CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 950 vs 6700K among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.2

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 6700K 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 6700K  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K

Intel Core i7 6700K

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 950

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 950

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 5,143 vs 80.5 Around 64x better 3DMark06 CPU score
Higher Maximum operating temperature 67.9 °C vs 64 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of Intel Core i7 6700K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 6700K

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.06 GHz More than 30% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz vs 3.33 GHz More than 25% higher turbo clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 73.94W vs 105.63W 30% lower typical power consumption
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,349 vs 1,324 More than 75% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better PassMark score 11,109 vs 5,595 Around 2x better PassMark score
Newer Jul, 2015 vs Jun, 2009 Release date over 6 years later
Better performance per dollar 0.91 pt/$ vs 0.66 pt/$ More than 35% better performance per dollar
Better performance per watt 3.49 pt/W vs 1.55 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz vs 4.25 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.92 $/year vs 31.32 $/year 30% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 79.72 $/year vs 113.88 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.77 GHz vs 4.2 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 950 vs 6700K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 950
8,385
Core i7 6700K
17,583

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 950
137,000 MB/s
Core i7 6700K
6,010 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 950
8,066
Core i7 6700K
17,169

GeekBench

Core i7 950
9,995
Core i7 6700K
17,169

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Core i7 950
18,384
Core i7 6700K
36,746

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 950
5,595
Core i7 6700K
11,109

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 950  vs
6700K 
Clock speed 3.06 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.33 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Is unlocked No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 91W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 21.92 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 79.72 $/year
Performance per watt 1.55 pt/W 3.49 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 73.94W

bus

Architecture QPI FSB
Number of links 1 0
Transfer rate 4,800 MT/s 8,000 MT/s

details

Core i7 950  vs
6700K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.9°C Unknown - 64°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.25 GHz 4.61 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.2 GHz 4.77 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.25 GHz 4.61 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 530
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,150 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 25,599.99 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 24,576 MB 65,536 MB
Intel Core i7 950
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 6700K
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 15 comments.
I've been rocking my 950 for almost 6 years, also like the sound of triple channel memory over dual channel. Honestly, the only reason to upgrade is if this chip finally burns out, or I plan on trying to compile four *.mkv movies with the convertx program quicker, or I'm looking to save $10 on my electric bill. I'm already getting 60 fps on newer games with my evga ftw 970 gtx on my 60", and normally I upgrade everything every 2 years, but there is nothing out on the market that requires any of this newer generation stuff, and the only thing I touched recently was my graphics card.
Can get a 950 on ebay for about $60, so very good price point.
Thanks for your reply! I'm planning on playing most things with Ultra settings, and messing with DSR, but for the time being I will be running on a 1080p monitor. Don't get me wrong, I want to eventually upgrade CPU/Mobo and RAM, but just feel like it is sort of a waste until I can conclusively prove that my 950 cannot keep up with the 980ti in realistic gaming environment. I'll probably also pickup a 27" 144hz monitor in the next year or so, but am in no rush.
That's the thread I referred to http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2333722/960-ghz-bloomfield-quad-core-bottleneck-gtx-980.html 960 is essentially a higher clocked 950. Although I tend to play GPU intensive games (First person, third person, MMOs...) Real Time strategy games... (Men of War, R.u.s.e.... don't know much about more of 'em) are much more CPU intensive... I wouldn't worry to much tho. i7 quad core at 3.2ghz with HT. is usually more than enough. What resolution are you planning to game on?
Yes, the thing is with another CPU you'd have to change the motherboard and probably more. Honestly yes the 6700k is twice as fast but is it needed yet? No. I overclocked my 950 to 3.6 ghz and runs like a charm on the stock fan. I had a GTS 450 with my 950 and it was still working great, the thing is I wanted to switch to 2k resolution. (From 1680x1050) Intel + Nvidia = Magic combo <3 My GTS 450 is still working and kicking ass, plugged in with a FX-6300 for my girlfriend and the only problem is the FX-6300 lol... whatever AMD... never cutted it for me.
What stats or benchmarking tools are you using to prove this? I just ordered a 980ti (EVGA AC2+), and will be slotting it into my 950 rig, and want to make sure I'm not CPU bottlenecked out of the gate.
I was wondering about this. I've had my dutiful i7 950 since 2010, and just ordered a GTX 980ti to replace my OG GTX 570 (still performing like a champ as well). I was curious if I would become CPU bound with the 980ti. I wouldn't mind the upgrade to 4970k or 6700k, but seems pointless if there is no substantive gains. When I do upgrade, I'd like to future-proof again for ~5 years if possible.
for gaming it is next to useless to upgrade, I have a i5-4690k and will only upgrade when games start using more cores, any other reason would be useless to me
My 950 is mounted with a GTX 980 ti and I'm still getting a GPU bottleneck before I get a CPU bottleneck in 4k!! i7 950 is the best buy I've done since 2009 !!!
Same here! My I7 950 still kicks ass and takes name all day, I could plug in another GTX 980 ti in SLI and my 950 would still handle it!
950 < 6700K <3
Are you serious? It's (the 6700k) twice as fast in all the real world benches. Aside from sheer processing power you also get a much cooler running chip and a new platform that is a major upgrade to X58 in every way. I get that it may not be worth it to you but it's definitely an upgrade to anyone in your shoes that actually want an upgrade.
The 950 is still a beast
too close to call a winner? the 6700k kills the 950
Still no reason to change my 950
comments powered by Disqus