Generational Tests on the i7-6700K: Legacy, Office and Web Benchmarks

Moving on to the generational tests, and similar to our last Broadwell review I want to dedicate a few pages to specifically looking at how stock speed processors perform as Intel has released each generation. For this each CPU is left at stock, DRAM set to DDR3-1600 (or DDR4-2133 for Skylake in DDR4 mode) and we run the full line of CPU tests at our disposal.

Legacy

Some users will notice that in our benchmark database Bench, we keep data on the CPUs we’ve tested back over a decade and the benchmarks we were running back then. For a few of these benchmarks, such as Cinebench R10, we do actually run these on the new CPUs as well, although for the sake of brevity and relevance we tend not to put this data in the review. Well here are a few of those numbers too.

Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark

Cinebench R10 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03

x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03

7-zip Benchmark

Even with the older tests that might not include any new instruction sets, the Skylake CPUs sit on top of the stack.

Office Performance

The dynamics of CPU Turbo modes, both Intel and AMD, can cause concern during environments with a variable threaded workload. There is also an added issue of the motherboard remaining consistent, depending on how the motherboard manufacturer wants to add in their own boosting technologies over the ones that Intel would prefer they used. In order to remain consistent, we implement an OS-level unique high performance mode on all the CPUs we test which should override any motherboard manufacturer performance mode.

Dolphin Benchmark: link

Many emulators are often bound by single thread CPU performance, and general reports tended to suggest that Haswell provided a significant boost to emulator performance. This benchmark runs a Wii program that raytraces a complex 3D scene inside the Dolphin Wii emulator. Performance on this benchmark is a good proxy of the speed of Dolphin CPU emulation, which is an intensive single core task using most aspects of a CPU. Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores 17.53 minutes.

Dolphin Emulation Benchmark

WinRAR 5.0.1: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totalling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second 720p videos.

WinRAR 5.01, 2867 files, 1.52 GB

3D Particle Movement

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores.

3D Particle Movement: Single Threaded3D Particle Movement: MultiThreaded

FastStone Image Viewer 4.9

FastStone is the program I use to perform quick or bulk actions on images, such as resizing, adjusting for color and cropping. In our test we take a series of 170 images in various sizes and formats and convert them all into 640x480 .gif files, maintaining the aspect ratio. FastStone does not use multithreading for this test, and results are given in seconds.

FastStone Image Viewer 4.9

Web Benchmarks

On the lower end processors, general usability is a big factor of experience, especially as we move into the HTML5 era of web browsing.  For our web benchmarks, we take four well known tests with Chrome 35 as a consistent browser.

Sunspider 1.0.2

Sunspider 1.0.2

Mozilla Kraken 1.1

Kraken 1.1

WebXPRT

WebXPRT

Google Octane v2

Google Octane v2

Comparing IPC on Skylake: Discrete Gaming Generational Tests on the i7-6700K: Windows Professional Performance
POST A COMMENT

475 Comments

View All Comments

  • silverblue - Thursday, August 06, 2015 - link

    A "tweaked 8-core Ph2"? Putting aside the fact that significant changes would've been required to the fetch and retire hardware (the integer units themselves were very capable but were underutilised), a better IMC and all the modern instruction sets that K10 didn't support, AMD had already developed its replacement. It probably would've buried them to have to shelve Bulldozer (twice, it turns out) and redevelop what was essentially a 12-year old micro-architecture.

    AMD were under pressure to deliver Bulldozer hence the cutting of corners and the decision to go with GF's poor 32nm process as they simply didn't have any alternative (plus I imagine they were promised far more than GF could deliver). Phenom II was not enough against Nehalem, let alone Sandy Bridge.

    Blaming Intel doesn't help either as AMD couldn't exactly saturate the market with their products even when they were fabbing them themselves, however I think the huge drop in mainstream CPU prices when Core 2 was released along with the huge price paid for ATi did more damage than any bribing of retailers and systems manufacturers.
    Reply
  • nikaldro - Wednesday, August 05, 2015 - link

    40% over excavator, with 8 cores, good clockspeeds and good pricing doesn't sound that bad. I'll wait till Zen comes out, then decide. Reply
  • Spoelie - Thursday, August 06, 2015 - link

    IPC difference between piledriver and skylake amounts to 80%... Lets hope excavator's IPC is better than anticipated and 40% is sandbagging it a bit.

    Given AMD's track record of overpromising and underdelivering, I'm afraid Zen will massively disappoint.
    Reply
  • Asomething - Thursday, August 06, 2015 - link

    Well it will only be behind by something like 15-25% if the difference between piledriver and skylake is 80% since piledriver to excavator is supposed to be a good 20% jump. If amd can manage to catchup in any meaningful way and make chips that can touch 5ghz then things might turn out ok. Reply
  • mapesdhs - Thursday, August 06, 2015 - link

    Catchup will not be good enough. They need to be usefully competitive to pull people away from Intel into a platform switch, especially business, who have to think about this sort of thing for the long haul, and AMD's track record has been pretty woeful in this regard. I hope they can bring it to the table with Zen, but I'll believe it when I see it. Highly unlikely Intel isn't planning to either splat its prices or shove up performance, etc., if they need to when Zen comes out, especially for consumer CPUs. We know what's really possible based on how many cores, TDP, clock rates, etc. are used for the XEONs, but that potential just hasn't been put into a consumer chip yet.
    Remember, Intel could have released an 8-core for X79, but they didn't because there was no need; indeed the 3930K *is* an 8-core, just with 2 cores disabled (read the reviews). Ever since then, again and again, Intel has held back what it's perfectly capable of producing if it wanted to. The low clock of the 5960X is yet another example, it could easily be much higher.
    Reply
  • MapRef41N93W - Friday, August 07, 2015 - link

    You're assuming it's going to be a flat 40% over Excavator and not a best case scenario 40% (like every single AMD future performance projection always is...). It's more than likely a flat 20% IPC increase which puts it even behind Nehalem IPC wise.

    Top off the fact that it's AMD's first FinFET part (look at the penalty Intel paid in clockspeed with the transition to FinFET with IB/HW) and a transition to a new scalable uARCH (again look at the clockspeed hit Intel took when going from Netburst to scalable core arch, very similar to what AMD is doing now actually) and I can see Zen parts clocking horribly on top of that. Being on a Samsung node that is designed with low power in mind won't help their case either.

    You may get an 8 core Zen part for $300-$400 but it probably won't clock worth a damn and end up at 3.5-4GHz on average. So it would be a much worse choice than a 5820k for most people.
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - link

    Btw, I wasn't assuming anything about Zen, I really haven't a clue how it'll compare to Intel's offerings of the day. I hope it's good, but with all that's happened before, I hope for the best but expect the worst, though I'd like to be wrong. Reply
  • Azix - Friday, August 21, 2015 - link

    You guys are being pretty negative on AMD. AMD tried to do an 8core chip on 32nm, maybe that was their mistake. The market wasn't even ready considering how long that way and where we are now. I do think intel got them pretty badly with their cheating

    The next processors are on a much better process. Based on the process alone we would expect a significant bit more performance than some seem willing to allow. Not to mention the original architecture was designed on a 32nm process. It's no surprise it would fall that far behind intel who is currently on 14nm. As time progresses though, those process jumps will take intel longer and longer. AMD will be much closer. Next year will be the first these two are on the same process (similar anyway). in a long while and it will last till at least 2017. AMD should be able to pick up some CPU sales next year and hopefully return to profitability. Intel also enjoys ddr4 support.

    Stop pushing old 32nm architectures and crappy motherboards.
    Reply
  • SkOrPn - Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - link

    Well if you were paying attention to AMD news today, maybe you partially got your answer finally. Jim Keller yet again to the rescue. Ryzen up and take note... AMD is back... Reply
  • CaedenV - Wednesday, August 05, 2015 - link

    Agreed, seems like the only way to get a real performance boost is to up the core count rather than waiting for dramatically more powerful single-core parts to hit the market. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now