2600k to 6700k

U

Ultranifty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
167
The upcoming Skylake flagship quadcore is going to be i7-6700k. It's slated on early tests to be about 4-8% more than a 4790k.

I have a 4-5 year old 2600k Sandy Bridge. I heard the 4790k is about 10% or so faster than 2600k.

So it seems the 2600k to 6700k will be a worthy upgrade, solely for gaming?

--Forgot to mention-
I've been upgrading portions of the machine at a time, so I'm on 3440x1440 screen, and SLI 980ti superclocks now, but still using this pci-e 2.0 and 2600k. The cards work fine, 2.0 isn't a problem.
I have the 2600k OC'd to 4.0 to 4.3ghz (depending on how many cores being used)

Cost isn't an issue as my Mom works for Intel and I get the chip 50% off, so that's nice, but new chip, mainboard, 16GB of ddr4, and watercool block for cpu is all gonna run about $750 total
 
Last edited:
Honestly, won't make much difference in gaming unless you have the fastest Video Card to pair it with - then again, if you are playing less than 4K resolutions - just throwing $$$.

I was thinking about Skylake but decided to go 4790K as I wanted to keep my DDR3, until Intel makes 8 Core Mainstream, won't be upgrading..
 
Last edited:
Ultranifty said:
The upcoming Skylake flagship quadcore is going to be i7-6700k. It's slated on early tests to be about 4-8% more than a 4790k.

I have a 4-5 year old 2600k Sandy Bridge. I heard the 4790k is about 10% or so faster than 2600k.

So it seems the 2600k to 6700k will be a worthy upgrade, solely for gaming?



Cost isn't an issue as my Mom works for Intel and I get the chip 50% off, so that's nice
Click to expand...

The CPU alone - no, but you get a lot with upgraded chipsets. Better I/O and PCIe 3.0.
 
How high is your 2600K overclocked? Are you planning on running more than one GPU?
 
Personally I'd wait until we start seeing DDR4 boards being mainstream, and new chipsets come out.
 
Skylake is going to be driven home because of the platform update rather than CPU performance. NVMe, USB 3.1 and the new connector, U.2, hopefully more PCIe lane and 10Gbps NICs.

We need a purpose for more CPU performance before Intel will make us something. If a GPU was released tomorrow that could drive existing games at 150 FPS we would probably see an adequate CPU roll out amazingly quick.

Gaming and other home computer use have had access to enough performance hardware since Nehalem or at least SandyBridge. Per core performance has taken a back seat to efficiency while higher absolute performance is delivered with more cores (18 core Xeons).
 
ochadd said:
Gaming and other home computer use have had access to enough performance hardware since Nehalem or at least SandyBridge. Per core performance has taken a back seat to efficiency while higher absolute performance is delivered with more cores (18 core Xeons).
Click to expand...

I agree. Intel is dumping money into power efficiency due to the ARM threat.
 
Am I missing the Skylake benchmarks by chance?

How can we decide yet whether or not it will be worth it? Based on about 5% increase (average) from 2600k>3770k>4770k>4790k and assuming that Skylake will give a 10% boost (Id say the chances are good) but lets just go with 7% figure, you are looking at a about 22% faster than your 2600k clock for clock. If we can get a 4.5ghz clock out of it, Id say upgrading no matter your 2600k clock speed would be a good one with all the other improvements that a new chipset will bring.

I personally think that 2600k > Skylake will be what a lot of us jump to. Time will tell though.
 
doz said:
How can we decide yet whether or not it will be worth it?
Click to expand...

The context seems to indicate that OP is a gamer. Those 5-10% increases with each release have mainly been performance increases in benchmarks/software unrelated to gaming. Games that are CPU bound are few and far between. Most gaming benchmarks I've seen have shown very little change in the last few years. I don't think there is much reason to think Skylake will be any different.

I'm not saying I think there is no point in upgrading, I too am looking to move from a 2500k @ 4.4 to a Skylake, but I'm more interested in the chipset changes, etc. I don't expect to gain much in terms of gaming performance.
 
True, less than 5% difference for gaming from 2600k to 4790k @ the same clock speed. But even if you can eeeek out another 5% from Skylake, a roughly 10% increase is not really bad just from CPU for gaming. Plus all the other "features" one may use fromt he new chipset.
 
I went from 2600k at 4.8 to 5930k at 4.5. No difference in gaming. So my answer is no to your question.
 
doz said:
Probably about $350
Click to expand...

Agreed. Intel will likely stick with their current pricing tiers, especially since Cannonlake may not be out by the time Zen appears, so they'll probably want to keep as much price advantage as possible. Expect a $10-30 gouge upcharge at time of release from retailers.
 
doz said:
I personally think that 2600k > Skylake will be what a lot of us jump to. Time will tell though.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Regardless, I'm still amazed at the performance of Sandy Bridge almost 4-1/2 years after it was released. My 2500K is still rocking along at 4.7ghz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top