Is the m7-6Y75 really an upgrade over the M-5Y71 ?

So if the skylake is the replacement for broadwell, why does it seem like the M7-6Y75 is not an upgrade over the M-5Y71? I just read a CNET article ( http://www.cnet.com/products/hp-spectre-x2-2015/2/) and it provided some benchmarks comparing the M7 to other tablet CPUs and to me it seems that there is no performance increase. The Spectre x2 has the M7 and the T300 Chi has the M-5Y71.

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS5 IMAGE-PROCESSING TEST
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
213
HP Envy 13
227
Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi
238 (M-5Y71)
HP Spectre x2
246 (M7-6y75)
Apple MacBook
307
NOTE:
Smaller numbers indicate better performance (in seconds)
APPLE ITUNES ENCODING TEST
Microsoft Surface Pro 4
98
HP Envy 13
105
Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi
109
HP Spectre x2
114
Apple MacBook
130
NOTE:
Smaller numbers indicate better performance (in seconds)

Does anyone have any links to benchmarks that actually show that the M7 is an upgrade (besides battery usage) over the M-5Y71? In the link http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M7-6Y75-vs-Intel-Core-M-5Y71 I do see that the M7 has some specs that suggest it's better, but I care more about real world application performance.

 

See comparison here: http://ark.intel.com/compare/84672,88199

Only difference I see is 200MHz faster at boost, which it likely won't be able to maintain anyhow, and 100MHz faster iGPU which is marginal anyhow for gaming.

 

If there is any, it is not significant to lose sleep over.

 

See:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2465&cmp[]=2641

Single thread performance is effectively the same. Multithread performance is ~13% faster.

Duh...! Of course it's worth it (yeah; even with it's higher, but still reasonable, TDP).

This is equivalent of getting a two+ generation newer processor (performance-wise).

Does the specific tests done with the HP Spectre 'prove' this to be wrong? No.

What it proves to me is to avoid buying the HP Spectre. Seems like the new SoC was just dropped into the 'designed for' M-5Y71 chassis.

Even if the multithread performance was faster by only 3% - it would still be worth buying (in a properly designed chassis). Why? Because it will have some/all the improvements from the past year of experience Intel has learned on building these chips (as seen in the 39% improvement in battery life, for example).

 

That is assuming that the laptop hasn't locked down the TDP to something lower (which happens a lot) and assuming it doesn't thermal throttle. Even then it's 13% improvement in that ONE specific benchmark and at full load. For daily tasks? Meh. You will see maybe 1.3% improvement if that.

 

Re: TDP, yeah. As I kind of hinted in my post already.

Also agree with the specific benchmark remark too. But in general, as time passes the O/S, the programs you use or the workflows you develop over that timeframe will expand to put that difference into practical/actual use.

I did mention that it would be worth it at only 3% plus other ancillary benefits.

Either way, 1.3% plus 40% better battery life, plus any other bonuses/feuatures and improvements a newer edition chip and chipset offers is still an improvement. At the same price or even 10% (if I really, really couldn't wait and had to buy it 'right now'...) is still a sound investment to me.

Buy 'old' hardware at effectively 'new' prices? Makes no sense whatsoever.