That's why I said the first part.. One thing is only IPC, other is REAL performance and at min. It can get from 75%, but hardly I see going doubling the performanceYou do realize that that's not how you add up percentages - or percentage points to be more exact.
Presuming the numbers are right, the performance gain from Nahlem to Skylake would actually be 1.25 * 1.15 * 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.15 = 2.00028 ~ 1.00028 or 100.028% improvement.
That's why I said the first part.. One thing is only IPC, other is REAL performance and at min. It can get from 75%, but hardly I see going doubling the performance
"I made an arithmetic error."Huh? Care to translate that into plain English?
"I made an arithmetic error."
Do you have a source? The graph doesn't look far off. Of course it always differs a bit from benchmark parcours to benchmark parcours. With AVX2 the difference would be much bigger than 10% nevertheless.
Mmm.. Let me check this...
The improvement of IPC is:
From Nehalem from SB - 25%
From SB to Ivy Bridge - 15%
From Ib to Haswell - 10%
From Haswell to Broadwell - 10%
From Broadwell to Skylake - 15% (estimated and TBD)
So in total it could get up to 75% at minimun.
Not that at all. I've just forgot to add some more factors who nerf that percentages to the real performance. That's all.
It certainly isnt "complete BS". There is some variability depending on what benchmarks you look at, but I would say it is generally accurate. The generally accepted increase for haswell is 8 to 10 %. That said, I am getting tired of seeing it, I have to admit.
Well... If is in theory yeah. But in Real Life Apps it could go down to 80% increase.Nehalem = 100
SB = 125
IB = 143.75
Haswell = 158.13
Broadwell = 173.94
Thus, Skylake = 200.03, or a 100% increase over Nehalem?
so is the best bang for the buck still a 4790k or the 5820k?
i'm fine waiting a few weeks, my pc's generally last 5 years or so with
a video card upgrade tossed somewhere in that time
so is the best bang for the buck still a 4790k or the 5820k?
i'm fine waiting a few weeks, my pc's generally last 5 years or so with
a video card upgrade tossed somewhere in that time
I'm skeptical of that chart because it seems to indicate that SB->Haswell is a bigger jump than Nehalem->SB, which is an assessment few enthusiasts would agree with. Sandy Bridge was seen as a major leap forward, while Haswell was largely greeted with "meh" on the desktop.
Yes the best bang for the buck is still those 2 processors.
But like you said, Skylake is RIGHT around the corner lol. You're not upgrading an intel CPU every couple of years you're holding onto it. You might as well get skylake. Older processors don't get discounted either so don't bother waiting for that lol. Just get skylake.
Short Answer: You're getting skylake.
10-20% is extremely optimistic I think.This, seriously.
At least if retailers discounted stock within weeks of a new release, the choice would be much easier, but unless you absolutely need to buy now (as in you'll lose money if you don't), you will basically get a (almost) free 10%-20% performance boost out a few weeks wait. You otherwise don't benefit any whatsoever from buying so close. Tis the harsh reality of the tech world.
10-20% is extremely optimistic I think.
Definitely wait. But I expect a ~14% AT THE MOST improvement. Skylake lacks the free performance that Broadwell-C's eDRAM brought, and is a completely new platform. Meaning, expect to see some growing pains with Z170, especially with the lack of FIVR (this means motherboard choices will matter more again) and immaturity of DDR4.
Again. Skylake is going to shine in the mobile market. But I predict, for desktops it's going to be another 7-14% release.
I'm skeptical of that chart because it seems to indicate that SB->Haswell is a bigger jump than Nehalem->SB, which is an assessment few enthusiasts would agree with. Sandy Bridge was seen as a major leap forward, while Haswell was largely greeted with "meh" on the desktop.
The graph deals with IPC, not performance.Remember frequency.