# X99 vs Z170 - which one is better for use @office/work?



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

I am going to upgrade our X58 motherboards with newer ones (15 computers) and was wondering what your opinions on the current available options X58 vs Z170 (or maybe other suggestions).
Graphics/Gaming/OC performance is not an issue as they are going to be used in a corporate environment.


Thanks


----------



## kenkickr (Oct 17, 2015)

What is their use in a corporate environment?  Primarily MS Office work, Photo editing, Cad, etc?


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 17, 2015)

Either is way overkill for a corporate environment unless they are doing video editing or something like that.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

kenkickr said:


> What is their use in a corporate environment?  Primarily MS Office work, Photo editing, Cad, etc?



Yes,  office, heavy photoshop psd works, Web design etc. 
Wanna keep the hardware as future proof as possible so not need to upgrade too often.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 17, 2015)

Z170, because the platform is cheaper and processors as well. For X99, motherboards start at around 350€ lol.


----------



## hat (Oct 17, 2015)

As others said, depends on the work. If it's a lot of heavy lifting (like video editing, or CAD, that sort of thing as mentioned earlier) go for x99. The additional cores will help you there, as will the RAM bandwidth should you decide to go for quad channel. If that sort of thing isn't what you're doing, then go for Z170. It will be less expensive, and you can just use the integrated graphics (x99 does not have integrated graphics, so you would also have to supply basic video cards).

Actually, I wouldn't recommend Z170 at all. Z170 is more for gamers, enthusiasts, overclockers and the like. I would be quicker to recommend H170, or even H110 depending on your needs (amount of USB, SATA ports varies, RAID functionality, etc).


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 17, 2015)

hat said:


> Actually, I wouldn't recommend Z170 at all. Z170 is more for gamers, enthusiasts, overclockers and the like. I would be quicker to recommend H170, or even H110 depending on your needs (amount of USB, SATA ports varies, RAID functionality, etc).



Q170/Q150/B150 are the business-class chipsets. Only Q170 supports Stable Image Platform Program and vPro.


So really, neither Z170 or X99 should make into a business environment. The only true choice for both administration and security on a business-class level is the Q170.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 17, 2015)

I agree that most likely, it's either x99 or Q170.

Another option I've had great success with in corporate environments are Xeon + ECC RAM, but that's situational and dependant on how much they are willing to pay and how they use their computers. I've never had to deal with corruption and way less often did I have to deal with crashes on computers with Xeon and ECC. There are two things I don't cheap out on in corporate environments that have a decent budget, and that's PSU and storage (25% over provisioned SSD usually). Consider investing in upgrading those two parts if they aren't the greatest right now.


----------



## peche (Oct 17, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> Q170/Q150/B150 are the business-class chipsets. Only Q170 supports Stable Image Platform Program and vPro.
> 
> 
> So really, neither Z170 or X99 should make into a business environment. The only true choice for both administration and security on a business-class level is the Q170.


this.....

also this...


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 17, 2015)

Depends on "business". If you need a cheap workstation that you plan to overclock in order to save money and have loads of compute power, Z170 still makes sense. Cheap Z170 + 6600K. With some overclocking you can turn this 3.3GHz chip into a 4.6-4.7 GHz quad core monster. If you slam any kind of water cooling on it you'll be able to get super stable operation even at long term loads.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 17, 2015)

They have the money for x99 though, so might as well go x99 over z170 in most cases no?


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 17, 2015)

Both are a super-overkill for an office. Even for a typical gaming environment it's too much.

If all you do is office work - go for Pentuim G3250 and an H81 motherboard (those go for $40-50 right now). Can probably build a whole machine with 23" fullHD monitor for $300-$350 if you are a conservative like me.

If you want the latest hardware, but no OC is planned - get the cheapest Skylake CPU and look for an adequate motherboard with H170 or B150 chipset.  But in this case if I were you, I'd wait for low-end LGA1151 CPUs to appear on the market (i3, Pentium etc.). And don't even bother with GPU: pretty sure that the new Intel HD is enough to play solitaire and farmville.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 17, 2015)

LoL. All this "save money" idea doesn't work in the real business world. Expenses such as equipment upgrades are write-offs that offset taxes, and the most recent equipment has the lowest cost of ownership. The idea that something is "overpowered" isn't a real thing in the office... good performance = useful longevity. Also, overclocking should not a be a word mentioned, as most office PCs are really only managing data, and OC puts this at jeopardy. There won't be "K" SKUs used in such builds, so OC isn't an option anyway.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 17, 2015)

You're mixing up corporations and small offices. Someone who knows a thing or two about computers, has a small office but requires some grunt, OC is certainly an option. Hell, I've seen custom builds in corporate environments as well. AVAST Software for example utilizes Quad-SLi GeForce GTX custom systems with water cooling for parallel data processing using GPU's. Sure they aren't overclocked, but still. Most corporations would just buy a server rack(s) and call it a day. With most likely costs 10 times higher than this one.

I mean, we aren't talking extreme overclocks on the limit here, we are talking differences that can make up a huge difference, but aren't extreme OC's in any aspect.


----------



## peche (Oct 17, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> Both are a super-overkill for an office. Even for a typical gaming environment it's too much.
> 
> If all you do is office work - go for Pentuim G3250 and an H81 motherboard (those go for $40-50 right now). Can probably build a whole machine with 23" fullHD monitor for $300-$350 if you are a conservative like me.
> 
> If you want the latest hardware, but no OC is planned - get the cheapest Skylake CPU and look for an adequate motherboard with H170 or B150 chipset.  But in this case if I were you, I'd wait for low-end LGA1151 CPUs to appear on the market (i3, Pentium etc.). And don't even bother with GPU: pretty sure that the new Intel HD is enough to play solitaire and farmville.


you dont have an idea of how wrong you are sir...

i work in IT dept on a money and finacial shits company, i have pretty much people here heavily tasking on their computers and we have noticed that i3 computers can do plenty of work ... but speed means more time saved, more things acomplished in due time, so better workstations always means quiet times to IT departments,  so in this point recomending cheap pentium G processors and lower is not sane, 

@dr_lucas tell me moaaar about what are the computers used for and let me know how can i help you, i know that feeling bro...


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

Only issue that I see with the Q170 chipsets is they don't come with USB 3.1...


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

peche said:


> you dont have an idea of how wrong you are sir...
> 
> i work in IT dept on a money and finacial shits company, i have pretty much people here heavily tasking on their computers and we have noticed that i3 computers can do plenty of work ... but speed means more time saved, more things acomplished in due time, so better workstations always means quiet times to IT departments,  so in this point recomending cheap pentium G processors and lower is not sane,
> 
> @dr_lucas tell me moaaar about what are the computers used for and let me know how can i help you, i know that feeling bro...





Aquinus said:


> What are they being used for? If security is important, you'll want a Q-series or Cxxx chipset machine.
> 
> Either way, you should be a little more specific what they'll be used for.



As I wrote above: MS office, heavy photoshop psd works, Web design, programming etc
No CAD/CAM and obviously no gaming


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

By the way, money is not really an issue, to a certain extent. I don't think XEON justifies the extreme cost increase, although ECC RAM is helpful, but anyways these are used mainly in servers rather than work stations. (I did see some workstations in Chevron recently upgraded to XEON with ECC RAM for some odd reasons)


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> Both are a super-overkill for an office. Even for a typical gaming environment it's too much.
> 
> If all you do is office work - go for Pentuim G3250 and an H81 motherboard (those go for $40-50 right now). Can probably build a whole machine with 23" fullHD monitor for $300-$350 if you are a conservative like me.



Overclocking in a business environment running 15 computers is absolutely not a good idea for multiple reasons.



cadaveca said:


> LoL. All this "save money" idea doesn't work in the real business world. Expenses such as equipment upgrades are write-offs that offset taxes, and the most recent equipment has the lowest cost of ownership. The idea that something is "overpowered" isn't a real thing in the office... good performance = useful longevity. Also, overclocking should not a be a word mentioned, as most office PCs are really only managing data, and OC puts this at jeopardy. There won't be "K" SKUs used in such builds, so OC isn't an option anyway.



Completely agree with you, dave. The longevity and future proof are key factors here, as I wrote above. I tend to go with your Q170 recommendation, although it's such a new chipset that I couldn't find any reviews for any of the motherboards based on it (for example ASUS Q170M-C that seems interesting)...


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 17, 2015)

What are they being used for? If security is important, you'll want a Q-series or Cxxx chipset machine.

Either way, you should be a little more specific what they'll be used for.

Edit: X99 is overkill for that list. Don't consider it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

dr_lucas said:


> Only issue that I see with the Q170 chipsets is they don't come with USB 3.1...


The thing about USB 3.1 is that no one has agreed on a front panel header for it yet so the 3.1 ports are always on the I/O plate.  Quite impractical for a standard that is supposed to be used for plug & play devices.  3.1 adaption is just beginning so my advice would be to plan for a USB 3.1 card in the future with the finalized front panel header and a 3.5" or 5.25" bay drive with ports.

I would stick to Q150/Q170 unless you know you need 6+ cores.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 17, 2015)

dr_lucas said:


> Completely agree with you, dave. The longevity and future proof are key factors here, as I wrote above. I tend to go with your Q170 recommendation, although it's such a new chipset that I couldn't find any reviews for any of the motherboards based on it (for example ASUS Q170M-C that seems interesting)...



As a business owner myself, I tend to understand these needs a bit more than the average enthusiast.

Business-class motherboards aren't commonly reviewed because they do not need to be. The fact that they will be used in an office environment means their design and feature set are tailored to those uses, and stability and a long running life are part of that. I'd be looking at the 6600 CPUs (65W) paired with 500 GB - 1 TB mechanical drives, 16 GB 2133 MHz memory, and 500W PSUs tossed into whatever case you like. That would lead to an initial system cost of just under $1k, OS included. If you approach a larger local retailer, I'm sure they could cut you a deal on the large number of machines.

With power use included, you're talking a <$250/year, per system, cost of ownership over 5 years. $7500/ year for 15 machines is pretty affordable to me, but you may be able to find more value-added options by approaching Dell or Acer. I'm sure you could find a Dell All-in-One with keyboard/mouse/monitor for that same $1k price tag, and they could have the machines at your door within a day or two. As mentioned the actual use of these machines should dictate what direction you go. If this is for very basic office needs, you can get away with a slightly older system with less grunt for sure, since most offices will not change the way they do business within a 3-5 year span.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 17, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The thing about USB 3.1 is that no one has agreed on a front panel header for it yet so the 3.1 ports are always on the I/O plate.  Quite impractical for a standard that is supposed to be used for plug & play devices.  3.1 adaption is just beginning so my advice would be to planfor a USB 3.1 card in the future with the finalized front panel header and a 3.5" or 5.25" bay drive with ports.
> 
> I would stick to Q150/Q170 unless you know you need 6+ cores.



Yeah, sounds like a good advice, I will probably go with the Q170.
I am not sure what you mean about the front panel header. There are 2 main types, type A and type C and there are already front panel headers, like this one:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/card.asp?Model=Front USB 3.1 Panel


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 17, 2015)

OK, now that I know what it is going to be used for specifically - scratch Pentium G.

As Aquinus and many others said, Q170 would be the best option, but those are kinda not on the market yet. I only found one EU store that had a Q170M-C. Newegg has none. 
Alternatively you should still look at B150. Those are cheap, presumably reliable and unless you need a built-in TPM module and x2.5 higher surge protection, then it could offer everything you'll use from Q170 board, which includes up to 32GB of DDR4 suppoty, all current CPU support (until 130W monsters arrive), SATA III + RAID,  PCI-e 3.0 etc. etc. etc.

About Photoshop: it still scales badly beyond and even under 4 cores. There is a nice bench here: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-625/
Haven't found any info on GPU utilization in Photoshop CC, but this article reviews GPU performance impact in CS6:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161/

Which means unless your programming work requires some extensive and frequent compiling - don't bother to go anywhere higher than i5-6600.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 17, 2015)

Well if you want to compare 2011-3 vs Xeon 2011 v3, the price difference really isn't that big. quad-core E5-1620 v3, hex-core E5-2620 v3 or E5-1650 v3 are very reasonably priced. Motherboard-wise most if not all AsRock X99 boards support ECC RAM, and often have most consumer features like USB 3.1 you'd want. Do you intend to have discreet GPU either way?

Also, Photoshop DOES scale well with Hyper-Threading, at least according to reviews comparing the 6600k to the 6700K

An E5-1620 v3 is ~300$, AsRock X99 motherboards 180~220$ depending on want you want. ECC RAM is more expensive but the benefits are worth the cost IMO. Compare this to an i7-6700 which is actually a few bucks more, and MB is about 40-50$ cheaper only. Do note that the i7 6700 will likely be more powerful than both the e5-1620 v3 or the 2620 v3. The e5-1650 v3 likely beats out the i7-6700, but is 270$ more or something along those lines. Either way though, Xeon could still be a very viable option IMO


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2015)

dr_lucas said:


> Yeah, sounds like a good advice, I will probably go with the Q170.
> I am not sure what you mean about the front panel header. There are 2 main types, type A and type C and there are already front panel headers, like this one:
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/spec/card.asp?Model=Front USB 3.1 Panel


There is no equivalent of this for USB 3.1 (pictured is USB 3.0):






That AsRock product looks like a good solution for you.  Just make sure to get a board that has SATA Express and remember that SATA Express will tie up a lot of SATA ports (consult the manual).


----------



## peche (Oct 17, 2015)

dr_lucas said:


> As I wrote above: MS office, heavy photoshop psd works, Web design, programming etc
> No CAD/CAM and obviously no gaming


there you have, i5 can easily get the job done but i7's are more "future proof" so take on mind both porcessors, b150 / q170 can also be there for you, 


dr_lucas said:


> By the way, money is not really an issue, to a certain extent. I don't think XEON justifies the extreme cost increase, although ECC RAM is helpful, but anyways these are used mainly in servers rather than work stations. (I did see some workstations in Chevron recently upgraded to XEON with ECC RAM for some odd reasons)


xeon also may be the option but for the more demanding machines, also x99 can be there, 



cadaveca said:


> As a business owner myself, I tend to understand these needs a bit more than the average enthusiast.
> 
> Business-class motherboards aren't commonly reviewed because they do not need to be. The fact that they will be used in an office environment means their design and feature set are tailored to those uses, and stability and a long running life are part of that. I'd be looking at the 6600 CPUs (65W) paired with 500 GB - 1 TB mechanical drives, 16 GB 2133 MHz memory, and 500W PSUs tossed into whatever case you like. That would lead to an initial system cost of just under $1k, OS included. If you approach a larger local retailer, I'm sure they could cut you a deal on the large number of machines.
> 
> With power use included, you're talking a <$250/year, per system, cost of ownership over 5 years. $7500/ year for 15 machines is pretty affordable to me, but you may be able to find more value-added options by approaching Dell or Acer. I'm sure you could find a Dell All-in-One with keyboard/mouse/monitor for that same $1k price tag, and they could have the machines at your door within a day or two. As mentioned the actual use of these machines should dictate what direction you go. If this is for very basic office needs, you can get away with a slightly older system with less grunt for sure, since most offices will not change the way they do business within a 3-5 year span.


the best explanation possible! thanks dave,


----------



## Devon68 (Oct 17, 2015)

> The longevity and future proof are key factors here


Well things can fail at any moment so longevity depends but I suggest a good power supply with atleast a 5 year warranty.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

Ok, so far we came up with this spec list. 
Any comments, suggestions, recommendations by the professionals here are more than welcome:

MOBO    Q170 Based (the ASUS mobo is still not available and we we prefer something a bit larger than micro ATX, hopefully something bigger will be released)
CPU    Intel Skylake i7-6700
RAM    G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 32GRB 2400
GPU    Nvidia Quadro K620
HDD    WD Caviar Black 4TB 64MB FZEX  (5 years)
SSD    Samsung 850 Pro 256GB (10 years)
PSU    Corsair RM 750i • 750 Watt • 80 PLUS® Gold Certified (7 years)


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 18, 2015)

Bump your Quadro K620 to GTX 950. At the same price tag and 90W max power consumption you get a tremendous performance boost. Another alternative - GTX750Ti (my favorite). It is also a 128-bit Maxwell-powered GPU, but has almost twice as many Cuda cores as K620, costs $40-50 less and only consumes ~65W at full load (mine never went above 58W even in Batman:AK and synthetic benchmarks). If at some point Adobe decides to optimise some of its libraries to take full advantage of GPU compute (not that they haven't tried before), those extra Cuda cores will come in handy. Did some experiments 2 years back with a couple of easy parallelized image filters (wrote CPU and GPU accelerated versions of box blur and canny edge detector) and my laptop's GT630M came out a winner over my Core i7-3820QM running at full 8 threads with almost x7-8 performance.

If time is not a big issue, wait until december. There will be more CPUs for LGA1151, maybe GTX950Ti will appear + some more MoBo options.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> Bump your Quadro K620 to GTX 950. At the same price tag and 90W max power consumption you get a tremendous performance boost. Another alternative - GTX750Ti (my favorite). It is also a 128-bit Maxwell-powered GPU, but has almost twice as many Cuda cores as K620, costs $40-50 less and only consumes ~65W at full load (mine never went above 58W even in Batman:AK and synthetic benchmarks). If at some point Adobe decides to optimise some of its libraries to take full advantage of GPU compute (not that they haven't tried before), those extra Cuda cores will come in handy.




We are on Photoshop CS6, and MGE doesn't utilize CUDA, so not sure if that's a real benefit in our case.

Quote:
"_The Mercury Graphics Engine (MGE) represents features that use video card processor, or GPU, acceleration. In Photoshop CS6, this new engine delivers near-instant results when editing with key tools such as Liquify, Warp, Lighting Effects, and the Oil Paint filter. The new MGE delivers unprecedented responsiveness for a fluid feel as you work.

MGE is new to Photoshop CS6 and uses both the OpenGL and OpenCL frameworks. It does not use the proprietary CUDA framework from nVidia.

MGE requires a supported video card and updated driver. If you do not have a supported card, performance is degraded. Usually, the acceleration is lost and the feature runs in the normal CPU mode. However, there are some features that don't work without a supported video card._"

*Source: *https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 18, 2015)

It is OpenGL/OpenCL accelerated, so you still get the benefit of parallelization with higher SPU count.
But the main point is - you get a much better, if not superior, card for the same amount of money. Power consumption is still low, and in case of GTX750Ti is almost equal - you won't even need a 6-pin power connector. And if nothing changes in Adobe approach to GPU acceleration, then you won't have to upgrade those cards for the next decade or so =) What could be more future-proof than that?

If you are really not concerned with GPU compute performance right now - just use a built-in GPU. The performance is very adequate : a little slower than DDR3 version of GT740, which is Kepler based, but overall has specs similar to K620.
Seen some dudes on youtube frantically playing Witcher 3 and Bioshock Infinite on it. Plus you won't have ten Quadros to dispose of, once you decide to upgrade.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 18, 2015)

SSD wise, the Samsung Pro is great, alternatives are SanDisk Extreme Pro that might be better value, or Intel 730, that might be the most reliable of them all. I always over provision 15-25% when reliability is a concern. 

RM750i is great, consider EVGA G2 for better value, consider EVGA P2 if efficiency matters. 

Consider RAM that's 2666-2800 if it's only marginally more. 

RAID 1 could be cheap to implement on the 4TB, but ideally a good backup strategy is more ideal obviously


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2015)

I wouldn't use SSD in the office, especially if it might be used as scratch disk for photoshop. Failure rates are still too high for mission-critical data.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> I wouldn't use SSD in the office, especially if it might be used as scratch disk for photoshop. Failure rates are still too high for mission-critical data.



We've been using Intel  X25-M 120GB SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167035) on all our 15 computers for the past 4 years, in some of the computers used as a Photoshop scratch disk as well as OS of course.
Rock solid, zero issues.

We did have lots of failures with our 2TB WD Greens which we used for storage, they are utter crap!
The Purple line is significantly better and I hear the black is even better.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

n-ster said:


> SSD wise, the Samsung Pro is great, alternatives are SanDisk Extreme Pro that might be better value, or Intel 730, that might be the most reliable of them all. I always over provision 15-25% when reliability is a concern.
> 
> RM750i is great, consider EVGA G2 for better value, consider EVGA P2 if efficiency matters.
> 
> ...



Samsung Pro comes with 10 years warranty and they do have an excellent reputation for stability and reliability. On a par with Intel's.
EVGA's are better PSU, but they are not available here unfortunately (Thailand).
Higher speed RAM is not really necessary as we won't be doing any overclocking in the office.

Yeah, we have a good backup strategy.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 18, 2015)

dr_lucas said:


> We've been using Intel  X25-M 120GB SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167035) on all our 15 computers for the past 4 years, in some of the computers used as a Photoshop scratch disk as well as OS of course.
> Rock solid, zero issues.
> 
> We did have lots of failures with our 2TB WD Greens which we used for storage, they are utter crap!
> The Purple line is significantly better and I hear the black is even better.


As long as you are aware. Hate to give advice without "full disclosure".


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> It is OpenGL/OpenCL accelerated, so you still get the benefit of parallelization with higher SPU count.
> But the main point is - you get a much better, if not superior, card for the same amount of money. Power consumption is still low, and in case of GTX750Ti is almost equal - you won't even need a 6-pin power connector. And if nothing changes in Adobe approach to GPU acceleration, then you won't have to upgrade those cards for the next decade or so =) What could be more future-proof than that?
> 
> If you are really not concerned with GPU compute performance right now - just use a built-in GPU. The performance is very adequate : a little slower than DDR3 version of GT740, which is Kepler based, but overall has specs similar to K620.
> Seen some dudes on youtube frantically playing Witcher 3 and Bioshock Infinite on it. Plus you won't have ten Quadros to dispose of, once you decide to upgrade.



AFAIK those GPUs and especially their drivers are optimized for gaming and are absolutely superior to the Quadro in a gaming rig, while the Quadro is optimized for applications such as PS and CAD/CAM with significant advantages and performance boosts  in these applications.
You may be right and I may get better Photoshop computing performance using the GTX950 or GTX750Ti rather than Quadro K620, but I need more concrete evidence to support that claim before making the final call.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 18, 2015)

Do you have any online Thai retailers we could check out to get an idea on prices? Also have you considered cases and cpu coolers? Is noise a concern?


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

The prices are quite similar to the prices you get on newegg and amazon.
Cases are not an issue and CPU coolers won't be used as we don't do any overclocking and the original Intel fan usually does a good job on stock CPUs's speed.
Noise isn't a concern in the office, although I believe the configuration listed above is pretty quiet.


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 18, 2015)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-16.html

Should look at the next few pages too. These are mostly arbitrary results, but in most cases GTX750Ti falls somewhere between K4000 and K5000 in synthetic benchmarks for both Single and Double precision calculations. Same story with OpenCL and productivity benchmarks - only behind in Autodesk Maya.

Temps on the reference GTX750Ti reach ~65°C at full load, but something like my MSI GTX750Ti Gaming or any other non-reference card with a decent low-rpm two-fan setup can run as low as 54°C max. 
So far when idle my card barely gets above +3-4°C above room temperature due to 6W power consumption and is barely audible. With these thermal properties you don't have to worry about noise or heat.
The only downside from my perspective is lack of SLI.



dr_lucas said:


> we don't do any overclocking and the original Intel fan usually does a good job on stock CPUs's speed.


But 6600K and 6700K do not come with HSF. You might need to look around for some older box coolers (mounting holes are the same as LGA1150/1155 etc). I have at least 4 of those laying around


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 18, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Depends on "business". If you need a cheap workstation that you plan to overclock in order to save money and have loads of compute power, Z170 still makes sense. Cheap Z170 + 6600K. With some overclocking you can turn this 3.3GHz chip into a 4.6-4.7 GHz quad core monster. If you slam any kind of water cooling on it you'll be able to get super stable operation even at long term loads.



I dont recommend overclocking any system used for corporate work. Too much of a risk of instability issues while working on important projects.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-16.html
> 
> Should look at the next few pages too. These are mostly arbitrary results, but in most cases GTX750Ti falls somewhere between K4000 and K5000 in synthetic benchmarks for both Single and Double precision calculations. Same story with OpenCL and productivity benchmarks - only behind in Autodesk Maya.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I will read tom's hardware info and get back to you on this.
Regarding the CPU, the one on my list is 6700 locked, not K (unlocked). 
I think it comes with a stock fan, doesn't it?



MxPhenom 216 said:


> I dont recommend overclocking any system used for corporate work. Too much of a risk of instability issues while working on important projects.


You're right on the money.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 18, 2015)

Testing overclock is no different than how Intel tests CPU's that then run at stock clock and are sold in retail. When you're not in the extreme overclock territory, things are incredibly predictable and they don't degrade over time. Unlike extreme OC's where you're pushing everything on the limit.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 18, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Testing overclock is no different than how Intel tests CPU's that then run at stock clock and are sold in retail. When you're not in the extreme overclock territory, things are incredibly predictable and they don't degrade over time. Unlike extreme OC's where you're pushing everything on the limit.



Not exactly. I can assure you Intel has much more sophisticated testing procedure for retail chips. They don't just run prime95 on hundreds of chips at once for 8 hours and call it good.


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 18, 2015)

silentbogo said:


> But 6600K and 6700K do not come with HSF.



Actually it does 
http://grabilla.com/05a12-62e3da96-b134-4c01-a519-f6b110ff41b2.png


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2015)

The K models don't, the standard models (pictured) do.  T might as well.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 18, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Not exactly. I can assure you Intel has much more sophisticated testing procedure for retail chips. They don't just run prime95 on hundreds of chips at once for 8 hours and call it good.



And what's more "sophisticated" than running real world load on CPU's for extended periods of time? 24 hour continuous stress test with AVX instructions will guarantee a 100% stable OC. Again, for the 3rd time, we aren't talking about extreme overclocks here.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 18, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> And what's more "sophisticated" than running real world load on CPU's for extended periods of time? 24 hour continuous stress test with AVX instructions will guarantee a 100% stable OC. Again, for the 3rd time, we aren't talking about extreme overclocks here.



I dont really know, but I'm sure Intel has some sort of process. 

I still stand by what I said earlier, I do not recommend overclocking a machine used for corporate work. 1. I said it already any instabilities could ruin hours of work. 2. Honestly its unnecessary, today's chips are damn fast. Fast enough for any real work, and will be for a long time. Software hasn't changed much. CPUs have gotten faster, software has stayed relatively the same.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 18, 2015)

Then again in my personal opinion, factory cooler could never realiably run Core i7 920 that I had even at stock clocks in a well ventilated case...


----------



## n-ster (Oct 19, 2015)

GPU is probably going to be the loudest part anyways, perhaps case fans too? I tend to like putting aftermarket coolers on everything unless budget doesn't permit, simply because I don't like the thermals and how they can get clogged up with dust, which I don't have to worry about with a BeQuiet! Shadow Rock Slim or something like that. The Intel HSF is good enough, no need to change it, just a personal preference kind of thing


----------



## dr_lucas (Oct 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> And what's more "sophisticated" than running real world load on CPU's for extended periods of time? 24 hour continuous stress test with AVX instructions will guarantee a 100% stable OC. Again, for the 3rd time, we aren't talking about extreme overclocks here.



We are actually not talking about any overclocks here. This is completely off-topic.



RejZoR said:


> Then again in my personal opinion, factory cooler could never realiably run Core i7 920 that I had even at stock clocks in a well ventilated case...


Not your opinion, just your experience. Could be a faulty stock cooler or other issue specific to your case. I never had any issue with stock coolers cooling down my non-OC CPUs on hundreds of computers. 
Again, quite off-topic.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 19, 2015)

Not issues, but when stock cooler was running at any semi intensive calculation at >80°C, that's certainly not good. Especially because it dumps all that heat at once onto the system, making other components around it to crap out faster.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Not issues, but when stock cooler was running at any semi intensive calculation at >80°C, that's certainly not good. Especially because it dumps all that heat at once onto the system, making other components around it to crap out faster.


You're missing the mark here. Business-class systems don't care about these things you do as a guy that OCs. Stock CPUs can hit throttle point under stock cooling 100% of the time, and last forever. That's why they throttle, so they are not damaged. running a system with stock cooling is how they were designed to run, contrary to your beliefs.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 19, 2015)

Also, lga1366 were very hot processors, that is why the stock cooler wasn't really sufficient. LGA1151 could use peanut butter and Intel HSF and be fine


----------



## silentbogo (Oct 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Not issues, but when stock cooler was running at any semi intensive calculation at >80°C, that's certainly not good. Especially because it dumps all that heat at once onto the system, making other components around it to crap out faster.



i7-920 is a whole another story. It is an older CPU with 130W TDP, which is why a stock cooler couldn't handle it effectively. I was a fortunate owner of one and I had to spend good $70 on a Noctua HSF to keep it cool at 4GHz.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 19, 2015)

I am curious why you would even bother with a K series chip. They will not be overclocked so it is just a waste of money. If you are going to do something silly like that may as well go all the way and grab a pair of xeon E5's per workstation and make a true workstation.

Honestly for the work they are doing you could go with an FM2+ chip, mini-ITX and reduce the form factor while maintaining good performance.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 19, 2015)

He's actually going for the non-K i7 6700, lga1151 has mini-ITX motherboards so that's an option for him if he would like, though his biggest challenge in a mini-ITX system would be the GPU. Benefit of i7-6700 is that the performance is pretty good, and Intel's thermal efficiency is better than AMD's if that matters to him


----------



## cdawall (Oct 19, 2015)

n-ster said:


> He's actually going for the non-K i7 6700, lga1151 has mini-ITX motherboards so that's an option for him if he would like, though his biggest challenge in a mini-ITX system would be the GPU. Benefit of i7-6700 is that the performance is pretty good, and Intel's thermal efficiency is better than AMD's if that matters to him



I would wager that the combo of a basic video card+CPU would be close in TDP AMD vs Intel/GPU. That is why I suggested FM2+ for mini ITX.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 19, 2015)

If you don't want to OC, normal 6700 makes the most sense. It's already clocked so high you can't really squeeze much more from it anyway.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Z170, because the platform is cheaper and processors as well. For X99, motherboards start at around 350€ lol.


Maybe in your neck of the woods... 6700K and 5820K cost about the same here. With X99 the boards are a bit more expensive, but not by much. The big difference will come in the quad channel DDR4 versus dual on Z170. You can get a brand spanking new X99 board for $170 on newegg. 

But Dave nailed it for this thread already.


----------



## peche (Oct 19, 2015)

i missed all the discussion ...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 19, 2015)

But you made up for it with a useless post letting us know... so you are all set!


----------



## n-ster (Oct 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> If you don't want to OC, normal 6700 makes the most sense. It's already clocked so high you can't really squeeze much more from it anyway.



Not that it matters, but just FYI, i7 6700 is 3.4 base 4 Turbo, 6700k is 4 base 4.2 Turbo. Big difference in base clock is the reason for the 65W vs 91W TDP


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 19, 2015)

Then I have to say "oh cock". Yeah, I assumed 6700's are the same, just the K is unlocked. In this case, that kinda sucks. If 6700 was clocked the same, it would make quite some sense. Though 4GHz Turbo ain't all that bad. It's still quite respectable clock. Just tell me, at least it has HT right? XD


----------



## n-ster (Oct 19, 2015)

Yers there is HT lol. I still think i7 6700 makes sense, running at a lower clock speed (hence lower power/heat) when not needed isn't such a bad thing. It also comes with an HSF so cost saving there as well. Not sure how effective Turbo boost is on that i7 6700 on 3/4 cores, so perhaps the extra costs associated with the 6700K may not be not bad for the performance gain


----------

