I am not really surprised at all by the poll. A certain % of posters would never buy intel regardless, and another % have recently upgraded already (either HEDT or Ryzen), or are satisfied with 4 cores. So 40% seems like a fairly good percentage to me. As for the general market, I dont think any new cpu is going to "sell like hotcakes", the market is just too mature. What will happen is that the mainstream buyer, when he finally decides to upgrade, will get more for his money and not even know it.
6C/12T and 6C/6T, what's not to like? (Except, possibly, the price, and the fact that you'll have to buy a new mainboard.)I think 8700K and 8600K will sell far better than 7700K and 7600K did
6C/12T and 6C/6T, what's not to like? (Except, possibly, the price, and the fact that you'll have to buy a new mainboard.)
The 7700K and 7600K were just more of the same Skylake arch., maybe slightly higher OC clocks, but anyone who was a "serious gamer", by that point, had already purchased Skylake 6700K. And the improved iGPU didn't matter much to enthusiasts / gamers, since they were just going to drop in a higher-end dGPU anyways.
But 50% more cores? Yes, please! (That's what got me onto some Ryzen 5 1600 rigs.)
The i5-8600K is probably the real sleeper, but we haven't seen a serious 6C/6T since PhII, hence the lukewarm poll response.
Yeah. I think real life response to i5-8600K will be MUCH better than the poll indicates. Online everyone buys the best thing available.
In real life people are more price/performance motivated. Overclocked for both, I expect the performance difference will be much smaller than the price difference, leading to a lot more people opting for the i5.
i5 has always undersold i7 K among DIY, and I don't expect this to be any different. The i7 has HT and higher clocks, which is worth the extra $100.
I don't think Intel has ever released the definitive numbers to answer it. But, we can get snapshots of data points. For example, the 7700K dominates the 7600K and the 6700K >> 6600K here:Where is the evidence that the i7 K always outsold the i5 K?
Higher clocks on a i7 K series are kind of irrelevant for overclockers, in fact you may be able to overclock an i5 higher because HT increase heat/power.
The 2500K definitely outsold the 2600K. The trend to i7 happened more because it became much more useful in games to have the HT since 4 threads wasn't enough. With the 8600K now having 6 cores I think you will see sales go back to being more i5.
The 2500K definitely outsold the 2600K. The trend to i7 happened more because it became much more useful in games to have the HT since 4 threads wasn't enough. With the 8600K now having 6 cores I think you will see sales go back to being more i5.
I think there are several issues at play here.Seems so strange that 4C/8T is nowhere to be seen in this lineup. If it does re-appear, it will be what, some kind of pumped-up i3 now?
I think there are several issues at play here.
1) Intel's hyper-threading has always been fairly weak. 20% gain is about the most you can expect. That would put a 4 core, 8 thread chips at best about equal to 5 cores. So, it would be worse than the 6-core i5 parts. Although there are a few exceptions at up to maybe 30% gain, there are just as many exceptions where it hurts performance.
2) Low hyper-threading gains combined with Amdahl's law and faster turbos makes hyper-threading worse and worse as you add more cores. Even if you do gain performance with hyper-threading, the task at hand might not be sufficiently parallelizable to justify the extra heat produced. This is especially true when you are talking about the lower end chips that didn't make the i7 cut and heat is already a problem.
3) 4 cores, 8 threads is a marketing nightmare when you want to sell a more expensive 6 core, 6 thread chip. How can you charge more for fewer threads and explain that to customers? Hyper-threading is easy to explain to customers only when the true cores are in multiples of 2 (and not multiples of 3).
The 8th generation is being launched in many phases. Some will be Kaby Lake Refresh, some will be Coffee Lake, some will be CannonLake, and maybe there is a Coffee Lake refresh. I wouldn't be surprised if 4 cores, 8 threads comes back to the 8th generation in 2018. But if it does, it will likely be an expensive i3 that would push me to think the i5 is the better choice.
The 8th generation is being launched in many phases. Some will be Kaby Lake Refresh, some will be Coffee Lake, some will be CannonLake, and maybe there is a Coffee Lake refresh. I wouldn't be surprised if 4 cores, 8 threads comes back to the 8th generation in 2018. But if it does, it will likely be an expensive i3 that would push me to think the i5 is the better choice.
I don't buy much of that. 6C/12T is a multiple of three and customers have no problem with it. The 7700K will continue to fill the 4C/8T position. IIRC, HT is only ineffective in a couple of isolated instances, and even then the performance hit is negligible.I think there are several issues at play here.
1) Intel's hyper-threading has always been fairly weak. 20% gain is about the most you can expect. That would put a 4 core, 8 thread chips at best about equal to 5 cores. So, it would be worse than the 6-core i5 parts. Although there are a few exceptions at up to maybe 30% gain, there are just as many exceptions where it hurts performance.
2) Low hyper-threading gains combined with Amdahl's law and faster turbos makes hyper-threading worse and worse as you add more cores. Even if you do gain performance with hyper-threading, the task at hand might not be sufficiently parallelizable to justify the extra heat produced. This is especially true when you are talking about the lower end chips that didn't make the i7 cut and heat is already a problem.
3) 4 cores, 8 threads is a marketing nightmare when you want to sell a more expensive 6 core, 6 thread chip. How can you charge more for fewer threads and explain that to customers? Hyper-threading is easy to explain to customers only when the true cores are in multiples of 2 (and not multiples of 3).
The 8th generation is being launched in many phases. Some will be Kaby Lake Refresh, some will be Coffee Lake, some will be CannonLake, and maybe there is a Coffee Lake refresh. I wouldn't be surprised if 4 cores, 8 threads comes back to the 8th generation in 2018. But if it does, it will likely be an expensive i3 that would push me to think the i5 is the better choice.
Except if the 6/12 chip can keep up with or outrun the 8/16 chip...Concerning 4/8 thread vs 6/6, I almost care enough to do a simulated test, which would be easy to do. I'm curious as to how they perform when compared, but honestly I'm hoping someone else cares enough to do the test. I care about 80% and someone needs to care 100% in order to trigger the necessary motivation to actually test it.
Also, I feel 6/12 just isn't enough coming from 4/8. These days, cores are being thrown at us by the bucket full and I don't see what you can do with 6 that you can't sort of already do with 4. 8/16 makes much more sense because there you have substantial differences in streaming, productivity etc, and in a meaningful way. But 6/12? That's just a weak half measure and won't help with much really.
The only reason I have gone with 6/12 in the past is because I want those extra cores/threads for the games that use them, even if they only use them a little, and I wasn't going to spend $1000 on an 8 core just to game.
Seriously, the only thing 6/12 is good for is so we have something cheaper than 8/16 to buy. That's it. These days, 8/16 is where the upgrade should be focused coming from the ancient 4/8. Coffee Lake is a stopgap chip and yet again represents Intel's laziness and lack of innovation since all they did in response to the competition was rush forward some stuff they already had cooking for much later. Intel would have waited another 10 years before delivering an 8/16 chip, but now I suspect we'll get it in a year or two.