| Slimebeast said: I would choose the Intel Core i7-6700K over a more expensive Intel CPU since that extra CPU power won't help you anything, especially at high resolutions. GPU is such a bottleneck. Mummelmann might disagree though. |
Actually. Not entirely accurate.
If your CPU isn't fast enough then your minimum and to a lesser degree, average framerates takes a chunky hit. And you notice your minimums more than your maximums.
Also if your CPU isn't fast enough in a Multi-GPU configuration then it can't feed the GPU's fast enough and your maximum framerates take a massive hit.
It's something I documented on an enthusiast overclocking forum when I was running a Phenom 2 and Dual Radeon's at 5760x1080, even in fairly light games, like most Unreal Engine 3 games, the Phenom 2 just wasn't enough to feed the GPU's. That was solved when I upgraded to the 3930K, the CPU was no longer pegged at 100% and the GPU's could run at 100% rather than say 50-70%.
Plus a CPU with more cores allows you to run more things in tandem, try running Xsplit, whilst encoding a video file and playing a demanding well-threaded video game like Civilization 5, the 6700K will crumple whilst the 5820K will cruise along without breaking a sweat.
It's like in the early Core 2 days, lots of people advised gamers not to bother going with the Core 2 Quad... It's a waste of money, those same Core 2 Quad machines ended up getting many more gaming years of use out of them.
My 3930K is sort of the same thing, whilst people are starting to notice their Sandy Bridge chips starting to age, my 3930K @ 5ghz is still able to outbench the 6700K. Heck even the 5930K and stock 5960X, it's still got many years of life left in it. (Just not as my primary rig.)
Plus the 6700K isn't that much cheaper than the 5820K. $558 vs $484 AUD. $74 for an extra 2 cores/4 threads, 7Mb Cache, higher overclocking headroom, it's worth the extra bucks.
Go big or go with the i5 6600K and save some cash instead.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
