i think its unfair...why the 6700K is better than 5820K but the 5820K is more expensive then 6700K??
2 big things to note: 5820k is on the x99 platform and this page failed to include much of anything on multithreaded content. The x99 platform is a much better option if you're going to be doing any serious work as it has a greater variety of higher end chips to choose from compared to the z170 platform of the 6700k, which may not even have an upgrade path at all at the rate things are going. In addition, those extra 2 cores on the 5820k are not something to be ignored in any task that can take advantage of them, like video editing, 3d graphics work, game development and heavy multitasking. The x99 platform is also the only one to offer enough PCI lanes to support multiple graphics card configurations to their full potential, which will be essential if one wants to go for multiple cards in the future. Considering how massive a leap Pascal and Greenland are lining up to be, it's possible that you'll find your GPU bottlenecked by PCI lanes in the future if you use more than one of them on Skylake. Not to mention the maximum ram capacity for X99 is also much higher, further improving the benefits to video editing work. This in addition the the ability to get a 5960x 8 core hyperthreaded processor as a future upgrade makes the X99 5820k the best route to go for if you want to do real work and future proof your system. Even in gaming, if you intend to stream without using any extra hardware, you'll want the 5820k's extra cores to help deal with the load. Some games will even be able to leverage the extra cache to improve performance for certain functions. With all that in consideration, the 5820k is priced just fine compared to the 6700k. It's a miracle Intel even gave us a 6core chip at the pricerange. The prior 3820k and 4820k really were weaker than their consumer grade counterparts, being that they were four core chips on a platform whose highest end product was only 6 core.