Trying to decide between two builds: X99 or Z97 based?

[chris2365]

Approximate Purchase Date: Probably this month

Budget Range: No particular budget in mind. I'm in Canada, so prices are higher than the US and selection in our computer stores is limited, so that means I've had to shop online for most of the parts, which raises the price due to shipping. My initial target budget was of about 1500$, but like I'll elaborate later, I don't mind going a few hundred higher if it means getting something future-proofed.

System Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming, Surfing the internet, Occasional experimentation with Adobe photoshop/premiere.

Are you buying a monitor: No, will re-use the same monitor. 1080p Asus VE247H

Parts to Upgrade: CPU, GPU, RAM, Motherboard, CPU Cooler, PSU, Case (Already have an SSD and an HDD for storage)

Do you need to buy OS: Yes, leaning towards Windows 7 since I heard they will offer an attractive price to upgrade to Windows 10 for Windows 7 users.

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: newegg.ca. They seem to have the best selection and would prefer to get everything from one place rather than deal with multiple retailers

Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Parts Preferences: Intel CPU, Gigabyte motherboards. Even then, I'm open to parts from any brand. What matters is quality and bang for the buck.

Overclocking: Yes

SLI or Crossfire: Maybe

Your Monitor Resolution: 1080p

Additional Comments: Gaming wise, I want to be future-proofed for a very long time.

Why Are You Upgrading: My current PC has the following specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.8 GHz
NVIDIA GTX 275
4GB RAM
Gigabyte EP45-UD3L motherboard

As you can tell, it is very outdated, especially for games. My dad built me this PC back in mid 2009, and it's served me faithfully for almost 6 years. However, now I also realized that there are games I want to play that my PC can no longer run at all (Dragon Age Inquisition, for example).

So, that means it's time for a new build, and one that can max out current games and last for a very long time It's my first build, so any advice you guys can give is greatly appreciated.

I've made 2 potential builds off of PCPartPicker: one based off of Z97 and another based off of X99.

Z97 Build: http:// (1650$)

X99 Build: http:// (1800$)

There is about a 150$ price difference between the two builds. I know this difference is slightly skewed by the fact I went with 16 GB over 8 GB and an i7-4790k over an i5-4690k (8 GB and an i5-4690k would perform just as good for games, but even that added price difference, say 300$, is still too minor to ignore my next point), but I made these two builds with a certain factor in mind: future-proofing.

Like I said earlier, my current PC lasted me a long time. I'd like my new PC to last just as long, and I don't mind paying a certain price difference if it get's me that extra level of future-proofing. I know consoles have 8 cores, with 6 cores used for gaming. So, I figured that by getting an i7-5820k, my PC would be good for the entire generation, and I can just upgrade the GPU every 2 years along with a RAM upgrade to 16 GB once DDR4 prices drop.

The comparison I like to use is actually a dilemma that my current PC went through in its construction. Back then (2009), there were quad core CPUs, but they were more expensive and games were barely starting to require duo cores. Therefore, from a bang for the buck point of view, it made more sense to go with a higher clocked duo core over a lower clocked and more expensive quad core.

The thing is, with hindsight of how tech evolved, I realized that if my current PC had been built with a Core 2 Quad, and I had OC on it, my PC would still be viable today assuming I also upgraded my GPU. That way, there would have been no need to build a whole new rig until games require more than 4 cores, which is still at least a couple of years away.

Which leads me to a similar dilemma today with my new PC. I'm very inclined to go for the X99 chipset build and add some extra life to my rig, like a Core 2 Quad would have had it been used in my current PC. Unless there is some reason that would lead to the i7-5820k being outdated by the time 6 core CPUs are required, what reason do I have to go Z97 over X99 when you consider what an 150$ price difference gets you extra in terms of capability and longevity.

I know future-proofing is a tricky slope, but at that price difference, I'd rather spend a bit more and sleep better at night

Also, any opinions for parts for either of the builds is appreciated. X99 mobo reviews in particular seem to have a tough time coming to a strong conscensus (a good example could be Anandtech and Tom's hardware recommending entirely different motherboards)

Thanks

 

[Alscara]

I would think the x99 build would serve you a bit better. I just built a z97 system and it's great, but I wish I could've afforded a good x99 system. Unfortunately I was too set on the highest end parts so I was looking at like $800 more for x99. One thing in your build I would change though is getting the 5930k. The 5820k has 28 lanes and the 5930k has 40. If you want to be able to add a second card in SLI down the road, you might want to have both cards running at x16 instead of one being limited to x8. Just a thought. Another reason why I couldn't afford x99 It is indeed difficult to recommend a good board, but I personally have never gone wrong with Asus so I think you should be okay on that. If you aren't partial to Gigabyte for the GPU, the Evga FTW 970 has a bit of a higher clock speed for an extra 10 bucks on newegg.ca. Overall I think both builds look pretty good. I vote for the x99. I've had my z97 for a week and I already feel like I've limited myself.

 

[chris2365]

I would think the x99 build would serve you a bit better. I just built a z97 system and it's great, but I wish I could've afforded a good x99 system. Unfortunately I was too set on the highest end parts so I was looking at like $800 more for x99. One thing in your build I would change though is getting the 5930k. The 5820k has 28 lanes and the 5930k has 40. If you want to be able to add a second card in SLI down the road, you might want to have both cards running at x16 instead of one being limited to x8. Just a thought. Another reason why I couldn't afford x99 It is indeed difficult to recommend a good board, but I personally have never gone wrong with Asus so I think you should be okay on that. If you aren't partial to Gigabyte for the GPU, the Evga FTW 970 has a bit of a higher clock speed for an extra 10 bucks on newegg.ca. Overall I think both builds look pretty good. I vote for the x99. I've had my z97 for a week and I already feel like I've limited myself.

Thanks for the response. Despite the high cost for PC parts here in Canada overall (including shipping), my logic is that if I'm already spending 1500$ + for a Z97 build, what's an extra 150-200$ to get an extra level of future-proofing?

As for the i7-5930k, the recommendation makes sense, but once you get into the valley of ''maybes'', things get tricky. It's an extra 200$, but considering the fact that SLI is only a possibility for me at this point for future upgrades, how much would I gain by having two x16 lanes over a x16 lane and a x8 lane? And from what I've read, it's often better to have one single card then cards running in dual config, since you can run into driver/compatibility issues, and in some games the gain in performance isn't as high as one would expect, unless things have changed for the multi-card configurations in the past couple of years?

And for the GPU, I thought the Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 970 had the best thermals and cooling in it's class, and one of the best clock speeds, so it might be easier to OC than the EVGA. I'm not partial to any brand when it comes to these things though, and I just want the best value for the GPU as possible. But thanks for pointing that card.

 

[Alscara]

I would think the x99 build would serve you a bit better. I just built a z97 system and it's great, but I wish I could've afforded a good x99 system. Unfortunately I was too set on the highest end parts so I was looking at like $800 more for x99. One thing in your build I would change though is getting the 5930k. The 5820k has 28 lanes and the 5930k has 40. If you want to be able to add a second card in SLI down the road, you might want to have both cards running at x16 instead of one being limited to x8. Just a thought. Another reason why I couldn't afford x99 It is indeed difficult to recommend a good board, but I personally have never gone wrong with Asus so I think you should be okay on that. If you aren't partial to Gigabyte for the GPU, the Evga FTW 970 has a bit of a higher clock speed for an extra 10 bucks on newegg.ca. Overall I think both builds look pretty good. I vote for the x99. I've had my z97 for a week and I already feel like I've limited myself.

Thanks for the response. Despite the high cost for PC parts here in Canada overall (including shipping), my logic is that if I'm already spending 1500$ + for a Z97 build, what's an extra 150-200$ to get an extra level of future-proofing?

As for the i7-5930k, the recommendation makes sense, but once you get into the valley of ''maybes'', things get tricky. It's an extra 200$, but considering the fact that SLI is only a possibility for me at this point for future upgrades, how much would I gain by having two x16 lanes over a x16 lane and a x8 lane? And from what I've read, it's often better to have one single card then cards running in dual config, since you can run into driver/compatibility issues, and in some games the gain in performance isn't as high as one would expect, unless things have changed for the multi-card configurations in the past couple of years?

And for the GPU, I thought the Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 970 had the best thermals and cooling in it's class, and one of the best clock speeds, so it might be easier to OC than the EVGA. I'm not partial to any brand when it comes to these things though, and I just want the best value for the GPU as possible. But thanks for pointing that card.

Yeah, if you're more set on probably using just one card, then the extra cash for the cpu wouldn't make much sense. I feel you on the prices, as I'm in Canada as well. The only other recommendation I could make, especially if you're thinking a single GPU, is maybe going for the 980 instead of the 970. I hear it's quite the performance jump between the two, but of course I'm stuck running a 750ti till I can afford better, so I can't speak from experience. It's a little more money, perhaps upwards of $200 or more on top of the 970, but if the performance is that much better, it will last longer against the new games that will come in the future. Just a thought. I'd personally rather save up for the 980 despite the already-great performance of the 970.

 

[g-unit1111]

It's pretty easy to decide actually - X99 offers no benefit for gaming and most games actually downgrade in performance using the X99 platform as opposed to Z97.

Gaming and every day tasks- Z97. Rendering and photo / video editing - X99.

 

[Alscara]

It's pretty easy to decide actually - X99 offers no benefit for gaming and most games actually downgrade in performance using the X99 platform as opposed to Z97.

Gaming and every day tasks- Z97. Rendering and photo / video editing - X99.

Assuming that x99's features, like the standard 6 core cpu and ddr4 ram, will eventually benefit gaming, I don't see any real harm in paying a slight premium on something that will likely be useful later. In terms of loss of performance on x99, I can't comment on that as I haven't tested it myself.

 

[chris2365]

It's pretty easy to decide actually - X99 offers no benefit for gaming and most games actually downgrade in performance using the X99 platform as opposed to Z97.

Gaming and every day tasks- Z97. Rendering and photo / video editing - X99.

Concerning the Z97 and X99, I know what their ideal roles are, exactly like you described them. However, I'm just curious as to why an X99 platform is inferior performance-wise than a Z97 platform. Can you point me towards benchmarks, because I have definitely not seen any downgrade for the X99 platform over a Z97 in my research, assuming the same clock on an i5/i7 haswell and a i7 haswell-e.

Because like Alscara said above, if I pay a slight price premium now, but games eventually start taking advantage of the extra cores/threads, then it is worth it, since it extends the longevity of my rig.

Like I pointed out in my example in my initial post concerning duo and quad cores, the last generation of consoles started by just barely starting to adopt duo cores, but since about 1-2 years ago, more and more games have had a quad core as a minimum requirement. If I had made my current PC with a quad core instead of a duo core back in 2009, then my PC would still be viable. But back then, the best recommendation was for a high clocked duo core, since it offered the best value and no games used quad cores.

What's to say a similar situation won't occur again? Quad cores might be good for a solid 2-3 years, but since consoles use 6 cores for gaming, devs might start using the extra cores as the generation wears on. And once they do, I would be ready for it, thanks to a small price premium (150$) I had paid years earlier, and my CPU/mobo would last about an extra year or two, just like those who got quad cores back in 2009 are now. All I would need are GPU upgrades.

 

[Alscara]

In terms of a benchmark from cpuboss, the 5820k is at 7.6/10 and the 4790k at 7.7/10. Keep in mind the 5820k is .7 GHz lower, so if you clocked it up a bit, I don't see why it couldn't easily perform the same as, or better than, the 4790k.

Also:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-5820K+%40+3.30GHz&id=2340

The number of samples compared to the 4790k is much lower but it's still fairly new so that's to be expected

This is a good reference for several of the high-end processors in different applications and uses:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e-cpu,3918-5.html

 

[Bossyfins]

Like others have said, I would go with the Z97 Build for a few reasons.
1. X99, is meant for those who do video editing, photo editing, and productivity in general. The number of cores is becoming less important in my opinion, for games. Games will benefit most from your GPU and maybe your ram. Buts thats probably it.

Since you want Future Proofing, the Z97 Chipset will last some time.
Think of X99 as Video, photo editing, and 3D modeling.

Think of Z97 as a gaming chipset, that has everything you need for maybe 3-4 years.


If i were you, i would save that money, go with Z97, and get maybe a better GPU.

Thats my word on it

 

[g-unit1111]

Like others have said, I would go with the Z97 Build for a few reasons.
1. X99, is meant for those who do video editing, photo editing, and productivity in general. The number of cores is becoming less important in my opinion, for games. Games will benefit most from your GPU and maybe your ram. Buts thats probably it.

Since you want Future Proofing, the Z97 Chipset will last some time.
Think of X99 as Video, photo editing, and 3D modeling.

But there's simply no such thing as future proofing, none. Paying more money for a part does not guarantee it will last longer than one that does the same functions and costs less.

Concerning the Z97 and X99, I know what their ideal roles are, exactly like you described them. However, I'm just curious as to why an X99 platform is inferior performance-wise than a Z97 platform. Can you point me towards benchmarks, because I have definitely not seen any downgrade for the X99 platform over a Z97 in my research, assuming the same clock on an i5/i7 haswell and a i7 haswell-e.

This article explains it better than I can: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

Pretty much all the CPUs in this benchmarks all come neck and neck with each other, none really offers advantages over the other and that includes the i7-5960X.

Because like Alscara said above, if I pay a slight price premium now, but games eventually start taking advantage of the extra cores/threads, then it is worth it, since it extends the longevity of my rig.

Again there's no guarantee, and there's no guarantee that paying extra money for one part over the other will ensure system longevity.

What's to say a similar situation won't occur again? Quad cores might be good for a solid 2-3 years, but since consoles use 6 cores for gaming, devs might start using the extra cores as the generation wears on. And once they do, I would be ready for it, thanks to a small price premium (150$) I had paid years earlier, and my CPU/mobo would last about an extra year or two, just like those who got quad cores back in 2009 are now. All I would need are GPU upgrades.

People have been using quad cores since the days of Core 2 Quad and X58, and they're not going away any time soon. Each generation of CPUs really only improves the number of transistors used and the efficiency of how each core is used by the CPU. Games won't take advantage of hex cores for like 10 years, and even now graphics intensive games like Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed only use two cores at the most. Software is always going to be several generations behind the hardware and that's been proven since the early 486 days.

 

[Bossyfins]

Like others have said, I would go with the Z97 Build for a few reasons.
1. X99, is meant for those who do video editing, photo editing, and productivity in general. The number of cores is becoming less important in my opinion, for games. Games will benefit most from your GPU and maybe your ram. Buts thats probably it.

Since you want Future Proofing, the Z97 Chipset will last some time.
Think of X99 as Video, photo editing, and 3D modeling.

But there's simply no such thing as future proofing, none. Paying more money for a part does not guarantee it will last longer than one that does the same functions and costs less.

Concerning the Z97 and X99, I know what their ideal roles are, exactly like you described them. However, I'm just curious as to why an X99 platform is inferior performance-wise than a Z97 platform. Can you point me towards benchmarks, because I have definitely not seen any downgrade for the X99 platform over a Z97 in my research, assuming the same clock on an i5/i7 haswell and a i7 haswell-e.

This article explains it better than I can: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

Pretty much all the CPUs in this benchmarks all come neck and neck with each other, none really offers advantages over the other and that includes the i7-5960X.

Because like Alscara said above, if I pay a slight price premium now, but games eventually start taking advantage of the extra cores/threads, then it is worth it, since it extends the longevity of my rig.

Again there's no guarantee, and there's no guarantee that paying extra money for one part over the other will ensure system longevity.

What's to say a similar situation won't occur again? Quad cores might be good for a solid 2-3 years, but since consoles use 6 cores for gaming, devs might start using the extra cores as the generation wears on. And once they do, I would be ready for it, thanks to a small price premium (150$) I had paid years earlier, and my CPU/mobo would last about an extra year or two, just like those who got quad cores back in 2009 are now. All I would need are GPU upgrades.

People have been using quad cores since the days of Core 2 Quad and X58, and they're not going away any time soon. Each generation of CPUs really only improves the number of transistors used and the efficiency of how each core is used by the CPU. Games won't take advantage of hex cores for like 10 years, and even now graphics intensive games like Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed only use two cores at the most. Software is always going to be several generations behind the hardware and that's been proven since the early 486 days.

That's true that you cant actually FUTURE Proof a PC, but getting the most recent hardware will give you a peace of mind knowing that you still have time to save up and upgrade.

 

[g-unit1111]

That's true that you cant actually FUTURE Proof a PC, but getting the most recent hardware will give you a peace of mind knowing that you still have time to save up and upgrade.

I personally like the term "future resistant". Future proofing may be a moot point, but you can make your PC into something that will last for years with minimal upgrades. Really all you have to do is make sure that you buy a motherboard and case that support current technologies and use standard form factors, and that's really all you need to make that work.

 

[Bossyfins]

That is how I think of 'Future Proofing'. Get reliable parts and has current or new technologies.

 

[Guest]

[/quotemsg]

Yeah, if you're more set on probably using just one card, then the extra cash for the cpu wouldn't make much sense. I feel you on the prices, as I'm in Canada as well. The only other recommendation I could make, especially if you're thinking a single GPU, is maybe going for the 980 instead of the 970. I hear it's quite the performance jump between the two, but of course I'm stuck running a 750ti till I can afford better, so I can't speak from experience. It's a little more money, perhaps upwards of $200 or more on top of the 970, but if the performance is that much better, it will last longer against the new games that will come in the future. Just a thought. I'd personally rather save up for the 980 despite the already-great performance of the 970.[/quotemsg]



I agree, if chris2365 is really set on just one GPU, I would go for the GTX 980 over the GTX 970. But, if he decides to do SLI in the future, then pairing 2 GTX 970s together is only slightly more expensive than a single GTX 980 and will out perform it easily in games. Of course, he would need to make certain his build has a power supply that could handle the future extra video card.

Future proofing, as chris2365 suggested he was interested in, means different things to different people. Chris2365 might want just one GTX 980 running on an X99 board with the i7-5820K, if that is as far as he wishes to go in future proofing. He could still do SLI down the line, but with 2 x8 lanes from his i7-5820K instead of 2 x16 from an i7-5930K. The difference in games may not be that impressive or even noticeable, as I've read the extra bandwidth might not add anything today, but in the future? Who knows... things always have a way of changing.

For me, the costs are one time. The use is along time. That means I don't mind paying now for what I plan and want to use for a very long time. I plan on going X99 with an i7-5930K with just one GTX 980 to start, then later I will add the other when I have the cash to do so.

 

[Alexdiaz]

I'd say the X99 build.

 

[r3v3ng3]

Hi Chris, I hope I can shed some light on your situation. I'll start by answering the question you are asking. I would go with the Z97 build. I'll list my points as to why and hopefully they'll help;

- Your previous rig lasted you 4-5 years. Your intentions is to "future-proof" this build. While this idea is somewhat impossible, I definitely understand what you are asking. Although lets look at it from a different perspective. You want a rig that would presumably last the same amount of time as your previous rig. Which ever build you do end up going with, either way it will be a considered scrap metal (in terms of computer hardware) by the time 5 years comes along. Not only will the hardware be outdated, but the degradation of the components will be evident with performance drops.

- You pay a higher premium, for a more powerful pc (X99), which will never be utilised fully according to your uses.

- We will probably start seeing games utilising multiple cores, most likely midway through your new rigs lifetime. Even though, 4 cores will be more than enough. Also we have to question just how well these games will be optimised at first. Most likely proper utilisation of multiple cores won't be completely realised till the end of your PC's lifetime.

- DDR4 is great, but not that much greater than DDR3. That premium is not worth justifying cutting down from 16gb to 8gb.

- Finally price. Like you said, bang for buck. Sure it's only $150 more for the X99 build, but that $150 has 0 bang for you. Spend that $150 on an SSD, now that'll add a lot of bang.

With that said I tweaked your Z97 build to three versions, prices include shipping:

(1) http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/NQxJGX - $1580, saved some money on the motherboard. Very good model, overclocks well, also changed the case to the model below, only real difference is front mesh isn't covered and no lighting on the case. Changed ram to 2133 kit for overclocking and also the PSU to a higher quality with more watts for overclocking/sli headroom.

(2) http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/zfCXWZ - $1720, same as build 1 just added a 250gb SSD.

(3) http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/RrLRyc - $1870, same as build 1, although changed out the 970 for a 980.

Hope this has helped.

 

[wss_003]

Im at the same cross road and I think Ive decided to wait it out for the next gen intel chips, and then make my decision but if i were going to build today I would go z97 for the same reasons everyone else is telling you but I would get a 980 over a 970 before I went with an x99

 

[Bossyfins]

Yea, X99 gives no performance in games.

Z97, and shoot for 970/980.

 

[Duvi]

Well I just finished building my pc and went with x99. I did because if you want to stream and do video editing, I believe the x99 will run better for that. I'm not a pro like most that have posted, but did some research and I like running multitasking and feel the x99 will do that better. Below is my build:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5930K 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($499.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Nepton 240M 76.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($103.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI X99S SLI Plus ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($186.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB (4 x 4GB) DDR4-2800 Memory ($249.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($219.89 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.99 @ Micro Center)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 290X 4GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way CrossFire) ($380.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 290X 4GB DirectCU II Video Card (2-Way CrossFire) ($380.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Cooler Master Storm Stryker (White) ATX Full Tower Case ($149.98 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA 1000G2 1000W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($159.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSC0B DVD/CD Writer ($16.15 @ Directron)
Monitor: BenQ RL2460HT 60Hz 24.0" Monitor ($218.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $2637.92
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-01 15:40 EST-0500

I only got one GPU because that is all they had, but will be putting that card in shortly.

 

[Bossyfins]

Nice PC! Hope you enjoy it

 

[Duvi]

Haven't really used it yet. I want the full experience. So getting a new computer desk to set up my 3rd monitor.

 

[Bossyfins]

Isn't that what we all want

 

[tiny voices]

Haven't really used it yet. I want the full experience. So getting a new computer desk to set up my 3rd monitor.

Normal multitasking will show ZERO performance difference on a Z97 CPU vs, your x99 chip. What video editing software do you plan to use? Also, the z97 build will stream the same as this x99 build will.

 

[tiny voices]

OP, I 10000% recommend a Z97 build for sure. For gaming, x99 is not only a waste of money, it offers NOTHING over z97 and it is VERY unlikely it will last any longer/perform any better in the future than a z97 rig.

 

[Duvi]

Haven't really used it yet. I want the full experience. So getting a new computer desk to set up my 3rd monitor.

Normal multitasking will show ZERO performance difference on a Z97 CPU vs, your x99 chip. What video editing software do you plan to use? Also, the z97 build will stream the same as this x99 build will.

I want to try all of them. I have premiere and sony vegas.

I would like to be able to stream and record at the same time... while possibly playing a game.