Intel Skylake Launch Schedule Surfaces
Click here to post a comment for Intel Skylake Launch Schedule Surfaces on our message forum
Aoyagi
Right on time to kill Zen if it even manages to deliver, huh?
Undying
Saving up for Skylake. Finally upgrading my Sandy i think... 🙂
Anyway, still dont understand why Broadwell exists when Skylake is this close.
Fox2232
This intel's generation does not matter. Its launch does not matter. It is not upgrade worth purchasing to anyone who has decent 4 years old CPU.
6-cored i5 or better luck next time.
Adil0n
Totally agree, at least that’s what I intend to do 🙂 wait and see how everything folds
slyphnier
is it worth upgrade over sandy to skylake ?
i mean price/performance ratio, with still high price DDR4
i myself think wait for skylake-e for upgrade
Noisiv
problem being Zen is still far down the road, and we can only speculate on it's performance relative to Intel
AMD needs sleepy, disinterested Intel for Zen to work
if Skylake or Cannonlake turn out to be anything more than just very modest upgrades, it's going to be Buldozer all over again
Fox2232
Not really. Next year intel comes with 6-core i5 or I say: "GTFO" because Gaming will be about 6+ full threads and HT does not cut it good enough (based on tests).
Optimally 8 full threads.
Even Excavator with its low power/ OK performance lithography would be good 8-xore FX chip as its efficiency per module touches steamroller at 25W per module. (8 cores = 4 modules => 100W on CPU cores + logic; It may do at 115W as well as bulldozer-FX does with 225W)
So even if AMD brings only 20% improved IPC over excavator (which I think they can easily do just by move from CMT to SMT and little work on memory controller) it will be very good 8-core CPU.
Bulldozer failure was not in total performance, but in fact that 4 core i5 IPC was like 60~70% higher. Therefore unless intel can make same IPC jump again they have to bring 6-cores to i5.
And here it is clear that AMD has a lot of space to improve, but how much space there is left for intel?
Reardan
You guys are making an awful lot of declarative statements without knowing how Skylake or Zen are going to perform.
Fox2232
You do not need to know exact performance at all. You only need to know what will market need.
Total performance of FX-8350 is 30% higher than my i5-2500k provides (at same price).
Next gen games (DX12/Vulkan) will use 6~8 cores that means those FX CPU's will finally show some teeth after years.
Since FX-8350 AMD increased IPC about same as intel. Now they move from CMT to SMT, that is nearly free gain. And then they will still have some headroom (to catch on intel's IPC).
So even if AMD an intel do from that time same IPC improvement (and intel keeps same advantage) 4 core intel will do in games worse than 8 core AMD because there will be use for those cores.
I have maybe another 6 months where new games will be better on my CPU than on AMD's. So for me it was very good choice those years ago.
But next year there will be reason to upgrade. Either intel brings decently priced 6-core or AMD's 8-core gets all sales.
Noisiv
That doesn't bother them ONE BIT. Look ^^
:D
Reardan
DX12 is meaningless because an 8 core AMD processor isn't going to suddenly become a 500fps monster. Read here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm/4
In a demo specifically designed to maximize the number of draw calls, a dual core i3 was sufficient. So that's out.
Fox2232
If you have seen those numbers and consider them enough, then you do not need that graphics card, you could get there with gtx680 and i3 easily.
But reality vs starswarm bench are quite different stories.
Reardan
Everything in this quote has no meaning.
Undying
Reality is that fx 8350 at 4ghz cant even beat i5 2500k at 3.3ghz.
FX's wont be magically faster. It is what it is and it will stay there.
Fox2232
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/382806?baseline=2612661
Looking at sub tests and where 2500k @4.5GHz has upper hand... those things really matters not.
If you take best 2500k score which is around 5.2GHz vs this FX-8350 which is not best score, then i5 still loses in total performance. And then you can look again at subtest and think about which of them are used most of time and which are in use maybe 25 minutes per month.
Reardan
What you've linked here shows a 3.3ghz 5 year old Intel processor against a 2.5 year old, 4.6ghz AMD one and the Intel still wins or ties in everything that isn't purely integer and synthetic.
No, it doesn't lose in total performance, unless your definition of "total performance" is a purely integer based synthetic benchmark. Then yeah, obviously, it's got 8 full integer cores. Unfortunately for you those aren't really that useful without the rest of the core, in real life.
I think it's telling that you chose to compare the two processors in the best case for the AMD one and compared it to a CPU made in 2010.
Fox2232
My dear, I tend to link benches of my own system, running i5-2500k at 4.5 GHz and I accidentally happen to be on W10. Stock 3.3GHz i5 scores 8800points while OCed FX 8-core chips do around 16000.
And to put you into perspective:
You believe that 3.3GHz 4 cored i5 is quite equal (or even stronger since: "No, it doesn't lose in total performance") to 8-core AMD's @4.6GHz.
That would require intel to have 2.7x higher IPC&FP than AMD.
Reardan
Spare me.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/455590
-Tj-
Speaking of AMD,
Excavator was already 20-30% faster vs original Bulldozer core (single core perf.), Zen is adding at least another 50%, also AVX2 512bit, DDR4, wider pipeline, all just like Skylake & CannonLake.
I think this Zen will be very capable, almost dare to say better then Skylake. These 8 modules will actually be 8 not 4 x2 like by Bulldozer core..
[spoiler]
http://s13.postimg.org/hxwqx8h7r/excavator.png
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture
http://s2.postimg.org/xxl9zilg9/zen.jpg
http://wcc ftech.com/amd-zen-cpu-core-block/
[/spoiler]
Fox2232
You clearly do not know that their bench has trouble reading clocks and mostly reports base clocks on windows.
Stock i5-4670k (3.4GHz) does around 10000-11000 based on memory speed.
You want to back absolutely ridiculous argument in which clock to clock intel has 2.8x higher performance.
Because your statement implies that 4.6GHz with 8 cores is equal to 3.3GHz with 4 cores:
4.6 * 8 = 3.3 * 4 * x
x = 4.6/3.3 * 8/4
x = 2.788
If that was true then half of i3 (1c/2t) would be around equal to 4 cored FX chip since HT does add around 1/3rd of performance in average.
And in your delusion regular i3 (2c/4t) would battle with FX-8350, because 2 full i3 cores would be equal to 5.6 AMD's and 2x HT cores would add around 2 AMD's ~= 7.6 AMD cores in mere i3.
Let it sink for a moment, then take a deep breath and laugh at yourself.
