• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Trying to decide between 6800k and 6850k

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

anhikilator

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Location
Miami, FL
Hello group,

I'm upgrading my system and the only part I haven't ordered yet is the processor.

I got the following parts:
ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING LGA 2011-v3 Intel X99
G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Intel X99 Platform Desktop
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 GAMING (pre-order from BH Photo)

I'm re-using the rest of my old components.

What processor would you get? I use it 70% for gaming, 30% for work which includes software that uses all the cores for processing (the main reason I didn't get Kaby Lake)

I've read online quit a bit and the main two differences I found were:
1) 40 vs 28 pci lanes
2) 3.6GHz vs 3.4GHz

I'm planning on overclocking to something around 4 to 4.2 GHz for 24/7 use.

What should I do? I can afford the 6850k but I'd like to save the money if I won't see any performance increase. I used to be a fan of SLI but lately I'm very satisfied using the fastest single card available (took me a long time to accept this). The other pci devices I'll use are a sound blaster z and eventually, I'll get an m.2 drive. Then I have a raid 0 of 2 SSD's and a raid 0 of 2 HDD's.

Please let me know if you need further information to assist me with this decision.

Thanks,

Ank.
 

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
If you are only using one video card and not using multiple nvme drives then the 40 vs 28 pci lanes is a moot point. So it boils down to the clock speed. And if both processors are likely to overclock to 4.0-4.2 then get the cheaper one.
 

SPL Tech

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Why in all that is holy would you buy a 6000 series CPU mobo for a fresh build? You can get a Z270 for the same cost and get a 7700k which will cost about $175 less than the 6850k and perform about 5% faster, not to mention support for newer tech that the 6000 series dont support. You can also overclock the 7700k to 4.6 - 4.7 Ghz with minimal effort and 4.8 - 4.9 with a bit of effort and some good cooling. CPUs are one of those things that dont usually make sense to buy older models because the newest models are always faster and almost always cheaper.
 

SPL Tech

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
If you have to have a multi threaded beast for other things, Threadripper is coming...http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-lineup-threadripper/

Ryzen was a big over-hyped flop. They talked about how Ryzen was going to dominate everything and sure enough when it came out it couldent even match, let alone beat, the 7700k which is $200 less. Just like as has been for the last 10 years, AMD just cant compete with Intel. Intel makes cheaper CPUs that perform better. There really is no reason to buy an AMD and there hasent been for almost 10 years.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
Ryzen was a big over-hyped flop.

What???

Intel makes cheaper CPUs that perform better.

Currently false. In fact, ridiculous. I think you're confusing Bulldozer with Ryzen. Ryzen's multi thread performance beats Intel's. With a $500 chip against $1000-$1500 Intel. Not sure where you got that idea, but it's way off base.
 

Kenrou

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
I honestly can't remember the last time AMD was more expensive then Intel core for core ? quick Amazon search :

i7-7700k 4c/8t $315 - Ryzen 1500x 4c/8t $170

i7-6900k 8c/16t $1030 - Ryzen 1800x 8c/16t $430 or the cheaper alternative - Ryzen 1700 8c/16t $290
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
And that's not taking in to consideration the fact that the Ryzens are beating the 6850k and 6900k in multi threaded benchmarks. 7700k is better at gaming, by being more of "more than needed" than Ryzen, but it certainly does the job.
 

SPL Tech

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
What???



Currently false. In fact, ridiculous.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3647vs3916

+8% faster and $100 less expensive. The 7700k is the 4th fastest CPU out there in the commonplace right now, Ryzen comes in at 8th for their flagship model. Yes Ryzen might do better for highly specilized applications that are extremely multithreaded such as those typically ran on servers, but most applications cannot use 16 threads and eight cores. For apps that consumers actually use, it's not faster than the 7700k.
 
Last edited:

Woomack

Benching Team Leader
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Most users can't see the difference between 4 cores and 8 cores. Most users can't see the difference between 4GHz and 4.5GHz. Most users see the difference in price.
Who cares if CPU is 10% slower or faster when at the end you barely see the difference ? In games you see 2-3 FPS difference when there is already 100FPS+ because most new games base on graphics card performance, not CPU.
Applications that use more threads will perform better on 1700/1700X/1800X Ryzen than anything 4-6 core from Intel. Games that are using less cores ( so most ) will perform better on 7700K than on 6800/6850K or Ryzen but difference doesn't matter as I already said, regardless what 4 core+ CPU you get it will perform almost the same.
At the end most users see that 8 core Ryzen costs about as much as 7700K. 6 core Ryzen costs ~40% less than 6 core Intel. When you get 6800K then you will be limited to almost the same pcie setup as on X370 boards. 6850K is already total waste of money as additional pcie lanes are giving barely any difference in SLI/CF performance.

Personally I've switched from [email protected] to Ryzen [email protected] and I see no difference. In this case both CPUs cost almost the same but AMD boards are cheaper.
 

Helgaiden

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Pretty funny when in an intel specific subforum, someone talks down on AMD and even the Intel fans tell him how wrong he has it lol.
 

bruceGH4

Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Location
North Vancouver
What do I know. This is my first and only build. I have yet to get my new gpu, but 6 cores is 50% better by math. And 28 lanes is not as good as 40 for sure.
That being said, my box runs great at 4300mhz. Spend the money.
 

Bluefalcon13

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
My only Intel is off to service (no fault of Intel, damn you Lenovo!), and only a dual core with hyperthreading in an Ultrabook convertible, but I can say Ryzen runs games just fine enough, and can chew through custom software created to do some large calculations (we are talking 2^32 iterations on the parent for-loop... And that's a big number...of things to compute). It's multithreading is great, better than the 7700k, and allot cheaper than the Intel 8cores. I'll take the performance hit for the cost ;)
 

SPL Tech

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
And in your link the cost is comparing a 4c/8t to a 8c/16t, hardly fair. Refer to my last post for actual pricing :)

Exactly. The AMD has double the number of cores and processors and its STILL slower. You proved my point better than I ever could. And no, none of it includes overclocks, just stock speeds. Also, the "effective speed" is not single core performance.
 
OP
A

anhikilator

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Location
Miami, FL
I'm sorry I didn't follow up the thread accordingly but I ended up getting the 6850k as it was on sale for $500. The difference vs 7700k was probably 200 (including motherboard). As I stated initially, I do run som multithreaded applications so the extra two cores help. To be honest, I don't see a crazy difference from my previous setup (3930k at 4.2) but at least it was a breeze to get to 4.2 with this guy. I need to sit down and see if I can get to 4.4.

Since this was a mandatory upgrade as I gave my older parts to my son, I'm very happy with the results. The biggest impact in the system was the m.2 drive. Windows loads super fast.
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Exactly. The AMD has double the number of cores and processors and its STILL slower. You proved my point better than I ever could. And no, none of it includes overclocks, just stock speeds. Also, the "effective speed" is not single core performance.

Is slower the KEY word? If so then yes the Ryzen has a slower max clock and less IPC (~ 5%) than the Kaby Lake parts. Yes the 7600-7700K from Intel would be any ones best bet for gaming. No one argues that but that doesn't mean you can't game on Ryzen, I know many that do. Comparing cores to speed is just ridiculous. Every one's entitled to an opinion but that's just what it is an opinion based on feelings not facts.
If you need the cores then it does matter and right now IMO it's just as good as Intel offerings but at a lower cost. The initial BIOS/Mem problems have been pretty much worked out and I can't see why someone wouldn't consider a Ryzen if that's the type of CPU that suits their needs.
 
Last edited:

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Is slower the KEY word? If so then yes the Ryzen has a slower max clock and less IPC (~ 5%) than the Kaby Lake parts. Yes the 7600-7700K from Intel would be any ones best bet for gaming. No one argues that but that doesn't mean you can't game on Ryzen, I know many that do. Comparing cores to speed is just ridiculous. Every one's entitled to an opinion but that's just what it is an opinion based on feelings not facts.
If you need the cores then it does matter and right now IMO it's just as good as Intel offerings but at a lower cost. The initial BIOS/Mem problems have been pretty much worked out and I can't see why someone wouldn't consider a Ryzen if that's the type of CPU that suits their needs.

You have some very good points, keep up the good work.:)
 

Kenrou

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Exactly. The AMD has double the number of cores and processors and its STILL slower. You proved my point better than I ever could. And no, none of it includes overclocks, just stock speeds. Also, the "effective speed" is not single core performance.

Is slower the KEY word? If so then yes the Ryzen has a slower max clock and less IPC (~ 5%) than the Kaby Lake parts. Yes the 7600-7700K from Intel would be any ones best bet for gaming. No one argues that but that doesn't mean you can't game on Ryzen, I know many that do. Comparing cores to speed is just ridiculous. Every one's entitled to an opinion but that's just what it is an opinion based on feelings not facts.
If you need the cores then it does matter and right now IMO it's just as good as Intel offerings but at a lower cost. The initial BIOS/Mem problems have been pretty much worked out and I can't see why someone wouldn't consider a Ryzen if that's the type of CPU that suits their needs.

Explained it better then i ever could, thank you :thup: