5820k worth it over 2500k?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

antunica

Reputable
May 19, 2014
19
0
4,510
Basically a friend of mine wants to build a PC. I was considering sling her the majority of my system for 350$ and the. Upgrading to a 5820k based system all in for the 5820k, mobo, and ddr4 ram I'm looking at a cost of about 700$ after the $350 I make from my current rig is taken in to account. Ive currently been getting in to video editing so the 5820k would REALLy help on that front. I also feel like in games, I'm have a more consistent experience with minimum fps being higher. In terms of "why not go 6700k", they're still not available in NA and the best guess by retailers is currently mid september. Additionally, I feel like when DX12 becomes prominent, the 5820k will be vastly superior due to multithreaded support in DX12.

All prices are in CAD by the way.
 
Solution
JackNaylorPE
In most gaming situations, Z97 4790k w/ twin 980 Tis will edge X99 5820k w/ twin 980 Ti in gaming ..... and X99 / DDR4 brings nothing to the table except in specialized areas mentioned above like Photowork, Rendering. Of course CAD, rendering, media creation don't use the 2nd GFX card so no help there.

F1 2013 SLI, Average FPS - 5820k by 1.5 fps
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 11.7
Tomb Raider SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 0.9
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Average FPS - 5820k by 2.0
Battlefield 4 SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 2.6

F1 2013 SLI, Minimum FPS - - 5820k by 2.4
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 12.4 (28.2 vs 15.9)
Tomb Raider SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 2.0
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 0.9...
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,295
4,145
174,240
If you can wait, the 6700K is the best option.
If you can't, the i7-4790K is almost as good.
It will be much superior to your 2500K in both gaming and editing.
The 4790K with a superior clock rate will be better for games.
It will be close to the 5820K in editing.
It is more annoying to have delays in game responses than to add a minute to a editing run.

I do not see DX 12 as a issue. First of all, few games use it now. Next, it multithreads a relatively minor part of the cpu cost of a game, namely the path through the graphics driver code. It is of value mainly to processors with many slow cores like the FX6 and FX8 chips.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

antunica

Reputable
May 19, 2014
19
0
4,510


My issue with the 6700k is that the 5820k is priced almost identical to it. For around an extra $100 I'd be getting 2 more cores and 4 more threads in total. 5820k kinda seems like a nobrainer over the 6700k since skylake only brought about a 5% improvement from haswell
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960
I'm not seeing it .... I don't see the 5820k unless you are doing 3 GFX cards, except with specialized apps. You can compare the 2500k and 5820k here:

Heavy Photo Work, 3D Rendering benefits from the 5820k.... media creation including video editing not so much.

As you can see here, the Z97 Devils canyon 4970k outperforms the 5820k media creation
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1260?vs=1320

The MC suite includes

Adobe® Photoshop® CS6
Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS6
Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS4 ( for 32 bit)
Trimble SketchUp Pro2013

The 2500k wasn't tested with as many benchies but you can see them head to head here

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1320

We've actually not found a reason as yet to use the 5820k.... If it makes sense to go X99, it makes sense to go all the way and get the full 40 lanes w/ the 5830k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

antunica

Reputable
May 19, 2014
19
0
4,510


I'm currently running a 980ti with plans to add in a second soon. Not really interested in the z97 platform as if I'm upgrading, I'd like to keep it for 5+ years so I'd like a platform with DDR4.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

antunica

Reputable
May 19, 2014
19
0
4,510


4780k and 5820k have the same single core performance (both haswell). The reason you're seeing it come out behind is due to the clock difference. 4.0ghz on the 4790k and 3.3ghz on the 5820k. Obviously I'd be overclocking the 5820k to just over 4ghz so 5820k will pull slightly ahead here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,295
4,145
174,240
How high you can oc any chip is dependent on the bin quality of the chip.
The 4790K has a stock boost of 4.4.
Because it is a better binned chip to begin with, it likely can go higher.

There is always a power budget with any processor. With 6 cores, that budget is not able to allow all 6 cores to perform at as high a level as 4 cores.

One big plus for waiting for a Z170 build is the improved bandwidth available. There are superspeed ssd devices coming, likely in 2016 that I think only a Z170 based motherboard will be able to handle.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

gotovato

Reputable
Nov 15, 2014
438
0
4,860
OP, you are right about the single threaded performance. It does come down to the core clock. I moved to x99 recently for a few reasons, I got a stupid price on my 5930k and I managed to sell my z97 setup for enough to cover ddr4 and an x99 board. I got my 5930k for less then most pay for an i5 4690k canadian dollars of course so for me it was a no brainer. I can speak about the differences a tad. Handbreak converting, this CPU literally eats that type of work. Adobe work, piece of cake. Gaming performance did not change at all and I like to have many programs running around in the background. If you can afford x99, and a good cooler to oc that 5820k and cost is similar between x99 and skylake I see NO reason not to jump on x99. Keep in mind you probably won't beable to get over 4.4ghz as an oc unless you get lucky but at that speed you'll be able to game just fine. And in the event a game drops that uses more then 4 cores you'll be golden. I ONLY suggest x99 if the cost of it is similar to the cost of z170 or z97 for a gaming build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PCDesignerR

PCDesignerR

Honorable
BANNED
Jul 30, 2014
401
4
10,795
Take it from me, running an X99 with a Titan X Superclocked and 32 GB of DDR4 3000Mhz and a 5960X Haswell-E from Windows 8.1 Pro off of a HyperX M.2 SSD there is basically nothing faster you can get than this combination that is available yet. That combined with a smoking hot redheaded girlfriend... forget about it...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JackNaylorPE

JackNaylorPE

Titan
BANNED
Oct 30, 2004
32,255
14
99,960
In most gaming situations, Z97 4790k w/ twin 980 Tis will edge X99 5820k w/ twin 980 Ti in gaming ..... and X99 / DDR4 brings nothing to the table except in specialized areas mentioned above like Photowork, Rendering. Of course CAD, rendering, media creation don't use the 2nd GFX card so no help there.

F1 2013 SLI, Average FPS - 5820k by 1.5 fps
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 11.7
Tomb Raider SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 0.9
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Average FPS - 5820k by 2.0
Battlefield 4 SLI, Average FPS - 4790k by 2.6

F1 2013 SLI, Minimum FPS - - 5820k by 2.4
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 12.4 (28.2 vs 15.9)
Tomb Raider SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 2.0
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 0.9
Battlefield 4 SLI, Minimum FPS - 4790k by 3.6

Not a big swing either way (well minimum fps is a concern) but ya do pay more for getting less. So without an app that really needs the extra cores (Handbrake, PhotoSca, 3D Rendering), I can't really make acase for the X99 build which is now getting a bit long in the tooth oif you are looking for 5 years.

Instead, seeing as the new 6600k and 6700k (Z170 / 1151) uses DDR4 RAM and overclocks like crazy, (Up to 350 BCLK / Up to 50 CPU Mult) that's where I'd be going with a 5 year target....just wait a bit while to allow the bugs to wash out.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom