x99 Build vs Skylake Build

Alright I've put together two sets of parts for my brand new build I'm not sure whether or not to go with X99 core i7 5820k
or the Skylake build with the 6700k. What are your guy's opinions or if you recommend I should make changes to my build. Much help appreciated

X99 Build: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Darksyne/saved/#view=4Zpkcf

Skylake Build: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Darksyne/saved/#view=snRxFT

Which platform do you guys prefer? I plan on mostly doing gaming a long with some video editing to make gameplay videos for youtube I know both are sufficient enough but I'm just wondering which is the best for the long run, which build would be the most future proof.

Note: I already have a keyboard, mouse, headset, and a 512gb ssd. I'm trying to make up my mind on which build to put together during the black friday/cyber monday weekend.

Two very nice builds i have to say realy.
You could save a couple of bucks with going with lower clocked memory like 2400mhz.
Higherclocked memory is a bit more expensive then 2133mhz or 2400mhz for that matter, and there wont be much benefits wenn going with those more expensive 2800mhz memory kits basicly.

According to which build you should get.
This higly depends on how manny gameplay video´s you like to make.
If you plan to do this on a daily base, then the 5820k which will be faster at rendering due its extra cores.

In terms of pure gaming performance, the 6700k out of the box will perform better,
however if you overclock the 5820k to similar clock speeds.
he diffrence will be realy small..

The only thing i would personaly change on both builds are the psu.
For the skylake build i would pick EVGA Supernova 650W GS should be more then enough.
For the 5820K i would personaly pick the EVGA Supernova 750W GS version, since the 5820K overclocked will be a bit more powerhungry, in combination with a 390 it will never hurt to have a littlebit of headroom.

True from what I've heard from Logan's videos even though most computers don't require more than 500W of power it's also not good to run your psu at near maximum output constantly.

And as for the RAM I was just looking for the best bang for the buck now one thing would I benefit more with a lower CAS timing or higher RAM speed? Just wondering because maybe I could save money by going with slower clocked and better timed RAM.

Most 2400mhz kits can be easily clocked to 2600mhz along with lower the CAS by 1 or 2 .

The performance gains are pretty minimal unless you are doing large batch Video stuff (editing/transcoding)

Me personally, i would go with X99 build for the simple reason of the extra cores. Now, as @MisteryAngel said, in pure gaming 6700K will be better. However. Notice the word PURE gaming. When you record, those extra cores will help. When you render, those extra cores will help. When you edit, those extra cores will help. So the only thing 6700K will be better in is pure gaming while not recording. And the difference is so negligible, that i would just spend the extra 75$...
That is what i would do if i face the same dilemma.

Yes, gaming + recording + video rendering.
Then the 5820k with an slight overclock will be better for that.

Ah yes I plan on recording all my gameplay footage would a 5820k handle that better than a 6700k?

It basically will spread the recording to all 6 cores and will have lesser impact on the game while recording.
For example, if 6700K gives you 100FPS pure gameplay, and 5820K gives you 95, in recording 5820K will give you 90FPS, while 6700K may give you 80... Depending on the software as well, but still. And imagine what happens when the FPS is around 60, and you start recording. I pull those numbers totally out of my a**, but...
If i am not mistaken, you can set the recording software to use only the 2 cores not used by the game, so there will be no performance impact. In 6700K there are no unused cores, so there will always be some performance impact...


Just for fun I'm throwing in a possible AMD build =p the only downsides of this build is overclocking is extremely limited, the CPU is already 2 years old and it's the fastest possible AMD CPU on this platform (I assume you will need an all new motherboard and ram when AMD's Zen comes out) On the plus side it is considerably cheaper than the Intel options although is it worth getting the cheaper build when it won't be as future proof and not perform as well?

While the build is cheap the only upgrades I can necessarily do are video cards and ram, if i wanted DDR4 and AMD's Zen I would need a new mother board along with a new CPU, cooling unit and of course DDR4 while with skylake or haswell-e I could always get cannonlake or broadwell-e 3-5 years down the road and just add more DDR4 ram while keeping the same motherboard and cooling unit. If black friday makes the AMD build cheap enough around $1500 all in I might go for it and fingers crossed AMD Zen will be a hit that way I'll be able to upgrade to Zen+ (Zen's successor).

Ugh i wish money wasn't an issue or I'd build a 5960x and a Titan Z build and call it a day for the next 8 years instead of waiting and relying on deals and planning my parts out to last for years to come >.< haha.

AMD's current FX lineup is old architecture. It's not worth buying anymore. The top of the line FX-9590 is the same silicon as a FX-8320. They just take the chips which can satisfy the clockspeed requirement and TDP of the FX-9590 and give you one heater of a CPU.

Something like Intel's mainstream i7 would still be more powerful in basically all scenarios that come to mind. It'll also run so much cooler.

1 Like

totaly agree. ☺

True and decent motherboards for the FX 9590 are no cheaper than an x99 motherboard so the savings aren't the greatest. The AMD build would have to be really cheap for me to consider worth getting like having a GTX 980 with the 9590 for around $1500 but that sounds unlikely haha. I wish Zen was coming out this year Idk how AMD can expect to compete with Intel when time is running out fast for them but that's something for another thread =p

Update on the build logs:

Everything is looking great on the Skylake build prices are starting to drop, the x99 build not so much...

Skylake: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Darksyne/saved/

X99: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Darksyne/saved/#view=4Zpkcf

AMD FX: https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/Darksyne/saved/#view=mMTfrH

That would make no sense, because your GTX980 will get bottlenecked by the FX9590 in allot of games especialy at 1080p.
If you count that you need a very expensive decent 990FX mobo to run that cpu on safely, + a very decent expensive cooling to dissipate that 220W of generated heat from it.
If you all count that into price, then intel will have better solutions to offer for arround the same price.

FX9590 realy makes no sense.

My recommendation for you, would still be the 5820K realy.
According to the things you plan to do with it.
Its simply the jack of all trades.

It is bragging rights. Octacore at 5GHz at the time, when I believe Intel didn't had any octa... It is completely different thing, that putting that old architecture and manufacturing process on 8 cores and keeping them under 100W TDP is much more important achievement for me, than having raised multiplier to 50...

The FX build is just a last resort budget build just in case things don't work out budget wise for skylake and x99. There is a cooler that's included with the CPU which helps save even more money but I highly doubt i'll get the AMD build unless Zen was around the corner but they haven't even begun production sadly.

Yes but you can also argue about FX8 cores being true octa cores basicly.
What you basicly have is 4 modules with each 2 integer cores sharing cache and a fpu.
So technically speaking you do get 8 integer processing cores but only 4 fpu´s.

Ugh, yeah... Also we can argue about the first true quad core, but if you ask whoever, they will say Intel Q6600, no matter it was two dual core CPUs under one cap...

was still a badass cpu though unlike bulldozer =p