Desproyer:
Overclocking is not meant to be price/performance competitive.
One of the scenarios I proposed was misunderstood, when I compared the i7 6700 vs the i7 6700k.
I meant this situation:
I have a powerful rig. I want to do both gaming, drawing and video editing. Lets say that for my PC I paid around 1000 without CPU+MOBO.
Now, I just have to choose the platform. I will clearly need an i7.
Should I go with the 6700 or the 6700k?
Given the price difference between the 2, when compared to the whole system price, the 6700k is probably worse in performance/price, but it is cleary better in pure performance.
And, since I have the money, I will go with the k version.
Now, the "comparison" you provided was with both K versions. There wasn't any 6700, it was the 6700k.
Also, H170 doesn't let you SLI.
I never said anything about "looking good" or "being cool", you're just twisting my words there. I said that, as most overclockers, I enjoy the process of overclocking. The same way you enjoy gaming and are willing to pay $40 for a good game, I enjoy overclocking and I am willing to pay the cost associated with it.
And also, if you know how to choose your components, getting an i5-6600k+Z170 is cheaper than getting an i7-6700+H170, while being better in many games.
You're looking at it the wrong way.
It makes no sense to compare the value, the performance/price. That's just wrong.
If you care about value, then just get the non OC version, everybody would agree that OCing is not a value oriented decision.
It is performance oriented, and tinkerer oriented. It IS more expensive, nobody would argue that.
Oh, and about 4k: It makes even LESS sense to overclock the cpu. Any high i5 is more than enough to power a 4k rig, as the bottleneck is ALWAYS the gpu. Overclock your i7 6700k, and compare it to an i5-3570, and you will most likely get the exact same framerate, because you are limited by your gpu.