Now that 1151 has been out for a little bit, DDR4 prices have dropped. That would be one obvious advantage over the 2011. I believe in most cases the onboard graphics are usually disabled, it is possible this has changed on the new platform. That one I'm not sure of. I have a couple of X79 builds, I really enjoy them both. But, If I were building new I would more than likely go 1151, simply to have the latest.  I would wait for a few more qualified replies, as I'm not one of the brightest bulb's in the package. Enjoy your new hardware whichever direction you choose.  

notfordman
Now that 1151 has been out for a little bit, DDR4 prices have dropped. That would be one obvious advantage over the 2011. I believe in most cases the onboard graphics are usually disabled, it is possible this has changed on the new platform. That one I'm not sure of. I have a couple of X79 builds, I really enjoy them both. But, If I were building new I would more than likely go 1151, simply to have the latest.  I would wait for a few more qualified replies, as I'm not one of the brightest bulb's in the package. Enjoy your new hardware whichever direction you choose.  

he's talking 2011 V3 so x99 vs z170, in that instance id go x99 if you can afford it

but he said 5820k vs 6700k

I would simply send a question to tech support for the 1151 question

Also Intel is coming out with New CPU's for the 2011-3 socket and our X99 with a BIOS update should support them.
More Info on the Socket:
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/core-i7-lga2011-3-datasheet-vol-1.pdf
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/core-i7-lga2011-3-datasheet-vol-2.pdf
 
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/performance-chipsets/x99-chipset.html

stalinx20
Sounds to me that if you're wanting to get the 6700 series then you should probably get an extended warranty...Kind of makes you wonder if Intel is skipping out on their products also. Or was that just carelessness on the user?

Or Time for this
Performance Tuning Protection Plan

Allows a single replacement for your qualified processor, in addition to your standard 3 year warranty. Learn More
 
I have this for all my Intel CPUs

LFaWolf

bcavnaugh

stalinx20
Sounds to me that if you're wanting to get the 6700 series then you should probably get an extended warranty...Kind of makes you wonder if Intel is skipping out on their products also. Or was that just carelessness on the user?

Or Time for this
Performance Tuning Protection Plan
 
Allows a single replacement for your qualified processor, in addition to your standard 3 year warranty. Learn More
 
I have this for all my Intel CPUs

I don't think think the warranty will cover physical damage from over-tightening, will it?

You would need to read up on it to know for sure. I use it in case I fry it from Overclocking.

I would think that the damage from the CPU Cooler is their fault anyway.
They must not really be meant to be use on that CPU or really bad design or even an older Socket Cooler and the vender said it would work but.
 
Maybe we are also getting off subject here, but I cannot say this because I am not a Forum Moderator.

stalinx20
Sounds to me that if you're wanting to get the 6700 series then you should probably get an extended warranty...Kind of makes you wonder if Intel is skipping out on their products also. Or was that just carelessness on the user?
 
I know for a fact that a lot of people, when they install their heatsync, install the screws in to where they are so "TIGHT" that they're forcing it to go more than where it really needs to be, basically grinding it in (yeah...). I believe this is more than likely the biggest factor I can see being the problem. Answer? Don't screw them in so tight. They don't need to be that tight to begin with. Just a nice snug is perfect to get the cooler installed. ("Just tap it in" lol) There could be other leading factors too.  

I read that the big problem is the 3rd party coolers. Possibly a weight issue? But how if there are clamps to support the weight of the cooler?

I am going to start with the third party cooler comment. .. Intel doesn't sell these chips with a cooler, so every single cooler is third party no matter how you spin it.

Many people are saying they were finger tight and no tighter than that, but of course, Intel is going to blame end users and end users will blame intel. Best bet, avoid the scenario completely since the 4790k performs nearly the same with up to a 5% difference, or go with x99 and ddr4.

Scarlet-Tech

stalinx20
Sounds to me that if you're wanting to get the 6700 series then you should probably get an extended warranty...Kind of makes you wonder if Intel is skipping out on their products also. Or was that just carelessness on the user?
 
I know for a fact that a lot of people, when they install their heatsync, install the screws in to where they are so "TIGHT" that they're forcing it to go more than where it really needs to be, basically grinding it in (yeah...). I believe this is more than likely the biggest factor I can see being the problem. Answer? Don't screw them in so tight. They don't need to be that tight to begin with. Just a nice snug is perfect to get the cooler installed. ("Just tap it in" lol) There could be other leading factors too.  

I read that the big problem is the 3rd party coolers. Possibly a weight issue? But how if there are clamps to support the weight of the cooler?

I am going to start with the third party cooler comment. .. Intel doesn't sell these chips with a cooler, so every single cooler is third party no matter how you spin it.

Many people are saying they were finger tight and no tighter than that, but of course, Intel is going to blame end users and end users will blame intel. Best bet, avoid the scenario completely since the 4790k performs nearly the same with up to a 5% difference, or go with x99 and ddr4.

I'm not doubting you at all, but how many people would you say comment that they have done what was required, but did something completely different? You know what I mean? Anybody could say that they only made it "finger tight", but actually took a screwdriver to tighten the screw, and while they were tightening, even stripped the screw. I'm just considering the possibilities. Your point about the 5% difference is probably the best point on this whole entire thread, that there is only a 5% difference.
 
Edit : we really do have to take into account that "some people" are just purely negligent when it comes to putting their PC together, but I will say it can't be the main cause for the issue of the skylake processors. Even with the "finger tight" method, too much can be "too much". Actually just a "snug" can be all you need to hold the cooler in place.
 
I would like to know what kind of constraints the watercoolers have on the processor. Do we know if they suffer from the same issue?
 

Methodical2

stalinx20

Scarlet-Tech

stalinx20... 

Off topic.  Your signature is missing the word "be"  I know, I know it's waaay off topic, but it just caught my eye.
 
To the OP.  I was in the same situation and for 2 reasons, I decided on the 5930K
 
1. Microcenter had the 5930k for $399.
2. Intel used thermal paste instead of solder for die to heat-spreader.
 
Now, I will admit that I am not the most versed person when it comes to all the technical aspect of CPUs, but I read, read and read and I deduced that using thermal paste was not as efficient in transferring heat.  Some of these guys know this stuff way better than me though and could get way more technical on this subject.  I saw where folks were delidding their cpu to try and get better heat efficiency.  I knew I didn't want to be in that business, so I decided on the 5930K.  From what I understand, my 2600k has the same structure as the extreme CPUs.
 
Take that for what it's worth.

I stayed with my 2600k and never bought any Ivy or Haswell chips for that reason too. 

XrayMan
 
All I see in the last 2 posts are quotes, but no responses.

The responses are the bottom of the posts. I am going to fix them, and the [/ quote] bracket is broken.

All it was that one end quote had been removed. They are corrected now to show properly.

X99 all the way
 
To the OP original question, about using the CPU graphic with a separate GPU ?
 
 

Scourge78
..so here is my question: which is better for long-term/gaming? Does the integrated graphics of LGA 1151 act as a sort of graphics co-processor or a PhysX something, thus reducing the computing load for my 960? Or is it something to be disabled since I have a video card already. I would either be getting a 5820k or a 6700k.
 
If LGA 1151 does something to lighten the load, then I'll prolly go for it (esp. if I can go with an i5), but if the integrated video and the card cannot co-exist, 2011-v3 will be mine.
 

Not that I'm aware of, though this internal graphics is the best one Intel has made to date; it can not even come close to the power of a stand alone GPU.
 
So, no not a co-processor - it would actually be a bottle neck even if you could use both in this manner.