In lists: 10
No gradeIntel Core i7-6700: Skylake i7 at 65W
ConclusionWhile the Core i7-6700's specified TDP is 71% that of the i7-6700K, our sample failed to deliver substantial power savings. The vanilla model is undoubtedly more efficient but not by a significant margin. If you're leaning toward the non-K variant because of its seemingly lower power requirements, perhaps for a small/quiet build, the difference is too minor to weigh into the decision. The same can be said if you're considering the "K" version for its higher clock speeds; the level of performance increase is slight. However, the"K" model does allow for overclocking, both through multiplier and base clock frequency (BCLK) adjustment. For Skylake, the BCLK can be increased without affecting other subsystems (PCI-E, SATA) like in the good old days of the Pentium 4 and Core 2 series, but unfortunately this option seems to be crippled on non-K chips. Our i7-6700 sample topped out at 102 MHz, a measily 2% overclock; anything higher resulted in a BIOS/boot failure. Though we don't have any numbers for the Core i5 models, if previous generations are any indication, they offer a much better value, as do the older Haswell-E parts due to lower motherboard and memory costs. Some LGA1150 boards are even equipped with combinations of the latest features (USB 3.1, M.2, and SATA Express) commonly found on the new boards but they are offered in fewer quantities. They also more frequently share resources with one another and the PCI-E x16 slots as series-9 chipsets have fewer PCI-E lanes, making it difficult to uses these advancements simultaneously. This is an even bigger problem if you opt to run multiple graphics cards, in which case, Skylake's additional PCI-E lanes can become vital. As with most new CPU architectures, the most demanding users have better reasons/excuses to upgrade than the rest of us.