Intel 'Skylake' Core i7-6700K performance reportedly revealed

Scorpus

Posts: 2,012   +232
Staff member

Intel is gearing up to release their next-generation Skylake processors as early as next week, but before they've been able to release any official information, a set of benchmarks detailing the flagship Skylake CPU's performance have leaked onto the web.

The benchmarks come from Chinese website PCOnline, and peg the Skylake-based Intel Core i7-6700K against the Haswell Core i7-4790K and the six-core Haswell-E i7-5820K. The i7-6700K is reportedly a four-core, eight-thread product clocked at 4.0 GHz with a boost of 4.2 GHz and 8 MB of L3 cache. Like all of Intel's Skylake products, it will be built using a 14nm manufacturing process.

PCOnline allegedly benchmarked the Core i7-6700K on a Z170-based motherboard with 8 GB of memory, and with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti for graphics workloads. As expected, the i7-6700K was marginally faster than the i7-4790K across a range of CPU-limited benchmarks.

The biggest gains in performance came when comparing Skylake to Haswell in 3D-heavy workloads. The i7-6700K was allegedly faster across the board in these situations when paired with a GTX 980 Ti, and sometimes managed to beat the six-core i7-5820K.

The flagship Core i7-6700K is expected to feature a 95W TDP, higher than current Haswell SKUs. However, the processor will reportedly use less power during CPU workloads than Haswell due to a more efficient architecture and a die shrink to 14nm, with extra TDP headroom going to more beefy integrated graphics than previous flagship SKUs.

At this stage, these benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt. We'll get a much better look at how Skylake performs when the CPUs arrive in our hands shortly.

Permalink to story.

 

noel24

Posts: 724   +868
No surprises here. Keep Calm and Carry On... Strong dollar and no sensible impovements in IPC, that's gonna be even tougher year for PC manufacturers.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
So, a slightly higher IPC, anlond with a rumored 95 watt TDP. remind me why this is any better than a 77 watt ivy bridge i7? 14nm so far seems to be pathetic for intel.
 
R

RustyTech

If this leak is to be believed, I guess I won't be upgrading for quite some time, seeing how Intel is choosing to not really improve anything in a meaningful way.
 

mrjgriffin

Posts: 349   +162
Proudly rocking an i5-4690k right now and I see no reason to upgrade for quite a while. I may upgrade for one small reason and that is to build a new gaming rig for myself and give my buddy my current one for free most likely but if I were to do that I would have to wait for another gen of gpus to surface since upgrading my gtx 980 right now is a little pointless as it chews up everything with ease
 
So, a slightly higher IPC, anlond with a rumored 95 watt TDP. remind me why this is any better than a 77 watt ivy bridge i7? 14nm so far seems to be pathetic for intel.
Ya I have a 3770k and I probably wont have to upgrade for another 2 to 3 years at this rate.

Save your money on the CPU/motherboard and instead, if you haven't already, just upgrade to a good SSD (from a HDD) and upgrade your RAM (2400MHz should be easy with XMP DIMMs and if you have the right MOBO/Memory combo will get to 2800MHz). And that should be a good boost in performance for the short term. Peace!
 

richcz3

Posts: 53   +46
There is no reason to upgrade especially considering the OC thermal limitations of the current CPUs.

I have two i7490ks that hit a wall on air cooled OC. Surprisingly, I'm more than happy with two of my ancient Core i72600k rigs running at 4.8GHz on Air Cooling.

Windows 10 works great, very efficient on old rigs and I don't expect it to be a reason to buy a new PC like years past. This doesn't bode well for the PC industry as a whole and I own Intel stocks. Glad I own Microsoft stocks.
 

Peter Farkas

Posts: 556   +413
That happens when there is no real competition on the market. I wish some competitor could squeeze Intel. The market needs it!
 

Cryio

Posts: 219   +79
I'm rocking a 280X with an overclocked FX 6300 @4.5 GHz. Honestly, with a few cases here and there, I'd never need more than an FX 8300 overclocked to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,036   +3,168
I'm rocking a 280X with an overclocked FX 6300 @4.5 GHz. Honestly, with a few cases here and there, I'd never need more than an FX 8300 overclocked to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.

I guess you don't like to play games in HD then... for those of us who do, not an option if we want ultra settings...
 

Cryio

Posts: 219   +79
I guess you don't like to play games in HD then... for those of us who do, not an option if we want ultra settings...

Haha, you funny. I play everything in 1080p perfectly fine, with the GPU mostly maxed out. There is a unique triple A game that is just wonky, regardless of hardware. A game like Boderlands 2, which sucks on any CPU as far as CPU limited games go.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,036   +3,168
NEW games... Like Witcher 3, Shadows of Mordor, etc won't run on the highest settings on your rig...

Some people like to play at 1440p (or even 4k) and require more than crappy AMD CPUs can provide...