Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[Sweepr]

Is i5 6300HQ for laptop? Interesting to see i5 quad

Good observation. That's the first mobile Core i5 quad-core.
I guess dual-cores are finally gone as far as 37-47W chips are concerned.

 

[Burpo]

Pretty impressive..

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2974596

 

[Sweepr]

Iris Pro at 15W TDP, more mainstream quad-cores, the introduction of a GT4e SKU, a lot to be excited about mobile Skylake.

Looking at the 2.8-3.6GHz desktop quad-core model at 35W TDP, maybe it's time for a lower-clocked 25W TDP mobile quad-core from Intel.

That's not to say dual-cores aren't improving:
- Core i7 4600U: ~2.9 points @ Cinebench 11.5 64-bit
- Core i7 5600U: ~3.3 points @ Cinebench 11.5 64-bit

Even if we expect a modest improvement (less than 10%) top bin 15W TDP Skylake-U should safely cross 3.6 points, more than enough to beat 35W Carrizo and crush any AMD chip in single-thread performance metrics.

 

[dark zero]

At least Intel learned and decided to put Quad Cores who are FAR better than any trash, I mean, U tier.
The brands must learn that a Quad Core is far better than a trash HT U Dual Core. And if the Core i5 recieves enough design wins, maybe Intel will be forced to make finally some decent quad Cores for U tier.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Iris Pro at 15W TDP, more mainstream quad-cores, the introduction of a GT4e SKU, a lot to be excited about mobile Skylake.

Looking at the 2.8-3.6GHz desktop quad-core model at 35W TDP, maybe it's time for a lower-clocked 25W TDP mobile quad-core from Intel.

That's not to say dual-cores aren't improving:
- Core i7 4600U: ~2.9 points @ Cinebench 11.5 64-bit
- Core i7 5600U: ~3.3 points @ Cinebench 11.5 64-bit

Even if we expect a modest improvement (less than 10%) top bin 15W TDP Skylake-U should safely cross 3.6 points, more than enough to beat 35W Carrizo and crush any AMD chip in single-thread performance metrics.

I agree, they definitely need something between the dual cores and the 47 watt quads. (Edit: Are there 35 watt quads now, or is that something still to come? I thought all the quads were 47watt.) Basically now you have to settle for performance only modestly better than core 2 duo mobile chips of a few years ago(although admittedly at much lower power consumption) or the full bore quad with hyperthreading. Personally, I would love to see those high power quads with standard gt3e or gt4e, but they also need something in between. Maybe a lower clocked quad without hyperthreading. It would absolutely crush Carizzo in cpu.

For instance, a couple of years ago I bought my wife a laptop, only 360.00 I think with an i3 3110m that still gets 2.4 in cinebench, and an ivy i5 of the same period gets almost 3. Now granted, you now get much lower power consumption and a better igpu, but prices have gone up, and it would really be nice to have a better performing chip between the dual cores and the hi wattage quads.

 

[Sweepr]

I agree, they definitely need something between the dual cores and the 47 watt quads. (Edit: Are there 35 watt quads now, or is that something still to come? I thought all the quads were 47watt.)

37W Haswell quad-cores are available, but there are fewer models than 47W quad-cores. A quick look at the impressive list of 35W quad-core Skylake-S processors coming to desktops already indicates what to expect from mobile. The Geekbench leak confirms that they will finally give us 4C/4T mobile chips and the Core i5 branding suggests lower prices than current Haswell/Broadwell quad-cores.

In my oppinion 37W Skylake quad-cores will become the norm (for GT2-based models) and there will be at least a few sub-30W quad-cores.

Personally, I would love to see those high power quads with standard gt3e or gt4e, but they also need something in between. Maybe a lower clocked quad without hyperthreading. It would absolutely crush Carizzo in cpu.

No need to get their hands dirty, Skylake-U will be enough to crush Carrizo. Otherwise I agree, we need a more solid 'H' lineup for the folks that don't care about thin'n'light and still want solid desktop-like performance without spending +$1K.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I just bought my grandson a gaming laptop with an i7 and a GT 960M. The cpu is definitely overpowered for his use, but I did not want to move down to a dual core, and most of them dont really come with a decent dgpu anyway. Something like an i5 quad with gt4e or even maybe gt3e would have fit the bill nicely (if the price were cheaper than a dgpu), as he isnt extremely demanding for his gaming, but I did want something fairly powerful to last for a few years.

 

[dark zero]

I just bought my grandson a gaming laptop with an i7 and a GT 960M. The cpu is definitely overpowered for his use, but I did not want to move down to a dual core, and most of them dont really come with a decent dgpu anyway. Something like an i5 quad with gt4e or even maybe gt3e would have fit the bill nicely (if the price were cheaper than a dgpu), as he isnt extremely demanding for his gaming, but I did want something fairly powerful to last for a few years.

Despite I bought a mid tier i7 Quad Core M tier, if Intel is keeping being a jerk, I guess I'll keep it for a long time...

And do not say buy a U tier because for me are trash. They are the H tier who didn't meet the expectatives and become U tier to meet another ones.

In few words, I agree with you. If Intel is not releasing something decent, better to prepare to lose more customers

 

[Sweepr]

I just bought my grandson a gaming laptop with an i7 and a GT 960M. The cpu is definitely overpowered for his use, but I did not want to move down to a dual core, and most of them dont really come with a decent dgpu anyway. Something like an i5 quad with gt4e or even maybe gt3e would have fit the bill nicely (if the price were cheaper than a dgpu), as he isnt extremely demanding for his gaming, but I did want something fairly powerful to last for a few years.

That would be a nice product. Intel just released a 37W dual-core + GT3e Broadwell-H, I think there is a strong chance we will see something like a 37W 4C/4T + GT3e Skylake-H at competitive prices, while GT4e occupies the 'niche' high-end Core i7 Iris Pro position.

 

[dark zero]

Intel doesn't need competitive prices since there is no competition. They just need decent prices... But knowing Intel, they will just make the prices of the notebooks more and more expensive. Eventually the Notebook industry will die to let the convertibles become the new standard.

The only thing I want is that Atom stay totally away on this. Because if Atom becomes the new mainstream... Better to buy only old but way stronger 2nd hand machines.

 

[hemedans]

Pretty impressive..

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2974596

That ipc, just wow

I5 4200m vs 6300HQ geekbench single core

4200m (2.5ghz) - 2227
6300HQ(2.3ghz) - 3110

Isn't this like 30% increase in single core performance?

Can't wait for higher clocked one like 6340HQ

 

[jpiniero]

That ipc, just wow

I5 4200m vs 6300HQ geekbench single core

4200m (2.5ghz) - 2227
6300HQ(2.3ghz) - 3110

Isn't this like 30% increase in single core performance?

Can't wait for higher clocked one like 6340HQ

Those clock speeds are the base, ie with all 4 cores active. The 4200M turbos to 3.1 Ghz; we don't know what the 6300HQ turbos to, do we?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Those clock speeds are the base, ie with all 4 cores active. The 4200M turbos to 3.1 Ghz; we don't know what the 6300HQ turbos to, do we?

And it is only Geekbench, hardly the world's best benchmark. D:

 

[dark zero]

Those fanboys... Better to wait the real deal.
The only good thing is that the Core i5 are quads.

Waiting some decent quads i7 U

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

And you probably won't see one until the next HEDT platform for Skylake-E. Its possible that Asus may put one on some of their unannounced boards as they were the first with M.2 but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You will continue to see M.2 to U.2 adapters.

I hope not...I'm sure some motherboards will have it. Intel already has a drive with it. High performance M.2 drives have thermal throttling issues. Keeping the drive in a 2.5" enclosure with a heatsink makes sense.

 

[teejee]

That ipc, just wow

I5 4200m vs 6300HQ geekbench single core

4200m (2.5ghz) - 2227
6300HQ(2.3ghz) - 3110

Isn't this like 30% increase in single core performance?

Can't wait for higher clocked one like 6340HQ

4200m has 2563 in 32-bit single core result in the list here:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarks

 

[Sweepr]

Those clock speeds are the base, ie with all 4 cores active. The 4200M turbos to 3.1 Ghz; we don't know what the 6300HQ turbos to, do we?

Most likely not very high, otherwise the more expensive 4C/8T Core i7s are in trouble.

 

[Wreckem]

I hope not...I'm sure some motherboards will have it. Intel already has a drive with it. High performance M.2 drives have thermal throttling issues. Keeping the drive in a 2.5" enclosure with a heatsink makes sense.

The highend M.2 drives throttle under benchmarking circumstances not under every day usuage.

U.2 has been around in the enterprise for awhile, there are only a few "consumer" drives on the market and they all cost a lot.

Right now there isn't a Z170 board with U.2 and almost all of the Z170 boards were shown off back in June. Unless one of the unannounced ROG boards have it, there won't be any Z170 boards with U.2.

Its possible U.2 will go mainstream with Kabylake as SATA Express is being killed off, but you are going to have to deal with M.2 to U.2 adapters on Z170. Asrocks PR for its U.2 kit has benchmarks from its Z170 Extreme 7 board with 3 Intel 750s using 3 m.2 to u.2 adapters.

 

[JoeRambo]

That ipc, just wow

I5 4200m vs 6300HQ geekbench single core

4200m (2.5ghz) - 2227
6300HQ(2.3ghz) - 3110

Isn't this like 30% increase in single core performance?

Can't wait for higher clocked one like 6340HQ

Don't get Your hopes too high tho. Geekbench has crypto tests, so any improvements to hw accelerated crypto will have strong effect on score. Yet crypto has zero relevance in gaming.

 

[Abwx]

Even if we expect a modest improvement (less than 10%) top bin 15W TDP Skylake-U should safely cross 3.6 points, more than enough to beat 35W Carrizo and crush any AMD chip in single-thread performance metrics.

You realize that if it was true Skylake 4C/8T would have a 28-30W TDP (at most!!) at 3GHz or so..?..

Yet we hear that 3.4-3.5GHz variants will have a 95W TDP, but nevermind, half the chip will be at 15W at 10% lower frequency, that s really a wonderfull world you are living in, engineers sure hope that technology would be that easy, but alas....

Also you have made a point that surely get beyond your own thoughts if we are to analyze your conclusion, that is the ST performance that you think is a free lunch for Intel.

On ST half the core count is running in an Intel uarch while only a quarter is doing so in the CMT design, yet 2 intel cores consume say as much as 4 AMD cores, as such this latter can be feed with twice the power and this allow to increase frequency notably or get a much lower power albeit at lower ST perf but in both case at good perf/Watt ratio....

As you can see things are not that simple and as caricatural as you apparently like to present them, certainly that some homework is badly needed before engaging further about thoses issues..

 

[frozentundra123456]

That is the problem with Skylake leaks. They are all over the place, some looking pretty good and others showing almost no improvement. I am becoming less optimistic on cpu improvements in ultimate performance as time goes on. If it were going to be a huge leap like conroe (not that anybody expected that, just an example) or even Sandy Bridge, I think the leaks would be more consistently positive. I do think we will see a pretty good increase in performance per watt and igp, but am less hopeful that we will see much increase in absolute performance.

 

[Thala]

Don't get Your hopes too high tho. Geekbench has crypto tests, so any improvements to hw accelerated crypto will have strong effect on score. Yet crypto has zero relevance in gaming.

If you look at the individual scores, you will notice that there is no relevant update to hw accelerated crypto/hash.
Just looks like a higher clock combined with much improved memory performance to me.

 

[Revolver31]

The highend M.2 drives throttle under benchmarking circumstances not under every day usuage.

U.2 has been around in the enterprise for awhile, there are only a few "consumer" drives on the market and they all cost a lot.

Right now there isn't a Z170 board with U.2 and almost all of the Z170 boards were shown off back in June. Unless one of the unannounced ROG boards have it, there won't be any Z170 boards with U.2.

Its possible U.2 will go mainstream with Kabylake as SATA Express is being killed off, but you are going to have to deal with M.2 to U.2 adapters on Z170. Asrocks PR for its U.2 kit has benchmarks from its Z170 Extreme 7 board with 3 Intel 750s using 3 m.2 to u.2 adapters.

Is there really plans to kill off sata express?

 

[Sweepr]

You realize that if it was true Skylake 4C/8T would have a 28-30W TDP (at most!!) at 3GHz or so..?..

Yet we hear that 3.4-3.5GHz variants will have a 95W TDP

The entire Skylake-S lineup except K models are 35W and 65W TDP. Also 35W quad-cores received a significant clockspeed bump, there's a 2.8-3.6GHz model now (up from Haswell's 2.2-3.2GHz). I think you should do your homework.

On ST half the core count is running in an Intel uarch while only a quarter is doing so in the CMT design, yet 2 intel cores consume say as much as 4 AMD cores

You don't have any concrete data to compare Carrizo and Skylake, which is what we're talking about.

Despite your childish rants everything points to another product that won't change AMD's position on the market and will end up inside cheap BestBuy craptops.

 

[mikk]

Yet we hear that 3.4-3.5GHz variants will have a 95W TDP

Bollocks. There is no 3.4 Ghz variant and there are no variants in this range. Exactly one variant clocks at 3.5-3.9 Ghz and the other 4.0-4.2 Ghz.

but nevermind, half the chip will be at 15W at 10% lower frequency, that s really a wonderfull world you are living in, engineers sure hope that technology would be that easy, but alas....

Your math doesn't work unless you have to assume that a high clocked 4 Ghz Skylake has a similar performance/power ratio than a 3 Ghz Skylake. ULV variants usually run with a much lower CPU voltage, you have to ignore this.

Alternatively you have to assume that a 4/4 3.5-3.9 Ghz SKL fully consumes 95W like the faster 4/8 4.0-4.2 Ghz variant. You also have to ignore all the other 65W and 35W variants (which I believe is a much better base for a comparison because there is no free multiplikator)