• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Skylake Clockspeeds and benchmarks!

How much of a difference is there in performance between 4.5GHz and 5.2GHz?

Even if Skylake is able to clock that high on average or to at least 4.8GHz average on air cooling or water it might still not overtake the X99 platform.

Haswell-E clocks at around 4.5GHz on on average with good cooling.
 
Last edited:
Every Intel CPU release since sandybridge has claimed "5+GHz on air!!!".

It's old as hell and I'll believe it when I have a chip in my hands doing it.
 
Sylver123 said:
How much of a difference is there in performance between 4.5GHz and 5.2GHz?

Even if Skylake is able to clock that high on average or to at least 4.8GHz average on air cooling or water it might still not overtake the X99 platform.

Haswell-E clocks at around 4.5GHz on on average with good cooling.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're using it for, in gaming the in your example higher clocked Skylake will be the winner. In workstation applications it'll be the hexa core. My two cents.
 
Sylver123 said:
How much of a difference is there in performance between 4.5GHz and 5.2GHz?

Even if Skylake is able to clock that high on average or to at least 4.8GHz average on air cooling or water it might still not overtake the X99 platform.

Haswell-E clocks at around 4.5GHz on on average with good cooling.
Click to expand...

Performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed but it's pretty close so a good estimate. Thus, 5.2 GHz = ~15% faster than 4.5 GHz. 4.8 GHz would be ~6% faster than 4.5 GHz.

Skylake is not going to be faster than Haswell-E for applications using 12+ cores.
 
DragonQ said:
Performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed but it's pretty close so a good estimate. Thus, 5.2 GHz = ~15% faster than 4.5 GHz. 4.8 GHz would be ~6% faster than 4.5 GHz.

Skylake is not going to be faster than Haswell-E for applications using 12+ cores.
Click to expand...

Those most be some pretty specialist applications to use all 12 threads. I'd wager the bulk of members here will be gaming, streaming and doing some content editing with there PC's non of which requires 12 cores from a CPU.
 
jonneymendoza said:
hehe makes me getting haswell-E ore sweeter as it appears my setup is better then skylake.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that would be that case considering if the current skylake did totally waste the X99 platform processors then Intel might
as well stop selling the X99 platform as nobody in their right mind would buy one if skylake is all around much better.

skylake might be a better choice for gaming thought depending on how well they overclock.
 
Sylver123 said:
It is obvious that would be that case considering if the current skylake did totally waste the X99 platform processors then Intel might
as well stop selling the X99 platform as nobody in their right mind would buy one if skylake is all around much better.

skylake might be a better choice for gaming thought depending on how well they overclock.
Click to expand...

how is that obvious?

the skylake is meant to be the next best thing, not a little tiny upgrade(if any?) to haswell E?

its pretty funny because back when i was looking to buuld a new pc, everyone was saying to wait for skylake as it is the one with new architect and will/should be better then a haswell e in every way.

Yet fast forward to today and its only 4 cores(lol) and could be actually slower clock for clock compared to an haswell E!!!

Games like GTA5 already utilise more than 4 cores and similar games on paper would run better on haswell E then skylake as things stand?

This cant be right.

This skylake should at least match a haswel e in all types of performances.

Well it looks like i will wait another 10 years until intel release a cpu 50% faster than a haswellE

all i can say is that haswell E owners should rejoice knowing there hardware is still better then skylake in some cases(workhorse)

But skylake for me will be used to replace my old i7 htpc only, not my main rig as i was afraid my main rig would get blown away by skylake.

what a fail from intel..
 
jonneymendoza said:
how is that obvious?

the skylake is meant to be the next best thing, not a little tiny upgrade(if any?) to haswell E?

its pretty funny because back when i was looking to buuld a new pc, everyone was saying to wait for skylake as it is the one with new architect and will/should be better then a haswell e in every way.

Yet fast forward to today and its only 4 cores(lol) and could be actually slower clock for clock compared to an haswell E!!!

Games like GTA5 already utilise more than 4 cores and similar games on paper would run better on haswell E then skylake as things stand?

This cant be right.

This skylake should at least match a haswel e in all types of performances.

Well it looks like i will wait another 10 years until intel release a cpu 50% faster than a haswellE

all i can say is that haswell E owners should rejoice knowing there hardware is still better then skylake in some cases(workhorse)

But skylake for me will be used to replace my old i7 htpc only, not my main rig as i was afraid my main rig would get blown away by skylake.

what a fail from intel..
Click to expand...

Because the current skylake platform is for the mainstream market and it is not meant to better than a enthusiast platform such as the X99 platform.

I guess you've not been keeping up with the skylake news because then you would have known skylake-E enthusiast platform is still to be
released which will have 6 and 8 cores and then we shall see the full performance of skylake unlocked and then it will be better than the
X99 platform and will replace it at the high end of the market.
 
Last edited:
quick question! Would it be more sensible to opt for the skylake i7 6700k or go down the x99 route and get a 5820k? I only want to run a single GPU may consider SLI or crossfire if it becomes cheap enough down the line but most likely will be single card only.

Should i just get the i7 skylake or do i get a
Haswell - E 5820k?

I am considering getting a m2.sata SSD which will use x4 PCI-E 3 lanes too.
More bothered about IPC performance which would be better clock for clock and would 6 cores be beneficial in gaming atm?
I know 6 cores is the sweet spot for DX12 apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom