Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
Front view of Intel 6800K

Intel 6800K

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 5820K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 5820K

Report a correction
Much better performance per watt 10.79 pt/W vs 2.86 pt/W More than 3.8x better performance per watt
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.34 GHz vs 4.17 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Front view of Intel 6800K

Reasons to consider the
Intel 6800K

Report a correction
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Better geekbench 3 single core score 3,666 vs 3,412 More than 5% better geekbench 3 single core score
Newer Apr, 2016 vs Jul, 2014 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 5820K vs 6800K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5820K

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs


GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5820K
4,050,000 MB/s
3,545 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 5820K

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)


PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 5820K

PassMark (Single Core)


Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i7 5820K  vs
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 3.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz 3.6 GHz
Cores Hexa core Hexa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 140W 140W
Annual home energy cost 33.73 $/year 33.73 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 122.64 $/year 122.64 $/year
Performance per watt 10.79 pt/W 2.86 pt/W
Typical power consumption 113.75W 113.75W


Architecture QPI FSB
Number of links 0 1


Core i7 5820K  vs
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 12
Manufacture process 22 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 1


Overclocked clock speed 4.34 GHz 4.17 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.51 GHz 4.35 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.34 GHz 4.17 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum memory size 65,536 MB 131,072 MB
Intel Core i7 5820K
Report a correction
Intel 6800K
Report a correction


Showing 7 comments.
Thats a sweet deal.But a Ryzen 1600x is $247. I just priced out the build for it and I can go crazy with the money I am saving on the cpu.
I wouldnt even pass that up if I saw that deal
I was scoring near 5820k scores with my oc 6700k last week, but just sold the whole thing when I found a 6800k on sale for $350. Christmas came early for me fellas.
First even though you bought the cheaper AMD processor it is not equal to the intel and price wise you will end up spending the same amount of money especially if you plan to sli with the 2 setups as they are not both supported by all games this way. NVidia controls most of the gaming market so the products by them are more widely supported especially in sli where crossfire is not as supported and has a higher power consumption to attempt at doing the same job requiring you to put more money into cooling your rig which at that point you might as well buy the intel 4790k and a 1070 and call it a day.
i bought a cyberpowerpc almost 2 years ago with the 5820k. upgraded alot of parts but i saved alot of money by doing so and selling the old ones cause it was on sale. been overclocking at 4.5 ghz for a long time with it. I read the 6800k overclocks pretty badly so i won't be upgrading
This sites maths are crap yes i will agree but you also have to consider age/gen etc plays a role.Obviously there would be better support for newer products.I personally wouldnt upgrade if i were you.$1700 is R25500 in my currency.With that i can buy a second hand car :DAny case i went with amd as the price to performance here is great.AMD cost me 4k equivalent Intel would cost me around 10k+ when i bought my parts(Only way to get a pc.Do it yourself and ask a reliable source if your not good with pc's) If you don't know your hardware etc they gonna cheat you.Techies are F'D cheaters :D.I am a techy but at least i am honest :P
Eh... bought an i7 5820k/970 in 3-2015 for 2k after bells and whistles. They F'D up the socket, took me MONTHS to fix it (SERIOUS $500 repairs and stuff I'm lucky enough to be able to do myself, (they bent my socket. NEVER buy cyberpowerpc. "CyberTRON" is way better.... but, build your own. I bought a brebuilt after 7 years since I worked a Computer job, and had stopped gaming. I paid 1700 for a system that is now superceeded (the 6800k gets %7 better in multi core, %10 in single) by another processor. I've never used my PC. I've FINALLY got "core temps" like this. 1-9 2-10 3-11 4-16 -5-17 6-10 (variable cores... but 10-17 Celsius at minor load. GREAT) but while my cores are 10-17, my "package" is 30. Nearly double, triple in some cases. WTF is wrong with this? SO many forum post about "my package temps are so high!" and guess what? ALL are the 5820k or it's series. My i7 4710mq and 6700k BOTH have package temps ONE degree within the cores. It's like this for 4 cores and package 1.44 2.45 3.43 4.44 package 45. It's a smooth reading. Anyway, point is, I paid $1700 and didn't use it (I've been using a freaking 960m laptop instead cuz i'm lazy.....) and now the 6800k/1070 is available for the same price. It's been TWO years(1.5 since I bought it) since my pre-built was available. You can now get better for the same price. How much? On the "tomb raider" benchmark they use to market speed, my 5820k/970 is "263 fps" and 6800k/1070 is "592 fps" granted, if I just put a 1070 in... i'll likely get 550 ish, like 10% less from the CPUs. Makes me kinda sick, tho. I have the x-99a WITHOUT usb 3.1, NOT x-99a version 2... the VERY FIRST, EARLIEST adoption ddr4. My damn task manager reads it as "16gb "other" memory" it's barely stable. Gross. So fucking gross. I haven't got any "value" out of the money. I could buy the SAME pc for $900, and spend the other $600 on the i5 4690k and 1070 pc. (this was all bought for gaming... I chose an i7 5820k/970 OVER a i7 4790k/980 for GAMING because I didn't know, and pre-built websites AND Oem's and idiots that want your money.) Example: Me- "MR. Best Buy Employee, what is the difference between this OEM HP and this Alienware??" Employee- "nothing, they look different." We were comparing a shit ass dual core with onboard graphics, versus a gtx 960 with an I7 in the alienware.... Even best buy employees don't know shit. I know every single AMD and/or Intel socket EVER made. Having trouble getting Computer repair employment in redneck city down here. It seems like a 14 nm vs 22 nm process, and a .1 ghz increase in speed..... where's the %10 difference? I've got my chip clocked to 4.5 for 4 cores, and 4.2 on all. Can you OC the 5820k to REDUCE the gains? I know the 6800k will be BETTER no matter what, OC both of them to 4.0 ghz, it'll still be better.... but it's a 10%/7% difference non OC.... is it that large, smaller, or bigger when OC'd evenly? I wanna know. I bought it when it first came out. (I didn't understand at that time, which I know like the back of my hand know, that you want a good unlocked I7, with 4 cores. I THOUGHT, that since AMD has all it's stupid 8 cores, that when INTEL finally makes a 6 core, it HAS to be the best for gaming, right? Especially since it cost the most, and has expensive ram and Mobo to buy..... nope. It's expensive so Pixar employees can have more multcore power to animate their cartoons. LAST NOTE, IN EARLY 2015, THE 4790K=9.5 5820K=9.4 6700K=9.5 They were even. NOW THAT THE (MOSTLY SALTY POOR PEOPLE) TIDE HAS TURNED AND PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE THE 5820K, IT'S 5820K=6.1 4790K=9.6 6700K=9.8 UMMM.... ISN'T THIS A SCIENTIFIC BENCHMARK SITE? HOW DID THE 5820K GO FROM RIVALLING THE 4790 AND 6700, TO LITERALLY BEING ONLY %66 AS GOOD? (OBVIOUSLY "6" IS 2/3RDS OF "9.") Savvy consumers call this site out every day. I think some of their benchmarks are crap, and I wanna know.... how the 5820k was scored just as well as any of the good quad cores (it was reflected... the 4790 and 6700 got like 10/10 in "single core," the 5820k got 8.9/10. But, 5920k got 9.8/10 in multicore, the 6700 got 8.6/10. Now.. they just give the 5820k a "0" for not having faggot integrated graphics (if you have a high end i7 and want integrated graphics, WTF?) and counting points off for freaking power.... if you average the core performance, the 5820k STILL holds up. I don't like the scoring, and they INTENTIONALLY, made an EFFORT to reduce the 5820k's score because they found out consumers didn't like it. (they can't afford it.... MINIMUM $800 for JUST the CPU/MOBO/RAM, they can get their 6700k for like $300 for CPU/MoBO//RAM. It's ajoke. The hexa core takes a MINIMUM $200 MOBO, you can stick the stupid skylake in a $60 mobo. Also, all you amazing gamers with your quad cores, enjoy having only 16 lanes...... I've got a 950 pro NvmE AND a 2.5 850 pro.... with graphics and SPARE lanes. Eat that.
comments powered by Disqus