Skylake Clockspeeds and benchmarks!

[Dave2150]

August/September 2015 Release Date!











Source: http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-core-i7-6700k-haziran-ayinda-geliyor/

Leaked Benchmarks (http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-i7-6700k-vs-i7-4790k/)













Great news to see the new 14nm process is straight out of the gate at 4Ghz baseclock. Intel's 22nm took quite a long time to get to that speed with Haswell.

Looking forward to seeing the performance reviews - lets hope the rumoured 15-20% performance increase over Hawell is true!

Either way, nice new platform, DDR4, much more PCI-E bandwitdh, all the latest toys!

Interestingly, only low voltage DDR3 is listed as being compatible. I wonder if the higher voltage DDR3 will simply not work? I can't imagine why else they'd only list compatibilty with low voltage DDR3 (1.35v). Maybe it's a limitation of the memory controller, as it's primarily designed for DDR4, which is naturally a lower voltage.

HEVC (x265) native hardware support is also fantastic to see

 

[Dave2150]

So how much longer until Skylake -E? Wikipedia says 2017 but surely we'd be thinking next year?

Late 2017 for Skylake-E. Broadwell-E should launch in roughly one year.

 

[Dave2150]

Where are you seeing more PCI-E bandwidth? Looks the same as what we already have (1 * 16x / 2 * 8x).

I meant more bandwidth through DMI 3.0

Z97 has DMI 2.0, Z170 will have DMI 3.0, which is a significant upgrade:



I'm assuming this will allow more M.2 NVME devices while still having the GPU PCI-E lanes intact, though I'm unsure on this one, need more info!

 

[Dave2150]

None of this looks particularily impressive.

We still don't know the performance. It could be a huge jump over Haswell, or it could be a 5% improvement.

 

[Dave2150]

What makes you think they will bother with a Broadwell-E?

I think they will go ahead with Broadwell -E, as the X99 platform is so heavily derived from the workstation/server -EP chips, that it will make sense to do so.

 

[Dave2150]

What are the chances, do you think, of this being a worthwhile upgrade from a 2500k?

Pretty high chances this will smash a 2500k in every sense of the word.

 

[Dave2150]

Was hoping for a bit more on the raw clockspeed front. My flight sim loves CPU horsepower so was expecting a bit more. Also no mainstream hex core would be very dissapointing with Skylake.

All depends how much work Skylake does per Mhz (IPC). If it has 20% or more IPC than Haswell, then it doesn't need to clocked as high to outperform it.

 

[Dave2150]

They do, it's called LGA2011.

LGA115x are just mobile processors being packaged differently and sold on the desktop.

LGA115x use exactly the same haswell cores as LGA2011 x99. The LGA2011 chips simply have more cores and cache instead of the IGPU on a much larger die.

The actual CPU cores are identical though, so you could call LGA2011 a souped up mobile processor also.

 

[Dave2150]

The first leaked benchmarks are here! The general opinion is that these are quite real, though take that with a pinch of salt as we all know these could simply be fabricated:













We're looking at roughly 15% more IPC than Haswell. Bear in mind that this is a two generation increase, since Broawell improved on Haswell and then Skylake further improved on Broadwell.

It's looking a good decision on Intel's part that they chose to almost skip Broadwell for mainstream desktop, since it would have only been 5-7% faster than Haswell. (Two Broadwell chips will launch, but they are aimed at small factor/mini PC's, without a dedicated GPU).

At the end of the day, a 15% jump over Haswell is pretty impressive. Remember Intel have no competition from AMD at this point, so it could have really been a simple 5% jump and it would have still sold.

The top CPU, the 6700k, is a quad core which pretty much has the same performance as the 5820k, a hex core part.

The most important question still hasn't been answered, though. That is, how well will these CPU's overclock! If we can get them to 4.6-4.8Ghz+, then we're looking at some seriously fast CPU's.

Skylake-E is likely to be an absolute monster of a CPU, though nothing's changed and it's still scheduled for late 2016/early 2017.

If these 6700k's overclock well, I'll be upgrading for sure

Source: http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-i7-6700k-vs-i7-4790k

 

[Dave2150]

Where is the 15% IPC improvement figure coming from? Certainly not those graphs. Looks more like 5-10% (assuming the i7-6700K is running 200 MHz slower than i7-4790K).

15% for the CPU based benchmarks.

Cinebench for example:

4790k - 9.23
6700k - 10.53

10.53-9.23 = 1.3
1.3/9.23*100 = 14% improvement. Factor in the lower clocks of the 6700k = almost a 20% IPC improvement, clock for clock.

I really want to know the overclocking potential of these CPU's now!

 

[Dave2150]

Some more cinebench based comparisons:



Core i7 6700K is:
30,5% faster than Core i7 4770K.
38,4% faster than Core i7 3770K.
50,85% faster than Core i7 2700K.
86% faster than Core i7 965.

All at stock of course. We really need to see overclock information to fully compare though, since many of these older CPU's could overclock so well.

 

[Dave2150]

don't care about cinebench the gaming benchmarks are hardly any different?

They only used a 780 GPU for the gaming benchmarks. Benchmarks with a 980, 295x2, titanX, or SLI 970's etc would show more difference.

Also remember that not everyone just uses their CPU for gaming. There are many applications that take advantage of greater CPU speed, such as encoding, streaming, multi-tasking while gaming, etc etc.

Try being in a skype video call at the same time as benchmarking GTA5 for example, you'll loose quite a few FPS

 

[Dave2150]

Definitely going to upgrade my I7 920/x58 (almost 6.5 years old at this point) to the 6700k, assuming these benchmarks are accuarte

 

[Dave2150]

This looks woeful. The 5820K beats it at stock (Same price bracket).. Jeezus. Overclocked the 5820K would wipe the floor with Skylake. probably run cooler as well due to no crappy TIM.

I imagine IGPU is better but still not good enough for gaming so is wasted space imho.

Think I'll stick with my current setup or move to X99 when Mini ITX hits retail.

Intel seem to be moving at snails pace. I hope AMD come on strong next year, as Intel has hardly improved in years AMD have a real chance of competing again. Come on AMD !! Now is the time lol..

It's still a roughly 20% IPC improvement over Haswell. That's pretty impressive. Imagine what a hex-core Skylake would be like.... Too bad we'll have to wait a long time for it.

I think it's impressive that a quad-core (6700k) can pretty much equal a hex core (5820k) that was released less than a year ago. There only 1-3% difference between them in cinebench.

We also don't know if this is an early engineering sample or not - maybe it has reduced clocks. Maybe it will overclock better than Haswell-E (unlikely though).

Remeber that when this releases, it will still be cheaper than a X99 setup. X99 motherboards will still be more expensive, you'll still require 4 DIMMS for quad channel memory (who buys x99 and doesn't run quad channel) whereas z170 will only require 2 DIMMS for dual channel.

 

[Dave2150]

More leaks, this time the full skew range and some pictures of the new chips!

http://benchlife.info/will-support-ddr4-and-ddr3l-10-skylake-model-confirm-and-hand-on-04232015/



Pictures of the CPU, large pics so hidden behind spoilers, as per forum rules:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

The PCB seems to be a lot thinner, as commented on in the original article.

 

[Dave2150]

This.

AND the way I see it is maybe Intel doesn't expect people to upgrade every tick or tock of their cycle? It's still progress.

For me, Skylake will be a big upgrade over my Lynnfield!

Yeh same here. The 6700k will be a huge upgrade over my i7 920 from December 2008!

I'll make my final decision whether to upgrade or not when I see official benchmarks and overclock info though

 

[Dave2150]

I literally have no idea where you're pulling this 20% figure from.

It looks like hardly improvement at all. Certainly not worth upgrading to from any Intel chip in the past few gens.

Massive disappointment if these bench's are legit, more of the same. Virtually no performance increase, lower power consumption and better integrated graphics. This is a big yawn fest. Nothing exciting coming anytime soon..

At least this makes X99 + 5820K look such a better deal, soldered, 6 / 12 core thread. Massive OC headroom from stock and quad channel memory, no wasted space on poor integrated graphics.

For those that don't run DGPU, and are building into very small case Skylake would be nice, for everyone else their better off with X99. Really is worth the investment over the mainstream stuff. Especially as prices are virtually the same for 5820K + 16GB DDR4 as they are 4790K + 16GB DDR3.

I really AMD sort themselves out and start competing. Intel can just coast along atm...

Meh.

I already explained in a previous post how I calculated the rough percentage IPC increase:

15% for the CPU based benchmarks.

Cinebench for example:

4790k - 9.23
6700k - 10.53

10.53-9.23 = 1.3
1.3/9.23*100 = 14% improvement. Factor in the lower clocks of the 6700k = almost a 20% IPC improvement, clock for clock.

14% more performance than the 4790k. 4790k = 200Mhz greater turbo. When factoring in a 200Mhz difference, the IPC would be closer to 20% than 14%. Herhaps 16-18% is a more appropriate figure, these are after all, just estimates.

 

[Dave2150]

Skylake was supposed to be the next Conroe. It was supposed to smash X99 in games.

Where did you read that Skylake would 'smash' x99 in games? www.madeupstuff.com?

 

[Dave2150]

On a Clock for Clock basis . Ie all CPU's at 3.5ghz the I7 6700k is only 23% faster than the i7 965x.

10% of 5.66 = 0.56 + 5.66 = 6.22. 6.22 to 8.07 = 23% difference.

Skylake does use 50% less power than the 965x which if you used the CPU at 100% for 6 hours a day for 365 days, it would save you £22.68. So hardly a big drop in Electricity costs and the performance difference isn't that big either.

The graph I linked was comparing the CPU's at stock - as mentioned in the post.

If you lower the 6700K to 3.5Ghz then yes the performance won't be large compared to if it was running at it's normal speed.

The million dollar question is how well will the 6700k overclock. I'm guessing they'll do at least 4.6Ghz, which with the 15-20% IPC increase over Haswell, will make for a very fast CPU.

 

[Dave2150]

Well a google translation of that article give us this.



That makes it sound as if they have estimated the performance rather than actually running proper benches.

Maybe it is because their chip is undoubtedly a engineering sample and isn't clocked that high, so they have had to extrapolate the performance.

It could well be that the benchmarks are fake, no way of telling at the moment.

Though the same could be said for 99% of all the leaked info, benchmarks, of CPU's, GPU's etc we've ever had. Some will be real, some will be low clocked early engineering samples, some will be the real deal.