Intel's "Cannonlake" delayed, "Kaby Lake" coming next year

[patrickjp93]

who says 4 cores are enough? enough for what?

For consumer grade computing, 4 cores is plenty. If you need more, we have the 5820K/6820K/7820k/8820k for the same price as the consumer flagship chip, and DDR4 is going to be at or below DDR3 price parity before the close of the year.

[MrSuperb]

For consumer grade computing, 4 cores is plenty. If you need more, we have the 5820K/6820K/7820k/8820k for the same price as the consumer flagship chip, and DDR4 is going to be at or below DDR3 price parity before the close of the year.

 

bullshit argument. for "consumer grad computing" a dual core with HT is plenty ...

 

the performance improvement per core from sandy bridge to Skylake is laughable.

 

They just can't be bothered to move their ass, because there simply is no competition (which sucks)

[MageTank]

bullshit argument. for "consumer grad computing" a dual core with HT is plenty ...

 

the performance improvement per core from sandy bridge to Skylake is laughable.

 

They just can't be bothered to move their ass, because there simply is no competition (which sucks)

It is not a BS argument, its 100% fact. Find me an application that the average consumer would use, that needs more cores? You will only be able to tell me encryption and compression. That's it. Video rendering falls under workstation or prosumer. How do you know the per core performance differences between sandy and skylake? Tell me where you even see Skylake performance charts, i am very interested in knowing. The only BS i've seen thus far is you and your misinformation. 4 cores is plenty enough for the average consumer. The people that demand more than 4 cores on a consumer chip have no idea what they are talking about, or why they even want them in the first place. Their only logic is "hurr durr, 8 is more than 4". When software developers catch up and can make the applications we use every day run better when more threads are available to them, then we might start seeing more cores show up on consumer chips. Good luck waiting for that day.

[Swndlr]

It is not a BS argument, its 100% fact. Find me an application that the average consumer would use, that needs more cores? You will only be able to tell me encryption and compression. That's it. Video rendering falls under workstation or prosumer. How do you know the per core performance differences between sandy and skylake? Tell me where you even see Skylake performance charts, i am very interested in knowing. The only BS i've seen thus far is you and your misinformation. 4 cores is plenty enough for the average consumer. The people that demand more than 4 cores on a consumer chip have no idea what they are talking about, or why they even want them in the first place. Their only logic is "hurr durr, 8 is more than 4". When software developers catch up and can make the applications we use every day run better when more threads are available to them, then we might start seeing more cores show up on consumer chips. Good luck waiting for that day.

fuckin rekt

let em know boi

[Deletive]

Only ddr3 for mobile line? 

[lightningterror]

A new generation integrated graphics engine, a dual-channel memory controller and up to 256MB of on-package cache to speed up graphics workloads.

 

 

Damn intel is also catching up with their igpus. The iris pro igpu already caught up to the gtx750 and this makes me wonder and excited how this next gen is gonna compare.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Looks like another couple of years where my Xeon E3-1231v3 will still be pretty high end. 

[patrickjp93]

bullshit argument. for "consumer grad computing" a dual core with HT is plenty ...

 

the performance improvement per core from sandy bridge to Skylake is laughable.

 

They just can't be bothered to move their ass, because there simply is no competition (which sucks)

No, the per-core performance difference is on the order of 85%. The problem is software not keeping up with newer instructions and instead choosing to focus on legacy support because Windows XP can run on a Pentium 3 and so much of the software built for it wants to hit the widest audience possible.

 

Don't go spouting bullshit to the guy who spends 11 hours a day endlessly writing code and running performance analyses. Intel has plenty of competition from IBM right now and is responding to it. Intel has plenty of competition from the various ARM chip makers and is responding to that. For gaming and consumer computing, the software is not keeping up because 3rd-rate programmers are making it at the behest of managers who listen more to marketing than their own product makers. If you want more performance, blame Microsoft for keeping XP alive so long. Blame software makers for being unwilling to provide multi-versioned code that has multiple copies of the same functions, and the best instructions get used for your processors. Yes, it would double the executable size, but you know what? It would be worth it. 

 

Intel has done its part improving single-core performance while also pushing easier multithreaded programming initiatives such as OpenMP. It is only in this last year that multithreaded code has even begun to emerge for consumer applications. It'll be another 2 years at least before AVX 256 starts being used. Don't blame Intel when Intel has done all the work and you've sat on your ass complaining instead of contributing to making better software to fully utilize hardware that is so powerful it's mind-boggling. We landed on the moon using 16-bit 100MHz CPUs. We now have 4.4GHz single/4.2Ghz multi CPUs with 4 physical cores and 4 additional logical ones to provide better performance for data-independent applications. Software is behind. Hardware is roaring ahead.

[patrickjp93]

Damn intel is also catching up with their igpus. The iris pro igpu already caught up to the gtx750 and this makes me wonder and excited how this next gen is gonna compare.

And the graphics core count is due to increase 50% with a tweaked architecture and they're proving a 256MB eDRAM L4 cache for the Skylake platform. Kaby Lake brings the next generation of graphics architecture.

[Bouzoo]

Damn intel is also catching up with their igpus. The iris pro igpu already caught up to the gtx750 and this makes me wonder and excited how this next gen is gonna compare.

  

And the graphics core count is due to increase 50% with a tweaked architecture and they're proving a 256MB eDRAM L4 cache for the Skylake platform. Kaby Lake brings the next generation of graphics architecture.

GTX 750 and not 750m? How about no.

[patrickjp93]

GTX 750 and not 750m? How about no.

At stock speeds, the 5775C matches the GTX 750. Once boost clocks get involved, the 750 pulls ahead, but realize Intel is nipping at Nvidia's heels, and when the HBM APUs and HMC MPUs (Intel APUs) drop, Nvidia will be totally screwed from the mid range down.

[Derranged]

At stock speeds, the 5775C matches the GTX 750. Once boost clocks get involved, the 750 pulls ahead, but realize Intel is nipping at Nvidia's heels, and when the HBM APUs and HMC MPUs (Intel APUs) drop, Nvidia will be totally screwed from the mid range down.

I wouldn't mind seeing Intels' take on a Big GPU such as the TitanX and FuryX. It would be very interesting to see what their massive R&D budget could crank out.

[evilarceus]

Still waiting for 128 bit processors lel

[Zeruel]

More cores means nothing if IPC doesn't have any considerable gain. 

 

 

IPC > Cores in gaming.

[TheKDub]

I read that as kerby lake, then realized it was kaby...

 

so much disappointment...

[MrSuperb]

It is not a BS argument, its 100% fact. Find me an application that the average consumer would use, that needs more cores? ...

 

that argument holds true for a dual core as well ... if we are talking about the "average consumer"

 

 

No, the per-core performance difference is on the order of 85%.

You have data to back those 85%? I call bullshit. The performance difference between sandy bridge and haswell (single core) was less than 15% ...

Don't go spouting bullshit to the guy who spends 11 hours a day endlessly writing code and running performance analyses

 

guess that only helped to narrow your mind or how could you argue, that it is better for the consumer to stay with 4 cores on their mid to high tier models ...

[ApolloEleven]

PCI Express 3.0 x20.

WHAAAAAAAAAAA?

20 lanes? Same as Skylake.

[ApolloEleven]

But then...they won't respect the Tick-Tock roadmap, will they ?

They already didn't with the release of Devil's Canyon.

[AlwaysFSX]

 

that argument holds true for a dual core as well ... if we are talking about the "average consumer"

 

 

You have data to back those 85%? I call bullshit. The performance difference between sandy bridge and haswell (single core) was less than 15% ...

 

guess that only helped to narrow your mind or how could you argue, that it is better for the consumer to stay with 4 cores on their mid to high tier models ...

You're being so angry that you're not getting a bigger number for your epeen when there's zero reason to put more than four cores on a consumer CPU. None. You can't find us a damn reason why.

[ApolloEleven]

 guess that only helped to narrow your mind or how could you argue, that it is better for the consumer to stay with 4 cores on their mid to high tier models ...

What kind of consumer?

EDIT: I bought a FX-8350 hoping software and games to utilise more cores....it turns out they didn't. Now I am stuck with it only utilising one or two cores with bad IPC while the rest are at idle. Most software has not come to a point where it needs more than dual core yet. For cost-saving measure it is best we are stuck with quad-cores for now.

[MrSuperb]

You're being so angry that you're not getting a bigger number for your epeen when there's zero reason to put more than four cores on a consumer CPU. None. You can't find us a damn reason why.

 

sure ... my "epeen" is too small.

how much do you get paid as Intel warrior?

 

people spending 100s of dollar to get 0.1GHz OC more out of their CPU wasting energy are totally tolerated on this forum, but I am the one with the small "epeen"

[MrSuperb]

But could you please be so kind and tell me what a "typical consumer" does (other than the activities listed below) where a quad core is needed and a hexa-core would not be better?

 

- web browsing

- office work

- watching movies

- listening to music

- games

[lightningterror]

  

GTX 750 and not 750m? How about no.

Actually it even beats the gtx 750 in higher minimum fps.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

[Deli]

But could you please be so kind and tell me what a "typical consumer" does (other than the activities listed below) where a quad core is needed and a hexa-core would not be better?

 

- web browsing

- office work

- watching movies

- listening to music

- games

If you want 6 cores, you can always get 5820K. You will need DDR4 and new mobo for Skylake or Kabylake nonetheless. The cost of a new system is compatible between mainstream i7 and extreme 5820K. You get more PCIe lanes as well with 5820K. Unless you expect Intel to have 6 cores for i5 and i3 as well.

[Bouzoo]

Actually it even beats the gtx 750 in higher minimum fps.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Ah yes that's the 1GB GTX 750 now I remember. Well the minimum FPS could be due to it being iGPU. Notebookcheck says it should be around 940m which is almost the same as 840m. I misread, though you were saying it performs on pair with GTX 750, and seeing how my 850m can't match it I found that impossible.