Skylake-Y vs Broadwell-Y
I've had a preorder in with Amazon for a while now for a 6700K. When I asked recently for a shipping update I instead got the usual company line, but was given updated shipping.
Then strangely enough I was later contacted by yet another Amazon employee telling me that I could cancel and buy from one of their other sellers. I responded that no way I was paying >$500 from a price gouger for a cpu.
At this point I'm not happy with the Skylake release in the US, considering Aus & Eu countries have had them for a while now.
Can you provide us a simple clarification as to why you think you have the right to ask everyone for facts/results
I've already explained it to you six times now. Or is it seven? I'm losing count.when yours own posts are full of fud and baseless speculation like this one?
Slightly off topic ... are Gigabyte boards the only Z170 boards that use Alpine Ridge right now?
If you post claims about Skylake performance increases over Broadwell
along with Broadwell-only benchmarks
isn't it quite logical to ask if you have any corresponding Skylake benchmarks too?
To be honest I was actually quite excited about the info about performance increase and mentioning of better sustained clocks when I first read your post, because I'm considering getting a Skylake based Ultrabook. That's why I wrote that it was "good news". It was also why I asked if you had some benchmarks for it, so I could check the details myself. But instead you started attacking me and turned it all into a huge argument. Really not what I was hoping for.
You've keep calling it fud, but fail to explain the reason why it should be that. The statement I made was under the assumption that the Zen performance guesstimates made by others are true, and it is written in that context. And you've agreed that my statement is correct under those assumptions.
So it sounds like you think it's the Zen performance guesstimates themselves that are incorrect, and because of that they are fud. But again, then it's not me you should be attacking, but those that have made those guesstimates.
Why is this?
Intel's fresh-faced sixth-generation processors improve on pretty much all the important fronts: more power efficiency, more graphical oomph and that's especially true for its important Core M series that beats inside laptops and tablets. According to Kirk Skaugen, Intel's general manager, it's now making its way into even smaller devices, namely "phablets." (He said it, not us.) While the line between tablets and phones couldn't be blurrier these days, if Intel's Core M family of chips makes it into your next Android phone, it'd be powerful enough to do almost everything your laptop does.
Next step, Intel Core inside phones.
Intel's Core M processors are being tested in phones
www.engadget.com/2015/09/02/intel-s-core-m-processors-are-being-tested-in-phones
Because they made a deal with one another that was attractive?
If your statement wasn't fud, how is that you know that Intel's 4 core offerings will be expensive compared to 8 core Zen? :whiste:Also, you've kept calling my statement fud, but fail to explain the reason why it should be that.
You're just bitter because in 2016 you'll be sitting on an expensive and slow 4 core Intel CPU, while others will be using a cheaper and faster 8 core AMD CPU.
Next step, Intel Core inside phones.
Intel's Core M processors are being tested in phones
www.engadget.com/2015/09/02/intel-s-core-m-processors-are-being-tested-in-phones
The packaging density is amazing, outright astounding.
It is? While the layout is different the actual die area looks to be about the same.
Asking for benchmark numbers is attacking? I give up.More like you attacked me when the only thing I did was quote Intel's performance numbers and make an educated guess about sustained clock improvements from their new chip. But, fair enough, I'm also interested in a Skylake-Y convertible and I will post results as soon as we have something to look at.
The difference is that Skylake is a released product, so there should be higher expectations on data available when claims are made.You can't blame users for not providing independent test results to back up their claims (in this case Intel's) if you are predicting Zen's success and proclaiming Intel's 2016 chips as expensive/slow with little to no concrete evidence (and >1 year till launch). That's it, enough derailing for me.
If your statement wasn't fud, how is that you know that Intel's 4 core offerings will be expensive compared to 8 core Zen? :whiste:
The packaging density is amazing, outright astounding.
The engineering and science that goes into the silicon for process nodes is sexy, so everyone hears about it and gains a sense for it (Moore's Law, etc), but the packaging arena is no less rife with innovation and high paced technological advances. Just not sexy enough to be frontpage news, so it gets much less press time in the tech journals.
Which is a claim I have never made. Drop the strawman attempts.
No, Intel will not release any CPU to match 8 core AMD Zen in MT performance and price-wise.
Really? Then explain this:
No, Intel will not release any CPU to match 8 core AMD Zen in MT performance and price-wise.
It was a response to an answer that ShintaiDK gave, where I made a conclusion of what he said. So it was not a claim made by me.Ok, so your answer is No, Intel will not release any CPU to match 8 core AMD Zen in MT performance and price-wise.
And why? Was Intel not capable of selling that chip and they needed a gigabyte to throw them a life preserver?
Which is a claim I have never made. Drop the strawman attempts.