Multi-core CPU's vs multi-channel memory

Blinkr
Blinkr used Ask the Experts™
on
I am setting up another Adobe CS6 machine for my video guy. I am on the fence now. I was looking at Intel's new I7-6700k Quad core that uses dual channel memory setup. On the other side, I'm considering I7-5820 6-core processor. The 6700k uses the 1151 socket that addresses memory thru dual channel setup. The 5920 uses the latest 2011-v3 socket & addresses the quad channel setup.

My client had been leaning towards the 6700k because it is a new processor that costs about the same as the 5820. So he is thinking that he is getting a new improved processor at the cost of the "older" 5820.

I'm leaning towards the 5820 due to the increased cores AND the quad channel memory. It would stand to reason the increased cores & channels would be the best overall.

Could anyone who has had experience with these CPU's give any more info one-way or another?
Comment
Watch Question

Do more with

Expert Office
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
Commented:
According to the benchmarks, the i7-6700k running at 4.0 GHz has a rating of 11,008 Passmarks. The i7-5820k running at 3.3 GHz has a passmark rating of 12,991. The catch with multi-core processors is that the benchmark takes into consideration the speed of all of the cores combined. If you happen to run any software that only takes advantage of one core, the higher speed of the 6700k will outperform the lower speed 5820k. Most software now uses mutliple cores, so this won't be a problem in Creative Suite 6. The speed of the 5820k is about 15% faster for most operations. I would recommend it as a very suitable solution, as would the 6700k. There is really little difference between the two processors when placed into a system. Other areas of the system, such as RAM, HDD and Video, will have a far greater effect than the speed difference between these CPUs will.
Another interesting difference between these two processors is heat output. The i7-6700k has an output of 91 watts, while the i7-5820k has an output of 140 watts. Power consumption and cooling are both considerations when building a system.


Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz  + Compare      Average CPU Mark
Description:  Socket: LGA1151, Clockspeed: 4.0 GHz, Turbo Speed: 4.2 GHz, No of Cores: 4 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 95 W
Other names:  Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz
CPU First Seen on Charts:  Q2 2015
CPUmark/$Price:  30.25     Overall Rank:  60
Last Price Change:  $363.94 USD (2015-08-21)
11008
Single Thread Rating: 2327
Samples: 1856

Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3.30GHz  + Compare      Average CPU Mark
Description:  Socket: LGA2011-v3, Clockspeed: 3.3 GHz, Turbo Speed: 3.6 GHz, No of Cores: 6 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 140 W
Other names:  Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz
CPU First Seen on Charts:  Q2 2014
CPUmark/$Price:  37.12     Overall Rank:  43
Last Price Change:  $349.99 USD (2014-09-07)
12991
Single Thread Rating: 2006
Samples: 1858

See http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ for benchmarks.
See http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz 
See http://ark.intel.com/products/88195/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

Author

Commented:
Thanks Norm! What you are telling me is basically I have been finding all over the 'net. This system will have liquid cooling so heat isn't as much an issue. But in reading about CS6, it definitely uses most of the CPU cores. So also I'm guessing all of the quad channel will also be used as well.

This is where things start muddying up for me. It would appear CS6 will take advantage of both & that would give the 5820 the edge. But please help clear this up a little better.

I know the "new" 6700 is the new chip & most of the time that is what I would go with. But it is the first of these chips & its using some upgraded older tech (it appears 1151 socket). While the 5820 is using some of Intel's newer tech (2011 socket).

I feel as Intel releases more of this 6th generation chip there will be even more cores & channels, but it still is only the first of these out there. Also Adobe seems to be taking advantage of all it can get out of system.

Commented:
Yes, that is true. But processors keep coming out that are newer and faster. These CPUs that cost $350 will be replaced by a faster $350 CPU shortly, and then the price will drop on the oldèr/slower CPU. It has been this way a very long time. In terms of speed and processing power, price is a fair comparison. Two processors that cost about the same, even across manufacturers, are about the same speed.
In terms of automotive jargon, this is like trying to tell which of two cars is faster when one has slightly more torque and the other has slightly more horsepower. Each has some minor advantage but there is very little practical difference between them. Compare either of these processors to a $500 or $100 processor, but not to each other.

Do more with

Expert Office
Submit tech questions to Ask the Experts™ at any time to receive solutions, advice, and new ideas from leading industry professionals.

Start 7-Day Free Trial