i5-4200HQ和i7-3612QM的性能差距有多少?
没有找到i5-4200HQ的信息，只找到i5-4200H的信息，以下是官网的链接：通常来说，型号差不多的CPU比较方法是先看架构、再看主频和核心数、再看缓存的比较次序，按说i5-4200H的架构更新一些（是Haswell），而i7-3612QM的架构旧一些（是Ivybridge），但是Intel的说法是Haswell的主要强项在于集成显卡更好。所以在其它方面，i5-4200H的优势不多。i5-4200H是双核，i7-3612QM是四核，虽然主频上i7-3612QM稍微弱一点，但缓存i7-3612QM比i5-4200H要大的多（是它的两倍）。所以，大概的结论是：1、如果你不是用CPU的集成显卡的话，i7-3612QM性能更好。2、如果本子只有集成显卡，并且游戏对显卡有要求，那么最好用i5-4200H，当然这个集成显卡的性能也只能说一般，只是比i7-3612QM要强。3、如果本子做其它用途，要分情况：i7-3612QM最高睿频是3.1GHz，i5-4200H最高睿频是3.4GHz，如果是搞数值计算类并且只是单线程性能话，i5胜出，如果是多线程的任务，那么i7胜出。具体性能差距很难做量化，但是我觉得4核整体性能肯定要优于2核，并且他们的架构差别不是十分显著。
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录& Intel 酷睿i7 Broadwell与酷睿i5 Broadwell的区别
Intel 酷睿i7 Broadwell与Intel 酷睿i5 Broadwell哪个好
猜您会喜欢
Intel 酷睿i7 5500U
Intel 酷睿i3 5005U
Intel 酷睿i5 6500
AMDIntelAMDIntel
猜您会喜欢
Intel 酷睿i7 6500U
Intel 酷睿i5 4200U
Intel 酷睿i7 4500U
适用类型：
最大睿频：
插槽类型：
FCBGA 1168
针脚数目：
核心数量：
适用类型：
最大睿频：
插槽类型：
针脚数目：
核心数量：
Intel 酷睿i5 5200U
Intel 酷睿i7 5500U
Intel 酷睿i5 5200U
Intel 酷睿i7 5500U
浏览(7141)
浏览(6518)
浏览(4465)
Intel 酷睿i5 5200U
提了一个问题
因为奔腾G620为双核心双线程的处理器，因此只能相当
浏览(48365)
提了一个问题
能玩魔兽世界，部分画面特效建议关闭，画面分
浏览(8675)
Intel 酷睿i7 5500U
提了一个问题
AMD 超低功耗 嵌入式 大约10-20款
提了一个问题
Intel 酷睿i5 5200U
Intel酷睿I5-4590采用原生四核心设计，不仅带有3.3GHz默认主频，更是为...
新平台的中端处理器里不得不说的当然是i5-6600，作为6600K的锁频版本，...
Intel 酷睿i7 5500U
既然大伙儿都看清标题点进来了，那么我们马上进入正题吧……这款年度定...
光阴似箭，岁月如梭，2015年即将逝去。用两个字来回顾这一年的PC机箱产...
Intel 酷睿i5 5200U
Intel 酷睿i7 5500UYou can immediately see some special characteristics when you look at the specs of the new CPUs: Among others, the mobile Skylake chips use much lower clocks compared to Haswell and Broadwell, especially when you utilize all four cores. The quad-core Turbo of the&, for example, is just 3.1 GHz and much lower than the predecessors&&(Haswell, 3.4 GHz) and&&(Broadwell, 3.5 GHz). Even though the per-MHz performance was slightly increased: Bigger performance jumps are not very likely.
Another surprise is the lack of the so called Extreme Edition models, which represented the high-end models of the portfolio so far. There is still a CPU with a free multiplier called&, but TDP and nominal clocks are once again much lower than the old chips. Still, Intel claims that the 6820HK was already overclocked to 4.2 GHz with air-cooling during internal tests, which would make a worthy – and also much more inexpensive – successor to the&.
We performed the following benchmarks of the&&and&&with two Clevo barebones, but unfortunately we cannot give you any more details about the systems at this time. Both review devices were equipped with 2x 8 GB DDR4-2400 memory as well as a PCIe-SSD from Samsung running Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) as well as the Intel graphics driver 10.18.15.4256.
We included the two desktop CPUs&&and&&for comparison purposes. They were also tested in Clevo barebones, more precisely the models P771DM (Schenker XMG U706) as well as P751DM (). Both devices were also equipped with 2x 8 GB DDR4-2400 PCIe-SSDs and will be reviewed separately soon.
All other measurements for several Broadwell and Haswell systems are from older reviews, which is why we cannot ensure a similar hardware or software equipment. More details on the corresponding devices are available in the legend or the related reviews, respectively.Core i7-6700HQ
Core i7-6820HK
Core i5-6600K (Desktop)
Core i7-6700K (Desktop)
CPU Performance
On average, Skylake is around 10% faster than the old Haswell architecture and still around 5% faster than the Broadwell predecessor in all benchmarks when the chips are running at the same frequency. That the&&still is not at the top of all the rankings is a result of the comparatively low clocks that we already mentioned. The Broadwell&&quad-core is just ahead in multi-core scenarios thanks to the 300 MHz higher Turbo for four active cores, while the 4.0 GHz&&dominates the single-thread tests. Still, the performance differences are usually very small, so users will have a hard time noticing a difference between a fast Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake quad-core.
By the way, the defensive clocks of the Skylake chips also have advantages: Combined with the advanced 14 nm manufacturing process, you get a pretty low power consumption, so both the&&as well as the&&do not reach their TDP limit of 45 Watts when you only stress the CPU. This means that the specified Turbo Boost can be maintained even under maximum load, which was not the case for many Haswell chips. The often questionable performance gains of the fastest Core i7 models that were throttled by their TDP limit should be much bigger with Skylake – particularly for the top model&.
Discussion
Core i7-6820HK overclocked to 4.0 GHzWe obviously tested the overclocking capabilities of the&&in practice and set all Turbo speeds to 4.0 GHz via Intel's XTU tool. The result is a performance gain between 10 up to 20%, which means the CPU is almost on par with the desktop model&&(4.0 - 4.2 GHz). With good cooling conditions, optimized voltages (we worked with &Adaptive Core Voltage&) and the increase of the maximum currents (&Core IccMax&) there should be even more performance gains.
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
1.94 Points &98%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
1.73 Points &88%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
1.69 Points &86%
1.67 Points &85%
1.77 Points &90%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
1.74 Points &88%
1.68 Points &85%
1.59 Points &81%
1.97 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
1.88 Points &95%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
9.22 Points &96%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
7.78 Points &81%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
7.48 Points &78%
7.94 Points &83%
7.64 Points &80%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
7.47 Points &78%
7.61 Points &79%
7.3 Points &76%
9.6 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
6.93 Points &72%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
171 Points &99%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
151 Points &87%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
146 Points &84%
143 Points &83%
157 Points &91%
140 Points &81%
173 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
166 Points &96%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
824 Points &94%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
709 Points &81%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
680 Points &78%
724 Points &83%
708 Points &81%
667 Points &76%
875 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
601 Points &69%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
54.31 fps &98%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
44.32 fps &80%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
42.7 fps &77%
42.83 fps &78%
42.9 fps &78%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
42.22 fps &76%
42 fps &76%
32.55 fps &59%
55.25 fps &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
40.1 fps &73%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
204.05 fps &97%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
168.4 fps &80%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
159.9 fps &76%
170.01 fps &81%
167.43 fps &80%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
164.8 fps &78%
163 fps &78%
133.8 fps &64%
210.2 fps &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
196.3 fps &93%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
0.503 GB/s &99%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
0.408 GB/s &80%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
0.38 GB/s &75%
0.384 GB/s &76%
0.365 GB/s &72%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
0.368 GB/s &73%
0.37 GB/s &73%
0.342 GB/s &67%
0.507 GB/s &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
0.31 GB/s &61%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
0.84 GB/s &99%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
0.688 GB/s &81%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
0.64 GB/s &75%
0.684 GB/s &81%
0.664 GB/s &78%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
0.645 GB/s &76%
0.65 GB/s &77%
0.602 GB/s &71%
0.848 GB/s &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
0.52 GB/s &61%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
4.9 GB/s &100%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
4 GB/s &82%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
3.8 GB/s &78%
4.2 GB/s &86%
4.1 GB/s &84%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
4.1 GB/s &84%
4.1 GB/s &84%
3.8 GB/s &78%
4.9 GB/s &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
3.2 GB/s &65%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
5785 KB/s &98%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
5314 KB/s &90%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
4950 KB/s &84%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
5103 KB/s &87%
5877 KB/s &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
3643 KB/s &62%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
480.943 Seconds *
Intel Core i7-6820HK
528.339 Seconds *
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
578.7 Seconds *
565.334 Seconds *
491.477 Seconds *
Intel Core i7-4930MX
512.116 Seconds *
536 Seconds *
561 Seconds *
477.595 Seconds *
Intel Core i5-6600K
501.1 Seconds *
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
9094 Points &100%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
7410 Points &81%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
7205 Points &79%
7665 Points &84%
7678 Points &84%
Intel Core i7-4930MX
7435 Points &82%
7513 Points &83%
7378 Points &81%
9101 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
7413 Points &81%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
16750 Points &97%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
14128 Points &82%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
13735 Points &80%
17214 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
12914 Points &75%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz
4353 Points &98%
Intel Core i7-6820HK
3983 Points &90%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
3885 Points &88%
4436 Points &100%
Intel Core i5-6600K
4269 Points &96%
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz (Edge 20)
798.2 ms *
Intel Core i7-6820HK (Edge 20)
923.2 ms *
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (Edge 20)
944.5 ms *
795.2 ms *
Intel Core i5-6600K (Edge 20)
849.6 ms *
Intel Core i7-6820HK @ 4 GHz (Edge 20)
45183 Points &100%
Intel Core i7-6820HK (Edge 20)
36702 Points &81%
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (Edge 20)
36482 Points &81%
43688 Points &97%
Intel Core i5-6600K (Edge 20)
43012 Points &95%
Legend&Clevo P671RG (OC 4 GHz) Intel Core i7-6820HK, Intel HD Graphics 530, &Clevo P671RG Intel Core i7-6820HK, Intel HD Graphics 530, &Clevo P651RE Intel Core i7-6700HQ, Intel HD Graphics 530, & Intel Core i7-5700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M SLI, 4x Micron M600 MTFDDAV512MBF M.2 (RAID 0)& Intel Core i7-4940MX, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M SLI, Samsung SSD 840 EVO 120GB mSATA&Core i7-4930MX (Clevo P150SM) Intel Core i7-4930MX, Intel HD Graphics 4600, Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD128HAFV mSATA& Intel Core i7-4800MQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD128HAFV mSATA& Intel Core i7-4720HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 2x ADATA SP900NS38 (RAID 0)& Intel Core i7-6700K, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, Samsung SM951 MZVPV512HDGL m.2 PCI-e&Clevo P751DM Intel Core i5-6600K, , * ... smaller is better
GPU PerformanceIntel equips the Skylake generation with four different graphics solutions based on the &Gen9 architecture&:GT1 (12 EUs, no eDRAM):&,&GT2 (24 EUs, no eDRAM):&,&,&GT3e (48 EUs, 64 MB eDRAM):&,&GT4e (72 EUs, 128 MB eDRAM): Iris Pro Graphics 580 (?)Block diagram GT2 graphics unitThe GT2 version of the tested quad-core chips with the designation&&is therefore the second smallest configuration of the GPU and is the successor of the&&(20 EUs, Intel Gen7.5, Haswell) as well as&&(24 EUs, Intel Gen8, Broadwell). Thanks to several design optimizations, performance and power efficiency are supposed to be once again improved, and the graphics unit also benefits from the new support for DDR4 memory.
The resulting performance gains are actually pretty decent and are somewhere between 25 - 30% compared to the&&– with some outliers in both directions. Even though this only translates to a performance advantage of 5% over the newer&, the&&manages a reasonable performance on par with a dedicated&. This means you can play many current titles smoothly if you can live with lower resolutions and settings. More details will probably require the GT4e version with three times more shaders and 128 MB eDRAM that is expected for 2016.
Unfortunately, we encountered some problems during our tests, starting with inexplicably low frame rates (Counter Strike: GO, GTA V, Watch Dogs, LuxMark) all the way up to reproducible crashes (Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare). We suspect that this is not (only) an problem of the Intel graphics driver, but that there are also some issues in combination with Optimus (all Skylake test models were equipped with a dedicated Nvidia GPU, which was deactivated for our measurements) and we will try to repeat corresponding benchmarks with upcoming review units.
Intel HD Graphics 530
1499 Points &62%
Intel HD Graphics 530
1487 Points &61%
1957 Points &81%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
1431 Points &59%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
1258 Points &52%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
1176 Points &48%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
2361 Points &97%
2427 Points &100%
2153 Points &89%
2061 Points &85%
1706 Points &70%
1704 Points &70%
Intel HD Graphics 530
1080 Points &66%
Intel HD Graphics 530
1053 Points &64%
1536 Points &94%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
991 Points &61%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
978 Points &60%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
848 Points &52%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
1611 Points &99%
1633 Points &100%
1435 Points &88%
1438 Points &88%
1161 Points &71%
1157 Points &71%
1132 Points &69%
Intel HD Graphics 530
46 fps &63%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
67 (min: 55) fps &91%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
45.7 fps &62%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
36 (min: 31) fps &49%
73.6 fps &100%
66.9 fps &91%
66.6 fps &90%
55.2 fps &75%
52.4 fps &71%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
37.9 fps &51%
Intel HD Graphics 530
65.2 fps &71%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
92 (min: 73) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
65.3 fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
52.3 (min: 45) fps &57%
71.6 fps &78%
68.3 fps &74%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
42.5 fps &46%
Intel HD Graphics 530
26.6 fps &77%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
34.7 (min: 26) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
25.2 fps &73%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
18.8 (min: 14) fps &54%
31.5 fps &91%
29.8 fps &86%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
23.1 fps &67%
Intel HD Graphics 530
52.9 fps &71%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
68 (min: 49) fps &92%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
52.6 fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
40.3 (min: 32) fps &54%
74 fps &100%
73 fps &99%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
40.1 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 530
24.1 fps &66%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
33.4 (min: 27) fps &91%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
22.9 fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
19.7 (min: 16) fps &54%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
30.4 fps &83%
30.1 fps &82%
36.6 fps &100%
27.6 fps &75%
24.1 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 530
54.3 fps &72%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
60 (min: 49) fps &79%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
44.9 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
45.8 (min: 36) fps &60%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
62.2 fps &82%
57.8 fps &76%
75.8 fps &100%
58.3 fps &77%
51.9 fps &68%
Intel HD Graphics 530
27.8 fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 530
26.9 fps &61%
35.2 fps &80%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
25 fps &57%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
21.8 fps &50%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
43.9 fps &100%
39.9 fps &91%
40 fps &91%
36.5 fps &83%
29.6 fps &67%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
29.5 fps &67%
Intel HD Graphics 530
32.1 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
32 fps &64%
40.1 fps &80%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
30.3 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
25.7 fps &51%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
49 fps &98%
50.2 fps &100%
49.6 fps &99%
45.4 fps &90%
35.3 fps &70%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
20.8 fps &41%
Intel HD Graphics 530
67.2 fps &76%
Intel HD Graphics 530
66.6 fps &76%
78.5 fps &89%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
57.6 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
57 fps &65%
87.9 fps &100%
79.2 fps &90%
64.1 fps &73%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
23.6 fps &27%
Intel HD Graphics 530
29.9 fps &85%
Intel HD Graphics 530
31.2 fps &88%
35.3 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
25 fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
19.7 fps &56%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
33.3 fps &94%
32.5 fps &92%
31.9 fps &90%
25.4 fps &72%
25.7 fps &73%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
26 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 530
45 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 530
45.8 fps &75%
58.6 fps &96%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
39.4 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
34.5 fps &56%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
61.2 fps &100%
60.9 fps &100%
58.7 fps &96%
42.9 fps &70%
43.3 fps &71%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
39 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
92.6 fps &75%
Intel HD Graphics 530
92 fps &75%
123.1 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
81.6 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
74.4 fps &60%
118.2 fps &96%
84.6 fps &69%
83.8 fps &68%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
70 fps &57%
Intel HD Graphics 530
60 fps &80%
75 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
42.6 fps &57%
59.6 fps &79%
55.4 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 530
71.7 fps &83%
86.2 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
50.3 fps &58%
72.7 fps &84%
69.2 fps &80%
Intel HD Graphics 530
106.7 fps &80%
133.8 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
82.2 fps &61%
111.2 fps &83%
110.3 fps &82%
Intel HD Graphics 530
14.4 fps &69%
20.9 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
12.4 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
13.5 fps &65%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
12.3 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 530
21.2 fps &68%
31.4 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
18.8 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
19.3 fps &61%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
21.7 fps &69%
21.7 fps &69%
22 fps &70%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
17.4 fps &55%
Intel HD Graphics 530
34 fps &67%
50.7 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
30.8 fps &61%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
30.4 fps &60%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
36.7 fps &72%
37.7 fps &74%
36.4 fps &72%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
29.2 fps &58%
Intel HD Graphics 530
16.3 fps &58%
17.8 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
15.8 fps &57%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
13.2 fps &47%
27.9 fps &100%
21.2 fps &76%
20.1 fps &72%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
16.2 (min: 8) fps &58%
Intel HD Graphics 530
28.2 fps &78%
34.9 fps &96%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
24 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
23.7 fps &65%
36.3 fps &100%
35.5 fps &98%
32.7 fps &90%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
25.1 (min: 9) fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 530
39.4 fps &84%
47.1 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
32.9 fps &70%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
34 fps &72%
46.4 fps &99%
45.8 fps &97%
40.8 fps &87%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
29.7 (min: 10) fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13.1 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
12.7 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
9.9 fps &50%
19.8 fps &100%
18.3 fps &92%
12.3 fps &62%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
11.6 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 530
16.1 fps &62%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
15.9 fps &61%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
12.2 fps &47%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
23.7 fps &92%
25.9 fps &100%
22.6 fps &87%
14.9 fps &58%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
16.6 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
29.2 fps &73%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
27.7 fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
21.3 fps &53%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
37.8 fps &95%
39.9 fps &100%
35.2 fps &88%
25 fps &63%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
19 fps &48%
Intel HD Graphics 530
6.3 fps &53%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
12 (min: 10) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
7.7 fps &64%
9.8 fps &82%
10 fps &83%
8.9 fps &74%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
10.6 fps &88%
Intel HD Graphics 530
11.5 fps &45%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
21 (min: 11) fps &83%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
13.5 fps &53%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
11 (min: 9) fps &43%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
25.4 fps &100%
23.9 fps &94%
23.3 fps &92%
18.8 fps &74%
19 fps &75%
17.9 fps &70%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
20.4 fps &80%
Intel HD Graphics 530
15.7 fps &44%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
28 (min: 20) fps &79%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
19 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
14.7 (min: 12) fps &42%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
35.4 fps &100%
33.4 fps &94%
32.2 fps &91%
25.4 fps &72%
26.1 fps &74%
24.3 fps &69%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
26.7 fps &75%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13.4 fps &78%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
17 (min: 13) fps &99%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
10.8 fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
9.2 (min: 7) fps &54%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
17.1 fps &100%
16.9 fps &99%
16.9 fps &99%
12.7 fps &74%
12.9 fps &75%
11.4 fps &67%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
10.3 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 530
32.8 fps &71%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
38.7 (min: 29) fps &84%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
26.8 fps &58%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
22.1 (min: 18) fps &48%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
39.6 fps &86%
39.7 fps &86%
46.3 fps &100%
28.7 fps &62%
36.5 fps &79%
30 fps &65%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
20.6 fps &44%
Intel HD Graphics 530
49.7 fps &81%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
54 (min: 39) fps &88%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
37.8 fps &62%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
32.1 (min: 27) fps &52%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
55.9 fps &91%
56.2 fps &92%
61.3 fps &100%
40.9 fps &67%
51.2 fps &84%
42.2 fps &69%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
31.9 fps &52%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13 fps &47%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
19.1 (min: 14) fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
12.9 fps &47%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
12.7 (min: 12) fps &46%
27.5 fps &100%
21.4 fps &78%
16.9 fps &61%
16.8 fps &61%
15.9 fps &58%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
19.4 (min: 13) fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 530
27.4 fps &51%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
41 (min: 32) fps &77%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
27.4 fps &51%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
25.3 (min: 21) fps &47%
53.5 fps &100%
42.2 fps &79%
33.2 fps &62%
33.1 fps &62%
31.1 fps &58%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
34 (min: 23) fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
157.6 fps &94%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
168 (min: 143) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
112.7 fps &67%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
125.8 (min: 102) fps &75%
137.4 fps &82%
136.6 fps &81%
136.1 fps &81%
134.2 fps &80%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
106 (min: 75) fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13.1 fps &63%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
16.3 (min: 9) fps &79%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
8.9 (min: 5) fps &43%
20.7 fps &100%
19.5 fps &94%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
15.6 fps &75%
Intel HD Graphics 530
22.3 fps &29%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
24.2 (min: 10) fps &32%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
13.7 (min: 8) fps &18%
30.4 fps &40%
76 fps &100%
25.2 fps &33%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
21.8 fps &29%
Intel HD Graphics 530
57.7 fps &84%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
53.3 (min: 12) fps &77%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
37 (min: 18) fps &54%
69.1 fps &100%
57.3 fps &83%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
51.4 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 530
21 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
18.6 fps &65%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
27.8 fps &98%
28.5 fps &100%
27.1 fps &95%
26.1 fps &92%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
6.2 fps &22%
Intel HD Graphics 530
30.3 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
30.9 fps &76%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
40 fps &98%
40.7 fps &100%
40.7 fps &100%
38.2 fps &94%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
13.5 fps &33%
Intel HD Graphics 530
46.9 fps &76%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
46.9 fps &76%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
57.6 fps &93%
58.6 fps &95%
62 fps &100%
53.3 fps &86%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
16.5 fps &27%
Intel HD Graphics 530
6.8 fps &92%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
5.9 fps &80%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
3.6 (min: 2) fps &49%
7.4 fps &100%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
4.6 fps &62%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13.3 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
17.9 fps &79%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
14.1 (min: 12) fps &62%
22.6 fps &100%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
15.2 fps &67%
Intel HD Graphics 530
19.2 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
30.3 fps &85%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
24.4 (min: 22) fps &69%
35.5 fps &100%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
19 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 530
15.6 fps &63%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
24.6 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
14.4 fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
13.4 fps &54%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
22.2 fps &90%
21.2 fps &86%
18.9 fps &77%
17.1 fps &70%
12.3 fps &50%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
15.7 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
31.9 fps &68%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
47 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
28.3 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
26 fps &55%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
43.2 fps &92%
42.4 fps &90%
32.8 fps &70%
30.5 fps &65%
28.1 fps &60%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
22 fps &47%
Intel HD Graphics 530
51.9 fps &75%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
69 fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
45.3 fps &66%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
42 fps &61%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
66.4 fps &96%
66.7 fps &97%
45.7 fps &66%
47 fps &68%
44 fps &64%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
34.23 fps &50%
Intel HD Graphics 530
11.8 fps &72%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
16.4 (min: 6) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
10.5 fps &64%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
12.8 fps &78%
13.3 fps &81%
10.4 fps &63%
9.8 fps &60%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
11.6 fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 530
22.5 fps &78%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
29 (min: 14) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
19.9 fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
17.4 (min: 9) fps &60%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
24.5 fps &84%
25.5 fps &88%
24.6 fps &85%
23.8 fps &82%
19.2 fps &66%
18.7 fps &64%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
20 fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 530
36.8 fps &84%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
44 (min: 22) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
32 fps &73%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
26.8 (min: 17) fps &61%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
38.4 fps &87%
39.6 fps &90%
39.3 fps &89%
37 fps &84%
29.9 fps &68%
29.3 fps &67%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
28.3 fps &64%
Intel HD Graphics 530
7.9 fps &61%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
12.2 (min: 7) fps &95%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
8.4 fps &65%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
7 (min: 3) fps &54%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
12.9 fps &100%
9 fps &70%
7.2 fps &56%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
9.6 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 530
15.6 fps &53%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
23.6 (min: 16) fps &81%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
16.3 fps &56%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
14.3 (min: 9) fps &49%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
29.1 fps &100%
29.2 fps &100%
26.7 fps &91%
21.6 fps &74%
20 fps &68%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
16.9 fps &58%
Intel HD Graphics 530
22.1 fps &53%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
30.7 (min: 19) fps &73%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
22.5 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
19.9 (min: 12) fps &48%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
41.5 fps &99%
41.8 fps &100%
38.6 fps &92%
32.8 fps &78%
33.1 fps &79%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
23.7 fps &57%
Intel HD Graphics 530
7.8 fps &39%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
7.2 fps &36%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
5.8 (min: 5) fps &29%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
11.4 fps &57%
20 fps &100%
14.9 fps &75%
12.2 fps &61%
13.5 fps &68%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
9.3 fps &47%
Intel HD Graphics 530
22.2 fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
20.3 fps &58%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
14.5 (min: 11) fps &41%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
19.4 fps &55%
32.4 fps &92%
35.3 fps &100%
26.8 fps &76%
26.9 fps &76%
27 fps &76%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
21.2 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 530
34.2 fps &74%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
32.1 fps &69%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
22.1 (min: 17) fps &48%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M
22.1 fps &48%
46.5 fps &100%
43.5 fps &94%
32 fps &69%
31.7 fps &68%
31.6 fps &68%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
25.2 fps &54%
Intel HD Graphics 530
5.3 fps &63%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
5.6 fps &67%
6.3 fps &75%
6.7 fps &80%
6.5 fps &77%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
8.4 (min: 7) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 530
8.9 fps &56%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
9.6 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
8.4 (min: 4) fps &53%
10.9 fps &69%
12.1 fps &76%
11.1 fps &70%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
15.9 (min: 12) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 530
13.4 fps &52%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
20.5 (min: 12) fps &79%
Intel HD Graphics 5600
14.7 fps &57%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
13.1 (min: 10) fps &50%
26 fps &100%
18.4 fps &71%
20.1 fps &77%
19.2 fps &74%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
23.3 (min: 11) fps &90%
Intel HD Graphics 530
8 fps &100%
7 fps &88%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
6 fps &75%
Intel HD Graphics 530
11 fps &73%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
15 (min: 3) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
10 (min: 7) fps &67%
13 fps &87%
11 fps &73%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
9 fps &60%
Intel HD Graphics 530
14 fps &82%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
17 (min: 12) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
12 (min: 9) fps &71%
16 fps &94%
14 fps &82%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
12 fps &71%
Intel HD Graphics 530
12.7 fps &79%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
16.1 (min: 14) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
9.9 (min: 8) fps &61%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
14.5 (min: 12) fps &90%
Intel HD Graphics 530
31.9 fps &64%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
49.6 (min: 43) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
28.2 (min: 25) fps &57%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
34.6 (min: 30) fps &70%
Intel HD Graphics 530
48.7 fps &81%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
59.9 (min: 58) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
45.1 (min: 40) fps &75%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
50.2 (min: 45) fps &84%
Intel HD Graphics 530
10.4 fps &74%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
14 (min: 10) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
8.3 (min: 4) fps &59%
Intel HD Graphics 530
24.9 fps &80%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
31 (min: 24) fps &100%
Intel HD Graphics 4600
19.2 (min: 15) fps &62%
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
27.3 (min: 22) fps &88%
Legend&Clevo P671RG Intel Core i7-6820HK, Intel HD Graphics 530, &Clevo P651RE Intel Core i7-6700HQ, Intel HD Graphics 530, &Schenker S413 Intel Core i7-4750HQ, Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3& Intel Core i7-4750HQ, Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, Crucial M4-CT256M4SSD3&MSI GT72 Intel Core i7-5700HQ, Intel HD Graphics 5600, &Core i7-4930MX (Clevo P150SM) Intel Core i7-4930MX, Intel HD Graphics 4600, Samsung SSD PM841 MZMTD128HAFV mSATA&Schenker W504 Intel Core i7-4700MQ, Intel HD Graphics 4600, &Schenker W503 Intel Core i7-4700MQ, Intel HD Graphics 4600, &Bullman C-Klasse S i7 15FHD Dirtbook Intel Core i7-4810MQ, Intel HD Graphics 4600, Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB&Asus X555LB-DM223H
Intel Core i7-5500U, NVIDIA GeForce 940M, & Intel Core i7-5500U, NVIDIA GeForce 940M, Kingston RBU-SNSGD& Intel Core i5-4210M, NVIDIA GeForce 930M, Hitachi Travelstar Z7K500 HTSE630& Intel Core i5-5200U, NVIDIA GeForce 930M, Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTSE680& Intel Core i3-5010U, NVIDIA GeForce 920M, Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTSE680& Intel Core i5-5200U, NVIDIA GeForce 920M, Toshiba MQ01ABD100& Intel Core i7-5500U, NVIDIA GeForce 920M, WDC Scorpio Blue WD10JPVX-75JC3T0&Asus N551ZU-CN007H AMD FX-7600P, AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri),
We want to waive a comparison of the overall consumption at this point because the devices are completely different. Instead, we want to use another much more precise data source: The CPU Package Power via HWInfo. This value includes the consumption of the processor without additional components and is also used by the system to monitor the TDP limit. We still compared all the following results with the values that we measured at the socket to check the plausibility, but we did not see any obvious contradictions.
We want to start with the results of the Cinebench R15 Multi-Core test. Despite the higher performance, both the Core i7-6700HQ and the i7-6820HK are noticeably more frugal than the Haswell based i7-4700MQ, even though the differences are not really significant at 6 up to 8 Watts. We are still impressed by the absolute consumption: The two Skylake quad-cores could even run as 35-Watt chips under practical maximum load for the CPU, and the specified TDP of 45 Watts should not be a problem for the top model i7-6920HQ. Our K model only consumes more with 54 Watts when we overclock it to 4.0 GHz (3.8 - 3.9 GHz in reality, probably limited by IccMax) – the advantages of the 14 nm manufacturing process are getting smaller in this frequency range.
The real surprise, however, is the improvements under partial load, where Skylake – particularly the low-clocking Core i7-6700HQ – pretty much outclasses its predecessor. The efficiency more than doubled in the Cinebench R15 Single-Test according to our measurements, which would suggest an improved power gating of unused hardware units. This also pays off in practice: Initial battery tests suggest much longer runtimes under realistic conditions, but we will have a closer look at this in upcoming reviews.CPU package powerPower efficiencyYou might be disappointed by Skylake if you expected a noticeable (CPU) performance gain – the advantages over Haswell and Broadwell are surprisingly low, at least in this TDP range. But it would be wrong to call Intel's new micro architecture a failure because of this: Instead of increasing the performance at all costs, the manufacturer concentrated on the power efficiency in return and can show some real advancement in this respect. The practical partial load scenarios in particular benefit from even more sophisticated energy-saving features, but also the advantages of the modern 14 nm manufacturing process.
Another key aspect of the development was the improvement of the graphics unit, which now supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1 and has an advantage of 25-30% over the Haswell counterpart in the GT2 configuration. This is sufficient to compete with a dedicated GeForce 920M and enable smooth gameplay in simpler titles with lower and sometimes medium details. Really interesting, however, will be the more powerful GT3e and GTE4 models that should be arriving in the upcoming weeks and months. Thanks to double or three times the amount of shaders as well as fast eDRAM memory, their performance should be much higher.
We did not yet mention the new multimedia capabilities of the Skylake generation, including a very modern video unit with full H.265/HEVC support. We will cover this in a special article and also compare the new features with the predecessors and the competition from AMD.
Skylake for Notebooks: Core i7-6700HQ and i7-6820HK Review Till Sch?nborn,&&(Update:&)}