[News] Intel Core i7-7700K vs Core i7-6700K Benchmarks on Z270 Platform

[StyM]

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/int...-platform.html

There now are several reviews posted on Kaby lake Core i7 7700K. There is a new one though, and this is the first being tested with the new Intel Z270 chipset.

The results originate from Expreview. The Kaby lake platform for desktops will support USB 3.1 and DDR4. The specs of Intel Core i7 7700K Kaby Lake processor surfaced in the SiSoft SANDRA benchmark results page. The Core i7 7700K listed is once again a quad-core with HyperThreading enabling 8 logical CPUs.

[BenchZowner]

No difference IPC-wise.
No good.

[vario]

No difference IPC-wise.
No good.

Uhm, in MT real world apps it seems to be actually slower

[BenchZowner]

Don't know what's up with that, although the differences are negligible.
If it ain't incredibly better at overclocking, I really don't know what Intel's thinking this time.

[Metroid]

I wonder how true these benchmarks are, I wil stand right here and wait for contradictions as I think Intel would def not launch something which is inferior to current.

[vario]

I wonder how true these benchmarks are, I wil stand right here and wait for contradictions as I think Intel would def not launch something which is inferior to current.

Its inferior only if clocked the same.But stock clocks are higher, and also it OC`s a bit more.

[AliG]

Its inferior only if clocked the same.But stock clocks are higher, and also it OC`s a bit more.

The question really is how much more does it overclock right? Because if we're talking an extra 300 MHz, I'll just send Intel a jar of my farts.

But if we're talking consistent 5 - 5.5 GHz on air (or AIO water), I'd be open to getting one - though I'd prefer to see what Zen can do first.

[Vinas]

If the CPU can run at 4.6GHz with very little heat increase I think its a win, of course depending on price point over current gen. Just bringing us closer to the shrink, which should run even cooler.

[AliG]

I'd be underwhelmed by 4.6 GHz to be honest. Plenty of Skylake chips can hit 4.5 GHz without breaking a sweat.

[StAndrew]

No difference IPC-wise.
No good.

Its the exact same architecture with a die shrink. The % differences are about what you'd expect and the clock for clock differences are well within the margin of error

Only thing they offer are less heat/power and possibly higher overclocks. Part of the Intel's Tick - Tock - Tock strategy.

[vario]

Its the exact same architecture with a die shrink. The % differences are about what you'd expect and the clock for clock differences are well within the margin of error

Only thing they offer are less heat/power and possibly higher overclocks. Part of the Intel's Tick - Tock - Tock strategy.

Its not a die shrink really, its also 14nm, from what i gather the process got refined somewhat.but not really a shrink.
As for clocks, they are about 200mhz better clockers from the first results.Its basically skylake+200mhz +10bit hevc usb3.1 and some other minor changes.

[SinOfLiberty]

Smells like someone wants to buy it in a heartbeat.

[xlink]

Here's the thing, 4.0 vs 4.0 Ghz might not be the BEST comparison out there. Why? Differences in tubro.

The turbo on the 7700 is more aggressive.

It looks like it can sustain higher clocks in practice without throttling.


Overall not a big shift in performance though.

[zanzabar]

Here's the thing, 4.0 vs 4.0 Ghz might not be the BEST comparison out there. Why? Differences in tubro.

The turbo on the 7700 is more aggressive.

It looks like it can sustain higher clocks in practice without throttling.


Overall not a big shift in performance though.

that is kind of a moot point on desktop, it is a big deal for mobile but i dont the desktop (especially the 7700k use) would care about power consumption or would have turbo not set to all cores.