Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world

Re:Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world by chx on Thursday July 06, 2017 @12:45AM (#14708190)

Careful with these benchmarks. The 6700K and the 6700T shows the same Cinebench R15 on https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-6700T-Processor-... -- click on Show comparison chart below Cinebench R15 - CPU Multi 64Bit. I do not think anyone believes those two CPUs are performing the same -- they are the same Skylake architecture but one is 4-4.2GHz w/ a 91W TDP while the other is 2.8-3.6GHz w/ a 35W TDP. The difference is decidedly not 1%.

It's not that notebookcheck is benchmarking something outlandish: it shows 668 while this Ars article claims 637 for the 6700K, Notebookcheck benchmarked the 6950X to 1859 while Ars has 1786, both are very close.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel Core i9-7900X review: The fastest chip in the world by vith on Thursday July 06, 2017 @03:22AM (#14708698)

I think you may have some model numbers and/or benchmark numbers mixed up. I don't see the 6700K or 6700T in the charts in this Ars article.

I see a 7600K with the 637 score, but that lacks hyperthreading and has 25% less L3 cache compared to the 6700T, so it makes sense that the 17% frequency advantage is mostly balanced out (there's little IPC difference between Kaby Lake and Skylake).

You don't have notebookcheck's numbers matched up with the right CPUs either: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmark-Li...

To be fair, Ars has the i5-7600K listed as an i7, and Notebookcheck has the cache sizes wrong: http://ark.intel.com/compare/88200,97129,97144,88195

So there is plenty of confusion to go around.

Edit: Actually the frequency difference may be a bit off from 17%, that was based off the max single core turbo frequencies. I don't know what the all core turbos are.

[ Parent | on HN ]