Skylake Core i7-6700K clocks to 5.2GHz on air cooling

We all remember the 5ghz Haswell and 5ghz Broadwell

This seems too good to be true, especially the voltages used but let's keep our fingers crossed that these chips really do overclock better than previous generations.

 

The best news is that you don't have to delid to reach those speeds

 

Oh goodness...seems the wait have been worthwhile

Edit: Just saw 'engineering Sample'...but here's to hoping actual production units are as capable

 

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to put my 2600k out to pasture. I just realised the other day I've had it for over 4 years. Fours years in computer terms in ancient. I think my body is ready but whether my bank balance is ready is another matter. New mobo, new ramz (this new chip is DD4, right?). Hmm. If it was DDR3 it'd be a no-brainer, DDR4 is still expensive.

edit

Oh apparently it supports DDR3l? I'd still have to buy some but at least it's cheap. :banana:

edit 2

DDR4 isn't as expensive as I thought. It seems my knowledge is as old as my CPU. :leave:

 

Depending on the chipset that is

 

Question is how high you'll have to OC it to be worth while upgrade over your 2600k. And how high it will clock with different ram, and will there be performance difference based on timing, type too?

If intel wants me, they'll have to bring 6-core i5. I can wait till 8-core Zen is here and if that fails, I can then see what intel offers. But I care little for 14/10nm and its lower power consumption, I want that performance.

 

Why do you say that? It will have the same crap TIM as Haswell.

That slide about enhanced packaging and thermals is from Devils Canyon btw

 

i was 4.8ghz nearly out of the box with haswell, but i stay this way as not on an OC board.

sometime you pick a nice one someone not i remember my 9560EE who can do only +200mhz and should have replaced my 9550 who does a 4.2ghz stable (and still as i know the one i have sold)... one was good and other where exeptionaly bad.

 

CPU's have not moved on that much so 4 years not much has happened. Hence why you see alot of people still on Sandybridge.

 

Damn, missed that :bang: Aaah well, time to bring out the vice! All hail the vice! :banana:

 

I'm still very happy with the 2600K, it's old but still a very fast CPU that performs brilliantly but 4 years, you know? It feels like upgrade time but frankly I don't really need to. If it can reliably get to 5Ghz on decent air cooler I'll probably feel motivated enough to invest in the new chip.

 

noone needs to upgrade a 2600k to be honest.

 

Honestly, they have moved on, just not in the ways people want them too -- or the needs people think they should fill.

People always refer back to the Core 2 days, or the Sandybridge days when it comes to processors -- but if you actually go and look and see why, it's mostly because the release of those chips increased FPS in actual game titles, especially the Core 2. This doesn't happen anymore because games are mostly GPU bottlenecked.

I don't really know what people expect. Like even if Intel somehow created a processor with 20% additional performance across most synthetic benchmarks, it wouldn't do anything for performance in most AAA titles. In fact the only perceivable gains you would receive would be from like encoding, software rendering, etc. It's not like you're going to see an application open faster, or excel scroll down a spreadsheet quicker or something.

 

and my 5.2GHz sandybridge (i5-2500K) on air

 

They do. It's not only the CPU, you have to take the chipset into account too! The P and Z sersies from the Sandy era are obsolete when it comes to USB 3(.1), amount of PCI lanes and implementation of newer tech like M.2 etc. Some might argue that you wont need it now etc but in the future you will, and if the same (crystall ball I know) happens again with the 2-5% increments in performance you'll be damn happy with modern features like M.2 etc.

 

I have that upgrade bug quite often, but then I look at available components, at their prices and make decision not to upgrade.

Performance bump is simply too small to justify such price. I got Fury X because it more than doubled my HD7970 performance. Got 2nd SSD because it is something what gives objective and subjective boost.
If nVidia went forward and enabled multi threaded CPU PhysX on default (as promised), I could have buy i7 long time ago. Now they made another promise, PhysX FleX should run on DirectCompute, wonder how that will end.

With my CPU Fury X, which happens to be AMD card accompanied with not so CPU efficient drivers can do 120fps+ on 1080 in most of games (Gameworks excluded).
So no objective/subjective reason tu upgrade that old i5.

I think intel releases those minor updates (yes, those are like tweaks not real upgrades), because people spend money on 2~5% improved IPC and 5~10W lower power consumption per generation.

Well, USB 3(.1) is nice to have, but not really needed, I use FW + eSATA for externals. inside I have to admit I have only 2x intel 6Gbps SATA ports, but I have only 2 SSDs. Then I have pseudo 6GBps SATA from Marvell there too as reserve.

Unless someone is willing to spend a lot, his cards will still run in 16/0 (one) or 8/8 (SLI/CF) in PCIe3 as those CPUs are not having 32/40 PCIe lanes dedicated.

And actually unless you are at least 50% sure that you'll need some feature, you should not care about it. Otherwise you are going to pay for stuff you'll never need.

I have seen it way too many times.

 

+1

My birthday present, a big vice was delivered this morning! :banana:

 

Congratz man! Have a nice day and enjoy it :cheers:

 

Ye, i remember a similar post right before Ivy Bridge launched... turned out to be bull**** for 99.99% of ivy bridge cpus.