Early Poll to see what people are thinking between the 2, both loaded with top CPU.
 
The Contenders:
Classified X99 w/ i7 -5960x      vs.     Classified Z97 w/ i7-4790K
The Application:
Gaming Performance (FPS)
 
 
The Anticipated Winner?

Szeged
 
The only reason to go 5960x over 4790k is if you have 3 or more gpus for more pci-e lanes.

Yep, Since I mainly indulge in Overclocking/Benchmarking with 4-Way SLI, That is Exactly Why I went with the 5960X. 

The ultimate test would be to pair a 3- or 4-way SLI/CFX setup with either Z97 and X99, both with PLX chipsets to force all graphics cards to run x16.  Both processors need the same CPU and RAM frequencies, same game at the same resolution/detail settings to see if there is a difference.  Two DDR4 DIMMS would be needed to force dual-channel so X99 doesn't have an unfair advantage, we're testing the CPU and nothing else.  Haswell and Haswell-E are the same architecture, a different socket won't change the IPC (instructions per clock)-- but there will still be a discrepancy in results due to L3 cache memory.
 
Ever since Nehalem, Intel created a level 3 cache memory that is shared for all CPU cores, so if only one is being used, it has access to all the memory.  This is how a high-end CPU wins over a Celeron in single-threaded apps, i.e. the SuperPI benchmark, with having more cache per core when less cores are active.  The cache runs as fast as the CPU, so higher bandwidth and lower latency than system RAM.
 
The Haswell quad-cores in LGA1150 have 8MB w/HT and 6MB w/o HT, so performance between is negligible, all things set equal-- but the 8-core has access to 20MB, and the upcoming $4k 18-core Haswell-EP Xeon has access to 45MB of L3 cache memory.  For programs that have a lot of tasks and processes, it is better to have more cache memory even if you're not using all the cores.  What kind of a boost are we talking about?  All things equal, per conditions of the above 'ultimate test', 20MB against 8MB is around a 10% difference (sixth root of 2.5).  It isn't meant to be very high, games don't have many internal tasks and processes.
 

SzegedThe only reason to go 5960x over 4790k is if you have 3 or more gpus for more pci-e lanes.

That is not entirely accurate, and has mainly to do with the rest of your reply.  Look at it logically:  If game developers are lazy enough to not code for more cores, then why would they only code for more core when more GPUs are present?  Within a few years, a future single-GPU card will perform like our multi-GPU setups of today, will the game discriminate and only engage a few CPU cores with the faster single-GPU card?  No, because as you said, game devs are lazy, they haven't created a loophole that bypasses their own laziness.
 
 
Besides, game developers are not really lazy.  The idea of any business is to net the most sales; in the case of games, most people don't get the best hardware for a PC game.  Games are optimized for the hardware that most people own, which are single-GPU cards and either quad-cores or dual-cores with HT.  If games are coded for more cores and more GPUs, while to an enthusiast it would be incentive to buy more hardware, most people don't want to upgrade just for game = no return on investment since enthusiasts are a minority and don't represent all PC gamers.  Most gamers don't overclock, so they aren't getting K processors either.
 

jcw777
For pure gaming. 4790k. Faster single thread performance.

Not really.. only because of the higher clock speed. Have a 5820k here that's stable at 4.6Ghz on 1.21v and my firestrike is much higher than my 4770k was at 4.6ghz.

40Water

jcw777
For pure gaming. 4790k. Faster single thread performance.

Not really.. only because of the higher clock speed. Have a 5820k here that's stable at 4.6Ghz on 1.21v and my firestrike is much higher than my 4770k was at 4.6ghz.

 
That's because 3dmark is optimized to use all cores unlike games. A 4790k at 4.6ghz vs a 4.6ghz 5960x will perform the same in games.
 
3dmark is not indicative of actual gaming.

4790k.

Hmm
 

IceTea666
What happen here ?
 
 

 
I really want to go with a X99 Classified in my new system, but EVGA must do something with the X99 Classified BIOS or i will go with ASUS hardware

what's wrong with the bios. people havr been getting good overclocks with the classified and reviews have said they are pretty good and easy to use?

Nouskers
I'm seeing major FPS improvements in TR3, Far Cry 4, BF4, Sleeping dogs, Titanfall, Hardline - after switching from a 4770k @ 4.6Ghz to a 5820k @ 4.5ghz and I haven't even tweaked it yet or gone higher. Prime stable for over 24hours. 1.23 voltage and all cores are under 63*C.
 
Will shoot for 4.7Ghz later today. I don't know if all of those games utilize 6 cores or more, but theres really no doubt my FPS is 15+ % improved. BF4 being the greatest improvement, maxed settings on 1080p alone I'm over 320FPS now, where as I was around 240 before.
 

Not sure how you are getting 320 or 240 on BF4 as the frame rate of the game itself is limited to 200 maximum and nothing more. I have run 2 and 3 way SLI 780ti on Ultra and high and it sets at 200 and goes no higher ever.

If you are referring to the fps of other games, then it is just confusion, but that statement looks like you are saying a game that is max limited is getting almost 1.5 times it's max.

If you are able to *break* past the game limited max, you should record and post to YouTube as I have yet to see that.

Ntrain96
Its shown that the z87/z97 chipsets with a 4779k/4790k will perform on par or a bit better than the x99/ 6 and 8 core processors in single and 2 way sli configs.
 
x99 overall is a lot more money with literally 0 gains for gaming over z87 or z97 setups.

4790 is a great cpu no doubt about it, but if you do a bit of a twitch streaming or recording while you game, that's where 6 core shines and that's where 4790 starts to crapout...

Clock for clock isn't Haswell-E 10% faster? 10% is not worth it for bang for the buck at this present moment but when it comes time to upgrade you may be in a better position with x99.  NO?

Portal 2 yeilds 481 FPS at 1600x2560.  Just in case anyone was wondering.