X99 vs Z170 - which to prefer?

[R-T-B]

If they make Skylake-E... Well, I mean they will of course, but who's to say if it will be X99 compatible?

I sure hope so, as do all X99 owners... but this is Intel. I wouldn't put it beyond them to make a new socket.

 

[Deleted member 138597]

Yeah, I'm also doubting SL-E would be compatible with 2011-v3, and it's very hard to guess too. Broadwell doesn't look like it will ever make to HEDT, and SL-E is still more than 1.5 years away. God knows what Intel's gonna do!

 

[RejZoR]

It most certainly won't be compatible. Haswell and Skylake are two radically different CPU's. If anything, power delivery is so different it makes them entirely incompatible. Haswell has on-chip voltage regulator, Skylake has the voltage regulator on the motherboard. Unless if they design Skylake-E with voltage regulator on the CPU, I don't see it happening.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Yeah, upgrade to Skylake yer all so I can pick up a used X99 for pennies

 

[R-T-B]

It most certainly won't be compatible. Haswell and Skylake are two radically different CPU's. If anything, power delivery is so different it makes them entirely incompatible. Haswell has on-chip voltage regulator, Skylake has the voltage regulator on the motherboard. Unless if they design Skylake-E with voltage regulator on the CPU, I don't see it happening.

That's a very good point. Completely forgot about the differences with the voltage regulators...

 

[Aquinus]

Yeah, me too is thinking that X99 is a better option, and value, considering you can get two cores and 12 more PCIe lanes than i7 for just ~$50. Because you wanted to know what I'd want with it, I want more of OCing & productivity than strictly gaming from the platform. Skylake's granular BCLK adjustment, removal of FIVR (fever) and better OCability of memory with it is what attracts me still. But as a matter of fact, and as it had been, SL-E should be the better choice, right?

I still don't understand where any of the features of X99 actually benefit you. Sure, you get quad-channel memory, more cores, and more PCI-E lanes. None of that matters if you never use it. The point of my question before was to make sure you're getting something you'll actually use as opposed to just getting it to show off your e-peen. Unless you have a task in mind that will utilize those PCI-E lanes or cores, it's kind of a waste of the platform as you're paying more for stuff that you'll never use.

So could you be a sport and answer my initial question?

The core question to any new build has yet to be asked so, I'm going to ask it: What do you intend to use this computer for?

If the goal is gaming, I would probably find it hard to justify X99 unless there is a special caveat as to the purpose of the build but, most people won't need the cores or the PCI-E lanes that X99 offers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Looking at the cheapest X99 option (which is still more expensive than Z170+6700K) the benefits are more DIMMs and more SATA ports. The former...I don't see how that's an advantage seeing how you can get 16 GB sticks of RAM now and the latter, you're better off getting a SATA/RAID card anyway. Of course there's more cores but unless you spend a lot of time encoding crap, I can't particularly call that an advantage either. The higher clockspeed of the 6700K is more advantageous than more cores that will be mostly idle.

Clarify:
5820K (3.3 GHz x 6) + X99 has 28 PCI Express 3.0 lanes
6700K (4.0 GHz x 4) + Z170 has 20 PCI Express 3.0 lanes

If all cores are loaded to 100%, 5820K has about 18% more throughput than 6700K.

 

[RejZoR]

18% at stock clocks or same as 6700K ? If it's at stock, then imagine what's the difference when you crank it up to 4,2GHz and more...

 

[Aquinus]

Clarify:
5820K (3.3 GHz x 6) + X99 has 28 PCI Express 3.0 lanes
6700K (4.0 GHz x 4) + Z170 has 20 PCI Express 3.0 lanes

I want to correct you here.

5820K = 28 PCI-E Lanes @ 3.0
X99 = up to 8 PCI-E lanes @ 2.0
6700K = 16 PCI-E lanes @ 3.0
Z170 = Up to 20 PCI-E lanes @ 3.0

Do a little bit of math and you get:
5820K + X99 = up to 36 lanes (28@3.0, 8@2.0 mixed.)
6700K + Z170 = up to 36 lanes (36@3.0)

My point being that the Z170 is more flexible than PCHs in the past. Plus Ford's point about clock speed is usually important when it comes to games. It makes no sense to go X99 for gaming unless you're planning on driving 3 or more GPUs in which case you're wanting just the big PCI-E root complex, not even the cores. If you're encoding or rendering all day long, then maybe the cores will be worth it but I see no reason why the OP needs such hardware. I've been asking...

 

[Deleted member 138597]

I think I did tell my point. As I said, I want edge on above average productivities, like encoding movies, creating animations, photo editing and illustrating, compressing large files regularly, great overclockability, handling dual GPU with ultrafast storage and ofcourse, gaming (4K). All these does make X99 the choice, but if 6700K does the job similarly (within acceptable range) as 5820K in multithreaded works and OCability (even willing to delid if that helps anyway), I honestly don't have much of a problem. If I should consider 6700K as a compromise, I want to know if advantages of Z170 and Skylake does close the gap. If 5820K still lives the competition, then X99 obviously wins regardless of the advantage of Z170. That's kinda the whole point of the thread.

I want to correct you here.

5820K = 28 PCI-E Lanes @ 3.0
X99 = up to 8 PCI-E lanes @ 2.0
6700K = 16 PCI-E lanes @ 3.0
Z170 = Up to 20 PCI-E lanes @ 3.0

Do a little bit of math and you get:
5820K + X99 = up to 36 lanes (28@3.0, 8@2.0 mixed.)
6700K + Z170 = up to 36 lanes (36@3.0)

actually, the math is like this:
5820K + X99 = upto 32 lanes (28@3.0, actual 4@3.0)
6700K + Z170 = 36 lanes

see another sub-point of the thread?

18% at stock clocks or same as 6700K ? If it's at stock, then imagine what's the difference when you crank it up to 4,2GHz and more...

and another sub-point.

 

[Aquinus]

I think I did tell my point. As I said, I want edge on above average productivities, like encoding movies, creating animations, photo editing and illustrating, compressing large files regularly, great overclockability, handling dual GPU with ultrafast storage and ofcourse, gaming (4K). All these does make X99 the choice, but if 6700K does the job similarly (within acceptable range) as 5820K in multithreaded works and OCability (even willing to delid if that helps anyway), I honestly don't have much of a problem. If I should consider 6700K as a compromise, I want to know if advantages of Z170 and Skylake does close the gap. If 5820K still lives the competition, then X99 obviously wins regardless of the advantage of Z170. That's kinda the whole point of the thread.

Your statement before is vague and so is this one. What is the primary intent of this machine? You say that you want:

I want edge on above average productivities, like encoding movies, creating animations, photo editing and illustrating, compressing large files regularly, great overclockability, handling dual GPU with ultrafast storage and ofcourse, gaming (4K).

How much of your time do you spend doing all of those things as a percentage of the time you spend on the computer? My concern is that you want "the best" for things you very well might not be doing all the time. A 6700K and 5820K are both going to get you were you want to go with anything you want to use the machine for according to your list. The question is what is the most important? If more than 50% of the computer's purpose is for gaming, you would be nuts to not go with a 6700K. More cores only gets you a benefit in special circumstances where higher clocks will almost always result in better performance.

5820K + X99 = upto 32 lanes (28@3.0, actual 4@3.0)

How about we do some quoting from Intel?

Edit: Learn to the use edit button! Jeez!

 

[Deleted member 138597]

Your statement before is vague and so is this one. What is the primary intent of this machine?

I'll say I'm being inefficient in explaining myself. Let's say about "the very core" intent - gaming & productivity, at 45% & 55% of my time. OCing is just "do-once" type thing, as you know.

How about we do some quoting from Intel?

Edit: Learn to the use edit button! Jeez!

As a matter of fact, those 8 lanes are Gen2, while Z170 has 20 Gen3 lanes. That's what I've been asking, whether that should matter, and how does it throw up in real world, anything that would put skylake to advantage.

And I do know to use the edit button. But it's real pain in arse to use it often using my phone.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I'll say I'm being inefficient in explaining myself. Let's say about "the very core" intent - gaming & productivity, at 45% & 55% of my time. OCing is just "do-once" type thing, as you know.



As a matter of fact, those 8 lanes are Gen2, while Z170 has 20 Gen3 lanes. That's what I've been asking, whether that should matter, and how does it throw up in real world, anything that would put skylake to advantage.

And I do know to use the edit button. But it's real pain in arse to use it often using my phone.

I would suggest you start getting some practice in then.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

18% at stock clocks or same as 6700K ? If it's at stock, then imagine what's the difference when you crank it up to 4,2GHz and more...

Yeah, stock and no turbo; turbo has an inverse relationship with CPU load so at 100% load, it's pretty safe to assume turbo isn't engaged. The math I used is:
3.3 GHz * 100% * 6 = 19.8
4.0 GHz * 105% * 4 = 16.8

The % is to account for architectural improvements--might be a little bit on the low side for Skylake compared to Haswell-E but close enough.


In terms of PCI lanes, X99 only comes out on top with 5930K or better which costs $200 more for only 0.2 GHz bump in clocks:
3.5 GHz * 100% * 6 = 21.0 (25% over 6700K)

 

[RejZoR]

The jump from 5820 to higher end CPU's is ridiculous in terms of price and al you get is more PCIe lanes. Clocks are hardly any higher. Except the most high end CPU which has 8C/16T configuration. But once you get into that territory, you're buying it because you already have a quad-SLi which means you're already loaded and you're not really looking at the price anyway...

It was quite similar with i7 920 back then. Up to 980X, it really didn't make much difference if you were willing to overclock it a bit. 980X was a different beast since it has more cores. The rest were basically just different stock clocks.

 

[Schmuckley]

I'm already running my i7 920 at 3.9 GHz with Turbo at 1.3V with all the power saving features enabled. Anything beyond this and I have to disable powe saving stuf to even get a stable desktop boot. So I kidna decided to stick at this point.

So..x5650 and done?
They are pretty nice.
Z170 I would guarantee has a decent IPC advantage over x99.
z97 did even.
It's noteworthy.

 

[RejZoR]

Biggest problem I've noticed, ASUS has no ROG boards for X99 other than Rampage V Extreme (same for Sabertooth X99 which I do like) which is out of this world expensive. Which makes X99 a rather big no no (at least for me), even though I was quite focused on the 5820K due to 6 cores. I'm ready to pay premium for high end hardware, but I'm not ready to pay that much. And I want ROG board because I have one now and it's the best thing I've ever owned. But I don't need all the hardcore overclocking stuff that comes with the Extreme model.

6700K on the other hand, has the Maximus VIII Hero which is as high end as one can imagine but has no fiddly extreme overclocker stuff. And costs slightly over 200€. Compared to almost 500€ Extreme or almost 400€ Sabertooth X99, it is quite a difference...

So, this is my final conclussion. I'm gonna fiddle some more with my i7 920 and if it'll continue to be a pain in my rear (it's kinda acting funny only when OC'ed), I'll grab 6700K with Maximus VIII Hero and go brave with 32GB RAM. I think this should last me for another 5+ years.

 

[RejZoR]

So, after needing freaking 10 minutes to boot my system from cold today and all the stores where I wanted to buy 6700K say "delivery date unknown" my full rage mode exploded and I've gone with the X99 platform instead. I don't have the nerves to wait almost whole more year for AMD Zen or whatever Intel will have.

Core i7 5820K
ASUS Sabertooth X99
32GB Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4

It's 250€ more than Skylake build, but I'll have 2 cores (4 threads) more and 16GB more RAM. Long term I think it'll last longer with zero upgrades for the next 5 years easily.

Overclock, I plan on mild OC to 4GHz with Turbo enabled so I'll match the 6700K clock without too much stress on the system.

Hopefully I get it next week.

 

[OneMoar]

So..x5650 and done?
They are pretty nice.
Z170 I would guarantee has a decent IPC advantage over x99.
z97 did even.
It's noteworthy.

you would be wrong. ... again

 

[Vlada011]

For me personally X99 is better platform but Z170 is excellent too.
More improvements than previous years. Only X99 is somehow more serious PSU better for overclocking because Intel looks like only keep real overclocking for Xtreme platform. Special for i7-5960X. He overclocked on almost half of own fabric frequency...
His improvements are far better than i7-4790K stock vs i7-4790K 5.0GHz. But two other processors with 6 cores are great too...
They work around 700MHz OC with stock voltage. You don't need to remove IHS, nothing... on 4.3GHz temps are still around 75-76C with simple AIO.
4.3GHz is 1GHz overclocking. And even with 6 cores that's not so much problem as 1GHz for 4790K or 6700K. Nobody will keep 5820K on fabric speed...
People will keep on similar clock as i7-6700K.... We could compare i7-5820K not with 3820/4820... 5820K/5930K only could be compared with 3960X and 4960X.
Same Cache, same number of cores, quad channel only advantage DDR4. If someone plan to change CPU every 2 year than maybe is even better option Skylake...
But who want to keep CPU with 2-3 different graphic cards series better choice is i7-5820K on 4.0-4.2GHz 24/7.

 

[RejZoR]

The main problem with 6700K is that it's already clocked so high. i7 920 was amazing because it was a 2,66GHz CPU that clocked up to 4,5GHz without LN2 or extreme water cooling. It's a MASSIVE overclock. Same goes for 5820K. 3,3GHz to 4,5GHz is pretty substantial. And it packs 2 more cores compared to 6700K.

I mean, 6700K totally defeats the point in spending high money on "overclocker" motherboard. What are you going to overclock it to? 4,7 GHz which is the usual overclock people get as max? From 4,2GHz it sounds and feels pathetic and totally not worth any kind of premium spent on expensive mobo. It's a great out of the box replacement for i7 920 though. Slam it into a cheap motherboard and you're ready to go without any overclocking with performance of OC-ed i7 920 + the IPC bonus. Downside is that those cheap Z170 boards are absolutely robbed of any goodies which are only left on 200+ € boards. And that sucks.

 

[Mexx]

Hi guys, I was reading all your passionate posts looking for an answer about that question that haunt me for weeks now : should I upgrade my current Z77 to a Z170 or a X99 or maybe even keep my current config and wait since it is already a very powerful one. Then I noticed you mentioned several times that multi GPU config could justify additional PCI lanes hence an advantage to the X99.
In my specific case, I have to think about that since I'm probably a rare exception with two Asus AresIII in my system (yes, two water cooled R9 290x2 so a quad fire GPU configuration). For the rest my i7 is water cooled and overclocked to 4.7ghz, I have 16gb of 2400mhz DDR3, 6 SSDs in raid 0 and all of this linked on a Sabertooth Z77. I mainly use it for gaming in 4k on 3 displays at 5760x1080. So what do you recommend me to do based on everything that has been said in this post ? Thanks in advance !

 

[RejZoR]

If you have quad CrossfireX, X99 is the only way to go my friend. And you'll need a 40 lane version of CPU, the Core i7 59xxK models. For regular SLi and CrossfireX with 2 cards (single GPU) even 28 lane 5820K is enough. But for what you have, you need max utilization. Especially with AMD which does all communications through PCIe slots. I mean if you want to make out the most from your setup, you'll need two full PCIe x16 slots and you can't have those on Z170 or X99 with 28 lane CPU like 5820K (which only works in x16/x8 mode as well).

Considering how much you already spent on graphic cards, I think you'll go with the highest end model with 8 cores. Coz only that would make sense for your setup.

Also, one thing is known, there is Broadwell-E planned for X99, a shrinked 14nm version of Haswell-E processors. It is however not 100% known yet if it'll still be usable on LGA2011-v3 socket or will Intel release it under LGA2011-v4 or something. Hopefully it'll remain compatible with v3. That would be really cool.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

So..x5650 and done?
They are pretty nice.
Z170 I would guarantee has a decent IPC advantage over x99.
z97 did even.
It's noteworthy.

Do you even know what IPC is? And understand it has zero to do with the chipset?

 

[RejZoR]

From what I've seen, Skylakes aren't any better than Haswell-E clock to clock (IPC). I also don't see any mention of AES instructions on 6700K where 5820K and up have it. Donno why, maybe since enthusiast is considered to work with encryption ro something.