Intel Skylake Core i7-6700K Versus Core i7-4790K CPU Benchmarks

Ryrynz

2015-07-22 14:42

Seems like an increase of 5-10%. I hate lack of competition.

Jesus ****ing christ.. do you even read up about this stuff at all? That ain't it AT ALL. Also it doesn't help that this system is gimped with DDR4 running at same frequency as the DDR3 comparison system but with slower timings.

lol. No need to upgrade if you run 2600k or higher.

There's always one of you out there ain't there. 2600K this 2600K that.. Why not just shut up? No reason? There are lots of reasons.. Get your head out of the sand.

Guess I'm sticking with my 2600k then! That CPU was the godlike CPU, everything else since has been disappointing. I love the 2600k but wanted a reason to upgrade. Think I'll just buy a bigger SSD and new video card. :/

All depends on how much money you have to play with.. There are the six and eight core chips that'll give you solid increases in performance in various areas.

#5127015

Undying

2015-07-22 14:43

Guess I'm sticking with my 2600k then! That CPU was the godlike CPU, everything else since has been disappointing. I love the 2600k but wanted a reason to upgrade. Think I'll just buy a bigger SSD and new video card. :/

Only Conroe did bring even larger increase in performance, those ware the days. 🙂 But yeah, Sandy is just right up there with the big boys, even today.

#5127020

Fox2232

2015-07-22 14:53

Jesus ****ing christ.. do you even read up about this stuff at all? That ain't it AT ALL. Also it doesn't help that this system is gimped with DDR4 running at same frequency as the DDR3 comparison system but with slower timings. There's always one of you out there ain't there. 2600K this 2600K that.. Why not just shut up? No reason? There are lots of reasons.. Get your head out of the sand. All depends on how much money you have to play with.. There are the six and eight core chips that'll give you solid increases in performance in various areas.

Guess what? if your signature's 'i7 4670s' was actually i7, then i7-2600k would still deliver better value and it would be delivering it for 4 more years by now. But your chip is just i5 and that makes sentence above apply to i5-2500k. So, we can keep our heads in sand happy with old and overclocked chips till something, what can give us reasonably big upgrade for money, comes.

#5127021

xIcarus

2015-07-22 14:53

Jesus ****ing christ.. do you even read up about this stuff at all? That ain't it AT ALL. Also it doesn't help that this system is gimped with DDR4 running at same frequency as the DDR3 comparison system but with slower timings.

..Clarify? You really seem to be some kind of sandy hater for some reason.

#5127026

Supertribble

2015-07-22 14:57

Jesus ****ing christ.. do you even read up about this stuff at all? That ain't it AT ALL. Also it doesn't help that this system is gimped with DDR4 running at same frequency as the DDR3 comparison system but with slower timings. There's always one of you out there ain't there. 2600K this 2600K that.. Why not just shut up? No reason? There are lots of reasons.. Get your head out of the sand. All depends on how much money you have to play with.. There are the six and eight core chips that'll give you solid increases in performance in various areas.

I don't have a lot of money to play with. I could go socket 2011 and get a 5820K I suppose but I'm happy with the performance the 2600K provides. In no area am I feeling like it's holding me back or bottlenecking anything. More PCIe lanes would be nice I guess. The 6700K could still prove interesting if it overclocks like a champ.

#5127032

Ryrynz

2015-07-22 15:02

Well, maybe if Zen actually performs good Intel can will give us more cores at mainstream. i5's 6core 12Threads would be amazing at 250€ and probably be instant hit.

LOL. Zen won't pass Skylake.. probably have a hard time keeping up with it TBH. Intel are way ahead.

I don't have a lot of money to play with. I could go socket 2011 and get a 5820K I suppose but I'm happy with the performance the 2600K provides. In no area am I feeling like it's holding me back or bottlenecking anything. More PCIe lanes would be nice I guess. The 6700K could still prove interesting if it overclocks like a champ.

Yeah, I saw an article today about the overclocking. They hit 5.2GHz on air if I remember correctly.. I think Skylake is worth grabbing.. but big SSDs and faster graphics (most certainly the graphics) are generally better upgrades. The improvements are enough to warrant it, and Kaby isn't going to offer a lot more.. all depends on what you got cash wise and when you feel the need to upgrade.. I just hate people justifying holding on to their old tech like it's still the shiznit.. God damn it rustles ma jimmies.

#5127046

---TK---

2015-07-22 15:14

Jesus ****ing christ.. do you even read up about this stuff at all? That ain't it AT ALL. Also it doesn't help that this system is gimped with DDR4 running at same frequency as the DDR3 comparison system but with slower timings. There's always one of you out there ain't there. 2600K this 2600K that.. Why not just shut up? No reason? There are lots of reasons.. Get your head out of the sand. All depends on how much money you have to play with.. There are the six and eight core chips that'll give you solid increases in performance in various areas.

I see a ban coming.

#5127049

Cartman372

2015-07-22 15:16

Yeah, I saw an article today about the overclocking. They hit 5.2GHz on air if I remember correctly.. I think Skylake is worth grabbing.. but big SSDs and faster graphics (most certainly the graphics) are generally better upgrades. The improvements are enough to warrant it, and Kaby isn't going to offer a lot more.. all depends on what you got cash wise and when you feel the need to upgrade.. I just hate people justifying holding on to their old tech like it's still the shiznit.. God damn it rustles ma jimmies.

Yeah, just like Broadwell and Haswell were supposed to have been able to OC to 5GHz.... Why do you care so much if we love our older tech? The 2600K might be old, but it's still faster than your i5-4670S. Also, what's the point in spending the money on an upgrade that will only give you a marginal increase in performance? It's not about wanting the latest and greatest, it's about spending money wisely. Not all of us want to buy the latest i7 CPU when it comes out only to not see a performance jump in day to day activities.

I see a ban coming.

I sure hope so.

#5127053

gUNN1993

2015-07-22 15:19

The only reason i'm looking to upgrade my 2500k is because for some reason it has recently started crashing my PC if I clock it above 4.2 Ghz, which is lame because it can normally get to 4.8 stable on my H60 closed loop Also I want faster encoding for my Bluray collection, but that requires more cores if i'm not mistaken.

#5127063

Undying

2015-07-22 15:22

I just hate people justifying holding on to their old tech like it's still the shiznit.. God damn it rustles ma jimmies.

What? My 2500k clocks to 4.8ghz with no effort. It would rape your poor 4670s at 3.1ghz in every task. Old tech? Idk, seems to me its still valid.

#5127074

LimitbreakOr

2015-07-22 15:31

I hate this so ****ing much. People wishing for ZEN to be good, just so they can then buy better intel cpu`s. Really scummy. Hope AMD steps out of desktop CPU`s and GPU`s entirely, so you all get what you deserve.

I kind of empathize with what you've said, I think that amd needs to produce better products than the competition and drive down prices only to keep a low market share. People have a strange brand loyalty to Intel and nvidia. I think the only way to break this would be to be ahead as a top performer for multiple generations before the scale starts to shift the sheeps in their direction. Though.... I dont think it's a good idea to start being so upset by the human herds because the success of amd is believe it or not, NOT the biggest issue in the world right now.

#5127085

Supertribble

2015-07-22 15:44

Sounds like you abused your baby too much lol. 4.8 to 5GHz will kill a decent amount of these CPUs in 5 years no doubt.

That's the primary reason I didn't want to push my 2600K too far. 4.5Ghz works just fine for me. The max voltage is around 1.26v and the temps are just great with the D14.

#5127090

Emille

2015-07-22 15:49

Buy a 5820K, and OC it to 4Ghz, easy enough.

Not a chance in hell when all reviews show that a 4ghz 5820k doesn't perform even 1% better than my 3770k at 4.4. What I want is a 6 core chick that is on par with my current cpu clock for clock as well as in overclocking overhead, hence why all the current 'upgrade' cpus are useless, either they don't clock well or they are more of the same 4 core b.s.

#5127096

Supertribble

2015-07-22 15:54

Getting the toasty 3770K to 4.8 is a real achievement. Congrats.

#5127103

Denial

2015-07-22 16:00

Not a chance in hell when all reviews show that a 4ghz 5820k doesn't perform even 1% better than my 3770k at 4.4. What I want is a 6 core chick that is on par with my current cpu clock for clock as well as in overclocking overhead, hence why all the current 'upgrade' cpus are useless, either they don't clock well or they are more of the same 4 core b.s.

You say not a chance in hell but then the second paragraph literally describes the 5820K. It's a 6 core chip that's slight better clock for clock than the 3770K and plenty of people have it running at 4.6Ghz+ on air, 4.8+ on water.

#5127111

gUNN1993

2015-07-22 16:12

Sounds like you abused your baby too much lol. 4.8 to 5GHz will kill a decent amount of these CPUs in 5 years no doubt.

Actually I just did a little test run with Prime 95 and my CPU is hitting 75 degrees in 2 minutes a@4.3 GHZ ... so I think it's more likely I cocked up last time I was putting on Thermal Paste, rather than the CPU being at fault. :stewpid:

#5127113

Robbo9999

2015-07-22 16:15

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=683&page=7 Old article on 2500K vs 2600K. Nary a difference in the games tested including Crysis. I would like to see modern benchmarks with the new processors but I wonder if anyone can even do those. Might undersell that product they are selling now if there wasn't a huge difference lol. We can only wonder. Would also like to see modern games tested.

i7 CPUs see advantages in some games, can't remember which without researching, but I've definitely read & seen the difference. The fact you end up with double the logical cores using HT is only gonna become more important in future games/applications I believe. Having said that, I don't think you should feel bad about a 2500K at all, after all it's definitely enough for most gaming titles today & tomorrow, and you'd know if it was slowing you down.

#5127118

Denial

2015-07-22 16:19

So here we go all in one post: From OCAHOLIC comparisons throughout the years, tested on AMD cards and up to date everything else: We start with 2500K vs 2600K: very little differences in Crysis around .08 percent or so. A decent difference in Resident Evil 4 for whatever reason. We scale up to 2600K vs 4770K: Again, showing almost no difference in a popular game like Far Cry 3. Now to the 4790K vs 4770K: you get the deal here. Differences in BF4 are observed and almost nothing anywhere else. Gains of not even one whole frame in Metro Last Light or other GPU games. We then take a leap to 5960X vs 4960X: Metro see the 4960 winning slightly at 1440p LOL. BF4 sees the 5960 pulling ahead comfortably at 1440p by about 3 FPS. Decent card for sure but worthy of some type of upgrade? We are talking 3 percent differences over most games at 1080p and 1440p.... Crysis 3 shows basically no difference between the two CPUs. And then you have 2015.... you can see where this is going. We are looking at under 10% improvements from 2500K at 4.5GHz to modern 2015 CPUs. Not really something you are going care about. In some games it could be said you will see very little differences around 5% or lower.

Isn't this obvious? GPU bottlenecked games won't show processor improvements. That's why I don't understand why everyone is complaining about Intel's focus on power. Who cares? If they came up with a processor 200% faster than Haswell it wouldn't do **** for gaming.

#5127123

Denial

2015-07-22 16:26

No, it isn't obvious, obviously. People are clamoring to threads about CPUs in search of a new upgrade and they are going ga ga over Skylake when the reality is these CPUs do almost nothing for you in the majority of games. I just posted some comparisons and parsed some details for people to see. Nothing more. They are interesting comparisons. And because we have almost no other direct comparisons of this nature--old CPUs like 2500K versus anything newer at 4.5GHz--I find the data to be of slight interest.

I guess my point is, it should be obvious. I wasn't like calling out your post or anything, it's definitely good information, it just surprises me that people don't already know this. Especially when every time there is a CPU review and reviews use resolutions like 1024x to test (in order to put focus on CPU) people generally bitch in the forums that no one uses that resolution.

#5127211

Solfaur

2015-07-22 17:52

The performance gains are minimal, but again, the big bonus are the features (and looks, I know, I know, but the high end ones do look nice) of the new motherboards. If you don't care for those, than anything after 2500K at +4GHz is still great for gaming, especially at 1440p and above. But hey, it's progress, expensive one sure, but Intel will milk us as long as they can considering things...