Intel i7-6700k or i7-5820k for streaming?

[loler_SK]

Hi gyus,
I want to buy new processor for my HOST streaming machine. Currently I have:

cpu: Intel core i5-2500k @ 4,5GHz (motherboard without iGPU support = no QuickSync)
gpu: Nvidia GTX770 4GB
ram: 16GB DDR3

I cannot decide which new processor will be better for game streaming:
i7-6700k has 4 cores and common overclock is 4,5GHz
i7-5820k has 6 cores and common overclock is 4,2GHz

So singe-core performance wise, there is 300MHz difference per core, which is marginal.

Big plus for i7-6700k seems to be its integrated GPU with QuickSync technology - this can be used for hardware encoding with no impact on GPU performance.

Big plus for i7-5820k are 2 more cores, but I don't know if this is a real advantage for game streaming, as I will need to use Nvidia's GPU HW encoding since this processor does not have iGPU.

The question is, how big advantage is to use Intel QuickSync for game streaming (encoding).

Currently, there is notable FPS drop on my graphics card (GTX770) when I use GPU hardware encoding for streaming. I guess if i7-6700k can use QuickSync to offload encoding to iGPU so I can use full GPU power with no performance impact. But I do plan to upgrade my graphics card in the future, and new Nvidia cards are much better in terms of GPU HW encoding where the performance hit on the GPU is minimal.

Is the i7-6700k QuickSync technology so big advantage for game streaming (encoding) that I should choose this processor over six-core i7-5820k?

Thanks for help

[kreiselhoschi]

Using Quicksync would have (nearly) no effect for you. Nividis GPUs use an encoder chip that can do the encoding on it´s own hardware w/o using other resources of the GPU (maybe it´s a frame or two you´ll lose by using NVENC against using Quicksync).

With games more and more taking advantage of more cores, I´d personally go for the 5820k. In my opinion, the 300MHz less compared to the 6700k is not an argument. On the other hand, the 5820k is around €100,-- more expensive - so you could spare that money and save for a better GPU for VR etc. that might be interesting for you in the future.

I´m running a XEON E3 1231v3 with 3.4GHz and not a single game by now brought this CPU even under enough pressure to be limiting. But my GTX770 is about to be outdated. ;)

[Hun]

Originally posted by kreiselhoschi:

Using Quicksync would have (nearly) no effect for you. Nividis GPUs use an encoder chip that can do the encoding on it´s own hardware w/o using other resources of the GPU (maybe it´s a frame or two you´ll lose by using NVENC against using Quicksync).

With games more and more taking advantage of more cores, I´d personally go for the 5820k. In my opinion, the 300MHz less compared to the 6700k is not an argument. On the other hand, the 5820k is around €100,-- more expensive - so you could spare that money and save for a better GPU for VR etc. that might be interesting for you in the future.

I´m running a XEON E3 1231v3 with 3.4GHz and not a single game by now brought this CPU even under enough pressure to be limiting. But my GTX770 is about to be outdated. ;)

Went with the 5820K over the 6700K and don't regret it one bit. :)

[powerarmour]

Have to say I currently use an i5-5675C (Broadwell, Iris Pro 6200) for QuickSync encoding and it's an absolute dream compared to NVFBC on my GTX 760 in terms of speed and quality, but obviously the QSV hardware is more up to date and I'd imagine the Skylake to be even better.