5960x has more cores, so it will be etter with editing, rendering, etc...

The i7-6700k would still be more than enough for all of that. It really depends on what you want to spend. If you plan to go with Skylake, then dont. Get a 4790k as it is about the same for cheaper.

If you are only gaming then you could easily make do with a 4690k. If you do heavy rendering etc, then the 5960x will be amazing if you can afford it. Skylake just isn't worth it atm.

oTimmiissx wrote I want to know whether or not if it really even worth goin x99 if i dont edit vids or stream?

No its not.

Are you wanting to overclock?
Whats the PC being used for?
Whats your budget and currency?
What are the specs of your current system?

X99 is an enthusiast platform, so if you want a rig to bleed your wallet but have e-peen the size of the moon, get it.

But if you want a rig for gaming, grab a i5 and a decent GPU.

So it all comes down to what you will use the PC for.

Dinkleberg wrote If you plan to go with Skylake, then dont. Get a 4790k as it is about the same for cheaper.

That's not true. The 4790k is not "about the same for cheaper". The 6700k has several small improvements over Haswell and Haswell refresh, other than just a raw performance increase. Hyperthreaded work is about 4-8% better with Skylake, and single core performance is a little more than 10% better with Skylake. The 6700k is better than the 4790k.

_Skittle wrote Skylake just isn't worth it atm.

That's not true. The raw performance difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge was minimal, that didn't mean people kept buying SB after IB was released. Same with Haswell, and Haswell refresh. The only real improvement with Haswell refresh was better temperatures, and slightly faster speeds.

Sanctorum wrote

Dinkleberg wrote If you plan to go with Skylake, then dont. Get a 4790k as it is about the same for cheaper.

That's not true. The 4790k is not "about the same for cheaper". The 6700k has several small improvements over Haswell and Haswell refresh, other than just a raw performance increase. Hyperthreaded work is about 4-8% better with Skylake, and single core performance is a little more than 10% better with Skylake. The 6700k is better than the 4790k.

_Skittle wrote Skylake just isn't worth it atm.

That's not true. The raw performance difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge was minimal, that didn't mean people kept buying SB after IB was released. Same with Haswell, and Haswell refresh. The only real improvement with Haswell refresh was better temperatures, and slightly faster speeds.

However, small improvements are not worth the huge price difference. They make some difference, but not enough to justify the outlay.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

+ you'll need to buy a cooler for the Skylake option.

Just doesn't seem worth it at all.

Craig wrote However, small improvements are not worth the huge price difference. They make some difference, but not enough to justify the outlay.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

+ you'll need to buy a cooler for the Skylake option.

Just doesn't seem worth it at all.

No, no. To you, it's not worth the price. That doesn't mean that Skylake is not justifiable. What do you mean you need to buy a cooler for the Skylake option? That makes no sense. If you're buying an unlocked CPU, you should be buying an aftermarket cooler anyway. You're not even making a fair comparison lmfao. If you're going with a locked CPU, you could spend £15-£20 on a cooler and be fine.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I guess you're right, £20 extra isn't worth the performance increase, as well as other little extra's, right? Wrong. Might I also remind you that the 4770k was over £300 when first released. The 6700k is less than £300. The performance difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell was fairly negligible but many, many people still bought Haswell, and even upgraded to Haswell from Ivy Bridge. If you don't care for Skylake, that's fine, but stop telling other people that it isn't worth it, without explaining why you think that. 10% better single core improvement, smaller manufacturing process, "reverse hyperthreading" is meant to be a thing, so even better single core performance, and Skylake is apparently supposed to be better with DX12 but I've not seen a lot on that. Regardless, Skylake is an improvement, whether you're upgrading or not is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware Skylake had locked chips now. That's why i compared them 2. So my bad on that one.

The added cooler was because according the PCPP Skylake doesn't include one as stock. Whether that's true or not I dunno.

They don't have Xeons yet, only 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700 and unlocked chips, no i3's yet either. 860k makes more sense than an i3 though IMO. DX12 and "reverse hyperthreading" could change that, potentially. 6500 is the best i5 to go with, 6400 is £20 less but a fair bit slower. 6400 is still fine, but I'd personally spend the extra £20 for the i5-6500. The actual price difference between Haswell and Skylake is not huge, and Skylake is an improvement, much like IB was an improvement over SB, and Haswell over IB. People still upgraded from SB to IB, or IB to Haswell, even though the actual performance differences between generations have been similar. Skylake at least offers support for newer, DDR4 RAM which could save hassle in the long term, and a smaller manufacturing process, as well as some other improvements. You can't argue that Skylake isn't worth the price, but claim that the last 3 generations from Intel have been.