Flagship Intel Skylake-S Core i7-6700K CPU benchmarked
Click here to post a comment for Flagship Intel Skylake-S Core i7-6700K CPU benchmarked on our message forum
PhazeDelta1
Better than no increase at all. Thanks AMD.
ScoobyDooby
Well well. Guess my 2600k better strap in and get comfortable :/
tsunami231
6700k looks tasty compared to my cpu, then again i sure by the time I actual get around to rebuiling my pc with new CPU/MB/RAM there will be alot more tatsty looking gear hah
lucidus
Lol .. Haswell is pretty damned fast as it is so I'm not surprised. What else is new in it other than GPU stuff and 14nm?
lmimmfn
Im shocked, its junk, lets hope DX12 reduces the requirement of high IPC and favours more cores.
Noisiv
Add another 5% for 200 MHz lower clock,
and its 10% better single core performance.
tsunami231
according tho at sight it dont have built in gpu
Chillin
Can we stop with the nonsensical "enthusiast" expectations and face reality here for a second?
http://s30.postimg.org/pwue5njdt/dsgds.jpg
This is the same model flagship laptop, at pretty much the same price just spaced two years apart with two generations of Intel processors between them. In two years, a laptop outfitted with an Intel CPU/Motherboard has done the following (all the additional parts like a more power consuming screen, etc., not taken into account, or the difference would be even greater):
30% to 47%performance increase in CPU performance
A nearly 90% increase in graphics performance (!)
All while lasting on average 40% longer (!) (per Wh).
And people can complain about such performance increases within the space of two years!?
ScoobyDooby
I don't think most people here are referring to the laptop segment, which definitely has seen big boosts to efficiency.. its the desktop market, a market that makes up the largest portion of enthusiasts here on this site, where the gains are pretty pitiful.
The fact that people are still using 4 year old quad cores is all that needs to be said really.
Chillin
But that's the reality of the market.
You need high performance, just go to the cloud or offload locally. It's the mobile and server segment where efficiency counts and which are growing and are going to see the main share of attention.
Really, how many people (not counting enthusiasts) in the current market need anything beyond a Sandy/Ivy Bridge for a desktop CPU to take care of whatever they need.
Undying
Looks like i'm gonna stay with Sandy. Maybe i'll just get some cheap 2600k if needed 8 threads.
As usual, no competition is a bad thing.
Denial
Honestly why does anyone care?
If Intel released a 20% per thread faster CPU, what would happen? General performance would what, become more instant than now? -- it's already like instant for 99% of applications.
Gaming? Nearly every new title released in the last few years is GPU bottlenecked. A faster processor isn't going to do ****.
Want proof?
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/66683-intel-devils-canyon-i7-4790k-performance-review-10.html
They overclocked a 4970 by 16% -- effectively improving thread performance by 16%.
The results?
Assassins Creed - 4.3%
Battlefield 4 - 8.9%
COD Ghosts - 4.5%
Crysis 3 - 3.9%
Farcry 3 - 3.4%
Hitman - 6%
Thief - 4.2%
Tomb Raider - 3.1%
Aside from BF4, laughable. And even then a 8% gain in performance for a 16% increase in thread performance is terrible, considering it increased power by 19%.
It has nothing to do with competition and more to do with the fact that there literally is no point to increase thread performance. The workloads that require more performance benefit from more cores, which is easier to scale for. General performance is good enough and gaming performance is barely effected.
In the mean time mobile is the new black. Intel is focused there, thus all the architecture enhancement go towards power efficiency. It's really that simple.
tsunami231
I would kill for 35watt cpu with power of 6700k, show me mobile cpu that does that in fact show me gpu like 980ti that does it work in 35watt. that would be amazing but i think we got ways to go before we see this
Lane
Well, when i tend to aggree with you, thoses benchmarks are a bit contradictory for the purpose, he put 2560x1440p at highest gpu level + MSAA, who will ofc push the limitation to the gpu's, even more .. an average of maybe 5% .. with less bottlenecked gpu's , this will mean what, 10-15..
Neo Cyrus
For being clocked 200MHz lower that's actually decent when you consider Intel is competing against no one at all. They could release a potato with i7 sprayed on it and it would sell at this point.
What I'm wondering is how much can it OC? 5GHz with the per clock performance that thing has would be monstrous. And by monstrous I mean what we should have already had if Intel had any competition.
Lane
And what is the conclusion ? Intel can be a damn bad maker of bad cpu's because they have no competition ? So when Intel sell you bad cpu, and that you buy them, it is because AMD .. lol.
because i start to ask me if they are not just really bad at doing cpu's finally. joke inside.
Seriously they are just maybe really bad.. After 7 years to hears that, at each release of a new Intel series from them, their cpu is we can maybe start to ask this.
Spets
Not sure if I should go for a Skylake-S or a Haswell-E setup now.
tsunami231
what?
Fox2232
Apparently test in SP goes with turbo which is 4.4GHz on i7-4790k vs 4.2GHz in i7-6700k.
But multi-core is for both 4GHz and there you can actually see real performance per clock improvement is around 8%.
fantaskarsef
If those benches are correct, it does not look like much of an improvement, unless anybody buys that CPU because of the iGPU that supposedly is better.
:3eyes:
