While that was mentioned in the context of Asus' non-K OC, I wonder if that applies to ASRock, and indeed, all non-K OC? If so, I'm actually relieved that I didn't get an i3, because it would have been gimped down because of that mis-feature.
While that was mentioned in the context of Asus' non-K OC, I wonder if that applies to ASRock, and indeed, all non-K OC? If so, I'm actually relieved that I didn't get an i3, because it would have been gimped down because of that mis-feature.AVX instructions have very low performance
We will soon see if AtenRa's prediction that i5k sales will plummet is true or not Will keep a close eye on Intel's reported desktop CPU ASPs.
Note that these are in fact BETA versions of the BIOS and there is thus a long list of issues and warnings: no IGPU, No dynamic change of CPU frequency, No C-states, No Turbo Mode, CPU temperature reading is incorrect, AVX instructions have very low performance and Windows XP ACPI not supported.
We will soon see if AtenRa's prediction that i5k sales will plummet is true or not Will keep a close eye on Intel's reported desktop CPU ASPs.
I believe Intel will not have any problem to allow this only on the very expensive Z170 motherboard models.
This way only overclockers will bother to OC a Pentium or Core i3/5 and normal users will opt for a cheaper motherboard to pair it with a locked Core i5 or even Core i7.
If you need a $150-200+ motherboard to just OC a $70 CPU then for the same price most users will go for a $50 motherboard + $190-200 Core i5.
I mostly agree with your assessment, but I wouldn't say that "nobody" recommended the i3 over the G3258. Some people on this forum did, after some reviews came out showing the poor minimum frame-rate and stuttering issues that the G3258 had with some of the more recent modern AAA games that really wanted quad-core CPUs. Not to mention the few games that were initially released that wouldn't even start up on a dual-core.In 2011 the best selling Intel CPU was the Core i5 2500K, the highest margin Core i5. In 2016 it will be the Core i5 6400, the lowest margin Core i5. It will also destroy the Core i3 sales because people will choose only two CPUs.
1. Pentium G4400 ($65) OCed to 4.4GHz + H110
2. Core i5 6400 ($190) OCed to 4.4GHz + H110
Nobody was recommending Haswell Core i3 over the Pentium G3258 or entry Core i5s in 2014/5. Same will happen in 2016 if H110 will receive an OC bios.
I mostly agree with your assessment, but I wouldn't say that "nobody" recommended the i3 over the G3258. Some people on this forum did, after some reviews came out showing the poor minimum frame-rate and stuttering issues that the G3258 had with some of the more recent modern AAA games that really wanted quad-core CPUs. Not to mention the few games that were initially released that wouldn't even start up on a dual-core.
We had our doubts on the performance of the Surface Pro 4 Core i7 configuration considering the throttling issues found on the Surface Pro 3. Luckily, we can observe no major performance issues when under high loads. The tablet is able to maintain its maximum Turbo Boost of 3.2 GHz for both cores when under Prime95 stress and Unigine Heaven stress. The integrated GPU operates at a very steady 950 MHz under similar conditions. Throttling will occur when running both Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously.
I can tell you right now i would easily recommend a H110 + Core i5 6400 over Z170 + Core i3 6100 OC (for budget constrained users). Especially for gaming.
That's stupid.
Core i5 6400 on Z170 for overclocking. Recommending an H board is just plain dumb.
That's stupid.
Core i5 6400 on Z170 for overclocking. Recommending an H board is just plain dumb.
Some impressive performance numbers by Core i7-6650U in the Surface Pro 4 performance comparison by NotebookCheck (Core m3 vs Core i5 vs Core i7). I think eDRAM is definitely improving performance in some apps/benchmarks.
...
- iGPU
Bioshock Infinite
3DMark (2013)
It provides 64-81% better performance than Core i5-6300 (HD Graphics 520) at the only game they tested, Bioshock Infinite. Considering Surface Book's dGPU is at least 20% faster than a regular Geforce GT940M, Intel is pretty close to the performance of the latter (as I expected).
Iris 540 is >2.5x as fast as HD 4400. Compared to the previous Core i7-4650U (HD 5000) powering the Surface Pro 3 we're looking at ~30% better CPU performance and 100-150% better graphics performance. Not bad Skylake.
Full review/tests here.
That's stupid.
Core i5 6400 on Z170 for overclocking. Recommending an H board is just plain dumb.
It's strange that NBC's sample did not throttle as much as the one shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpLLliWT5FM The sp4 i7 is known to throttle the power limit from 25w to 15w when under CPU + GPU load for ~30 seconds for the early samples. Not sure if it is fixed yet.
PPB said:Z170+i3 is just plain dumb when you can cash in an i5 with a H110/B150 and overclocking just the same as a budget Z170 board for most of the air cooled, budget setups this very configuration applies.
What part of "budget constrained users" did you missed ???
I didn't "missed" anything. Z boards are now $80, which give you an overclockable quad core.
H boards are just plain stupid to buy right now.
Like I have said before, though, the problem with Iris pro is that you have to pay a *very* high price premium to get it.
Surprising results indeed. Also curious that it priorizes iGPU performance @ Prime95 + FurMark stress test, CPU clocks drop to half but graphics clocks are still pretty high.
Core i3-6100 + Z170 still costs less than Core i5-6400 + H110/B150 though.
I have a feeling Asrock will be the first to enable BCLK overclocking on the low-end chipsets at some point, but considering the relatively small price premium I'd still go Z170.