Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intel Kaby Lake - no improvement over Skylake

13

Comments

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:
    The reason Intel didn't clock Nehalem higher is that they didn't want to sell a CPU with a TDP of 250 W at stock speeds.
    That hasn't stopped other companies, and it certainly didn't stop overclockers. SPARC 4 is stock 240W, for example. Now, that isn't exactly a consumer desktop CPU, but then again, the Socket 1366 wasn't exactly a consumer platform either.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,347
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    Whatever you say... I will still take my free upgrade to i7 7700k, which base clock is as high as the turbo clock of my actual 6700k. 7700k, the new best gaming CPU of the world. And I can keep my motherboard and RAM, no changes there.

    Where is the fantastic performance of AMD "Zen" btw? We are still waiting... ;)

    Malabooga said:
     ...with even new platform lol
    Errr... no. Just, no. I'd advise to inform yourself before your next Intel bashing post ;)

    PS: I'm still also pro-AMD, my graphic card is still of that brand and it's awesome. AMD CPUs just suck.

    Yeah, because OCing i7 -6xxx to 4,5 Ghz is mission impossible right? lol Thats right you can OC any Skylake CPU to 4,5 GHz. "Fastest CPU" right, no IPC improvenent and from what weve seen pretty much no OC improvement lol

    and thers no new chipset with whole new platform? mmm, yes there is, its actually YOU who should inform yourself lol.
    That's not very technically logic thinking, man. Looks more like feelings talking over logic, actually. Looks like: "I hate Intel, so I'm going to try to make it look like it suck."

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.

    And no, you do NOT have to change your motherboard (and logically, your chipset) in order to use the new CPUs. You can use your actual 170 motherboard just fine. Spreading misinformation is even worse than trying to pass opinion as fact. I'll get my 7700k this month, and it'll fit just fine on the motherboard I'm using right now which is listed in my signature, I actually already got the bios update to support it. Want a screenshot of the Gigabyte bios upgrade page, or are you ok with my word on this ?

    As I said, stop drawing imaginary conclusions and facts based on your blind AMD love and Intel hatred.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,135
    edited November 2016

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.
    While often true, that's not necessarily the case.  Ivy Bridge had higher stock clock speeds than Sandy Bridge, but Sandy Bridge could typically overclock further.
  • IncomparableIncomparable Member UncommonPosts: 1,117
    if cpu's are not getting better then they shoud still get cheaper, but also to increase performance motherboards should allow for more than 1 cpu, and programs should take better advantage of that.

    may be new material needs to be used for a better cpu

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    The only way Intel could add performance to HEDT is to add 2 more cores. Comparing 8 core CPUs of current and last gen gives performance advantage to last gen as it OCs better and overcomes whatever small IPC improvement new gen has.

    But for that small bump in performance you have to pay 1700$ over 1000$ 8 core....so yeah lol.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    Whatever you say... I will still take my free upgrade to i7 7700k, which base clock is as high as the turbo clock of my actual 6700k. 7700k, the new best gaming CPU of the world. And I can keep my motherboard and RAM, no changes there.

    Where is the fantastic performance of AMD "Zen" btw? We are still waiting... ;)

    Malabooga said:
     ...with even new platform lol
    Errr... no. Just, no. I'd advise to inform yourself before your next Intel bashing post ;)

    PS: I'm still also pro-AMD, my graphic card is still of that brand and it's awesome. AMD CPUs just suck.

    Yeah, because OCing i7 -6xxx to 4,5 Ghz is mission impossible right? lol Thats right you can OC any Skylake CPU to 4,5 GHz. "Fastest CPU" right, no IPC improvenent and from what weve seen pretty much no OC improvement lol

    and thers no new chipset with whole new platform? mmm, yes there is, its actually YOU who should inform yourself lol.
    That's not very technically logic thinking, man. Looks more like feelings talking over logic, actually. Looks like: "I hate Intel, so I'm going to try to make it look like it suck."

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.

    And no, you do NOT have to change your motherboard (and logically, your chipset) in order to use the new CPUs. You can use your actual 170 motherboard just fine. Spreading misinformation is even worse than trying to pass opinion as fact. I'll get my 7700k this month, and it'll fit just fine on the motherboard I'm using right now which is listed in my signature, I actually already got the bios update to support it. Want a screenshot of the Gigabyte bios upgrade page, or are you ok with my word on this ?

    As I said, stop drawing imaginary conclusions and facts based on your blind AMD love and Intel hatred.
    1. yeah sure

    2. No no and no rofl. Sandy is STILL among best OCers and its freakign gen 2 ROFL and 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k. Why are you lying, its not lke its not documented in thousands and thousands of test lol Skylake has barely 5% improvement over Haswell.;Not to mention that HAswell OCs better, so there isnt even clear winner rofl The ONLY redeeming quality Skylake has is "SkyOC"....or what ive been mationing all over that you CAN OC ANY Skylake CPU

    3. Not HAVING to change mobo doesnt menas theres no new platform lol Retailers have to get all new inventory which wil take even MORE space and might actually be harder to sell if older platform is actually cheaper as ONLY difference is optane support (which is pointless as that wont be out for quite a while and will be out of realm of consumers anyway)

    4. Stop spreading blatant lies. Your Intel fanboism is really sickening. Intel is rebranding chips and claiing them "new gen" with no improvement over last gen. At least before there was some 3-5% in IPC....

    Its super funny that only one who mentiones AMD in pure Intel thread is you. Kinda shows you have no leg to stand on and are just trolling.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    @Malabooga :

    Kaby Lake is a drop in replacement. And manufacturers are already dropping it in. And - in time - other updated parts will be dropped in.

    Intel - for several years now - have been designing their CPU (and other) updates so that manufacturers do not have to "throw out" their e.g. existing motherboards every time they come out with a CPU "tweak".

    Its called "Supply Chain Management"; working with your suppliers in a way that is good for your company, good for the companies you buy from, good for the companies you sell to. And Intel communicate - and agrees - their strategy at e.g. Intel Developer Conferences. And in lots of other meetings that will take place as well. 

    And the information feeds into Inventory Management. JIT, critical buffer stocks, order management systems - I could go on but accept it or not this is how it is. With companies like SAP and Infor involved in supplying ERP programs.

    And precisely because the CPU updates are "small" it makes it much easier for retailers to sell "older stock". Also one of the reasons why Intel charge a higher price for new stock. There is a strategy throughout the supply chain. Its all part of how manufacturing works.

    It is a very big deal because big sums of money are involved - not development but in manufacturing. Which, as an aside, is why - sometimes - "development companies" struggle to make the transition to manufacturing. 

    And - in case you think this is some "rabid Intel fanboism" AMD do this type of stuff as well. Companies cannot afford to operate any other way.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. They HAVE to produce platofrms. Hving Haswell chips for sale with no mobos is uslesess. Its RETAILERS who suffer because they are STILL left with piles of unsoled stuff rotting in their warehouses, and, prices arent dropping.

    2. Retailers wil now have to stock 3 different platforms.

    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. their AM3 platform can house 6+ years old CPUs and just count how many gens were on that SAME platform. In fact you could say that Intel is going more AMD, but that stil lremains to be seen, if in 3-4 years you can stick new gen Intel CPU in your old mobo....itll get there finally rofl
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,135
    Malabooga said:
    The only way Intel could add performance to HEDT is to add 2 more cores. Comparing 8 core CPUs of current and last gen gives performance advantage to last gen as it OCs better and overcomes whatever small IPC improvement new gen has.

    But for that small bump in performance you have to pay 1700$ over 1000$ 8 core....so yeah lol.
    Reducing power consumption per core does allow them to clock 8 cores higher than they do now.  The reason their 8-core CPUs are clocked lower than their 4-core CPUs is to keep power consumption down.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,018
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.
    While often true, that's not necessarily the case.  Ivy Bridge had higher stock clock speeds than Sandy Bridge, but Sandy Bridge could typically overclock further.
    Is that odd exception true in this case?
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,135
    Torval said:
    Quizzical said:

    If you can overclock a 4.0ghz certified base CPU to 4.5ghz, then you can overclock a 4.2 certified base CPU  even higher. A 6700k at same clock speed was 15% faster than a 4790k, and early benchmarks already show the 7700k 15% faster than a 6700k again.
    While often true, that's not necessarily the case.  Ivy Bridge had higher stock clock speeds than Sandy Bridge, but Sandy Bridge could typically overclock further.
    Is that odd exception true in this case?
    Probably not, but with unreleased parts, we don't know.  Kaby Lake is likely a respin of Sky Lake, which would make it slightly better.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Malabooga said:
    Theres no "8% improvement" Kaby Lake performs pretty much identically to Skylake. Even GPU

    intel-kaby-lake-core-i5-7600k-review_3dmark-firestrike

    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,347
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. They HAVE to produce platofrms. Hving Haswell chips for sale with no mobos is uslesess. Its RETAILERS who suffer because they are STILL left with piles of unsoled stuff rotting in their warehouses, and, prices arent dropping.

    2. Retailers wil now have to stock 3 different platforms.

    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. their AM3 platform can house 6+ years old CPUs and just count how many gens were on that SAME platform. In fact you could say that Intel is going more AMD, but that stil lremains to be seen, if in 3-4 years you can stick new gen Intel CPU in your old mobo....itll get there finally rofl
    Sigh.

    All major manufacturers - ALL not just computer hardware manufacturers - talk to their respective supply chains. Up and down the line. And manufacturers talk to retailers / distributors as well.

    "Manufacturing" and "Supply Chain Logistics" are highly sophisticated processes in their own right. And that is without going into Supply and Demand Modelling" and Pricing. And Preferred Suppliers / Partners. And the links with Training and Investment - and there is more. (Goes back to the 1950s.)

    These are integrated processes that you clearly haven't a clue about.

    Do a little bit of research maybe - or several years worth - before posting something that a) demonstrates what you don't know and b) that the poster you are responding to hasn't a clue. Try - maybe a search on ERP. Not a bad place to start as ERP seeks to link several of the aspects together. (ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning).

    In a nutshell: manufacturing is very, very expensive compared to development which - by comparison - is relatively cheap. And a key aim is to ensure that no one has the "piles of useless stuff" lying around that you talk about. Its in nobodies interest for one part of the supply chain to go out of business. Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock in a store - there is only so much modelling can do. That is the aim however a zero or even an "out of stock" situation. (Customer Satisfaction stuff kicks in here though but its OK to be oos if an alternative is available). And by and large manufacturers get it right.
    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,135
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:
    1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. They HAVE to produce platofrms. Hving Haswell chips for sale with no mobos is uslesess. Its RETAILERS who suffer because they are STILL left with piles of unsoled stuff rotting in their warehouses, and, prices arent dropping.

    2. Retailers wil now have to stock 3 different platforms.

    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. their AM3 platform can house 6+ years old CPUs and just count how many gens were on that SAME platform. In fact you could say that Intel is going more AMD, but that stil lremains to be seen, if in 3-4 years you can stick new gen Intel CPU in your old mobo....itll get there finally rofl
    Sigh.

    All major manufacturers - ALL not just computer hardware manufacturers - talk to their respective supply chains. Up and down the line. And manufacturers talk to retailers / distributors as well.

    "Manufacturing" and "Supply Chain Logistics" are highly sophisticated processes in their own right. And that is without going into Supply and Demand Modelling" and Pricing. And Preferred Suppliers / Partners. And the links with Training and Investment - and there is more. (Goes back to the 1950s.)

    These are integrated processes that you clearly haven't a clue about.

    Do a little bit of research maybe - or several years worth - before posting something that a) demonstrates what you don't know and b) that the poster you are responding to hasn't a clue. Try - maybe a search on ERP. Not a bad place to start as ERP seeks to link several of the aspects together. (ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning).

    In a nutshell: manufacturing is very, very expensive compared to development which - by comparison - is relatively cheap. And a key aim is to ensure that no one has the "piles of useless stuff" lying around that you talk about. Its in nobodies interest for one part of the supply chain to go out of business. Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock in a store - there is only so much modelling can do. That is the aim however a zero or even an "out of stock" situation. (Customer Satisfaction stuff kicks in here though but its OK to be oos if an alternative is available). And by and large manufacturers get it right.
    Dude, even companies that produce stuff have problems with supply chains, let alone retail channels to brick and mortar computer shops.

    Do YOUR research, seems you live n a dream land where everyone knows EXACTLY how many of what thy wil lsell so they order EXACTLY that number.

    In a nutshell: there are still piles of unsold Haswswell chips (AND THEIR PLATFORM) that they just CANNOT get rid off their warehouses and shelves, kinda disproves your dreamland theory lol Market is overwhelmed with unsold Intel chips. Also how does 30% reduced sales account in your "ERP" lol

    I suggest you actually go and meet some retailers because you seem to be completely out of loop of whats happening out there in real world and are just spamming some supply chain theory that DOES NOT even apply.

    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    He is using Intel rigged data, in real world difference is 5% TOPS lol in fact go look reviews which are ALL disspaointed by lack of performance improvement over HAswell.

    Only place where you can see "15%" are Intels pamflets and those "special" Intels benchamarks rofl i guess by now people would learn to ignore those lol


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:
    1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. They HAVE to produce platofrms. Hving Haswell chips for sale with no mobos is uslesess. Its RETAILERS who suffer because they are STILL left with piles of unsoled stuff rotting in their warehouses, and, prices arent dropping.

    2. Retailers wil now have to stock 3 different platforms.

    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. their AM3 platform can house 6+ years old CPUs and just count how many gens were on that SAME platform. In fact you could say that Intel is going more AMD, but that stil lremains to be seen, if in 3-4 years you can stick new gen Intel CPU in your old mobo....itll get there finally rofl
    Sigh.

    All major manufacturers - ALL not just computer hardware manufacturers - talk to their respective supply chains. Up and down the line. And manufacturers talk to retailers / distributors as well.

    "Manufacturing" and "Supply Chain Logistics" are highly sophisticated processes in their own right. And that is without going into Supply and Demand Modelling" and Pricing. And Preferred Suppliers / Partners. And the links with Training and Investment - and there is more. (Goes back to the 1950s.)

    These are integrated processes that you clearly haven't a clue about.

    Do a little bit of research maybe - or several years worth - before posting something that a) demonstrates what you don't know and b) that the poster you are responding to hasn't a clue. Try - maybe a search on ERP. Not a bad place to start as ERP seeks to link several of the aspects together. (ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning).

    In a nutshell: manufacturing is very, very expensive compared to development which - by comparison - is relatively cheap. And a key aim is to ensure that no one has the "piles of useless stuff" lying around that you talk about. Its in nobodies interest for one part of the supply chain to go out of business. Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock in a store - there is only so much modelling can do. That is the aim however a zero or even an "out of stock" situation. (Customer Satisfaction stuff kicks in here though but its OK to be oos if an alternative is available). And by and large manufacturers get it right.
    Dude, even companies that produce stuff have problems with supply chains, let alone retail channels to brick and mortar computer shops.

    Do YOUR research, seems you live n a dream land where everyone knows EXACTLY how many of what thy wil lsell so they order EXACTLY that number.

    In a nutshell: there are still piles of unsold Haswswell chips (AND THEIR PLATFORM) that they just CANNOT get rid off their warehouses and shelves, kinda disproves your dreamland theory lol Market is overwhelmed with unsold Intel chips. Also how does 30% reduced sales account in your "ERP" lol

    I suggest you actually go and meet some retailers because you seem to be completely out of loop of whats happening out there in real world and are just spamming some supply chain theory that DOES NOT even apply.



    Try reading instead of spouting:

    What you said - quote: "1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. <snip>
    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. <snip>"

    What I said: yes they do - which is why companies like SAP and others exist to provide stuff like ERP software. SAP (Intel use some SAP stuff) are a c.100 billion company by the way - and they are not the only major company - Oracle is another. But hey according to you no one does this stuff right?

    I also said - and I quote - "Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock" and "the aim however is a zero".

    The stuff you are prattling on about is factored into the modelling. Will it be 100% accurate? How stupid do you believe industry to be? Not only will it never be "100% accurate" but manufacturers know that it will never be "100% accurate". 

    And they plan accordingly. They know that when they introduce a "better" model the "older" model will be less popular which is part of the reason they adjust prices.

    And they adjust and refine as well; its an iterative process. Those warehouse you go on about - they have stock control systems that feed information back up the supply chain. And the information is used in planning future production; deciding whether its more profitable to boost production or cut back. And yes they may opt to boost production even if they have more unsold stock than planned.

    And its why industry likes certainty; it helps them get it "more right, less wrong".

    Modern manufacturing companies work in collaboration as well as in competition. Intel does; AMD does.

    You - on the other hand - seem to think that manufacturing operates on 19th century methodology. That chip manufacturers don't talk to motherboard manufacturers! Stop digging the hole.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    Considering the forum he is posting it on, game performance should be the primary consideration.  The vast majority of us only stress our computer playing games.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,347
    edited November 2016
    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    Indeed... even though I specified it in my post, the person you answer to choose to ignore it.

    Malabooga said:
    He is using Intel rigged data, in real world difference is 5% TOPS lol in fact go look reviews which are ALL disspaointed by lack of performance improvement over HAswell.
    I'm using my own data, as said in my previous post, and for both CPUs at exactly the same clock speed too.


    May I suggest this nice site for you two ? ;)


    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:
    1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. They HAVE to produce platofrms. Hving Haswell chips for sale with no mobos is uslesess. Its RETAILERS who suffer because they are STILL left with piles of unsoled stuff rotting in their warehouses, and, prices arent dropping.

    2. Retailers wil now have to stock 3 different platforms.

    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. their AM3 platform can house 6+ years old CPUs and just count how many gens were on that SAME platform. In fact you could say that Intel is going more AMD, but that stil lremains to be seen, if in 3-4 years you can stick new gen Intel CPU in your old mobo....itll get there finally rofl
    Sigh.

    All major manufacturers - ALL not just computer hardware manufacturers - talk to their respective supply chains. Up and down the line. And manufacturers talk to retailers / distributors as well.

    "Manufacturing" and "Supply Chain Logistics" are highly sophisticated processes in their own right. And that is without going into Supply and Demand Modelling" and Pricing. And Preferred Suppliers / Partners. And the links with Training and Investment - and there is more. (Goes back to the 1950s.)

    These are integrated processes that you clearly haven't a clue about.

    Do a little bit of research maybe - or several years worth - before posting something that a) demonstrates what you don't know and b) that the poster you are responding to hasn't a clue. Try - maybe a search on ERP. Not a bad place to start as ERP seeks to link several of the aspects together. (ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning).

    In a nutshell: manufacturing is very, very expensive compared to development which - by comparison - is relatively cheap. And a key aim is to ensure that no one has the "piles of useless stuff" lying around that you talk about. Its in nobodies interest for one part of the supply chain to go out of business. Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock in a store - there is only so much modelling can do. That is the aim however a zero or even an "out of stock" situation. (Customer Satisfaction stuff kicks in here though but its OK to be oos if an alternative is available). And by and large manufacturers get it right.
    Dude, even companies that produce stuff have problems with supply chains, let alone retail channels to brick and mortar computer shops.

    Do YOUR research, seems you live n a dream land where everyone knows EXACTLY how many of what thy wil lsell so they order EXACTLY that number.

    In a nutshell: there are still piles of unsold Haswswell chips (AND THEIR PLATFORM) that they just CANNOT get rid off their warehouses and shelves, kinda disproves your dreamland theory lol Market is overwhelmed with unsold Intel chips. Also how does 30% reduced sales account in your "ERP" lol

    I suggest you actually go and meet some retailers because you seem to be completely out of loop of whats happening out there in real world and are just spamming some supply chain theory that DOES NOT even apply.



    Try reading instead of spouting:

    What you said - quote: "1. Intel doesnt have anythign to do with mobo monufaturers. <snip>
    3. AMD doesnt do same thing. <snip>"

    What I said: yes they do - which is why companies like SAP and others exist to provide stuff like ERP software. SAP (Intel use some SAP stuff) are a c.100 billion company by the way - and they are not the only major company - Oracle is another. But hey according to you no one does this stuff right?

    I also said - and I quote - "Which doesn't mean you won't have some remaindered stock" and "the aim however is a zero".

    The stuff you are prattling on about is factored into the modelling. Will it be 100% accurate? How stupid do you believe industry to be? Not only will it never be "100% accurate" but manufacturers know that it will never be "100% accurate". 

    And they plan accordingly. They know that when they introduce a "better" model the "older" model will be less popular which is part of the reason they adjust prices.

    And they adjust and refine as well; its an iterative process. Those warehouse you go on about - they have stock control systems that feed information back up the supply chain. And the information is used in planning future production; deciding whether its more profitable to boost production or cut back. And yes they may opt to boost production even if they have more unsold stock than planned.

    And its why industry likes certainty; it helps them get it "more right, less wrong".

    Modern manufacturing companies work in collaboration as well as in competition. Intel does; AMD does.

    You - on the other hand - seem to think that manufacturing operates on 19th century methodology. That chip manufacturers don't talk to motherboard manufacturers! Stop digging the hole.
    You have absolutely no clue what youre talking about.

    As i said, instead of empty theorizing in your dreamland come down to real world and see how it actually functions rofl.

    Theory and practice are 2 completely different things, especially since your theory doesnt even have anything to do with actuall theory or even less with anythign you want to apply it to rofl
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    Indeed... even though I specified it in my post, the person you answer to choose to ignore it.

    Malabooga said:
    He is using Intel rigged data, in real world difference is 5% TOPS lol in fact go look reviews which are ALL disspaointed by lack of performance improvement over HAswell.
    I'm using my own data, as said in my previous post, and for both CPUs at exactly the same clock speed too.


    May I suggest this nice site for you two ? ;)


    yeah and well believe you instead of thousands upon thousands published tests ROFL Especially with your history of baslessly hyping Intels CPUs (and that hype curb stomped with published tests)
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,347
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:
    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    Indeed... even though I specified it in my post, the person you answer to choose to ignore it.

    Malabooga said:
    He is using Intel rigged data, in real world difference is 5% TOPS lol in fact go look reviews which are ALL disspaointed by lack of performance improvement over HAswell.
    I'm using my own data, as said in my previous post, and for both CPUs at exactly the same clock speed too.


    May I suggest this nice site for you two ? ;)


    yeah and well believe you instead of thousands upon thousands published tests ROFL Especially with your history of baslessly hyping Intels CPUs (and that hype curb stomped with published tests)
    Coming from the guy who regularly posts that AMD is better than Intel, this is amusing, at the least.
    Someone using facts (me), vs someone using wishful thinkings (you). Lemme guess who is the most believable... ;)

    Sorry, but I trust real user experience (and specially my own in "real word" situations, of course) over biased gaming websites. Specially when my own use of the hardware goes way beyond running video games. It's my job with 30 years of experience. What's yours?
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • barasawabarasawa Member UncommonPosts: 612
    Torval said:
    Moore's law is slowing down. Skylake to Kaby Lake will be 3 - 3.5 years instead of the traditional 2. Counts are still increasing but the pace at which they're increasing is slowing and what happens after 7nm is uncertain.

    10nm is likely more than a year away so I guess the attraction of the platform will be on price and features vs Skylake.
    Moores Law isn't about how fast a processor is, it's about how many transistors it has. 

    In the past there was an apparent correlation between two, but it's not so strong these days with the new architectural features they are playing with.

    Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,135
    Malabooga said:

    Quizzical said:
    Ozmodan said:
    Malabooga said:
      ... 6700k was barely ANY faster than 4790k.
    Bad luck kid, I owned the two processors successively.

    At same clock speed (4.4ghz here, conservative overclocking with stock voltage), the 6700k is ~15% faster than the 4790k. And that's not some website benchmarks but my own, done not only with 3DMark, but many other benchmark tools and real life applications like video encoding and 3D rendering.

    And you accuse me of lying? Well, if you aren't lying, then you are just blatantly ignorant. But it's more likely your usual bashing of anything not AMD.

    filmoret said:
    So you trust the 3dmark when it comes to proving your points.  But when it disproves your ideas about AMD GPU's then you completely discard them.  Go get it bro...
    It just proves once again that the person is not reliable when it comes to unbiased performance assessments. He's just reading some bullshit on the net and re-posting it, specially when he can turn it so it sounds negative for either Intel or nVidia.
    15% sounds very inflated, I have two pc's with one of each of the processors and I can discern very little difference either overclocked or stock.  Certainly NOT worth the increased price as most games are gpu locked verses cpu.
    What makes you think he's using gaming performance as the only or even primary comparison between the two CPUs?
    He is using Intel rigged data, in real world difference is 5% TOPS lol in fact go look reviews which are ALL disspaointed by lack of performance improvement over HAswell.

    Only place where you can see "15%" are Intels pamflets and those "special" Intels benchamarks rofl i guess by now people would learn to ignore those lol


    How big of a performance advantage there is depends tremendously on what you're doing.  Sky Lake has certain caches larger than Haswell, and certain additional instructions.  If you're doing something that can make huge use of those, doubling your performance is plausible.  And if you're doing something that can't make any use of them, even a 5% gain at the same clock speeds is probably not happening.

    If you know exactly what programs you care about and know how various hardware performs in those particular programs, I say it's perfectly reasonable to buy the hardware that you know is best for you.  Where it would become unreasonable is insisting that everyone else who doesn't care about your programs and has different use cases should also buy your preferred hardware.  We've seen plenty of that from GPU fanboys ("I had this GPU 15 years ago and something bad happened, so never buy anything from them again"), but Jean-Luc's post doesn't do that.
Sign In or Register to comment.