How do you feel memory bandwidth?What I feel CPU's need, above all, is more Memory Bandwidth.
More bandwidth is needed to take advantage of the vector units and the GPU (As Vectorization computation unit).
I hope next generation will have triple channel memory with higher speed (Higher speeds are clearly available on market).
I hope the E family will get 6 channels memory controller or maybe eDRAM.
This is what Intel should be doing with eDRAM, no only make it part of Iris Pro, but as a way to overcome the memory bandwidth limitation CPU's have.
So many operation in Data Science / Signal Processing are now Memory Limited that this will be a great thing to do.
I'm debating getting an eBay special. 2500k with a planned oc of circa 4.5ghz and 8gb or ram - good enough to see me through on BF1 until the 7700k gets released? I've also got a gtx 960 2GB.
14nm yields were garbage when the 6700k launched. They're in good shape today.
Expect a hard launch with solid availability for 7700k.
What's garbage and how does it compare to TSMC ?14nm yields were garbage when the 6700k launched. They're in good shape today.
Expect a hard launch with solid availability for 7700k.
Yeah, that's why for SKL-X Intel goes with 6 channel. It is well proven that for BDW-E and the like memory bandwidth did not matter, though.
And of course there is no point in triple channel on mainstream platform.
On about every non-gaming benchmark i have seen as well. Not to mention stuff you describe is better served with true bandwidth beasts: GPUs from what i remember of them.Are you talking on Gaming Scenarios?
I was talking about Signal (Image) Processing / Data Science.
Many of them are Memory Bounded (Hence even multi threading is useless).
What the require is better cache system and memory bandwidth.
Easy to show that many algorithms in this world would scale linearly with memory bandwidth.
By the way, are you sure the next iteration of Skylake-E will have 6 memory channels?
don't waste your money -- just buy the 6700K today if you're gaming today. You can probably score a good deal on one (down to $329 for a boxed proc on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117559&cm_re=6700k-_-19-117-559-_-Product), especially as e-tailers clear inventory to make way for 7700K. The performance difference between them at stock won't be much, and that gap should remain similarly small when they're overclocked.
Figure a 25% IPC increase from Sandy -> Skylake, so that would equate to a ~3.6GHz 6600K.A 2500k at 4.5Ghz should be comparable to a 6600k / 6700k stock though, right?
I could get a 2500k, decent mobo and 8GB of RAM for the cost of a 6700k easy.
A 2500k at 4.5Ghz should be comparable to a 6600k / 6700k stock though, right?
I could get a 2500k, decent mobo and 8GB of RAM for the cost of a 6700k easy.
On about every non-gaming benchmark i have seen as well. Not to mention stuff you describe is better served with true bandwidth beasts: GPUs from what i remember of them.
Not Skylake-E but Skylake-EP, the Purley platform Xeons, by the way.
What I feel CPU's need, above all, is more Memory Bandwidth.
More bandwidth is needed to take advantage of the vector units and the GPU (As Vectorization computation unit).
I hope next generation will have triple channel memory with higher speed (Higher speeds are clearly available on market).
I hope the E family will get 6 channels memory controller or maybe eDRAM.
This is what Intel should be doing with eDRAM, no only make it part of Iris Pro, but as a way to overcome the memory bandwidth limitation CPU's have.
So many operation in Data Science / Signal Processing are now Memory Limited that this will be a great thing to do.
Signal IMAG Processing /Data Science is highly serial operation and would not benefit from lock step memory Data retrieval, parallel bandwidth to you. Graphics benefit from from parallel memory retrieval, to a point.Are you talking on Gaming Scenarios?
I was talking about Signal (Image) Processing / Data Science.
Many of them are Memory Bounded (Hence even multi threading is useless).
What the require is better cache system and memory bandwidth.
Easy to show that many algorithms in this world would scale linearly with memory bandwidth.
By the way, are you sure the next iteration of Skylake-E will have 6 memory channels?
A 2500k at 4.5Ghz should be comparable to a 6600k / 6700k stock though, right?
I could get a 2500k, decent mobo and 8GB of RAM for the cost of a 6700k easy.
In the first quarter of 2017, Intel is set to release several new products for IoT applications including the top-end Purley-based server processors, Lewisburg-based chipsets, Kaby Lake-based S series processors for desktop and M/H/U series processors for mobile devices, new Atom and Quark processors.
I would be interested to see Data / Signal / Image processing dual channel bench test vs quad channel bench test?@wingman04 , I think you are wrong.
First of all, Data / Signal / Image processing is highly parallelizable task (Think of Filtering an image, Multiplying Matrix, etc...).
Secondly, if you use AVX (2 Units per core if I'm not mistaken) it means 256 [Bit / AVX Unit] * 2 [AVX Unit / Core] * 4 [Core] = 4096 [Bit] per CPU Cycle.
Memory throughput is far far from this.
Usually when the data is small, the cache system will be enough.
But in our days the data gets larger (Think of the size of modern image).
As a guideline, look how the CPU's FLOPS increased in the last 10 years vs. the memory Throughput.
On the last generation of CPU's, in tasks which uses most of their resources, unless the task is local (Working on L1 / L2 data), the memory can't keep up with them.
This is a concise choice and indeed CPU's should have more data crunch capabilities than the memory (They have Cache).
Yet the gap between the CPU's Number Crunching capabilities and the Memory Throughput is too wise these days.
We need more bandwidth from the memory system.
Both in more memory channels and speed.
Ouch, memory latency on this thing is ridiculously bad.Entry level version of the new 13'' Macbook Pro is using 15W Core i5-6360U (Skylake-U GT3e):