Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[VirtualLarry]

Skylake-S Overclocking Summary
- PC Perspective got their sample to 4.7 GHz
- Hardware Canucks got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- Arstechnica got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- Guru 3D got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- Techspot got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- Tom's Hardware got their sample to 4.7 GHz
- Bit-Tech got their sample to 5.0 GHz (Prime stable), 4.8 GHz (Prime + Gaming stable)
- HardOCP got their sample to 4.7 GHz
- AnandTech got their sample to 4.5 GHz
- Hexus got their sample to 4.6 GHz
- Lab501 got their sample to 5.0 GHz
- Maximum PC got their sample to 4.7 GHz
- Lan OC Reviews got their sample to 4.7GHz (Stock Voltage)
- Overclock3D got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- TweakTown got their sample to 4.8 GHz (5.2 GHz CPU-Z Validation)
- KitGuru got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- Hispazone got their sample to 4.8 GHz
- NL Hardware got their sample to 4.8 GHz

Yes, but at what voltages? Did they all use 1.4v? Was that in the Intel reviewer guidelines? (Thus making it effectively an "official" Intel max safe overclocking voltage spec?)

 

[toyota]

The extra cores already matter today in Crysis 3, Ryse Son of Rome, GTA V, The Witcher 3 if you have enough GPU firepower. If he wants to keep his rig for 4-5 years, there will be even more games that use extra cores with DX12.

Also, if the user ever intends to do things outside of gaming/multi-task, 6-8 cores will be faster than the mainstream i7.

If he isn't going to be overclocking, i7-6700K > 5820K.



When you say "better mobo" are you looking for specific features? I mean the Hero and Deluxe motherboards have a bunch of marketing features that cost large premiums that unless you plan on using them specifically are just money wasted. You can get a very good Z170 board for less $.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-157-633-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-130-867-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-132-567-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-157-629-_-Product

Asus boards are good but it doesn't mean they are automatically worth paying large premiums for over Gigabyte, MSI, Asrock. Just as an example, ASUS Pro Clock allows BCLK overclocking to 400Mhz but Asrock's $150 board is rated up to 650Mhz. It makes sense to research if you actually need the features on the board or otherwise you are just paying extra for little benefit.

Do you have another CPU to try in your X58 platform? You could try dropping a Xeon 56xx into your system and wait it out until Skylake-E. Since you keep your systems for so long, it's something to consider (unless your mobo is faulty).

Honestly if you only aiming for 4.0-4.2Ghz overclock on the 5820K, might as well get the i7 6700K because without overclocking it'll do 4.2Ghz which seems you'd be happy with. But considering the $350 price of the i7-6700K, maybe just pay $419 for the 5820K @ 4.6Ghz?

46x CPU Multiplier
1.328V CPU VCORE (Or less)
1.95V CPU INPUT VOLTAGE (Or less)
Test equipment:

Motherboard: Asus X99 Deluxe (this is more or less similar to the X99-A board you want to get). If you are buying the X99-A board, make sure to get the one with USB 3.1 as it costs just a bit extra.

sorry but I call BS on that video. I have a 4770k at just 4.3 and most certainly do not drop down like that in those spots so to claim it is from the cpu is flat out wrong. there is no way a 4790k at 4.7 is dropping to 40 fps because of being cpu limited when I am at over 60 fps in the same spots. there is something up with that video and it really bothers me that you keep posting it as some type of indication that the 4790k is that slow compared to the 5930k. it is either being purposely misleading by the person posting it or there are some driver or SLI issues of some sort causing that massive drop.

 

[RussianSensation]

Found a couple cases where Skylake crushes Haswell - Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator under Windows 10.

Also, programs that scale very poorly with cores show Skylake winning easily.

 

[JM Popaleetus]

I'm actually surprised at how poorly Haswell-E is performing in those tests. Could it be that the program is utilizing the iGPU for acceleration?

Regardless, the difference between 1.5 and 3.0 seconds really won't be noticeable unless you're comparing them side-by-side.

 

[ioni]

you're pretty much where i am upgrade wise, i was deciding between the 5820 and the 6700k myself, in the end i would have gone for the 6700k because by the time the extra cores matter, it's time to build a new pc anyways

I'm in the same boat. Looking to upgrade from a 920 that can't OC anymore and deciding between the 5820k and 6700k. I think the decision hinges on how much you like to gamble. If you think you can get a good OC on the 5820k, that's the way to go imo. I'm wondering if more cores will be better for VR as well since I'm definitely getting a rift or vive.

 

[RussianSensation]

sorry but I call BS on that video. I have a 4770k at just 4.3 and most certainly do not drop down like that in those spots so to claim it is from the cpu is flat out wrong. there is no way a 4790k at 4.7 is dropping to 40 fps because of being cpu limited when I am at over 60 fps in the same spots. there is something up with that video and it really bothers me that you keep posting it as some type of indication that the 4790k is that slow compared to the 5930k. it is either being purposely misleading by the person posting it or there are some driver or SLI issues of some sort causing that massive drop.

You aren't gaming on 4K with GTX980Ti SLI though so you can't compare entirely. While the differences might not be as dramatic as in that video, even in this thread some people already posted cases where the X99 6-core is faster than i7 6700K in GTA V.

It is not the only site/time that shows X99 OC > i7 OC. Look at GTA V by EuroGamer or other sites. Are you saying their Z97 i7 4790K system is faulty?

There are other games too:

Think about it, it's $419 for 4.6Ghz 5820K from Silicon Lottery. Would you honestly take an i7-6700K @ 4.8Ghz to keep for 5 years against a 6-core 5820K already pre-tested for you work at 4.6Ghz?

Last year when X99 launched, i7 4770K/4790K were an easy recommendation because X99 motherboard + DDR4 prices had large premiums. Without those premiums today, the choice isn't as clearcut imho. Certainly 5820K + Asrock X99 Extreme 4 at MC is better than any i7 4790K + Z97. Skylake makes things more difficult since it does have some neat features like the ability to use 3x M.2 SSDs in RAID and it does perform really well in Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator for some reason.

Now, if someone isn't that comfortable with playing the OCing lottery and just wants a motherboard with the latest features, i7-6700K + Asus Hero is a solid choice. In any case, it's hard to go wrong with either the i7-6700K or 5820K + OCing. Both systems should last 4-5 years easily. For someone who places more emphasis on guaranteed performance + lower power usage + wants to build a system in a smaller case, i7-6700K is the winner. If the usage pattern isn't just gaming but also productivity, number crunching, rendering, video editing, etc. 5820K OC is the faster processor.

Broadwell-E should close the gap on power usage though and narrow the gap in IPC to about 6% only.

 

[froggermuted]

The extra cores already matter today in Crysis 3, Ryse Son of Rome, GTA V, The Witcher 3 if you have enough GPU firepower. If he wants to keep his rig for 4-5 years, there will be even more games that use extra cores with DX12.

Also, if the user ever intends to do things outside of gaming/multi-task, 6-8 cores will be faster than the mainstream i7.

If he isn't going to be overclocking, i7-6700K > 5820K.



When you say "better mobo" are you looking for specific features? I mean the Hero and Deluxe motherboards have a bunch of marketing features that cost large premiums that unless you plan on using them specifically are just money wasted. You can get a very good Z170 board for less $.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-157-633-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-130-867-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-132-567-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=z170_motherboard-_-13-157-629-_-Product

Asus boards are good but it doesn't mean they are automatically worth paying large premiums for over Gigabyte, MSI, Asrock. Just as an example, ASUS Pro Clock allows BCLK overclocking to 400Mhz but Asrock's $150 board is rated up to 650Mhz. It makes sense to research if you actually need the features on the board or otherwise you are just paying extra for little benefit.

Do you have another CPU to try in your X58 platform? You could try dropping a Xeon 56xx into your system and wait it out until Skylake-E. Since you keep your systems for so long, it's something to consider (unless your mobo is faulty).

Honestly if you only aiming for 4.0-4.2Ghz overclock on the 5820K, might as well get the i7 6700K because without overclocking it'll do 4.2Ghz which seems you'd be happy with. But considering the $350 price of the i7-6700K, maybe just pay $419 for the 5820K @ 4.6Ghz?

46x CPU Multiplier
1.328V CPU VCORE (Or less)
1.95V CPU INPUT VOLTAGE (Or less)
Test equipment:

Motherboard: Asus X99 Deluxe (this is more or less similar to the X99-A board you want to get). If you are buying the X99-A board, make sure to get the one with USB 3.1 as it costs just a bit extra.

Like I said on an other post, I'm not certain what the problem with my setup is, but my "guess", it the mobo so a new x58 cpu might not be a good idea, or it could be I can't know for sure.

I want to keep my nh-d14, which i believe is great, I said I would be happy to run a 5820k @ 4-4.2 only because I'm not sure how much I could push it with my NH-D14 for a 24/7 use. If i see that I can push it more, I'll certainly do it. And yes I would take the x99-a with usb3.1.

The total cost for a 5820k/x99-a with 3.1 and 4x4gb @3000mhz is 1029.97+gst+shipping so about 1092$ CAD. I was aiming at 1000$ but I could get the extra 100 buck. It mean that I can't get an other heatsink, and I will have to wait for the free mount from noctua, which is not a big deal in my opinion.

 

[toyota]

You aren't gaming on 4K with GTX980Ti SLI though so you can't compare entirely.

It is not the only site/time that shows X99 OC > i7 OC. Look at GTA V by EuroGamer or other sites. Are you saying their Z97 i7 4790K system is faulty?

There are other games too:

Last year when X99 launched, i7 4770K/4790K were an easy recommendation because X99 motherboard + DDR4 prices had large premiums. Without those premiums today, the choice isn't as clearcut imho. Certainly 5820K + Asrock X99 Extreme 4 at MC is better than any i7 4790K + Z97 board today. Skylake makes things more difficult since it does have some neat features like the ability to use 3x M.2 SSDs in RAID and it does perform really well in Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator for some reason.

Now, if someone isn't that comfortable with playing the OCing lottery and just wants a motherboard with the latest features, i7-6700K + Asus Hero is a solid choice. In any case, it's hard to go wrong with either the i7-6700K or 5820K + OCing. Both systems should last 4-5 years easily.

games dont get more demadning on the cpu at 4k and the point is that is NOT the cpu causing the framerates to tank. if it was then no one would get better performance in those same spots with the same 4790k. so again it is an SLI or driver issue with that setup not the cpu itself that is the problem.

and you are showing a 290x in Ryse which needs way more cpu power than than an equal Nvidia gpu. you know that is true as that site usually shows pretty big difference when they test Nvidia and AMD on same cpus. I can dig up links if need be.

I can run Ryse on max settings and probably never drop below 100 fps so it most certainly is not the cpu limiting it in the case of Nvidia. sure a 5960x may hlep 980 ti sli but at that point even a 4790k would be providing way over 100 fps.

EDIT: 112 fps for a MINIMUM with about a 130 fps average in Ryse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEfY3RLazJM

sorry for potato quality. I can post videos for those other games too if need be especially Crysis 3.


EDIT 2: here is that part of Crysis 3 that in the video you link to is in the 50s and 40s nearly the whole time yet when I test it the very lowest drop I see is still over 80 fps. and my cpu is clocked lower than the 4790k they used so please realize it is NOT a cpu limitation making them drop into the 40s and 50s there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OZR_W627-w

 

[JM Popaleetus]

For those deciding between the 6700K and 5820K like I was. It's quite simple (in my opinion).

Will you overclock? Go 5820K.
Do you do anything other than strictly gaming? 5820K.
Strictly gaming and/or will not overclock? 6700K.
Heat/power usage an issue? 6700K.

This is all of course assuming you're an enthusiast that needs an i7.

 

[Avalon]

AT benches were a bit disappointing on the average. Only ~6% ipc over Haswell. At least it clocks better...still, I'm not very impressed.

 

[Ken g6]

Found a couple cases where Skylake crushes Haswell - Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator under Windows 10.

I'm actually surprised at how poorly Haswell-E is performing in those tests. Could it be that the program is utilizing the iGPU for acceleration?

It's gotta be. Look at that AMD A10 that's at the top of the Win 8.1 rankings in that one bench.

I wonder what video card was used with the 5820K? Where did these benchmarks come from? I didn't see a link. Edit: Here.

 

[dark zero]

It's gotta be. Look at that AMD A10 that's at the top of the Win 8.1 rankings in that one bench.

I wonder what video card was used with the 5820K? Where did these benchmarks come from? I didn't see a link. Edit: Here.

So.... Time to see AMD Driver for Windows 10 and DX12 / Vulcan with HSA... also what the heck with the rest? ALL Windows 10 or go home!

 

[PPB]

Found a couple cases where Skylake crushes Haswell - Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator under Windows 10.

Also, programs that scale very poorly with cores show Skylake winning easily.

How great, now magic wand tool in PS will work a whopping 1 second faster and in autocad hatch island detection will work a few ms faster. Yeah, you need context before shoving benchmarks like that.

 

[Silverforce11]

AT benches were a bit disappointing on the average. Only ~6% ipc over Haswell. At least it clocks better...still, I'm not very impressed.

I haven't been impressed with Intel since SB. I still have a 2500K rig that OC very well. My main rig is a 3570K IB.. and I see zero need and have no desire to "upgrade" for single digit % gains.

A platform upgrade is a big deal, as you need new MB, and now with DDR4, new ram, on top of the CPU. For next to nothing gains, especially for gaming, you will not even notice the difference.

Intel is just riding the slack wave because they have no competition. Looking at the Skylake die shot almost made me want to vomit at how much they are ripping us consumers off. The die-size is TINY and they are making a killing selling it for those prices.

I hope ZEN lives up to its hype because Intel needs a kick up the rear end to put them into gear to deliver greater leaps in performance with each generation.

 

[frozentundra123456]

sorry but I call BS on that video. I have a 4770k at just 4.3 and most certainly do not drop down like that in those spots so to claim it is from the cpu is flat out wrong. there is no way a 4790k at 4.7 is dropping to 40 fps because of being cpu limited when I am at over 60 fps in the same spots. there is something up with that video and it really bothers me that you keep posting it as some type of indication that the 4790k is that slow compared to the 5930k. it is either being purposely misleading by the person posting it or there are some driver or SLI issues of some sort causing that massive drop.

Yea, I agree. Russian keeps posting this same video over and over, but I really would like to see confirmation from a few reliable testing sites. I am not saying anyone is being deliberately deceptive, but it just seems there is some other issue going on. Even with SLI 980Ti, it seems to me at 4k the cpu would not be such a factor.

 

[toyota]

Yea, I agree. Russian keeps posting this same video over and over, but I really would like to see confirmation from a few reliable testing sites. I am not saying anyone is being deliberately deceptive, but it just seems there is some other issue going on. Even with SLI 980Ti, it seems to me at 4k the cpu would not be such a factor.

Hopefully my little video proves that there is no way a 4790k at 4.7 would be a cpu limitation that would cause Crysis 3 to be in the 40s and 50s like most of that video in the same spot. Sorry for quality but this was at 1080 on very high settings with single 980 Ti and 4770k at 4.3. And yes I know it is not 4k but the point is that some people keep claiming it is a cpu limitation in that video yet I am getting twice the framerate with a minimum of 83 fps at the same spot they show 40 fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OZR_W627-w

 

[Carfax83]

I agree that something does appear to be wrong with that video. There is a massive difference in VRAM usage between the two for instance, at least in Crysis 3 which doesn't really make any sense..

 

[Dasa2]

which cpu is better varies from game to game you cant really say one is clearly the better choice over the other

 

[toyota]

which cpu is better varies from game to game you cant really say one is clearly the better choice over the other

and where you test in the game matters too. parts of Crysis 3 can be fine on 2 of my cores but turn the corner and even 4 cores without HT will hitch in a different spot.

 

[escrow4]

I have a 5930K and an Asrock Extreme 4 and one or the other is a dud when it comes to OC. 1.2v @ 4.0GHz is a no go, 1.23v @ 4.2GHz same. Stock 3.7GHz all cores is 1.1v or less. I'd need to push it way closer to 1.3v if I wanted a decent overclock and I don't particularly want to shove volts through it now that it costs $825 here. :hmm: RAM is stock 2133MHz nothing flash with a 1000w FSP Aurum powering it (from other builds).

Then again I only play single player games and hate RTSs so it doesn't really matter. Other genre's are not as heavy at stock.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hopefully my little video proves that there is no way a 4790k at 4.7 would be a cpu limitation that would cause Crysis 3 to be in the 40s and 50s like most of that video in the same spot. Sorry for quality but this was at 1080 on very high settings with single 980 Ti and 4770k at 4.3. And yes I know it is not 4k but the point is that some people keep claiming it is a cpu limitation in that video yet I am getting twice the framerate with a minimum of 83 fps at the same spot they show 40 fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OZR_W627-w

That's fair enough. Thanks for your videos and that you took the time to do that extra work given you do have similar PC components. Since you have a 980Ti and i7 4700 series, could you compare the other 2 games if you have them from the same video? Maybe something was seriously wrong with their Z97 system/drivers?

These things do happen.

I'll try to find more gaming benchmarks with 6-core X99 vs. Z97/Z170 as more reviews are done.

Here is one BF4 4K with 980Ti OC:

I guess it comes down to if the person using the PC does other things with the PC besides gaming. If they do, 5820K OC gives 6700K a serious beating.

 

[John Connor]

I haven't followed this thread. I'm wondering what single core performance is for the i5 6600? That is the CPU I intend on buying and my main game I play is FS2004 which is very CPU orientated. So the more single core CPU power I have the better.

 

[toyota]

That's fair enough. Thanks for your videos and that you took the time to do that extra work given you do have similar PC components. Since you have a 980Ti and i7 4700 series, could you compare the other 2 games if you have them from the same video? Maybe something was seriously wrong with their Z97 system/drivers?

These things do happen.

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/metro.png

I'll try to find more gaming benchmarks with 6-core X99 vs. Z97/Z170 as more reviews are done.

Here is one BF4 4K with 980Ti OC:

https://www.hardwareheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/msi-z170a-gaming-m7-review-bfh.jpg

I guess it comes down to if the person using the PC does other things with the PC besides gaming. If they do, 5820K OC gives 6700K a serious beating.

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/cinebench-multi.png
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/handbrake.png
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/7-zip-bench.png

actually digital foundry tests in the same spots for Witcher 3 and GTA V. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWxncqbe1H8

in GTA V, digital foundry is getting slightly better performance with their stock 4790k than in that vid you posting running it at 4.7. and also the actual game is not that cpu intensive either.

In the horse riding section of Witcher 3, digital foundry is getting well over twice the framerate with a stock 4790k than in your earlier video with it at 4.7.

 

[crashtech]

I haven't followed this thread. I'm wondering what single core performance is for the i5 6600? That is the CPU I intend on buying and my main game I play is FS2004 which is very CPU orientated. So the more single core CPU power I have the better.

It's a little better than Devil's Canyon.

 

[Absolute0]

I'd just like to stand up for the enthusiasts and their frivolous upgrading. I have a 2500K. It can do 5 Ghz. I still want to upgrade. Why? Cuz it's FUN to upgrade. It makes me happy. I want a fresh system, faster, less watts. More functionality & longevity. We're all here cuz we love building, clocking, and operating fast PCs. So many phrases thrown around like "not worth it to upgrade if you have SB." Oh yeah, not worth it to whom? This is America and we can throw our $$ around however we please.