• 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!

mmj_uk said:
They do, it's called LGA2011. :p

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

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.
 
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:

m07AgaO.png

QJzo6L6.png

IZTMfdm.png

nCeT4by.png

iIbyMyB.png

yvUnHVA.png

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 :D

Source: http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-i7-6700k-vs-i7-4790k
 
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).
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
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).
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
Some more cinebench based comparisons:

LdYtq5I.png

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.
 
BriT said:
don't care about cinebench the gaming benchmarks are hardly any different?
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Looks pretty ok, but as mentioned id like to see the overclocking potential of theese, and wether they will be thermally hindered like current haswell chips.
 
setter said:
Looks pretty ok, but as mentioned id like to see the overclocking potential of theese, and wether they will be thermally hindered like current haswell chips.
Click to expand...

More than likely they will be thermally hindered TBH
It's the -EP and Xeons they use the good juice on.

Having said that if the figure above of +38% over Sandy bridge is true (Although I suspect different clock speeds are influencing that), Then a 4GHz SL would be the equivalent of a 5.5 GHz SB! :eek:

If my 3930 ran at 5.5GHz it would take over the world :D
 
They do look like a good improvement over SB, a platform I skipped myself. But tbf anyone who bought one at release certainly got value for money.
 
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..
 
Boomstick777 said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You got to remember guys, they wouldn't have wanted the performance of these mainstream Skylake processors to outperform their extreme platform.
 
Sylver123 said:
You got to remember guys, they wouldn't have wanted the performance of these mainstream Skylake processors to outperform their extreme platform.
Click to expand...

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!
 
MSTRBKR said:
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!
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Not sure if ill make the move myself, been on Z87 since release with both original haswell 4770k and devils canyon. Would depend on how well theese overclock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom