Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: BoilerDown on December 06, 2016, 12:05:47 PM
-
Early returns are unimpressive to say the least:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/05/intel_core_i77700k_cpu_synthetic_benchmark_sneak_peek
If I recall this is a 95W part compared the 90W in the previous generation, so the lack of improvement is doubly mystifying. The only reason to get this instead of Skylake is if the extra 5W lets it overclock higher, which is no guarantee.
If you're a Windows 10 avoider, then there's still no reason to update past Haswell / Broadwell, as Skylake and later will require you to update to Windows 10 eventually (and possibly Kaby Lake won't have anything but Windows 10 support from the start).
With AMD's new stuff coming out soon as well, we have to hope that Zen actually performs close to Haswell level, forcing Intel to release something decent in whatever comes next. In theory Intel's die shrink should be after Kaby Lake, but who knows really at this point. One thing is certain: AMD's lack of competitiveness has left Intel completely off the hook, this is what a future of only one CPU company looks like. Zen has to succeed.
-
Yes, it is a bit disappointing. Here's hoping!
-
Followup, intended to measure IPC performance compared to the current generation:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/09/intel_kaby_lake_core_i77700k_ipc_review
TL;DR: Intel could be selling rebadged Skylake chips and outside of minor power savings, no one would know the difference.
Here continues the vicious cycle of Intel saying that poor chip sales means they won't invest in new desktop CPUs, and enthusiasts realizing that no improvement means they don't need to buy a new CPU. Only AMD coming out with something competitive can break this cycle, imo.
-
One more thing, Kaby Lake will be Windows 10 - only in the consumer space: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do-it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html
So those of us who want to ride Windows 7 or 8 all the way to the end of extended support need to stick to Skylake or earlier.
-
One more thing, Kaby Lake will be Windows 10 - only in the consumer space: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do-it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html
So those of us who want to ride Windows 7 or 8 all the way to the end of extended support need to stick to Skylake or earlier.
At this rate that shouldn't be too hard to do......for most folks that will require a full platform changeout. The price\performance ratio will cause a lot of pause if gaming is the main focus for the upgrade.
-
The hype sure reversed itself quickly, early days several sites that got a look at Kaby had posted superlative gains and performance, alas, as usual, it was overblown. I thought I'd maybe done my upgrade cycle for a couple desktops 6 months too early with Broadwell E and a 6700k Skylake, but perhaps not so much.
Still, this year IMO we don't have much cause for major complaint, jumps forward with HD/m.2 options, Pascal being at the very worst a reasonable upgrade for the cost, and with the Rift and Vive both being pretty capable in their own ways, with the Rift working in Ah3 better than in any other flight sim IMO, for me it has been one of the better years in terms of PC gaming and components. Also the capabilities for gaming laptops took a big jump IMO, my 970m laptop was really good, but the new 1070/1080 4k options available are fantastic for travelers or anyone that wants a portable gaming system.
-
The hype sure reversed itself quickly, early days several sites that got a look at Kaby had posted superlative gains and performance, alas, as usual, it was overblown. I thought I'd maybe done my upgrade cycle for a couple desktops 6 months too early with Broadwell E and a 6700k Skylake, but perhaps not so much.
Still, this year IMO we don't have much cause for major complaint, jumps forward with HD/m.2 options, Pascal being at the very worst a reasonable upgrade for the cost, and with the Rift and Vive both being pretty capable in their own ways, with the Rift working in Ah3 better than in any other flight sim IMO, for me it has been one of the better years in terms of PC gaming and components. Also the capabilities for gaming laptops took a big jump IMO, my 970m laptop was really good, but the new 1070/1080 4k options available are fantastic for travelers or anyone that wants a portable gaming system.
Good point, Gman.................
I had not factored in VR use in my thoughts when I posted.............
:salute
-
I wasn't criticizing anything you said, I agree with all of it.
Maybe Skuzzy can explain this, or someone else, I frequently wonder why GPU companies can make really decent jumps, the 980/ti/etc to the 1080/Titan Pascal/etc jump was pretty significant, no matter which card you pick or how you break it down, the cost/performance ratio really took a big green up arrow jump IMO, and then used much less power and made less heat to boot. Yet, looking at the CPU side of things, take whatever Intel platform you like (AMD too I guess, I'm just not that familiar with their CPU/MB anymore), and compare it to the next/previous generation, and it's often single digits of real performance gains. WTH?! Why is that, why can the graphics companies put out faster, cooler, more efficient, and even cheaper products, while the CPU side of the house can't. Or is it more of a "doesn't" issue, than "can't"?
The answer, an accurate, researched, and fact checked, answer, would be a fantastic article, as I've not really seen anything that great which specifically covers this.
-
Gman, I don't quite understand what you mean. For example, if we compare the fastest dual core Intel processors, there's a huge leap in performance between Core2Duo e8600 and i3-6320, the latter having over double the performance for half the price and 20% lower energy consumption. I chose this example because I'm still running an e8500 and was wondering how much a similar type processor has improved.
I must admit, though, that comparing the flagship video cards from the same years have a much larger percentual margin in performance.
Could it be that CPU's are reaching somewhat of a saturation point while GPU's still have new areas to discover? I mean, I'm quite happy with my e8500, but as we know a GTX280 won't run AH3 too well despite having been "the most powerful graphics card ever created (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/graphics-cards/editor-s-choice-top-10-graphics-cards-415705)" back in 2008.
-
CPU vs GPU is much like the same comparison as CISC vs RISC processor architecture.
The GPU can make a lot of assumptions as its goal is singular. Get the pixel to the frame buffer.
CPU's have to deal with a lot of complex logic and run a far wider range of instructions. CPU's have to fight constant logic branching which invalidates the data in the CPU cache. CPU's have to deal with multiple I/O interrupts which also invalidates the cache. Then there is context switching, due to multiple programs running, which also invalidate the cache.
GPU's have to do one thing. Get the color of that pixel done. They are not hampered with all the things which contribute to slowing down the CPU. GPU's have been able to drive ever advancing designs in 3D presentation software. There is a synergy between the GPU and the software designed to run it. This is sorely lacking between the CPU and operating systems of the day.
Bottomline: It is going to take a major paradigm shift, in operating system design, to allow true hardware innovation to occur for the main computer system. Maybe, one day, we will be able to pick up where the innovation left off in the 80's (there is a long story behind that one).
-
I thought it was because GPUs are massively parallel and to increase performance they just increase shaders etc. A modern GPU has literally thousands of processors. CPUs can't take that route because most software can not make use of more than a few processors?
-
715, in my understanding your explanation means the same as the lack of synergy between the CPU and operating systems Skuzzy referred to. Your layman's terminology helped me understand it better. Thank you! :cheers:
-
Win10, with some modifications after install, has been the most stable OS I've dealt with.
The one thing I hate....is the lack of control for updates. You can "defer" or it does it on its own...... aggravating "feature".
Had nothing against Win 7.....tried Win 8 and went (GAG)..so when Win10 came out it was an easy jump.
-
Regular reviews are out.
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/01/03/intel_core_i77700k_kaby_lake_processor_review_roundup
Many reviews at that link.
Here's another: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10959/intel-launches-7th-generation-kaby-lake-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-i3-7350k
It looks like the bottom line is that Kaby Lake's high end CPUs give the same performance as their predecessor, but perhaps overclock a little better. A few other features that probably won't matter to many people.
However the i3-7350K (an unlocked i3) is the real surprise for the mid-range or value segment. Cheap and overclockable. Probably a great CPU for Aces High for the money. I didn't see this one coming.
-
It's the power side that is impressive.
-
Something new and previously unknown:
Kaby Lake-X series i7 7740K: https://videocardz.com/67610/intel-core-i7-7740k-and-asrock-x299-professional-gaming-i7-spotted
New socket, higher stock speed, higher TDP, no integrated GPU (which only generates waste heat for a gamer with an add-on GPU). This has the specs of a gamer dream CPU. Looks like they decided that since Kaby Lake overclocks so well, they might as well do some of it stock and sell you the improvement. If I were upgrading my gaming PC now, this is what I'd get.
-
Not happening for me at all. No Windows 7 support, so I am done with anymore hardware updates for Windows computers.
-
harsh, I installed my new kaby lake processor last night, re-loaded windows 10 in ten minutes. Happy days!! :banana:
-
X299 chipset
optane
cannon lake x series
wow my build is obsolete already.
But still no 5GHz+ stock cpu's..................
they have over a billion transisters in a cpu now. If people were transistors, you could barely make a dozen cpu's........
the 3 core lake at 4.5GHz stock is prolly an option I'd consider if building new now. As skuzzy pointed out, gamings use of multithreading is not necessarially practical, but speed, you can never have to much.
:salute
-
A little more info... Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X being pushed out a bit sooner:
https://techreport.com/news/31719/rumor-intel-pulls-x299-and-skylake-x-release-to-late-june