Yes this is well known. I was talking specifically about Handbrake performance since that's one benchmark we have actually seen a Ryzen demo of. That's where the 9% is from.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
More Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X details tip up
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
Very true and why I don't expect much from the new AMD or Intel CPU's. Unless they drop the price a fair bit which is very unlikely.
I imagine it would be incremental upgrade of things, not just the CPU itself. So in addition to IPC improvements, would likely get a better memory controller (I hope) for higher speed kits, the platform itself will get plenty of new features (octane support) and DMI 3.0 to get on parity with Skylake.
That last part will be what will be most interesting to me. Part of the appeal for say 5930k and 6850k is those extra PCIe lanes on the CPU for multiple M.2 devices. If the DMI moves to 3.0 and can provide additional Gen 3.0 PCIe lanes, that would surely make the business case for the middle CPU even smaller I would have thought!
That last part will be what will be most interesting to me. Part of the appeal for say 5930k and 6850k is those extra PCIe lanes on the CPU for multiple M.2 devices. If the DMI moves to 3.0 and can provide additional Gen 3.0 PCIe lanes, that would surely make the business case for the middle CPU even smaller I would have thought!
Not much CPU wise, but the new chipset brings new features and performance tweaks too. The biggie is the x point memory support and higher frequency ddr4 memory support
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,470
- Location
- Planet Earth
muon;30497306 said:
It appears Skylake-X is probably the "proper" successor to BW-E with upto 10 cores and quad channel memory.
Skylake-X apparently is re-purposed socket 1151 Skylake CPU with dual channel memory running in the new enthusiast socket.
I've already mused about this in the Zen thread, my theory is that LGA2066 will be the standardised platform for Intel. The mainstream platform (LGA1151) will either be killed off or become largely irrelevant as most people won't need an iGPU and won't pay for it like they have done over the last few years, not when AMD offer a cheaper alternative without one.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
mmj_uk;30497346 said:
Really, the standardised platform will become a socket that has way way more pins for almost entirely unrequired quad channel memory in the consumer market that adds cost and power usage?
2066 isn't becoming the standardised platform and never will. IT supports far beyond what a mainstream platform needs.
As for the rest, they'll kill off igpu because AMD offer a cheaper alternative without one? The majority of desktop and much higher majority of laptops are APUs because it saves on a lot of cost, power usage and money.
Intel aren't killing off a lower power, lower cost, more sensible consumer platform with the chips that sell in a ratio of likely 100:1 compared to their cpu only platform, for the higher power, higher cost, completely impractical for laptop and the majority of home users.... no.
If and when it's replaced it would be replaced by a new consumer platform. Increasing cost by using quad channel mobos and a higher pin socket cpu and mobo won't win sales or reduce costs.
They can drop a non igpu having i7700k type cpu by reducing die size and releasing on the current mainstream platform with ease, it would just require a d-gpu. But it would be way lower cost than 2066 platform version.
drunkenmaster;30497481 said:
It's not even out yet and since when did PC users care about power usage? there's no reason that cheaper slimmed down LGA2011/2066 boards can't be released supporting only dual channel capability. Just because the processors support quad channel doesn't mean they have to use it.
drunkenmaster;30497481 said:
I was referring to the current PC mainstream platform (LGA1151), the vast majority of enthusiasts don't need/want an iGPU that doesn't mean that they won't still be in demand in OEM markets. The current Intel mainstream platform is basically mobile processors masquerading as high end PC processors (mainly due to overclocking).
drunkenmaster;30497481 said:
I never said they would, just the PC mainstream platform and I never said with any certainty that it will be killed off, it will likely just become largely irrelevant to PC users because they won't be willing to pay for an iGPU given the choice.
drunkenmaster;30497481 said:
Then why are Intel introducing 7740K on their LGA2066 platform which is still 6mths away instead of the current mainstream platform right now?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Most likely in an attempt to get people to commit to the more expensive platform. IE it's a call that, spend £50-100 more on a more feature mobo, buy this cheaper chip but later on you can upgrade to a 6-10 core cpu. It's the whole, look, more upgrade options, woo.
It's also largely because they have nothing particularly sensible to fight AMD with in the next couple of years. They don't have CPU only in the mainstream, they can't just add a i5 with HT in the mainstream... because it 100% devalues the i7. They don't have high clocked chips on the 2066 platform, that would be what the quad core looks to rectify as well.
Again, most users, even desktop users, don't want a discrete gpu. saying it will become irrelevant because PC users won't be willing to pay for an igpu is frankly just ridiculous, yes they would, almost anyone outside of gaming has no interest in a second card, even though thanks to Intel prices and Intel performance d-gpu is actually cheaper.
As for power, again yes, lots of people are interested in power on desktops.
YOu seem to be doing that thing where you're using your own requirements for a PC and applying them to the entire market. I don't care about power usage when under load, I DO care about power usage when idle. If I want performance that can only be had by 800W under load, who cares, but that doesn't mean when 80% of the time on my computer watching video or browsing the web I want to use 800W.
the massive majority of PC sales aren't to gamers, very few want a discrete GPU given the choice, most would prefer value and form/function over things like where the gpu is located. igpus enable significantly smaller form factors and done right, reduce costs and power usage.
The gpu being half the die of a £360 i7 is a joke, it gives a tiny fraction of the performance of a discrete gpu at ~£180 that is what you're paying for out of that £360 chip. However a £80 Bristol Ridge quad with £40's worth of igpu performs well for the money, not brilliantly but close to what it should be. A £150 quad core zen APU with probably 2-2.5x the performance of the gpu in Bristol Ridge would absolutely give it's money's worth at £75's worth of transistors.
Then we have other things, the vast majority of enthusiasts don't need igpu... right enthusiasts = gamer... oh wait, no they don't. The vast majority of gamers would choose a d-gpu if given the choice... but the vast majority of gamers don't buy high end cpus, gpus or motherboards. Meaning the kabylake quads on 2066 have zero relevance to them.
You also have no idea if the quad core 2066 Kaby's are going to be any cheaper than the quad core kaby APUs on the mainstream platform.
Why buy a 2066 platform.... that has literally ZERO ability to use the 2066 pins, seeing has a huge number of them are for the other two memory channels? A slimmed down 2066 platform with cheaper mobos.... is the current mainstream platform. Anyone buying a 2066 mobo without any of the features than make the 2066 platform what it was, would be insane and mobo manufacturers aren't going to design an entire range of 2066 motherboards just to fit a couple 2066 Kabylake cpus, because again mental.
It's also largely because they have nothing particularly sensible to fight AMD with in the next couple of years. They don't have CPU only in the mainstream, they can't just add a i5 with HT in the mainstream... because it 100% devalues the i7. They don't have high clocked chips on the 2066 platform, that would be what the quad core looks to rectify as well.
Again, most users, even desktop users, don't want a discrete gpu. saying it will become irrelevant because PC users won't be willing to pay for an igpu is frankly just ridiculous, yes they would, almost anyone outside of gaming has no interest in a second card, even though thanks to Intel prices and Intel performance d-gpu is actually cheaper.
As for power, again yes, lots of people are interested in power on desktops.
YOu seem to be doing that thing where you're using your own requirements for a PC and applying them to the entire market. I don't care about power usage when under load, I DO care about power usage when idle. If I want performance that can only be had by 800W under load, who cares, but that doesn't mean when 80% of the time on my computer watching video or browsing the web I want to use 800W.
the massive majority of PC sales aren't to gamers, very few want a discrete GPU given the choice, most would prefer value and form/function over things like where the gpu is located. igpus enable significantly smaller form factors and done right, reduce costs and power usage.
The gpu being half the die of a £360 i7 is a joke, it gives a tiny fraction of the performance of a discrete gpu at ~£180 that is what you're paying for out of that £360 chip. However a £80 Bristol Ridge quad with £40's worth of igpu performs well for the money, not brilliantly but close to what it should be. A £150 quad core zen APU with probably 2-2.5x the performance of the gpu in Bristol Ridge would absolutely give it's money's worth at £75's worth of transistors.
Then we have other things, the vast majority of enthusiasts don't need igpu... right enthusiasts = gamer... oh wait, no they don't. The vast majority of gamers would choose a d-gpu if given the choice... but the vast majority of gamers don't buy high end cpus, gpus or motherboards. Meaning the kabylake quads on 2066 have zero relevance to them.
You also have no idea if the quad core 2066 Kaby's are going to be any cheaper than the quad core kaby APUs on the mainstream platform.
Why buy a 2066 platform.... that has literally ZERO ability to use the 2066 pins, seeing has a huge number of them are for the other two memory channels? A slimmed down 2066 platform with cheaper mobos.... is the current mainstream platform. Anyone buying a 2066 mobo without any of the features than make the 2066 platform what it was, would be insane and mobo manufacturers aren't going to design an entire range of 2066 motherboards just to fit a couple 2066 Kabylake cpus, because again mental.
There's already X99 motherboards out with only dual channel support:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/
A socket costs peanuts in the grand scheme of things, most of the expense of quad channel motherboards is PCB complexity and extra IC's.
The iGPU is the biggest expense to Intel on their current mainstream platform, certainly more than a quad channel memory controller. They simply aren't going to be able to compete with Ryzen quad cores on price without removing the iGPU. If Intel are not planning to make LGA2066 their primary platform then why release an iGPU-less processor on that rather than LGA1151? it actually makes perfect sense to have the full range of processors 4/6/8/10 core on a single platform.
Also you talk about LGA2011 using a lot of power but we haven't seen AMD's new processors yet, the only result I've seen (French magazine) said that it was drawing the same amount of power as a 6900K (90-95W). AMD's TDP ratings have been suspect in the past, RX480 has been shown to significantly exceed its rating.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/
A socket costs peanuts in the grand scheme of things, most of the expense of quad channel motherboards is PCB complexity and extra IC's.
The iGPU is the biggest expense to Intel on their current mainstream platform, certainly more than a quad channel memory controller. They simply aren't going to be able to compete with Ryzen quad cores on price without removing the iGPU. If Intel are not planning to make LGA2066 their primary platform then why release an iGPU-less processor on that rather than LGA1151? it actually makes perfect sense to have the full range of processors 4/6/8/10 core on a single platform.
Also you talk about LGA2011 using a lot of power but we haven't seen AMD's new processors yet, the only result I've seen (French magazine) said that it was drawing the same amount of power as a 6900K (90-95W). AMD's TDP ratings have been suspect in the past, RX480 has been shown to significantly exceed its rating.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,470
- Location
- Planet Earth
TBH,I think Intel is probably more driven by what those big OEMs want than us - unless those OEMs can make a big business case to Intel to drop the consumer desktop platform I expect it will be around for a while longer,and many of those PCs need an IGP.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,580
- Location
- Scotland
Intel decided to push forward Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X launch to June.
http://wccftech.com/intel-basin-falls-x299-hedt-platform/
Interesting. I think Intel see 12 & 16 core Ryzen HEDT CPUs as threat and serious competitor to Intel HEDT.
http://wccftech.com/intel-basin-falls-x299-hedt-platform/
Interesting. I think Intel see 12 & 16 core Ryzen HEDT CPUs as threat and serious competitor to Intel HEDT.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,620
- Location
- Rutland
They'd be daft not too. I can't imagine they're selling much X99 chips at the moment. Ryzen wipes the floor with it in price vs performance.
For me (gaming, light PS work), Skylake X 6 cores will need to cost less than £400 with decent motherboards at under £280 with clock speeds at a minimum of 4.3 once overclocked with good cooling. The 1600x is virtually certain to do 4.0 on all cores. The chip and x370 board will be in the region of £480-500 outside of the ch6. Factor in the quad channel memory and it's going to be a fair bit extra on x299 for not a great deal more performance.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
'Basin falls'
Will it sink then
Will it sink then