I think these two CPU's are fairly evenly matched. I went with the i7 but if you want to save a few dollars the 6600K is the way to go.
 
I have read reviews which stated that a 6600K did bottleneck a 980 Ti, though. I don't believe it will but something to consider in your research.

quadlatte
How much of diffence does the amount pcie lanes matter? Probably wont do sli this time but i do want super fast hdd, maybe m.2 main drive.

Both processors have 16 lanes of pci-e 3.0.

Ok, think i was looking at at 2011v3 that had more.

Do you like to make youtube videos or use photo shop, if so i would recommend i7.  
 
My next system i build, i will be purchasing i7.
 
 
 
 

Check the forums and info on the sites of software and games you want to play.
 
I'd make sure to exceed the minimum requirements for software that you use often.
 
32GB RAM is not a big help over 16GB maybe move RAM monies to CPU fund ?
 
Release of new Intel CPU family & newer Z270 MB - just around the corner

@ quadlatte Ref: PTPP 
Sorry Typo "(Even This Program will not help you with a Fried CPU that you have done this to it.)" (decide)
quadlatte please do not tell me you delided.
I wanted to make sure that (delided) users know they are Not Covered. Got my W and T messed up.
 

quadlatte
ended up going i5, since i did the stepup to the 270 classy i went with the 7600k, thing is a beast, had it up to 5ghz but was a bit unstable so im going to stick with 4.4~4.5 till i get better cooling and time to really tinker with it.

I'm using the same CPU for a four board Folding rig using a ASRock Z270 Supercarrier. At least I know what kind of OC I should be able to get out of it. My first mobo was DOA but since I bought a Virago 750 Motorcycle instead of upgrading to a pair of GTX-1080 ti with waterblocks I have lost most interest in my PCs. Nothing like that feeling of the wind in your face!

JJ77ply1
Well just hope that another game developer doesn't try to shoe in exclusive content for i7 users again.
 
Looking at you Arizona Sunshine :I

I got Arizona Sunshine for my HTC Vive. I did not know it required an i7. This PC has the i7-4790k so I have no worries. The truth is that I bought it on sale before I knew it was a VR game. My bad but in my defense I am over 60. A few weeks later I foolishly bought the HTC Vive just because it was $100 off with free headphones thrown in. Now I want to sell it since I only used it twice and the second time I forgot to calibrate it properly. Doh!

I went with the 7600k, every benchmark i seen could justify the extra $100.00 for the i7, i dont really use any programs that would benefit from the HT and they both clock to about the same level.

It bottle necks a 970? Yet to see any reviews stating that. I did see a few that did show the i7 performing better at stock clocks but when clocked the same it was not as much, single threaded apps were basically neck and neck. So i went with the i5, the $100 price difference between them just couldnt be justified ( of course newegg has the i7 on sale now, go figure ) every app and game i have runs silky smooth and that with the eye candy turned up, with vsync on and frames capped at 120 it doesnt matter if one runs it at 180 and the other at 188, im never going to see it.

NPNiles
I have the i5 7600k myself, pretty good processor and didn't bother oc yet. Curious though why my machine is at 38C when idling, probably because of my air setup. 
 
Like many others I couldn't afford the i7 and I have no regrets with my i5 either.  
 
B
 
 

Few possible reasons.
1. Ambient air temp.
2. Poor air flow.
3. Cooler inadequate or needs reseat.
4. [NOT FOR EVERYBODY] Delid CPU and reapply your own TIM to drop temps by anywhere from 10 to 20 degrees.

Intel IHS does not make great contact with the CPU. I just did a delid on my 6700K and dropped temps by about 15C. Very risky, and not recommended unless you are trying to get everything you can out if your CPU.

somethingc00l

quadlatte
It bottle necks a 970? 

No, that guy is smoking something (and doesn't understand how bottlenecks work).
 
If you are on a budget, the extra $100 is almost always better spent on more GPU vs more CPU.
 
The CPU is what defines the maximum FPS you can get (turn off all effects, setting low, 800x600 resolution, that's your max FPS the CPU can do). Thus the CPU is always the bottleneck until you raise resolution, setting, and effects to the point where the GPU becomes the bottleneck (FPS drops from CPU max). There will ALWAYS be a bottleneck (and it varies per game), thus why I don't understand everyone's obsession over it, I guess it's trendy now or something.
 
So sure, CS:GO (or any easy to render game) would be "bottlenecked" by any decent CPU with a 970, at something like 200 FPS. Until you raise the resolution to like 8k, then the GPU probably starts to slow it down. Thus you can see why talking about a CPU bottleneck without mention of the game or resolution is just silly.
 

It's a sign of weakness when you must rely on petty slander to argue with someone. CPU bottlenecks occur anytime the CPU is under such a heavy load that the GPU cannot be fully utilized. Resolution is not the only factor. Draw calls are also an important factor. If you consider an engine such as Ubisoft's Anvil, you'll see a perfect example of how the polygon count leads to much higher draw calls, bottlenecking even a GTX 970. I'm on a mobile device, so it's not feasible to produce a bunch of links, but look up Jokerproduction's Assassin's Creed Syndicate performance review, in which he shows a 970 being bottlenecked by an i5 Skylake processor. Fallout 4 shows similar results. Gamersnexus also shows clear differences between an i5 and i7 in certain titles.

It's not as simple as "super high end graphics card plus low end CPU at low resolution equals CPU bottleneck." Technically, ANY CPU is a bottleneck for ANY video card in various strategy games like Civ VI in-between turns, as the CPU load increases dramatically in an attempt to simulate the AI decisions. You'll notice GPU usage decreases dramatically and frame rates decrease as well. This has NOTHING to do with resolution. Hence, you need to think a little harder about what induces a CPU bottleneck. The bottom line Is, games are starting to use more than 4 threads and the mentality from 5 years ago simply doesn't hold anymore. It's only going to become more prevalent as time progresses, especially since Ryzen has increased the core count for the mainstream.

Since i dont run any of those it does not matter to me, if was interested in just max fps ( ie 100+ ) then maybe i would have some concern, but i usually have vsync on i really wouldnt notice anything above 60 anyway, and every thing i run never dips below that, same with benchmarks, i run them for some testing and to drop in my modrigs page but thats it, to me maximum stability is the most important thing.

Since i dont run any of those it does not matter to me, if was interested in just max fps ( ie 100+ ) then maybe i would have some concern, but i usually have vsync on i really wouldnt notice anything above 60 anyway, and every thing i run never dips below that, same with benchmarks, i run them for some testing and to drop in my modrigs page but thats it, to me maximum stability is the most important thing.

I had an i5 4690K and moved to an i7 4790k, Honestly the performance was pretty much even.

however, I wanted HT just in case, so stayed with the 4790k. If you game, i7 surely cant hurt, same with doing photoshop and the likes.

If you got the coin, go i7, if your tight budget, go i5.

Seen you went with the i5. Nice budget choice. Kudo's! my next will be an i7 again, but not till sometime next year.