Is 4790K or 6700K 65 watts or do they have GT3e? That is why the previous poster is saying it does not have low clocks, relative to the TDP and big igpu.
Nothing wrong with being well prepared. :biggrin:Why do you have 3 user accounts? Or are Dave2150, Dave5120, and Dave3000 all different people? Is this in case one gets banned for being too obnoxious on the CPU forums you already have a backup plan? :biggrin:
At these TDP levels, the iGPU is a relatively small part of power use. It's mostly the CPU. Also the advanced power management of these chips means you can put GT5e with 256 EUs and have 15W TDP(not that it will perform good). Anyway that's kind of off point.
We had 3.4GHz back in 2011. Would you say 3.3GHz in 2015 is high, regardless of TDP? Nope. "Low" is always relative. Of course its not low, but compared to the regular variants they are.
Sure it is. Compared to 4790K/6700K.
I think Cannonlake will have a staggered launch just like Broadwell and Skylake. Mainstream Desktops get Cannonlake at 65W, 95W for 6700K replacement with GT2, and Skylake GT4e @ 65W with low clocks. Of course, Cannonlake may be a firmly 2017 part and they won't have to do that.
Sure we do. It's quite obvious Broadwell-K/C(w/e its called) is THE graphics-oriented chip for this year. That means GT2 in Skylake is quite a bit lower performing than that. GT3e is about 60% faster than GT2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/6
Personally I think the clocks on 14nm are great compared to the FUD the 14 nm naysayers were spreading earlier.
What you said could well be. I dont really concern myself with that part of it, I only am interested in the final product. It is just that a few posters continually were predicting 14nm would never clock as high as 22nm, etc., etc., from the usual suspects who love to bash intel. I would definitely not deny 14nm was a troubled node, but it looks like we will finally get good products from it. OTOH, desktop chips were never officially announced for Broadwell anyway, so I dont really know what it means that they basically skipped to Skylake.
Where I am more disappointed is that 14nm atom was (still is pretty much) delayed. I finally got fed up waiting for cherry trail and just bought one of the cheap Bay Trail winbook tablets from Microcenter. I also would have liked to see more improvements is U and Y products as far as battery life and thermals (and being on time), but products using those chips are too expensive for my taste anyway. But this is where 14nm really hurt intel. They are so dominant in the laptop/desktop/server market they could afford delays. But in low power mobile, phones and tablets, they really needed a slam dunk to better compete with ARM, and to get the mobile products with a lower BOM to market. What they got unfortunately was a product that was late to the market, and only an incremental improvement when they needed a giant leap.
But what about Broadwell X99 server???
That is all tied to HEDT.
Intel went aggressive with the targets set for 14nm, and with that came a commensurately higher risk-profile. I agree with you that they needed 14nm to really enable themselves establishing at a few key customers and that clearly is not happening.
Will be interesting to see if 10nm is a repeat in risk-profile, or if they push it out (delay) to lower the risk profile in HVM.
Oh yeah, never mind me then, you make sense.
Intel went aggressive with the targets set for 14nm, and with that came a commensurately higher risk-profile. I agree with you that they needed 14nm to really enable themselves establishing at a few key customers and that clearly is not happening.
Will be interesting to see if 10nm is a repeat in risk-profile, or if they push it out (delay) to lower the risk profile in HVM.
If Intel had actually hit its target with Broxton, it would have been able to take serious advantage of the Qualcomm 20nm chip situation. 14nm leadership SoC + competent XMM 7260 modem? Could have been a winner.
Seems like Intel is missing market opportunities left and right. At least the new Broadwell Core Xeon-D SoCs look promising for micro-servers. (I'd love to see a mini-HEDT platform based on them as well, as cbn has suggested.)
Me too. I'm sure some people would be interested in an iGPU-less LGA1151 ~2.5GHz 8C/16T Skylake for the right price. Does anyone know Xeon-D's die size?
~160 mm^2 or around 3770k/4770k size.
I wonder if anyone knows the maximum number of cores LGA1151 can actually support?
I assume that the more cores on the CPU, the more pins required.
Or does LGA2011 need almost double the pins only to support quad channel memory and more PCI-E lanes?
So is Intel's Skylake competing against AMD's Zen??Or will they be competing against another Intel CPU??
So is Intel's Skylake competing against AMD's Zen??Or will they be competing against another Intel CPU??
Looks like they recognized that the Intel way with fewer faster cores and SMT is the way to go for desktops. Something tells me performance per core will become important again to some of the ''moar cores'' apologists.
Assuming H2-2016 launch it will most likely compete against a higher-clocked Skylake Refresh (LGA1151), Broadwell-E 6C/12T and 8C/16T (LGA2011, Skylake-E could arrive in late 2016 - perhaps a 10C/20T version?), Skylake-Y/Skylake-U mobile parts (possibly Cannonlake-Y/Cannonlake-U will be close to launch depending on 10nm rollout @ Q4-2016).
Also later in mid 2017 it will probably face Intel's 10nm Tock.
Looks like they recognized that the Intel way with fewer faster cores and SMT is the way to go for desktops. Something tells me performance per core will become important again to some of the ''moar cores'' apologists.
Assuming H2-2016 launch it will most likely compete against a higher-clocked Skylake Refresh (LGA1151), Broadwell-E 6C/12T and 8C/16T (LGA2011, Skylake-E could arrive in late 2016 - perhaps a 10C/20T version?), Skylake-Y/Skylake-U mobile parts (possibly Cannonlake-Y/Cannonlake-U will be close to launch depending on 10nm rollout @ Q4-2016).
Also later in mid 2017 it will probably face Intel's 10nm Tock.
Looks like they recognized that the Intel way with fewer faster cores and SMT is the way to go for desktops. Something tells me performance per core will become important again to some of the ''moar cores'' apologists.