# Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Is it worth it?



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

So I was reading an article on Anandtech that was basically doing a gen by gen comparison of Intel's processors and came across this little tid bit.



> Overall, Skylake is not an earth shattering leap in performance. In our IPC testing, with CPUs at 3 GHz, we saw a 5.7% increase in performance over a Haswell processor at the same clockspeed and *~ 25% gains over Sandy Bridge.*



Despite some of the numbers in gaming ( i know they really only focused on i7's) not showing that much of a differnece (1-3 fps difference) between all the generations, they mention that Skylake is an ~25% increase in performance over Sandy Bridge.

Is it worth it to upgrade? I personally think so. I just want your opinions on it.

Source


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 5, 2015)

I upgraded from a 2500k to 4770k and thought it was worth it. Would be even more so going to Skylake imo, especially now that DDR4 is on the mainstream platform.


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2015)

25% isn't as much as I'd like to see, but it's finally worth pulling the trigger for. Plus, don't forget that Skylake supports newer features such as PCI-E 3.0 which makes a difference on high end graphics cards, along with other little things, which all add up.

Also, I've noticed that my mum's i3 (2 cores + HT, forget the model number) Ivy Bridge system seems to have a more fluid feel on the desktop than my 2700K, which could be improvements in internal CPU bottlenecks, so Skylake should be even more noticeable.

@MxPhenom 216 What felt better to you about it? Was it the desktop feel like I described above, perhaps? Also you went from 4 cores to 4 cores + HT which will also make a difference.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Is it worth it?


Definitely.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

Id like to hear from the 2 people that voted "no" on why that was their opinion. Even people that vote yes, I want to hear all you have to say.


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 5, 2015)

I will vote no because I think you pc is more then capable of doing any task you throw at it even if it's an older platform. Spending money on a 25% improvement is not worth it IMO. It might be different where you live, I wrote what I wrote looking at the price's of a new mobo+ DDR4 ram is too big for me. I would maybe wait for pascal to come out.


----------



## erocker (Aug 5, 2015)

Worth is up to the buyer. Having issues running applications due to lack of CPU power? Probably worth it! Computer running fine and doing what you want? Not worth it!


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 5, 2015)

Sandybridge-E to Skylake?  That's my question.  I'd still rather move to Haswell-E.

Unfortunately Anandtech's review didn't include the Enthusiast chips for comparison.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 5, 2015)

I'll answer.

SB-E is the same architecture as SB, released reasonably near SB.  It offered SB, with significantly more RAM, cores, and PCI-e.
IB-E was a mirror to SB-E, but more depressing in the fact that it still utilized the X79 chipset.
Haswell-E introduced DDR4, and upgrades in connectivity.  It was released a year after Haswell.
Broadwell was a polished turd.  Haswell refresh cannibalized it.

This means that in 4 generations Skylake can demonstrate a 25% increased performance over an identically clocked SB chip.  Let's do the math.
(x)^4=1.25  ->  x=1.057   ->   Generation improvement = 5.7% (average).  That's just in net performance, as overclocking is not talked about at all.



I currently have a mildly overclocked 3930k, and I'm comparing that to the brand new Skylake offerings (lord knows, it'll be a year before Skylake-E comes out).  I get to move to expensive new RAM, that currently sees no benefits over DDR3 for gaming (almost no games can even use more than 4 GB).  I get a mildly faster interface (PCI-e 3.0 over SB-E is possible, but realistically a single GPU can't saturate that and multi-GPU systems aren't really where Skylake's PCI-e lane count shines).  I get some new connectivity (more SATA III and USB 3).  For all of these benefits I'm looking at a minimum of a few hundred dollars expense.  Not really worth is for a 25% increase when a mild overclock makes that gap functionally disappear, and I don't have a Haswell CPU thermally throttling itself because Intel decided to use monkey spit as thermal paste inside their processors.


Assuming you're looking at a 2500k then the upgrade is a different story.  Skylake, by my standards, is worth the upgrade from the consumer offerings of SB.  The thing is, that's the cut-off point.  IB was a stinker, because of that thermal paste.  People who rectified that problem have likely upgraded to Devil's Canyon because they have the funds to do it.  People who have Haswell won't really see much improvement.  Going back farther, Core architecture CPUs have realistically been retired; SB was a huge enough leap to bring most people into the i series.  Early i series processors weren't bad, but they're pigs.  Again, SB was a huge enough leap to warrant retiring most of them.  I'm not really seeing anything that says Skylake is more than a generational gap between new memory standards, that probably will be remembered more for RAM than any great performance improvements.



As far as personal thoughts on the generations, you really need at least a gap of two generations to see anything after SB.  IB couldn't justify its OC handicap and minor improvements.  Haswell was interesting, but FIVR kinda made things difficult.  Broadwell was thrown out with the bath water.  Skylake is an unknown, but initial information I've seen isn't substantial enough to cal it amazing.


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 5, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Unfortunately Anandtech's review didn't include the Enthusiast chips for comparison.



On TR they have more comparisons 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/12


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

Devon68 said:


> I will vote no because I think you pc is more then capable of doing any task you throw at it even if it's an older platform. Spending money on a 25% improvement is not worth it IMO. It might be different where you live, I wrote what I wrote looking at the price's of a new mobo+ DDR4 ram is too big for me. I would maybe wait for pascal to come out.


Pascal? Yeah my rig is definately capable of everything I throw at it including getting 31 FPS in batman AK despite all the issues with the game. I do have major frame drops in certain locations usually only using the batmobile but id prefer to glide everywhere anyway. However, I do have 3 SSD's and my 120GB OS boot drive is sitting on a SATA II controller so it's not even getting the full benefit it should be. My other two are my game drives sitting in RAID0 on the SATA III controller.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 5, 2015)

qubit said:


> 25% isn't as much as I'd like to see, but it's finally worth pulling the trigger for. Plus, don't forget that Skylake supports newer features such as PCI-E 3.0 which makes a difference on high end graphics cards, along with other little things, which all add up.


Intel has been on PCIe3.0 for a couple generations Qb... and it really makes a negligible difference in the first place (1-2%).
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/21.html


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'll answer.
> 
> SB-E is the same architecture as SB, released reasonably near SB.  It offered SB, with significantly more RAM, cores, and PCI-e.
> IB-E was a mirror to SB-E, but more depressing in the fact that it still utilized the X79 chipset.
> ...


You mention overclocking. If that chinese report that I posted a couple weeks ago holds true about getting to 5GHz speeds on AIR and it's *stable,* I definitely think it would be a worthy upgrade to get that extra performance out of it.


----------



## st2000 (Aug 5, 2015)

if only for gaming - totaly no
why:
1)CPU starting from SB is not bottlenecking any single GPU(no matter of pci-e2.0 or 3.0)
2)if you're interested in $/performance ratio - you're still in nice spot
3)if you're interested in total performance - go at least with i7-5930k and cf/sli


----------



## st2000 (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> You mention overclocking. If that chinese report that I posted a couple weeks ago holds true about getting to 5GHz speeds on AIR and it's *stable,* I definitely think it would be a worthy upgrade to get that extra performance out of it.


4.4-4.6Ghz with 1.312V in russian reviews with stock 4.0Ghz(4.2 Ghz  turbo) 1.200V
so like haswell


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

st2000 said:


> if only for gaming - totaly no
> why:
> 1)CPU starting from SB is not bottlenecking any single GPU(no matter of pci-e2.0 or 3.0)
> 2)if you're interested in $/performance ratio - you're still in nice spot
> 3)if you're interested in total performance - go at least with i7-5930k and cf/sli


I wont to multi card GPU's ever unless the # of monitors I have/need calls for it. Too many driver issues/performance issues I just dont want to deal with. It's why I wont make my own WC loop for my rig. Dont want to deal with the maintenance/leaks. I am missing out on having SATA 6GB/s ports.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> You mention overclocking. If that chinese report that I posted a couple weeks ago holds true about getting to 5GHz speeds on AIR and it's *stable,* I definitely think it would be a worthy upgrade to get that extra performance out of it.



The reports on SB-e, and x79 specifically indicated:
14 USB 2.0
4 USB 3.0
10 SATA III
4 SATA II 

All of that from the freakin' PCH.



What we got was...significantly less impressive.  Chinese reports are not worth the lead laced toilet paper they're printed upon.  When I get a decent report from a tester I trust, I'll buy the 5.0 GHz figure on air.  Until it can be proven, we're just talking crap.


----------



## st2000 (Aug 5, 2015)

@CrAsHnBuRnXp this?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The reports on SB-e, and x79 specifically indicated:
> 14 USB 2.0
> 4 USB 3.0
> 10 SATA III
> ...


If I could actually determine this was indeed worth my money I could test that myself. But it would be on my H60 not air.



st2000 said:


> @CrAsHnBuRnXp this?


Ultimately if it comes down to it, I can definatily do that until something worth my money becomes available. Id just rather not as id rather the board support it natively.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 5, 2015)

What's making me decide to upgrade is that I need the parts in my computer for another family member.  What do you intend to do with your currently working parts?  Does that alone justify the upgrade for yourself?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What's making me decide to upgrade is that I need the parts in my computer for another family member.  What do you intend to do with your currently working parts?  Does that alone justify the upgrade for yourself?



I am upgrading now...Finally! 6700k, 2x8 16GB DDR4 3000, now I need to find a good motherboard and either an adapter or a newer CPU Block. Awesome. Mounting Kit is $5 for my block for 1151.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> What's making me decide to upgrade is that I need the parts in my computer for another family member.  What do you intend to do with your currently working parts?  Does that alone justify the upgrade for yourself?


I plan to sell the cpu, motherboard, and ram. I also have a 480gb ssd that I need to sell too.
To answer your second question, if the sale of my rig helps negate some of the debt from buying the new parts, I could see it as justifyable.



ZenZimZaliben said:


> I am upgrading now...Finally! 6700k, 2x8 16GB DDR4 3000, now I need to find a good motherboard and either an adapter or a newer CPU Block. Awesome. Mounting Kit is $5 for my block for 1151.



I'm lucky the corsair H series of water coolers don't need any of that. They say it works fine with 1151.


----------



## radrok (Aug 5, 2015)

Going X99 with a 5820K would be more of an upgrade compared to SB to Skylake, that's my opinion of course.

You may not notice those additional cores now, but you will definitely in the upcoming months, IF they deliver what they promised with future APIs and W10.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I'm lucky the corsair H series of water coolers don't need any of that. They say it works fine with 1151.




My chip is 1.24V at stock. I get 4.8 GHz @ 1.35V, with ~70c temps under a Corsair H90. 5GHz on air is totally possible, fi you get a chip with LOWER stock voltage than mine, like 1.2V. I do not know if they even exist though.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I'm lucky the corsair H series of water coolers don't need any of that. They say it works fine with 1151.



That is great as well. Having a complete custom loop with a CPU block that was released when LGA1366 was brand new and I only have to spend $5 for an adapter will let me keep it vs buying a new $100 block.

i7-9xx where pretty hot running, especially at 4+ghz. I have never gone above 65c and that is using prime/occt. Gaming I rarely push into the high 50's and that is with my OC'd 780ti's  attached.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 5, 2015)

I voted no

My reasoning is that the gains in performance would not really make a difference to the end user except in very limited scenarios and probably to the point that its like you say "1-3fps difference".  Personally if it was me I would still hold off another generation especially in gaming as I could use the money on better video cards and still get excellent results (Probably extremely close results) as I would having both a new processor and GPU.

The only reason you would want to upgrade is if you really care about getting some of the new features (M2, USB3.1, PCIE 3.0, etc).  I would say those features could be important but mostly for situations like multiple cards (Which really are not going to bottleneck at least much at PCIE 2.0 8X speeds) or faster transfer speeds (Or just want a M2 SSD).


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 5, 2015)

> Pascal?


My bad I mixed it up with the gpu naming.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

radrok said:


> Going X99 with a 5820K would be more of an upgrade compared to SB to Skylake, that's my opinion of course.
> 
> You may not notice those additional cores now, but you will definitely in the upcoming months, IF they deliver what they promised with future APIs and W10.


Which is what? I missed out on this.


----------



## radrok (Aug 5, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Which is what? I missed out on this.



http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz

You get more PCIe lanes (debatable usefulness but they're there), two more cores, quad channel memory (again debatable usefulness). Last time I checked 5820k wasn't much more expensive than the best mainstream quad.


----------



## Nosada (Aug 5, 2015)

If you have money to spare, a GTX980(Ti) or a Fury(X), plenty of fast RAM and a fairly new SSD ... maybe.

If not, upgrade those first, each will grant you more performance increase than going from Sandy to Skylake. (And even then I'd probably spend the money on a bigger/better monitor or going surround first)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 5, 2015)

Nosada said:


> If you have money to spare, a GTX980(Ti) or a Fury(X), plenty of fast RAM and a fairly new SSD ... maybe.
> 
> If not, upgrade those first, each will grant you more performance increase than going from Sandy to Skylake. (And even then I'd probably spend the money on a bigger/better monitor or going surround first)


I have a GTX 980, G.Skill Sniper 8GB 1833MHz overclocked to 2133MHz and 3 solid state drives. 2 of which are in raid 0. Im good on that front. 

I have 2xDell S2340M monitors (would go 3 but I cant fit them on my current desk and space is an issue as I have a queen size bed next to my desk. Room doesnt allow for a different config). Surround sound I will never have because I dont need/want it. I live in a house with 4 other people and it would drowned them out (been there done that). Much prefer headphones anyway.

Did you even look at my system specs??


----------



## Agreemenot (Aug 5, 2015)

No. But i bet Intel/Shareholders/Shops would want you think that way.

With Win10/DX12 released why would someone with a 2500K go for another 4C/4T(6600K) CPU when DX12 utilizes more cores and threads better? And because/if it does that, then why go for the 6700K and not the 5820K then with 6C/12T that cost almost the same? But until some DX12 games get released and give you and indication of how things are, i don't see any good reason to change right now for me. Also i think i and others would like to see and give AMD a chance to show what it has to offer with Zen.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 5, 2015)

Agreemenot said:


> give AMD a chance to show what it has to offer with Zen.



I am so tired of waiting for AMD to come to the table with something competitive, historically speaking they haven't released an amazing CPU since Socket 939 IMO. Waiting for Skylake was hard enough, especially with 2011-3 and the 5820k being waved in my face, but I do think that the 6700k is the overall winner and worth an upgrade from LGA1366, and probably for OP and his  i5 2500k. IF CrashnburnXP had a i7 2600k or 2700k it would be a harder choice. The extra cores with lower clocks and quad channel memory isn't a big enough carrot.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 6, 2015)

Agreemenot said:


> No. But i bet Intel/Shareholders/Shops would want you think that way.
> 
> With Win10/DX12 released why would someone with a 2500K go for another 4C/4T(6600K) CPU when DX12 utilizes more cores and threads better? And because/if it does that, then why go for the 6700K and not the 5820K then with 6C/12T that cost almost the same? But until some DX12 games get released and give you and indication of how things are, i don't see any good reason to change right now for me. Also i think i and others would like to see and give AMD a chance to show what it has to offer with Zen.





ZenZimZaliben said:


> I am so tired of waiting for AMD to come to the table with something competitive, historically speaking they haven't released an amazing CPU since Socket 939 IMO. Waiting for Skylake was hard enough, especially with 2011-3 and the 5820k being waved in my face, but I do think that the 6700k is the overall winner and worth an upgrade from LGA1366, and probably for OP and his  i5 2500k. IF CrashnburnXP had a i7 2600k or 2700k it would be a harder choice. The extra cores with lower clocks and quad channel memory isn't a big enough carrot.



AMD isnt going to come out with anything comparable with Intel any time soon or at all anymore. AMD has become the BUDGET company when you cant spend enough or dont need the power that intel delivers. I agreen with ZenZim, last great thing they had was the S939 socket.

Even if I upgraded to the 6600k, once games started to utilize the cores and threads better, i could just goet the 6700k or something better if they have released the next series by that time.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 6, 2015)

Didn't vote,  but I'd say no.  I'm still waiting to upgrade to sb-e,  which will probably do me for a few more years.  Unless Skylake can magically hit 5ghz over Hawell's 4.2 ish,  I'd wait.


----------



## vega22 (Aug 6, 2015)

gains on the chipset from z68 to z87 made me happy with my upgrade.

throw a good igp and another 10% or so ipc in the mix and i think any sandy owner would be happy with the switch to these.

sb e idk, still a 33% drop in hardware and if you really use that hardware you might miss it :S


----------



## johnspack (Aug 6, 2015)

33% over a sb-e octo core?  At close to 5ghz?  Okay,  guess I want one of these quad core super cpus.....


----------



## AsRock (Aug 6, 2015)

Vote no, wait until next chipset at least. But like erocker said if your running in to issue's then sure other wise no.  25% is not much even more so if your not fully using what you have already may as well wait it out.


----------



## Ebo (Aug 6, 2015)

I voted yes
My reason was, not so much because of the CPU, but because of the new chipset and features.

Depending on where you live, the choice between Skylake and Haswell-E is more easy *if* the price is close.Where I live in Europe, the price between Skylake and Haswell-E isent even 20 dollars, so for me that a no brainer.

You still need to buy new MB, DDR4 ram also no matter which platform you want , but in my book bigger is better.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 6, 2015)

johnspack said:


> 33% over a sb-e octo core?  At close to 5ghz?  Okay,  guess I want one of these quad core super cpus.....



4/6 = 66.67%.  100%-66.67% = 33.33%.

The math there is relatively simple.  Stated another way, SB-E is 50% more cores than Skylake (4+50%*4 = 4+2 = 6).  The semantics are less than useful though.  More cores is more hardware.  Also, you are delusional.  SB-E didn't have an octo-core chip.  The Xeon chips offered octo cores, but if a 3960X was insanely priced the Xeons made them look reasonable.  SB-e offered a "low" cost quad core, an unlocked 6 core, and a binned high-end 6 core.  IB-E did the same.  It was Haswell-E that decided to cheap out on PCI-e lanes, while delivering more cores as the "low cost" enthusiast offering.


I'm also not sure where exactly people are pulling this 5 GHz figure from.  If you actually look into it, the figure is a ballpark sum offered by a Chinese rumor mill site.  Claiming it is factual is 100% weapons grade crap.  Whenever a reputable source demonstrates all 4 cores running on 5 GHz, stable for more than 5 minutes, I'll bite.  Until then it's as valid as AMD claiming that Bulldozer would beat the performance of Intel's offering.  It may be true, on the moon, in an absolute vacuum, on the fifth Thursday of February.  Unfortunately, the reality is that most of the time their data is crap.


----------



## Agreemenot (Aug 6, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I am so tired of waiting for AMD to come to the table with something competitive, historically speaking they haven't released an amazing CPU since Socket 939 IMO. Waiting for Skylake was hard enough, especially with 2011-3 and the 5820k being waved in my face, but I do think that the 6700k is the overall winner and worth an upgrade from LGA1366, and probably for OP and his  i5 2500k. IF CrashnburnXP had a i7 2600k or 2700k it would be a harder choice. The extra cores with lower clocks and quad channel memory isn't a big enough carrot.



Same thing could be said about Intels overall small incremental improvements since Sandy Bridge, to put it all too simply. It isn't about Nehalem, but what i wrote about DX12 still stands, that is making the CPU esp. those with more C&T less of a bottleneck and utilized more to the fullest, question is by how much and how many C&T is enough/plenty/optimal. So, until finding out just that, why buy? 



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> AMD isnt going to come out with anything comparable with Intel any time soon or at all anymore. AMD has become the BUDGET company when you cant spend enough or dont need the power that intel delivers. I agreen with ZenZim, last great thing they had was the S939 socket.
> 
> Even if I upgraded to the 6600k, once games started to utilize the cores and threads better, i could just goet the 6700k or something better if they have released the next series by that time.



Yes, very unfortunate for us PC ppl, taking away that P from PC and putting in more of a I. And that I is part the Z-Kock combo. AMD have something that i like and want. That is you can pick one of their 4/6/8 core CPU and one of their 970/990X/990FX chipset and overclock. No special K or special/singel Z that you would have to pay extra for. As such, screw them. Dont see why i or others should really do what they and their promoters/benefactors want when Skylake doesnt offer plenty for ones use. 

The way i see it, is that those sites/"reviews"(to some extent) and such questions as the poll is to make those with SB CPU/system feel inadequate. A strategy/way to push sales and create demand. To buy at the high initial price and create a demand so that the price stays up. SB users are a pool for them to convert. Just my critical questioning/thinking about it.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 6, 2015)

Why would anyone on a budget buy new desktop cpus when used xeons still kick butt.  I need to run vms ect,  is a 500 buck skylake going to outperform a 100 buck used hex xeon?  Or do video encoding faster?
Yes,  I need to do both.  I need cores,  and I'm not paying 1000us + for a hex or octo.  I'd love an sb-e octo,  but very expensive still because they work and people keep them.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 6, 2015)

You can get a hex (5820K) for $300 that has the cores AND the clockspeeds...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 6, 2015)

erocker said:


> Worth is up to the buyer. Having issues running applications due to lack of CPU power? Probably worth it! Computer running fine and doing what you want? Not worth it!


 
^^THIS completely.  Only a buyer can decide what he/she needs.  If you execute alot of computing tasks or work-related high-cpu stuff, then that 25% would probably be worth it.  If all you do is game, it might not, with such a small gain.  OTOH, Sandy doesn't have PCIEe 3.0 (as @qubit pointed out), M.2, improved native USB 3.0, USB 3.1, etc... which can all impact gaming.  I'm on Ivy, so I probably still won't upgrade.  If I, personally, were still on Sandy, I might find it compelling finally.


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 6, 2015)

When I wish to upgrade, I rationalize by saying I need to upgrade because in order to make my wish come true, I really need to upgrade. You can't beat logic.


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Aug 6, 2015)

I have 3770k@ 4.5Ghz. Is it worth up upgrade to 6700k or 5820k? I just game and encode video to youtube sometimes.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 6, 2015)

Worth it? That isn't up to us.

Look up reviews and comparisons and see if its worth it FOR YOU.


----------



## rooivalk (Aug 6, 2015)

I'd say no.

Exception:
- You could upgrade from SB with minimal cost (2nd hand Skylake, gifted, found some idiot who'll pay highly for your SB)
- You work daily with heavy CPU workload, it could save you hours.



EarthDog said:


> Worth it? That isn't up to us.
> Look up reviews and comparisons and see if its worth it FOR YOU.


Meanwhile your statement is not wrong, OP specifically asked for our opinions.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 6, 2015)

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 6, 2015)

rooivalk said:


> I'd say no.
> 
> Exception:
> - You could upgrade from SB with minimal cost (2nd hand Skylake, gifted, found some idiot who'll pay highly for your SB)
> ...


I think he was referring to @mrthanhnguyen


----------



## rooivalk (Aug 6, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I think he was referring to @mrthanhnguyen


oops sorry


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 6, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I think he was referring to @mrthanhnguyen


Correct... if I was talking to someone else other than the post above mine, it would have been quoted (because that is how you use forums).


----------



## RCoon (Aug 6, 2015)

X99 + 5820K is cheaper and equally as powerful as Skylake when both are mildly overclocked. I see zero reason for buying Skylake unless it's for the cheaper i5 based builds. Anyone looking for an i7 with the new hardware should just look to X99.

SOURCE


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 6, 2015)

rooivalk said:


> oops sorry





EarthDog said:


> Correct... if I was talking to someone else other than the post above mine, it would have been quoted (because that is how you use forums).



All is good man. 



RCoon said:


> X99 + 5820K is cheaper and equally as powerful as Skylake when both are mildly overclocked. I see zero reason for buying Skylake unless it's for the cheaper i5 based builds. Anyone looking for an i7 with the new hardware should just look to X99.
> 
> SOURCE


Im actually not looking at an i7 as I dont necessarily have a need for one. Yeah I record videos (mainly Wow) and upload them to youtube from time to time (channel link below ) but I dont think needing the HT cores the i7 provides would really benefit me much outside of that.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Aug 6, 2015)

25% IPC increase (from HardOCP) I think not worth it. 5820K + cheap X99 is better root.


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 6, 2015)

> cheap X99


Is there such a thing as a cheap X99? The cheapest mobo is 195$ , the cheapest cpu is 390$
I guess it depends where you are from but this is not cheap in my book.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 6, 2015)

RCoon said:


> X99 + 5820K is cheaper and equally as powerful as Skylake when both are mildly overclocked. I see zero reason for buying Skylake unless it's for the cheaper i5 based builds. Anyone looking for an i7 with the new hardware should just look to X99.
> 
> SOURCE



So, you _are_ telling me to upgrade my aging 3930k build for an x99 one?  Say, using MSI's Godlike mobo and a 5930?  Aren't you?  Aren't you!  Say yes dammit!

When i come back my hols late Aug, it could be my post holiday come down pep me up.

Now what would I do with the old mobo, cpu and memory......


----------



## RCoon (Aug 6, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> So, you _are_ telling me to upgrade my aging 3930k build for an x99 one?  Say, using MSI's Godlike mobo and a 5930?  Aren't you?  Aren't you!  Say yes dammit!
> 
> When i come back my hols late Aug, it could be my post holiday come down pep me up.
> 
> Now what would I do with the old mobo, cpu and memory......



Honestly, high end Skylake simply isn't worth the higher cost over X99. If you're looking for performance improvements from your current setup, X99 seems a reasonable choice, particularly given that Skylake is the tick. The tock isn't going to be that much better in brutal seriousness, so you'd be waiting another 24 months for another architecture to come along before upgrading to anything besides X99 becomes worthwhile.

With Intel's current (utterly moronic) pricing of the 6700K vs X99, highend Skylake is totally irrelevant. Unless you're on Sandybridge and buying the 6600K, I don't see any reason why anybody would choose that platform. Not until Intel readjusts pricing.

I mentioned elsewhere, I got my 4790 for less than £200. Intel is charging £320 (a full £40-50 more than a 5820K, _it's equal_) for the 6700K. God knows what fool is in charge of product pricing stacks.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 7, 2015)

That's a nice cpu EarthDog,  if I could pay 100 bucks or so for it like the x5650 I'm getting.  Currently on sale here for $510.  And I'd need a 300-400 dollar mobo.
http://www.ncix.com/detail/intel-core-i7-5820k-3-30ghz-3-6ghz-32-100097-1563.htm  This is what I deal with up here.....  Only way I look at it is,  only 6 years
until I can afford a used Skylake-e octo xeon.....


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 7, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Honestly, high end Skylake simply isn't worth the higher cost over X99. If you're looking for performance improvements from your current setup, X99 seems a reasonable choice, particularly given that Skylake is the tick. The tock isn't going to be that much better in brutal seriousness, so you'd be waiting another 24 months for another architecture to come along before upgrading to anything besides X99 becomes worthwhile.
> 
> With Intel's current (utterly moronic) pricing of the 6700K vs X99, highend Skylake is totally irrelevant. Unless you're on Sandybridge and buying the 6600K, I don't see any reason why anybody would choose that platform. Not until Intel readjusts pricing.
> 
> I mentioned elsewhere, I got my 4790 for less than £200. Intel is charging £320 (a full £40-50 more than a 5820K, _it's equal_) for the 6700K. God knows what fool is in charge of product pricing stacks.


In my case if I were to go Skylake, it would be the 6600k. So youre saying you see it being worthwhile? (at least in my case)


----------



## johnspack (Aug 7, 2015)

If I had what you have,  and had the money,  I'd upgrade.  It will be faster,  I'd say 20% at least.  Dam.  So long until I can afford this stuff....


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 7, 2015)

johnspack said:


> Didn't vote,  but I'd say no.  I'm still waiting to upgrade to sb-e,  which will probably do me for a few more years.  Unless Skylake can magically hit 5ghz over Hawell's 4.2 ish,  I'd wait.





johnspack said:


> If I had what you have,  and had the money,  I'd upgrade.  It will be faster,  I'd say 20% at least.  Dam.  So long until I can afford this stuff....



Im confused.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 7, 2015)

I need more cores for what I do.  I don't game.  I messed up on my first comment.  Also didn't look at the fact you only have a 2500k.  This new cpu is definately faster.  If you are willing to do the mobo and ram upgrade
it will most definitely be faster.  I have to do everything in the cheap zone,  so sometimes I give bad advice.....


----------



## RCoon (Aug 7, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> In my case if I were to go Skylake, it would be the 6600k. So youre saying you see it being worthwhile? (at least in my case)



Definitely


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 7, 2015)

My 2500k at 4.8ghz 24/7 has never been using all 4 cores at 100% except in guild wars 2, and with directx12 future games making cpu work even easier, I am holding on to my sandy bridge until summer 2017 10nm.

So like erocker says, depends what you do with your pc if its worth upgrading, most of the games I play just want a nice and powerful gpu.  I plan to upgrade my 290 to pascal next summer/fall.  Will be fun xD


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 7, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Definitely


Its what Ananad said in its article...


----------



## tacosRcool (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't think it is worth it even after reading the article. I know I'll be keeping my 2700k for a generation or two.


----------



## radrok (Aug 13, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> So, you _are_ telling me to upgrade my aging 3930k build for an x99 one?  Say, using MSI's Godlike mobo and a 5930?  Aren't you?  Aren't you!  Say yes dammit!
> 
> When i come back my hols late Aug, it could be my post holiday come down pep me up.
> 
> Now what would I do with the old mobo, cpu and memory......



5930 isn't worth it, either get the 5820k or the 5960x


----------



## Slizzo (Aug 13, 2015)

Voted yes with a caveat.

If you're doing multi GPU, Skylake performs quite a bit better than Sandy Bridge. Otherwise gains are small, yes.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 13, 2015)

Well I vote not... Especially for SB-E users... the i5 SB users are the only ones needing upgrade albeit not the K users... the upgrade should only be for those using locked chips at low frequencies. As the Skylake is already clocked high, the single core IPC will give a real boost. But for us enthusiasts who does the OC by themselves... no, not yet... Let one more chipset generation pass. At least PCIE4, as the new cards GPU will be different animals.

I don't understand why some bash the X79?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 13, 2015)

I guess we will soon find out. I bit the bullet. Ordered an i5 6600k, Asus Z170-A motherboard, and some G.Skill DDR4 3200 (when it comes in stock). Motherboard will be here tomorrow. Just have to wait for everything else to come in stock which will probably be tomorrow as I think the hard launch for Skylake is tomorrow. 

Now the question is, what benchmarks do you guys want to see comparing the i5 2500k (oc and stock) and the i5 6600k (oc and stock)? I may only end up doing stock first due to the fact it will take some time to find a stable OC.


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 13, 2015)

I would like to see: Cinebench R15 (old vs new cpu) and Unigene Valey Benchmark 1.0 on ultra as well as Unigene Heaven Benchmark 4.0 on ultra (old vs new cpu) even if unigene is more gpu dependent I want to see if changing the cpu would help.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 13, 2015)

We ran Cine 15 against 4770K/6700K @ 4.9Ghz...edit... it was R10 and R11.5... sorry.

(~6% and 9% difference in favor of the 6700K)


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

im running an i5 2500k, and although im uncertain of what increase in Performance I would get from the upgrade, I can go VERY close to 5Ghz 24/7 on this chip Simply by increasing My Multiplier, so with that %20 or so increase, I see Absolutely no reason to upgrade.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 13, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> im running an i5 2500k, and although im uncertain of what increase in Performance I would get from the upgrade, I can go VERY close to 5Ghz 24/7 on this chip Simply by increasing My Multiplier, so with that %20 or so increase, I see Absolutely no reason to upgrade.


youre very lucky then to hit 5GHz because next to no one can without some mass cooling.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> youre very lucky then to hit 5GHz because next to no one can without some mass cooling.



I have a 5 year old H-70Core edition  from Corsair....

Actually I bought Two from My local Microcenter during launch, and they are both almost paralell performers. Same with the i7's we got too,,Maybe Microcenter got better chips, i dunno, but I've Always been lucky when i buy My Chips from them.plus i get a geek boner walking around all that PC hjarware in the Flesh 

I also found that by rubbing cheetah blood on My GPU it sped up atleast 22% **fry**


----------



## chinmi (Aug 13, 2015)

Nope... If you use your pc for gaming, buying a better gpu is a better option. If you already have a top of the line gpu, then buy anotherone for sli/cf... You'll get more performance upgrade that wY


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> (~6% and 9% difference in favor of the 6700K)


the money some one can spent moving from sandy / ivy / haswell / devil's canyon or broadwell willl be worthless for such a small difference, also i really doubt that cannolake could brake the wall ...  that's why im keeping my Ivy a couple of years more, if i could i will look for a 3770K for overclock ...



jboydgolfer said:


> I have a 5 year old H-70Core edition  from Corsair.


pics please! wanna see it


----------



## LagunaX (Aug 13, 2015)

4.8ghz 2500k, ignore open CL:





4.8ghz 4790k, again ignore open CL:





Encoding and heavy multitasking times are cut by roughly 33% from the 2500k to the 4790k at the same clock speeds, not sure if hyperthreading was accounted for in the 4790k. 
Skylake is supposedly 5% faster than Haswell too but not necessarily in gaming. 

Up to you...


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

peche said:


> the money some one can spent moving from sandy / ivy / haswell / devil's canyon or broadwell willl be worthless for such a small difference, also i really doubt that cannolake could brake the wall ...  that's why im keeping my Ivy a couple of years more, if i could i will look for a 3770K for overclock ...
> 
> 
> pics please! wanna see it



you wanna see my Cooler?Hld on, gotta Shut Down. B-arghhhhh-B


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> you wanna see my Cooler?Hld on, gotta Shut Down. B-arghhhhh-B




if is the one i thing yes....
blunded with some intel xtreme series?

REgards,


----------



## Bansaku (Aug 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Is it worth it to upgrade? I personally think so. I just want your opinions on it.
> 
> Source



25% increase is all benchmark related, not real world gains. No real improvements in games (yes, even with PCI 3.0), and you are shaving seconds off a movie encode in Handbrake.

Let me ask you why you want to upgrade? Do you find your 2600K system underperforming or do you just want to upgrade for the sake of being current?

2 years ago I sold my 2600K CPU and MOBO to my older brother (regret because it could do 4.7GHz on stock voltage), last year I put together an i7 4770K system for his brother. Both have the GeForce 970 4GB and 8GB of 1600MHz RAM. After upgrading them to W10 I ran 3D Mark (for system stability test) and while I don't remember the exact score, both systems were virtually identical.

In all honesty I would use that money and spend it on a fast, large capacity SSD or upgrade the graphics card.

My 2 cents!


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> 25% increase is all benchmark related, not real world gains. No real improvements in games (yes, even with PCI 3.0), and you are shaving seconds off a movie encode in Handbrake.
> 
> Let me ask you why you want to upgrade? Do you find your 2600K system underperforming or do you just want to upgrade for the sake of being current?
> 
> ...



agreed, instead spending money on a little improvement money can be used on something better such as Watercooling, SSD's or even better case / fans components well whatever that could improve your experience,


last month I got a decent offer for my setup, a exchange for a motherboard and  another i7 4770k but no memory, nor SSD , I rejected that deal decided to replace my case, video card for this xmas and also if possible move to a custom water-cooling,  keeping the current locked and delidded i7,


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

peche said:


> if is the one i thing yes....
> blunded with some intel xtreme series?
> 
> REgards,


I dont think it is bundled with anything, its an AIO....they NO longer make this particular one, the closest one, is newer, but has a Smooth more flexible cable.IMO/IME, this thing is DEAD silent, I mean NO sound @ all. the older Corsair Pumps were good, i dunno if they changed 'Em, but Ive heard of people complaining about pump noise, this one is great.This Particular AIO, I bought @ Microcenter around 2010-11 it came with NO fans, which i wanted, and has Never let me down

Sorry for the oversized pics.


----------



## happita (Aug 13, 2015)

LagunaX said:


> 4.8ghz 2500k, ignore open CL:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those are pretty much 2 entirely different systems; different RAM, graphics cards, and it also looks like the frequency is different on each CPU being compared. I don't think it's a fair representation of how much better a Skylake CPU would be considering these numbers. But I am in no way advocating for replacing a still highly capable Sandy Bridge for something that costs x amount more for little benefits.


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> I dont think it is bundled with anything, its an AIO....they NO longer make this particular one, the closest one, is newer, but has a Smooth more flexible cable.IMO/IME, this thing is DEAD silent, I mean NO sound @ all. the older Corsair Pumps were good, i dunno if they changed 'Em, but Ive heard of people complaining about pump noise, this one is great.This Particular AIO, I bought @ Microcenter around 2010-11 it came with NO fans, which i wanted, and has Never let me down
> 
> Sorry for the oversized pics.


thanks..
nice old warrior!, By the way may i ask why you have the fan oulling air from rad? 



Regards,


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

peche said:


> thanks..
> nice old warrior!, By the way may i ask why you have the fan oulling air from rad?
> 
> 
> ...


its a pull. Cold air(from outside the Case) in over the Rad. iff it was running the Other way it would be blowing out hot air Over the Rad., or if i set it up as the Fan Then the rad, it would look dumb,plus wouldnt fit with the fan against the case, Then the Rad.


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> its a pull. Cold air(from outside the Case) in over the Rad. iff it was running the Other way it would be blowing out hot air Over the Rad., or if i set it up as the Fan Then the rad, it would look dumb,plus wouldnt fit with the fan against the case, Then the Rad.


does that configuration shows good results? is interesting because that place is supposed to be Exhaust of the case, not another intake... but let know moar!


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 13, 2015)

peche said:


> does that configuration shows good results? is interesting because that place is supposed to be Exhaust of the case, not another intake... but let know moar!



nothing is predetermined, as the user YOU make it either the exhaust or Intake.The case in that img, is a Thermaltake Commander, which $35 price tag aside Still has Fantastic cooling(when set up right), but Not good consideration for Cooling/H2O loops(they were MUCH less common @ the time of that cases construction).So i had to go with one of a few locations, and the one in the IMG, was the Least intrusive, while being very effective @ cooling, and at the same time not killing my layout by taking up what little room i had left....I had to drill some "Custom" holes for that Rad, because it was too high using the predrilled ones, but it worked out VERY well. Hld on , I'll post some img's of what im getting.

Heres a Quick 4.7Ghz OC Just from changing the Multiplier to 47, nothing else, and it holds quite well. anything more, and I'd need to make some Voltage changes etc...for anything intesive atleast, it will hold around 4.8-4.9 IF i just browse the web etc.


----------



## peche (Aug 13, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> nothing is predetermined, as the user YOU make it either the exhaust or Intake.The case in that img, is a Thermaltake Commander, which $35 price tag aside Still has Fantastic cooling(when set up right), but Not good consideration for Cooling/H2O loops(they were MUCH less common @ the time of that cases construction).So i had to go with one of a few locations, and the one in the IMG, was the Least intrusive, while being very effective @ cooling, and at the same time not killing my layout by taking up what little room i had left....I had to drill some "Custom" holes for that Rad, because it was too high using the predrilled ones, but it worked out VERY well. Hld on , I'll post some img's of what im getting.
> 
> Heres a Quick 4.7Ghz OC Just from changing the Multiplier to 47, nothing else, and it holds quite well. anything more, and I'd need to make some Voltage changes etc...for anything intesive atleast, it will hold around 4.8-4.9 IF i just browse the web etc.


my friend here the question is, have you ever tried that setup in push /  pull from inside the case?

I'm interested cause I hace the same case I thing .. thermaltake commander ms ii, with a Thermaltake Water3.0. pro so it can show better results than my cooler does at the moment, thanks for your brief explanation about the general question!


Regards,


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 14, 2015)

peche said:


> my friend here the question is, have you ever tried that setup in push /  pull from inside the case?
> 
> I'm interested cause I hace the same case I thing .. thermaltake commander ms ii, with a Thermaltake Water3.0. pro so it can show better results than my cooler does at the moment, thanks for your brief explanation about the general question!
> 
> ...


in my experience there is Little to NO gain using push&Pull @ the same time, over JUST push ,or Pull seperately.. Aside from spending more money, and taking up more room, there seems to be no difference( If You were to ask Me, I would tell You to Run One or the Other, either Push OR pull, but NOT both).If You want to decrease temps, and Your set-up is built in a case same or similar to mine, My recommendations are as follows...

#1 GOOD TIM, I use AS5, some say it sucks, but in my years of PC experience, I find it VERY effective.
#2 Good fans, with RPM/Flow control, my motherboard allows me to FULLY control My fans, which makes things easier, the temps i had in the images above were @ 1%-5% fans speed.(i use scythe Kaze/slipstream 120mm)
#3 Fan placement is VERY important, I use 1 low speed @ the front of my case(bottom of bezel), 1 @ the Top of My case High CFM/RPM(right above RAM/CPU) , and One pulling Cool air over My Rad( like You saw in the images above)High CFM/RPM ,It also makes sense to mention that I am running a "blower" GPU, but IME the difference between Aftermarket(dual/triple/single downward facing fans), and reference fan shrouds was minor @ best), I sometimes run a 4th fan Angled under My HDD cages in the front , facing upward @ a slight angle blowing over the GPU as well, but currently I am not. I personally run with a negative air pressure,or atleast try to, and it seems to serve Me best.
#4 finally, try to place Your Case in an area that has decent to Good air circulation,(no laying it on carpet, or stacking other warm electronics ontop of it).
#5 I run MY PSU with the PSU intake facing a vent, and the Outtake facing a vent, In my case this is upside Down, for others it might be different, just try to vent it out if you can.

I rarely break 70C on My GPU after Hours of 100% rendering, and NEVER break 65C on my CPU unless I REALLY go hard for a VERY extended period of time, and even then I cant remember a time that I registered over 75C. My Home IS central Air Cooled, but it is well over "room Temperature" or 73F.

try what works best for You, and go with the best outcome, Good Luck.


----------



## peche (Aug 14, 2015)

dude thanks for the advice! indeed, good one!


----------



## Hillbilly (Aug 14, 2015)

For me it is a no. Intel has been focusing on power consumption benifts since Sandy Bridge. While this has made the low end way better. It has changed the top end very little and without pressure from AMD coupled with no need for more performance. The enthusiast space has seen little increase.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 14, 2015)

Even if Skylake is 25% faster IPC-wise than Sandy, it doesn't mean much if the CPU isn't already your bottleneck. The question is, will that 25% improvement yield 25% more "performance" with respect to what you use your PC for. If you're doing anything that's CPU compute heavy, sure it will, or if you need the DRAM capacity that DDR4 offers. If it's a gaming machine and your goal is gaming performance, if the GPU can always get pegged out, then you're probably all set and don't need to upgrade.

For gaming, I usually think that when the GPU can't be driven to >95% usage with v-sync off, then a CPU upgrade may be in order. Otherwise, it very well might not get you a whole lot.

So it's a "Maybe, need more details." for me.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> in my experience there is Little to NO gain using push&Pull @ the same time, over JUST push ,or Pull seperately


in the vast majority of cases, there are increases. This was tested empirically by skinee/martins. It would be very rare to not have an improvement...I can see little improvement with a low fpi rad using high static pressure fans. But with normal to high fpi rads, even with high static pressure fans, there is still improvement to be had going push/pull.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 14, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> in the vast majority of cases, there are increases. This was tested empirically by skinee/martins. It would be very rare to not have an improvement...I can see little improvement with a low fpi rad using high static pressure fans. But with normal to high fpi rads, even with high static pressure fans, there is still improvement to be had going push/pull.



as i noted in my post, there is Little to no difference  IME/IMO( so i am apparently not vast majority)... I dont particularly like to go with Other peoples results when i can get them myself, there are FAR too many variables, from Fan types, to case types, to Rad types, to cut outs in your case (so i only comment on what I know from personal experience for the most part)...I made it clear that these views were from MY set-up type, so I think My point is still perfectly valid.He toldd Me  his set-up was close to mine, so i shared what I Know. Im running perfect temps,so gaining 2C-6C reduction, isnt what i consider noteworthy  improvement.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2015)

Just making it clear that is against the grain and what is common in empirical testing... so people don't think your results are the rule. 



jboydgolfer said:


> so gaining 2C-6C reduction, isnt what i consider noteworthy improvement.


Oh but it is...you seem to be looking for miracles if 2-6C isn't 'noteworthy'.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Aug 14, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Just making it clear that is against the grain and what is common in empirical testing... so people don't think your results are the rule.
> 
> Oh but it is...you seem to be looking for miracles if 2-6C isn't 'noteworthy'.


I have Made it VERY clear that I (me) do Not find it note-worthy..this is My personal experience. I could Not justify, having to add, a 120mm fan to the exterior  of my case to simply achieve a 2-6C gain(since i lack the room for more internally). If you look @ the pics Peche asked me to post, I was running 4.7Ghz, @  100% load, and My CPU package was running @ 36C. My set-up is perfectly fine, and beleive it or not, there is NO improvement to adding a second fan. for ME




Aliens achieved great things with only one Rad fan 

as far as people thinking my results are the "norm", they could simply read the question peche asked of me, which states that He has the Same/Very similar build to mine, so I responded, but Also clearly stated that these were results for a Build Same or similar to mine. I think i covered all of it in MY earlier posts. but thanks for adding, and also for Your opinion sir.

now, im in a chat with newegg support, so i MUST digress, take care.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2015)

LOL


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 14, 2015)

chinmi said:


> Nope... If you use your pc for gaming, buying a better gpu is a better option. If you already have a top of the line gpu, then buy anotherone for sli/cf... You'll get more performance upgrade that wY


Im not going to bother with the headaches that dual GPU's bring.



Bansaku said:


> 25% increase is all benchmark related, not real world gains. No real improvements in games (yes, even with PCI 3.0), and you are shaving seconds off a movie encode in Handbrake.
> 
> Let me ask you why you want to upgrade? Do you find your 2600K system underperforming or do you just want to upgrade for the sake of being current?
> 
> ...


Apparently you didnt look at my system specs. If you had, you would notice that I have a GTX 980 and 3 SSDs.


----------



## DLGenesis (Aug 14, 2015)

4930   4.3ghz    1.22v


----------



## Freezer (Aug 19, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> On TR they have more comparisons
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/12



That's nice but where is the 5820K?! Someones obviously leaving out info....


----------



## sor (Oct 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> So I was reading an article on Anandtech that was basically doing a gen by gen comparison of Intel's processors and came across this little tid bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One thing about the Anandtech test that people miss is that they compared the CPUs at 3GHz. Given that stock 2600k speed is 3.4GHz and stock 6700k is 4GHz, the spread will be wider given that you have 15% greater clockspeed and you're 25% faster clock for clock.

This ignores real world limitations like GPU limited games and overclocking. Just something worth pointing out.


----------



## sebastian869 (Oct 28, 2015)

I THINK CPU MATTER LEAST, These days u want a z97 + MORE CORE AKA 170 ddr3-4 isnt huge huge is u have m2 ultra and u cant get 32GB out of it because the POS u paid good money for says sorry buddy (with accent from the east) u cant have 2 things running at once, now pick do u want PSU and HDMI? or USB and DDR. There should be a recall and intel adds cores to z97. I died 5000 cuz my pc was too slow, my spiritual death should count for something


----------



## xxxGODxxx (Nov 1, 2015)

I originally wanted to get a 6600k and z170 motherboard for $417 my gaming rig which will have a r9 390 in it (might add another 390 down the line) but I found some guy selling a 3930k and a x79 motherboard for $330 so I'm not too sure which one I should pick. Should I pick the skylake for the better feature set or should I get the 3930k instead? I know that a hexacore cpu is overkill but I intend to have this system last me for around 5-6 years so yeah... I will be using the system mostly for gaming but I'm not too sure if the 6600k will give me enough gaming performance over the 3930k to justify the extra $87


----------



## jboydgolfer (Nov 1, 2015)

sebastian869 said:


> I THINK CPU MATTER LEAST, These days u want a z97 + MORE CORE AKA 170 ddr3-4 isnt huge huge is u have m2 ultra and u cant get 32GB out of it because the POS u paid good money for says sorry buddy (with accent from the east) u cant have 2 things running at once, now pick do u want PSU and HDMI? or USB and DDR. There should be a recall and intel adds cores to z97. I died 5000 cuz my pc was too slow, my spiritual death should count for something



couldn't have said it better myself....no matter HOW hard i tried.


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 1, 2015)

jboydgolfer said:


> couldn't have said it better myself....no matter HOW hard i tried.




I really really don't want this to come across rude...  but you understood that?


----------



## scomo599 (Jan 17, 2016)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Pascal? Yeah my rig is definately capable of everything I throw at it including getting 31 FPS in batman AK despite all the issues with the game. I do have major frame drops in certain locations usually only using the batmobile but id prefer to glide everywhere anyway. However, I do have 3 SSD's and my 120GB OS boot drive is sitting on a SATA II controller so it's not even getting the full benefit it should be. My other two are my game drives sitting in RAID0 on the SATA III controller.



Pascal is the next Nvidia architecture with hbm 2.0 with a mem bandwidth of up to 1 TB/S and the high end supports 16gb


----------



## fusionblu (Jan 17, 2016)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Is it worth it?



Similar answer from another thread is no.
Better upgrade option is Sandy Bridge to Haswell-E using the lowest end CPU which is more powerful than all Skylake CPUs.

Most significant upgrade I saw from my Sandy Bridge to my current build was the chipset improvements rather than CPU performance and this would be reflected in the same way if you were to upgrade to either Skylake or Haswell-E.
I find difficulty in believing some of these advertised performances boosts or even productivity boosts given than known benchmarks show considerably less percentage boosts and real world or visible improvements aren't consistent with these advertised benchmark results.

The only significant boosts from CPU releases are the integrated graphics, but for me personally I have little or no use for it as I always use a graphics card instead which will always be more powerful than the integrated graphics.

These days an upgrade of CPU, motherboard and RAM (from DDR3 to DDR4) would be more for chipset improvements that would have improved support for Graphics Cards followed by Solid State Drive where there seems to be more significant performance boosts in relation to graphics intensive PC games for eye candy graphics and fast loading for scenes or areas in a game.
Chipset improvements are clearly not limited to Graphics Cards and Solid State Drive support and can be more significant for other uses besides PC games.


----------

