Skylake

Interesting that the i7 6700k has no HT (if the 2nd link is accurate) and has a 4.2 GHz turbo instead of 4.4 Ghz.

Edit: This site says it does have HT

http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-i...rs-specifications-leaked-95w-tdp-42ghz-boost/

Edit2: The 2nd link I mentioned above is now the 3rd link. I was talking about the http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-i7-6700k-vs-i7-4790k/ link and this image:
Intel-i7-6700K-vs-i7-4790K-5820K.png
 
Last edited:
@drescherjm
There's no way the i7 6700K lacks HT considering the massive performance advantage against the i5 6600K in Cinebench R11.5 from the second link of the first post. The provided Cinebench section wrongly claims it's Cinench R15 results as the numbers of i7 4790K and FX8350 clearly show it's Cinebench R11.5.
 
Intel told me those would overclock to 5GHz out of the box, no problem. LOL!
 
I intend to build at least 1, maybe 2 Skylake PCs. So I'm still hoping for better
 
5GHZ is so 3 years ago. Would've been more impressive if Intel said they can clock at 5.5 - 6ghz no problem. :rolleyes:
 
I was going to wait for skylake but I think I'm going to go with a 5820k for $299 at Microcenter. Plus there is a $40 or $50 dollar bundle discount. Love the ideal of 12 threads / ddr4 3000 quad channel
 
Doing the 5820K thing myself with no regrets.
 
I'm finally looking to upgrade from x58/i7 920, will be interesting to see if Skylake is finally what convinces me to do it.
 
Yeah, I was waiting for Skylake but recently built a 5930k / X99 rig. Other than better integration of NVMe on motherboards (native SFF-8639 ports perhaps?), I'm not seeing much potential gain.

We've essentially confirmed at this point no iteration of Skylake will have native USB 3.1, yes?
 
I can't see the numbers until I get home. But I'm expecting the usual 5-10% IPC improvement.
 
defaultluser said:
I can't see the numbers until I get home. But I'm expecting the usual 5-10% IPC improvement.
Click to expand...

Going by Cinebench, 15% or 20% IPC over Haswell depending on what the actual boost clock rate is with the 6700k.

Vittra said:
We've essentially confirmed at this point no iteration of Skylake will have native USB 3.1, yes?
Click to expand...

USB 3.1 parts (as in the actual connectors and cables) are currently still ramping in terms of production and very lacking compared to demand. Mainstream adoption is not likely until 2016 in general.
 
would like to see it put up against a 3930. I need some more justification to upgrade
 
I don't like how the TDPs are going up again, we're back to Sandy Bridge levels now.
 
Intel i7-4790K (4.4GHz) / 22nm = 84W
Intel i7 6700K (4.2GHz) / 14nm = 95W
I'm also puzzled by this. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Outbreaker said:
Intel i7-4790K (4.4GHz) / 22nm = 84W
Intel i7 6700K (4.2GHz) / 14nm = 95W
I'm also puzzled by this. :eek:
Click to expand...

This already happened with previous releases like Haswell, where they shipped 84w quad cores (4770k) and then later 88w quad core (4790k). This worked without a totally new motherboard design because the official platform spec was 100w, giving Intel some breathing room for product refresh:

http://wccftech.com/intel-haswells-...eature-gt2-class-igpu-gt3-reserved-notebooks/

And of course we also had the same thing with Ivy Bridge, where the boxes all said 95w (platform, and Sandy Bridge TDP), but the actual TDP of the 3770k was 77w:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/2

That 95w might just be the platform spec, and not the actual processor power consumption. I wouldn't worry about it until the official announcement.
 
Last edited:
The increased TDP's aren't a mystery, they account for bigger GPU's.

The increased TDP's on the big cores are to account for the extra cores and massive increase in cache.
 
The interesting thing about the current TDP ratings is the large gap between the K and non-K variants.

i7-6700k (4.0/4.2) - 95W
i7-6700 (3.4/4.0) - 65W

i5-6600k (3.5/3.9) - 95W
i5-6600 (3.3/3.9) - 65W

i7-4790k (4.0/4.4) - 88W
i7-4790 (3.6/4.0) - 84W

i7-4770k (3.5/3.9) - 84W
i7-4770 (3.4/3.9) - 84W

i5-4690k (3.5/3.9) - 88W
i5-4690 (3.5/3.9) - 84W

i5-4670k (3.4/3.8) - 84W
i5-4670 (3.4/3.8) - 84W
 
Big 30W jump. Except the 6700k comes at factory standard 4.0ghz, 600mhz faster then non-K variant so it makes a bit more sense.
 
limitedaccess said:
Look at the i5s, only a 200mhz base clock difference and the same 30W jump.
Click to expand...

IF these are real I'm guessing the big discrepancies are due to differing iGPU's per SKU. They could be jacking up the speed of the GPU's on the K parts and neutering the ones on the non-k parts. Possibly to increase the desire for K parts with work stations.
 
I've still got an i5-2500k running @4.5GHz. It still handles everything I do just fine. I'm more interested what Skylake motherboards will bring to the table.
 
Trimlock said:
IF these are real I'm guessing the big discrepancies are due to differing iGPU's per SKU. They could be jacking up the speed of the GPU's on the K parts and neutering the ones on the non-k parts. Possibly to increase the desire for K parts with work stations.
Click to expand...

Can you actually also downclock/disable the iGPU on K CPU's?
Because they don't make sense for gaming systems.
 
Henri108 said:
Can you actually also downclock/disable the iGPU on K CPU's?
Because they don't make sense for gaming systems.
Click to expand...

Depends on the motherboard. You can disable it in the BIOS or you can hope it auto detects your discrete GPU and disables itself in the software.
 
limitedaccess said:
The interesting thing about the current TDP ratings is the large gap between the K and non-K variants.

i7-6700k (4.0/4.2) - 95W
i7-6700 (3.4/4.0) - 65W

i5-6600k (3.5/3.9) - 95W
i5-6600 (3.3/3.9) - 65W
Click to expand...

We don't know what GPUs they use. Knowing Intel they might have had briliant idea that bigger gpu will increase "value" of K series :D
 
Waiting for the 6700K to replace my old X5690, time to move on already.
just missing the money and i`m all set.
 
I am interested in what Intel's GPU performance would be if you scaled it up to 300W... When we have actual numbers maybe I'll do a linear scale for fun.

I always seem to buy a processor right before another launch. Getting rid of the IVRs was a tempting reason to wait but grabbed a 5960x anyways. I wanted to slap the rig together and be done with it. I also don't care for being the person to try the first boards off of the new production line. :)
 
Last edited:
Low Roller said:
I've still got an i5-2500k running @4.5GHz. It still handles everything I do just fine. I'm more interested what Skylake motherboards will bring to the table.
Click to expand...

Im in agreement here. NVME just coming out, hope that is polished up a bit more, usb 3.1 maybe. then we'lll hopefully see higher ddr4 clocks/cheaper options there. still excite for skylake in general.
 
ddr4 shows no real improvement in games and other programs so I fail to see why anyone would still upgrade.

intel should have made the Skylake as a standard and affordable 6/8 core CPU to get attention from the PC crowd.

I mean, who do they have over there at Intel, its almost like internet is a sin for them to use, therefore they cant see what people really want in order to upgrade.

for crying out loud, our cell phones will be more powerful than our cpu's in ten years from now the way its going, that's how bad it is.
 
Last edited:
TroyX said:
ddr4 shows no real improvement in games and other programs so I fail to see why anyone would still upgrade.
Click to expand...

I made the switch to DDR4, but not because of the RAM. I did it for the newer CPUs and improvements to the overall platform. NVMe, more SATA ports, and all of that. But mostly I did it so I'd have a place to put my shiny new CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top