My mistake. There is a whole 7 weeks difference, and I remembered incorrectly which was released first.
You seriously seem to know absolutely nothing about RAM.
No, you don't know nothing about RAM. Real latency according to Crucial:
Crucial's website said:
The true definition of latency and the latency equation
At a basic level, latency refers to the time delay between when a command is entered and executed. It's the gap between the two. Because latency is all about this gap, it's important to understand what happens after a command is issued. When the memory controller tells the RAM to access a particular location, the data must go through a number of clock cycles in the Column Address Strobe in order to get to its desired location and “complete” the command. With this in mind, there are two variables that determine a module's latency:
The total number of clock cycles the data must go through (measured in CAS Latency, or CL, on data sheets)
The duration of each clock cycle (measured in nanoseconds)
true latency (ns) = clock cycle time (ns) x number of clock cycles (CL)
Once again:
DDR3-1600 CL8/CL9 DDR3 (used in most Haswell tests) is superior to DDR4-2133 CL15 DDR4 in true latency (used in AnandTech's Skylake review).
Haswell DDR3 1600 CL9 = 1.25 ns x 9 CL = 11.25 ns true latency
Skylake
DDR4 2133 CL15 = 0.94 ns x 15 CL = 14.06 ns true latency
DDR4-2400 CL15 = 12.5 ns latency
DDR4-2800 CL15 = 10.7 ns latency
DDR4-3000 CL15 = 10 ns latency
Latency is very important too, even AnandTech recognizes this in their testing methods. Skylake might be particularly sensitive to it, which according to some is the reason why results vary so much comparing reviews.
AnandTech said:
Normally in our DRAM reviews I refer to the performance index, which has a similar effect in gauging general performance:
DDR3-1600 C11: 1600/11 = 145.5
DDR4-2133 C15: 2133/15 = 142.2
As you have faster memory, you get a bigger number, and if you reduce the CL, we get a bigger number also. Thus for comparing memory kits, if the difference > 10, then the kit with the biggest performance index tends to win out, though for similar kits the one with the highest frequency is preferred.
I already showed you a test where Skylake is at a disadvantage (according to AnandTech) and still outperforming Haswell like any Intel tock outperforms its predecessor (10-15% per clock).
AnandTech's method:
PCLab's review
DDR4-2666/16 = 166 (Skylake-S)
DDR3-1866/9 = 207 (Haswell)
PCLab's overall gaming performance chart - 14 games @ 1080p
Unfortunately for you whining won't change facts, the numbers are here an there's plenty of reviews supporting what I say.
BTW, why does your Skylake get to use 2,666 or 3,000 Mhz RAM, while a Haswell is saddled with 1,333 or 1,600 Mhz, when you can buy DDR3 that is 3,000 Mhz and faster? Doesn't fit your agenda, I guess.
Very few reviews used DDR3-1600 in their Haswell systems (none used DDR3-1333). You can find plenty of them using overclocked RAM on Haswell and bottom of the barrel DDR3-2133 CL15 on Skylake. We can count on hand the number of reviews that used faster than DDR4-2666 RAM (often with poor latency) in their Skylake testing. If all this fits your agenda that Devil's Canyon matches Skylake (like your beloved 'non payed by Intel' Anandtech review implies in their gaming tests) it's your problem, not mine. Unfortunately it doesn't meet reality.
No, I didn't conduct the AnandTech tests. I suppose that you can explain them?
Then why did you accuse other reviews (putting Skylake in a better light than AnandTech) of being payed by Intel? Are they payed by Intel even if their memory selection favours Haswell like many websites did and Skylake still delivered better results than AnandTech's review?
myocardia said:
So, if the 'author' hasn't been paid off by Intel to make the Skylake seem as if it has high IPC, like the author you quoted
I haven't seen anyone say that it wasn't. You weren't pimping the 6700k with your cherry-picked, completely lopsided reviews, though. You were swearing (edit: by implying) that the Skylake μArch is so awesome, that it beats all other μArch, even compared to chips with higher clock speeds, and twice or more the threads, which is honestly one of the dumber things I've read in the past few months, on any site.
I never implied it would offer more than 10-15% over Haswell, all the rest is thread crapping from your part. Reported.