How much of an upgrade would a 6200U be over a 3337U?

The screen on this Ivy Bridge system has delaminated so I have non-performance incentives to upgrade, but I'm also curious about how much of a performance improvement such an upgrade would bring, assuming RAM (8 GB) and SSD (SATA 6 Gbps) are comparable between the systems.

 

I dont see that much performance difference coming out of it.

 

See:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2556&cmp[]=1850

the 'raw' performance differences are shown in the link above.

Single threaded performance increases by ~17% and multithreaded performance increases by almost 22%.

I think that is a substantial (enough) improvement when you also consider that the TDP went down by a couple of watts too.

See:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/88193,72055


The capabilities of the much newer architecture are also improved too, especially on the igpu front (4K resolution) and DX12 hardware capable.

Anything later than SB was worth having 16GB of the fastest RAM you could afford (and be compatible too, of course). Limiting the Skylake platforms with only 8GB RAM is a crime, imo.

 

I've never really considered IGP gaming on an Ultrabook, TBH - my understanding is that CPU load + GPU load + 15W TDP = something's gotta give. Full 4K support does make it a bit more future proof in terms of hooking up to new monitors going forward though, I suppose.

...With the criminals being the OEMs who more often than not don't have CTO or SODIMM slots on Ultrabooks I suppose we have planned obsolescence to thank for that.

 

I've never really considered gaming, period.

But better igpu hardware will always be welcomed, especially at these low power levels vs. the performance offered (I haven't 'needed' a GPU for close to a decade...).

 

Hmm, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, something is always better than nothing, but on the other hand, that better IGP hardware comes at the expense of more cores and thus better CPU performance, with even the quad core dies being mostly taken up by the IGP nowadays.

 

More cores for most mobile work (at least that I do...) is not needed yet. But higher performance would be great for the i7 QC mobile variants, agreed.

But... a good enough gpu is needed to drive the screen and any discrete GPU would pull many more watts than what Intel is achieving right now for 'good enough' performance.

I see this situation as balanced as possible.

With 15W CPU's (including gpu tasks too...) giving much, much more performance than what 35W and higher CPU's offered just a few short years ago, this is still an overall win.

 

Going off on a bit of a tangent, if there was a laptop with a choice between the 28W i5-6267U with Iris graphics or the 25W i5-6442EQ with only HD 530, I would, without a doubt, choose the 6442EQ. Simply put, doubling core counts would enable me to do a lot more of the stuff that I currently have to send to my desktop PC, while having GT3e graphics wouldn't change my workflow at all.

Unfortunately, while there are quite a few laptops with the 6267U, there are none with the 6442EQ (or the i7-6822EQ for that matter).

I expect that Intel will eventually, with another die shrink or two, be able to pack 4 cores into a 15W package. But even when it happens, the resulting product will likely never make it into a notebook form factor.