Amd nvidia merger would have been far better for the industry. With jhh as ceo. He and nvidia got all that amd didnt have.
Market driven. Innovative from a consumer perspective. Marketing, pr technical marketing, all in spades. And they have always had since tnt. Besides jhh is energetic and knows his tech. Passion for tech and what you could do with it. Like steve jobs.
There was no limit on how Skylake performed.... until release.
Most important architecture in a decade and what not.
Skylake is the best there is. The product you champion is...unknown at best
Duh... why would they release a new CPU generation if it's not better than the previous one? That goes without saying.
So that what of course not what Intel meant. They meant it was the most important improvement over the predecessor in a decade. Which it certainly turned out not to be when released.
Fjodor2001 said:So that what of course not what Intel meant. They meant it was the most important improvement over the predecessor in a decade. Which it certainly turned out not to be when released.
Intel has hailed Skylake as its most important chip architecture in a decade and now says that it will be used in mainstream Core i3, i5 and i7 PC processors as well as Xeon server chips.
That's just your opinion. SKL brought a lot of really cool stuff...major advancement in mobile GPU perf, much more robust media encode/decode, first time addition of ISP into a Core product, addition of tablet-class I/Os into the PCH to enable lower cost 2-in-1 systems, sensor hub also integrated into the PCH, etc.
SKL was a very significant advancement and just because the advancements aren't in areas that YOU deem important doesn't mean that they weren't significant.
And I dont think it was intel that said Skylake was going to be a conroe like improvement. If I recall correctly, that was some speculation from the ever reliable WCCF Tech. And you are right. It does go both ways. Some of those most critical of everything intel does are the first to tout how great "the next great thing" from AMD is going to be.
That's just your opinion. SKL brought a lot of really cool stuff...major advancement in mobile GPU perf, much more robust media encode/decode, first time addition of ISP into a Core product, addition of tablet-class I/Os into the PCH to enable lower cost 2-in-1 systems, sensor hub also integrated into the PCH, etc.
SKL was a very significant advancement and just because the advancements aren't in areas that YOU deem important doesn't mean that they weren't significant.
Fjodor2001 isn't the only one who is disappointed in Skylake's overall performance:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...obbing-us-of-the-performance-king-we-deserve/
I mean, sorry, but the guy on Ars is correct. The i7-5775c outperforms the 6700k at lower clockspeeds in enough applications to raise some eyebrows. Going on about platform features for LGA1151 really doesn't cover up any of that.
Skylake has some cool stuff, and the best is the bclk overclocking. If they can nail down the AVX/AVX2 issues during bclk overclocks and fix the drivers so that the iGPUs can work again, it'll be even better. But those who had a 4790k have very little reason to take Skylake seriously. Those who can manage 4.4-4.5 GHz with the 5775c have even less reason. Even 4770k owners who managed 4.4 GHz or higher don't have much to look forward to on LGA1151.
Remember all the hype about Skylake being the most significant architectural change since the jump from Presler/Cedar Mill to Conroe? It wasn't. The thing that defined the change from Netburst to Conroe was performance. Big performance. Skylake can't boast that, especially when it gets beaten up by a 3.3 Ghz Broadwell on an unfortunately large number of benchmarks.
It doesn't mean Skylake is bad, per se, but it does mean that people who are trying to stump for Skylake should be careful about who and what they insult. Double standards/hypocrisy, and all that.
5775c has edram. Doesn't this bode very well for Skylake with edram?
Which I never said either. I said Intel claimed it was the most important architecture in a decade, I did not say or claim that means the biggest biggest performance improvement.Most important architecture isn't the same as biggest performance improvement.
You can ramble all day about what changes they made in Skylake. What matters is the end result of all that; performance improvements, battery life, and so on. And if you look on that, there is no way it should be considered the most important architecture in a decade. More important than Conroe? More important than Sandy Bridge? Do you think the majority of users agree on that? Really... !?That's just your opinion. SKL brought a lot of really cool stuff...major advancement in mobile GPU perf, much more robust media encode/decode, first time addition of ISP into a Core product, addition of tablet-class I/Os into the PCH to enable lower cost 2-in-1 systems, sensor hub also integrated into the PCH, etc.
SKL was a very significant advancement and just because the advancements aren't in areas that YOU deem important doesn't mean that they weren't significant.
And, again, we never really did establish that Intel actually said that SKL was the biggest advancement in a decade. Pretty sure where we landed on that was that it was a misquote by a journalist.
Keep spinning, though, and keep hoping for Big Bad Chipzilla to to get taken down. My advice though would be to pin your hopes on either Apple or Qualcomm to do this.
Which I never said either. I said Intel claimed it was the most important architecture in a decade, I did not say or claim that means the biggest biggest performance improvement.
But unfortunately Skylake is neither anyway.
Aracnothronic said:That's just your opinion. SKL brought a lot of really cool stuff...major advancement in mobile GPU perf, much more robust media encode/decode, first time addition of ISP into a Core product, addition of tablet-class I/Os into the PCH to enable lower cost 2-in-1 systems, sensor hub also integrated into the PCH, etc.
SKL was a very significant advancement and just because the advancements aren't in areas that YOU deem important doesn't mean that they weren't significant.
Exactly. But "a significant advancement" is vastly different than "the most important architecture in a decade", isn't it? From what you write now, I get the impression that you even seem to think that Haswell/Broadwell was more important than Skylake.Yes, it was a very significant advancement in most areas, especially when it comes to mobile. It's hard to deliver the biggest performance increase in a decade when you have top notch architectures like Haswell/Broadwell.
AMD has said they'll receive money from it around Q2. Source (1st pdf from right, IIRC) -Does anyone know if the deal for selling their back end has been consummated and if AMD has received the cash already? That would be a big help to AMD that's for sure.
Exactly. But "a significant advancement" is vastly different than "the most important architecture in a decade", isn't it? From what you write now, I get the impression that you even seem to think that Haswell/Broadwell was more important than Skylake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_%28microarchitecture%29
"Intel states that Skylake is its "most significant processor" for a decade"
Check the Wikipedia references for the quote.So no source for Intel's correct quote?
Fjodor2001 isn't the only one who is disappointed in Skylake's overall performance:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...obbing-us-of-the-performance-king-we-deserve/
I mean, sorry, but the guy on Ars is correct. The i7-5775c outperforms the 6700k at lower clockspeeds in enough applications to raise some eyebrows. Going on about platform features for LGA1151 really doesn't cover up any of that.
Skylake has some cool stuff, and the best is the bclk overclocking. If they can nail down the AVX/AVX2 issues during bclk overclocks and fix the drivers so that the iGPUs can work again, it'll be even better. But those who had a 4790k have very little reason to take Skylake seriously. Those who can manage 4.4-4.5 GHz with the 5775c have even less reason. Even 4770k owners who managed 4.4 GHz or higher don't have much to look forward to on LGA1151.
Remember all the hype about Skylake being the most significant architectural change since the jump from Presler/Cedar Mill to Conroe? It wasn't. The thing that defined the change from Netburst to Conroe was performance. Big performance. Skylake can't boast that, especially when it gets beaten up by a 3.3 Ghz Broadwell on an unfortunately large number of benchmarks.
It doesn't mean Skylake is bad, per se, but it does mean that people who are trying to stump for Skylake should be careful about who and what they insult. Double standards/hypocrisy, and all that.
Check the Wikipedia references for the quote.
frozentundra123456 said:I guess if one wants to find something to criticize, they can find an article to support it. The article basically is a complaint that intel does not include e-dram on skylake. But what happened with BW-C? It was roundly criticized for being too expensive and the iris pro being useless because the cpu would almost always be used with a discrete card. So intel gets criticized either way. And the author of that article makes it sound like a huge performance loss without e-dram, while it was what, 5 to 10% in some apps and games. (Hard to tell really because there was no BW without e-dram for direct comparison). And I think it has turned out that Skylake with fast ram is at least as fast or faster than BW-E in pretty much every game.