I don't think anyone questions that, do they? But the thing is though that Haswell and Broadwell performance also benefits from fast memory. So what this tells us is that a lot of the (still relatively small) performance increase we're seeing with Skylake is due to faster memory often being used in the reviews, compared to for Haswell and Broadwell. I.e. it's not due to the Skylake CPU itself.For those that still don't believe Skylake benefits from fast memory:
I don't think anyone questions that, do they? But the thing is though that Haswell and Broadwell performance also benefits from fast memory. So what this tells us is that a lot of the performance increase we're seeing with Skylake is due to faster memory often being used in the reviews (i.e. it's not due to the CPU itself).
I don't think anyone questions that, do they? But the thing is though that Haswell and Broadwell performance also benefits from fast memory. So what this tells us is that a lot of the (still relatively small) performance increase we're seeing with Skylake is due to faster memory often being used in the reviews (i.e. it's not due to the CPU itself).
I've been wondering about the Skylake Core-M processors. Let's say you wanted to play older computer games, and you a tablet with the m3 processor, what would that be equal to in terms of gaming desktops ?
Maybe a desktop from around 2007 ? (core 2 duo, GeForce 8-series)
Eurogamer's Core i3 6100 Review
Lots of interesting stuff.
For those that still don't believe Skylake benefits from fast memory:
The Ryse results are particularly interesting. Haswell Core i3 manages 88.7 FPS with DDR3-2133 while Skylake Core i3 58.5 FPS with DDR4-2133. Once they used DDR4-2666, Skylake Core i3 delivered 103.2 FPS.
Also generally Skylake benefited more from 25% higher clocked memory (2666 vs 2133) than Haswell with 33.3% higher clocked memory (2133 vs 1600).
The IPC gain is even more relevant here than what we saw with the first quad-core models:
CPU does matter:
www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review
But then you're comparing the just released Skylake CPU to a much cheaper 3 year old FX CPU. Not completely fair to be honest.The Core i3 gains are >20%, enough to put this small dual-core chip ahead of FX6300 and even FX8350 (power hog) in most titles.
Yup, on that we agree.Zen can't come soon enough.
But isn't it true, that Intel considers any DDR4 higher than 2133 to be memory overclocking, and thus requires a Z170 chipset board to implement that, even if you only have a locked i3 CPU?
But then you're comparing the just released Skylake CPU to a much cheaper 3 year old FX CPU. Not completely fair to be honest.
That specific Benchmark should be flawed somehow. Its theorically impossible, since the best you can hope for is linear increases. You can't pull out nearly twice more performance with a 25% Frequency increase (Which is only reflected as pure Memory Bandwidth since the higher Timmings offsets some of that Frequency increase, even if actual Memory Latency is overally lower).The Ryse results are particularly interesting. Haswell Core i3 manages 88.7 FPS with DDR3-2133 while Skylake Core i3 58.5 FPS with DDR4-2133. Once they used DDR4-2666, Skylake Core i3 delivered 103.2 FPS.
Totally fair. That's what's in the market right now and that's what buyers have to choose from.
Ok, so you're saying that BMW is a crappy car because Ferrari is faster (just picked speed as one aspect to prove the point)? Price does not matter at all when doing fair comparisons?
Intel chips are faster, more power efficient, come on much more modern and feature-filled platforms, etc. and are priced quite reasonably.
I can think of very few reasons to build a new AMD desktop today.
Probably, but it's not like Z170 boards are breaking the bank... My 6600K system has a Z170 board that I paid $130 for
But isn't it true, that Intel considers any DDR4 higher than 2133 to be memory overclocking, and thus requires a Z170 chipset board to implement that, even if you only have a locked i3 CPU?
But H110 boards start at $55. If you're just planning on purchasing a locked i3 Skylake CPU for $110-120, and don't plan on using any advanced features of Z170, like x4 M.2 slots or SATAe, then that's still a pretty big added expense to bump up to a Z170 for a locked CPU.
Edit: The cynical among us, might think that Intel was intentionally crippling their CPUs on their lower chipsets. Not really much different, than limiting the usable L3 cache on SKL to 2MB, unless you were using a Z170 chipset. Only much less obvious.
Not true. the IMC supports up to 4133Mhz and memory modules up to 4000Mhz so far is validated.
2133Mhz is because nothing but 2133 chips existed for broad validation. Today its 2400mhz.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...emory-for-intel-core-processors-datasheet.pdf
Then you're probably going to want to go with lower-cost RAM, no? In that case, wouldn't overclocking your RAM be kind of a moot point?
Effective product segmentation is part of a good business strategy and Intel has the segmentation thing down pretty well.
Except... Intel has gone further. They sell both X and Y, and even though product X lists certain specifications, in order to actually USE those features, you have to buy version Y-expensive. If you go for Y-cheaper, X is crippled.
Intel is very cleverly double-charging their customers, for the SAME features.
It's just good business and it's what happens when the industry is in decline and Intel is trying to wring as much profit out of customers as possible. Intel probably wouldn't be this aggressively segmenting its product lines if the PC market were actuallyrobustcompetitive.
So, you are stating, that DDR4 DIMMs up to 4133 are supported, on ALL of Intel's SKL PCH chipsets? Because that's not how it was in the past, with SB, IB, and HSW.
Edit: According to ark.intel.com, comparing all of the desktop 6-gen Core i3 CPUs, they only support DDR4-1866/2133.