Which Intel processor for streaming?

[rulee]

Here soon I'll be putting about $2500 in to a new streaming/gaming station. As I've started to research and decide what I want to buy, I've come across a question that some seem to differ about.

Which intel processor for streaming 1080p (1440?) and above? I originally thought just getting an i7-7700k would be the best, but some seem to disagree and say that something around a i7-5820k processor would be great do to the extra cores. I know side by side gaming, the 7700k is better, but for streaming purposes should I downgrade to the 5820k?

I'd basically be streaming WoW, SC2, and maybe a few other games here and there.

[rulee]

Is it even worth looking in to a 6800k?

[Metallourlante]

7700k is good enough for everything you wanna do honestly

[Evildeffy]

Here soon I'll be putting about $2500 in to a new streaming/gaming station. As I've started to research and decide what I want to buy, I've come across a question that some seem to differ about.

Which intel processor for streaming 1080p (1440?) and above? I originally thought just getting an i7-7700k would be the best, but some seem to disagree and say that something around a i7-5820k processor would be great do to the extra cores. I know side by side gaming, the 7700k is better, but for streaming purposes should I downgrade to the 5820k?

I'd basically be streaming WoW, SC2, and maybe a few other games here and there.

Do you need this quickly?

If you can wait a month and a half orso you might be better off with a Ryzen CPU from AMD.
Getting an 8C/16T CPU for the price of the i7-7700K whilst having close to if not the same IPC would actually give you both of best worlds.

We already know that the F4 engineering sample is 3.6GHz/4.0GHz for Ryzen with slightly better than BW-E IPC.
Meaning it should be equal to Skylake/Kaby Lake in terms of IPC as well as have the cores you want to stream and video edit quite a bit better than what the i7-7700K can offer you.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Is it even worth looking in to a 6800k?

Depends on whether or not you want to spend two or three times more for a good 2011 socket board and if you can fit it in to your budget without compromising other components to a great degree.

[rulee]

Do you need this quickly?

If you can wait a month and a half orso you might be better off with a Ryzen CPU from AMD.
Getting an 8C/16T CPU for the price of the i7-7700K whilst having close to if not the same IPC would actually give you both of best worlds.

We already know that the F4 engineering sample is 3.6GHz/4.0GHz for Ryzen with slightly better than BW-E IPC.
Meaning it should be equal to Skylake/Kaby Lake in terms of IPC as well as have the cores you want to stream and video edit quite a bit better than what the i7-7700K can offer you.

It'll probably be a few months as I save up, but I like to do a lot of research before spending all that money so I know I'm getting the best bang for the buck.

Is AMD really going to match Kaby Lake? It seems like people always say they are a few steps lower.

[Evildeffy]

It'll probably be a few months as I save up, but I like to do a lot of research before spending all that money so I know I'm getting the best bang for the buck.

Is AMD really going to match Kaby Lake? It seems like people always say they are a few steps lower.

If you were to get the current architecture which is the FM2+ or AM3+ socket then yes they are slower.

But AMD's Ryzen is likely going to be a valid contender as it was designed by the same guy who designed the Athlon XP and Athlon64 CPUs which walked all over the Intel equivalents and they've showcased Ryzen in actual (not synthetic) benchmarks where it 1-on-1 beat an Intel Core i7-6900K whilst being slower in frequency.

Kaby Lake = Skylake only clocked higher, there's no IPC improvement present, only clockspeeds.

So say you get the 3,6GHz base with 4,0GHz Turbo 8C/16T CPU with that information but it's 500MHz slower than stock i7-7700K you'd have a theoretical (and likely practical) win in terms of pure gaming performance but the second you start streaming/encoding video the Ryzen CPU SHOULD decimate the i7-7700K in your other endeavours.

Note:
This is just info we have to go on as well but Ryzen should formally be available from the stores say March 1st due to the idea being it being launched Feb 28th.
This is during the Game Developer's Conference (GDC) and they stated specifically no paper launch but hard availability.

[Sorshen]

I don't see the 8C/16T Ryzen being priced closer to 7700K ($350) when it's basically designed to go against 6900K (~$1050). Maybe somewhere in the middle.

[Vash The Stampede]

I'd wait for Zen if you want to save money.

[Blueobelisk]

Do you need this quickly?

If you can wait a month and a half orso you might be better off with a Ryzen CPU from AMD.
Getting an 8C/16T CPU for the price of the i7-7700K whilst having close to if not the same IPC would actually give you both of best worlds.

We already know that the F4 engineering sample is 3.6GHz/4.0GHz for Ryzen with slightly better than BW-E IPC.
Meaning it should be equal to Skylake/Kaby Lake in terms of IPC as well as have the cores you want to stream and video edit quite a bit better than what the i7-7700K can offer you.

Where do you learn and get updated about all the new upcoming processors and their benchmarks?

[Evildeffy]

Where do you learn and get updated about all the new upcoming processors and their benchmarks?

Random websites, Twitter feeds, etc.
But for Ryzen f.ex. AMD has held their conference named New Horizon.

You can find the event on AMD's YouTube page and you can see what they are running f.ex.

In New Horizons f.ex. they have their silicon running @ 3,4GHz fixed vs. the Core i7-6900K.
This is significant because depending on the motherboard a 6900K at full load runs at either 3,5GHz or 3,7GHz (again mobo dependant).

Either which way it shows a 3,4GHz Ryzen CPU outperforming an at least 3,5GHz Intel Core i7-6900K CPU.
With tools that people actually use IRL, so no synthetic benchmarks, and both tools shown have been confirmed to offer the same results with 6900K users out there.

There was Battlefield 1 displayed there as well with both a 6900K and Ryzen CPU running with an nVidia Titan XP same settings and the Ryzen chip beating that too.
But since only people present there could see the FPS counter and we could not it kinda sucked for us to put any measuring standard there.

Between Broadwell and Skylake was a 2 - 4% IPC difference and between Skylake and Kaby Lake there is NO IPC difference.
Meaning that the numbers would indeed suggest an IPC amount equal to Skylake/Kaby Lake and the only thing holding it back would be frequency (MHz).

This is why people are excited for AMD's Ryzen as it is potentially extremely disruptive to the CPU market of incredible proportions.

Anyway among those websites there is the following:
http://wccftech.com/

Now keep in mind that WCCFTech reports EVERYTHING, which is good and bad, it means that there's a good deal of rumours flying by as well.
However the majority of their information is in general solid and does give you an idea of this as well.

[Jimmy Thick]

Streams are only as good as the people's computer who is watching. You can stream, well, with anything above an AMD 8300. Spend the money on a real good webcam and microphone and learn to greenscreen.

[Al3sinth]

But AMD's Ryzen is likely going to be a valid contender as it was designed by the same guy who designed the Athlon XP and Athlon64 CPUs which walked all over the Intel equivalents and they've showcased Ryzen in actual (not synthetic) benchmarks where it 1-on-1 beat an Intel Core i7-6900K whilst being slower in frequency.

Out of all the Computers i've built and owned my Athlon XP 2600+ Thoroughbred & Athlon XP 3200+ Barton will always have a place in my heart as far as CPUs go!