The i7-6660U skylake is better than the i7-7500U kabylake!?!?

manny88

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 31, 2016
39
14
So I was doing some research. One of the reasons for waiting for kabylake is because it's more power efficient while providing good performance. I remember reading the TDP was 4.5W. However upon further research, that is for the Core M models. The i5 and i7 U models are powered at 15W TDP. So they consume the same amount of power as the cpu's in the non touchbar macbooks!

That's great I hear you say, but surely the performance is much better?

Well apparently not. According to Geekbench, we have plenty of kabylake i7-7500U benchmarks.

Have a look here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&page=5&q=7500U&sort=multicore_score

Now by arranging them from high to low, and taking the Median Average, the score rounded comes to 4000 points on the single core, and 7800 on the multicore.

We have only 1 benchmark for the skylake i7-6660U done on the new macbook pro, by hung solo on this forum.

Have a look here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=6660U

Rounded it's 4000 for the single core, 7900 for the multi core!

100 points more multicore than the kabylake (so basically the same).


There are 2 things this kabylake cpu does beat the skylake.

1. The TDP down is 7.5W, while skylakes TDP down is 9.5W.

Now to me, cutting 2W for similar performance is not worth it.

2. The skylake comes with Intel 540 GPU, while kabylake comes with Intel 620 GPU.

Wait what!?!?!

Just right now while typing this, I checked out the benchmarks of the 540 vs 620. And the 540 kicks the 620's ass!

Check the pass mark results:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Intel+HD+620&id=3592
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Intel+Iris+540&id=3366

Kabylake: 882
Skylake: 1365

That's an increase of 54.76% in score/performance for the skylake CPU!

I thought this was a mistake, so I checked notebookcheck website for even more benchmarks.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-540.149939.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-620.172256.0.html

And you can clearly see comparing the gaming benchmarks, the skylake 540 GPU produces better FPS on most settings than the kabylake 620 GPU. And this website clearly says these are the graphics chips on the kabylake, no ambiguity there.

So from what it looks like. The only benefit of the kabylake is a mere 2W which is not tangible in real world application. Otherwise it looks like the CPU score is the same, but with a 54.76% more powerful GPU on the skylake!

Now I know many people will complain there's 1 benchmark vs 227. But come on, this looks very promising for us.

I definitely believe those with the non-touchbar macbook pro with the upgraded cpu, are gonna see more benefits than people with the i7 U kabylake line up.

Lastly, anyone think I should become a reviewer lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cpnotebook80

fokmik

macrumors 68040
Oct 28, 2016
3,796
3,087
USA
no, its just the macbook pros cpu kaby lake are not out yet...on 5 January Intel will release some of those desktop chips first
 

manny88

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 31, 2016
39
14
no, its just the macbook pros cpu kaby lake are not out yet...on 5 January Intel will release some of those desktop chips first
How does that make sense? We are comparing the currently new skylake U CPU's to the new kabylake U CPU's. We are not comparing the HQ desktop CPUs are we. So the comparison is fair.
 
Last edited:

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,969
4,551
The thing is that the 15W Intel CPUs also come in different performance tiers. There is a lower tier, with slower CPU/GPU (the XX00U series) and a higher tier, with faster CPU/GPU (the XX60U series). Apple uses higher-tier 6X60U Skylake CPUs, while the only available Kaby Lake are lower tier 7X00 series. There is no doubt that a same-tier Kaby Lake will be faster — but then again, its not there yet.

Which again shows that most people who bash Apple for their "low performance outdated components" are really not as smart as they think they are. There should probably be a law that forces companies to use transparent naming schemes for their chips. Apparently its too complicated for an average 'pro' (that, or he is busy carrying around his 5kg pro laptop).
 

Samuelsan2001

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2013
7,682
2,103
Does the Skylakes in the new MBP come with hyper threading?
Yes all core i5and up mobile chips have hyperthreading and have done for years!!

OP I am not surprised at all Apple have always used the best silicon they can within their TDP parameters this update was going to be no different!!
 

Granville

macrumors member
Sep 28, 2015
35
35
Kaby Lake won't be slower, but it won't be faster too.
The real reason to get Kaby Lake is the hardware support for 10bit HEVC.
That makes it possible to run 1080p/1440p/4K HEVC movies with ease (luckily youtube uses googles VP9)

With skylake your CPU will do all the work instead of the hardware decoder. Which means more fan noise, lower battery life, and framedropping 1080p HEVC content.
 

manny88

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 31, 2016
39
14
The thing is that the 15W Intel CPUs also come in different performance tiers. There is a lower tier, with slower CPU/GPU (the XX00U series) and a higher tier, with faster CPU/GPU (the XX60U series). Apple uses higher-tier 6X60U Skylake CPUs, while the only available Kaby Lake are lower tier 7X00 series. There is no doubt that a same-tier Kaby Lake will be faster — but then again, its not there yet.

Which again shows that most people who bash Apple for their "low performance outdated components" are really not as smart as they think they are. There should probably be a law that forces companies to use transparent naming schemes for their chips. Apparently its too complicated for an average 'pro' (that, or he is busy carrying around his 5kg pro laptop).

From what I can see, Apple has provided the best CPU options available at this time on the current market when it comes to the U series.

Either the 6660U (in the non touchbar) and 6567U (in the touchbar), are better than the 7500U (kabylake), definitely in GPU, and similar in CPU.

And as I cannot see any Intel announcements for further U series in kabylake yet. How long would we have to wait for Intel to announce them? And then wait a further 6 months to a year to get them.

So in this regards, Apple has actually provided us the best CPU's in the U series, which beat the U series in kabylake at the moment and for the distant future it seems until they announce better ones.
 

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,969
4,551
Don't take my reply out of context, I've not said anything about the cpu in the new machines. Post reported.
No principal difference. You suggested that there are faster GPUs in the comparable power bracket. Which is blatantly false. I quoted your post as an example of an attitude that I find fundamentally wrong and that is unfortunately very popular these days on the forums. This attitude is about making baseless opinionated claims without even trying to back them up or to relate them to facts. Sorry if you feel that I broke the etiquette by quoting your post.
[doublepost=1478175995][/doublepost]
I don't believe op knows what he is talking about.
Care to elaborate? Or is it another case of "I'm so much smarter than you that I don't even care to point out your mistake"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBuffather

cmaier

macrumors G5
Jul 25, 2007
14,049
8,522
California
Seems to me that once AMD could no longer rest on the prior work done by its disbanded/dispersed K8 team, there was no longer any reason for Intel to give a crap and we've seen stagnation ever since. Of course, Intel failed to see Apple's Ax team coming for them...
 

strawbale

macrumors 6502
Mar 25, 2011
335
166
French Pyrenees
The thing is that the 15W Intel CPUs also come in different performance tiers. There is a lower tier, with slower CPU/GPU (the XX00U series) and a higher tier, with faster CPU/GPU (the XX60U series). Apple uses higher-tier 6X60U Skylake CPUs, while the only available Kaby Lake are lower tier 7X00 series. There is no doubt that a same-tier Kaby Lake will be faster — but then again, its not there yet.

Which again shows that most people who bash Apple for their "low performance outdated components" are really not as smart as they think they are. There should probably be a law that forces companies to use transparent naming schemes for their chips. Apparently its too complicated for an average 'pro' (that, or he is busy carrying around his 5kg pro laptop).
However, Apple could have used these Skylakes earlier, I think:
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/88393/6th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman

wheelhot

macrumors 68020
Nov 23, 2007
2,080
249
no, its just the macbook pros cpu kaby lake are not out yet...on 5 January Intel will release some of those desktop chips first
Hmm, I thought the laptop chips will be release around the same time as well and expected MBP 13" refresh to be in March?

And regardless we could expect something like a Iris 640 and 650 coming with KabyLake with probably 20% GPU increase? The 620 is already on par with 540, so I wouldn't be surprise that'll see similar gains with Kaby Iris
 

manhattanboy

macrumors 6502a
Jan 25, 2007
950
347
In ur GF's bed, Oh no he didn't!
Yes all core i5and up mobile chips have hyperthreading and have done for years!!

OP I am not surprised at all Apple have always used the best silicon they can within their TDP parameters this update was going to be no different!!
Intel is not doing anyone any favors with their confusing naming scheme. What is the difference between i5 and i7 if they both have hyperthreading? The politician running Intel's name scheme needs to stop flip-flopping on what the difference between chips are.
 

wheelhot

macrumors 68020
Nov 23, 2007
2,080
249
Intel is not doing anyone any favors with their confusing naming scheme. What is the difference between i5 and i7 if they both have hyperthreading? The politician running Intel's name scheme needs to stop flip-flopping on what the difference between chips are.
Isn't the only difference is i7 chips probably have more cores or faster then i5?
 

bodonnell202

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2016
1,319
1,356
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
So I was doing some research. One of the reasons for waiting for kabylake is because it's more power efficient while providing good performance. I remember reading the TDP was 4.5W. However upon further research, that is for the Core M models. The i5 and i7 U models are powered at 15W TDP. So they consume the same amount of power as the cpu's in the non touchbar macbooks!

That's great I hear you say, but surely the performance is much better?

Well apparently not. According to Geekbench, we have plenty of kabylake i7-7500U benchmarks.

Have a look here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&page=5&q=7500U&sort=multicore_score

Now by arranging them from high to low, and taking the Median Average, the score rounded comes to 4000 points on the single core, and 7800 on the multicore.

We have only 1 benchmark for the skylake i7-6660U done on the new macbook pro, by hung solo on this forum.

Have a look here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=6660U

Rounded it's 4000 for the single core, 7900 for the multi core!

100 points more multicore than the kabylake (so basically the same).


There are 2 things this kabylake cpu does beat the skylake.

1. The TDP down is 7.5W, while skylakes TDP down is 9.5W.

Now to me, cutting 2W for similar performance is not worth it.

2. The skylake comes with Intel 540 GPU, while kabylake comes with Intel 620 GPU.

Wait what!?!?!

Just right now while typing this, I checked out the benchmarks of the 540 vs 620. And the 540 kicks the 620's ass!

Check the pass mark results:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Intel+HD+620&id=3592
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Intel+Iris+540&id=3366

Kabylake: 882
Skylake: 1365

That's an increase of 54.76% in score/performance for the skylake CPU!

I thought this was a mistake, so I checked notebookcheck website for even more benchmarks.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-540.149939.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-620.172256.0.html

And you can clearly see comparing the gaming benchmarks, the skylake 540 GPU produces better FPS on most settings than the kabylake 620 GPU. And this website clearly says these are the graphics chips on the kabylake, no ambiguity there.

So from what it looks like. The only benefit of the kabylake is a mere 2W which is not tangible in real world application. Otherwise it looks like the CPU score is the same, but with a 54.76% more powerful GPU on the skylake!

Now I know many people will complain there's 1 benchmark vs 227. But come on, this looks very promising for us.

I definitely believe those with the non-touchbar macbook pro with the upgraded cpu, are gonna see more benefits than people with the i7 U kabylake line up.

Lastly, anyone think I should become a reviewer lol.
You're kind of comparing apples and oranges here. The i7 7500u is the successor to the i7 6500u, not the i7 6660u. The 6660u is a larger chip with GT3 graphics plus eDRAM, vs the 6500u and 7500u which have GT2 graphics and no eDRAM. The Kaby Lake successor to the i7 6660u hasn't been officially announced yet, but is expected in 2017.

It's funny that people get all frothy mouthed about Apple using Skylake instead of Kaby Lake without doing any research as to why that might be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard2k

torana355

macrumors 68040
Dec 8, 2009
3,390
2,270
Sydney, Australia
No principal difference. You suggested that there are faster GPUs in the comparable power bracket. Which is blatantly false.
. Please show where I said anything about a comparable power bracket? I was just making the point that other laptops have desktop class GPU's in them, so it is possible to put a more powerful GPU then the 460 in a laptop. Which is 100% true. That is the extent of my claims, then you quote my reply out of context in a different thread that has nothing to do with then GPU.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wheelhot

eroslws

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2011
352
415
You're kind of comparing apples and oranges here. The i7 7500u is the successor to the i7 6500u, not the i7 6660u. The 6660u is a larger chip with GT3 graphics plus eDRAM, vs the 6500u and 7500u which have GT2 graphics and no eDRAM. The Kaby Lake successor to the i7 6660u hasn't been officially announced yet, but is expected in 2017.

It's funny that people get all frothy mouthed about Apple using Skylake instead of Kaby Lake without doing any research as to why that might be the case.
Armchair designers. There's a reason they aren't working for Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001

wheelhot

macrumors 68020
Nov 23, 2007
2,080
249
. Please show where I said anything about a comparable power bracket? I was just making the point that other laptops have desktop class GPU's in them, so it is possible to put a more powerful GPU then the 460 in a laptop. Which is 100% true. That is the extent of my claims, then you quote my reply out of context in a different thread that has nothing to do with then GPU.
Yup, and I don't get it why Apple purposely box themselves to a lower powered GPU when they're already "desktop class" GPU available in the market, this isn't like a few years ago where using "desktop class" notebook GPU will require a very thick notebook design. Just look at Razer, and those "gaming" notebooks. Not asking Apple to be all fancy like them, but Apple could've specced the new MBPs to be similar or like some ppl said, a GTX1060 will be acceptable as well.

They already have the MacBook for those who wants ultra thin, so why aim to make the MBP thinner at the cost of power and performance?