• 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!

Would have been nice to have seen a performance score comparison of the i5-6600k to the i5-4690k, considering they did that for the i7 equivalents, but even so I'm encouraged by what I've seen. When can we expect 'leaks' about price and release dates?
 
Dave2150 said:
It's still a roughly 20% IPC improvement over Haswell. That's pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

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.
 
X99 would be nice, but its still incredibly expensive. 5820k is £340.00 alone, then factor in a motherboard which you wont get for any less than £200.00 for an ATX model, then at least £100.00 for a basic 16gb quad channel kit.
 
It does beat 5820k in PC mark bench though and performs very close to 5820k in other benches.
It beats 4790k quite easily. I don't understand why people are comparing mainstream Skylake against Haswell-E. If we want to see Skylake beat 5820k, then wait for 7820k ;)

Skylake-E will demolish Haswell-E :cool:
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what you guys were expecting. The performance of these so far seem right to me. These are the fastest mainstream
parts to date. They are faster than the top mainstream part out right now, the Intel Core i7-4790K. Sure they don't outperform
their extreme x99 Haswell-E platform but they were`t released to do that anyways.

When Skylake-E is released then we shall see the real performance of Skylake that will annihilate Haswell-E and broadwell-E.
 
Last edited:
well the cinebench R15 benchmark looks suspicious to me. How come a quad core i7 4790K performs just very very little behind a hexa core i7 5820k. hum?
 
Boomstick777 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Didn't beat 5820k and I thought "eh.. should have bought a 5820k". Then saw the post about it being a quad vs hex and thought "yeah that's right! impressive"

Spose I'll wait for official benchies before deciding to ride my i7 930 for another year for the -E release.
 
Little improvement over 4770k/4970k/5820k set ups better to put money towards a faster SSD or better GPU perhaps.
 
Until AMD bring out something's no great again Intel will be happy coasting along, giving us 10-20% increases while being in cahoots with board partners to fleece the early adopters every time a new chip and socket type comes out. I'm still rocking my i5 2500k at 4.2GHz and I'm not seeing anything that's convincing me to upgrade yet again.
 
Once DX12 and Vulkan are out, with their much better multi-threading, the Core i7 5820K is going to look even better in the next two years.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
Definitely going to upgrade my I7 920/x58 (almost 6.5 years old at this point) to the 6700k, assuming these benchmarks are accuarte :)
Click to expand...
Looks ~65% faster clock-for-clock. Of course you could also whack an X56xx in there for far less money and boost your CPU power by 50% in multithreaded scenarios. ;)

Clearly a big improvement in single-threaded though, which I'd expect after 6.5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom