Cores versus Clock Speed

[Skyblade]

So, for a while now, I've been planning to build a new PC, and I'm fast approaching the time when I'll actually be putting it together.

I've selected most of the components, but I am having a debate on one of the most important: The processor and motherboard.

Essentially, I've narrowed it down to two. The Intel i7 6700k, or the Intel i7 6850k. The 6700k is a lovely little 4GHz, quad core machine. While the 6850k is a 3.6GHz, six core processor.

In terms of pure gaming power, I know I'm better off with the 6700k. But I've heard that, if I'm going for streaming and video editing, the multiple cores may be a better route. However, I don't know how much of a trade off I'll be taking one way or the other.

The multi-core approach is also more expensive, both in terms of the processor itself, and the motherboard. And, both the Broadwell and Skylake chipsets are near the end of their life, with Intel's next upcoming processor line, the Kaby Lake, going to use a new chipset, and thus, require a new motherboard.

So, what should I do? Go with the cheaper Skylake until I next need to upgrade, and rethink the situation then (when larger core processors would likely be more common)? Or grab the extended scope of the two extra cores now, and hope to get a longer life out of them? Or will I even notice the difference one way or another?

Any advice is welcome.

[escobert]

I don't think you'll see that big of a difference with more cores tbh. I stream with a i3 (dual core @ 3.70GHz) without much issue.

[Slothy]

It's been so long since I upgraded my computer that I'm pretty out of the loop as far as what's required for streaming and such, especially if you're going to stream graphically intensive games. However, I'd guess that the gpu is still going to be priority number one in those cases. If I'm wrong i I'm sure someone somewhere will correct me. Personally, if probably go with the quad, maybe even overclock of your up for it. But at the same time I'm usually for buying the best things you can afford and not skimping since you usually end up disappointed that way. If you can afford the more expensive option, 0.4 GHz isn't a massive difference per core and easily made up for with a light overclock. And if you think you might need more cores, which you might with multiple things running in the background and if you want to stream recent games at high resolution, I'd go for the 6.

So now that i think I've recommended both I'll go confuse someone else for a bit.

[CimminyCricket]

I went with more cores rather than base clock speed. If I need more, I will overclock. Haven't had a problem so far.