many pcie lanes you have and how the pcie slots are setup for multi GPU.



I agree, but look at the specs at the rating for each configuration...
*40-Lane CPU-*
7 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 (single x16 or dual x16/x16 or triple x16/x16/x16 or quad x16/x16/x16/x16 or seven x16/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8)
*28-Lane CPU-*
7 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 (single x16 or dual x16/x16 or triple x16/x16/x16 or quad x16/x16/x16/x16 or seven x16/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8)

https://www.asus.com/us/Commercial_Servers_Workstations/X99E_WS/specifications/
They list more lanes than what a 40 or 28 lane chip would provide


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 13, 2015)

husseinHr said:


> So yeah... Skylake is coming soon with that Z170 stuff. Had no clue about this until recently...
> 
> Should I stick to plan A (X99 build) or wait till Skylake comes? I personally think I'll be fine with X99, but I don't know the prices, etc, of the new chipset or whatever.


 Skylake (With the Z170 chipset) is going to be nice but the X99 will be more powerful at the end because even with the expectations of Skylake its not going to be much of a step up in performance from the Broadwell and Haswell chips.  Plus your getting 6 physical cores (all the way to 8) and 12 threads versus 4 cores and a possible 8 threads which while not demanded for gaming is more beneficial in the long run.

Depending on what your plans are, the 5820K is a good value and I would get it over waiting for a Skylake processor


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 13, 2015)

sneekypeet said:


> I agree, but look at the specs at the rating for each configuration...
> *40-Lane CPU-*
> 7 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 (single x16 or dual x16/x16 or triple x16/x16/x16 or quad x16/x16/x16/x16 or seven x16/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8/x8)
> *28-Lane CPU-*
> ...



PLX chip....


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 13, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> PLX chip....



Right, but this is an exception to the rule of worrying about lanes by CPU choice. That is where I was going with it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2015)

The number of PCI Express lanes is determined by the width of the QuickPath Interconnect.  Higher end processors have more QPI connections and thus, more total bandwidth available.  It doesn't matter much when there are PLX chips on the motherboard but PLX motherboards tend to be much more expensive than non-PLX motherboards.

Z170 drastically increases the number of PCI Express lanes to even beat the 5820k but, again, 5820k has six cores versus four.  When you look at the price difference between the platforms, do the changes (more DIMMs and two more cores) really justify the extra cost?  I think not unless you do stuff that is heavily multithreaded and benefits from a lot of RAM.  X99 just isn't appealing to me because it is a full tock (Broadwell) and tick (Skylake) behind.  It'll be a whole 'nother year before X99 catches up to Z170 with the launch of Skylake-E.  It's not clear Skylake-E will even run on X99.


----------



## peche (Jul 13, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> +1
> I am more than happy with my 1155 + my i7 3770K


same here...despite i tottally want knoxx's 3770K for my rig....


----------



## FireFox (Jul 13, 2015)

peche said:


> same here...despite i tottally want knoxx's 3770K for my rig....


Just because you have written totally with double tt I won't give it to you


----------



## peche (Jul 13, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> Just because you have written totally with double tt I won't give it to you


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 13, 2015)

There are going to be Lots of Resentful people around after they upgrade to skynet

people will Remember Arni saying "" I'll Be Back"" and they will want to go back to Haswell/broadwell ect because Skylake is not going to deliver what they expect as an UPGRADE


----------



## 64K (Jul 13, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> There are going to be Lots of Resentful people around after they upgrade to skynet
> 
> people will Remember Arni saying "" I'll Be Back"" and they will want to go back to Haswell/broadwell ect because Skylake is not going to deliver what they expect as an UPGRADE



If they upgrade to Skylake without reading some reviews and therefore have an idea what Skylake will offer them then what can you do to help people like that? For someone on Haswell/Broadwell there is little reason to upgrade to Skylake unless you want some feature that it offers. Just like there was no reason for me to upgrade from Ivy Bridge to Haswell but these small 10% incremental increases in performance do add up over time so for me I plan a Skylake build unless it turns out to be a steaming turd. The reviews will tell. If it isn't what I hope it to be then I will wait for Cannonlake.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 13, 2015)

Didnt a few leaked benchmarks show Skylake is about 6% faster than Haswell overall? With that being heavily influenced by the IGP being 29% faster.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jul 13, 2015)

I still really want to see an i5 2500k vs i5 6500k (stock and oc) comparison to see what the improvement margin is (or isnt)


----------



## peche (Jul 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I still really want to see an i5 2500k vs i5 6500k (stock and oc) comparison to see what the improvement margin is (or isnt)


me too.....


I'm pretty sure that my ivy bridge will last 2 years more being powerful, so no need to move on from my system, hopping that a video card will help me to get better textures on most games, looking forward to a GTX 970 at minimum, gigabyte obviously!

I will be seat watching the bullfight between skylake and all the existing processors/ games / apps / benchs and related topics,


Regards,


----------



## horik (Jul 13, 2015)

peche said:


> me too.....
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that my ivy bridge will last 2 years more being powerful, so no need to move on from my system, hopping that a video card will help me to get better textures on most games, looking forward to a GTX 970 at minimum, gigabyte obviously!
> ...


 
After adding an SSD for OS and some games and then upgrading the video card (got an GTX 970), now I may change my mind about an upgrade to Skylake.


----------



## peche (Jul 13, 2015)

horik said:


> After adding an SSD for OS and some games and then upgrading the video card (got an GTX 970), now I may change my mind about an upgrade to Skylake.


nothing to envy to those new generations!
Regards,


----------



## FireFox (Jul 13, 2015)

+1


----------



## Delta6326 (Jul 13, 2015)

I'm in the same boat, I personally am waiting for official skylake reviews. I will then compare raw performance and features, if skylake has some nice features then I will go with it, I think z170 boards will be really nice.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 13, 2015)

husseinHr said:


> So yeah... Skylake is coming soon with that Z170 stuff. Had no clue about this until recently...
> 
> Should I stick to plan A (X99 build) or wait till Skylake comes? I personally think I'll be fine with X99, but I don't know the prices, etc, of the new chipset or whatever.


I say Skylake is faster the 4790K, while it keeps the same clockspeeds. So if you needs the CPU cores, sure , go X99, but if ya can wait a little bit...I suppose you'd have die-hard facts since I haven't got a ...   uh... what's-it'called...6700K?


BUt I WILL have one soon, and there WILL be a review of some sort on our front page come launch day (at least that's the plan so far...)


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 13, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I say Skylake is faster the 4790K, while it keeps the same clockspeeds. So if you needs the CPU cores, sure , go X99, but if ya can wait a little bit...I suppose you'd have die-hard facts since I haven't got a ...   uh... what's-it'called...6700K?
> 
> 
> BUt I WILL have one soon, and there WILL be a review of some sort on our front page come launch day (at least that's the plan so far...)



@cadaveca I _simply insist_ you also use an aging 3930k for comparison as I'm still using mine.  Recently had to down clock to 4.2Ghz but that was due to the stress the Witcher 3 put on it.  I want to know (after almost 4 years of waiting) should I upgrade my x79 system (to Skylake or Haswell-E).


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 13, 2015)

It would make more sense to compare Z97 to Z170, as their both gaming oriented chipsets. X99 is more of a workstation chipset.

It all depends on what your intended use is really. X99 is kinda overkill for gaming.


----------



## peche (Jul 13, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> It would make more sense to compare Z97 to Z170, as their both gaming oriented chipsets. X99 is more of a workstation chipset.
> 
> It all depends on what your intended use is really. X99 is kinda overkill for gaming.


wise words my friend....
@Knoxx29 you se why i told you about do not update your Z68/z77 chipset....!
here are plenty more opinions about why not upgrade !


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 13, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> @cadaveca I _simply insist_ you also use an aging 3930k for comparison as I'm still using mine.  Recently had to down clock to 4.2Ghz but that was due to the stress the Witcher 3 put on it.  I want to know (after almost 4 years of waiting) should I upgrade my x79 system (to Skylake or Haswell-E).


I accept paypal...

LoL. I'm not planning on doing a CPU review, though, so...

I do have a 3960X, 4960X, 4770K, 4790K, and Gwhateverthecoolpentiumis, 5930K...



Frag Maniac said:


> It would make more sense to compare Z97 to Z170, as their both gaming oriented chipsets. X99 is more of a workstation chipset.
> 
> It all depends on what your intended use is really. X99 is kinda overkill for gaming.



Correct, sir. Although, if you are into 4K gaming with multiple GPUs, then X99 does have a place in gaming, albeit in the "I paid 10k for my dell box" sort of way.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 13, 2015)

I still am using my 3820 and have zero plans to upgrade. X79 has been a rock solid platform and has done everything I've demanded of it.


cadaveca said:


> Correct, sir. Although, if you are into 4K gaming with multiple GPUs, then X99 does have a place in gaming, albeit in the "I paid 10k for my dell box" sort of way.


I always thought that the 3820 and 4820k were good offerings because they gave you the entire platform without too much cost for the CPU (I got my 3820 at 300 USD brand new at the time,) when the real cost was the motherboard (which I didn't exactly skimp on after a conversation with you before getting it.) Personally, the chopped down PCI-E lanes on the 5820k was dumb. If I were in the market, I would have preferred to maintain the socket but still have a fully operational quad-core option like the 3820 and 4820k where you're not gimped on PCI-E lanes.

The reality is that even in multi-GPU setups, a quad-core probably still going to offer enough performance for your gaming need, so I think the chopped own 6c/12t CPU, you may still want the PCI-E lanes because the 6c/12t or 8c/16t is just to brag that you have it and most of the time, unless you're doing something very specific, won't have any use for those extra cores.

Honestly, whatever the OP gets, I don't think he'll be disappointed. CPU isn't exactly the weak point at higher resolutions.


----------



## peche (Jul 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I accept paypal...


3770K ?


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> ...albeit in the "I paid 10k for my dell box" sort of way.



LOL, yeah, maybe more appropriate for XtremeSystems forums. I got burnt out on the elitism over there. Most here are MUCH more practical.

I have a general rule of thumb, if someone is asking not just performance but future proof type questions, I assume they don't have money to burn.

If I'm wrong, just kill me now, you have my permission.


----------



## Bad Bad Bear (Jul 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> then X99 does have a place in gaming, albeit in the "I paid 10k for my dell box" sort of way.



Dear Sir,

My PC rather objects to being labelled a "Dell Box"  

Edit. I'm about as elitist as an ant on a tiny soap box.....


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 14, 2015)

Bad Bad Bear said:


> Dear Sir,
> 
> My PC rather objects to being labelled a "Dell Box"
> 
> Edit. I'm about as elitist as an ant on a tiny soap box.....


hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


But the fact of the matter is that as we get older, the average age of a "gamer" increases a bit as well, and that means that there are more gamers out there with a fair bit of disposable income that are into PC gaming (How many WoW players are there, and after how long, exactly?)....


So really, to answer the OP's post correctly, we have to go back to the basics, and take a look at what monitor is planned, and how long-term the PC is going be.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 14, 2015)

Skylake is one that I'll skip unless someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to upgrade. 

I have good PCs already 4790K, 4690K and 5930K coming soon.


----------



## hat (Jul 14, 2015)

Quick question. What makes a board these days sli/xfire compatible? I see Z97 boards some say they support sli others say xfire. I thought we could do either or on any board since x58 but I though wrong...


----------



## btarunr (Jul 14, 2015)

Wait for Skylake. Buy an i7-6700K, a decent Z170 board, and 32 GB (2x 16GB) DDR4 dual-channel kit. Reason I say this is because unlike X99, Z170 features a PCIe gen 3.0 based DMI chipset bus (32 Gb/s), and has PCIe gen 3.0 ports even downstream.

So unless you're doing stuff that needs 6 cores, buy Skylake.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 14, 2015)

btarunr said:


> So unless you're doing stuff that needs 6 cores, buy Skylake.



If what you have is" good enough  for what you use it for "" don't bother upgrading for the sake of intels profits

that applies if your running a P2   or P3 or P4   let alone your I5 & I7 ( even AMD )


----------



## btarunr (Jul 14, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> If what you have is" good enough  for what you use it for "" don't bother upgrading for the sake of intels profits
> 
> that applies if your running a P2   or P3 or P4   let alone your I5 & I7 ( even AMD )



I meant if you video render, buy 6 cores. Else make do with 4. Everything other than core count is better with Skylake.


----------



## FireFox (Jul 14, 2015)

People become poor and intel becomes more Rich


----------



## Toothless (Jul 14, 2015)

"It's okay my little Atom N270, I won't replace you for something with 4x the thread count and much.. more... performance..." *cries self to sleep*

Unless Skylake does wonders, 2nd Gen i5s and i7s are still as strong as anything else.


----------



## FireFox (Jul 14, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> even AMD


Now you went a little too far mentioning AMD

Note: AMD = ANYTHING MORE DISGUSTING


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 14, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> If what you have is" good enough  for what you use it for "" don't bother upgrading for the sake of intels profits
> 
> that applies if your running a P2   or P3 or P4   let alone your I5 & I7 ( even AMD )





Knoxx29 said:


> Now you went a little too far mentioning AMD
> 
> Note: AMD = ANYTHING MORE DISGUSTING


AMD = Another Misguided Discussion.

How about we stick to the topic at hand...

On topic: We won't know anything about Skylake until her hear more and get closer to release. Right now, it's impossible to say how it will stack up but, history suggests it won't be monumental with respect to CPU performance.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 14, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> @cadaveca I _simply insist_ you also use an aging 3930k for comparison as I'm still using mine.  Recently had to down clock to 4.2Ghz but that was due to the stress the Witcher 3 put on it.  I want to know (after almost 4 years of waiting) should I upgrade my x79 system (to Skylake or Haswell-E).


 I am going to use my magic powers and make a suggestion from the future.  No you will not want to upgrade it , best chip investment on the market you have right there!

Comparing prices and such, I am still for the 5820K being a better investment overall.


----------



## RCoon (Jul 14, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> We won't know anything about Skylake until her hear more and get closer to release.



Pre-release benchies show Skylake being between -1% and +9% better than Devil's Canyon. In other words "meh".

Ignore the obscene 29% improvement results, they are iGPU benchmarks. So at least we know the iGPU is a good third better than current gen Iris Pro graphics.

SOURCE


----------



## hat (Jul 14, 2015)

Man, even x58 is still more than enough for most anything anybody does today. Even the best S775 setups are more than enough, IMO. The speed from newer hardware shines in benchmarks and some specific situations like video encoding, or WCG, stuff like that. Sandy Bridge was the last time Intel really tried to improve raw CPU power. Now, they seem to be focusing on iGPU development and energy efficiency... which isn't really a bad thing. Even for serious gamers, the iGPU now has some use, thanks to QuickSync. I'd like to see something come from AMD, even if it's just quad cores or 6 cores again, but they need to be improved. The way they did Piledriver didn't turn out too well IMO.


----------



## peche (Jul 14, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> Note: AMD = ANYTHING MORE DISGUSTING


seems legit ... 



RCoon said:


> Pre-release benchies show Skylake being between -1% and +9% better than Devil's Canyon. In other words "meh".


devil's canyon what a excellent platform! skylake may be justifiable for people upgrading from core2 platforms... for example core 2 quad or duo ..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 14, 2015)

hat said:


> Man, even x58 is still more than enough for most anything anybody does today. Even the best S775 setups are more than enough, IMO. The speed from newer hardware shines in benchmarks and some specific situations like video encoding, or WCG, stuff like that. Sandy Bridge was the last time Intel really tried to improve raw CPU power. Now, they seem to be focusing on iGPU development and energy efficiency... which isn't really a bad thing. Even for serious gamers, the iGPU now has some use, thanks to QuickSync. I'd like to see something come from AMD, even if it's just quad cores or 6 cores again, but they need to be improved. The way they did Piledriver didn't turn out too well IMO.


The relatively low clockspeeds of X58 are starting to show in games.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The relatively low clockspeeds of X58 are starting to show in games.



So Overclock that sucker 

Amd and intel seemed to have given up on the Mhz/Ghz war  Clocks are relatively unchanged over the last few years
Intel won that war and will now only increase clock speed by a miserly amount with each new chip release


----------



## n-ster (Jul 14, 2015)

i7 920s OCed to 4Ghz or i5 2500K OCed were such great buys at the time... They still do sooo well for such old hardware

Since those times, I feel like upgrades are more for the motherboard than they are for the actual CPU


----------



## peche (Jul 14, 2015)

upgrades now days are mostly GPU and cooling solutions... i my personal opinion ...


----------



## n-ster (Jul 15, 2015)

I meant, upgrading the CPU has more to do with upgrading the chipset than it does with upgrading for the CPU's performance


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 15, 2015)

I am dying to upgrade my i7 950 @ 4.2 - 4.4Ghz...but nothing has really made me want to. I almost went 5820k/DDR4 but benchmarks were not OMFGWTF!!! I was like yeah that is better but not $1k+ better. Hopefully Skylake will make either price drops on the 5820 or fast enough that I am forced to upgrade.



peche said:


> upgrades now days are mostly GPU and cooling solutions... i my personal opinion ...



That is exactly what I have done. Added more RAM, Faster SSD, and new video cards. I run everything nearly maxed on 2560x1600...I just had my first real slow down on Witcher 3 with all the eye candy turned on that started the upgrade bug again. But my first thing I was going to upgrade was get another 780ti for sli....


----------



## Conti027 (Jul 15, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I am dying to upgrade my i7 950 @ 4.2 - 4.4Ghz...but nothing has really made me want to. I almost went 5820k/DDR4 but benchmarks were not OMFGWTF!!! I was like yeah that is better but not $1k+ better. Hopefully Skylake will make either price drops on the 5820 or fast enough that I am forced to upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I have done. Added more RAM, Faster SSD, and new video cards. I run everything nearly maxed on 2560x1600...I just had my first real slow down on Witcher 3 with all the eye candy turned on that started the upgrade bug again. But my first thing I was going to upgrade was get another 780ti for sli....



Same here. Still running a x58 with my i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz. Hasn't been a real reason to upgrade for me since the most demanding thing I do is play games but I really! want to upgrade.
Might do Skylake or Cannonlake or maybe even buy some cheaper i7 gen4 when the new stuff is out.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 15, 2015)

Conti027 said:


> Same here. Still running a x58 with my i7-920 @ 4.2Ghz. Hasn't been a real reason to upgrade for me since the most demanding thing I do is play games but I really! want to upgrade.
> Might do Skylake or Cannonlake or maybe even buy some cheaper i7 gen4 when the new stuff is out.



Well we for sure got our money out of socket 1366. 

And that is the type of upgrade I expect. When I went from a OC'd  Q6600 to OC'd Q9650 it was a big step. But from the OC'd Q9650 to OC'd i7 950 was HUGE. Now it's like 5% gains every generation but much, much better power usage and I don't care about as much...lol.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 15, 2015)

still can get 


ZenZimZaliben said:


> Well we for sure got our money out of socket 1366.


 upgrade to a 6 core Xeon 56 series


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 15, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> still can get
> upgrade to a 6 core Xeon 56 series



I did look into that, but not early enough. That was something I should have done a year or two ago. But really just more threads and doesn't OC any better, or at least not like enough to make it all that worth while. If I was doing some video editing or similar tasks would have made sense. But for gaming I don't see it being a good enough upgrade to warrant the expense.

Guess it would be something to play around with. You can find used e5670s for like $100.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jul 16, 2015)

peche said:


> me too.....
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that my ivy bridge will last 2 years more being powerful, so no need to move on from my system, hopping that a video card will help me to get better textures on most games, looking forward to a GTX 970 at minimum, gigabyte obviously!
> ...


I might just end up jumping ship anyway because I need a new motherboard soley for the use of 4+ Intel SATA 6GB/s connections. If I do, I can then run my own benchmarks on my old system and run the same on my new system and post results for people like us that are still using SB.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 16, 2015)

I asked *cadaveca *to run a few benchmarks several months ago. He had a 5820k, 16gb ddr4, and a 780ti. Like I said the results were better...but not amazing and not enough real world performance difference to justify for me. I believe he outscored me on 3dmark by roughly 15% and the heaven benchmark was even lower. I play games mostly and and extra 5/10FPS isn't going to make or break a game for me. As I can just drop shadows down a notch or some other minor effect that is a performance hog.

That said I will look forward to your results.


----------



## husseinHr (Jul 17, 2015)

Sorry I haven't looked at the thread for a while, but since X99 is good for non gaming things as well I'll just go with that. I'll be doing video editing and sucha as well as gaming, so i can use the extra cores and things.

Thanks for the input, folks!


----------

