Desktop vs. Laptop Processors... The benchmarks for laptops seem too close.

[CharlesCarmichael]

I have a 6 year old MacBook Pro (let's skip the macs are evil comments) and am comparing all of my options to build/buy a much more powerful computer. I'm just (barely) smart enough to know that there is more to Intel processors than GHz and the number of the i. So I looked up the benchmarks for the i5-6600k vs the i7-6700k and learned that the i7 was ~30% faster, which made sense to me. I know it's not really that simple, but you've gotta start somewhere.
Now here is where is where my question comes. Just for fun, I thought I would look up the benchmark for the top MacBook Pro cpu (i7-4980HQ) so that I could laugh in superiority, and was shocked to find they are basically the same! I'm comparing a two generation old laptop cpu to a top of the line skylake and I'm barely winning by a rounding error?! I'm hoping there is a simple "dude, you're so dumb" answer because otherwise I'm stumped.
I realize you can overclock the 6600k, but it still feels like it should win without that.

 

[Supernova1138]

The i7 4980HQ is an unsually high clocked mobile CPU, capable of boosting up to the standard clockrate of the 6700k. Assuming the laptop isn't running into and thermal or power limitations, it could give a desktop i7 a run for its money. The 4980HQ also has better integrated graphics than the 6700k, so if the benchmarks you are looking at also involved using the onboard GPU to accelerate tasks or were including onboard GPU benchmarks, the laptop CPU would win.

Finally, performance wise there really isn't a big difference between 4th generation and 6th generation processors when looking at CPUs with similar core/thread counts and clockspeeds. Intel has spent most of its effort in the past few years improving their integrated graphics and power efficiency, and the raw performance of their CPUs has stagnated.

 

[Redneck5439]

+1 Supernova1138 is right on the money with his statement. Intel has been top dog for a long time and stopped focusing on improving raw performance generation to generation opting instead to focus on efficiency of their processors. That is something that may come back to bite them when AMD releases Zen later this year.

I would also add that when comparing a desktop system to a laptop system you have to take into consideration both platform's strengths and weaknesses. While they are new and no upgrading is necessary both systems will perform about the same with the laptop having the huge advantage of portability. However desktop systems can usually be overclocked and upgraded much more than a laptop system, desktop systems can also have much better dedicated GPUs installed for a much better video gaming experience. For those reasons a desktop usually has better longevity and can usually do things such as run video games better than a laptop.

 

[CharlesCarmichael]

The i7 4980HQ is an unsually high clocked mobile CPU, capable of boosting up to the standard clockrate of the 6700k. Assuming the laptop isn't running into and thermal or power limitations, it could give a desktop i7 a run for its money. The 4980HQ also has better integrated graphics than the 6700k, so if the benchmarks you are looking at also involved using the onboard GPU to accelerate tasks or were including onboard GPU benchmarks, the laptop CPU would win.

Finally, performance wise there really isn't a big difference between 4th generation and 6th generation processors when looking at CPUs with similar core/thread counts and clockspeeds. Intel has spent most of its effort in the past few years improving their integrated graphics and power efficiency, and the raw performance of their CPUs has stagnated.

Thanks Supernova, at least I know I'm not wrong about this.
You said something which confused me though. You said that intel has been focused on " improving their integrated graphics and power efficiency" but also that the "4980HQ also has better integrated graphics than the 6700k." I know you're right, but it just seems odd that they can both be true.

I've looked around and there doesn't seem to be a better/more powerful i7 skylake on the market. This makes it tempting to go back and get something like the i7-5930K but then I've buying a motherboard with an old socket and DDR3...

Thanks again!

 

[Supernova1138]

The i7 4980HQ is an unsually high clocked mobile CPU, capable of boosting up to the standard clockrate of the 6700k. Assuming the laptop isn't running into and thermal or power limitations, it could give a desktop i7 a run for its money. The 4980HQ also has better integrated graphics than the 6700k, so if the benchmarks you are looking at also involved using the onboard GPU to accelerate tasks or were including onboard GPU benchmarks, the laptop CPU would win.

Finally, performance wise there really isn't a big difference between 4th generation and 6th generation processors when looking at CPUs with similar core/thread counts and clockspeeds. Intel has spent most of its effort in the past few years improving their integrated graphics and power efficiency, and the raw performance of their CPUs has stagnated.

Thanks Supernova, at least I know I'm not wrong about this.
You said something which confused me though. You said that intel has been focused on " improving their integrated graphics and power efficiency" but also that the "4980HQ also has better integrated graphics than the 6700k." I know you're right, but it just seems odd that they can both be true.

I've looked around and there doesn't seem to be a better/more powerful i7 skylake on the market. This makes it tempting to go back and get something like the i7-5930K but then I've buying a motherboard with an old socket and DDR3...

Thanks again!

Intel elected not to put their best integrated graphics into their desktop CPUs, while the HD 530 in the 6700k is of a newer generation, it has fewer execution units than the Iris Pro HD 5200 in the 4980 HQ, so the older mobile i7 has better integrated graphics.

The 5930k does use DDR4 RAM exclusively, it's on LGA 2011v3 which is still a current socket, it will be seeing Broadwell-E CPUs soon, in about a month or so if there aren't any delays, so you might want to wait a little bit if you are considering that platform.

 

[CharlesCarmichael]

+1 Supernova1138 is right on the money with his statement. Intel has been top dog for a long time and stopped focusing on improving raw performance generation to generation opting instead to focus on efficiency of their processors. That is something that may come back to bite them when AMD releases Zen later this year.

I would also add that when comparing a desktop system to a laptop system you have to take into consideration both platform's strengths and weaknesses. While they are new and no upgrading is necessary both systems will perform about the same with the laptop having the huge advantage of portability. However desktop systems can usually be overclocked and upgraded much more than a laptop system, desktop systems can also have much better dedicated GPUs installed for a much better video gaming experience. For those reasons a desktop usually has better longevity and can usually do things such as run video games better than a laptop.

OK, maybe I have to take another look at AMD. I know you're right about the upgradability, it is what drew me to this at first. I know it's kinda funny that I'm torn between the most and least upgradable options (self-built vs mac). You're also on the money about the GPU, I'm waiting on the new Nvidia GTX 1080
Thanks!