CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 6700K vs 5820K among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Core i7 6700K
6.5
Core i7 5820K
6.8
Core i7 4790K
7.7
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Core i7 6700K
8.0
Core i7 5820K
9.0
Core i7 4790K
9.6
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Core i7 6700K
n.d.
Core i7 5820K
0.0
Core i7 4790K
9.8
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Core i7 6700K
8.0
Core i7 5820K
0.0
Core i7 4790K
7.3
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Core i7 6700K
5.2
Core i7 5820K
5.0
Core i7 4790K
5.3
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Core i7 6700K
5.8
Core i7 5820K
5.0
Core i7 4790K
6.3
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
8.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Core i7 6700K
8.2
Core i7 5820K
5.5
Core i7 4790K
8.8

Winner
Intel Core i7 5820K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 5820K  based on its performance and value.

See full details

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!
VS

Intel Core i7 6700K

Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K
Front view of Intel Core i7 5820K

Intel Core i7 5820K

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 6700K

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.6 GHz More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Much lower typical power consumption 73.94W vs 113.75W 35% lower typical power consumption
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly better CompuBench 1.5 video composition score 13.68 fps vs 3.71 fps Around 3.8x better CompuBench 1.5 video composition score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,349 vs 2,017 More than 15% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year vs 33.73 $/year 35% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year vs 122.64 $/year 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz vs 4.34 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Jul, 2014 Release date a year later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz vs 4.51 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Core i7 5820K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 5820K

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 3.87 pt/$ vs 0.91 pt/$ More than 4.2x better performance per dollar
More l3 cache 15 MB vs 8 MB Around 90% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per watt 10.79 pt/W vs 3.49 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 12 vs 8 4 more threads
More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 25% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 12,995 vs 11,109 More than 15% better PassMark score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 6700K vs 5820K

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Core i7 6700K
26.72 mPixels/s
Core i7 5820K
6.74 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Video composition) Data courtesy CompuBench

Core i7 6700K
13.68 fps
Core i7 5820K
3.71 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
17,583
Core i7 5820K
19,546

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
4,510
Core i7 5820K
3,412

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
6,010 MB/s
Core i7 5820K
4,050,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 6700K
17,169
Core i7 5820K
20,764

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 6700K
11,109
Core i7 5820K
12,995

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i7 6700K
2,349
Core i7 5820K
2,017

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Core i7 6700K  vs
5820K 
Clock speed 4 GHz 3.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz 3.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 91W 140W
Annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year 33.73 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year 122.64 $/year
Performance per watt 3.49 pt/W 10.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.94W 113.75W

bus
Architecture FSB QPI
Number of links 0 0
Transfer rate 8,000 MT/s 0 MT/s

details

 Core i7 6700K  vs
5820K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 12
L3 cache 8 MB 15 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 4.61 GHz 4.34 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz 4.51 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz 4.34 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR4-1333
DDR4-1600
DDR4-2133
Channels Dual Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum memory size 65,536 MB 65,536 MB
Intel Core i7 6700K
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 5820K
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
Thomas Maher (10:22 PM, January 9, 2017)
how can cpu support max 64gb ram when it on a motherboard that supports 128gb ram
Thomas Maher (10:20 PM, January 9, 2017)
those test bench never true performance
Thomas Maher (10:20 PM, January 9, 2017)
sadly aqgreed
Thomas Maher (10:19 PM, January 9, 2017)
i just got the cpu on combo deal at micro center and am now wondering about it if it was best deal
Trane Pham (08:11 AM, January 8, 2017)
Just look at the chart and you guys will understand how shitty this comparision is. 5820K beat the shit out of 6700K lol. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f1eb0e4f683ba5a27eb7984ec9d3de38c4ce27fddc460ae91cd5957ee97ccca.png
Trane Pham (06:00 AM, January 8, 2017)
how can a quad core processor have a higher score than a hexa core one? Doesn't make any sense to me haha. When it come down to future proof it is no brainer to go for 5820k and it could last u for years. Furthermore, the 5820K is enthusiast level while the 4790k, 6700k still in mainstream line LMAO
⎝⏠⏝⏠⎠ (11:10 AM, December 27, 2016)
That was exactly my point. Waiting for theoretical performance improvements at some time in the future is pointless. There will always be a "next best thing", there's no point delaying a purchase because there might be something a bit better some point later. Beau Sally was saying that a 6700k wouldn't be a good upgrade from a fx8350 because it would be "worthless in a year", that's not true. It would have been a worthwhile upgrade for many years and Intels decreasing performance improvements will probably mean it will be usable for many, many CPU generations.
Paul Reyher (02:27 AM, December 27, 2016)
Reading this at the end of 2016 proves you wrong. There is no Skylake Refresh, and Kaby Lake has no gains over Skylake it is worth to talk about. Sad.
Dave Doodah (02:35 PM, December 14, 2016)
They say those boards will support the cannonlake too.
Jay Lynch (02:17 AM, September 25, 2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFNhlq2b518 I own: i7 6700K i5 6600k A10 7860K
Belle Bowles (08:28 PM, September 12, 2016)
Go back to your trannie girlfriend and stay out of places that require intelligence.
Belle Bowles (08:25 PM, September 12, 2016)
True. The 5820k at stock speed beat a 6700k@4.4 GHz in the CPU DAWBench test
Belle Bowles (08:13 PM, September 12, 2016)
"right now neither the 6700k nor its little brother is worth wasting money on." Said a poo-flinging monkey.
Николай Черепанов (11:17 PM, June 23, 2016)
the x99 [platform is not old they just refreshed it the 5820k is honestly the better bang for the buck its cheaper than the 6700k and has more performance
Aboodi Lail Assahar (02:50 AM, June 23, 2016)
Hello, im about to buy a cpu.. im not sure of it, 6700k or 5820k, I read and read about those two cpu, I would like to sli 1080 to gaming in 4k monitor, I see some games fram in 5820k have higher frams than 6700k in some sites, im afraid if I go for the 5820k because of the x99 which it is old, and z170 have better future.
Aboodi Lail Assahar (02:22 AM, June 23, 2016)
Hello, gotta build a pc, i do not sure what to go with: 5820k or 6700k with gtx 1080 sli ?
Frank Daniel Boguszewski (06:06 AM, June 21, 2016)
Anyone thinking this AMD garbage, the fx 8350 is even in the same.... universe as the 6700k, 4790k, OR 5820k is on crack, man. Did anyone say that? How stupid. They probably are very eager gamers, and that's what they have. Desperately trying to make a case (in their own minds) for why they have the mad notes. I certainly disagree with some of this, I respect the 6700k, but overall.... I like the 5820k. I also think the 6700k > 4790k, but they ALL beat the freaking fx 8350. Man...... AMD is like... Lead paint shedding toys made in Bangladesh, Nvidia is like high quality American made toys.
Frank Daniel Boguszewski (06:03 AM, June 21, 2016)
so agreed. I honestly think the original scores, which have the 5820k above the 4790k, and the skylake slightly above that, were more accurate. I appreciate the Skylake's 4 cores, and gaming ability. It is NOT less than the 4790k, and it sure as hell isn't almost twice as good as the 5820k. Good observation. Yes, their credibility with this guy is shot.
Frank Daniel Boguszewski (06:01 AM, June 21, 2016)
O my god. You and Driven01 are intelligent! I'm amazed!! You are the only 2 I read, I bet there are other people who are not morons!! I am pleased. Did you guys know, that when the 5820k came OUT, it was 9.1, the 4790k was 9.3, and when the 6700k popped it was 8.9? Then they added in all the stupid onboard graphics and power bullshit, and BOGGED the hell out of the 5820k's score. It's just not as popular, and many, many people think the 4790k and 6700k just BLOW it out of the water, the quad cores sell better, and they're being biased. People cry about an AMD vs Nvidia Bias... I don't see that. I see a Bias towards the court of public opinion, which has many jurors who don't understand the hardware.
NightBladeDK (08:17 PM, June 10, 2016)
The fx 8 series has a way lower performance boost per clock compared to anything intel has had since sandybridge. Reasons people rocked the 2500k for so long. Plus we arent seeing many games useing more than 4 cores yet.
Geek Gamer (03:54 PM, June 6, 2016)
It may, but Broadwell-E is using the same X99 chipset as Haswell-E. And they say Kaby Lake will also support Z170, which according to me is great!!
Geek Gamer (03:51 PM, June 6, 2016)
Upgrade from? An FX 8350? Sure, you could wait for Kaby Lake NOW but upgrading to a Skylake over an FX 8350 is completely sensible (if you are willing to spend) OR even an i5 6600K is better than 8350 for current gen gaming
Geek Gamer (03:45 PM, June 6, 2016)
Exactly, that too using dang Celeron N1500 lol
Geek Gamer (04:50 AM, June 2, 2016)
lol
Geek Gamer (04:46 AM, June 2, 2016)
Against a 3000mhz ddr4? 6700k stock is 4.0-4.2ghz I have OCed mine to 4.6ghz
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss