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

Great review, can't wait to get our hands on the hardware.

Can anyone confirm the 8/14 sale hold on the 6700K?
 
I want to see some delidding results... this chip still using paste :( and seems to be limited by thermals besides)
 
I'm curious about this iGPU comment in the review:

One thing we did not use at all on this Skylake CPU was the integrated video. I was told specifically to not expect to overclock this CPU for much anything if I was using the integrated video. It is HOT and will kill your chances of getting some decent overclocks.
Click to expand...

Does that mean using the iGPU for gaming or using it at all? With my current setup I use 3 monitors. I only game on my main monitor, the other two are just for extra random stuff. Two are hooked up to my first GTX680, and the 3rd is hooked up to my onboard Intel GPU.

Would even a light usage scenario such as that impede overclocking ability?
 
to those comparing skylake to broadwell in gaming, the reason the broadwell does better sometimes, is due to the larger L4 cache. Honestly though from a gaming standpoint as long as you have a I5 2500k or better you should be just fine. Productivity is another story though.
 
Man 95c thats dang hot and that's without enabling the igpu, tho I doubt most here would use the igpu. Looks like a custom water cooling loop might be a requirement soon for just overclocking. Seems like every generation from Intel runs even hotter and for such a small gain in real world uses. I would be interested what system wattage went to as you overclock that chip as well. Guess will see what Zen has next or Skylake -e. Tho I am starting to think going smaller and smaller is starting to hurt the chip more then help anymore.
 
ebduncan said:
to those comparing skylake to broadwell in gaming, the reason the broadwell does better sometimes, is due to the larger L4 cache. Honestly though from a gaming standpoint as long as you have a I5 2500k or better you should be just fine. Productivity is another story though.
Click to expand...

Just because you get a higher score in a productivity benchmark doesn't mean it makes a rats ass worth of difference in real use.

For office type tasks just about any CPU launched in the last 15 years or so will be fine, as long as it is equipped with enough ram.
 
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?
Click to expand...

thats what i didnt find in this [H] review, and i was disappointed.

no one is playing 640x400 or whatever when buying a new $350 CPU...

I get why you did it, but I think that actual benchmarks should have been there.
 
My PC is not just for gaming so maybe I look at this a different way. I do not see the current skylake as a better option over Haswell-E

Why would I sacrifice a larger cache, 4 cores and quad channel memory for this a Skylake processor. If they include really good NVME support so I can start using PCI-E SSD drives reliably for a boot drive I would consider it.
 
I'd have liked to see Haswell-E in there as well. At some point I'd like to see a test to focused on what impact the CPU and PCIe lanes have on multi-GPU setups, especially min framerates. I'm going to start caring about that a lot more as the VR headsets start hitting and I want to stay above 90 or 120 FPS while wearing one.
 
Hey Kyle, if you were going to upgrade a gaming PC from SB right now, would you go with the 6700k or the 5820k? With the price being about the same for both platforms, I'm wondering if going the 6 core route might be worth it down the line now that DX12 is officially out.
 
I'd like to see a comparison of 2500 or 2600 k clock for clock. Maybe 2600k and 6700k at 4.5ghz.
 
bpizzle1 said:
Hey Kyle, if you were going to upgrade a gaming PC from SB right now, would you go with the 6700k or the 5820k? With the price being about the same for both platforms, I'm wondering if going the 6 core route might be worth it down the line now that DX12 is officially out.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you.

I was hoping that skylake would do a better job of pushing 5ghz+ for o/c (4.8ghz-5.2ghz).
Instead we see more of the 4.5-4.7ghz wich is maybe a 100mhz better than we get with haswell devil's canyon or haswell-E.

Then you look at 6 cores and quad channel memory v 4 cores and dual channel memory.

The only thing I guess I have a quesion on is nvme support on the X99, sounds like some people here were suggesting that the x99 can't boot reliably from nvme, is that true?
 
trick0502 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is there to drive it? (Yes - I'm quite serious.) The desktop formfactor mostly hit a wall with (unfortunately) Core 2 - all other improvements in computing came from somewhere OTHER than the desktop formfactor (portable and mobile, mostly); while the desktop formfactor is increasingly able to leverage these improvements as implementation costs drop (touch, in particular in AIOs and notebooks, has stood out), the purists aren't exactly happy with that. (Speaking of purists, AIO performance - merely from 2014-era AIOs with that-generation i3 and later - is every bit as zippy as earlier-generation i-series of the same loadout - despite being multifunction more often than not. The very reason FOR the purism - according to their own arguments - is that CPUs and chipsets are not efficient to execute proper multitasking enough yet. Didn't Core 2 - and specifically Kentsfield - make hash of that argument? Chipset performance and efficiency has gone WAY up - and especially since the bottom of the Core 2 chipset parts-bin, the CSM stumblebum known as Eagle Lake/G41. The days of the multithreading/multitasking penalty died with Core 2; the days of the multifunction penalty died with Ivy Bridge, if not Sandy Bridge. Will this generation be the one in which single-function hardware dies a proper - if not rather messy - death?) Basically, from observations since 2010, the Last of the Old-School IT Oligarchs Is Dead (Single-Function Computing) - it simply hasn't realized it yet.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Eh check some of the review benchmarks from Sweclockers that Finrep pointed out

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20862-intel-core-i7-6700k-och-i5-6600k-skylake/17#content

Seems compelling enough of a reason to me.
Click to expand...

The biggest difference that I can see is at 720p and closes as resolutions increase. Who games at 720p? Sure, the 2600k not top dog (and hasnt' been for a long while), but not compelling enough - at least for me. New features are great, but performance is not one of those reasons I'd consider it for myself.
 
Last edited:
Nenu said:
You did read the review?
Click to expand...


Hi yes sorry I did I should've been more specific I meant at 1080 P. Games are very impressive at the 640 and I know why they did it that way to show CPU difference but I'm not sure how practical that will be at real gaming resolution
 
Whach said:
The biggest difference that I can see is at 720p and closes as resolutions increase. Who games at 720p? Sure, its not top dog, but not compelling enough - at least for me. New features are nice, but performance is not one of those reasons I'd consider for myself.
Click to expand...

Not only are you right, we are usually GPU limited so as you increase to real.resolutions, the gap shrinks, but also, unless you are one of the very rare people with freesync/gsync or 120hz screens, any CPU that can support 60+ fps at all times in the titles I want to play is good enough.

Otherwise we get the sypid old Q3A benchmarks:

"My CPU is better than yours cause I get 350fps, you only get 320"... :rolleyes:

I don't like tearing, so all my games stay with vsync on, and I get the cheapest hardware that gac reach 60+fps with eye candy on.

(This isn't always the easiest with GPU's at 4K resolutions though)
 
Would have been nice to see some 1080p gameplay tests. Is there any reason to upgrade my Ivy Bridge for gaming? 640x480 is not a resolution I play at.
 
Is there any word on when we will actually be able to purchase these bad boys? August 14th?
 
CombatChrisNC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, Z170 motherboards support NVMe. So do many Z97 and X99 boards with a BIOS update.
 
dagas said:
Would have been nice to see some 1080p gameplay tests. Is there any reason to upgrade my Ivy Bridge for gaming? 640x480 is not a resolution I play at.
Click to expand...

BottomsUp said:
Hi yes sorry I did I should've been more specific I meant at 1080 P. Games are very impressive at the 640 and I know why they did it that way to show CPU difference but I'm not sure how practical that will be at real gaming resolution
Click to expand...

There will be no difference unless cpu limited, most games are GPU limited.
Games in reviews tend to not be cpu limited, this is why they reduce the res to something that can show a difference as you pointed out.

With a single gfx card on a 60Hz display, a few games have 'moments' of being cpu limited if you havent got a highish overclock 2500K or better.
Those using 2 fast cards with a 120Hz+ display will become cpu limited a lot more. A clocked 6700K should get up to around 25% higher performance than a medium clocked 2500K.
But the speed of DDR4 will impact this.
Some MMOs on single gfx card @ 60Hz are cpu limited, they can see the same benefit.
 
doug_7506 said:
Is there any word on when we will actually be able to purchase these bad boys? August 14th?
Click to expand...

They are on sale in many parts of the world today.
I almost bought a cpu, mobo and ram, all are available in the UK.
But the price put me off and that DDR3 support is only available on cheap boards, I wanted a staggered upgrade.
 
Dan_D said:
Yes, Z170 motherboards support NVMe. So do many Z97 and X99 boards with a BIOS update.
Click to expand...

This is major for me. I am really looking forward to an NVMe drive.

After seeing the sm195 though, I feel like it I need to wait for one or two more iterations.
 
doug_7506 said:
This is major for me. I am really looking forward to an NVMe drive.

After seeing the sm195 though, I feel like it I need to wait for one or two more iterations.
Click to expand...

Of the drives, or the interface, or the bios support?

I feel like it's a safe bet with either an x99 or X170 since you get 4x3.0 with either platform and I see that as being "enough" for the next several iterations. Also I'll probably hold off on buying a M.2 card until the prices drop a bit.
 
obiwansotti said:
Of the drives, or the interface, or the bios support?

I feel like it's a safe bet with either an x99 or X170 since you get 4x3.0 with either platform and I see that as being "enough" for the next several iterations. Also I'll probably hold off on buying a M.2 card until the prices drop a bit.
Click to expand...

I think the motherboard side is good, but after seeing the reviews on the sm195 (to my knowledge the only m.2 NVMe drive), I think I'll wait until I see one or more two versions of it. Samsung has said they are going to incorporate NVMe tech into their 3d storage tech. That would be the one I want.
 
j0maK said:
I still think I'm good enough with my 4.5GHz 2600K, this doesn't really seem tempting for the money needed to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Lord yes... I can't see any reason to upgrade anything Sandy Bridge or newer...

The original X58/X68 systems, maybe... If you're running a Core i7-920, it might be worth it at this point, but frankly that is amazing that you would have gotten 6 years of solid use out of such a system.

My HTPC is a Core i7-920 and frankly, I can't see any reason to upgrade it, it runs everything perfectly, including Windows 10 which I just upgraded it to.

Power consumption might be the only reason to upgrade it, but I'd spend a whole lot of money doing it to save a fairly small amount of money per year on power.
 
I'm on an ancient 920 @ 3.8ghz on an evga x58, and planning on jumping to Skylake. But will still likely keep it around as an htpc or server. It's been insanely resilient over the years.

But I've been missing the modern platform stuff like USB 3 and Sata 3. Need to finally pull the trigger. If only the 6700k would go on sale somewhere ...
 
doug_7506 said:
I think the motherboard side is good, but after seeing the reviews on the sm195 (to my knowledge the only m.2 NVMe drive), I think I'll wait until I see one or more two versions of it. Samsung has said they are going to incorporate NVMe tech into their 3d storage tech. That would be the one I want.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, I think that's where my head is at too.

Give me 95% of that performance at 1/2 the price please.
 
So it is faster than Sandy Bridge - no surprise there. But looking at the noticeable improvements, not all that impressed.

For example, if I am shuffling along at a meager 1 mile per hour rate, then pick up the pace to where I am walking at 1.5 mph, I just gained 50%!!!!!! But I am still moving along at a very, very, slow pace.

Seems to me this really is where most of the improvements are. Looks good on paper when you look at a percentage increase, but the noticeable improvements are minimal. Good enough when building a brand new system, but not worth the $$$ for new mobo, cpu, and RAM.
 
nbuubu said:
I'm on an ancient 920 @ 3.8ghz on an evga x58, and planning on jumping to Skylake. But will still likely keep it around as an htpc or server. It's been insanely resilient over the years.

But I've been missing the modern platform stuff like USB 3 and Sata 3. Need to finally pull the trigger. If only the 6700k would go on sale somewhere ...
Click to expand...

Just get a 4790K and call it a day. Solid, near Skylake performance, mature, etc.

I went from a 4.0ghz i-7 920 to a 4.6ghz 3930k and the performance increase was substantial. Any upgrade you do to a recent generation will be very noticeable, setting aside motherboard features.
 
i7 920 user here, I still dont think I will be upgrading.
I was hoping to see bigger gains from DDR4, but im not overlyimpressed.
I will hold out until it matures a big more?
Till then I will just stick to upgrading GPUs....
 
I wonder how long Intel will keep churning out these quad cores... If zen has decent IPC and eight cores, Intel is screwed.
 
Damn, what a times when I moved from P4 to E6600 and then to 2500K. When the excitement is there, that's all it matters. As of Skylake, there is zero interest to be honest.. My Sandybridge is still going strong 24/7 since the release day..
 
GotNoRice said:
I'm curious about this iGPU comment in the review:



Does that mean using the iGPU for gaming or using it at all? With my current setup I use 3 monitors. I only game on my main monitor, the other two are just for extra random stuff. Two are hooked up to my first GTX680, and the 3rd is hooked up to my onboard Intel GPU.

Would even a light usage scenario such as that impede overclocking ability?
Click to expand...

That's what we've been told. I will see what I can do about testing it but I have no reason to doubt our sources on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top