Right, they are also for workstation usage
Software is getting better all the time with multi threading. I think it's a bit of chicken and egg. Why produce good multi threading software, when there isn't the hardware to do it. Why produce good multi core chips when there isn't the software to run it. I'll be glad when Intel releases chips with more cores so the software has to catch up, which is a little ironic as it has traditionally been the other way around.
I totally agree. Especially about the chicken and egg situation.
But I just thought it was kind of ironic that some people now are considering moving to the Intel HEDT platform for more performance due to poor performance increase on mainstream Intel desktop CPUs, when HEDT only provides more performance in MT workloads because it has "moar cores". But "moar cores" is something many people have mocked AMD for before. And then they claimed that more cores was more or less useless except for on servers and in some rare corner use cases.
But I just thought it was kind of ironic that some people now are considering moving to the Intel HEDT platform for more performance due to poor performance increase on mainstream Intel desktop CPUs, when HEDT only provides more performance in MT workloads because it has "moar cores". But "moar cores" is something many people have mocked AMD for before. And then they claimed it was more or less useless with more cores except for on servers and in some rare corner use cases.
Skylake will show its face in August, for both the notebook and desktop markets, and we have some new information about the upcoming desktop parts.
Two cheapest desktop parts in the Core i5 league are called the Core i5 6500 and Core i5 6400. The Core i5 6500 will replace the Core i5 4590 processor and the new Skylake part will work at 3.2GHz. With the help of turbo it will reach 3.6 GHz with at least one of its cores. This is still a quad-core, four thread processor and it comes with 6MB of cache memory.
The processor supports both DDR4 2133 and DDR3L 1600 RAM, and its graphics core works at up to 1050 MHz. This is a 65W TDP part, which is significantly better than 84W TDP with Core i5 4590.
The Core i5 4590 has four cores 6MB cache and is clocked to 3.3GHz by default, and up to 3.6GHz with turbo. We expect that Core i5 6500 ends up at $202 for the box version and $192 for the tray version without a cooler.
The slowest Core i5 version of Skylake is called Core i5 6400 and this one works at 2.7GHz, with turbo capability up to 3.3GHz. It still has 6MB of cache and supports DDR4 2133 and DDR3L 1600 but its graphics core is slowed down to 950MHz. This is still a 65W TDP processor that will end up even cheaper in retail. The Core i7 and Core i5 Haswell processors are expected to launch in Q3 2015, followed by Core i3 and Pentium version in Q4 2015.
With that clockspeed... even if they don't advertise it as such it will definitely be a ~35W chip.Not sure the point of the 6400. I could maybe see the low clockspeed if it were 35 watts or something
Not sure the point of the 6400.
We were talking about Skylake-EP/EX (server Skylake), not Skylake-E (enthusiast desktop). You can shift the goalpost and pretend we weren't if that makes you feel better but you are making a fool of yourself.
Pushing traditional desktop users to the enthusiasts platforms makes a lot of sense for Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel kills its current desktop line at some point. I assume the only reason they still exist is because businesses are easily upsold to buy performance they don't need for their workers. But, that leads to really long upgrade cycles.You do realize that the PC market is bigger than just tower desktops, and that Skylake will potentially bring lots of interesting "non-CPU" advancements such as hardware HEVC decode, probably significantly better power management (AT user PaulIntellini said in a post that Intel is adding "duty cycling" to the Skylake CPU core), and other platform-level goodies.
If you want raw desktop CPU perf, x99 + 5820K or better should be a very viable option.
Instead, Intel could continue its focus on mobility and small form factor platforms (which is where the market is moving anyway). Businesses will either continue to buy more than they need and purchase enthusiast platforms--which would result in increased income per unit for Intel--or they will buy the mobility/SFF platforms--which would likely result in shorter business upgrade cycles.
Point still remains, why get "moar cores" if the most SW does not use them anyway? Or does that only apply to AMD?Also there's a difference between 6-8 Haswell/Skylake cores at >3GHz and AMD's crappy single-thread performance, unlike AMD octo-cores you're not giving up a lot of ST performance compared to Devil's Canyon or Core i7 6700K (especially when OCed).
It's going to be really ironic if Skylake-E (now I'm talking desktops, see the difference?) arrives earlier than Summit Ridge and wipes the floor performance-wise.
Point still remains, why get "moar cores" if the most SW does not use them anyway? Or does that only apply to AMD?
I don't think many people doubt that 8 core Skylake-E will be faster than 8 core Zen. The problem with 8 core Skylake-E is that it will likely be too expensive. The current Intel 8 core HEDT CPUs costs $1000.
I think what most people are hoping for is that 8 core Zen will be far cheaper than that, so that 8 core CPUs will actually be within economical reach for them. Given that it won't occupy more die area than 4 cores + iGPU, that for sure is a realistic possibility. But then it's of course always up to AMD what pricing strategy they choose to go for.
Because Intel 'E' chips still offer great ST performance, maybe not as good as the company >4GHz quad-cores but still very solid (and then there's always overclocking). AMD chips are no match in terms of per core performance.
If Summit Ridge comes remotely close to Skylake-E 8-core performance (which I really doubt) then you can bet AMD won't be giving it away at mainstream prices. A10-7850K and FX9590 launch prices clearly show that.
Also we don't know Skylake-E's core count yet, it's most likely going to be offered in 6-core and 8-core flavours but Intel could aim a bit higher with the $1000 EE model this time given that server versions will pack up to 28 cores at similar TDP.
Talking about irony, the same poster that is ripping intel for hyping skylake certainly seems to have no qualms about doing it for Zen.
I'd like to see Intel offer a six core at the <$400 price point, an 8 core at the $500-$600, and then a 10 core at the $999.
Serious question? How does one go about ignoring/blocking someones posts?
Fjdor's posts are really annoying and I'd rather not have to see them anymore, especially in the middle of a good discussion of other members who know what they're talking about.
Seeing how cheap is Skylake... Maybe they are ditching i3 and Pentium and moving them to Atom tier?
Seeing how cheap is Skylake... Maybe they are ditching i3 and Pentium and moving them to Atom tier?
Serious question? How does one go about ignoring/blocking someones posts?
Fjdor's posts are really annoying and I'd rather not have to see them anymore, especially in the middle of a good discussion of other members who know what they're talking about.
I'd like to see Intel offer a six core at the <$400 price point, an 8 core at the $500-$600, and then a 10 core at the $999.
FWIW 5820K is sub 400 USD