Intel Skylake: Core i7 6700K review
It’s the flagship product in Intel’s latest sixth-generation ‘Skylake’ line of Core processors. The i7 6700K represents the latest iteration of the firm’s market-leading mainstream processors, following on from last year’s superb Devil’s Canyon i7 4790K. On the face of it, the 6700K is another in a long line of iterative improvements as opposed to a revolutionary leap, a further refinement on a formula that began in 2011 with the release of Intel’s remarkable Sandy Bridge architecture, arguably the firm’s last great generational leap in processor performance. But — as ever — Core remains the default CPU choice for gaming, and Skylake is the strongest iteration yet.
But just how much stronger is it, and is it time to upgrade? As part of the research for this piece and our companion Core i5 6600K review, we sourced every major mainstream i5 and i7 CPU released since 2011. The bottom line is pretty clear — it may well be four years old, but Sandy Bridge, exemplified by the Core i5 2500K and the i7 2600K — absolutely remains a viable gaming platform. However, as we explained in the i5 review, we have now reached the point where the arrival of a new platform combined with smaller speed bumps across the years results in a product that’s certainly worth considering as an upgrade.
Many of Skylake’s plus points aren’t really aimed at the core gamer as such. There’s a 40 per cent increase in internal PCI Express 3.0 bandwidth, but it’s reserved almost entirely for the new wave of ultra-fast storage devices — PCIe SSDs get more robust support via the new Z170 chipset, and it’s even possible to natively connect them together in RAID, resulting in phenomenal throughput. On top of that, the enhanced bandwidth also services the new USB 3.1 standard — which, on paper at least, is twice as fast as the existing USB 3. Many of the new Z170 boards — including the MSI Gaming Z170A M5 board we used for this review — come with both standard Type A connectors, plus a single Type C (the kind found on the new MacBook).
MSI Z170A Gaming M5 overview
For the purposes of this review, MSI supplied us with its new Z170A Gaming M5 motherboard, while Corsair supplied two components — two sticks of 8GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX low profile DDR4, rated for 2666MHz and the h200i GTX closed-loop watercooler (where temperatures hovered around 60 degrees Celsius, even with a 4.
6GHz overclock in place). Our stock 512GB Crucial MX100 SSD provided the storage for all those 50-gig test games, while power came from an existing Corsair HX750 PSU.
Clearly a mid-range board compared to the Asus Z170 Deluxe we tested with the i5-6600K, nonetheless, the M5 is a great board. SATA Express is included as standard, while two M.2 SSD slots are available as standard for ultra-fast PCI Express RAID — that’s something the Asus board required a bundled PCIe riser board to achieve.
MSI produces more expensive, feature-rich Z170 boards, but the M5 has everything you need — the usual surfeit of USB 3.1 ports, plus the requisite Type C connector (the type found on the new MacBook). Integrated video outputs consist of HDMI and DVI (more expensive boards tend to bundle DisplayPort), while the two main PCI Express slots have a metal protective sleeve to protect them from wear. The firm’s tie-up with Killer continues, with the inclusion of its low latency LAN port plus accompanying software suite.
Extra software supplied with the board includes a RAMdisk and the Xsplit livestreaming tool.
Overclocking proved to be no problem, effectively matching what we achieved on the Asus Z170 Deluxe, and the BIOS is easy to navigate. Our one gripe with the M5? No onboard power/reset buttons — a problem more for bench testers than real-life gaming perhaps, but a notable omission nonetheless. The M5’s feature set is grounded in reality — indeed, our favourite feature is the back panel — the LAN port is illuminated very brightly, meaning that plugging in cables around the back in dark conditions (ie under virtually any desk) is a breeze. Really, why isn’t this feature completely standard by now?
There’s good news for overclockers too: CPU speeds are dictated by a base clock (usually set to 100MHz), and a multiplier. So in the case of the 6700K’s 4.0GHz, we’re looking at 100×400. Most of the recent Intel chips only really allowed tweaking of the multiplier. Skylake returns full ‘BCLK’ and multiplier adjustments to the user, allowing for finer-grain overclocking.
Our Core i5 6600K reached 4.5GHz before failing (even using a Corsair h200i GTX closed-loop watercooler) but the i7 did a little better — it was totally solid at 4.6GHz, though moving beyond that would require more voltage than we were willing to push through the chip.
Caption
Attribution
- Buy the Intel Core i7 6700K from Amazon with free shipping.
On the whole then, Skylake looks like an impressive package. However, the bad news is that all of these enhancements — not to mention the move to new, faster DDR4 system memory — mean that owners of existing CPUs face a substantial upgrade cost. The latest processors sit in a new socket, incompatible with old boards, meaning you’re looking at purchasing a new motherboard and memory in addition to the processor. There are compelling reasons to upgrade from an older Intel chip, but we suspect that Haswell owners will stick with what they’ve got.
Certainly, from a gaming perspective, not a huge amount has changed in terms of the overall feature-set. Any enhancements to performance will come from the revised Skylake architecture itself, which is actually two generations removed from the existing Haswell (Intel only rolled out a small amount of desktop processors based on Broadwell, its last architecture). But here’s the problem: Intel’s last mainstream i7 — the Devil’s Canyon 4790K — was essentially overclocked out of the box. In terms of pure clock speed, it’s actually faster — so Skylake has to be significantly more capable clock for clock in order to overhaul it.
Intel claims that the new i7 is ten per cent faster than the 4790K, 20 per cent faster than the 4770K and features a 30 per cent uplift over Ivy Bridge. But for many, the only metrics that count will be the comparison to vintage Sandy Bridge. We ran some quick synthetic benchmarks, finding it to be around 35 to 50 per cent faster at stock clocks (but remember that Skylake’s base clock is 4.
0GHz, compared to 3.5GHz on the Sandy/Ivy Bridge parts we’ve tested). Compared to last year’s Devil’s Canyon i7 though, differences range from nothing at all to around 11 per cent.
An overview of the Skylake architecture’s I/O — more bandwidth for the cutting-edge in storage and expansion. Click on the thumbnail above for a full resolution image.
| i7 6700K | i7 6700K/ 4.6GHz | i5 6600K | i5 6600K/ 4.5GHz | i7 4790K | i7 3770K | i7 2600K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CineBench 15 Single Thread | 171 | 196 | 158 | 184 | 172 | 134 | 130 |
| CineBench 15 Multi Thread | 867 | 1008 | 618 | 702 | 840 | 657 | 637 |
| CineBench 11.5 Single Thread | 2.05 | 2.24 | 1.81 | 2.08 | 1.97 | 1.65 | 1.46 |
| CineBench 11.5 Multi Thread | 10. 12 |
11.09 | 6.96 | 7.94 | 9.62 | 7.83 | 7.06 |
| x264 Video Encoding | 20.45 | 22.31 | 15.03 | 17.18 | 19.07 | 15.02 | 13.63 |
| 3DMark Physics | 13636 | 14708 | 8718 | 9913 | 12180 | 10105 | 9417 |
But our focus is all about gaming performance, and measuring that in a meaningful way that actually brings CPU capabilities to the forefront is not exactly easy. A typical benchmark concentrates on one task and hammers away at it repeatedly, making for easy to track, comparable results. Gameplay stresses the CPU in different ways all the time, different games utilise the processor to varying degrees, and some do not even utilise all of the threads available on an i7. On top of that, the benchmarks included with games generally concentrate on graphics performance. It’s for these reasons — and more — that most of the Skylake reviews we’ve seen so far present gaming results that show little or no difference between any Intel quad.
And yet, play the Welcome to the Jungle level in Crysis 3 using Sandy Bridge and then with Skylake and it’s immediately obvious that the newer tech provides a tangible, worthwhile boost.
We’ve attempted to do something about this by adopting two measures — firstly, in order to isolate CPU performance as much as possible, we’ve paired the processor with an overclocked Titan X running at 1080p resolution. The idea here is that the graphics hardware is so fast it can handle ultra settings or equivalents, making the processor the bottleneck — a scenario that works on most titles, but falls short on others. On top of that, all but one of our benchmark clips come from actual, repeatable gameplay scenarios — a wise move, based on the virtual non-results we get from Shadow of Mordor’s in-built benchmark.
We’ve got a bunch of different comparisons lined up, but we’ll kick off with the i7 6700K in stock and overclocked configurations, compared against three prior Intel generations.
We strongly recommend watching the videos to get an idea of how CPU performance actually works in practise: where the processor workload comes to the forefront, you’ll see the differential. Where it’s less of an issue, GPU takes precedence and you’ll see performance converge. In part this explains why the bar charts found in many PC reviews don’t really cut it when it comes to comparing what the CPU is actually capable of: the differences are averaged out when in areas of the benchmark run where it’s actually the graphics card that is the limiting factor. Our approach does throw up some interesting results though, and watching the video certainly puts them into context.
The new Skylake in stock and overclocked configurations takes on three previous Core i7 generations across nine titles.
| 1920×1080/Titan X OC (Avg FPS) | Core i7 6700K | Core i7 6700K/4.6GHz | Core i7 4790K | Core i7 3770K | Core i7 2600K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA | 99. 8 |
100.8 | 92.4 | 91.9 | 87.1 |
| Assassin’s Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA | 87.1 | 87.3 | 86.9 | 85.0 | 82.9 |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA | 130.2 | 131.4 | 126.1 | 124.5 | 118.3 |
| Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA | 119.5 | 121.9 | 116.4 | 112.0 | 106.8 |
| COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA | 203.6 | 205.4 | 187.5 | 178.4 | 169.9 |
| Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA | 81.7 | 88.7 | 67.9 | 60.9 | 58.9 |
| Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA | 115.4 | 121.5 | 98.6 | 82.6 | 80.6 |
| Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA | 137.3 | 138.6 | 133.7 | 130.0 | 126.7 |
| Ryse: Son of Rome, High, SMAA | 116.1 | 116. 5 |
111.3 | 108.9 | 106.4 |
Even so when looking at average frame-rates in titles where we are truly CPU-bound for the majority of the duration, there are some notable results: in GTA 5, the 6700K is 20 per cent faster than the 4790K, 34 per cent faster than the 3770K, with a 38 per cent uptick compared to the 2600K. Also noteworthy is Far Cry 4: 17/40/43 per cent faster respectively than its predecessors — Devil’s Canyon, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge.
Other results also show notable gains, but don’t quite seem to reflect the difference we actually experienced when carrying out these tests. And that’s all down to the averaging effect. In most games you won’t be CPU bound all of the time, but during gameplay, it’s the hitches and stutters when the CPU runs out of oomph that hit the experience the most. With that in mind, here’s an alternative version of the table above, concentrating on lowest frame-rates. Note that being CPU-bound can cause a lot of stutter, which can introduce some degree of error to the results, but the trend is clear.
When the CPU is the limiting factor in gameplay, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge dip down hardest, the Haswell Devil’s Canyon is more robust in some titles, but Skylake is considerably ahead. This table is also pretty telling for discerning which of our tests remain mostly GPU-bound, despite the prolific amount of compute we’re throwing at these games.
The 4.6GHz overclock throws up some interesting results but on aggregate, expressed as an average, the gains are fairly minimal. Our Witcher 3 test — which in places even maxes out the new Skylake i5 — shows no real difference whatsoever. Here, Skylake is so powerful even without the overclock in place that the bottleneck in the system changes: the GPU is now the limiting factor. But in several other titles, the lowest frame-rates see a welcome boost — and that’s where CPU power is arguably most important.
How we measure performance
Our preferred form of measuring PC performance is to use the FCAT system pioneered by Nvidia.
The idea here is remarkably straightforward — rather than use internal tools such as FRAPS to measure performance, FCAT does nothing more than apply a coloured border to the output of the host PC, with each individual frames marked up, ready for analysis.
The source PC is attached to an entirely separate computer, using a high-end capture card that acquires every frame produced. We’ve adapted our existing frame-rate video tools to work with the FCAT border mark-up system, allowing us — uniquely — to measure performance in context of what is actually being rendered. In short — abstract metrics like lowest frame-rate, highest frame-rate and stutter become much more meaningful when you can actually see what is causing them. We use repeatable scenes from our gaming suite to ensure as close to a like-for-like comparison as possible.
Our result tables are drawn from the FCAT metrics, but on top of that, the videos allow you to see exactly how each game performs: there, not only do you see frame-rate, but frame-time too — showing persistence of every single frame generated by the system.
Riva Tuner Statistics Server also has its own FCAT support — we prefer to use Nvidia’s version, but the advantage RTSS offers is the ability to gauge CPU and GPU load simultaneously — click on the shot above to see our Witcher 3 test sequence max out the new i5 6600K.
The bottom line is this — most reviews out there provide simplistic bar charts to gauge performance: great for an at-a-glance summary, but lacking in terms of understanding how hardware actually performs at any given point, and where the averaging effect serves to ‘iron out’ the in-the-moment performance differentials that matter most.
But of course, it’s not just the 6700K that is overclockable. All of Intel’s top-tier CPUs have that ability — so we went back to our reference CPUs and benched them again, with a couple of objectives in mind. Firstly, to get some idea of how overclocking can ‘future-proof’ older parts, and secondly in order to judge Skylake, Haswell, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge on a clock-for-clock basis (the 4790K has the highest clocks of the lot at stock, but the 6700K still has a higher operating frequency than the 3770K and the 2600K).
Sandy Bridge in particular is known for its overclocking prowess, but we actually found that our chip got very hot, very quickly at 4.5GHz. Our 3770K refused to overclock to anything beyond 4.4GHz (presumably owing to the sub-optimal thermal interface that got enthusiasts so annoyed back in the day). But as it happened, that turned out to be a good, round figure to base the comparison on.
So here’s an interesting comparison — four generations of Core i7, equalised at the same 4.4GHz clock-speed and put to work on our gaming benchmarking suite.
| 1920×1080/Titan X OC (Average FPS) | Core i7 6700K 4.4GHz | Core i7 4790K 4.4GHz | Core i7 3770K 4.4GHz | Core i7 2600K 4.4GHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA | 100.3 | 94.9 | 91.9 | 89.6 |
| Assassin’s Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA | 86.8 | 86.8 | 86.1 | 83.8 |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA | 131. 1 |
126.5 | 126.7 | 120.8 |
| Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA | 120.5 | 117.9 | 116.7 | 112.0 |
| COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA | 204.5 | 191.5 | 190.8 | 175.2 |
| Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA | 86.1 | 73.6 | 66.7 | 66.5 |
| Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA | 120.3 | 102.6 | 91.4 | 91.1 |
| Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA | 136.9 | 137.8 | 135.4 | 130.4 |
| Ryse: Son of Rome, High, SMAA | 116.1 | 113.8 | 112.4 | 108.3 |
The results level out somewhat when clocks are equalised, with Sandy/Ivy Bridge regaining much of the ground they lost at stock settings. The reason here is pretty straightforward. With the release of the i7 4790K, Intel ramped up the clocks compared to previous generations, effectively overclocking the processor out of the box.
Engage ‘Enhanced Turbo’ on your motherboard (boosting all cores to the max stock frequency), and you have a locked 4.4GHz CPU on all cores, up against 4.2GHz on Skylake. But there are still some noticeable boosts — GTA 5 on the 6700K is 17 per cent faster clock for clock than the 4790K, and 29 per cent faster than both Ivy and Sandy Bridge. Far Cry 4 — an eight-core aware title that demands high per-core performance sees Skylake move 17 points clear of the 4790K, and a mammoth 32 per cent ahead of the second and third-gen i7s.
The lowest recorded frame-rates also throw up some interesting results: Crysis 3 stability scales according to how modern the CPU architecture is, with Sandy Bridge way off the pace set by its successors and Skylake at point. Far Cry 4 shows a large leap compared all prior Intel generations tested, where previously we saw only iterative improvements. There are some interesting findings for sure, but while we can measure the worst dips in performance, the key metric we are missing is the frequency of them.
It’s an area we’re looking to improve in terms of at-a-glance figures (average of worst fps or frame-times?) but in the meantime, we can’t say much more other than watching the video is more enlightening overall than the tables.
Our next performance comparison sees us stack up the Core i7 6700K with its stablemate, the i5 6600K. The top-tier i7 typically commands an £80-£100 price premium over its cut-down equivalent, so the question is whether that hefty increase can really be justified. Historically, the difference between them has been relatively slight: you get the addition of hyper-threading on the i7, offering a noticeable improvement to multi-threaded applications — video encoding, for example. Recently, Intel has boosted clocks on the i7 too, but we’ve yet to encounter an i5 that can’t be overclocked to match frequencies with the top-end CPU at stock. To get some idea of the full performance on offer, we’ve also included our maximum achievable overclock results, but do bear in mind the so-called ‘silicon lottery’ — manufacturing or materials variance in any given chip can result in very different top-end results.
If you’ve decided to invest in the new Z170 platform, what CPU should you get? Here’s an i5 vs i7 comparison, featuring stock performance the best overclock we could squeeze out of each chip.
| 1920×1080/Titan X OC (Avg FPS) | Core i7 6700K | Core i7 6700K/4.6GHz | Core i5 6600K | Core i5 6600K/4.5GHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA | 99.8 | 100.8 | 95.7 | 98.2 |
| Assassin’s Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA | 87.1 | 87.3 | 86.8 | 87.2 |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA | 130.2 | 131.4 | 127.8 | 130.6 |
| Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA | 119.5 | 121.9 | 109.4 | 117.0 |
| COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA | 203.6 | 205.4 | 192.0 | 203.7 |
| Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA | 81.7 | 88. 7 |
70.2 | 80.6 |
| Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA | 115.4 | 121.5 | 89.9 | 115.4 |
| Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA | 137.3 | 138.6 | 132.7 | 138.7 |
| Ryse: Son of Rome, High, SMAA | 116.1 | 116.5 | 112.9 | 116.1 |
There was a time when games only utilised one or two cores — and for those titles, an overclocked Pentium G3258 remains the best price vs performance processor on the market. Then gradually, we saw a migration across to titles using four threads — good for the Core i3 line (two cores/four threads), great for the i5 (four full cores). Throughout this time, an i7 offered virtually nothing extra for gamers, but times have changed. The new wave of consoles has moved us into the many-core era; out of all the games we tested here, all of them — bar Shadow of Mordor — appear to utilise all eight threads available to an i7.
However, the average frame-rate results suggest that the advantages of the i7’s hyper-threading are minimal, its stock performance often overcome with an i5 overclock — but it’s a different situation on when we look at the lowest recorded frame-rates, where the i5 is disadvantaged in several titles, and there are occasions where even 4.5GHz performance can’t match the i7’s stock stability. We should remember that our tests here are designed to propel CPU limitations to the forefront, and our contention is that in most titles where GPU is the bottleneck, the difference will be harder to detect. But the bottom line is this — in many-core games that hit CPU hard, the i7 6700K offers a level of stability in excess of what the equivalent i5 is capable of.
Finally, it would be remiss of us not to mention that the i7 6700K comes with its own internal GPU — Intel integrated HD 530 graphics. It’s not a pressing concern for enthusiast gamers, who will almost certainly pair the processor with a dedicated graphics card worthy of the CPU’s processing power.
Unfortunately, our time with Skylake was limited, so we couldn’t test it in depth, but generally, its performance is only around 10 to 20 per cent better than the iGPU found in Haswell. It’s good for 720p gaming at low or medium settings on older or less challenging titles, but like all integrated solutions, not much cop when it comes to taking on the likes of modern games like Assassin’s Creed Unity or The Witcher 3.
Intel Skylake: Core i7 6700K — the Digital Foundry verdict
The Skylake i7 6700K is the fastest quad-core processor Intel has ever made, and in truly demanding games, it offers a useful bump over the last-gen Haswell and an even steeper increase compared to the 2011/2012 vintage Sandy and Ivy Bridge. Just two questions arise from that — firstly, do you actually need that power right now? And secondly, if you’re going to spend upwards of £250 on a CPU, shouldn’t you be considering the six-core i7 5820K for around £45 more, even if it is based on last-gen Haswell architecture?
To answer the first question — in most gaming scenarios, our tests have demonstrated that existing i5s and i7s still perform admirably.
After all, most of the time, you are limited by the GPU, not the CPU. But in terms of quality of gameplay, when you are CPU-bound, the experience definitely suffers — in our experience, in-game stutter at its worst is usually caused by CPU bottlenecks, rather than graphics or driver issues. In games heavy on CPU, Skylake outperforms its predecessors and can leave both Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge in particular in the dust. Going forward, DX12 could change everything, but inevitably, DX11 gaming will see more of these kind of games, while the rise of VR (which could see CPU instructions to the GPU effectively double in generating a stereoscopic view) could also have big implications for processing power.
The second issue is the comparison point we couldn’t test in this review owing to the lack of a test chip. The last-gen Haswell and the 4790K were easier to recommend: DDR4 cost a fortune and X99 motherboards were too pricey, making the six-core 5820K relatively cheap in isolation, but very expensive when building a complete rig.
But right now, X99 boards start from £150, while DDR4 is getting cheaper all the time — and unless you choose a DDR3L Skylake board, that’s an expense you’ll have to trouser whether you go for the 6700K or the 5820K. We’ve compared Skylake with its predecessors and definitely like what we see in terms of quad-core performance, but the notion of an extra £100 getting you a full-blooded six-core system sounds like a compelling alternative worth consideration.
Intel Core i7-6700K Skylake CPU Review
Last month we finally got our first look at Intel’s latest 14nm technology for desktop computers when we reviewed the Core i7-5775C, codenamed Broadwell. Intel’s transition to the 14nm node was difficult and as a result Broadwell processors were delayed to the point where they practically don’t exist in the retail market.
Even as I write this it’s extremely difficult to purchase the Core i7-5775C, which is all the more surprising given what I am writing about: today marks the real arrival of Intel’s 14nm desktop processors and they aren’t codenamed Broadwell, but rather Skylake.
| Year of release | Microarchitecture | Tick or Tock | Process Node |
| 2015 | Broadwell | Tick | 14nm |
| 2013 | Haswell | Tock | 22nm |
| 2012 | Ivy Bridge | Tick | 22nm |
| 2011 | Sandy Bridge | Tock | 32nm |
| 2010 | Westmere | Tick | 32nm |
| 2008 | Nehalem | Tock | 45nm |
| 2007 | Penryn | Tick | 45nm |
| 2006 | Conroe | Tock | 65nm |
Whereas Broadwell was a ‘tick’ in Intel’s «tick-tock» manufacturing and design model, offering a die shrink along a few minor tweaks, Skylake is a ‘tock’ which means the redesign should provide greater CPU and GPU performance with reduced power consumption, while remaining on the same 14nm manufacturing process as Broadwell.
Notably, the usual «tick-tock» cycle will be broken in 2016 with a third 14nm part known as Kaby Lake. Intel says its transition to 10nm chips will now come later than expected, pushed back to the second half of 2017 when a new architecture codenamed Cannonlake will arrive.
As we understand it, this is a hard launch and Skylake processors should be available immediately, at least the chips being announced anyway. However, rumor has it that supplies will only last for a few days, running dry before the end of launch week. Again, the lack of supply likely comes down to issues with the 14nm process and it isn’t uncommon new CPUs and GPUs to be plagued by such problems.
A number of significant changes will be introduced with Skylake, chief among them being the introduction of the new LGA1151 socket, which isn’t backward compatible with anything previously available, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed.
So unlike Broadwell, those with a 9-series motherboard won’t simply be able to upgrade to Skylake, instead requiring a new motherboard that supports an Intel 100 Series chipset, also known as Sunrise Point.
The memory controller found on the Skylake processors has been upgraded to support DDR4 memory, much like Haswell-E, though support will be limited to dual-channel operation rather than quad.
Unlike Haswell-E, it appears Skylake processors support DDR3 memory as well, so it will be up to the motherboard manufacturers to decide which memory standard they are going to use and we’ll likely see a multitude of DDR3 and DDR4 boards. It’ll be interesting to see if there are any boards that support both DDR3 and DDR4 DIMMs, like what we saw back in the Core 2 days with boards offering both DDR2 and DDR3.
Although there will no doubt be a full range of Skylake processors spanning multiple series, just like what we have with Haswell, for now Intel is announcing just two chips. Designed for enthusiasts, the first wave includes the Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K desktop processors.
Intel claims that these parts will deliver up to 10% better performance over their Haswell counterparts.
In fact, Intel says that the Core i7-6700K will be up to 10% faster than the 4790K and 20% faster than the 4770K, while 3770K owners can expect up to a 30% boost in performance.
| i7-6700K | i5-6600K | i7-5775C | i7-4790K | ||
| Base Frequency | 4.0GHz | 3.5GHz | 3.3GHz | 4.0GHz | |
| Max Turbo Frequency | 4.2GHz | 3.9GHz | 3.7GHz | 4.4GHz | |
| Cores | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| Threads | 8 | 4 | 8 | 8 | |
| Graphics | HD Graphics 530 | HD Graphics 530 | Iris Pro 6200 | HD Graphics 4600 | |
| EUs | 24 | 24 | 48 | 20 | |
| Graphics Frequency | 1150MHz | 1150MHz | 1150MHz | 1250MHz | |
| DRAM Frequency | DDR4-2133 DDR3L-1600 |
DDR4-2133 DDR3L-1600 |
DDR3-1600 | DDR3-1600 | |
| L3 Cache | 8MB | 6MB | 6MB | 8MB | |
| L4 Cache (eDRAM) | N/A | N/A | 128MB | N/A | |
| Socket | LGA1151 | LGA1151 | LGA1150 | LGA1150 | |
| Price | $350 | $243 | $276 | $339 |
The Core i7-6700K that we have on hand today operates at a base clock of 4.
0GHz, which is the same base clock frequency of the 4790K. However the maximum Turbo frequency has been capped at 4.2GHz, whereas the 4790K can clock a single core as high as 4.4GHz.
As you would expect, the 6700K is a quad-core processor that supports Hyper-Threading technology, affording it eight threads. Like the Haswell processors, Skylake models also receive the L3 Intel Smart Cache. This allows faster data access by enabling dynamic and efficient allocation of the cache to match the needs of each core, significantly reducing latency to frequently used data and improving performance.
Like the 4790K, the 6700K receives an 8MB L3 cache, while the Core i5-6600K makes do with a slightly smaller 6MB cache, much as the Core i5-4690K does.
Skylake still features 16 PCI Express 3.0 lanes which means a single GPU can connect to the CPU in a 1×16 configuration, while two-way Crossfire or SLI will use the 2×8 configuration.
As mentioned earlier, memory support is limited to dual-channel operation, which has been the case for years now when looking at Intel’s mainstream platforms.
That said, while the Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K can take advantage of DDR3L-1600 memory, it can also support DDR4-2133 and this is likely going to be the preferred option.
Although Broadwell processors such as the Core i7-5775C might not have been a big deal in the grand scheme of things, its integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200 was. The massive 128MB L4 cache (eDRAM) was a serious talking point as it blessed the 5775C with the world’s fastest integrated graphics solution.
The 6700K’s solution doesn’t appear to be nearly as elaborate, but to be honest we know little about its technical specifications as no one at Intel or the PR firm we deal with could answer any of our questions.
Also read: Almost 10 years of Intel CPUs compared, from Conroe to Haswell
The PR marketing material simply makes mention of an Intel HD Graphics 530 solution that supports DX12, Ultra HD 4K resolution and operates at up to 1150MHz. It’s said to be 40% faster than the HD Graphics 4000 of the Core i7-3770K, which is a bit random.
Intel didn’t provide us with a die-shot of the 6700K, but as far as we can tell the L4 cache isn’t featured on this model. GPUz reports that the HD Graphics 530 features 24 EUs, 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This is the same configuration as the Iris Pro 6200 found on the 5775C, but without the L4 cache there simply isn’t enough bandwidth available.
Moving on, these processors have been rated for a rather high TDP of 91 watts, which is slightly higher than the 88 watts of their Haswell equivalents and this is likely due to the inclusion of a considerably more powerful GPU.
Intel says the recommended retail price for the 6700K is $350, while the 6600K will be considerably more affordable at $243. In comparison the 4790K currently sells for $340 and the 4690K for $240, so it looks like Skylake processors will come in at similar price points to their Haswell predecessors.
Both support the LGA1151 socket which requires a brand new motherboard and chipset. Speaking of which, let’s take a look at the Intel Z170 chipset on the new Asrock Z170 Gaming K6 motherboard.
Review of the Intel Core i7-6700K processor — a real monster
Finally, a processor has settled in our test lab, on which you can test any computer components, be it the latest DDR4 RAM, top-end video cards, or even bundles of several video cards. Meet the flagship of the Intel Skylake family — Core i7-6700K!
one.
Positioning Intel Core i7-6700K
1.1. Specifications
1.2. Architectural Features
1.3. Test bench configuration
1.4. Overclocking and testing
1.5. Graphics Intel HD 530
1.6. Conclusions
1.7. Prices in online stores
The Intel Core i7-6700K is the flagship model in the new 14nm Skylake line, designed to replace the predecessor i7-4790K Haswell and i7-5775C Broadwell. The i7-6700K has four physical but eight virtual cores, an unlocked multiplier, 8MB L3 cache, DDR4 and DDR3L memory controllers, and an Intel HD 530 graphics accelerator. only in multithreading to six-core (twelve-thread) Haswell-E LGA2011-v3 processors.
Specifications
| Model name | Intel Core i7-6700K |
| Architecture | Skylake |
| Process | 14 nm |
| Processor socket | LGA1151 |
| Number of cores | 4 |
| Number of threads | 8 |
| Rated frequency | 4000 MHz |
| Turbo Boost Frequency | 4200 MHz |
| L1 cache | 4×32 kb + 4×32 kb |
| L2 cache | 4×256 kb |
| L3 cache | 8 MB |
| Memory controller | DDR3L-1600, DDR4-2333 |
| Graphics Accelerator | Intel HD Graphics 530 |
| Graphics accelerator frequency | 1150 MHz |
| Number of graphics microcores | 24 |
| TDP | 91W |
Architectural Features
At the same frequency, Intel Skylake processors are about 10 percent faster than their predecessor Haswell/Broadwell.
Due to what exactly this was achieved, Intel is still keeping a secret and promises to tell only with the official announcement of Xeon server chips. But Skylake’s key innovations are still known.
In the case of desktop versions of Intel Skylake, the most important change was the transfer of the processor power converter back to the motherboard, as was the case with SandyBridge/IvyBridge. On the one hand, being part of the processor, this rather hot converter prevented successful overclocking. On the other hand, there will now be increased quality requirements for motherboards: it will not be possible to achieve a high overclocking rate on a cheap motherboard, even with an older chipset. You can read more about the architecture and the full range of Skylake processors in this article.
Test bench configuration
- Intel Core i7-6700K 4-4.2 GHz
- be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim
- motherboard MSI Z170A Gaming M3
- RAM 2×4 GB HyperX Fury DDR4 2400 MHz
- MSI GTX 960 Gaming 2G graphics card
- 240 GB HyperX Savage SSD
- WD Red 4TB hard drive
- be quiet! Pure Power L8 630W CM
Overclocking and testing
Our copy of the Core i7-6700K, after increasing the supply voltage to 1.
35 V, was overclocked to a frequency of 4.6 GHz — the result is good, but still not a record. Many instances of the i7-6700K can be overclocked to 4.7 GHz, and after scalping and replacing the thermal interface, even up to 4.8 GHz.
CPU heat testing was performed using the AIDA64 stress test. I was pleased with the cooler be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim, which kept the temperature of even an overclocked processor within reasonable limits, while remaining absolutely silent.
Processor temperature
| Test mode | Temperature, °C | Energy consumption, W | Fan speed |
| idle | 32 | 13 | 350 |
| Loaded at rated frequency | 62 | 76 | 750 |
| Loaded during acceleration | 70 | 89 | 900 |
Core i7-6700K performance tested in WinRAR (compression), Cinebench (3D graphics rendering), x264 HD Benchmark (video conversion) and TrueCrypt (encryption) processor benchmarks, as well as Unigine Valley graphics benchmark (Extreme HD mode).
) and games with built-in benchmarks Tomb Raider (graphic settings «Excellent»), Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor («High»), Total War: Rome II («Ultra») and Sniper Elite 3 («Ultra») at a resolution of 1920×1080 dots. In addition, CPU-Z, which has recently acquired its own benchmark, has added to the gentleman’s set of tests. Games were tested only at the nominal frequency of the processor, since the mid-range GeForce GTX 960 video card still remains a bottleneck.
CPU benchmarks
| Benchmark | Rated frequency | CPU overclocking | Growth, percent |
| 1852 | 1982 | 7 | |
| WinRAR 5.20, multithreading, kbps | 10181 | 10829 | 6 |
| CPU-Z, x64, Single Thread | 2004 | 2307 | 15 |
| CPU-Z, x64,MultiThread | 8149 | 9650 | 18 |
| 876 | 1002 | 14 | |
| x264 HD Benchmark 5.0.1, 1 pass, fps | 90 | 105 | 17 |
| x264 HD Benchmark 5.0.1, 2 pass fps | 27 | 32 | 18 |
TrueCrypt 7. 2, Seprent-Twofish-AES, Mean, MB/s |
294 | 339 | 15 |
Processor with discrete graphics
| Game or benchmark / graphics settings | Frame rate |
| Unigine Valley, Extreme HD | 36 |
| Tomb Raider, Excellent | 91 |
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, High | 71 |
| Total War: Rome II, Ultra | 77 |
| Sniper Elite 3, Ultra | 94 |
The WinRAR archiver showed a relatively small gain from overclocking.
The thing is that this program is not able to load the Core i7-6700K one hundred percent even at the nominal frequency, not to mention overclocking. Other benchmarks responded much better to the frequency increase from 4 to 4.6 GHz. So, Cinebench received an increase of 14 percent, and CPU-Z Multi Thread and x264 HD Benchmark 2 pass — as much as 18 percent.
Intel HD 530 graphics
The new Skylake processor integrated graphics Intel HD 530 deserves special attention. It is used in almost all Skylake processors — from Pentium to Core i7. The number of its microcores is 24 pieces (the GPU-Z application erroneously says that it is 48), the frequency is 1150 MHz, and the memory bus is 128 bits, naturally only in dual-channel memory mode.
Integrated graphics
| Game or benchmark / graphics settings | Frame rate |
| Unigine Valley, Extreme HD | 10 |
| Tomb Raider Low | 39 |
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, Very Low | 21 |
| Total War: Rome II, Very Low | 29 |
| Sniper Elite 3 Low | 21 |
The Intel HD 530 was tested at the same resolution of 1920×1080 pixels, but the image settings in games were set to the minimum.
At the same time, two of the four test games were able to run at a comfortable frequency of 30+ fps, and two more — with a more or less playable 21 fps. If you lower the resolution to 1600×900, then the frame rate rises to a comfortable level.
Conclusions
In both theory and practice, the Core i7-6700K is the undisputed leader of Intel’s new line of desktop processors. Even if you do not plan to resort to manual overclocking and want to save on the motherboard by choosing, for example, an inexpensive B150 chipset, the i7-6700K still looks better than the i7-6700. The nominal frequency of the first is 4 GHz, while the second is only 3.4 GHz, and Turbo Core auto-overclocking does not work when all four cores are loaded. Of course, the i7-6700K costs a lot, but only those who clearly understand what tasks need such a powerful processor will obviously buy it. All things considered, we have no hesitation in awarding the Intel Core i7-6700K our signature Editors’ Choice award.
Benefits of Intel Core i7-6700K:
- Highest performance in both single and multithreading
- Turbo Boost and unlocked manual overclocking multiplier
- latest process technology, moderate power consumption and heat
- solid integrated graphics accelerator
Minor Intel Core i7-6700K:
- no significant
Prices in online stores
It is possible to display similar models if this one is not in the catalog for your region.
[socialmart]
[freemarket model=»Intel Core i7-6700K»]
[ava model=»Intel Core i7-6700K»]
Intel Core i7-6700K review
In early August, Intel introduced a new desktop platform, as well as Skylake family processors with 6th generation Core architecture. Let’s see what the manufacturer offers for the desktop system in 2015.
Gamescom, one of the largest gaming exhibitions, became the venue for the presentation of the new Intel desktop platform.
The event featured 14nm 6th generation Intel Core architecture processors. It is symbolic that the top models of the Core i5 and Core i7 families gave Skylake chips a start.
Course
Development in Python
Introduce popular language programming to earn $1300 via rіk
REGISTER!
Zmist
In the meantime, according to the manufacturer, we can say that the Skylake chips have a higher specific performance per megahertz than their predecessors. In particular, we are talking about the fact that new processors will be ahead of Haswell chips by up to 10%, and the gap from earlier models should be even more significant.
An important feature of the Skylake architecture, which a priori assumes the use of new boards, is the absence of an integrated voltage converter (FIVR) for various processor units. Chips of the last two generations had such a module, but in Skylake desktop processors, the manufacturer decided to abandon this configuration.
Haswell/Broadwell integrated FIVR improves system power consumption. This is very important for mobile platforms. However, as it turned out during operation at higher frequencies, as well as with an increased supply voltage, FIVR itself becomes a source of heat, not allowing to achieve maximum frequencies when overclocking the CPU. In the case of Skylake, the FIVR block again migrated to motherboards.
Presented processors received the Intel HD 530 graphics core, which belongs to 9Intel integrated graphics generation (Gen9). As you can see, the name of the graphic part has changed. A three-character designation is now used to identify the integrated GPU. The embed for the new Core i5 and Core i7 includes 24 compute units. In the case of the Core i7-6700K, the graphics core can be accelerated up to 1150 MHz, while the Core i5-6600K can be accelerated up to 1100 MHz.
The new graphics support the DirectX 12 API, OpenGL 4.4 and OpenCL 2.0, while also providing support for hardware decoding of the increasingly popular HEVC (H.
265) video format.
Considering the number of computers, it is obvious that the Skylake embedding will not be as productive as the integrated Broadwell desktop graphics, which, in addition to 48 execution units, also has a large eDRAM buffer. At the same time, the graphics speed of Skylake will be higher than that of older models of processors with Haswell architecture. Recall that the latter are equipped with Intel HD 4600, which includes 20 computing modules. As you can see, the Intel HD 530 even in quantitative terms has a 20% advantage, and if we consider that the blocks themselves also received a number of optimizations, then the declared advantage of 20–40% does not look implausible.
Model range
At the first stage, the manufacturer offered two processors with an updated architecture — Core i5-6600K and Core i7-6700K . Both models are quad-core and offer an unlocked multiplier for frequency experimentation.
Core i7-6700K base frequency is 4.
0 GHz, while the processor can be accelerated up to 4.2 GHz under load. The model has 8 MB of L3 cache and supports Hyper-Threading technology, which allows processing up to 8 threads simultaneously. Frequency formula Core i5-6600K — 3.5 / 3.9GHz. The L3 cache in this model is 6 MB, and, like all chips in the Core i5 family, there is no support for Hyper-Threading. Both processors received a thermal package of 91 watts. Despite the 14nm process technology, the TDP of the chips has increased compared to that of its predecessors. For the top processors of the Haswell line, the package was 88 watts. However, these are still calculated values, and not actual indicators, to which we will return.
Skylake processors received a dual-channel memory controller. At the same time, the CPUs support DDR4 and DDR3L RAM. We are not talking about a hybrid configuration, the chips will work either with one type or with another. Of course, to a greater extent the new platform will be focused on DDR4.
It’s more economical, has higher bandwidth, and is only slightly more expensive than DDR3. Most likely, motherboard manufacturers will offer models with DDR3L connectors, perhaps we will see hybrids with a couple of DDR4 slots and two DDR3L connectors, but based on the results of similar experiments in the past, we can say that this will be rather exotic.
Nominally, the presented chips support DDR4-2133 and DDR3L-1600, but the processors allow the use of faster kits.
The recommended cost of the processors is the same as for the predecessors. If we talk about retail versions, the Core i7-6700K is offered for $350, while the Core i5-6600K is priced at $243.
Processors are packaged in a new design with a bright colorful pattern. It is worth noting that enthusiast versions of processors will now be shipped without a standard cooling system. The manufacturer assumes that the owners of chips with the “K” index will probably want to experiment with overclocking the CPU, so it’s better to get a more efficient cooler from the beginning.
In such a situation, the heating of the processors depends entirely on the capabilities of the CO used.
Platform
Switching to an updated computing architecture often involves changing the processor socket. And the point here is not a worldwide conspiracy and Intel’s desire to get additional profit and let motherboard manufacturers earn money. The latter, of course, also takes place, but the main reason for the lack of compatibility is serious changes in the configuration of the power subsystem, as well as additional switching connections that were not previously used. Could all changes have been foreseen from the outset so that the system owner would not need to change the board more than once every 5–7 years? The question is rhetorical. Nevertheless, during such a period, even in the desktop segment, which has slowed down the pace of development, serious transformations are taking place that are not always noticeable at first glance.
One way or another, it should be taken for granted that the Intel Skylake family of chips will require a new motherboard with an LGA1151 socket, which is not backward compatible with Haswell/Broadwell processors.
Along with the first Skylake processors, the manufacturer introduced the Intel Z170 chipset. This is the most advanced version of the hundredth series, which will include several versions for different categories of systems.
As expected, the Intel Z170 is offered in a single-chip package. Since the memory controllers and PCI Express bus moved under the processor cover, the chipset has been solely responsible for the operation of the peripheral body kit. However, the capabilities of the PCH chip should not be underestimated. The Intel chipset for the new platform received a number of useful improvements. First of all, we note that in the case of the Intel Z170, the DMI 3.0 bus is used to communicate with the processor, which has twice the bandwidth (about 4 GB / s in both directions) than the DMI 2.0 used for the previous generation chipsets.
Another very important innovation is support for the PCI Express 3.0 bus, and the chipset has 20 such lanes at its disposal.
Whereas, for example, Intel Z97 offers only 8 PCI Express lanes, and the 2.0 standard. The increased number of links should eliminate, or at least drastically reduce the number of situations where it is impossible to use all the peripherals at the same time. Previously, just because of chipset limitations, «if-then» conditions arose regularly, especially for functional boards.
The Intel Z170 offers 10 USB 3.0 ports as well as 14 USB 2.0 ports. This is enough for the most equipped board models. Here one could write that now no additional microcircuits are needed, but this is not so. The chipsets of the new series, alas, did not receive a built-in USB 3.1 controller, so manufacturers of additional strapping will not be left without work. Board designers, in turn, will use external chips to implement USB 3.1.
Of course, the chipset offers support for the NVMe protocol, in addition, it allows organizing RAID arrays from drives connected via the PCI Express bus (PCI-E, M.
2, U.2). Given the large number of PCI Express lanes, boards will certainly offer several options for connecting SSDs using a high-speed bus.
As far as SATA is concerned, the capabilities of the Intel Z170 do not differ from those of its predecessors — the chipset offers six SATA 6 Gb/s channels.
There are also no innovations in terms of managing PCI Express processor lines. The chipset allows you to distribute the available lines in x16, x8+x8 or x8+x4+x4 proportions. Considering the presence of 20 chipset PCI-E 3.0, as well as the increased bandwidth of DMI 3.0, we will surely see boards that allow using chipset resources for multi-adapter configurations.
Motherboard manufacturers have been waiting for the launch of the new platform with genuine interest. Product release volumes are declining, and the launch of Skylake should obviously increase interest in new devices. Taiwanese companies obviously expected to roll out their lines by Computex 2015, but the launch date of the new platform was postponed.
All manufacturers presented entire lines of models based on the Intel Z170. Obviously, their number and variety will only increase with time. In addition, we will soon announce devices based on more affordable Intel 100-Series chipsets.
Externally, the new processor socket LGA1151 practically does not differ from LGA1150. The mechanism for attaching the chips is identical. The distance between the holes for fixing the coolers has not changed either. Compatibility is preserved, so coolers with a mount for LGA1150 can be safely used for the new platform.
Intel Core i7-6700K
The flagship of the new processor line is the Core i7-6700K. As we have already noted, the processor has a frequency formula of 4.0/4.2 GHz. Predecessor — Core i7-4790K — also has a base 4.0 GHz, but the top-end Devil’s Canyon accelerates under load up to 4.4 GHz. The use of a slightly less aggressive Turbo Boost 2.0 dynamic overclocking algorithm can be seen as the manufacturer’s confidence that Skylake has higher performance per megahertz, and therefore can demonstrate better performance even at slightly lower clock speeds.
The chip has a fairly high base voltage. At least our test instance was set to 1.28V by default.0003
In idle mode, the processor frequency drops to 800 MHz at 0.8 V.
Left — Skylake, right — Haswell (Devil’s Canyon) compatible. As you can see in the photo, the processors have «keys» at different distances from the edge — an additional safeguard against trying to use a processor with an unsuitable board.
From the visual differences of the chips, one cannot fail to note the noticeably thinner processor substrate in the new CPUs. The thickness of the textolite base for Haswell is 1.2 mm, while for Skylake it is 0.8 mm. At the same time, for 14-nanometer CPUs, the manufacturer uses a slightly more massive heat-distributing cover. Fearless enthusiasts who have already managed to «scalp» new chips note that the weight of the Haswell cover is 22 g, while the casing of the new CPU weighs all 26 g. As for the thermal interface, heat-conducting paste is still used here.
Alas, flux-free solder is now the lot of only chips for LGA2011/2011-v3.
Processor owners who have already managed to look under the Skylake cover note that there are no additional elements on the surface of the substrate. At the same time, the physical dimensions of the new crystal are noticeably smaller than those of Haswell. The silicon wafer has an area of about 123 mm², while the 5th generation Core architecture processors have an area of 177 mm². The transition to a new process technology makes itself felt.
Overclocking
Processors with index «K» traditionally have an unlocked multiplier, which greatly simplifies the process of chip overclocking. In terms of tuning options Skylake offer even more. Now the base frequency BCLK can be smoothly changed with a resolution of 1 MHz.
For the LGA1150 platform, certain reference values of 100/125/166 MHz were used, with a slight deviation from which it was difficult to obtain stable operation of the chip.
Now BCLK can be changed without reference to the specified points. However, you need to keep track of the coefficients for the memory modules. When changing BCLK, the operating frequency of the RAM strips will also change.
Of course, with an unlocked multiplier, the ability to smoothly adjust BCLK is a superfinishing tool. Will it be possible to change the reference frequency for models without the “K” index? That’s where the question is. But, we will receive an answer to it only after the release of the corresponding CPUs.
As for the frequency potential of the considered Core i7-6700K engineering sample, we managed to raise the chip frequency to 4.6 GHz after increasing the voltage to 1.32 V. Judging by the results that our colleagues managed to achieve during the reviews of the first Skylake, this typical for new 14nm CPUs. On average, it is possible to achieve stable operation of quad-core chips at 4.6-4.7 GHz. In general, this is only slightly higher than what has been able to get from Haswell.
But given that the IPS of Skylake chips is higher, at a similar frequency they will offer a higher level of performance.
Performance
To evaluate the capabilities of the Core i7-6700K (4.0 / 4.2 GHz), it is most logical to use the results of its predecessor, the Core i7-4790K (4.0 / 4.4 GHz). In addition, the charts also show the results of the desktop version of Broadwell — Core i7-5775C. Note that Skylake actually replace Haswell, while the presented Broadwell models are rather a specific offshoot for the LGA1150 platform.
In the 3DMark processor subtest, the new chip shows a 6.7% advantage.
When rendering a scene in Cinebench R15, the Core i7-6700K chip is 4.7% faster than the Core i7-4790K.
But in the PassMark set of computational tests, the newcomer lost to the top Haswell. The difference is small — 1.7%, but the very fact that in some tasks a higher frequency can give an advantage to a chip even with a less advanced architecture is curious.
The Core i7-6700K got almost a 2% advantage during 7-Zip archiving.
The older Skylake turned out to be 3% faster than the top Haswell in WinRAR, but both of them are lagging behind the results of the Core i7-5775C, which reaps the rewards by fitting the entire used archiver dictionary into the L4 cache. Yes, eDRAM can help out a lot in a number of tasks.
GeekBench favors Skylake. Although, again, the difference is not very big 3.5%.
With transcoding of 4K HEVC video to 1080p H.264, the new chip did 10% faster. Whereas when connecting QuickSync, the results were identical to those for the Core i7-4790K.
The performance of processors in games with a discrete graphics card is expected to be almost the same. For a gaming platform, any of the presented chips will be an excellent option.
We also evaluated the integrated video capabilities of the Intel HD 530. The Skylake integration shows a 10-42% advantage over the Intel HD 4600.
On average, the difference is about 20–25%. It is these values that you should focus on if you are counting on the capabilities of integrated graphics. Of course, the Core i7-5775C with Intel Iris Pro 6200 is out of competition in this discipline, but at the moment it is the fastest graphics on the market.
Summarizing the results obtained, we can say that the Core i7-6700K in terms of computing performance is about 5% ahead of the older model of the Devil’s Canyon family. At the same time, Skylake processors received 20-25% faster integrated graphics.
Power consumption
Despite the use of the 14nm process technology, unlocked chip models have a rather high TDP of 91W. However, this is the declared value. We measured the performance of systems with processors of different generations in real conditions.
As it turned out, under load, the consumption of the Skylake-based platform is even slightly lower than in the case of Haswell. At a minimum, we can say that the indicators are comparable.
Of course, the results of the 65-watt Broadwell will not reach the results, but in this case, economy was not the main goal.
Results
Does the new platform and the top processor of the Skaylake family live up to expectations? In general, yes. Curiously, the appearance of 14-nanometer chips in this form suits everyone. Owners of systems based on Haswell chips who have seriously invested in the purchase can breathe a sigh of relief. In terms of performance, the new platform does not bring radical changes, which means that at one time users were by no means mistaken in deciding to build a PC at the moment when it was really needed. In turn, those who still decide to wait for the release of Skylake and the updated platform will have at their disposal for the same money a slightly faster and more functional system. So, they tested their patience, too, not in vain.
Of course, the absence of a strong competitor in the performance segment allows Intel to focus on expanding the capabilities of integrated graphics and improving the efficiency of its processors.
In terms of performance, the manufacturer simply has no one to prove something and try to surpass. Therefore, the obtained 5–10% of the results of the solutions of the previous generation can rather be considered the expected result. At the same time, the manufacturer continues to improve the desktop foundation. Boards with the new chipset offer a greater number of high-speed interfaces and enhanced options for creating a disk subsystem. With the release of Skylake chips, DDR4 RAM, which was previously used only for top-end systems, also moves into the category of mass solutions.
Intel will soon expand its lineup of quad-core chips, as well as introduce dual-core Skylake models from the Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron families. The manufacturer plans to quickly close all niches, offering diverse system options within the LGA1151 platform. Of course, no one expects a large-scale migration from the platforms of the previous generation, but for new systems, of course, the most up-to-date basis is preferable, which will be relevant for at least 2–3 years.