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

[Bouzoo]

Thanks for providing that video, i had forgotten that it even existed. It is a great way of showing that throwing more cores at a problem is not a solution.

 

On your last note, the only latest games i can think of that are still very single threaded would be MMO's, and even those are still able to benefit from a dual core. I can't find a single person that would play an MMO without running some sort of VoIP software, or listening to music at the same time. Hell, when i play MMO's i tend to do several things at the same time because it keeps my mind off the chores i am probably doing in game.

 

That being said, MMO's cater to the lowest common denominator when it comes to hardware, because being able to reach a wider audience means potentially making more money off of the cash shop. 

Actually MMO's are quite CPU hungry as I've heard, at least I'm sure FFXIV that I'm playing is (iirc is uses "3.5 cores" to max it?)

[MrSuperb]

wow ... I learned something new today.

The "average consumer" is a gamer playing only newest AAA games and streams all his doings ...

[Bouzoo]

wow ... I learned something new today.

The "average consumer" is a gamer playing only newest AAA games and streams all his doings ...

As I said, depends on how you define norm, or rather norm for what. I don't think you can define the norm for everything. That's like saying "a vehicle with 4 cilinders is the norm". For what? Racing such as F1, BTCC or Nascar? For family vehicles? For supercars? It's a bit more complicated than that.

And you're just taking stuff out of the context because you don't have anything constructive to add. If you don't have a single fact or source or anything to back up your statements please don't drag this any further, because I don't think anyone is taking you seriously or will answer for that matter. You want others to back up their claims while you can't back up your own.

[patrickjp93]

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 ...

I do. Because of 256-bit extensions, Haswell gets a Hell of a lot faster if you allow your code to be compiled to use them and if you intelligently minimize the data and control hazards of your code both in count and in locality. Many have claimed we don't have the CPU power to run PhysX. BS. Haswell/Devil's Canyon is more than a quarter of a TFlop on its own. 4 cores * 4.2*10^9 cycles/second * 8 SIMD/core * 2 ops/cycle = 268.8 GFlops. Compare that with Sandy Bridge which tops out at 4 SIMD/core and technically has lower clocks (overclocking aside). If you have the code to leverage that power, the difference is 85% or more, and that difference is both in single core and multi-core performance. It's all up to how well your code is written and whether or not you allow it to use the best instructions you have.

Several reasons: Amdahl's law of multicore scaling is already deep into diminishing returns at 6 cores. We have an insane amount of power in our current CPUs that very little if any existing consumer software is built to leverage. Most of the performance potential is left on the table. We also aren't leveraging our GPUs nearly well enough to accelerate the tasks we have.

[MrSuperb]

As I said, depends on how you define norm, or rather norm for what. I don't think you can define the norm for everything. That's like saying "a vehicle with 4 cilinders is the norm".

well ... still dual cores are the norm in consumer/gaming pcs ...

And you're just taking stuff out of the context because you don't have anything constructive to add. If you don't have a single fact or source or anything to back up your statements please don't drag this any further, because I don't think anyone is taking you seriously or will answer for that matter. You want others to back up their claims while you can't back up your own.

the f*ck?!? ... I said, that I am dissapointed that Intel still sticks to 4 cores in their consumer products. Then I got trashtalked, that NO F*CKING CONSUMER needs more than 4 cores by people claiming to know this, because they are "experts" in that area, but can't give any source for their claims ...

and I don't think, that the LTT video is a good proof for anything, other than the fact, that either games are optimized for multiple threads (no special number in mind) or they aren't.

[MageTank]

wow ... I learned something new today.

The "average consumer" is a gamer playing only newest AAA games and streams all his doings ...

You already damned yourself sir.

 

 

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

 

 

no it hasn't or am I blind?

show me a scenario where the "average consumer" needs more than 2 cores ...

then tell me why 3-4 cores are needed, but 2 extra cores (i.e. 6) wouldn't benefit the "average consumer" at all.

 

As you can see, you already mentioned what the average consumer would need 2-4 cores for. So asking for a scenario of where they would need one makes little sense when you yourself already made the claim that they do. You lumped gaming in with "typical consumer" related tasks. You really should think before you speak, as you are only making this harder on yourself.

 

Even if we look at a small business employee that is working, having 2 cores is essential to his work because of the way work itself has evolved for companies. More and more companies are using skype to communicate with co-workers from different distribution centers, or vendors trying to sell services to a company. Two talk to these people while sending emails, making spreadsheets or searching the web for information while making a presentation, 2 cores can be great for multitasking on this level. Sure, a fast enough single core processor would probably suffice, but a slightly slower dual core would be just as effective and just as cheap.

 

This entire rant you are going on, was to somehow prove a point as to why the average consumer needs more than 4 cores. Rather than make that argument, you are trying to force everyone to prove why we even need more than 2 cores. You completely removed all doubt that a consumer needs more than 4 cores, so you already killed your own previous argument.

 

You want a more clarified answer? 4 cores are the limit on this platform because gaming, the strongest scenario that a normal CONSUMER could possibly produce, runs perfectly fine on 4 cores, and does not benefit from having more than 4. You yourself listed gaming as a typical activity, as does Intel themselves. They design their products in segments for this very reason. As long as gaming is considered a typical consumer activity, their consumer processors will be designed to handle gaming on that platform. Notice the X99 platform, and how it offers absolutely no performance difference for gaming, even when you use those overpriced 8 core processors. Though, trying to play Dragon Age Inquisition on a 4.7ghz G3258 will result in choppy frame rates, where as a locked i5 4690 @ 3.5ghz will play it buttery smooth. 

[patrickjp93]

well ... still dual cores are the norm in consumer/gaming pcs ...

the f*ck?!? ... I said, that I am dissapointed that Intel still sticks to 4 cores in their consumer products. Then I got trashtalked, that NO F*CKING CONSUMER needs more than 4 cores by people claiming to know this, because they are "experts" in that area, but can't give any source for their claims ...

and I don't think, that the LTT video is a good proof for anything, other than the fact, that either games are optimized for multiple threads (no special number in mind) or they aren't.

Games are poorly optimized to scale anyway, but more importantly, there's no reason to leverage all that CPU power if there is no GPU setup powerful enough to require it. Game programmers are already the black sheep of the computer science field, but games are also far more intense than other consumer workloads. We have an insane amount of power sitting untapped in the Haswell, IB, and SB chips. When that gets used up, and if Intel hasn't surged miles ahead again (which they will), then you can complain.

Also, I am a source when it comes to performance analysis. My high performance computing class spent half of our homework building complicated multicore, multi-machine programs and running runtime, memory use, and power use analyses on them, and we got to test between different architectures. Block Matrix multiplication (CPU PhysX) is 85% faster at the same clocks on a Haswell chip thanks to AVX 256. If you can leverage your code to take advantage of vectorization by minimizing your hazards and reducing branching to pointer arithmetic, you'd be surprised just how fast you can go even on older hardware.

It doesn't have to be scientific computing workloads either. If you can arrange your data and its manipulation in any program as to be 4-wide or 8-wide vector slices, you can take advantage of SSE and AVX and get an incredible speed up. I stopped using booleans a long time ago just for this reason. It's easier and faster to have a bunch of 16-bit shorts to stand for various Boolean states and let spatial locality dictate they all stay in cache so any heavily-branching code gets a great speed up even when a branch prediction fails.

[MageTank]

well ... still dual cores are the norm in consumer/gaming pcs ...

the f*ck?!? ... I said, that I am dissapointed that Intel still sticks to 4 cores in their consumer products. Then I got trashtalked, that NO F*CKING CONSUMER needs more than 4 cores by people claiming to know this, because they are "experts" in that area, but can't give any source for their claims ...

and I don't think, that the LTT video is a good proof for anything, other than the fact, that either games are optimized for multiple threads (no special number in mind) or they aren't.

 

Look at the results of the horse running in town. The Dual-Core falls from grace heavily when compared to the other CPU's with more cores. Read the description for a more detailed view. 

 

 

 

Core i7 4790K - 65.0/84.4

Core i5 4690K - 52.0/79.2

Core i3 4130 - 38.0/68.9

G3258 at 4.5GHz OC - 27.0/63.8

FX 8350 - 56.0/75.2

FX 6300 - 45.0/69.6

A G3258, a dual core, OC'd to 4.5GHZ fell to a mimimum frame rate of 27fps, with an average frame rate of 63.8. The i5 CPU, which has exactly 2 more cores, nearly doubled that minimum frame rate, to 52.0fps minimum, and the maximum increased to 79.2. Witcher 3 does not care about core speeds either, it cares more about thread count. 

 

 

Face it. A dual core has limitations in gaming, while a quad core does not. For this reason, it makes sense for quad cores to exist on a consumer setup, because the average consumer, like you yourself have previously stated, plays games. More than 4 cores is not required for a smoother gaming experience, so consumer chips do not need them. 

[MrSuperb]

"This entire rant you are going on, was to somehow prove a point as to why the average consumer needs more than 4 cores."

lol ... I never said, that the "average consumer" needs more than 4 cores.
In fact I said the contrary. I said, the average consumer most likely is fine with 2.
All I said is, that I am dissapointed, that they still stick with 4 cores.

[patrickjp93]

Look at the results of the horse running in town. The Dual-Core falls from grace heavily when compared to the other CPU's with more cores. Read the description for a more detailed view.

A G3258, a dual core, OC'd to 4.5GHZ fell to a mimimum frame rate of 27fps, with an average frame rate of 63.8. The i5 CPU, which has exactly 2 more cores, nearly doubled that minimum frame rate, to 52.0fps minimum, and the maximum increased to 79.2. Witcher 3 does not care about core speeds either, it cares more about thread count.

Face it. A dual core has limitations in gaming, while a quad core does not. For this reason, it makes sense for quad cores to exist on a consumer setup, because the average consumer, like you yourself have previously stated, plays games. More than 4 cores is not required for a smoother gaming experience, so consumer chips do not need them.

To be fair, that's more about the game not having adaptive design and a better thread contention handler. Given the difference in max frame rates is so small by comparison, I'd very much argue it's bad programming. Cache size may also have something to do with it given the very large disparity.

[MrSuperb]

Core i7 4790K - 65.0/84.4
Core i5 4690K - 52.0/79.2
Core i3 4130 - 38.0/68.9
G3258 at 4.5GHz OC - 27.0/63.8

_______

 

so 4 cores are enough or are 8 (logical cores) faster? how about 6 physical cores?

I guess you just "proofed" something you didn't want to proof.

[MageTank]

"This entire rant you are going on, was to somehow prove a point as to why the average consumer needs more than 4 cores."

lol ... I never said, that the "average consumer" needs more than 4 cores.

In fact I said the contrary. I said, the average consumer most likely is fine with 2.

All I said is, that I am dissapointed, that they still stick with 4 cores.

 

still 4 cores ....

 

 

who says 4 cores are enough? enough for what?

 

Context implies that you disagree that 4 cores are not enough. You are mad at the fact that they did not have more than 4 cores, yet you yourself claim they are not needed. How is this your argument? 4 cores on a consumer chip is useful, and it can be seen in plenty of the latest AAA titles. 

 

 

To be fair, that's more about the game not having adaptive design and a better thread contention handler. Given the difference in max frame rates is so small by comparison, I'd very much argue it's bad programming. Cache size may also have something to do with it given the very large disparity.

 

I personally do not have the game, so i won't argue against that it could be terrible programming, but i know among most youtube reviews of it, they claim it is highly optimized. Either way, one could still use Dragon Age Inquisition or Far Cry 4 as examples too. GTA 5 stutters hard on a G3258 because it cannot decode the map fast enough. You will see through the ground, and buildings all the time unless you cap the frame rate to 45fps or so. He asked for a situation in which a quad core was better than a dual core, i gave him one. I can give him several more, and it will never be enough.

[MrSuperb]

Context implies that you disagree that 4 cores are not enough. You are mad at the fact that they did not have more than 4 cores, yet you yourself claim they are not needed. How is this your argument? 4 cores on a consumer chip is useful, and it can be seen in plenty of the latest AAA titles. 

 

I said, that I (and most likely some other users) would like to see more than 4 cores in the $200-300 range.

I NEVER said that the "AVERAGE CONSUMER" needs more than 4 or 2 cores.

Can you accept, that there are users who use their multi-core CPUS for other things than playing games?

Can you accept, that I would like to see a higher core count CPU in a certain price range, even though you are happy with 4 cores?

[Bouzoo]

 

well ... still dual cores are the norm in consumer/gaming pcs ...

I agree and disagree. Consumer, yes. Gaming, no. Nowadays they are considered as minimum for gaming. Also good luck finding a proper pre-build with dual core CPU. Most have i5's. And yes, I said proper, you can see in the video why I think that.

 

the f*ck?!? ... I said, that I am dissapointed that Intel still sticks to 4 cores in their consumer products. Then I got trashtalked, that NO F*CKING CONSUMER needs more than 4 cores by people claiming to know this, because they are "experts" in that area, but can't give any source for their claims ...

 

show me a scenario where the "average consumer" needs more than 2 cores ...
then tell me why 3-4 cores are needed, but 2 extra cores (i.e. 6) wouldn't benefit the "average consumer" at all.

I'm there with them. If you're an average consumer you're fine with 2, if you're not an average why would you need more than 4? Give me a reason. Seriously, a proper reason. Everything above 4 cores is not consumer, that's enthusiast grade. Also i7's are considered that (at least the K ones).

 

and I don't think, that the LTT video is a good proof for anything, other than the fact, that either games are optimized for multiple threads (no special number in mind) or they aren't.

I'll quote you.

name a software that is designed to run on 3-4 cores, but doesn't benefit from 5-6 cores ...

I was being very specific to your demands. It shows that games don't always benefit from 6+ cores. 

 

 

Core i7 4790K - 65.0/84.4
Core i5 4690K - 52.0/79.2
Core i3 4130 - 38.0/68.9
G3258 at 4.5GHz OC - 27.0/63.8

_______

 

so 4 cores are enough or are 8 (logical cores) faster? how about 6 physical cores?

I guess you just "proofed" something you didn't want to proof.

 

And again physical core!=logical core, games don't use physical cores, they use logical ones, so to say. And why would you use 6 physical cores if 4 cores with 8 threads are enough? You'll just be using more power. It has been shown in the video that more cores is not always better.

 

And I'm out, have to study etc. I think this all has been miscommunication between average consumer and a non average consumer. I'm gonna stop here.

[escape093]

Face it. A dual core has limitations in gaming, while a quad core does not.

 

That's a very generalized statement to make. You could say that quad cores have limitations in games that don't utilize all four of its cores.

[MageTank]

Core i7 4790K - 65.0/84.4

Core i5 4690K - 52.0/79.2

Core i3 4130 - 38.0/68.9

G3258 at 4.5GHz OC - 27.0/63.8

_______

 

so 4 cores are enough or are 8 (logical cores) faster? how about 6 physical cores?

I guess you just "proofed" something you didn't want to proof.

I proved that Witcher 3 cares more about threads rather than cores, which is why i said so in my previous post. This only further proves my point, though you seem to be ignoring that simple fact. More threads did increase the FPS, but on AVERAGE, it was only by a difference of 5fps. Min spikes can be a random occurrence, due to the random nature of the benchmarks itself, but even still, 52FPS is easily considered playable. 27 fps on the other hand, not so much. 38 fps on a Core i3 might be playable to some, but to others, they might find that annoying, especially if they are using a free-sync monitor with a range of 45-75fps. Look at the difference in average frame rates, and the difference imposed by threads. The Core i3 is still 4 threads (2 cores, 4 threads) and the difference in average FPS is over 10fps. 4 more threads on the i7 only resulted in a 5 fps difference on average. 

 

Here is another source, if it helps you. 

 

 

This test was performed in a different part of the game. BTW, Kerne = Cores. SMT, or Simultaneous Multi Threading is just the broad term for Hyper Threading. 

 

Here is the full article if you want to give it a read: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

 

My point stands though. 4 cores is the current sweet spot for gaming. Having less can result in a poor experience, having more will not change the experience at all.

[monopolyman]

Taha Khalifa already told us it it being pushed back to 2017. So does this mean it will be even later than 2017?

[MageTank]

That's a very generalized statement to make. You could say that quad cores have limitations in games that don't utilize all four of its cores.

No. The fact that it has 4 cores is not the limiting factor in games. If it has 4 cores, but all 4 cannot be used, it being a quad core is not limiting the game at all. Dual cores have limitations in the sense that their core count IS the limiting factor in certain games, regardless of their clock speed. I can OC my G3258 to 4.7 ghz and perform worse than a locked i3 in the latest AAA titles. I probably should have been more specific in my post, so i guess ill agree somewhat on that front.

 

To clarify, A Quad Core will not be a limiting factor UNLESS an application can use more than 4 threads in the first place. If it cannot, then the limiting factor lies somewhere else. If an application can use 4 threads, but you only have 2 threads available, and both of them are loaded at 100%, then the dual core was the limiting factor. Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, @patrickjp93 will correct me.

[patrickjp93]

Core i7 4790K - 65.0/84.4

Core i5 4690K - 52.0/79.2

Core i3 4130 - 38.0/68.9

G3258 at 4.5GHz OC - 27.0/63.8

_______

so 4 cores are enough or are 8 (logical cores) faster? how about 6 physical cores?

I guess you just "proofed" something you didn't want to proof.

In such a game where the program was not developed as a scale-tree thread model, having some additional logical cores helps as long as the threads are data-independent. If they are instruction-independent the benefit is far greater. That said, most of the difference you see obviously stems from the number of threads the game launches independent of the core count you have. If threads fight each other over the same cores more than necessary as dictated by preemption, you get additional overhead which is why the performance difference is near 100% between the G3258 and the 4790K despite the 4790K having lower clocks and Amdahl's Law saying you can never get 100% scaling by doubling the core count.

[MrSuperb]

honestly I don't really care about games ... the only game I played in the last 2 years pretty much was CS:GO ... I don't really care if a games runs better on 2,4 or 6 cores.

There are certain workloads were I could benefit from more cores and that is pretty much the reason why I would like to see more cores in consumer products ...

[Lord Sparklebottom]

Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years—a phenomenon that Intel has been upholding for decades. But with Intel’s announcement of its 2016 silicon, the law stutters.

 

 

Intel's last advance in CPU shrinkage was with the "Broadwell" processors in 2014 and now we won't see 10 nm chips until early-mid 2017 with the code name "Cannonlake chips".

Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years—a phenomenon that Intel has been upholding for decades. But with Intel’s announcement of its 2016 silicon, the law stutters.

 

That means that the 2016 line-up, code named "Kapy Lake" will use 14 nm chips and set Moore's Law on hold.

During a call yesterday on the topic, Intel’s CEO Brian Krzanich mused on Intel’s adherence to Moore’s Law. He explained that “the last two technology transitions have signaled that our cadence today is closer to 2.5 years than two.” In other words, the delay of 10-nanometer processes puts Moore’s law on hold.

 

The limit of what can be done with conventional silicon is being approached very quickly with IBM showing off 7 nm chips using silicon-germanium rather than pure silicon. The new material allows transistors to switch faster and also use less power, in turn allowing them to sit more densely on a chip. 

 

Source: http://gizmodo.com/intels-2016-chip-line-up-will-put-moores-law-on-hold-1718177275

[Syntaxvgm]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/394306-confirmed-intel-reportedly-delays-10nm-mass-production-poor-yelds/

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/408402-intel-delays-10nm-breaks-tick-tock/

[Grrizz]

What drives me nuts more so than the 10nm delay is the fact the photographer didn't even bother to straighten all the pins before he took that picture!

[qwertywarrior]

what the point with shrinks if the only thing intel does is make the dies smaller. all what they are thinking about is cost savings at this point since they dont have competition

2600k 216mm2

3770k 160mm2

4770k 177mm2

 

 

i bet skybridge wont be over 200

[Goodman2265]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/394306-confirmed-intel-reportedly-delays-10nm-mass-production-poor-yelds/

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/408402-intel-delays-10nm-breaks-tick-tock/

You were to fast for me