coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 6,403
- 12,864
- 136
And Atari2600 was talking about the CPU, not the platformAs it's the same die as KBL, yeah. But I was talking about the platform, not the CPU.
And Atari2600 was talking about the CPU, not the platformAs it's the same die as KBL, yeah. But I was talking about the platform, not the CPU.
And Atari2600 was talking about the CPU, not the platform
So to get a 100 MHz boost in clocks (along with a 20W "boost" in power consumption), an entirely new motherboard is required.
Isn't KBL-X dual channel?
I don't get it. KBL-X is the same die as KBL and yet they are for completely different sockets and platforms... How is this possible ?As it's the same die as KBL, yeah. But I was talking about the platform, not the CPU.
I really hope I'll get little sleep, I'm a big fan of sane competition and I'm tired with Intel behavior.
But do you really think AMD or Apple will come with a chip with better single thread performance than Intel within 2 or 3 years? I don't.
I don't get it. KBL-X is the same die as KBL and yet they are for completely different sockets and platforms... How is this possible ?
The reason is the migration to the new quad-channel platform ... and that's about it!
Well,at ISO power Apple is thouroughly beating Intel already.Since most of the Apple profits comes from different market segment,we will probably never see comparison at high TDP.I really hope I'll get little sleep, I'm a big fan of sane competition and I'm tired with Intel behavior.
But do you really think AMD or Apple will come with a chip with better single thread performance than Intel within 2 or 3 years? I don't.
The answer is obvious: Intel IPC already is quite high and their frequency already is quite high. AMD was starting from a sh*tty CPU so gaining a lot of IPC was trivial. Apply isn't targeting >4 GHz (yet) so gaining IPC is easier.
Wake me when either AMD or Apple has the edge on single thread performance over Intel.
"entry level" - don't see a reason but OK,TBH, it also makes no sense to me ... maybe Intel is looking for an "entry level" solution to better counter Ryzen in specs?
No idea, really ...
"entry level" - don't see a reason but OK
Very interesting. Thanks.
I'm assuming this is accomplished by software/microcode, correct? Or is there a hardware stepping difference too?
About the Italian; technically I don't speak Italian, but I have a good working knowledge of Latin, so I think I got the larger picture...
Gaining IPC in a mobile platform with a small TDP of 5W shared with the CPU+GPU+plus other chips easy ? Tell that to intel haha
Just checking some Geekbench results of the 7700k I see that Apple has already beaten intel in IPC.
Did I say something wrong? Gaining IPC without increasing power consumption or area is not easy ( things that are very important on a mobile SOC ).Performance is clock speed * IPC. Performance per watt is (clock speed*IPC)/power consumption.
Where did I say it's easy? I just said AMD and Apple are not able to beat Intel at ST performance at the moment and that I don't expect them to achieve that within 2 or 3 years.Gaining IPC in a mobile platform with a small TDP of 5W shared with the CPU+GPU+plus other chips easy ? Tell that to intel haha
Yes, but show me an Apple chip that beats a 7700K at Geekbench...Just checking some Geekbench results of the 7700k I see that Apple has already beaten intel in IPC.
Where did I say it's easy? I just said AMD and Apple are not able to beat Intel at ST performance at the moment and that I don't expect them to achieve that within 2 or 3 years.
ST Performance is clocks * IPC. So, while A10 is faster per clock, it has quite a road to go clock-wise.I believe A10 around 10% faster, clock for clock.
At the 2011 rates of improvement in desktop space, we would have 50% faster CPUs now. Or something.At the current rates of improvement, within 3 years iphones will outperform desktop i7s on most single threaded benchmarks.
Where did I say it's easy? I just said AMD and Apple are not able to beat Intel at ST performance at the moment and that I don't expect them to achieve that within 2 or 3 years.
What some people fail to see is that what Intel has been able to achieve also really is impressive. And that doesn't mean that what Apple and AMD are able to achieve isn't impressive.
Yes, but show me an Apple chip that beats a 7700K at Geekbench...
It's probably pretty simple. KL-X has nothing at all to do with combating RyZen, and it will be released when it was supposed to be released. Most of us are probably connecting some things which actually aren't connected.I fail to understand how kaby lake x is effective if it's in a more expensive platform and still with 4 cores....
I think you should also consider the yield issue. The new SKU's surely are a response to Ryzen. However, Intel cannot churn out infinite numbers of these as surely only a small minority of all chips will qualify. I believe the reason to release the new SKU's to LGA2066 is that there will be less demand for the chip on that platform. Intel might not be able to keep up with demand if it releases the chips to LGA1151.I think that what is happening here is that Intel didn't expect AMD to compete, so they scheduled the single best 4c/8t you can buy in the cashgrab platform (errr, socket 2066). So people in the mainstream is happy that their 7700k is the single best processor for lga1151, and if you want to go even beyond you could go with the 7740k on lga2066 without conflicting pricepoints and juxtapositions.
Now that AMD is releasing their Ryzen skus, Intel might be wanting those processors would have been LGA1151 all along. Now releasing a faster 7700K would invalidate the kaby lake X counter part, and LGA2066 will have too much of a markup in platform price to compete straight on with ryzen (the lowest price for a 2011-3 after years of being launch is the same price your usual AM3+ high end prices shipped with when Piledriver was still competitive years ago.
That difference in platform price can't be ignored, specially if you can OC on B350. This is 100 bucks motherboard territory we are talking about aprox. You really have to dig in there to find a 150-160 bucks 2011-3 board and this accounting the platform is getting kind of dated by intel standards. Even without OC, A320 boards with sufficient power delivery could be have had for less and let XFR guide you through good single threaded performance so minimal compromises there.
Intel will for sure keep the 4c/8t single threaded performance lead. But everything else besides that 2c/4t pentium is probably boned, price to performance wise.
Then again, we have to wait and see how the "b-but intel is better!!" effect takes place. Mindshare plays a big role as we can see from Nvidia vs AMD.
Duno, maybe they will try to position the LGA2066 against Ryzen and not LGA1151?
If you look at the Intel internal QA about Ryzen, it could make sense:
I'm only speculating here.