• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Finally pulled the trigger... i7 6700k here I come!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Doesn't limit your OC in my experience, but might need a voltage bump to make stable, from what i read it will speed up memory intensive apps like video and image editing. Think of it as "almost" free performance :p
 
deathman20 said:
Hmmm guess I'll play with it and see if it limits my OC. Did find a very well done post on TweakTown with the specifics of changing it. Seems between a 1-3% gain, on certain tests dealing with latency it seems.
http://www.tweaktown.com/guides/748...-intel-skylake-overclocking-guide/index4.html

But if it doesn't effect the OC... its staying :) Who doesn't like a little extra umph.
Click to expand...
Me. I prefer to set it (voltage and multi) and forget it these days. I don't have time to fish for other limits like memory and cache for negligible gains. Damn my life, LOL!
 
Kenrou said:
The 6700k is around 30% faster overall, but outside bench's you will likely only see difference in multi-threaded apps like video coding or very heavy CPU intensive games like MMOs :p
Click to expand...

From Anandtech the i7 2600k vs i7 6700k is 25% increase clock for clock overall. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

Kenrou said:
Doesn't limit your OC in my experience, but might need a voltage bump to make stable, from what i read it will speed up memory intensive apps like video and image editing. Think of it as "almost" free performance :p
Click to expand...
Will it help out gaming, are there any benchmarks?

EarthDog said:
Me. I prefer to set it (voltage and multi) and forget it these days. I don't have time to fish for other limits like memory and cache for negligible gains. Damn my life, LOL!
Click to expand...

+1 Same here that is what I have always done since I don't benchmark anymore.
 
Last edited:
wingman99 said:
From Anandtech the i7 2600k vs i7 6700k is 25% increase clock for clock overall. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23
Click to expand...

UserBenchmark - http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500K/3502vs619

wingman99 said:
Will it help out gaming, are there any benchmarks?
Click to expand...

1fps in crysis 3 with a 600mhz increase in cache if memory serves, we had another thread about it.

ATMINSIDE said:
Rarely, if ever, will tweaking memory help in gaming.
Click to expand...

Rare case would be Fallout 4, faster RAM will actually boost fps by a nice margin :)
 
ATMINSIDE said:
Rarely, if ever, will tweaking memory help in gaming.
Click to expand...

You might get that fraction of a percent gain. Yeah i don't think in the past I've noticed anything in gaming affected drastically by ram speeds. Can't say that about the cache but probably similar thing goes there.

EarthDog said:
Me. I prefer to set it (voltage and multi) and forget it these days. I don't have time to fish for other limits like memory and cache for negligible gains. Damn my life, LOL!
Click to expand...

I tweak if I have spare time and I like to fiddle. Course that has been less and less these days doesn't mean I won't have a little fun here and there :)
Least what I've been doing the last few days, run test, watch some NetFlix while it passes/fails, rinse and repeat. So instead of sitting on a couch chilling at night I'm just by the PC.
 
 
Fallout 4 was a known title that responded well from 2133+ otherwise, JCause 3 and The Witcher 3 are the only games that responded at all really. Memory doesn't affect much these days in the way of FPS. This is why most people around here just say to grab some DDR4 3K i if the budget allows over 2133. Not to mention, its a kick in the pants, to me, to run DDR3 speeds (with a lot more latency) on a DDR4 platform. He even says the average price difference between 2400 and 3000 is $10 (about 8:30 in).
 
ATMINSIDE said:
Most were 1-2 fps.....
Click to expand...

Aie tis why i said benefits would go more to memory intensive apps like image/video editing. I would assume that keeping the core/uncore at 1:1 would be a good thing overall if you manage to make it stable (only requires a voltage bump for mine). Patience exercise for all those that like to min/max :D
 
They seem to respond a lot more to frequency then speed, so if you can grab CL14 you're sorted. Doesn't say anything for uncore though and if we're talking about video encoding even a 1% speed increase on a 12h+ encode is very much welcome, especially now that x265 is becoming mainstream :p plus if you have more cores the effect would increase exponentially no ?
 
No idea. I haven't run across any testing of uncore and real world apps to say. From the benching side of things it doesn't matter in most benchmarks. I don't think it responded in cinebench or x265 though. It would be interesting to test... wish I had time.

There really are only a select couple of things where, to me, the time and effort is worth 1% of performamce increases. It's why I poopoo memory and uncore/ring overclocking, particularly to newer users.
 
Well now I can see what it can really do... curious what I can do undervolted. Opened one of my old threads i7 920 and when i was playing around with optimization and sweet spots. Now I'm curious :)

Edit: I did play around with the Cache Speed (Ring Bus) and didn't see any advantages from not running it at processor speed so I just kept it there. Didn't get any lower on voltage, and temps wasn't affected. So I'll enjoy the slight gain to performance from it :)
 
Last edited:
Ran some tests with the 4.3Ghz @ 1.18V and compared at least to some results I had for the 4.7Ghz, I was anywhere from 5-8% slower in cpu benchmarks I ran. Only one of the video encoding ones at 4k ended up 10-11% slower. Though for a 9.3% reduction in clock it wasn't that large of a hit performance wise, I'll have to run some gaming benches I had to see if there is really any reduction. Temps where running great, at a whopping 56C maximum under stress test. So its looking like if I want another 100Mhz, I basically just give the CPU another .05V and let her go all the way up to 4.7Ghz. Might see if I can drop it a little lower voltage wise but I think I'm probably pretty close to the limit for stable voltage at 4.3Ghz. BTW my VID voltage is 1.179x (got a screen shot of it saved at home).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
I feel like my build isn't performing at an optimal level - Advice appreciated!
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
EliteACEz
E
91XRT
Upgrades on the way, Performance gain?
Replies
16
Views
700
91XRT
91XRT
Gawg
CPU & HIgh end Pascal cards. Optimal setup.
Replies
3
Views
745
Gawg
Gawg
Johan45
FEATURED Team Cup 2016.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
Johan45
Johan45
windwithme
SOLVED MSI GE62 Heroes Edition with UHD 4K display and GTX970M graphics analysis
Replies
0
Views
1K
windwithme
windwithme
Back