Yeah it's annoying, I would have bought a 5775C by now had it been released in the U.S.
I think Intel's still having yield issues with 14 nm, and it's showing up with the poor availability of the quad cores.
Don't know if it's been posted, but..
http://www.overclock.net/t/1568357/skylake-delidded
Some rough measurements assuming the package is 37.5mm*37.5mm as are 1156/1155/1150 CPUs, gives around 120mm^2 for the die.
Lynnfield: 296mm^2
Sandy: 216mm^2
Ivy: 160mm^2
Haswell: 177mm^2
That's tiny, and they're asking $350 in i7 form for that. I guess the 14nm process and additional R&D are getting ridiculously expensive at this point.
Guy is also reporting much better temperatures / higher clocks doing the usual thermal paste change and black adhesive removal after delidding.
Interesting, in the games tested by Eurogamer Core i5 6600K (Skylake-S) provided a larger performance per clock performance gain than Core i5 4690K (Haswell) compared to Core i5 2500K (Sandy Bridge).
Core i5 6600K vs Core i5 4690K (same 3.5-3.9GHz base/turbo)
- 17.3% faster @ The Witcher 3
- 11.4% faster @ GTA V
- 10% faster @ Battlefield 4
Yea, that deal sounded too good to be true and it was. That was definitely a typo.
This is the ram i got
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233831
Wondering if i should bump it up a little.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231902
I havent had a chance to go over reviews in details but what i have skimmed over higher frequency memory doesnt seem to make much difference on something like handbrake.
Don't forget, at least half of that is the useless for a lot of us IGP. That means we are really paying $350 for a 60mm2 die. :sneaky:
The "higher costs" argument is propagandist BS.
"gross margin of 62.5%" <<< way way higher than Apple's >>>
http://www.intc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=922294
Intel can easily sell us a $299 6-core Skylake-K but they won't because there is little competition. We just have to wait patiently until 5820K's successor shows up for a slight premium.
It's appalling they still keep cheaping out on solder and use $3 TIM:
"Intel fixed the Haswell problem by implementing its Next-Generation Polymer Thermal Interface Material (NGPTIM) on Devil’s Canyon, which resulted in a temperature decrease of more than 10% in our testing. That still doesn’t deviate from the point that any form of polymer TIM is, almost certainly, less thermally conductive and effective than the solder that HEDT chips use." ~ Source
No wonder so many reviewers are hitting 80-90C at full load on even Corsair H100/110 and Noctua NH-D15. For someone planning on running distributed computing, rendering, encoding where the entire CPU will be loaded to 99% for hours at a time, this is a big deal. Skylake-E is bound to follow in the footsteps of HW-E with proper solder.
The turbo is not the same according to some reviewers. Some report that Skylake is able to clock all the cores at maximum boost on certain boards. Since there isn't many Z170 motherboard reviews to know which boards are allowing this, it's hard to make conclusive remarks if the comparison of stock vs. stock Skylake vs. Haswell/IVB/SB is apples-to-apples IPC comparison.
Secondly, you continue to cherry-pick data to suit your viewpoint.
Not all games were tested on Ultra with high levels of AA. Some games were only tested on High and with FXAA. If someone is using a GPU as powerful as Titan X OC at 1080P, they could easily use DSR at 1080P instead of playing Shadow of Mordor at 126.6 on 2500K or 132.7 on a 6600K.
Actually breaking down all of those benchmarks reveals that besides GTA V, that was tested without AA (in other words a useless real world test again), 6600K is not an upgrade for gaming over 2000/3000/4000 series CPUs. That is because in all cases even a stock 2500K is > 60 fps.
It gets even worse since many 2500K/2600K CPUs can do 4.5-4.8Ghz overclocks, 3770K can do 4.5-4.7Ghz too.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i5-6600k-review
In other words, what I keep saying is still true:
It's still better to get an even faster GPU, get a 2nd GPU, get a larger SSD, get a better/bigger/more modern FreeSync/GSync monitor rather to upgrade to Skylake. All of those upgrades are more beneficial for gaming. For example upgrading from a 22-24" 1080P monitor to a 27-32" 1440P one is a way better upgrade than moving from SB/IVB/HW to Skylake.
Besides, how many gamers have a 980Ti/Fury X or Titan X level of GPU? For most gamers with 2500K-4790K, unless they already have a GPU that powerful, Skylake upgrade is a waste of $ for gaming; and again showing us a comparison of stock SB/IVB/HW against Skylake isn't a real world scenario for many of us running those CPUs at 4.5Ghz+.
Also, with DX12 gaming, we could start to see even more games start taking advantage of 6-8 cores.
I agree with IDontCare's post but I think I am also on board with waiting for Skylake-E. For a bit more $ than i7-6700K, it'll be 2 more cores that are bound to come in handy. If someone is building a new rig now for school/work and cannot wait for Skylake-E, 6700K is a great choice and of course better than 4790K.
Ya, sorry that was a type. Glad you guys caught that.
It's $450 but it doesn't change the main theme. The overall price of X99+5820K vs. Z170 board+6700K could be fairly close at places like MicroCenter. For those gamers who have access to this store, the decision isn't as easy.
Canada had the Asrock X99M for sale for $140 CDN (~$106 USD+tax) for more than a month. 5820K regularly sells for $499 CDN which is just $50 more than 6700K, but since it's been out for so long, it's not hard to find them on Craiglist/Kijiji for $420-430, less than what the i7-6700K costs.
For someone in the US, it's going to be even easier to find 5820K+X99 boards given how long they've been on the market and how competitive US prices are.
The "higher costs" argument is propagandist BS.
The turbo is not the same according to some reviewers. Some report that Skylake is able to clock all the cores at maximum boost on certain boards. Since there isn't many Z170 motherboard reviews to know which boards are allowing this, it's hard to make conclusive remarks if the comparison of stock vs. stock Skylake vs. Haswell/IVB/SB is apples-to-apples IPC comparison.
Secondly, you continue to cherry-pick data to suit your viewpoint.
Not all games were tested on Ultra with high levels of AA. Some games were only tested on High and with FXAA.
Actually breaking down all of those benchmarks reveals that besides GTA V, that was tested without AA (in other words a useless real world test again), 6600K is not an upgrade for gaming over 2000/3000/4000 series CPUs. That is because in all cases even a stock 2500K is > 60 fps.
It gets even worse since many 2500K/2600K CPUs can do 4.5-4.8Ghz overclocks, 3770K can do 4.5-4.7Ghz too.
In other words, what I keep saying is still true:
It's still better to get an even faster GPU, get a 2nd GPU, get a larger SSD, get a better/bigger/more modern FreeSync/GSync monitor rather to upgrade to Skylake. All of those upgrades are more beneficial for gaming. For example upgrading from a 22-24" 1080P monitor to a 27-32" 1440P one is a way better upgrade than moving from SB/IVB/HW to Skylake.
So is purely equating die area with total cost. Patterning 14nm features with 192nm light is easy right? Doesn't increase cost at all... right?
Those charts above are a bit misleading. Crank the 2600K up to 4.5 GHZ instead of it's stock settings and repeat the test. I admit I'm tempted by an upgrade even though I don't need one. If that 6700k had a soldered IHS I might just bite.
It's not misleading to compare stock configurations. There was nothing mentioned about an overclocked parts comparison. If you are going to clock the 2600k to 4.5Ghz you may as well clock the 6700k to 4.5 and compare too.
Thanks.6700K now on Newegg, but only for "auto notify."
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117559&cm_re=6700k-_-19-117-559-_-Product
Tough crowdI've been reading reviews for the last hour.
I'm going to have to say I'm disappointed. I'll be staying on Lynnfield, the longest I've stayed comfortably on a system.
]The takeaway here is that PCIe RAID is here! There are a few tricks to getting it running, and it may be a bit buggy for the first few BIOS revisions from motherboard makers, but it is a feature that is more than welcome and works reasonably well considering the complications Intel would have had to overcome to get all of this to perform as well as it does. So long as you are aware of the 3.5 GB/sec hard limit of DMI 3.0, and realize that 4K performance may not scale like it used to with SATA devices, you'll still be getting better performance than you can with any single PCIe SSD to date!
Don't forget, at least half of that is the useless for a lot of us IGP. That means we are really paying $350 for a 60mm2 die.
For those of us that are terrified to delid, is there any risk of the TIM drying out over time? I usually like to keep a build for 3-5 years or longer now that IPC improvements are basically stagnant and the cheap paste worries me a bit.D:
Is desktop dies, PC gaming dies too. And with that the beginning of a Gaming crash happens since Mobile is a pretty inmature industry and console one are slowly dying. Unless a new tech appears to revive some industries, at best we might get Core i7 Hexa Cores on Cannon Lake.Intel has to be smart. Apple and Samsung "could" sell their flagship phone devices for $400 instead of $700. The profit margins on those are pretty substantial.
Intel needs their server revenue. The desktop is dead.. they can't afford to be giving out 6-8 core parts for a small group of people who represent a small amount of their revenue when it could take a big bite out of their higher priced server parts.
Yeah I wish they had 8 core parts for $500 but I can see why they don't. It's not smart business.
Those charts above are a bit misleading. Crank the 2600K up to 4.5 GHZ instead of it's stock settings and repeat the test. I admit I'm tempted by an upgrade even though I don't need one. If that 6700k had a soldered IHS I might just bite.
that is not true
6700k has only GT2 graphics, which occupies only 30-40mm^2