Much like haswell-e to broadwell-e of you think skylake to kabylake is going to offer you much prepare to be disappointed.... Unless igpu performance matters
Kabylake will neither be a be cpu re design or a die shrink. The 'cpu' part of the package will essentially remain the same, the difference from skylake being similar to in effect a new 'stepping' of the design (think of the the i7 920 co stepping then 920 do stepping)
The igpu part of the package will receive most of the attention gaining an integrated l4 cache ala broadwell mainly to accelerate the on board graphics on some sku's. The only other differences over skylake will be an update to the hdcp for the integrated graphics and native usb3.1 both of which I imagine will ned the 'new' chipset Intel are releasing with kabylake (much like z87 and z97 with haswell and broadwell).
So in terms of cpu performance you can reasonably expect kabylake to be very similar to skylake and you will still be stuck with four cores at a time whereby high end gaming and apps will perhaps increasingly start to benefit from 6 or more cores.
For these reasons I would not advocate anyone 'waiting'for kablake unless you have some very specific needs (igpu performance) and more so I would still suggest x99 as its still costs about the same or less on average as a setup (5820k vs 6700k) and you can benefit now from having a top performing system now which trades blows with a 6700k system where the 6700k excels and compressively beats it where the 5820k excels. With the extra cores and potential for more PCI -e lanes with x99 which can be deployed more flexibly then skylake/ z170 you also have a more 'future proof' setup over a 6700k
.... After all the poster agrees six cores are the way to go...
Last edited:
