He is not normalizing by clockspeed. So you get a 14% increase from 4770k to Skylake, on clockspeed alone (base clocks), and he is assuming (optimistically I think) another 12.5% from ipc increase. So 1.14 x 1.125 = 28% actually, because you should multiply not add the gains, but that is how he is gettng the number.
This is stupid.147.68 GFLOPs (Skylake's theorized score at 3.7 GHz) divided by the equivalent Haswell score at the same clock speed (114.58) = 1.29x higher IPC, again based only on these assumptions of accuracy and scaling. I know SiSoft is far from a perfect source of specs and conditions, but for now it's all we have.
That's actually POSITIVE news. Because 6700K suggests(hopefully) that its not a "factory overclock it and sell it" part aka 4790K. Low Turbo frequency relative to Base frequency suggests that its easier to reach that Base frequency so they can skip the high Turbo. That's why the Desktop chips have high Base frequency and low Turbo gain relative to 47/57W mobile processors(which have similar Turbo but much less Base).Yes! Low turbo (only 5% vs 10% on HW) is a bit concerning vis-à-vis overclocking - may be less headroom than HW
He is not normalizing by clockspeed. So you get a 14% increase from 4770k to Skylake, on clockspeed alone (base clocks), and he is assuming (optimistically I think) another 12.5% from ipc increase. So 1.14 x 1.125 = 28% actually, because you should multiply not add the gains, but that is how he is gettng the number.
That's actually POSITIVE news. Because 6700K suggests(hopefully) that its not a "factory overclock it and sell it" part aka 4790K. Low Turbo frequency relative to Base frequency suggests that its easier to reach that Base frequency so they can skip the high Turbo.
To me it suggests they've tried to reach the same frequencies as the 4790K and failed, 4/4.2Ghz base/turbo vs 4/4.4Ghz base/turbo.
Either that or they're planning to release a Devil's Canyon-type refresh when yields improve, and leaving themselves enough headroom that they'll be able to release a model (something like 4.2GHz base/4.5GHz turbo) that'll look significantly faster than the initial line-up.
To me it suggests they've tried to reach the same frequencies as the 4790K and failed, 4/4.2Ghz base/turbo vs 4/4.4Ghz base/turbo.
To me it suggests they've tried to reach the same frequencies as the 4790K and failed, 4/4.2Ghz base/turbo vs 4/4.4Ghz base/turbo.
They can probably hit the same clocks, but the operating temps end up punching well above comfortable TJmax limits established to ensure lifetime reliability metrics.
14nm could be heat-density limited in ways we've long worried about.
I wish M$ releases a Skylake-U based Surface Pro 4. The rumoured 15W dual-core + GT3e Iris Pro SKU would be perfect for the more expensive versions. Maybe Apple is waiting for this SKU to launch the Retina Macbook Air too.
Quick comparison using AnandTech results for Haswell and older chips. Assuming ~12,5% better performance (Core i7 6700K vs Core i7 4790K) and a 12% bump from Core i7 4770K to Core i7 4790K, here's how the new Skylake compares to current Intel processors @ stock:
26% faster than Core i7 4770K.
36% faster than Core i7 3770K.
47% faster than Core i7 2700K.
81% faster than Core i7 965.
I can see lots of Nehalem/SB/IB users finally upgrading.
Speak for yourself. My 2600k is stock. It has been since I started leaving my pc on 24/7.Not so sure, no one is running their SB/IB stock, once you o/c the difference is much smaller. Either it's got to be 50% faster then my SB or it's got to have 6 cores.
Speak for yourself. My 2600k is stock. It has been since I started leaving my pc on 24/7.
Exactly! The only reason I got the K was microcenter pricing. I'm hoping that they do something similar with skylake.I know a lot of people who run "K" series processors at stock; these people simply can't afford any instability/data corruption.
Hardly. 6700K naming suggests that it may be easy as making a 4770K rather than 4790K. Or at least easier.
4790K took additional year from 4770K, and it has less headroom percentage-wise, meaning its sort of like a factory-overclocked part. Most parts clock conservatively so it doesn't create issues and they don't get sued. Hence most people get big overclocks.
With 6700K they are able to pull 4GHz right out of the bat, even though there are rumors that 14nm had significant problems and they still have issues. So at least they are doing something right.
Hardly. 6700K naming suggests that it may be easy as making a 4770K rather than 4790K. Or at least easier.
4790K took additional year from 4770K, and it has less headroom percentage-wise, meaning its sort of like a factory-overclocked part. Most parts clock conservatively so it doesn't create issues and they don't get sued. Hence most people get big overclocks.
With 6700K they are able to pull 4GHz right out of the bat, even though there are rumors that 14nm had significant problems and they still have issues. So at least they are doing something right.
I am one of them I have never overclocked any of my CPU.I know a lot of people who run "K" series processors at stock; these people simply can't afford any instability/data corruption.
I know a lot of people who run "K" series processors at stock; these people simply can't afford any instability/data corruption.
I am one of them I have never overclocked any of my CPU.