Can we all agree............

[RavenXXX2]

I would say no.

I found benchmarks to compared Skylake, Haswell, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge 4.4GHz clock to clock in games with Titan X GPU.

Spoiler

Clock to clock, 2600K would be up to around 32% slower in games if compared to Skylake 6700K.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-review

32% slower in certain games not all and at lowly 1080p, increase the graphics load and that lead diminishes.

It's not as if the 2600k is giving unplayable fps in them select few games it's slower. Fact is for an CPU from 2011 it should be getting stomped on, but it's not and there is really no need to upgrade to to skylake for anything but benchmarking high scores.

 

[NirK]

SB > Skylake looks worth it if you have an itch to buy something, not a "waste of money", but you don't need to upgrade to play any games.

But yes if you are using a single card at 1440p, the difference will be even smaller than 1080p, and if you are not using a 144hz free/Gsync monitor, you probably won't notice any difference.

 

[TubbyGreg]

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[andy_mk3]

The question wasn't if the new chips can perform better or not, because they obviously can. But the 2600k is perfectly usable, it's not like it's barely keeping up. £/performance, it's definitely not worth upgrading.

I went Q6600 to 2500k to 2600k, each upgrade costing me about £40 second hand after selling the old CPU. Makes no sense to spend near £300 on a new CPU for a few extra FPS I don't need.

 

[Nelly]

hmm stock speed? I would be interested in same ish clocks on all 3 CPUS.
Skylake clearly takes it at stock there.

They're all at 4.4GHz

 

[setter]

It's not as simple as yes or not for gaming. It's context dependent on exactly how you're playing games.

If you have multi GPUs and are using a high res, multimonitor or high res multimonitor then an upgrade from a 2600K wouldn't be pointless.

For the vast majority of gamers, no. Not many people run very high res monitors with multi gpu. Its a niche market
1080p is still pretty much the norm.

 

[NirK]

The question wasn't if the new chips can perform better or not, because they obviously can. But the 2600k is perfectly usable, it's not like it's barely keeping up. £/performance, it's definitely not worth upgrading.

I went Q6600 to 2500k to 2600k, each upgrade costing me about £40 second hand after selling the old CPU. Makes no sense to spend near £300 on a new CPU for a few extra FPS I don't need.

Is getting a bit slow now, for example GTA V where it is about 25-30% slower, but yes it is decent enough. I don't think I will upgrade my 4690k until prob 10nm, especially as DX12 will make CPU's effectively faster.

 

[eddiew]

Tbh the only situations where my 2500K is 'struggling' is with badly threaded games (Kerbal, Minecraft) where the HT wouldn't help... but I'm not that much of a gamer these days.

I guess that makes me a good example of what 'most people' need, which indeed doesn't include anything from the last 3 years.

Roll on Zen.

 

[DragonQ]

Not doing much encoding these days, and playing some more recent games, if I was building a new machine I suppose I would grab a Core i5. It's just annoying that it seems like such a downgrade from a 12-core CPU, even if each core would be about 50% faster at max clocks. Boo Intel!

 

[Glanza]

For gaming yes.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

The CPU certainly shouldn't struggle with minecraft.

 

[fross]

I have a 2600k, with a 290x and am still not hitting any CPU walls. I used to have it clocked at 4.6, but since having to replace the motherboard I've not clocked it back up yet and it's still performing wonderfully.

I think those of us who got in with those got very lucky for a great generation of chips.

 

[5960xNvidiaGamer]

Have a 2600k in my old system, its still a fairly good cpu along with a mid range 290x. Does a good job still for my little lad, I would upgrade though if I was the OP.

 

[Yaayuh!]

It's not as simple as yes or not for gaming. It's context dependent on exactly how you're playing games.

If you have multi GPUs and are using a high res, multimonitor or high res multimonitor then an upgrade from a 2600K wouldn't be pointless.

 

[humbug]

If you have an i7 2600k overclocked to at least 4.4Ghz you will be wasting your money buying anything Intel has brought out after Sandy Bridge for gaming?

Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[Poneros]

You don't upgrade for the extra 5 fps, you upgrade for everything else (features).

 

[Avenged7Fold]

^

If you want fps the first thing you look at is the GPU. If its good then you ask the CPU but upgrading a CPU for gaming from a sandy i5/7 isn't really cost effective unless the build is really out of whack.

 

[Boomstick777]

For gaming alone it's not worth switching, especially to just a 'newer' 4 core.

However for a nice overhaul. A X99 system with a 5820K will net you more performance, 2 extra cores / threads. DDR4 support and M.2 etc. Newer chipset.

I think X99 + 5820K is best value point Intel have released in years, probably since 2500K etc. Would be a worthy upgrade. But if all you do is game on your PC, there really is no point.

 

[Andy7]

For gaming alone it's not worth switching, especially to just a 'newer' 4 core.

However for a nice overhaul. A X99 system with a 5820K will net you more performance, 2 extra cores / threads. DDR4 support and M.2 etc. Newer chipset.

I think X99 + 5820K is best value point Intel have released in years, probably since 2500K etc. Would be a worthy upgrade. But if all you do is game on your PC, there really is no point.

This is the best answer so far. I was thinking of going the X99 + 5820K route myself

 

[bfar]

For gaming alone it's not worth switching, especially to just a 'newer' 4 core.

However for a nice overhaul. A X99 system with a 5820K will net you more performance, 2 extra cores / threads. DDR4 support and M.2 etc. Newer chipset.

I think X99 + 5820K is best value point Intel have released in years, probably since 2500K etc. Would be a worthy upgrade. But if all you do is game on your PC, there really is no point.

£500 quid is a lot for just a gaming platform. I reckon 4c/4t CPUs is still where its at. Put the savings into GPU power.