Question i5-8350u VS i7-6600u

Oct 5, 2022
4
1
15
0

i wanna know which is better as the i7-6600u has a higher base frequency while the i5 has 4 cores and 8 threads but lower base frequency.
Thanks in advance!

 
Reactions: jnjnilson6

Nighthawk117

Respectable
The i5 8250U is the better CPU, however in a sustained workload it's more like 40% faster rather than double as suggested by those benchmarks. Having used both, you will want the 8250U, you'll get a more responsive machine.

I read that as 8250U, I see it's actually the 8350U but above still applies.
 
Reactions: jnjnilson6

jnjnilson6

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2012
439
17
18,815
20
cpu.userbenchmark.com ->

Core i7-6600U - 222 pts
Core i5-8350U - 406 pts


Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core) ->

Core i7-6600U - 323 pts
Core i5-8350U - 571 pts


Cinebench R11.5 (Multi-Core) ->

Core i7-6600U - 3.55 pts
Core i5-8350U - 6.25 pts

The Core i5-8350U is, obviously, much stronger and definitely of a higher stance than the Core i7-6600U. In addition to the major performance difference, Windows 11 supports the Core i5-8350U while the Core i7-6600U it does not support.

 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod

jnjnilson6

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2012
439
17
18,815
20
Please, don't insult the community by posting Userbenchmark scores here as if they mean something. They don't. They are literally worthless.

Passmark on the other hand is AT LEAST nominally relevant in terms of real world usage. Regardless that apparently some of our newer members seem to disagree.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-6600U-vs-Intel-i5-8350U/2608vs3150
Of course, it is good to think this way; there's truth in every opinion. Thing is though, back in the day, like before 11 years when the i7-990X was the thing, Passmark proved incredibly incorrect in regards to the GPU sector and slightly, but still incorrect in the case of some CPUs and their performance on the graph.

CPU-Monkey is cool because it provides Cinebench results and those are really something!
 
Reactions: Nighthawk117

Nighthawk117

Respectable
One of the problems in comparing laptop CPU's is their performance can vary depending on how they have been configured by the manufacturer. A lot of these benchmarks don't run for very long either, so short term boost frequencies can exaggerate the difference. With that being said, this is a pretty open an shut case, the quad core is the one to get.
 
Reactions: jnjnilson6

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
One of the problems in comparing laptop CPU's is their performance can vary depending on how they have been configured by the manufacturer.
Yes, but let's be real, that can be said of EVERY pre-built system, whether laptop or desktop, ever. So, this is really not some incredible academic insight. It's relative, as are ALL benchmarks and performance test results. It's STILL relevant though because BOTH or ALL of what is being compared are running the same thing, and when it comes to the Passmark scores, running MANY things. Unfortunately Anandtech bench doesn't have these mobile parts for comparison otherwise we could look at a plethora of different results, but suffice to say that when we are talking about a nearly or in this case, actual, 80% difference in threaded performance, even if we fudge it to the probable lesser result and say only 60%, that's still a big difference. So, not sure why we are trying to play devil's advocate here.
 

Nighthawk117

Respectable
Yes, but let's be real, that can be said of EVERY pre-built system, whether laptop or desktop, ever. So, this is really not some incredible academic insight. It's relative, as are ALL benchmarks and performance test results. It's STILL relevant though because BOTH or ALL of what is being compared are running the same thing, and when it comes to the Passmark scores, running MANY things. Unfortunately Anandtech bench doesn't have these mobile parts for comparison otherwise we could look at a plethora of different results, but suffice to say that when we are talking about a nearly or in this case, actual, 80% difference in threaded performance, even if we fudge it to the probable lesser result and say only 60%, that's still a big difference. So, not sure why we are trying to play devil's advocate here.
Yes it applies to every pre-built system but I would say it's easier to gauge the performance of a desktop than it is a laptop. I have a 7th gen dual core and 8th gen quad core, for many workloads the 7th gen is a lot faster and the gap in multi-thread is much smaller than the benchmarks on the internet would suggest. This is simply because it the 7th gen has been configured for a higher TDP and the 8th gen machine will eventually drop to it's base frequency under a sustained load even if it's not using all 4 cores.

If you were to do a couple of Cinebench runs on the CPU's in question, the 8th gen isn't going to be 80% quicker like Userbenchmark suggests it's going to be more like 45% if both chips are configured at 15W. Which is still a very substantial difference, I think we are arguing over nothing though, not a single person in this thread believes getting a 7 year old dual core in 2022 is a good idea.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
O CPUs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY