6700k Skylake worth the upgrade from Sandybridge 2600k?

UKMach · 19 Jan 2016 at 03:16

Usually every 5 years Ill upgrade my CPU/Mobo/RAM to higher end components of that time. GPUs are every 2/3 years for me.

Last upgrade in 2011 was:

Intel i7 2600k O/C to 4.6ghz
ASUS P8P67 deluxe (has USB issues now)
I plan to upgrade my GTX980 to the pascal equivalent when released and that this machine will be running HTC Vive when also released of which I would like a decent experience from when gaming. Also needs to be relatively future proof for the next five years.

My question is, is it really worth upgrading my 2600k to a skylake i7 6700k? As to me the 2600k still seems like a really good chip which can handle a lot thrown at it and the difference of this upgrade seems a lot smaller than when I previously upgraded 5 years ago.

Also, I know there are always other product lines around the corner which I could wait for, but are there any major developments including any next generation upgrades such as inputs/outputs on the mobo that I really should wait for:

USB 3.1 is out now
DDR4 is out now
What about SATA IV?
Any next gen PCIe out soon?
Anything else Im over looking?

Also been reading other threads and notice a bug within the skylake fixed by a BIOS update but still is a little off putting.

Andy7 · 19 Jan 2016 at 04:35

Stick with what you have. Or go the X99 route if you feel you need to upgrade.

UKMach · 19 Jan 2016 at 05:52

Andy7 said:
Stick with what you have. Or go the X99 route if you feel you need to upgrade.

I did consider the X99 route and like the look of more bandwidth, particularly when it comes to SLI and using a M2 SSD but would 4 faster cores not be better than 6 slower cores for gaming? I still dont think the gaming industry has caught up multi core cpus and havnt really gone past 4 cores yet. I could be making a mistake here and not future proofing myself with this as I bet at some point the industry will catch up with this.

P4Clock · 19 Jan 2016 at 06:26

UKMach said:
Question - it really worth upgrading my 2600k to a skylake i7 6700k?

Answer - As to me the 2600k still seems like a really good chip which can handle a lot thrown at it

rossiboy001 · 19 Jan 2016 at 07:36

Im in same dilemma x99 looks slightly more appealing now with this issue of OS support forcing windows 10. Then again you cant trust microsoft and if they move the goalposts, then they can again. However min FPS for a gamer is more an issue than Maximum, and i think 6700k brings a lot better performance. I might wait for the next version though or the one after that. I would go for thinking about faster cores than more cores.

UKMach · 19 Jan 2016 at 17:10

Its not as simple as updating just the CPU, my motherboard is having issues with its USB and Im feeling it is coming to the end of its life which is pushing me towards upgrading. Im also thinking about buying a Samsung SM951 256GB M.2 PCI-e NVMe SSD which is another driver. Then there is the amount of RAM, currently 8gb from my research is more than enough but I swear I have seen a couple of games recently recommend 8gb RAM which bring me back to my future proof question of will 8gb be tehe recommended standard required soon in 3/4/5 years time and that 16gb will allow a buffer in the most highly demanding games

Jono8 · 19 Jan 2016 at 20:37

UKMach said:
I did consider the X99 route and like the look of more bandwidth, particularly when it comes to SLI and using a M2 SSD but would 4 faster cores not be better than 6 slower cores for gaming? I still dont think the gaming industry has caught up multi core cpus and havnt really gone past 4 cores yet. I could be making a mistake here and not future proofing myself with this as I bet at some point the industry will catch up with this.

Skylake is only a ~10% improvement IPC wise over Haswell so when overclocking, even single core performance on Haswell E will be pretty close to Skylake. Most people seem to have been able to get there 5820k's to 4.5ghz. I am not sure about 6700k's but i don't think over 4.6ghz is a gimme.

5960xNvidiaGamer · 19 Jan 2016 at 20:42

I went from a 2600k to a X99 5960x build and I love it. If you are upgrading make sure you go with X99 and not skylake. Pointless going from a 4core cpu to a 4core cpu imo, and tbh the 2600k is still a great chip.

Minstadave · 19 Jan 2016 at 20:49

I'm sat happy with my 2700k and can't convince myself Skylake is worthy at all.

Dave2150 · 20 Jan 2016 at 01:01

UKMach said:
Usually every 5 years Ill upgrade my CPU/Mobo/RAM to higher end components of that time. GPUs are every 2/3 years for me.

Last upgrade in 2011 was:

Intel i7 2600k O/C to 4.6ghz
ASUS P8P67 deluxe (has USB issues now)
I plan to upgrade my GTX980 to the pascal equivalent when released and that this machine will be running HTC Vive when also released of which I would like a decent experience from when gaming. Also needs to be relatively future proof for the next five years.

My question is, is it really worth upgrading my 2600k to a skylake i7 6700k? As to me the 2600k still seems like a really good chip which can handle a lot thrown at it and the difference of this upgrade seems a lot smaller than when I previously upgraded 5 years ago.

Also, I know there are always other product lines around the corner which I could wait for, but are there any major developments including any next generation upgrades such as inputs/outputs on the mobo that I really should wait for:

USB 3.1 is out now
DDR4 is out now
What about SATA IV?
Any next gen PCIe out soon?
Anything else Im over looking?

Also been reading other threads and notice a bug within the skylake fixed by a BIOS update but still is a little off putting.

Absolutely. Skylake is a big jump from Sandybridge in CPU bound games, of which there are many.

Here's a comparison video comparing a 6700k to a 4790k. They even clocked the 4790k (Haswell) 300Mhz higher than the 6700k just to show how good the increased IPC is:

Purgatory · 20 Jan 2016 at 01:46

Just a copy and paste of what I said to another forum user that was wanting to update his graphics card. Also states my adventure going from a 2600k to a skylake 6700k system. In short a total waste of time and money and I sent it back and sticking to the 2600k.

............

I have a 3440 x 1440 21:9.

I originally had a 780ti with it and it ran fine, but a 980ti doubled some games frame rates and made others smoother at full settings. The 780ti managed really well I found with some settings turned down on some of the more demanding games.

In your shoes I would get a 980ti only as an upgrade (otherwise you are wasting money and time on a sidegrade) then look at getting a 2600k/2700k/3770k (ivy runs hotter remember and may need to be delided to get to high overclocks) and overclock it to 4ghz-4.5ghz (which is an easy overclock on Sandybridge cpus, mine will do 4.8ghz on not much more than the stock volts, on stock it did over 4ghz from what I remember when messing with it. I just have 2 profiles setup in the bios 1 stock which it lives at 99.99% of of its life and then for FSX set to 4.8ghz profile.

I also tried a skylake system a couple of weeks ago but sent the parts back as there was zero difference from my 2600k setup and was just money thrown away I found, yes it was faster in some synthetic benchmarks, but for real world use it wasn't much faster than my 2600k for gaming and things I do on my pc and funny part my ssds actually ran slower on that system that was setup 100% correct. DDR4 made zero difference too. Only real upgrade from a Sandybridge is a 6 or 8 core setup now it seems and then your power goes up and again a minor upgrade if you only game on the system, you will again probably find the framerates don't change as I have a friend with a 5820k and a 980ti classified as I do and we get the same frame rates when we set to 3440 x 1440. I built him the system then, he loved my monitor and got one too, but for his use the 5820k is great as he does a lot of photo editing and rendering.

If you want to keep it cheap get a 2600k/2700k/3770k and a 980ti and overclock the cpu. Nothing still beats these for the price right now and performance is exactly the same for gaming, I fell for some of the fake gaming reviews stating that minimums and frame times were much better... LOL nope they were not at 3440x1440, they made zero difference, maybe at 640x480... I even tried 1920 x 1080 and saw a 1-5% difference at most, a difference you would never notice in real world use.

Purgatory · 20 Jan 2016 at 02:05

Dave2150 said:
Absolutely. Skylake is a big jump from Sandybridge in CPU bound games, of which there are many.

Here's a comparison video comparing a 6700k to a 4790k. They even clocked the 4790k (Haswell) 300Mhz higher than the 6700k just to show how good the increased IPC is:

Rubbish.. sorry (Also you are comparing it to a broken game that is so broken they refunded customers, not a good way to compare, also there are not that many cpu bound games, there are more gpu bound, they are only cpu bound if you are on a low resolution monitor.. 640x480 anyone ?), but I have been threw this and purchased a 6700k and sent it back. From my 2600k there was hardly any difference and of all things it made my SSD's work slower too. I have a great motherboard with my 2600k that has PLX chip and all the goodies and it really is a top notch board and shows it when you compare it to the "latest" boards now, I purchased a ASUS Maximus VIII Extreme motherboard to go with the 6700k and it was only 1-5% faster in some cases for gaming, even the minimums didn't go up from my 2600k.

Intel have really lost the plot and have given up on the CPU's and are too busy updating the iGPU that is a total waste of time for people that use a dGPU.. I felt ripped off for the first time with intel with this 6700k cpu. Only real update is a 6-8/10 core cpu now for me and I doubt I would even consider a 6 core. Also for gaming these x99 cpus will make hardly any difference to gaming again, when games don't use all the cores and they rely on IPC and clock speed on the first 2-4 cores.

I fell for all the fake benchmarks too on the internet and intel must be paying off a lot of the tech sites to go on about how sandybridge is dead and skylake kills it off... What a load of rubbish really. I was so mad I had to rebuild my system twice because of that mess and thank god I didn't delete my windows 7 install on the main SSD and used another SSD to install windows 7 for the skylake rubbish.

If you have a 2500k and up don't waste your time, invest in a new graphics card and higher resolution monitor and you will enjoy your pc more. If your pc dies for any reason then of course skylake will be your only new option for the latest 4 core system or if you want the new features on the motherboard like m.2, usb 3.1 etc. all of which you can add to your board with a expansion card anyways..

UKMach · 20 Jan 2016 at 02:37

Purgatory said:
Also for gaming these x99 cpus will make hardly any difference to gaming again, when games don't use all the cores and they rely on IPC and clock speed on the first 2-4 cores.

Thats the issue I have with the X99, although the extra PCIe lanes are tempting but then I dont want a tri SLI/Crossfire setup.

Purgatory said:
I fell for all the fake benchmarks too on the internet and intel must be paying off a lot of the tech sites to go on about how sandybridge is dead and skylake kills it off... What a load of rubbish really.

Seems a bit far fetched that all these benchmarks are better and the conclusion is that Intel paid them off?

Purgatory said:
If you have a 2500k and up don't waste your time, invest in a new graphics card and higher resolution monitor and you will enjoy your pc more. If your pc dies for any reason then of course skylake will be your only new option for the latest 4 core system or if you want the new features on the motherboard like m.2, usb 3.1 etc. all of which you can add to your board with a expansion card anyways..

Waiting for pascal, have a decent monitor and I need to sort my USB out. just out of interest what motherboard do you have with your 2600k? Might be the cheapest option that Im happy with

UKMach · 20 Jan 2016 at 02:43

Dave2150 said:
Absolutely. Skylake is a big jump from Sandybridge in CPU bound games, of which there are many.

Here's a comparison video comparing a 6700k to a 4790k. They even clocked the 4790k (Haswell) 300Mhz higher than the 6700k just to show how good the increased IPC is:

That does make an interesting video and following watching several, if I was to upgrade I feel it would be the 6700k. I cant even say for absolute sure that 6 cores will be required for gaming in several years time. I dont feel that since 4 cores have been out that the gaming industry has even taken full advantage of this technology alone. Could it be that they are limited by the fact that 6/8 cores are not mainstream and there is no point for them to do this yet?

Purgatory · 20 Jan 2016 at 02:50

UKMach said:
Thats the issue I have with the X99, although the extra PCIe lanes are tempting but then I dont want a tri SLI/Crossfire setup.

Seems a bit far fetched that all these benchmarks are better and the conclusion is that Intel paid them off?

Waiting for pascal, have a decent monitor and I need to sort my USB out. just out of interest what motherboard do you have with your 2600k? Might be the cheapest option that Im happy with

My motherboard for the 2600k is this one here (Asrock Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3):-

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3/

The benchmarks on a lot of the sites are done in such a way that they hand pick the software and settings to make it show any difference. Like I said I was so mad when I realised the reality, I only updated as I love FSX and FSX loves IPC and high clock speeds, skylake has these "supposedly" when I compared my 2600k at 4ghz and the skylake at 4ghz.. I saw hardly any difference to the games I play and FSX, then I tried a 4.8ghz overclock on the skylake, which it hardly would stay stable at but gave me enough time to benchmark and again 2600k vs 6700k hardly any difference just a few synthetics showed a good few gains, but real world apps/games didn't.. maybe 1-5% was what I was seeing for a huge investment in a 4 core system.. just the asus motherboard I got for it cost £325, then the cpu £335 and ddr4 £275 it came to like £955 with delivery.. for a 1-5% increase from what I had.

Bad joke from intel.. We really do need AMD back in the game to stop this silliness.

Andy7 · 20 Jan 2016 at 02:59

Going to Skylake from a 2600k doesn't justify the price increase in doing so.

If you have a 2600k clocked at 4.4Ghz or over you will be just wasting your money as the gains are small.

UKMach · 20 Jan 2016 at 06:16

Purgatory said:
My motherboard for the 2600k is this one here (Asrock Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3):-

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3/

The benchmarks on a lot of the sites are done in such a way that they hand pick the software and settings to make it show any difference. Like I said I was so mad when I realised the reality, I only updated as I love FSX and FSX loves IPC and high clock speeds, skylake has these "supposedly" when I compared my 2600k at 4ghz and the skylake at 4ghz.. I saw hardly any difference to the games I play and FSX, then I tried a 4.8ghz overclock on the skylake, which it hardly would stay stable at but gave me enough time to benchmark and again 2600k vs 6700k hardly any difference just a few synthetics showed a good few gains, but real world apps/games didn't.. maybe 1-5% was what I was seeing for a huge investment in a 4 core system.. just the asus motherboard I got for it cost £325, then the cpu £335 and ddr4 £275 it came to like £955 with delivery.. for a 1-5% increase from what I had.

Bad joke from intel.. We really do need AMD back in the game to stop this silliness.

Havnt even considered AMD since the days of the athlon 64

Purgatory · 20 Jan 2016 at 07:03

UKMach said:
Havnt even considered AMD since the days of the athlon 64

We need AMD to raise the quality of their CPU's and that will make intel compete again and provide better CPU's again and not minor updates and in most cases they are only speed bumps and they are playing them off as IPC improvements. Basically overclocking the cpu's and making them look slightly better than the previous versions that basically had a lower clock speed at stock.

AMD is not for me either but they stir up intel and make them behave a bit too and create a price war per performance as we had in the past. The consumer wins then, we get better priced, better specifications cpus then. When their is no competition in the market it becomes a monopoly as with intel and nvidia right now, they don't have to make their products too much faster every generation and sell them for higher prices than their competitor. Sadly and their competitor is only AMD in both markets.

Twirlywoos · 20 Jan 2016 at 13:55

I would say wait and let's see how DX12 makes a difference to hex and quad core cpus. Let others be the guinea pigs

A 2600K at 4.6ghz is a very capable chip.

UKMach · 20 Jan 2016 at 15:20

Purgatory said:
We need AMD to raise the quality of their CPU's and that will make intel compete again and provide better CPU's again and not minor updates and in most cases they are only speed bumps and they are playing them off as IPC improvements. Basically overclocking the cpu's and making them look slightly better than the previous versions that basically had a lower clock speed at stock.

AMD is not for me either but they stir up intel and make them behave a bit too and create a price war per performance as we had in the past. The consumer wins then, we get better priced, better specifications cpus then. When their is no competition in the market it becomes a monopoly as with intel and nvidia right now, they don't have to make their products too much faster every generation and sell them for higher prices than their competitor. Sadly and their competitor is only AMD in both markets.

Yeah completely agree, but then if we consumers are not buying their products it goings to be harder and harder for them to get back in the game and seems like a slippy slope