Does KabyLake justify the difference in price [Two builds inside]

[Medo Haleem]

What is your intended use for this build? The more details the better.
Running two VMs, bloated IDE / Programming and gaming
If gaming, what kind of performance are you looking for? (Screen resolution, framerate, game settings)
I aim for 1440P resolution
What is your budget (ballpark is okay)?
1200 USD
In what country are you purchasing your parts?
Egypt
Post a draft of your potential build here.
This is were get tricky, while Kabylake was released in Egypt, there only high performance gaming motherboards for Z270 which are pricey and I really don't need while I know that Z170 can support KabyLake, I don't have CPU to upgrade motherboard with(Only high-end models of Z170 can support upgrading without CPU).
Here the Builds(I'm not including Case or PSU because I already have them)

KabyLake:
Intel Core I7-7700K 7,800 L.E
Asus ROG STRIX Z270F 4,200 L.E
CRYORIG R1 Ultimate Dual Tower Heatsink CPU Fan 1,400 L.E
Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB Kit 2,300 L.E
= 15,700 L.E

Total USD: $837.784

SkyLake:
Intel Core I7-6700K 6,950 L.E
Gigabyte GA-Z170-D3H Socket 1151 Motherboard 2,850 L.E
CRYORIG R1 Ultimate Dual Tower Heatsink CPU Fan 1,500 L.E
Crucial Ballistix Tactical 2x8GB DDR4 2666 2,300 L.E
= 13600 L.E

Total USD: $728.39
Both builds are going to be paired with ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1070 8GB AMP! Extreme priced for 9200 L.E which is 490 USD
Keep in mind that Asus ROG STRIX Z270F is the only Z270 avaible and after contacting retailers seems is going to be only one for a while follwed by gigabyte Gaming Series
My Current Build is

CPU
Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.40GHz 34 °C
Ivy Bridge 22nm Technology
RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 799MHz (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. SABERTOOTH Z77 (LGA1155) 25 °C
Graphics
ASUS VH238 (1920x1080@60Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (MSI)
PSU
Gigabyte GreenMax 650W

after couple of months I'm going to shop for 1440P monitor but not going to get when I buy my build parts

 

[piasabird]

Maybe just upgrade the video card and see if that makes a difference. I just watched a video somewhere where they say that with the 1070 video card there is little or no difference. You might get a slight boost if you went to an i-7 I think they also used 16GB of RAM using performance RAM may provide a difference up to about DDR4 3000 or 3500 depending on the price difference for the RAM. Might be a newer chip set like the Z270 might suppor the performance RAM better since it would be newer.

 

[UsandThem]

Your two lists have some differences. For example, the Skylake build has a budget Gigabyte motherboard, while the Kaby Lake has an Asus ROG motherboard. If you picked a similar budget board, the price difference would be negligible. While those boards aren't available right now in your area, I can't imagine they shouldn't start showing up soon. Is Kaby Lake worth an extra $110? Not to me, I'd pick the Skylake. If the difference was $50 and under, I'd go for it.

My .02c

-Buy the GTX 1070
-Buy another 8 GB of RAM
-Buy the 1440p monitor
-Buy another PSU (Gigabyte isn't known for high quality PSUs).

The overclocked 3570k still has plenty of gaming life left in it for another probably 3-4 years without really sacrificing your gaming experience:

Crappy loud music in YouTube video (They all seem to add it to PC videos).

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2916569/worth-upgrading-3570k-6600k.html

 

[frozentundra123456]

Your two lists have some differences. For example, the Skylake build has a budget Gigabyte motherboard, while the Kaby Lake has an Asus ROG motherboard. If you picked a similar budget board, the price difference would be negligible. While those boards aren't available right now in your area, I can't imagine they shouldn't start showing up soon. Is Kaby Lake worth an extra $110? Not to me, I'd pick the Skylake. If the difference was $50 and under, I'd go for it.

My .02c

-Buy the GTX 1070
-Buy another 8 GB of RAM
-Buy the 1440p monitor
-Buy another PSU (Gigabyte isn't known for high quality PSUs).

The overclocked 3570k still has plenty of gaming life left in it for another probably 3-4 years without really sacrificing your gaming experience:

Crappy loud music in YouTube video (They all seem to add it to PC videos).

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2916569/worth-upgrading-3570k-6600k.html

Some games are starting to show a considerable benefit from hyperthreading, so I have to disagree somewhat. Moving from a 3570k to a 6700k would give about a 20% gain from better ipc and another 20 to 30 percent from hyperthreading in some games, as well as better minimums. That video you linked btw shows a comparison of an i5 vs i5, which I agree would probably not be worth it. But moving from an i5 to an i7 is a different situation. Skylake vs KL on the desktop pretty much comes down to price, there is no difference in cpu performance except for slightly better overclocking with KL (maybe 5 to 10% on average). OTOH, at 1440p with a 1070 he would probably be gpu limited in most games, but the extra threads could also be useful in the productivity apps.
Never thought I would recommend AMD (there are plenty of AMD fans in these forums eager to do that), but I have to say with Zen so close to release, it would be worthwhile to wait a month or so to see how pricing, performance and availability develop. It seems like it will be a very good value, but I am withholding judgement until final release.

 

[UsandThem]

Some games are starting to show a considerable benefit from hyperthreading, so I have to disagree somewhat. Moving from a 3570k to a 6700k would give about a 20% gain from better ipc and another 20 to 30 percent from hyperthreading in some games, as well as better minimums. That video you linked btw shows a comparison of an i5 vs i5, which I agree would probably not be worth it. But moving from an i5 to an i7 is a different situation. Skylake vs KL on the desktop pretty much comes down to price, there is no difference in cpu performance except for slightly better overclocking with KL (maybe 5 to 10% on average). OTOH, at 1440p with a 1070 he would probably be gpu limited in most games, but the extra threads could also be useful in the productivity apps.
Never thought I would recommend AMD (there are plenty of AMD fans in these forums eager to do that), but I have to say with Zen so close to release, it would be worthwhile to wait a month or so to see how pricing, performance and availability develop. It seems like it will be a very good value, but I am withholding judgement until final release.

Maybe hyper-threading will play a larger role going forward, but I have to disagree that most current games get a 20% to 30% strictly from hyper-threading. Do some games show a bigger benefit with hyper-threading? Sure, especially CPUs like dual core i3s. What truly helps newer games is more actual cores. Now, I agree that newer CPUs have other other optimizations they benefit from, but a 3570k is still very relevant as a gaming CPU. I moved from a 3770k to a 6700k because my motherboard developed issues, and there is hardly any "real world" difference. Sure the 6700k is faster, but if I didn't run benchmarks, I'd never really notice. There are many people here still on Sandy Bridge and earlier CPUs gaming away. Will it win any benchmark competitions? Nope. Will it be good enough to keep the GTX 1070 chugging along. Yup. There has just been very little performance difference in Intel's CPU generations since Sandy Bridge (roughly 10% per generation).

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

If most current games benefited from hyper-threading, the gaming benchmarks comparing a 6600k to a 6700k would show a much larger difference. But if you have something legitimate for me to read that shows hyper-threading boosts gaming that much, it won't be the first or last time I was wrong. I admit I am not a huge gamer anymore, so I have to go off of what I read from review sites when it comes to what benefits gamers. As far a Zen, not sure what the availability in Egypt will be, but if reviews say it's good when it finally comes out, that's another option to consider. I just like to point all options in these types of threads so people can make the best decision. Maybe he's ready to make the upgrade regardless of his current PC's performance. Many times new users sign up, make 1-2 posts asking for help/advice, and then disappear never to be heard from again.

https://ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3948

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/22

 

[frozentundra123456]

Here is a recent test of Watchdogs 2 game.gpu watchdogs 2 . Look at 2600k vs 2500k, since those have a more comparable clockspeed that the 6700 vs 6600. The 2600k is 21% faster in ave FPS and 39% faster in minimum FPS.

 

[UsandThem]

Here is a recent test of Watchdogs 2 game.gpu watchdogs 2 . Look at 2600k vs 2500k, since those have a more comparable clockspeed that the 6700 vs 6600. The 2600k is 21% faster in ave FPS and 39% faster in minimum FPS.

I don't go to many of those benchmark type sites that are always passionately "discussed" in the video card sub-forum (and the reason why I stay out of that sub-forum all together), but those numbers seem a little higher than what I have seen before. Granted I don't remember them testing minimum FPS, but I guess it comes down to what site and data you trust the most. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/watch-dogs-cpu-benchmarks-i7-apparently-optional.2384713/

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-review (has comparison of OC 6600k and stock 6700k).

 

[frozentundra123456]

I guess we will. However, I would just note that the benchmarks I showed are for Watchdogs 2, which is a newer and very CPU intensive game that makes very good use of multiple cores and/or threads. I am *not* talking about the first Watchdogs game. In any case, one can get very different results from different reviews, depending on the games tested and the gpu and settings used.
However, the overall trend IMO, and I think the general consensus, is that games are starting to make much better use of multiple cores/threads, and that that trend will only escalate going forward.

And actually, did you even read the final table and conclusions of the Eurogamer test that you linked?

Quote
"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."

 

[UsandThem]

I guess we will. However, I would just note that the benchmarks I showed are for Watchdogs 2, which is a newer and very CPU intensive game that makes very good use of multiple cores and/or threads. I am *not* talking about the first Watchdogs game. In any case, one can get very different results from different reviews, depending on the games tested and the gpu and settings used.
However, the overall trend IMO, and I think the general consensus, is that games are starting to make much better use of multiple cores/threads, and that that trend will only escalate going forward.

And actually, did you even read the final table and conclusions of the Eurogamer test that you linked?

I did, and I still linked to it because it has a lot of relevant data. It's also why I linked to a couple of other threads. Like I said in my last post I don't hang out in the video card sub-forum (where people wait to pounce on every comment), and I'm not a big gamer anymore. I agree that going forward, a person would be wise to buy a CPU that has hyper-threading. No debate there. My only point was a 3570k (especially if overclocked) is still a viable CPU for gaming for at least a few more years. It won't perform as well as a Skylake or Kaby Lake CPU. It won't win any benchmarks. It's really no different when people ask if their overclocked 2500k or 2600k CPU is still ok for gaming. It is (especially if overclocked).

So honestly I'm not sure how we got into this debate in the first place. I guess it we are where we are at because you feel that a CPU with hyper-threading is a must going forward? I agree. But if someone already has a good CPU without that feature, it's not like their CPU is suddenly incapable of playing a game. Sure if there are newer games that truly benefit from hyper-threading, his CPU will be held back somewhat, but it is still a quad-core CPU, and that's what the current state of PC games needs as of today.

I suggested holding of upgrading his CPU/motherboard because he stated he had to wait to buy the new 1440p monitor. I just pointed out that if he added more RAM, bought the GTX 1070, and bought the monitor, his current system would be able to play any game out there at that resolution. Maybe he would have to turn down the settings from 'ultra' to 'high' in some of the most demanding games, but it would still be an enjoyable experience. That was my whole point. Just giving food for thought, and letting them decide what is best for them.