• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

OC'ing, longevity and how much to spend


Junior Member
Sep 11, 2013
Hello guys,

I've been waiting for Skylake to do a new build that I want to hold on to for a long time. I don't have huge needs, but I like to build something good and stay with the platform - I'm still on my C2D build that got upgraded to a C2Q.

OC'ing and longevity
First: I'm considering whether I should factor OC'ing into my build. I am generally not so impressed with the relative gains I think I'm seeing out there (4 -> 5 ghz or 3,5 -> 4,5 is only about 25 %) and I'm wondering how it's going to affect the lifespan of my hardware?

I'm looking at at least 7 years, though I might upgrade the CPU during that period, so longevity is an issue. On that note: If it will degrade my hardware is it only the CPU that will be affected? - if so I could consider going with a shorter life span for that.

I'm probably not going to use an OC from year one, since I don't expect to be CPU limited (I do some gaming and nothing else very taxing and I won't be getting a high end GPU), but I might want to when the CPU starts becoming a limiting factor.

Upgrading within the LGA1151 platform?
I'm considering whether to go with as good a processor as it's reasonable to pay for now (see below) and going with that for the life of the system (or making an upgrade if I can find a used chip later on) or getting the cheapest quad core I can now and then upgrading around Kaby Lake or Cannonlake?

Finding the performance sweet spot
Right now I'm looking at these three questions when it comes to CPU power:

Cheap i5 vs. 6600k: I can save about 25 percent on the cheapest quad core skylake out there. I Don't figure that makes much sense as it's about a 29 percent decrease in frequency and I loose the option of overclocking sometime in the future. The cheap i5 might make sense if I intend to upgrade earlier, perhaps?

6600k vs. i7 6700: Here I get hyperthreading and extra cache with about the same frequency for 25 percent extra. And I loose overclocking. How much does hyperthreading and cache matter - especially in the long run with DX12 taking better advantage of many threads?

6600k vs. 6700k To me 6700k dosn't seem to make much sense at 150 percent of the price of the 6600k. I'm thinking it makes more sense to save the money and possibly upgrade to one of the later generations of 1151 CPUs.


Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
We're waiting to see which boards will offer non-K overclocking, and whether Intel will turn the other cheek. So any advice on that front will have to be taken with a grain of salt, for now. You don't mention the i5-6600, which is a solid choice for someone who does not wish to overclock. If you want specific advice on whether an i7 would benefit you, a list of your most used applications would help.