Another feature is far more PCIe lanes for extra controllers. Up to 40 lanes, and connected directly to the CPU. With current LGA-115x you get a 16x slot for graphics (that can be split 8x/8x or even 8x/4x/4x if you're really lucky) and the DMI link (PCIe 3.0 x4 equivalent) to the PCH. That's it.
If you want a full speed/width connection to both your PCIe SSD and graphics card, you've already used all available lanes from both the CPU and PCH. Leaving nothing for f.x. USB or SATA drives.
But again, you need the PCIe controller integrated into the CPU to support that. So either Kabylake has a massively overbuilt PCIe controller for mainstream, or it doesn't support all 40 lanes on the enthusiast platform.
I mean, they gave us the G3258, which was IMHO a great little desktop chip. The greatness of which was magnified,, when mobo makers gave us H81 boards with non-Z OC capabilities. Finally, a great little under $100 budget overclocker combo was born.
But, that had three problems:
Even overclocked, it couldn't pass the performance of the stock-clocked i3, in many/most tasks and games.
Alternatively, allowing overclocking, with the full technical knowledge that in doing so, the end-user will still not exceed the next model up in the lineup's performance, would build brand awareness and brand equity with enthusiasts.
Not sure I understand why you would knock the G3258 for not being able to surpass an i3 then go on to say Intel should do more of exactly that.
I think it would be pretty rare for an i3(haswell) to be noticeably faster than a good g3258. Maybe in something like winrar where a hyperthread performs like a whole core. But usually it's only worth a 20-30% boost, and it's not too hard to find G3258s that can oc 25-30% above those i3s.
What he wants is a budget OC on an i3 or on some kind of low-end quad . . . something less-flawed than the ill-fated mainstream Skylake overclocks.
Even if it would be possible, problem is that more modern architectures are less frequency dependent and are more cache and thread-count dependent. So overclocking very cheap CPU these days would not result in very good performance even if it would be overclocked significantly and proven to be stable.Well not only Intel but AMD as well. They should release Celeron and Sempron Unlocked Multi Options for the poor or cough cough cheap skates like me. I cant count how many times I have had to buy the lowest end CPU's cause thats all I could afford at the time.But back in the day even those low end CPU's could overclock pretty well.So what happened to releasing stuff like that?? I know I am not the only person who did this around these parts either and would love to see this kinda thing return.
Exactly.What he wants is a budget OC on an i3 or on some kind of low-end quad . . . something less-flawed than the ill-fated mainstream Skylake overclocks.
The lowest end quad is the i5-6400/2.7GHz at $187. The i5-6600K is $243, a $19 premium over the i5-6600. This would make a potential i5-6400K $206. I don't see why people would be making a fuss about saving ~18% or less than $40 on the chip.
If you want Intel to potentially make an i5-6000K with a 2.0 GHz clockspeed and costing $150? That would probably never happen because it would eat into the existing i5 sales way too much. Based on O/C results, these chips are pretty much guaranteed to do 4GHz on air. So what Intel is really doing going that route is just undercutting itself. The revenue losses from the higher margin i5 chips would far exceed any potential gains. If any unlocked i5 Skylake chip can do 4GHz on air, why bother paying more for a 4GHz stock one?
I owned a g3258 and an i3-4360. You had to get the Pentium way up there to challenge the i3, and even then it only won a few benches.
Overall, the G3258 was not a threat to the i3, imo.
Was it fun and good value for your money? Sure.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...ary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae
But then you began to notice it falling flat on it's face when the threads were too much.
This all stems from the raw greed of Intel. Due to their "K" SKU / Z97-chipset mobo combo requirement for "allowed" OCing, Intel gets to collect the "overclocking tax", not once, but TWICE!
But for non-essential items like computers?
Yeah, but I can run the 4160 or 4330 with a stock cooler on an H series motherboard to make up the price difference. And I don't have to screw around with overclocking it to get the same performance. The locked i3s are Intel offering more performance for less money, in the end.That page only shows an average advantage of 2% to the i3. Plus, I think the most popular haswell i3, the 4160, is a bit slower than the 4330.
Yeah, but I can run the 4160 or 4330 with a stock cooler on an H series motherboard to make up the price difference. And I don't have to screw around with overclocking it to get the same performance. The locked i3s are Intel offering more performance for less money, in the end.
Anyway, I just like the entitlement. Intel should offer <thing I want> for <low price> or they're screwing their customers.
Anyway, I just like the entitlement. Intel should offer <thing I want> for <low price> or they're screwing their customers.
VirtualLarry said:They're just plain greedy.
LOL. Intel is ACTIVELY retarding innovation.
Intel used to, by default, allow overclocking, for most of their product lifspan. Only in recent generations of products, has Intel sought to "contain" overclocking, by limiting it unnaturally to a few specific high-priced SKUs. And when mobo makers actually innovated on the performance front, by figuring out how to allow non-Z overclocking on socket 1150, and BCLK overclocking ("SKY OC") on 1151, Intel put the kibosh on both.
They're just plain greedy.