http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252.html Smaller review if you don't have time to slog through toms. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-reviewed/
I like Anand reviews: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation Seems like everyone says Skylake is better in some ways and worse in other. In gaming itself Skylake averages just a hair slower than Haswell, trading blows depending on what game it is. So really for people here looking for a gaming PC Skylake may be worth getting if you are buying a new processor anyway, but if you already have a Haswell or Ivy Bridge then it really isnt very worth it.
If we talk about gaming alone, since Sandy Bridge, if you've got an i5 or more, it's pretty much felt like you really only need to upgrade the CPU if you want some of the "fringe benefits" that come along with the new CPU. Hasn't really changed too much there. Most things bottleneck at the graphics card still. The upgrade drive is if you do other CPU intensive tasks or want some of the "fringe benefits". There are a bunch of cool fringe things in PCI express lanes, HEVC encoding and more. And, as always, a decent number of things if you're looking for efficiency. With my Laptops Win10 switchable-graphics woes, I think it's probably time to ditch Sandy Bridge there. But, in my gaming machine, I think I'm sticking with my Ivy for a while.
Skylake seems to have only 15% increase over previous gen ? I thought this stuff was supposed to be revolutionary ?? I mean : http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/16 No change at all in gaming FPS, even on Attila. Also, why does ANA review the i7 only when they start with i7 & i5 in their intro ?
*5.7% Performance increases have been masked over the generations because Intel also increases the base clock speeds so gains look bigger than they are