X99 is "slower" because it doesn't have the traditional 3-5% IPC improvement of Skylake. Never mind the fact that you get 2 extra real cores for the same or less money (right now anyway). I assume the extra PCIe lanes are useful for the new M.2 NVMe SSDs too but I don't know much about them.
-
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 processor, which one???
- Thread starter thesuperlouis
- Start date
Remember its 2 generations ahead of x99 so should be 10/15% better ipc
It will be closer to the low end of that, if not below 10% - remember the 6-core i7s have 15MB of cache, versus 8MB for the quad-core Skylake ones.
10% if you're lucky.
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
its a proven 10% at the least
It's really not. Passmark scores:
Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.40GHz 9,939
Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz 9,850
Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz 9,351
Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz 8,544
Sandy to Skylake: 16.3%
Ivy to Skylake: 6.3%
Haswell to Skylake: 0.9%
Sandy to Ivy: 9.4%
Ivy to Haswell: 5.3%
You'll find a similar thing if you run Superpi (we use that at work as a crude benchmark for measuring single-thread performance).
Cache has a bigger impact than clockspeed:
Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.30GHz 10,940
(That's the Broadwell chip with 128MB L4 cache).
Since Haswell there's been very little IPC improvement generally - the effort seems to have almost entirely gone into the on-board graphics instead.
Last edited:
I remember when skylake first came out. 8 Pack done a few tests comparing both. 6700k at 4.5ghz and 5820k at 4.2ghz. Clicks that are easily reached on both.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18685403
Either seem impressive enough to me. I was considering skylake as a replacement for my Z87 based 4790k setup. But got offered a very good deal on an X99 bundle from a friend. The only thing that puts me off skylake at present is the ridiculously high price. I've owned X58, Ivybridge and haswell and never before seen cpu pricing as high. Aside from that I think its a great platform and like X99 id be happy owning/using it.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18685403
Either seem impressive enough to me. I was considering skylake as a replacement for my Z87 based 4790k setup. But got offered a very good deal on an X99 bundle from a friend. The only thing that puts me off skylake at present is the ridiculously high price. I've owned X58, Ivybridge and haswell and never before seen cpu pricing as high. Aside from that I think its a great platform and like X99 id be happy owning/using it.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 5
Given the price of 6700K at the moment, there is no comparison between the 6700K and 5820K.
However if gaming is the most demanding task you will ever do on your PC an i5 6600K should suffice. Going for the 5820K in this case would be plain pointless and a massive waste of money.
However if gaming is the most demanding task you will ever do on your PC an i5 6600K should suffice. Going for the 5820K in this case would be plain pointless and a massive waste of money.
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
Gazb, i dont think you have a scooby mate.
About what exactly?
I already made the jump from a 4 core I7 920 to a 6 core Xeon 5650, and clock for clock for me, the 6 core has been slightly faster but plays games smoother.
So I know first hand a 6 core cpu isn't a waste like people like to say when it comes to gaming. (The caveat used to be the price).
Skylake may have better IPC but that doesn't out weigh 2 extra cores.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
? In some tests Skylake is slower clock for clock. Which is weird, but that's what the first set on benches showed - I believe there was some talk of it being a bug and resolvable/resolved but still shows it can be slower.
In most tests it is *exactly* the same speed as most instructions have had no changes at all made to them. So it's certainly not "at least" 10%.
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
if you looking at all the tests online David Bisset, you will find that core for core the 6600k smashes the 5820k, but obviously for the overall speed the 6 core wins hands down... but will the normal gaming guy be using them extra 2 cores?.... no! unless your into video rendering and Photoshop etc... as for the Skylake being over priced... what you have to do is ask yourself why there's a premium?? and that's simply because its the new tech and its the way forward!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,635
- Location
- Rutland
Yawn, give it a rest.
There's a few percent at most core for core between Skylake and Haswell-E, hardly smashing it.
As for the price being because it's "the future" that's utter guff. It's a lack of supply. If it's the future where's the quad channel DDR4 or the extra PCI-E lanes? And 4 cores/8 threads? That was available in 2008!
I don't have either but I don't get this need to justify Skylake as anything more than he same consumer grade 4 core chip that Intel has peddled since Sandybridge with a few percent gain in IPC each generation. Hell it doesn't even clock as well as Sandy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2015
- Posts
- 98
intel themselves have said that this (skylake) is there fastest and most advanced processor chip yet... are you going to argue that with them? id rather take there word for it than yours lol
Yes I to always take manufacturers claims at their word and don't bother doing any research or listening to what people say on internet forums even when they try and highlight their points with actual reasoned argument! I mean companies never make exaggerated or somewhat optimistic claims about their own products do they......
/obvious troll is obvious?