6770Hq benchmark: Intel Core i7-6770HQ Benchmarks — Geekbench

26 марта, 2021

Intel Core i7-6770HQ Benchmarks — Geekbench

Intel Xeon W-3175X

3.1 GHz (28 cores)

 13844

 
Intel Core i9-7980XE

2.6 GHz (18 cores)

 11883

 
Intel Xeon Platinum 8180

2.5 GHz (28 cores)

 11234

 
Intel Core i9-9980XE

3.0 GHz (18 cores)

 10798

 
Intel Core i9-9960X

3.1 GHz (16 cores)

 10477

 
Intel Core i9-9920X

3.5 GHz (12 cores)

 10377

 
Intel Core i9-7960X

2.8 GHz (16 cores)

 10283

 
Intel Core i9-9940X

3.3 GHz (14 cores)

 10152

 
Intel Core i9-7940X

3.1 GHz (14 cores)

 9783

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6142

2. 6 GHz (16 cores)

 9739

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6140

2.3 GHz (18 cores)

 9732

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6132

2.6 GHz (14 cores)

 9500

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6154

3.0 GHz (18 cores)

 9498

 
Intel Xeon W-2191B

2.3 GHz (18 cores)

 9233

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6136

3.0 GHz (12 cores)

 9051

 
Intel Core i9-9900X

3.5 GHz (10 cores)

 9050

 
Intel Core i9-7920X

2.9 GHz (12 cores)

 8895

 
Intel Xeon W-2155

3.3 GHz (10 cores)

 8673

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6138

2.0 GHz (20 cores)

 8671

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6148

2. 4 GHz (20 cores)

 8666

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6146

3.2 GHz (12 cores)

 8517

 
Intel Xeon W-2145

3.7 GHz (8 cores)

 8102

 
Intel Core i7-9800X

3.8 GHz (8 cores)

 7637

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6152

2.1 GHz (22 cores)

 7323

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6144

3.5 GHz (8 cores)

 7253

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6134

3.2 GHz (8 cores)

 7088

 
Intel Xeon Gold 5118

2.3 GHz (12 cores)

 6868

 
Intel Xeon W-2135

3.7 GHz (6 cores)

 6391

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6128

3.4 GHz (6 cores)

 6014

 
Intel Xeon Gold 6130

2.1 GHz (16 cores)

 5894

 
Intel Xeon W-2133

3. 6 GHz (6 cores)

 5758

 
Intel Xeon Silver 4114

2.2 GHz (10 cores)

 5126

 
Intel Xeon Silver 4116

2.1 GHz (12 cores)

 4949

 
Intel Xeon W-2125

4.0 GHz (4 cores)

 4893

 
Intel Core i7-6700K

4.0 GHz (4 cores)

 4828

 
Intel Xeon Silver 4110

2.1 GHz (8 cores)

 4810

 
Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5

3.7 GHz (4 cores)

 4578

 
Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5

3.0 GHz (4 cores)

 4483

 
Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5

3.6 GHz (4 cores)

 4470

 
Intel Xeon Gold 5122

3.6 GHz (4 cores)

 4417

 
Intel Xeon Silver 4108

1. 8 GHz (8 cores)

 4351

 
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5

3.6 GHz (4 cores)

 4267

 
Intel Xeon W-2123

3.6 GHz (4 cores)

 4253

 
Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5

3.5 GHz (4 cores)

 4155

 
Intel Core i7-6700

3.4 GHz (4 cores)

 4069

 
Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5

3.5 GHz (4 cores)

 4040

 
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5

3.4 GHz (4 cores)

 4016

 
Intel Core i7-6820EQ

2.8 GHz (4 cores)

 4008

 
Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5

2.9 GHz (4 cores)

 3990

 
Intel Core i5-6600K

3.5 GHz (4 cores)

 3955

 
Intel Core i7-6770HQ

2. 6 GHz (4 cores)

 3808

 
Intel Core i7-6920HQ

2.9 GHz (4 cores)

 3685

 
Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5

2.9 GHz (4 cores)

 3667

 
Intel Core i7-6820HK

2.7 GHz (4 cores)

 3574

 
Intel Core i7-6700T

2.8 GHz (4 cores)

 3547

 
Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5

2.8 GHz (4 cores)

 3526

 
Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5

2.9 GHz (4 cores)

 3496

 
Intel Core i5-6600

3.3 GHz (4 cores)

 3481

 
Intel Core i7-6820HQ

2.7 GHz (4 cores)

 3413

 
Intel Core i7-6700HQ

2.6 GHz (4 cores)

 3369

 
Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5

3. 0 GHz (4 cores)

 3350

 
Intel Xeon E3-1225 v5

3.3 GHz (4 cores)

 3335

 
Intel Core i5-6500TE

2.3 GHz (4 cores)

 3332

 
Intel Xeon Silver 4112

2.6 GHz (4 cores)

 3281

 
Intel Core i5-6600T

2.7 GHz (4 cores)

 3208

 
Intel Core i5-6500

3.2 GHz (4 cores)

 3165

 
Intel Core i5-6402P

2.8 GHz (4 cores)

 2994

 
Intel Core i5-6400

2.7 GHz (4 cores)

 2987

 
Intel Core i5-6500T

2.5 GHz (4 cores)

 2762

 
Intel Core i7-6700TE

2.4 GHz (4 cores)

 2718

 
Intel Core i5-6440HQ

2.6 GHz (4 cores)

 2707

 
Intel Core i5-6300HQ

2. 3 GHz (4 cores)

 2694

 
Intel Core i3-6320

3.9 GHz (2 cores)

 2522

 
Intel Core i5-6400T

2.2 GHz (4 cores)

 2456

 
Intel Core i3-6300

3.8 GHz (2 cores)

 2373

 
Intel Core i5-6287U

3.1 GHz (2 cores)

 2362

 
Intel Core i7-6567U

3.3 GHz (2 cores)

 2360

 
Intel Core i3-6300T

3.3 GHz (2 cores)

 2310

 
Intel Core i3-6100

3.7 GHz (2 cores)

 2290

 
Intel Core i3-6098P

3.6 GHz (2 cores)

 2224

 
Intel Core i7-6660U

2.4 GHz (2 cores)

 2135

 
Intel Core i5-6267U

2.9 GHz (2 cores)

 2101

 
Intel Core i3-6100T

3. 2 GHz (2 cores)

 2059

 
Intel Core i7-6650U

2.2 GHz (2 cores)

 2030

 
Intel Core i7-6560U

2.2 GHz (2 cores)

 1952

 
Intel Core i5-6260U

1.8 GHz (2 cores)

 1927

 
Intel Core i5-6360U

2.0 GHz (2 cores)

 1906

 
Intel Core i5-6200U

2.3 GHz (2 cores)

 1854

 
Intel Core i3-6100H

2.7 GHz (2 cores)

 1813

 
Intel Core i3-6157U

2.4 GHz (2 cores)

 1683

 
Intel Core i3-6100U

2.3 GHz (2 cores)

 1522

 
Intel Pentium G4500

3.5 GHz (2 cores)

 1256

 
Intel Pentium G4400

3.3 GHz (2 cores)

 1189

 
Intel Celeron G3920

2. 9 GHz (2 cores)

 1088

 
Intel Pentium G4400T

2.9 GHz (2 cores)

 1083

 
Intel Celeron G3900

2.8 GHz (2 cores)

 1000

 
Intel Celeron G3900T

2.6 GHz (2 cores)

 922

 
Intel Celeron 3955U

2.0 GHz (2 cores)

 709

 
Intel Celeron 3855U

1.6 GHz (2 cores)

 527

 

CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6770HQ (1T)

Best CPU performance — 64-bit — July 2023

Intel Core i7-6770HQ (1T)

Back to validation

Intel Core i9-13900K

Intel Core i7-13700K

Intel Core i9-12900KS

Intel Core i9-12900KF

Intel Core i9-12900K

Intel Core i7-12700KF

Intel Core i7-12700K

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

Intel Core i5-12600K

Intel Core i5-12600KF

Intel Core i7-12700

Intel Core i7-12700F

Intel Core i9-12900H

Intel Core i7-12700H

Intel Core i5-12500

Intel Core i5-12500H

Intel Core i9-11900K

Intel Core i5-12490F

Intel Core i5-12400

Intel Core i3-12100

Intel Core i5-12400F

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

Intel Core i3-12100F

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

Intel Core i7-11700K

Intel Core i7-11700KF

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X

Intel Core i5-11600K

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Intel Core i7-11700

Intel Core i7-11700F

AMD Ryzen 7 5700G

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

AMD Ryzen 7 6800H

Intel Core i9-10900K

Intel Core i7-11800H

Intel Core i9-10850K

Intel Core i7-10700KF

Intel Core i5-11400

AMD Ryzen 5 5500

Intel Core i9-9900KF

Intel Core i5-11400F

Intel Core i7-9700KF

Intel Core i5-11400H

Intel Core i7-10700K

AMD Ryzen 7 5800H

Intel Core i7-9700K

Intel Core i9-9900K

AMD Ryzen 5 5600H

Intel Core i5-10600KF

Intel Core i5-9600KF

Intel Core i7-10700

Intel Core i5-10600K

Intel Core i5-11300H

Intel Core i7-10700F

Intel Core i7-1165G7

Intel Core i7-9700

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

Intel Core i5-9600K

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X

Intel Core i7-8700K

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i5-1135G7

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X

Intel Core i7-7700K

AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 7 5700U

Intel Core i7-8700

AMD Ryzen 5 3500X

AMD Ryzen 5 3500

Intel Core i3-1115G4

Intel Core i7-10750H

AMD Ryzen 5 5500U

Intel Core i3-9100F

Intel Core i3-10105F

Intel Core i7-6700K

Intel Core i5-8500

Intel Core i5-9400

Intel Core i5-10400

AMD Ryzen 5 4600H

Intel Core i3-10100

Intel Core i5-9400F

Intel Core i5-6600K

Intel Core i3-10100F

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-4790K

Intel Core i5-10400F

AMD Ryzen 3 3100 4-Core

Intel Core i5-10300H

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i7-9750H

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel Core i7-7700

Intel Core i5-4690K

Intel Core i7-8750H

AMD Ryzen 3 3200G

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Intel Core i5-9300H

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Intel Core i3-8100

Intel Core i7-10510U

Intel Core i5-7500

Intel Core i5-8300H

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

Intel Core i7-8565U

AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

Intel Core i7-4770K

Intel Core i5-4690

Intel Core i5-10210U

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

Intel Core i7-4790

Intel Core i5-1035G1

Intel Core i7-6700

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Intel Core i7-4770

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

AMD Ryzen 5 1600

Intel Core i5-8265U

Intel Core i5-4590

Intel Core i3-1005G1

Intel Core i5-6500

Intel Core i5-7400

AMD Ryzen 5 3550H with

Intel Core i5-3570K

Intel Core i7-3770K

Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3

Intel Core i7-8550U

Intel Core i5-4570

Intel Core i3-7100

AMD Ryzen 3 1200

Intel Core i5-3570

Intel Xeon E5-2666 v3

Intel Core i3-10110U

Intel Core i5-2500K

AMD Ryzen 7 3750H with

Intel Core i7-3770

Intel Core i7-2600K

Intel Core i7-7700HQ

Intel Core i5-8250U

Intel Core i5-6400

Intel Core i5-7300HQ

(YOU) Intel Core i7-6770HQ

Intel Core i3-6100

Intel Core i5-4460

Intel Core i5-3470

Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3

AMD Ryzen 5 3500U with

Intel Core i5-4440

Intel Core i3-4170

Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2

Intel Core i5-2500

AMD Athlon 3000G

Intel Pentium G4560

Intel Core i7-2600

Intel Core i3-4160

Intel Xeon E5-2689

Intel Core i7-7500U

Intel Core i7-6700HQ

Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3

Intel Core i5-2400

Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3

Intel Xeon E5-2650 v2

Intel Core i3-4130

Intel Core i5-3330

AMD Ryzen 3 3250U

Intel Core i5-7200U

Intel Core i3-3240

Intel Core i3-3220

Intel Core i5-6300U

Intel Core i3-2120

Intel Core i5-3230M

Intel Core i3-2100

Intel Core i5-6200U

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

Intel Core i5-2520M

Intel Core i5-5200U

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550

Intel Core 2 Duo E7500

Intel Core i5 650

Intel Core i5-3210M

AMD FX -8350

Intel Core i5-2450M

AMD FX -8320

AMD FX -6300

Intel Core i5-2410M

Intel Core i5-4210U

AMD FX -8300

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600

Intel Core i3-7020U

Intel Core i5-4200U

Intel Core i3-5005U

Intel Core i3-6006U

Intel Core i3-4005U

Intel Core i7-6770HQ processor as a solution for powerful laptops and mini-PCs

Testing methodology for
computer systems of the 2016 model

improvements in processors under LGA1151, the best integrated graphics continue to be sold only within the «outdated» LGA1150. However, correction of the situation is already in Intel’s plans, and, in general, the «party policy» of recent years is such that the separability of the processor from the motherboard (which is provided by the sockets) is relevant once — at the time of purchase it gives greater flexibility in configuring the system. Later, it turns out that the purchase can be operated until the moment of physical failure. And even if it suddenly ceases to meet the requirements before this moment, you still have to change both the processor and the board. Maybe even the whole computer, because for many applications, traditional modular desktops have become too redundant, for which you have to pay with excessive size.

In general, be that as it may, but the sales of BGA processors are constantly growing, and in it the combination of the latest processor cores with the same graphics and eDRAM is already available for purchase, not to mention test laboratories. So, the Intel NUC 6i7KYK, based on the Core i7-6770HQ, which just belongs to the voiced class, fell into our hands. And since this is interesting in itself — as the best offer from Intel, we decided to make its testing and comparison with «desktop» competitors in a separate material. Which is right in front of you.

Test bench configuration

9002 3

Processor Intel Core i7-6770HQ Intel Core i7-5775C Intel Core i7-6700K
Core name Skylake Broadwell Skylake
Production technology 14 nm 14 nm 900 16

14 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz 2.6/3.5 3.3/3.7 4.0/4.2
Cores/Threads 4/8 4/8 4/8
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB 900 16

128/128 128/128 128/128
L2 cache, KB 4×256 4×256 4×256
L3 cache (L4), MiB 6 (128) 6 (128) 8
RAM 2×DDR3-1600 /
2×DDR4-2133 		2×DDR3-1600 2×DDR3-1600 /
2×DDR4-2133
TDP, W 45 65 No. EU 72 48 24
Frequency std/max, MHz 16

350/1150
Price — T-12645073 T-12794508

In fact, the 6770HQ is the youngest model in the corresponding line of quad-core mobile Core i7s, but this is what is interesting — the recommended prices of older members of the family command respect and make us recall six-core processors for LGA2011-3 . On the other hand, recommended prices are often not too close to reality even for processors sold as a separate product (they can be higher in case of shortage or lower during sales seasons), not to mention BGA models that are sold only as part of ready-made systems. So the main problem is often generally the availability of those in affordable stores. When it is solved, you can pay attention to the price. If we consider the mentioned NUC 6i7KYK, then, in principle, for this money you can buy a computer based on any Broadwell or Skylake. Of course, not so compact and, perhaps, in some ways not so functional, but if you need the «sum of characteristics» characteristic of 6i7KYK, then there are no options. If it is not necessary, but simply there is an opportunity (and desire) to purchase a computer of this class, then you can just consider 5775C and 6700K. The first processor also boasts powerful integrated graphics (of the most powerful available to a DIY fan), but is intended for an already formally outdated platform. The second is the most powerful and modern of the solutions on the market, at least somewhat related to the mass, but the performance of the integrated GPU leaves much to be desired. Although, of course, from the point of view of purchasing a gaming computer, the performance of any integrated solutions leaves much to be desired, so in this case the budget should be distributed in a completely different way, and compactness (even conditional) should not be chased at all, but this is a separate issue that deserves special attention. If we consider games simply as an additional (and not the main) purpose of the computer, then, as we already know very well, graphics like Iris Pro generally provide the owner with the opportunity to get acquainted with a lot of games, including quite modern ones. And if you demand «60 stable FPS at the maximum in the hits of 2016», then these are completely different computers.

Since the installation of the SSD we usually use in the NUC 6i7KYK is impossible, and it is desirable to compare devices in the closest possible conditions, we limited ourselves to the two processors mentioned. However, in gaming tests, as well as in the study of energy consumption, we will have other benchmarks, but more on that later. And, since the study turned out to be separate and specialized anyway, we provided all the subjects not with 8 GB of memory (as usual), but with 16 GB. And a Kingston HyperX Predator 480 GB PCIe 2.0 x4 SSD.

Test methodology

The methodology is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:

  • iXBT.com performance measurement method based on real applications of the sample of 2016
  • Method for measuring power consumption when testing processors
  • Method for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing
  • Measurement method iXBT.com game performance in 2016

A detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with the results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. In particular, this applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and SSD, with a capacity of 128 GB) and grouped by the areas of application of the computer.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

9The 0002 Core i7-6700K has an obvious head start in terms of clock speed, so it easily comes out on top. On the last 6770HQ, which is predictable. But it should be noted that it lags behind the formally desktop 5775C by less than 10%.

When working with photos, it even drops to 5%, i.e. it is quite possible to get a laptop with a performance equal to that provided by a good desktop today. Of course, 20% is not enough to reach the maximum here, but, as mentioned above, the 6770HQ is the youngest in its family, and the 6700K is the fastest.

The low load in this test did a disservice to the turbo modes — apparently, both the 6770HQ and the 5775C, especially, increase the frequency of the active core very sluggishly. As a result, the 6700K noticeably loses, in which even the base frequency is already equal to 4 GHz. However, he is the only one. Plus an earlier (but similar in purpose) 4790K. But mass desktop models of even the top segment in this test will behave no better than laptop «brothers».

The problem recurred in audio processing, and here the 6770HQ turned out to be the slowest. But among the subjects, and not in the whole market.

Here too. Moreover, the high clock frequency, even «by default» when loading all the cores, generally makes the 6700K inaccessible to more «simple» processors. On the other hand, is it really that important? Are there any OCR users who, in practice, do not have enough of any Core i7-2600? So the latter worked even more slowly 🙂

Archivers (at least, WinRAR) are not the most successful area of ​​application for Skylake at the moment, but 6700K «took» the first place with a minimal advantage due to high clock frequencies. The 6770HQ lags behind this level by 15% — also, however, tolerable.

Everyone copes with file operations remarkably, for which in this case, first of all, it is worth «thanking» the fast SSD: as expected, the difference in drives affects the results of these tests (especially data copying) much more strongly than the differences in processors. Especially fast a priori Core i7.

Skylake’s architectural advantages over Broadwell allowed the 6770HQ to almost catch up with the 5775C. But in equal conditions, of course, the decisive word belongs to the clock frequency, so the 6700K wins by a noticeable margin. But not catastrophic.

What do we have in total? The difference between the laptop (and junior in the line) Core i7-6770HQ and the desktop (and one of the best for LGA1150) Core i7-5775C is on average 5%, which can be generally neglected. 6700K, of course, is faster by all 20% — and now it’s hard to ignore. But, on the other hand, this “does not fit” into laptops and mini-PCs, and besides the speed of the processor part, there are other characteristics. Especially if you really need a small (or generally mobile) computer.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

We did not directly compare desktop and ultrabook processors, but today we decided to take advantage of the occasion and do it — simply because the i3-6100U, i5-6260U and i7-6770HQ are used in the same line of computers: junior, medium and older Intel NUCs, respectively.

And you can clearly see why the U-series is so popular with other manufacturers, most of which even «scored» on more productive dual-core models of the M-family: they are very economical, so there are no problems with providing both their power supply and cooling. A laptop quad-core is still a more serious unit: albeit about two to three times faster, but it also needs three times more energy, and generates heat accordingly. Moreover, on average, it is no longer fundamentally less than socket desktop models. No wonder that among the latter there are already processors with a lower TDP than most notebook quads: Core i7-6700T, for example. However, they already have no performance advantages over the latter.

And if you still need the latter, then with regret you have to state the fact that nothing is given free of charge, not only in terms of money. Looking at the «energy efficiency» of the U-series, you understand that the speed may be superfluous. But here there is a complete consensus: if the speed of such models is enough, then fine. If not enough, there are appropriate solutions. Also, in general, very economical, on which the company has been working closely for the past decade, which made technically powerful laptops possible. And this is more important than the dissatisfaction of some desktop users with the fact that the productivity of the latter is somehow slowly increasing — they had fast computers for a long time, but mobile users did not. And now there is — cheers, comrades! 🙂

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

As mentioned above, in these tests we decided to add Core i5-6260U to the charts and results — also Skylake, but ultrabook. But it is equipped with a relatively powerful graphics core with the same number of execution units as the i7-5775C, and the improved architecture is the same as in the i7-6770HQ. But here the eDRAM capacity is only 64 MB, not 128 MB — it will be interesting to see how this affects games, coupled with lower processor performance. In the end, as already mentioned, to some extent, the i5-6260U directly competes with the i7-6770HQ, since it is used on the average NUC — cheaper and more economical than the older one. If, in terms of entertainment, they turn out to be close, and the performance of the 6260U in general tasks turns out to be sufficient (even if it is about half that of the main participants in the review), there will be a good way to save money (at least a potential one).

Characteristically, even in «tanks» the advantages of a faster GPU are clearly visible. Of course, only in FHD, but the desire to reduce the resolution, as it seems to us, is unlikely to arise even among those who exploit “ordinary powder”.

In the full resolution of the «ships» 6260U only slightly «does not get» to the maximum performance, but still outperforms 6700K. The two processors, in which «everything is fine», cope with the work almost unconditionally.

Not the heaviest graphics, high demands on the processor component, but the i7-6700K is the worst of all. The main favorites behave differently: 6770HQ is slightly better in FHD (where GPU performance is important), but only the second, when the opportunity to “shine cores” appears. Nothing unexpected. And this will happen again and again.

As you can see, if we limit ourselves to integrated graphics only, only quads with GT3e/GT4e are unconditionally suitable for this game.

And for this one too. And here the requirements for the GPU are higher, so the 6770HQ leads already in both modes — albeit slightly.

But in this case, the «processor» performance is also important, as a result of which the 5775C is the best, and the 6260U is only partially suitable, and it does not break away from the 6700K so much. For our protagonist, this is, let’s say, an average case — sometimes it’s better, sometimes it’s worse.

For example, like this. Although there are no particular complaints — 6770HQ and 5775C «fight» with each other with varying success, but they differ radically from the rest of the pair of processors!

What is especially noticeable in Thief is that it still creates problems for any integrated graphics. Even the best on the market will still force you to lower the resolution, but other options will often not let you play at all. And here, as usual, 6770HQ is in the first place.

However, often the load is such (or can be made so by playing around with the settings) that you can play in general on everything. But with different comfort, of course. And in some cases, it will not necessarily be so cruel to adjust the quality of the picture.

In relative terms, the results are similar to the previous case, but in absolute terms they are different. Thus, this is already a system: often processors with older GPUs in full resolution will work the same way as with younger ones in reduced ones.

Or even a little faster. And the performance of processor cores has at least some value when the graphics card is more or less is enough . That is, the dependencies are the same as when using discrete video cards: in games, you need to “dance” precisely from the video, and only then … There are many of the above.

Orientation «by and large» should help our integral score. The results of the i3-6100U are generally typical for many ultrabook processors, not only of the sixth, but also of a couple of previous generations (only there they are even worse most often): you can sometimes play something on this. But with less comfort than on a good desktop, even without a discrete graphics card — this should also be taken into account. At the same time, modern U-series processors with GT3e GPUs (there were no previous generations) will already “pull” many games at least in some form, not yielding to AMD desktop processors and overtaking mass-produced Intel products. Always — despite its efficiency and not too fast «processor» component. And the best deals are quad-core desktop and laptop processors with GT3e and GT4e. But still, we must not forget that even these solutions are not capable of what was quite accessible to the one released in the second half of 2009year and even then the inexpensive Radeon HD 5770 — we recall that the result of this video card would be equal to 100 points. There is nothing to say about modern video cards (even budget ones). Thus, a gaming computer is always with a discrete graphics card, but if you need a portable and economical with the ability to play a little , this is also possible.

Total

Of course, even top-end laptop processors always lag behind older solutions of the same architecture for desktops: it was, is and will always be so — in any case, until there is an equality of heat packages. However, the lag of 20% that we received in the tests cannot be considered so critical. Especially when you consider that from a technical point of view, the top in the line is not 6770HQ, but 6970HQ — where all the frequencies and capacity of the third level cache are higher. But in terms of prices, parity is available just for the pair that we considered.

And in any case, the Core i7-6770HQ still has a very high level of performance, not inferior, for example, to the Core i7-3770K or 4770K, which were Intel’s best offerings some three years ago (within mass platforms, of course). That is, a powerful laptop or mini-PC in modern conditions is quite possible, and it allows you to play games with relative comfort even without using a discrete video card — it is very difficult to install it in solutions of this class. True, the study of the new graphics core left mixed feelings. Firstly, the current GT4e has no radical advantages over last year’s GT3e, despite the increase in the number of execution units and the improvement of eDRAM operation algorithms. Secondly, ultrabook processors with GT3e, despite only two cores, a “squeezed” heat pack and other performance characteristics limitations, also already allow you to get good results. But both the first and the second can be explained by the fact that the memory system is already the bottleneck — a high memory bandwidth is extremely important for a powerful GPU. The fourth level of caching weakens this problem, but does not remove it completely, so there is no question of parity with discrete video cards. Yes, and it can’t go: in order to understand this, just look at the power consumption of the latter — manufacturers cannot provide such “greenhouse conditions” for integrated graphics. But they can already bring its performance to a level sufficient for many consumers. So far, however, this level will still categorically not suit serious gamers, so fundamental changes in the market in the near future should not be expected.

Intel Core i7-6770HQ processor overview: features, benchmark tests

The Core i7-6770HQ processor was released by Intel, release date: January 24, 2016. At the time of release, the processor cost $434. The processor is designed for mobile computers and is based on the Skylake architecture.

Processor locked for overclocking. The total number of cores is 4, threads — 8. The maximum clock speed of the processor is 3.50 GHz. The maximum temperature is 100°C. Technological process — 14 nm. Cache size: L1 — 256 KB, L2 — 1 MB, L3 — 6 MB.

Supported memory type: DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600. Maximum supported memory size: 64 GB.

Supported socket type: FCBGA1440. The maximum number of processors in the configuration is 1. Power consumption (TDP): 45 Watt.

The processor is integrated with Intel® Iris® Pro Graphics 580 with the following graphics settings: maximum frequency — 950 MHz, maximum memory size — 64 GB.

Benchmarks

PassMark
Single thread mark
Top1 CPU
This CPU
PassMark
CPU mark
Top1 CPU
This CPU
150538
Geekbench 4
Single Core
Top1 CPU
This CPU
Geekbench 4
Multi-Core
Top1 CPU
This CPU
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop
Face Detection
Top1 CPU
This CPU
63.717 mPixels/s
4.799 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop
Ocean Surface Simulation
Top1 CPU
This CPU
741.453 Frames/s
74.513 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop
T-Rex
Top1 CPU
This CPU
4. 625 Frames/s
0.650 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop
Video Composition
Top1 CPU
This CPU
49.002 Frames/s
2.302 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop
Bitcoin Mining
Top1 CPU
This CPU
218.231 mHash/s
5. 353 mHash/s
GFXBench 4.0
Car Chase Offscreen
Top1 CPU
This CPU
9047 Frames
3811 Frames
GFXBench 4.0
Manhattan
Top1 CPU
This CPU
7128 Frames
7128 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0
T-Rex
Top1 CPU
This CPU
12887 Frames
12520 Frames
GFXBench 4.0
Car Chase Offscreen
Top1 CPU
This CPU
9047.000 Fps
3811.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0
Manhattan
Top1 CPU
This CPU
7128. 000 Fps
7128.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0
T-Rex
Top1 CPU
This CPU
12887.000 Fps
12520.000 Fps
Name Meaning
PassMark — Single thread mark 1954
PassMark — CPU mark 7110
Geekbench 4 — Single Core 880
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 3560
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection 4.799 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation 74.513 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex 0.650 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition 2.302 Frames/s
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining 5.353 mHash/s
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen 3811 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan 7128 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex 12520 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen 3811.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan 7128.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex 12520.000 Fps
Boost Core Clock 1000MHz
Core frequency 300 MHz
Process 14nm
Number of shaders 72
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt
Number of transistors 189 million

Gaming performance

1 Overwatch (2016)
2 Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016)
3. Dota 2 Reborn (2015)

4. Thief (2014)
5. Metro: Last Light (2013)
6 BioShock Infinite (2013)
7. StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013)

Overwatch (2016)

Low, 1280×720 60.50
Medium, 1366×768 53.30
High, 1920×1080 42.90 0 10/23

Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016)

9002 3

Low, 1024×768 30.20
Medium, 1366×768 18.20
High, 1920×1080 12.20
Ultra, 1920×1080 8.90

90 011 Dota 2 Reborn (2015)

Low, 1280×720 59.80
Medium, 1366×768 3 7.20
High, 1920×1080 15. 30
Ultra, 1920×1080 14.00

Low, 1024×768

43.80 Medium, 1366×768 30.10 25.00 Ultra, 1920×1080 12.40

Metro: Last Light (2013)

9027 4

9

Low, 1024×768 63.70
50.80
High, 1366×768 28.50
Ultra, 19 20×1080 14.30

BioShock Infinite (2013)

9 0014

.30
Medium, 1366×768 57.90
High, 1366×768 51.00
Ultra, 1920×1080 14.90

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013)

900 15 36. 20

Low, 1024 x 768 380.60 1366×768 73.60
Ultra, 1920×1080

Features

Architecture name Skylake
Issue date 24 January 2016
Price at first issue date $434
Place in the ranking 372
Price now $1,001.88
Processor Number i7-6770HQ
Series 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 Processors
Status Launched
Price/performance ratio (0-100) 2. 86
Applicability Mobile
Support 64 bit
Base frequency 2.60 GHz
Bus Speed ​​ 8 GT/s DMI3
Level 1 cache 256KB
Level 2 cache 1MB
Level 3 cache 6MB
Process 14 nm
Maximum core temperature 100°C
Maximum frequency 3. 50 GHz
Number of cores 4
Number of threads 8
Maximum number of memory channels 2
Maximum memory bandwidth 34.1 GB/s
Maximum memory size 64GB
Supported memory types DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600
Device ID 0x193B
eDRAM 128MB
Graphics base frequency 350MHz
Graphics max dynamic frequency 950MHz
Maximum GPU clock 950MHz
Intel® Clear Video HD Technology
Intel® Quick Sync Video
Video memory size 64GB
Integrated graphics Intel® Iris® Pro Graphics 580
DisplayPort
DVI
eDP
HDMI
Maximum number of monitors supported 3
WiDi support
4K support
Maximum resolution via DisplayPort [email protected]
Maximum resolution via eDP [email protected]
Maximum resolution via HDMI 1. 4 [email protected]
Maximum resolution via WiDi Up to [email protected]
DirectX 12
OpenGL 4.5
Configurable TDP-down 35W
Low Halogen Options Available
Maximum number of processors per configuration 1
Package Size 42mm x 28mm
Supported sockets FCBGA1440
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt
Number of PCI Express lanes 16
PCI Express revision 3. 0
PCIe configurations Up to 1×16, 2×8, 1×8+2×4
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX)
Intel® OS Guard
Intel® Secure Key Technology
Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX)
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology
Idle States
Extended instructions Intel® SSE4.

2024 © All rights reserved