So if we take a look at their stats we find the biggest difference is the i7 clocks a couple hundred Mhz more. 200Mhz base, 300Mhz turbo boost. We're talking about less than a tenth performance here, yet intel advises the i7 be 90 dollars more expensive, PCS charges an additional 100 euros.
I recall the usual argument was the i7's sported some new tech like hyperthreading maybe that was just desktops, in any case these both have all the extra Intel tech save for vPro, TXT and SIPP which is all security stuff most people couldn't care less about. These two are both 2 core, 4 thread processors. Leaving only the small clock speed difference plus 1MB L3 and 50Mhz graphics clock standing between them.
So please if anyone knows, enlighten me. Why would anyone pay more, or why would Intel in the first place even brand these as an i5 and i7, when the i7-6500U doesn't even seem worthy of being called the i5-6300U (if that wasn't an already announced superior cpu).
I'm sorry to say that after a close look this is no more than a nasty cash grab aimed at uninformed people assuming the i7's are a real step up from the i5's which is exactly what Intel is (falsely) claiming and has always intended the i3 / i5 / i7 labels to represent. They were in the past to my knowledge, but for these first skylakes the question is quite simple. Do you want to pay 1/3rd more to get 1/10th performance increase?
Maybe it has something to do with the manufacturing process and the first i7's are some sort of necessary step to smoothly roll onto their updated brothers to come out later this month and Q1 2016. Anyhow I still fault Intel for calling and selling something called i7 that's way more expensive and adds very little. I do mind PCS sells them a little too but then it's all too logical they just follow the newest line-up no questions asked. I'm more thankful they already offer the new 6th gen skylakes.
In the hour it took me to research the above information there really is no question left. Just a recommendation. Don't buy the i7-6500U, it isn't worth the extra money at all. Now here comes the tricky second bit, maybe don't buy any of the current ix-6xxxU-series skylakes. This depends on Intel's ability to again be truthful and secondly keep their website up to date. If you look at their specsheets you can see they recommend the next batch of skylake's (i5-6300U and i7-6600U) to be exactly the same price as the two named here, except better. Yes, that's right. In three months there will be two cpu's that surpass these (are faster) and Intel is recommending they cost the same. So unless you can't wait three months, Intel is lying, or actual sellers like PCS decide to just make these new CPU's a lot more expensive, there is no reason to buy the current mobile intel cpu's.
I hate to hurt PCS business. Maybe PCS can already confirm the new i5-6300U will be more expensive for sure meaning there is no point in waiting. But right now it looks like anyone considering either of these two processors is better off waiting until january.
My information comes from the Intel specsheets for the above named CPU's and the compact SKU detail sheet for 15W processors.
I recall the usual argument was the i7's sported some new tech like hyperthreading maybe that was just desktops, in any case these both have all the extra Intel tech save for vPro, TXT and SIPP which is all security stuff most people couldn't care less about. These two are both 2 core, 4 thread processors. Leaving only the small clock speed difference plus 1MB L3 and 50Mhz graphics clock standing between them.
So please if anyone knows, enlighten me. Why would anyone pay more, or why would Intel in the first place even brand these as an i5 and i7, when the i7-6500U doesn't even seem worthy of being called the i5-6300U (if that wasn't an already announced superior cpu).
I'm sorry to say that after a close look this is no more than a nasty cash grab aimed at uninformed people assuming the i7's are a real step up from the i5's which is exactly what Intel is (falsely) claiming and has always intended the i3 / i5 / i7 labels to represent. They were in the past to my knowledge, but for these first skylakes the question is quite simple. Do you want to pay 1/3rd more to get 1/10th performance increase?
Maybe it has something to do with the manufacturing process and the first i7's are some sort of necessary step to smoothly roll onto their updated brothers to come out later this month and Q1 2016. Anyhow I still fault Intel for calling and selling something called i7 that's way more expensive and adds very little. I do mind PCS sells them a little too but then it's all too logical they just follow the newest line-up no questions asked. I'm more thankful they already offer the new 6th gen skylakes.
In the hour it took me to research the above information there really is no question left. Just a recommendation. Don't buy the i7-6500U, it isn't worth the extra money at all. Now here comes the tricky second bit, maybe don't buy any of the current ix-6xxxU-series skylakes. This depends on Intel's ability to again be truthful and secondly keep their website up to date. If you look at their specsheets you can see they recommend the next batch of skylake's (i5-6300U and i7-6600U) to be exactly the same price as the two named here, except better. Yes, that's right. In three months there will be two cpu's that surpass these (are faster) and Intel is recommending they cost the same. So unless you can't wait three months, Intel is lying, or actual sellers like PCS decide to just make these new CPU's a lot more expensive, there is no reason to buy the current mobile intel cpu's.
I hate to hurt PCS business. Maybe PCS can already confirm the new i5-6300U will be more expensive for sure meaning there is no point in waiting. But right now it looks like anyone considering either of these two processors is better off waiting until january.
My information comes from the Intel specsheets for the above named CPU's and the compact SKU detail sheet for 15W processors.