Intel Skylake Core i7-6700K IPC & Overclocking Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,432
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700K IPC & Overclocking Review - Today we finally get to share with you our Intel Skylake experiences. As we like to, we are going to focus on Instructions Per Clock / IPC and overclocking this new CPU architecture. We hope to give our readers a definitive answer to whether or not it is time to make the jump to a new desktop PC platform.
 
well, time to finally retire my old lynnfield system. thanks for the excellent review, as always!
 
Was hoping to see some x99 based comparisons but excellent review. Looks like a bigger jump than normal.
 
I still think I'm good enough with my 4.5GHz 2600K, this doesn't really seem tempting for the money needed to upgrade.
 
About what I expected. Was hoping to see a bit more in terms of IPC, but it delivers in the range that has been typical. Load temps are impressive.
 
Flopper said:
cant do 5ghz, epic fail again
Click to expand...
Realistically neither could Sandy Bridge. Most chips were clocking around 4.6-4.8GHz on air or water. While we certainly saw chips that were indeed that capable I'll wager most didn't get pushed that far and are 24/7 stable. 28-40% IPC improvement at nearly the same clocks as Sandy Bridge is nothing to scoff at. Whether or not that's worth the cost of upgrading is entirely up to you but that hardly constitutes an epic fail on Intel's part.
 
desktop process innovation has really slowed down over the past few years. ive been running a 4770k since a few days after launch (june 2013). 2 years later and this cpu at best 5-10% faster?

that said there are some improvements on the chipset that would defiantly make this a good upgrade for x58/z68 users.
 
Well, I am in the process of upgrading my AMD to a i7 2600...While I never really felt I would be missing anything vs Haswell, I do feel like I am missing out a little when compared to Skylake.
 
I am wondering how skylake compares to older cpus, especially sandybridge, in real world gaming situations where users will run games at 1080P at least?

Anandtech's benches suggest negligible improvements....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16

which is hard to reconcile with their final conclusion that there is enough of an incentive for sandybridge owners to upgrade. Really? There is a 37% improvement in synthetic CPU benchmarks, but who cares in the real world if it makes no difference to current gaming performance. Thoughts?
 
Dan_D said:
Realistically neither could Sandy Bridge. Most chips were clocking around 4.6-4.8GHz on air or water. While we certainly saw chips that were indeed that capable I'll wager most didn't get pushed that far and are 24/7 stable. 28-40% IPC improvement at nearly the same clocks as Sandy Bridge is nothing to scoff at. Whether or not that's worth the cost of upgrading is entirely up to you but that hardly constitutes an epic fail on Intel's part.
Click to expand...

Not clocking any higher for 4 generations is a pretty big failure.

So, Haswell-E then?

Nah, I'm just keeping my i5-2500K, let's see what AMD comes up with with their new core design. I expect it will either be excellent or atrocious, with no middle ground. Can't wait to see. But if I had to upgrade this second it would probably be Haswell-E.
 
I took a gamble last week when my board died with my 2600k. I went to a local Microcenter and got the 4790k + board for a steal. Decent upgrade and offered a couple new platform features. I like the improvements here, but I don't see myself returning the cpu+mobo to get the latest and greatest. As always, nice review [H] crew.
 
Well, it may seem like a good review, but it's lacking 3rd party experience. Tell you what: you send me a skylake chip and mobo, and I'll let you know if I like it. ;)

As always, [H] does it best. Thanks!

Ken
 
Blade-Runner said:
I am wondering how skylake compares to older cpus, especially sandybridge, in real world gaming situations where users will run games at 1080P at least?

Anandtech's benches suggest negligible improvements....

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16

which is hard to reconcile with their final conclusion that there is enough of an incentive for sandybridge owners to upgrade. Really? There is a 37% improvement in synthetic CPU benchmarks, but who cares in the real world if it makes no difference to current gaming performance. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Most modern games are GPU bound (especially as resolution, refresh, and eye candy increases). With adequate PCIe bandwidth and GPU horsepower, the CPU isn't going to be as critical in the outcome.

However, DX12 and Vulkan may very well be a bit more sensitive to higher IPC processors in regards to a real-world difference with gaming results. Going to depend a lot on how devs code their games for DX12 and how efficient their code can exploit the advantages of these new LLAPIs.
 
Great review! [H] rocks!

This worries me, however:

I have been able to confirm from multiple sources (or I would not be telling you this) that Intel will not have its projected amount of Skylake processor inventory in the retail sales channel on launch day. I could not get any information when more Skylake inventory would be coming.
 
Not sure it's enough to justify upgrading from my i7-2600K either. I think I'll spend the money on new pipes for one of the bikes instead. Will see what things look like next year with DX12 and such.
 
DejaWiz said:
Most modern games are GPU bound (especially as resolution, refresh, and eye candy increases). With adequate PCIe bandwidth and GPU horsepower, the CPU isn't going to be as critical in the outcome.

However, DX12 and Vulkan may very well be a bit more sensitive to higher IPC processors in regards to a real-world difference with gaming results. Going to depend a lot on how devs code their games for DX12 and how efficient their code can exploit the advantages of these new LLAPIs.
Click to expand...

That's what I suspect, but it would be nice to see some empirical evidence to back that up. So far my i7-2600K clocked at 4.7ghz is the best value buy I have ever experienced in terms of upgrades. Over 3 years and still going strong, at this rate I may be able to squeeze out another 2 years of usage :eek:
 
Man, at this rate I'll still be rocking my 2600K for another 2 generations at least

I think once I can get a good 50% boost I'll jump
 
Somehow every review I've seen (that includes the [H], along with Anandtech and bit-tech) suggests that it's now worth upgrading. Why am I not seeing the reason when checking out the benchmarks? Does anyone really care about synthetics?
 
I might have missed it, or maybe it wasn't explicitly stated, but this solution has full compatibility with NVMe?

Also, this is the first time I'm really considering a 2500k upgrade. Or at least rig rotation, this replacing the standard bearer and the 2500k being used as a 2nd machine.
 
My 2600K was 5.0 stable, the motherboard however was not as stable rocking a p67rev3. And honestly it's the motherboard features I want. The cpu, let's face it. It will be nice to see a faster chip, but its no deal breaker or maker. M.2 pcie3 and pcie3.0 for my gpu are really what I want. ddr4 is also nice.
 
j0maK said:
Somehow every review I've seen (that includes the [H], along with Anandtech and bit-tech) suggests that it's now worth upgrading. Why am I not seeing the reason when checking out the benchmarks? Does anyone really care about synthetics?
Click to expand...

Eh... I love my SB, but it's getting old. PCIE SSDs are becoming a thing. PCIE 2.0 X16 is starting to crack. DDR4 seems to show potential as well for keeping up minimum frame rates in some games. For someone like me trying to game in 4k where every FPS counts, the little things like that add up. Granted I'm going Haswell-E instead of Skylake, they're both pretty similar. For majority of people it's for sure more of a boredom luxury upgrade, but there is potential there for the now and into the next couple year for some of us.
 
Blade-Runner said:
That's what I suspect, but it would be nice to see some empirical evidence to back that up. So far my i7-2600K clocked at 4.7ghz is the best value buy I have ever experienced in terms of upgrades. Over 3 years and still going strong, at this rate I may be able to squeeze out another 2 years of usage :eek:
Click to expand...

I am only upgrading my 955BE due to the fact that I managed to get some i7 2600s cheap while building a Snow Leopard Hackintosh for the wife. I know there are some games, for instance Skyrim, where the CPU will give a nice performance bump, but for the most part I have not felt a need to upgrade. However, upgrading my GPU from a 5770 to the GTX 680 made a massive difference.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Eh... I love my SB, but it's getting old. PCIE SSDs are becoming a thing. PCIE 2.0 X16 is starting to crack. DDR4 seems to show potential as well for keeping up minimum frame rates in some games. For someone like me trying to game in 4k where every FPS counts, the little things like that add up. Granted I'm going Haswell-E instead of Skylake, they're both pretty similar. For majority of people it's for sure more of a boredom luxury upgrade, but there is potential there for the now and into the next couple year for some of us.
Click to expand...
Haswell-E I get it, more cores and quad channel DDR4. More cores is enough of a justification if you need them.

I would too like a PCIE NVME SSD instead of my aging 830, but I still don't find the upgrade worth it. Skylake-E on the other hand, whenever it shows up, will be a lot more compelling.
 
I'm liking the H.265 support and all the goodies Z170 motherboards are coming with.

While it might not be compelling to upgrade from Haswell, I'm glad I waited.
 
Big bag of meh. The motherboard chipset is nice, but not really worth upgrading to just by itself.

Guess I'll be waiting another 2 or 3 generations.
 
I'm still on an i5 750. Just debating between a 6700k based system or a 4790k. Once these are actually online I'll spec it out in PCHound and see if the additional cost for Skylake seems worth it. Either is going to be a huge upgrade for me.

These are supposed to be on sale today, right?
 
geekosphere101 said:
I'm still on an i5 750. Just debating between a 6700k based system or a 4790k. Once these are actually online I'll spec it out in PCHound and see if the additional cost for Skylake seems worth it. Either is going to be a huge upgrade for me.

These are supposed to be on sale today, right?
Click to expand...

Zero reason to stay on Haswell, unless you're on a seriously tight budget.
 
Thanks for the review, now i`m sure i`ll be getting the 6700k asap , ill choose a mother board later when enough reviews are out.
 
Supermr2 said:
Was hoping to see some x99 based comparisons but excellent review. Looks like a bigger jump than normal.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have bought a few pieces (PSU, Case, Blu-ray drive) of a X99 chipset build but now it looks like I should take advantage
of this chipset's increased memory bandwidth.
 
mentok1982 said:
I agree. I have bought a few pieces (PSU, Case, Blu-ray drive) of a X99 chipset build but now it looks like I should take advantage
of this chipset's increased memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

This reminds me.. Dan_D or Kyle.. Is the memory controller on the CPU just better/more consistent than Haswell-E or is it built into the motherboards like you were eluding to? I know Haswell-E can hit those high memory bandwidths, but it's very much lottery. Skylake seems like it will be able to more consistently hit the 3000+ range, while maintaining a solid OC?
 
Great review especially that memory scalling was really usefull.

Can you try overclocking this cpu purely by BLCK? This is super exciting as new era of cheap 8 thread overclocked xeons might be returning with Skywell.


Blade-Runner said:
That's what I suspect, but it would be nice to see some empirical evidence to back that up. So far my i7-2600K clocked at 4.7ghz is the best value buy I have ever experienced in terms of upgrades. Over 3 years and still going strong, at this rate I may be able to squeeze out another 2 years of usage :eek:
Click to expand...

Anandtech cpu gaming tests suck badly.
They have bad test places that are mostly gpu dependant.

You can check those two for results in cpu restricted place
http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test...56600k_skylake_mocne_cztery_rdzenie?page=0,33

http://pclab.pl/art65154-26.html
//unity is gpu bottlenecked in that test too
 
the i7 920 people should swap in a 6 core westmere chip from ebay. will perform better than going to another quad core.
 
So I have no reason to regret buying a 4790k a month ago.* Nice. Or is it? Really feels like Intel isn't trying hard enough (because of no competition) or they are actually hitting a wall for technical reasons. Maybe even a bit of both :)

Broadwell is actually better than I thought but they come clocked low-ish and I'm not into overclocking anymore so bleh.

*note that I don't do multi GPU, ever, and I'm not into PCI-E SSD just yet. I can still install one on my mobo anyway if I want to. So even the new mobos have very little appeal to me.
 
Might finally be time to retire my E8600. Only game I couldn't play well in all that time was Wolfenstein New Order
 
Thanks Kyle for the review.

The chipset is good, the memory controller looks like a big upgrade too, but I am worried about the high voltages 4.7 GHz might be what's possible realistically in day to day use I think.

I'd guess 1.25 V is what you are going to use in day to day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top