Intel Claims i7-7700 "Up to 20% better performance" then i7-6700

T

Track Drew

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
511
http://promotions.newegg.com/intel/16-8997/index.html

intel_20.png


1 "Up to 20% better performance versus the previous generation. As measured by SYSmark 2014 on 7th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-7700 Processor (Configuration details: Intel® Core™ i7-7700 Processor, PL1=65W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: ASUS Z170, Memory: 2x4GB DDR4-2400, Storage: Seagate HDD, OS: Windows 10 Build 1607) versus 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-6700 Processor (Configuration details: Intel® Core™ i7-6700 Processor, PL1=65W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 3.5GHz, Motherboard: ASUS Z170, Memory: 2x4GB DDR4, Storage: Seagate HDD, OS: Windows 10 Build 1607)."

So they benchmarked a 7700 against a 6700 in SYSmark 2014 where the 6700 was limited to 3.5 GHz turbo...

i7-6700:
Base clock- 3.4 GHz
Single core Turbo- 4.0 GHz
Dual core Turbo- 3.9 GHz
Quad core Turbo- 3.7 GHz

i7-7700:
Base clock- 3.6 GHz
Single core Turbo- 4.2 GHz
Dual core Turbo- ? GHz
Quad core Turbo- ? GHz

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/09/intel_kaby_lake_core_i77700k_ipc_review/

100% - 4.2/3.5 = 20%

:rolleyes:
 
I mean, yeah.... but did you really expect them to do an apples to apples comparison. I mean, they aren't even using K series processors so you can't really blame them not clocking them the same. Though I guess 3.5Ghz is less than the normal turbo for the 6700 isn't it?

I do agree overall that Kaby doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but whatever. If people want to buy without doing their own research then that is their business. Plus, people who overclock are in the tiny minority anyway.
 
I just bought one so im going to blindly defend it tooth and nail.

Its... umm.... shit.
Its.. faster than my 4770k.
 
AltTabbins said:
I just bought one so im going to blindly defend it tooth and nail.

Its... umm.... shit.
Its.. faster than my 4770k.
Click to expand...

I mean, that's pretty much it isn't it? If you were in the market for a new CPU anyway, then sure, take it over a 6700 (unless the 6700 can be found significantly cheaper), but otherwise meh.
 
Gorilla said:
If people want to buy without doing their own research then that is their business. Plus, people who overclock are in the tiny minority anyway.
Click to expand...

If you are running a 6700k already, I don't see any reason to upgrade.

However, since I'm going to be upgrading from a 6 year old i7 860, it makes more sense to go with the current 7700k over last years 6700k .
Not much difference in cost, and the Z270 motherboards should be a little more future proof.
 
I guess my question is what happens to all of the 6700K cpus that retailers have? Right now the 6700k is the exact same price as the 7700K on newegg. I remember working at Best Buy way back when and for some stupid reason we had identical laptops side by side with the sole exception being that one had ddr2 and the other we had just received and it had ddr3. They were the exact same price. How many of the DDR2 model do you think we managed to sell? Yeah, zero.
 
so is this gonna turn into a shit-storm like the amd marketing tread?
 
Yeah, complete bullshit. But now that Intel has laid this rotten egg, they have to paint the lipstick on the pig.

Overclockers will like the better memory controller stability, but the performance increase going above DDR4-3000 is negligible in most games.
 
I can't find this claim in the Intel marketing materials for Kaby Lake. https://newsroom.intel.com/press-kits/7th-gen-intel-core/ Intel doesn't even compare i7 7700 to i7 6700 performance in any of those materials. Searching for the keywords (intel i7 7700 i6 6700 20% faster sysmark 2014) comes up with nothing on google, so it's unlikely that Intel presented it or listed it in a press release since it would have been posted or covered elsewhere.

It might be a claim that Newegg itself is making, which is very misleading.

(edit) I found one marketing sheet: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...-core-processor-deskop-iot-platform-brief.pdf

7th Generation system configuration:
Intel® Core™ i7-7820EQ, PL1 = 45w TDP, 4C/8T, Turbo up to 3.7GHz/3.0 GHz, Memory: 2x16GB DDR4-2400, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 21.20.16.4458, OS: Windows® 10, CentOS 7.2

Intel® Core™ i7-7700, PL1 = 65w TDP, 4C/8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz/3.6 GHz, Memory: 2x16GB DDR4-2400, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 21.20.16.4458, Windows® 10, CentOS 7.2

Intel® Core™ i7-7600U, PL1 = 15w TDP, 2C/4T, Turbo up to 3.9GHz/2.8 GHz, Memory: 2x4GB DDR4-2133, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 21.20.16.4495, Windows® 10

6th Generation system configuration:
Intel® Core™ i7-6820EQ, PL1 = 45w TDP, 4C/8T, Turbo up to 3.5GHz/2.8GHz, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4-2133, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 10.18.15.4256, Windows® 10, CentOS 7.2

Intel® Core™ i7-6700, PL1 = 65w TDP, 4C/8T, Turbo up to 4.0GHz/3.4GHz, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4-2133, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 10.18.15.4225, Windows® 10, CentOS 7.2

Intel® Core™ i7-6600U, PL1 = 15w TDP, 2C/4T, Turbo up to 3.4GHz/2.6Hz, Memory: 2x4GB DDR4-2133, Storage Intel® SSD, Display Resolution: 1920x1080. Graphics driver: 21.20.16.4495, Windows® 10
Click to expand...

Otherwise, I can't find anything that mentions sysmark and the i7 7700 and i7 6700 in the same document outside the marketing materials.
 
Last edited:
For sure Kaby is only for those who will upgrade from pre-Haswell CPUs. To be honest, I'm very happy that I went with Skylake in a first place. I got it back in October 2015 right at the release. So ultimately I've been having the same performance that Intel offers again for more than a year already. With Skylake CPUs running 3200 Hz memory without a problem - there's no need for any Skylake user to even look at Kaby for gaming. Above 3000 MHz only few games show fps growth, which is still a 2-3 fps at best with 4 Ghz sticks that go for ridiculous price. I'm only entertaining the idea of getting 7350K later, maybe next BF, for htpc. But again, I'll see what Ryzen will offer by this time. Kaby should've never been advertised as new gen though as it isn't in any way. it's simple a more refined yield of the same Skylake processors. New line shoud've been named 6X50k/6X50 bottom to the top.

pxc said:
I can't find this claim in the Intel marketing materials for Kaby Lake. https://newsroom.intel.com/press-kits/7th-gen-intel-core/ Intel doesn't even compare i7 7700 to i7 6700 performance in any of those materials. Searching for the keywords (intel i7 7700 i6 6700 20% faster sysmark 2014) comes up with nothing on google, so it's unlikely that Intel presented it or listed it in a press release since it would have been posted or covered elsewhere.

It might be a claim that Newegg itself is making, which is very misleading.
Click to expand...

Nope, same ad on microcenter page. It's intel marketing material for e-tailers.
 
pxc said:
It might be a claim that Newegg itself is making, which is very misleading.
Click to expand...

Yep, its Newegg. They had a few more of these in the past with different companies.
 
Gorilla said:
I guess my question is what happens to all of the 6700K cpus that retailers have? Right now the 6700k is the exact same price as the 7700K on newegg. I remember working at Best Buy way back when and for some stupid reason we had identical laptops side by side with the sole exception being that one had ddr2 and the other we had just received and it had ddr3. They were the exact same price. How many of the DDR2 model do you think we managed to sell? Yeah, zero.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they did sell. Most people that buy stuff at bestbuy are not very technical savy. I wouldn't be surprised if the sales people say they are the same.
 
Raendor said:
Nope, same ad on microcenter page. It's intel marketing material for e-tailers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's just misleading then. Whoever put together the retail marketing did a bad.

I wondering how there can be an accurate, if using overly favorable comparisons in the press kit, and something like that. I used to work for a large computer manufacturer in the 90s, and there were two marketing groups: technical marketing and consumer/retail marketing. The consumer/retail marketing would need to get things signed off by the other group, but sometimes materials with mistakes would slip out and have to be recalled. This isn't exactly the same problem since it appears to be very aggressive marketing, to the point of being misleading. Even the lower i7-6700T turbos up to 3.6GHz (1c), so the comparison doesn't make any sense.

Intel does deserve to be called out on this, if only to clarify why there's a discrepancy.
 
I'm not surprised. How would you sell your product if your ad says only ~4% faster. Something like "4-20% faster" would be better. I'd personally would like a piece of software that runs as a service and records how many cores i'm using for a few weeks then give me a distribution graph of how much faster this would be effectively for me.
 
wtf did they hire someone from AMD ??

100% - 4.2/3.5 = 20%

yep thats AMD math alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top