Two things.
1. I'm very impressed that you have all these images at your fingertips. It's like you do this as a full-time job or something.
2. Intel's "premium" segment doesn't seem to be a real thing. It doesn't appear anywhere in Intel documentation that I can find.
I stand by what I said earlier, but I'm still very impressed by your encyclopedic knowledge of Intel marketing material. If they're not paying you, they should.
1. That part comes from the datacenter.
2. Because its not what the 99% crowd wants.
3. Mainstream is mainstream. Just buy the enthusiast if you want one without IGP. Chips like the 5820K isnt exactly pricy and you get 6C/12T and quadchannel.
4. Try graph the process with performance/watt. Again, what the 99% crowd wants.
If thats the case, then we also know the performance estimate of Zen.
No we don't. We only know what segment and thus price range it'll be in according to AMD.
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.
That's understandable, Intel-fanboyism and all..
I'm just telling you it'll be an 8 core AMD CPU in the Premium segment that is direct successor to FX8xxx series. So it'll not be priced at $999, but rather in the FX8350 price range (at time of release).So you already determined how Zen will perform better and cost less compared to Intel. Yet you call others for fanboy?
Op is better off just dropping a Xeon hexcore in his box and wait for Skylake. It's cheap and will satisfy most needs till then..
Stock i7-5820K
Drop in a $75 CPU, overclock it and ride it out..
My handbrake scores come within 20 frames of of the 5820K scores as well. Nothing wrong with utilizing the platform you already have & waiting for something impressive.. That's def what i'm doing.. Nothing slow about my rig.. Easily beats an overclocked 4790K or stock 5820K for encodes.
No, we would have a 3.2x smaller 4 core CPU, and Intel would talk about how great that was for their shareholders. I don't think the scaling is that good in reality, but even if it were, that's about what we'd get (not counting the increase in size for newer cores, bigger GPU, etc.). The market doesn't want more, on a large scale, than what Intel is offering. The market for 12+ core CPUs is pretty small, and on the desktop, it's negligible. Even 4 core CPUs are only barely mainstream. I'd get an 8C16T CPU if the price were right, but it wasn't, and 4C8T does all I need now, and will need for the near future. Most people just need SSDs, and more RAM than they are being sold, and wouldn't be able to tell a 2GHz 2M4T APU from a 4GHz 4C8T i7 (and even part of that is due to IGP improvements, which have been taking a lot of die space, lately).Broadwell and skylake are both 14nm (3.2 times smaller then 45nm). So in a *PERFECT* world with *PERFECT* scaling, we would have a 12 core CPU at 3GHZ for about $400....
Because AMD was the only competition, and now they can only keep Intel in line up to $150, and even that is being generous. The question is how to price the CPUs to get the best balance of volume and gross profit. Technical issues are a very small part of it, as long as the profit margins aren't extremely small on the popular parts (technical problems do have a lot to do with their costs).Since we don't live in this perfect world, why are we so far behind? Why is an 8 core CPU (5960X) at 3GHZ cost over $1000?
Some of us do .Pro-tip: people don't buy Xeons just for the performance.
True, but everyone else is even more behind the curve, and they are finally sharing/splitting mobile, embedded, and server R&D like they aught to have been doing all along. It keeps their foot in the door.Dumping it into the mobile market via marketing bucks to make up for them being SOOOO epically late and behind on what will be the future of computing.
A current Intel desktop CPU could likely do it as quick or quicker, for the same quality (or maybe better). You need CPU encoding to get a really good result, but that takes threads and time.Drivel. My gpu isn't running any faster on 8 cores and any encoding needs I have can be taken care of far faster with a single GPU than 8 Intel cores
Yes asking for my needs to be met is what being a consumer is all about.
Drivel. My gpu isn't running any faster on 8 cores and any encoding needs I have can be taken care of far faster with a single GPU than 8 Intel cores
Watt/mm^2 has gone up for every die shrink
As previously mentioned, I tend to avoid 'enthusiast' because its older tech, too many dalays...
Ideally id like to drop a good $2000 or so and not think about a PC upgrade for another 3-4 years (other then GPU upgrades). I think that is part of my problem, the mainstream intel CPU are always so disappointing, while the highend are always so behind. I never feel like there is a good time to upgrade.