Trying to see if the added cost of X99 is justifiable for me. My workload is video rendering and gaming, and potentially streaming in the near future. Right now I'm going back and forth between a 6700k and a 6800k.
I've noticed most of the rendering I do in After Effects doesn't really use GPU acceleration even though I have OpenCL enable for dual 290x. It's seemingly all CPU bound unless you're rendering very specific things.
Will I see more benefit from going with a 6800k 6 core or a newer 6700k 4 core and getting a GTX1080 for CUDA acceleration? It seems like CUDA has better support and is generally faster than OpenCL but I am not sure if my current workload doesn't utilize OpenCL it may not utilize CUDA either.
I'm somewhat leaning on the 6800k right now since it seems most rendering and transcoding jobs seem CPU bound.
This strongly depends on the effects and stuff you use. The videos I render use purely CPU power, because I don't add any effects and what not...
I would say yes. The 2 extra cores will help hugely with the rendering, recording, streaming and what not... Also, there are options to lower the price difference. X99 is not that much more expensive than Z170 anyway. There are decent boards under 200$...
Yeah 5820k could work as well. Its $50 cheaper on newegg right now, and it looks like the 6800k only offers a marginal increase in performance. Although the extra couple percent might be worth 50 bucks in the long run.
If you're doing lots of CPU-bound rendering and you don't need the features specific to X99, you can get a dual-socket 2011 (non-v3) motherboard, throw a couple of E5-2670s on there and you'll have a 16-core, 32-thread rendering monster. The motherboard will be between $250 and $500, but the CPUs are going for $65 apiece. if what you're using can take advantage of however many cores/threads, this kind of machine will absolutely crush everything that isn't the 10-core i7 (but only when the i7 is clocked to over 4GHz), and an entire machine along these lines would cost half of just the 6950X. Not to mention you still get 40 PCIe lanes per CPU, and they're all Gen3.
It's being sold on eBay for about £370, which is roughly a quarter of its "recommended price. "
Still imo it is a better idea to go with a dual-socket Sandy Bridge 8-core machine, which is insanely inexpensive nowadays because server companies are getting rid of their old SB Xeons as fast as they possibly can to make room for the new stuff, so the CPUs and motherboards are all on insane-balls fire sale. That's what happens when Intel officially "discontinues" a product line.
The two links that I posted are both engineering samples, I'm not saying that the OP should purchase one of them as (obviously) I have no way of testing if they are legit. Bryan from TYC ordered one of the 10 cores so i guess we will see if they are legit, if so: my point stands, if not: then broadwell-e really is completely pointless.
That ebay listing is for an intel confidential chip, which carries no warranty and should not be sold in the first place. Intel will laugh at you if something goes wrong and they will ask you where you bought it and what not, that specific chip is meant for a review sample only! Furthermore that chip sells for WELL over 1000 dollars retail with full warranty, don't touch that chip with a 10 ft pole.
Yeah I have toyed with the idea of finding a good xeon. Probably would have to get one of the higher clocked ones though if I am going to use the machine for gaming as well? Most of the super cheap ones seem to be either really old or like 2ghz..
Even though it might only be on one core (idk how it works) the 2670 will turbo to 3.3GHz, which depending on how many cores it can do that at should be enough for games.
It really depends on what you're really going for on this machine, because for just ordinary 1080/1440p gaming, if you have a decent card, it should be absolutely fine. Bear in mind that this would ideally be a workstation first and a gaming machine second. Shouldn't be too much of a problem. I've run quite a lot of games on a 2.4GHz Q6600 and a 7770. My secondary machine has a Core 2 Xeon in it running at 3GHz and it chomps through titles at 1080p nicely.
But keep your expectations realistic. They're workstation/server processors, not high-frequency overclocking toys.
I'm hesitant on going backwards to a sandy bridge architecture... its getting pretty damn old at this point. Plus buying used CPU's is a bit of a gamble no?
Current System: i7-3770k 4.3ghz Dual 290xs 24GB 1886mhz DDR3 (would this ram even be supported by a Xeon?)
From what I've heard, the CPU overhead goes down as your resolution goes up, so the CPU-based performance won't take as large a hit as one might expect from going to slower SB parts. I can't really say anything to that since I've been running on a 4.4GHz 2600K for the past two years but from what I've experienced, Sandy Bridge parts are still incredibly good processors. Power hungry, perhaps, but still very fast.
whether the RAM works or not is dependent on motherboard.
if oyu need single threaded perf 6700k has your back, if you need multi threaded performance, get 2x E5-2670v3's and a dual socket motherboar (they're $200 on ebay)
i would say yes go with X99, either the 5820K or 6800K. Those cpu´s are simply better work Horses. And if you overclock them, they can get close to Skylake performance in gaming aswell.