[WCCF] Intel Skylake 2015 Platform Details Revealed

[sm625]

I still would rather have a 2 core 2 thread cpu that scores 4000 on passmark single thread. (A haswell i3 scores around 2000-2100)

 

[beginner99]

The only issue with that is there is no 6 or 8 core mainstream products for the consumer to purchase(excluding the -E parts, those are not mainstream). Its a bit of a chicken and the egg. so how can you vote if there is no product to vote with, and as there is no product to vote with, there is really no demand to make it, so there will be no product to vote with

Exactly my thought as well.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I still would rather have a 2 core 2 thread cpu that scores 4000 on passmark single thread. (A haswell i3 scores around 2000-2100)

The problem is it's not doable, since TDP skyrockets with increased frequency on current CPU generations and IPC gains are increasingly hard to achieve. So unless that is solved, more cores is the way forward to get additional CPU performance.

 

[Maxima1]

The problem is it's not doable, since TDP skyrockets with increased frequency on current CPU generations and IPC gains are increasingly hard to achieve. So unless that is solved, more cores is the way forward to get additional CPU performance.

There are the different materials that could potentially be used. I wonder what goodness that will bring.

 

[witeken]

Don't use your phone much, do you.?

Apple proved that dualcores are vastly superior. Just like ultrabooks, which have something like 3x as much thermal headroom, all have dualcore CPUs. Single threaded performance reigns.

 

[rtsurfer]

Or maybe he has a dual core iPhone 5s.

One needs to look no farther than the A7 to see why octocore phones are a marketing play.

Yes & that dual core runs is fast only for an OS that is specially optimized for that phone, unlike Android Quads which go into several different phones with different Hardware / Software & still manage to perform.

Put you Apple SOC in 5 different phones & see the disparity in performance.

Of course its a different architecture, that's the point. It takes more than pointing out the obvious to refute my argument.

Multicore proponents like to show that quad A15s are better than Dual A15s, thus "more cores" is important. But that falls apart when the fastest SOC is dual core. Apple targeting their architecture towards maximum single threaded performance was the better choice.

Quad A8 is a rumor, and like most iPhone rumors, probably wrong.

Again fastest SOC running tailor made software for it. Don't make me highlight the short comings of iOS in this thread. It is just a locked down BS for idiots who buy it every year.

Moar cores is still a sales factor on the smartphones. It serves no real purpose. And the only company not doing it is Apple.

Put it to run the BLOAT that is different manufactures version of Android & you will see why you need a Quad core.

P.S I have Samsing Galaxy S3 (International Version) 7 if when I OC its Quad from 1.4Ghz to 1.7Ghz, the performance difference is massive.

The web page loading times get a lot faster & UI feels a lot smoother.

 

[witeken]

So it takes a non-American design team to design nice CPUs for the American-based company Intel?

People from all around the world work at it. But your comment was obviously not serious.

 

[erunion]

.

Their duals, quads, whatever cores would be superior just like Intel's vs. AMD's.

Ah. That's where we disagree. If Apple were to double the number of cores, that would double the power consumption of the CPU side of the SOC. They would have to sacrifice single threaded performance in order to add more cores. Even with the next due shrink, they will have to choose between adding cores or increasing single thread performance.

That's the situation we see in mobile Intel Core. They could have switched to quad cores for 35w chips by now but instead they've always chose to add single thread performance.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Apple proved that dualcores are vastly superior. Just like ultrabooks, which have something like 3x as much thermal headroom, all have dualcore CPUs. Single threaded performance reigns.

Am I sensing a contradiction? Should it be "singlecores are vastly superior", or "dual/multi threaded performance reigns"? :\ Please make up your mind.

 

[rtsurfer]

Apple proved that dualcores are vastly superior. Just like ultrabooks, which have something like 3x as much thermal headroom, all have dualcore CPUs. Single threaded performance reigns.

I don't argue that, but because Android SOC makers couldn't push further the Single threaded IPC further, they just put more cores in it. Which might not be the most efficient way.

This still doesn't make 4 cores BS like your original comment, as they need the performance.

Since, they couldn't make 2 faster cores like Apple, should they have just stopped at two cores so Androids would still be suffering from lackluster performance.

 

[witeken]

Yes & that dual core runs is fast only for an OS that is specially optimized for that phone, unlike Android Quads which go into several different phones with different Hardware / Software & still manage to perform.

Put you Apple SOC in 5 different phones & see the disparity in performance.

A fast (single threaded) architecture (like Cyclone) will still be fast, no matter which OS. You'd see about the same on Android as on iOS.

Again fastest SOC running tailor made software for it. Don't make me highlight the short comings of iOS in this thread. It is just a locked down BS for idiots who buy it every year.
Put it to run the BLOAT that is different manufactures version of Android & you will see why you need a Quad core.

P.S I have Samsing Galaxy S3 (International Version) 7 if when I OC its Quad from 1.4Ghz to 1.7Ghz, the performance difference is massive.

The web page loading times get a lot faster & UI feels a lot smoother.

A fast single threaded architecture will do just as well. If you do things well, you can trade cores in for more single threaded performance. And as far as I know, performance/watt of Cyclone vs Krait is pretty similar, and since they're both using tons of power (which will eventually result in throttling), there likely won't be a lot of differences between Snapdragon 800 and A7.

BTW, if the UI isn't smooth on a 1.4GHz quadcore, Samsung's really doing something wrong, which they apparently are since I've heard complaints about TouchWiz for a long time. Also, higher turbo frequencies only help with such things as smooth UI since a quadcore SoC in a phone will throttle. In the case S800, it reaches 500MHz within 3 seconds.

 

[witeken]

Am I sensing a contradiction? Should it be "singlecores are vastly superior", or "dual/multi threaded performance reigns"? :\ Please make up your mind.

A dualcore is the best trade-off between singlethreaded and multithreaded performance.

 

[coercitiv]

Apple proved that dualcores are vastly superior. Just like ultrabooks, which have something like 3x as much thermal headroom, all have dualcore CPUs. Single threaded performance reigns.

When it comes to ultrabooks, you know very well a well adjusted quad core would easily best its dual core brethren. A 2Ghz Haswell quad ULT would beat a 3Ghz Haswell dual ULT in multithreaded apps while retaining the max 15W power consumption, while performance in ST would still be easily maintained via turbo.

However, chip costs and idle power consumptions would be higher, hence the dual core ULT is the better choice for most consumers.

A dualcore is the best trade-off between singlethreaded and multithreaded performance.

Yup, fully agree on that one.

 

[witeken]

When it comes to ultrabooks, you know very well a well adjusted quad core would easily best its dual core brethren. A 2Ghz Haswell quad ULT would beat a 3Ghz Haswell dual ULT in multithreaded apps while retaining the max 15W power consumption, while performance in ST would still be easily maintained via turbo.

Fair enough...

However, chip costs and idle power consumptions would be higher, hence the dual core ULT is the better choice for most consumers.

...But guess what matters even more in phone chips.

Also, the Moto X review of Brian Klug proved that less cores decrease throttling.

 

[Maxima1]

Just like ultrabooks, which have something like 3x as much thermal headroom, all have dualcore CPUs. Single threaded performance reigns.

Look at how thin the Razor blade is. lmao. If you're just doing browsing, then yeah, chromebook is all you need.

http://www.amazon.com/Razer-Blade-Inch-Gaming-Laptop/dp/B00CZ8J592

Even with the next due shrink, they will have to choose between adding cores or increasing single thread performance.

That's the situation we see in mobile Intel Core. They could have switched to quad cores for 35w chips by now but instead they've always chose to add single thread performance.

We'll see. I've seen articles saying that the next one is quad core.

 

[erunion]

We'll see. I've seen articles saying that the next one is quad core.

I'm not making any specific prediction about the A8, but Apple rumors have historically not been very accurate. With every new iPhone release the internet rumors tend to just be a wishlist of wanted features.

 

[rtsurfer]

A fast (single threaded) architecture (like Cyclone) will still be fast, no matter which OS. You'd see about the same on Android as on iOS.




A fast single threaded architecture will do just as well. If you do things well, you can trade cores in for more single threaded performance. And as far as I know, performance/watt of Cyclone vs Krait is pretty similar, and since they're both using tons of power (which will eventually result in throttling), there likely won't be a lot of differences between Snapdragon 800 and A7.

BTW, if the UI isn't smooth on a 1.4GHz quadcore, Samsung's really doing something wrong, which they apparently are since I've heard complaints about TouchWiz for a long time. Also, higher turbo frequencies only help with such things as smooth UI since a quadcore SoC in a phone will throttle. In the case S800, it reaches 500MHz within 3 seconds.

A fast dual core will offer similar performance unless you have multiple apps open which can leverage more cores.

Multi tasking is the way where Android is heading & that requires more cores.

Samsung's TouchWiz is infact terrible.
But I can still see the difference on Vanilla Android.
The good thing about Android is that you can Root your phone & add more eye candy to it which requires more resources.

Plus if you have seen a properly rooted Android running Vanilla Android, you know it is both more Fluid & Faster than any iOS device you have used. Again which needs more CPU power to accomplish.

Finally, currently u can type this response to your comment while simultaneously watching a video on YouTube at the same time because of Samsung's Multi View. No way this is not multi threaded & can't demand more thana dual core if the tasks are taxing enough.

Only Qualcomm SOC's clocked at ridiculous 2.5Ghz throttle.
I can game for 2 hours on my phone with both Cpu/Gpu OC & still see no throttling.


I am not saying that a qual core (S800) should be preferred over a superior dual core (Apple A7) but when you start adding Windows like features to your phone, more threads are needed.

 

[Fjodor2001]

A dualcore is the best trade-off between singlethreaded and multithreaded performance.

Yes, I agree that often is the case for ultrabook use cases currently, but it depends on the workload and may change in the future. Also, it's still not single threaded which you said reigned before. In fact you do know it's actually 4T (and 2 C), right? If they thought more than 2T would be useless they'd make a 2C/2T CPU. And if they thought single threaded reigned, they'd make a 1C/1T CPU.

 

[mikk]

Yes, there is. The HD4XXX series is a less advanced core. It does not support all the extensions that Iris core supports. (Look at the programming manual if you don't believe me.)

There is no difference. Intel Pixelsync and InstantAccess are supported on HD4600 as well.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And Apple's share of the smartphone market is declining, in favor of the more-cores Android phones.

Mainly due to Samsung. And the reason why is the marketing budget. Apple used around 1B$. Samsung used 14B$ in 2013. Yes, you read right, 14 billion$ just on marketing. Thats 3 times more than their 2012.

For a better compare, Apple uses around 0.6% of its revenue on marketing. Samsung uses 5.4%.

But again as I said. It serves no purpose rather than to fool customers to think its better. Yet they end up with a slower phone.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Put it to run the BLOAT that is different manufactures version of Android & you will see why you need a Quad core.

P.S I have Samsing Galaxy S3 (International Version) 7 if when I OC its Quad from 1.4Ghz to 1.7Ghz, the performance difference is massive.

The web page loading times get a lot faster & UI feels a lot smoother.

I got an even slower S3 Mini with a dualcore. Yet I suffer absolutely no penalty. Perhaps your CPU just throttles more normally.

 

[rtsurfer]

Mainly due to Samsung. And the reason why is the marketing budget. Apple uses around 1B$. Samsung uses 14B$. Yes, you read right, 14 billion$ just on marketing.

But again as I said. It serves no purpose rather than to fool customers to think its better. Yet they end up with a slower phone.

Android/Android flagships are in every shape & form better than anything Apple has to offer.
Despite the more cores marketing.

And also did you forget that Samsung sells dozens of different phones unlike Apple. That 14 Billion
Isn't for the Galaxy Flagship alone.

I got an even slower S3 Mini with a dualcore. Yet I suffer absolutely no penalty. Perhaps your CPU just throttles more normally.

When did i say anything about a penalty. Mine doesn't throttle at all.
If you clock your Dual Core Higher, you will see more performance. That is obvious.

 

[Maxima1]

But again as I said. It serves no purpose rather than to fool customers to think its better.

What would happen if there was actually competition on the desktop? x86 is a barrier. And someone can't just roll in with MIPS or something to replace x86 either, which further solidifies their position.

 

[MisterMac]

You mean the consumer has better use for more cores on a mobile phone than on a desktop PC?

I mean exactly what i say.


Desktop has no need for more cores - no averege joe WILL buy Haswell-E because of TRUE 8 CORE blablaba.

Only us performance geeks will, average joe won't care.
(I'm one of them - YAY FOR 16 INTEL THREADS EPENIS!).

That market will also in time reach a "fast enough" stage - but it's not there yet and everyone buys to get faster and newer.
...without actually considering phone bloatware and a million other reasons as to why they're device is slow.
Even my old parents know that reinstalling windows and cleaning stuff up helps on speed "feeling".


All of the cycle things we experienced are to come - but it's not there yet for mobile.
So it works for an OEM to go moar cores and sell more.

It doesn't for us - without knowing quite clearly what we gain from it.
And in bulldozers' case - it was... very little if anything.

 

[Maxima1]

I mean exactly what i say.


Desktop has no need for more cores - no averege joe WILL buy Haswell-E because of TRUE 8 CORE blablaba.

There are ways to mitigate a dual core's advantage in single threaded performance in comparison to a many core chip. Turbo boost is meant to eliminate the fact that dual cores often are faster at single-threaded apps.