But the 6700k isn't the highest Skylake CPU, I think something like a 6770k or even 6790k is coming which will be the new reference.
In the meantime, the reference gamer CPU is still the 4790k.
But the I5 skylake, 6600k, seems to be a much more interesting upgrade for those who aren't aiming for the cream of the crop. We have a prototype at work since a while, and the single core performance is impressive compared to the older I5, which is still very important for gaming.
Actually, as more and more reviews pop out it turns out that both 6600 and 6700 are slower than previous versions pretty much across the board (including gaming)
Even Intel fanbois are dissapointed lol and thats a rare sight
If you have sandy or above you have 0 reason to upgrade. Because Sandy OCs much better than Skylake and then they are even. 4 years later.
Dude, wtf are you smoking. I can link you half a dozen reviews that show that it is overall faster than haswell, not by much, about 5% clock for clock, but still faster. There are a *few* situations where it is slower than haswell, but its not by any means "across the board".
They also are overclocking well, not quite sandy bridge well, but considering they are already starting at 4ghz and people are easily hitting 4.8 to 4.9, thats a good OC margin.
Please stop spewing nonsense.
Who the f cares clock for clock? Did you even read my post? No.
And when you move to gaming its 0%.
No matter of fanboi can change those things and fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl. And what matters more, no sense in upgrading anything. ESPECIALLY when you count in new platfrom.
I'm not a fanboi I don't think, but I will admit that clock for clock comparison to Haswell isn't terrible. While clock to clock may look good "ok" (5% is great, but it's still less than half of what we have seen in the past few generations), the stock clocks aren't quite as good as what Devil's Canyon brought -- the i5 stays comparable, but they dropped the i7 by 200Mhz on the boost ~and~ raised the TDP by about 5W. Those two items aren't necessarily related, the TDP raise could just be due to the integrated graphics, but seeing as how the market for the enthusiast chips doesn't really care about integrated graphics (and I'm still very curious why they keep including them) - the combination of the both of them does eschew a feeling of "Wow!" and leans more toward "Oh... well..."
And then there's admitting that we skipped Broadwell entirely. While it may not have come as close to matching the clocks of the 4790K, it did have a much lower TDP to sorta compensate. The i7 5775C also featured the Crystal Well cache, which while the CPU IPC wasn't better than Haswell, Crystal Well did bring some performance improvements in some applications since it works across both CPU and Graphics, and that isn't even an option with Skylake.
So then looking at it again - 5% increase clock-to-clock over two generations, but with higher TDP and lower clocks - it's very "Meh" as an enthusiast, and the only thing there that really shows much improvement for an enthusiast to get excited about is the system chip (Z170), not really the CPU itself. But investors don't necessarily look at it that way, and that's why we have paper launches.
From my perspective, starting with Nehalem Intel put a huge focus on power savings on the CPU, and that remains the focus with SKUs targeted for mobile/portables (The M line,the mainly the U line, as it's intended to compete with high-end ARM). With Sandy, they started to shift focus toward improving an integrated GPU, and ever since Sandy the desktop/laptop focus has slowly shifted to the GPU. I think skipping Broadwell is more or less the basis of my conjecture.
The Intel GPU has improved a lot. I'm still not saying it's good, and I will say it would be hard to go anywhere but up with it, but anyone has to admit that the Intel GPUs are actually starting to become competitive (performance-wise, not necessarily price-wise) with AMD APUs - especially Crystal Well variants. Maybe DX12 with it's dissimilar GPU support can leverage those latent GPUs in all these gaming rigs to some effect - in a much better way than Lucid Virtu ever managed to handle it at least. But right now, enthusiasts don't have any reason to care one way or the other about the GPU, and Intel is so far ahead in the CPU race that there's no need for them to put any real effort increasing IPC in a meaningful way right now.
...fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl...
Err no. That you definitely are not. Both the 4790k and the 6700k beat the crap out of those 4+ years old similar I7 CPUs.
I'll be moving to the 6700k finally, not because I really need to, but because it's free for me, and the move to z170 and DDR4 along with USB 3.1 ports, Thunderbolt and DMI3.0 will bring some secondary improvements too while still not costing me a cent. I wouldn't do it if it was costing me something significant though, a z97 with a 4790k CPU is still way too close to a z170+6700k to justify the investment.
Its a great upgrade....if its for FREE. So once Intel starts giving away their chips.....
And as you say yourself....if it actually costs anything....nope lol and it costs GREAT deal, in fact you will be several magnitudes better off by buying high end GPU instead.
...fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl...
Err no. That you definitely are not. Both the 4790k and the 6700k beat the crap out of those 4+ years old similar I7 CPUs.
I'll be moving to the 6700k finally, not because I really need to, but because it's free for me, and the move to z170 and DDR4 along with USB 3.1 ports, Thunderbolt and DMI3.0 will bring some secondary improvements too while still not costing me a cent. I wouldn't do it if it was costing me something significant though, a z97 with a 4790k CPU is still way too close to a z170+6700k to justify the investment.
Its a great upgrade....if its for FREE. So once Intel starts giving away their chips.....
And as you say yourself....if it actually costs anything....nope lol and it costs GREAT deal, in fact you will be several magnitudes better off by buying high end GPU instead.
Thing is, your 4 years old CPU doesn't hold a candle to my actual 4790k either. I was just pointing out that no, with a 4 years old CPU, you are not at the top anymore. And I'm getting the upgrade because of my work, not because of Intel giving away free chips
Lol no.
As you said yourself, youre getting upgrade because its FREE lol
OP I have worked with computers for 27 years (Building,fixing, etc.) I have never seen someone drop so many NOT used acronyms. The X86 one sure but sku,bin blah blah blah no one uses these terms even people who know what they mean. you strike me as a dude who wants to tute his own horn.
Tech just creeps these days. It's probably partly them milking the market as much as possible, partly lack of competition, but a big part of it is game design.
I agree. This is how I would explain it as well.
As for others who mentioned Skylake's lackluster performance improvement over the last round of chips, I will be buying 1151 parts in a couple months because my AMD PC is almost 5 years old and needs an upgrade. Anyone currently at Sandy Bridge won't get the big gains that I'll get and can probably wait out another generation.
But the 6700k isn't the highest Skylake CPU, I think something like a 6770k or even 6790k is coming which will be the new reference.
In the meantime, the reference gamer CPU is still the 4790k.
But the I5 skylake, 6600k, seems to be a much more interesting upgrade for those who aren't aiming for the cream of the crop. We have a prototype at work since a while, and the single core performance is impressive compared to the older I5, which is still very important for gaming.
Actually, as more and more reviews pop out it turns out that both 6600 and 6700 are slower than previous versions pretty much across the board (including gaming)
Even Intel fanbois are dissapointed lol and thats a rare sight
If you have sandy or above you have 0 reason to upgrade. Because Sandy OCs much better than Skylake and then they are even. 4 years later.
Dude, wtf are you smoking. I can link you half a dozen reviews that show that it is overall faster than haswell, not by much, about 5% clock for clock, but still faster. There are a *few* situations where it is slower than haswell, but its not by any means "across the board".
They also are overclocking well, not quite sandy bridge well, but considering they are already starting at 4ghz and people are easily hitting 4.8 to 4.9, thats a good OC margin.
Please stop spewing nonsense.
Who the f cares clock for clock? Did you even read my post? No.
And when you move to gaming its 0%.
No matter of fanboi can change those things and fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl. And what matters more, no sense in upgrading anything. ESPECIALLY when you count in new platfrom.
Stop trying to change the argument. You said that it wasn't faster, it is. That is indisputable fact. If you wanted to argue cost benefit then there is something to be said there. But you didnt. Sandy is under no circumstances better than skylake, period, end of conversation. Even a sandy at 4.8ghz is still significantly slower than skylake at the same speed. And 4.8 is generally proving very easy for skylake.
Is the overall price for an upgrade worth it? No, unless there are other mitigating factors.
[mod edit]
Post edited by Vaross on
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
But the 6700k isn't the highest Skylake CPU, I think something like a 6770k or even 6790k is coming which will be the new reference.
In the meantime, the reference gamer CPU is still the 4790k.
But the I5 skylake, 6600k, seems to be a much more interesting upgrade for those who aren't aiming for the cream of the crop. We have a prototype at work since a while, and the single core performance is impressive compared to the older I5, which is still very important for gaming.
Actually, as more and more reviews pop out it turns out that both 6600 and 6700 are slower than previous versions pretty much across the board (including gaming)
Even Intel fanbois are dissapointed lol and thats a rare sight
If you have sandy or above you have 0 reason to upgrade. Because Sandy OCs much better than Skylake and then they are even. 4 years later.
Dude, wtf are you smoking. I can link you half a dozen reviews that show that it is overall faster than haswell, not by much, about 5% clock for clock, but still faster. There are a *few* situations where it is slower than haswell, but its not by any means "across the board".
They also are overclocking well, not quite sandy bridge well, but considering they are already starting at 4ghz and people are easily hitting 4.8 to 4.9, thats a good OC margin.
Please stop spewing nonsense.
Who the f cares clock for clock? Did you even read my post? No.
And when you move to gaming its 0%.
No matter of fanboi can change those things and fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl. And what matters more, no sense in upgrading anything. ESPECIALLY when you count in new platfrom.
Stop trying to change the argument. You said that it wasn't faster, it is. That is indisputable fact. If you wanted to argue cost benefit then there is something to be said there. But you didnt. Sandy is under no circumstances better than skylake, period, end of conversation. Even a sandy at 4.8ghz is still significantly slower than skylake at the same speed. And 4.8 is generally proving very easy for skylake.
Is the overall price for an upgrade worth it? No, unless there are other mitigating factors.
[mod edit]
Only thins its proving is that its not worthy upgrade over anything from past 4-5 years rofl
As i said, you can fanboi it and spin it all you like. Fact is that Intel hasnt release anything but fluff in last 4-5 years and pool of people who are running core2duos is drying up.
Not to mention that AMD is getting free boost with games (and software in general) using more cores/dx12 and is waaaaaaay ahead of Intel in price/performance ratio.
Intel eiher needs something revolutionary or significant price drop. And Skylake is neither.
Some things are expected from Intel and its not living up to expectations.
I give up. You keep throwing around the fanboy card. The only one who is a fanboy here is you. AMD hasn't competed objectively in the gaming space in CPU's for almost half a decade. Their price performance is only better on low and midrange CPU's. If you want a higher end CPU you absolutely go Intel. Period. Hell even AMD used an intel CPU when demonstrating their Project Quantum box. For OBVIOUS reasons.
Regardless, im not going to bother wasting time talking to you. I should of ignored your last post, and i went against my instincts and engaged you... it was clearly a waste of time.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Intel hasn't offered very big of CPU improvements over Sandy Bridge in 2011. But as desktop CPUs go, AMD still hasn't caught up to where Intel was in 2011. I'm hoping that Zen will shake things up next year.
I give up. You keep throwing around the fanboy card. The only one who is a fanboy here is you. AMD hasn't competed objectively in the gaming space in CPU's for almost half a decade. Their price performance is only better on low and midrange CPU's. If you want a higher end CPU you absolutely go Intel. Period. Hell even AMD used an intel CPU when demonstrating their Project Quantum box. For OBVIOUS reasons.
Regardless, im not going to bother wasting time talking to you. I should of ignored your last post, and i went against my instincts and engaged you... it was clearly a waste of time.
There was a few things where AMD couldnt compete. Thats about it. Times change. DX12 will also make CPU even less important.
With finally using more cores and DX12 AMD is getting free boost, and for those, expencive intel that costs twice as much and perforems SAME doesnt make much sense. The hierarchy will pretty much be:
i7 FX-83xx FX-63xx
And thats pretty much it.
For those with no need for graphic cards -> APU that performs 2x better than Intels igp.
Lets just hope intel isn't just milking the market. If they're really having trouble (if Hasswell - Skylake is all they managed that is a poor result) AMD has a chance to compete again with Zen. Seing a strong AMD is in everybodys interest because it will speed up innovation and drive down prices no matter wich one you want to buy in the end.
I'll happily stick to my 4.7ghz i3770k until then.
I think Intel is pretty much ignoring the PC market.
The PC market isn't a growth opportunity. They are already the undisputed leader in that sector. Why spend energy, time, resources, and money on that then? I don't blame them at all.
They are extremely focused on SOC, mobile markets, complimentary side markets (they did buy McAfee. they owned Havok until just recently, there's a plethora of other examples) - and all the technologies that go into the sectors that are showing growth (power consumption and management, integrated graphics, wireless technologies, etc).
So all we have seen since Sandy (which was in development up to 10 years prior to it's release, back when PC was the growth sector) have been hand-me-down improvements from their shift in focus. And it seems to have worked out ok for them, as the competition still hasn't threatened them in that sector.
For everyone saying DX12 will level the playing field....
Yeah... all the games that are out there now, using DX9/10/11... they won't magically get any better. And there are a whole lot more of them than there are DX12 titles, of which I can only think of one in pre-alpha that you can actually play today (and by most accounts Ark runs pretty horribly to marginal on pretty well everything - not necessarily faulting it, it's still "pre-release", but they are charging money for it... so)
For everyone saying DX12 will level the playing field....
Yeah... all the games that are out there now, using DX9/10/11... they won't magically get any better. And there are a whole lot more of them than there are DX12 titles, of which I can only think of one in pre-alpha that you can actually play today (and by most accounts Ark runs pretty horribly to marginal on pretty well everything - not necessarily faulting it, it's still "pre-release", but they are charging money for it... so)
Lets not forget that you need Windows 10 for DX12 as well. It will most likely be another 5 years before we really start seeing dx12 being widely utilized.
I give up. You keep throwing around the fanboy card. The only one who is a fanboy here is you. AMD hasn't competed objectively in the gaming space in CPU's for almost half a decade. Their price performance is only better on low and midrange CPU's. If you want a higher end CPU you absolutely go Intel. Period. Hell even AMD used an intel CPU when demonstrating their Project Quantum box. For OBVIOUS reasons.
Regardless, im not going to bother wasting time talking to you. I should of ignored your last post, and i went against my instincts and engaged you... it was clearly a waste of time.
There was a few things where AMD couldnt compete. Thats about it. Times change. DX12 will also make CPU even less important.
With finally using more cores and DX12 AMD is getting free boost, and for those, expencive intel that costs twice as much and perforems SAME doesnt make much sense. The hierarchy will pretty much be:
i7 FX-83xx FX-63xx
And thats pretty much it.
For those with no need for graphic cards -> APU that performs 2x better than Intels igp.
If you want to have a serious discussion we can. But trying to claim that an equivalent performing intel CPU is 2x the cost of the AMD CPU is a complete and utter joke.
The 8350 only outperforms an i5 4790k in very few scenarios in programs that are designed around utilizing more than 4 cores. Which is almost 0 games. Its great for professional programs that are designed to use as many cores as possible.
Now, 3 or 4 years from now we might have a real discussion as game developers are (finally) moving towards properly utilizing as many cores as they can. I do agree that the future is more than 4 cores. But as it stands right now and in the next probably 1-2 years, having more than 4 cores very rarely pans out well for a gamer.
Edit: Also thought I should mention I 100% agree with you as far as integrated graphics solutions. AMD is def the way to go if that is your need.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I think Intel is pretty much ignoring the PC market.
The PC market isn't a growth opportunity. They are already the undisputed leader in that sector. Why spend energy, time, resources, and money on that then? I don't blame them at all.
They are extremely focused on SOC, mobile markets, complimentary side markets (they did buy McAfee. they owned Havok until just recently, there's a plethora of other examples) - and all the technologies that go into the sectors that are showing growth (power consumption and management, integrated graphics, wireless technologies, etc).
So all we have seen since Sandy (which was in development up to 10 years prior to it's release, back when PC was the growth sector) have been hand-me-down improvements from their shift in focus. And it seems to have worked out ok for them, as the competition still hasn't threatened them in that sector.
For a system with integrated graphics, what you really want is a die with Zen CPU cores together with that integrated GPU, and with HBM on package to relieve the memory bottleneck. That's not announced yet, but it's got to be coming eventually. And when it does, $100 discrete video cards become pointless.
For everyone saying DX12 will level the playing field....
Yeah... all the games that are out there now, using DX9/10/11... they won't magically get any better. And there are a whole lot more of them than there are DX12 titles, of which I can only think of one in pre-alpha that you can actually play today (and by most accounts Ark runs pretty horribly to marginal on pretty well everything - not necessarily faulting it, it's still "pre-release", but they are charging money for it... so)
People buy new hardware for NEW games, not to play old ones with 1000 FPS.
And dx12 will be here much sooner than YOU expect it. I can guarantee you that. Theres A LOT of interest from all big players to push dx12.
And MS is giving away Win10 for free.
Arc runs crappy on everything. Its just a mess of a game right now.
And for more cores - Witcher 3, Fallout 4... .... ... if you think hugely popular AAA titles arent really relevant.....
I give up. You keep throwing around the fanboy card. The only one who is a fanboy here is you. AMD hasn't competed objectively in the gaming space in CPU's for almost half a decade. Their price performance is only better on low and midrange CPU's. If you want a higher end CPU you absolutely go Intel. Period. Hell even AMD used an intel CPU when demonstrating their Project Quantum box. For OBVIOUS reasons.
Regardless, im not going to bother wasting time talking to you. I should of ignored your last post, and i went against my instincts and engaged you... it was clearly a waste of time.
There was a few things where AMD couldnt compete. Thats about it. Times change. DX12 will also make CPU even less important.
With finally using more cores and DX12 AMD is getting free boost, and for those, expencive intel that costs twice as much and perforems SAME doesnt make much sense. The hierarchy will pretty much be:
i7 FX-83xx FX-63xx
And thats pretty much it.
For those with no need for graphic cards -> APU that performs 2x better than Intels igp.
If you want to have a serious discussion we can. But trying to claim that an equivalent performing intel CPU is 2x the cost of the AMD CPU is a complete and utter joke.
The 8350 only outperforms an i5 4790k in very few scenarios in programs that are designed around utilizing more than 4 cores. Which is almost 0 games. Its great for professional programs that are designed to use as many cores as possible.
Now, 3 or 4 years from now we might have a real discussion as game developers are (finally) moving towards properly utilizing as many cores as they can. I do agree that the future is more than 4 cores. But as it stands right now and in the next probably 1-2 years, having more than 4 cores very rarely pans out well for a gamer.
Edit: Also thought I should mention I 100% agree with you as far as integrated graphics solutions. AMD is def the way to go if that is your need.
It costs 110$. And it sells VERY well. In my coutry its 50% cheaper than cheapest i5 and 130% cheaper than i5-k. Not to mention it has chaper boards also.
What IS true is that software needed quite a while to catch up with hardware. But nonetheless its happening. And beside i7 (300+$ CPU) AMD has better deal for new games. And its NEW games that will drive sales.
What do you think people will look, can they pay half the price for same-ish peformance in new games or will their old game run in 120 FPS instead of 140 FPS?
For a system with integrated graphics, what you really want is a die with Zen CPU cores together with that integrated GPU, and with HBM on package to relieve the memory bottleneck. That's not announced yet, but it's got to be coming eventually. And when it does, $100 discrete video cards become pointless.
Thats still 2017 were talking about. Even if you upgrade now it could be 2 years until you see zen APU
It costs 110$. And it sells VERY well. In my coutry its 50% cheaper than cheapest i5 and 130% cheaper than i5-k. Not to mention it has chaper boards also.
What IS true is that software needed quite a while to catch up with hardware. But nonetheless its happening. And beside i7 (300+$ CPU) AMD has better deal for new games. And its NEW games that will drive sales.
What do you think people will look, can they pay half the price for same-ish peformance in new games or will their old game run in 120 FPS instead of 140 FPS?
In the end what would YOU choose?
"The Core i5-4590 is a clear performance-per-dollar winner, demonstrating no weaknesses in any of the games we've tested."
Please link to something other than wccftech which has a long standing history of posting cherry picked data.
I can link you several other articles from reputable hardware website which show that overall an FX8350 does NOT outperform an i5. Its *about* 60% of the cost, and performs at baout 70% of the speed of an i5. Objectively it is a better value for money, but its nowhere even in the realm of 50% as much for the same speed. Not even close. If you wanted to argue that point against an i7 then yes you would be correct.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Let's take away the labels and pick some round numbers for simplicity. Processor A costs $100 and processor B costs $200. Processor A offers 2/3 of the performance of processor B. Which is a better value in performance per dollar?
You might say, A offers 2/3 of the performance of B at 1/2 of the price, so A is the better value. The problem is that you don't buy a processor all by itself. If you have to spend $300 on other parts for the computer, then a system with CPU A offers 2/3 of the performance of one with B, but at 4/5 of the price. Measured that way, B offers better performance per dollar.
But neither of those are really the way people buy parts. It's more a case of, you've got a budget and you get the best you can fit into that budget. Today, it would be ridiculous to get an AMD CPU in a $1500 gaming rig, and it would also be ridiculous to get an Intel CPU in a $500 gaming rig. If you've got $500 for the entire computer, a $200 CPU just doesn't fit. And if you've got $1500, then I don't care if the AMD CPU is completely free; you don't want to unnecessarily give up a lot of CPU performance on that budget.
Agreed 100% quiz. However he is wanting to argue things in a vacuum about strictly speaking price/perf in games. And he keeps linking the same 1 game in the same 1 wwcftech article as his claim that an AMD proc is 50% the cost for the same performance... and its frankly horsecrap. The point is also like you said, if you're going with SLI'd 980ti's, you can't throw an FX6300 behind it unless you like kneecapping yourself from the start.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
And when you move to gaming its 0%.
No matter of fanboi can change those things and fact if you have 4+ years old CPU youre still at the top rofl. And what matters more, no sense in upgrading anything. ESPECIALLY when you count in new platfrom.
And then there's admitting that we skipped Broadwell entirely. While it may not have come as close to matching the clocks of the 4790K, it did have a much lower TDP to sorta compensate. The i7 5775C also featured the Crystal Well cache, which while the CPU IPC wasn't better than Haswell, Crystal Well did bring some performance improvements in some applications since it works across both CPU and Graphics, and that isn't even an option with Skylake.
So then looking at it again - 5% increase clock-to-clock over two generations, but with higher TDP and lower clocks - it's very "Meh" as an enthusiast, and the only thing there that really shows much improvement for an enthusiast to get excited about is the system chip (Z170), not really the CPU itself. But investors don't necessarily look at it that way, and that's why we have paper launches.
From my perspective, starting with Nehalem Intel put a huge focus on power savings on the CPU, and that remains the focus with SKUs targeted for mobile/portables (The M line,the mainly the U line, as it's intended to compete with high-end ARM). With Sandy, they started to shift focus toward improving an integrated GPU, and ever since Sandy the desktop/laptop focus has slowly shifted to the GPU. I think skipping Broadwell is more or less the basis of my conjecture.
The Intel GPU has improved a lot. I'm still not saying it's good, and I will say it would be hard to go anywhere but up with it, but anyone has to admit that the Intel GPUs are actually starting to become competitive (performance-wise, not necessarily price-wise) with AMD APUs - especially Crystal Well variants. Maybe DX12 with it's dissimilar GPU support can leverage those latent GPUs in all these gaming rigs to some effect - in a much better way than Lucid Virtu ever managed to handle it at least. But right now, enthusiasts don't have any reason to care one way or the other about the GPU, and Intel is so far ahead in the CPU race that there's no need for them to put any real effort increasing IPC in a meaningful way right now.
And as you say yourself....if it actually costs anything....nope lol and it costs GREAT deal, in fact you will be several magnitudes better off by buying high end GPU instead.
As you said yourself, youre getting upgrade because its FREE lol
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As for others who mentioned Skylake's lackluster performance improvement over the last round of chips, I will be buying 1151 parts in a couple months because my AMD PC is almost 5 years old and needs an upgrade. Anyone currently at Sandy Bridge won't get the big gains that I'll get and can probably wait out another generation.
Is the overall price for an upgrade worth it? No, unless there are other mitigating factors.
[mod edit]
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
As i said, you can fanboi it and spin it all you like. Fact is that Intel hasnt release anything but fluff in last 4-5 years and pool of people who are running core2duos is drying up.
Not to mention that AMD is getting free boost with games (and software in general) using more cores/dx12 and is waaaaaaay ahead of Intel in price/performance ratio.
Intel eiher needs something revolutionary or significant price drop. And Skylake is neither.
Some things are expected from Intel and its not living up to expectations.
Regardless, im not going to bother wasting time talking to you. I should of ignored your last post, and i went against my instincts and engaged you... it was clearly a waste of time.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
WTF are you talking about?
http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/
There was a few things where AMD couldnt compete. Thats about it. Times change. DX12 will also make CPU even less important.
With finally using more cores and DX12 AMD is getting free boost, and for those, expencive intel that costs twice as much and perforems SAME doesnt make much sense. The hierarchy will pretty much be:
i7
FX-83xx
FX-63xx
And thats pretty much it.
For those with no need for graphic cards -> APU that performs 2x better than Intels igp.
I'll happily stick to my 4.7ghz i3770k until then.
I think Intel is pretty much ignoring the PC market.
The PC market isn't a growth opportunity. They are already the undisputed leader in that sector. Why spend energy, time, resources, and money on that then? I don't blame them at all.
They are extremely focused on SOC, mobile markets, complimentary side markets (they did buy McAfee. they owned Havok until just recently, there's a plethora of other examples) - and all the technologies that go into the sectors that are showing growth (power consumption and management, integrated graphics, wireless technologies, etc).
So all we have seen since Sandy (which was in development up to 10 years prior to it's release, back when PC was the growth sector) have been hand-me-down improvements from their shift in focus. And it seems to have worked out ok for them, as the competition still hasn't threatened them in that sector.
Yeah... all the games that are out there now, using DX9/10/11... they won't magically get any better. And there are a whole lot more of them than there are DX12 titles, of which I can only think of one in pre-alpha that you can actually play today (and by most accounts Ark runs pretty horribly to marginal on pretty well everything - not necessarily faulting it, it's still "pre-release", but they are charging money for it... so)
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you want to have a serious discussion we can. But trying to claim that an equivalent performing intel CPU is 2x the cost of the AMD CPU is a complete and utter joke.
The 8350 only outperforms an i5 4790k in very few scenarios in programs that are designed around utilizing more than 4 cores. Which is almost 0 games. Its great for professional programs that are designed to use as many cores as possible.
Now, 3 or 4 years from now we might have a real discussion as game developers are (finally) moving towards properly utilizing as many cores as they can. I do agree that the future is more than 4 cores. But as it stands right now and in the next probably 1-2 years, having more than 4 cores very rarely pans out well for a gamer.
Edit: Also thought I should mention I 100% agree with you as far as integrated graphics solutions. AMD is def the way to go if that is your need.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
And dx12 will be here much sooner than YOU expect it. I can guarantee you that. Theres A LOT of interest from all big players to push dx12.
And MS is giving away Win10 for free.
Arc runs crappy on everything. Its just a mess of a game right now.
And for more cores - Witcher 3, Fallout 4... .... ... if you think hugely popular AAA titles arent really relevant.....
It costs 110$. And it sells VERY well. In my coutry its 50% cheaper than cheapest i5 and 130% cheaper than i5-k. Not to mention it has chaper boards also.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4904560&CatId=11857
Both of these are "8350"
i3 becoming obsolete due to 4 core requirements of new games. So pretty much only option is FX-63xx
Which is cheaper and performs better/same and can actually run games without hacking the game.
Now count in whole new platform Intel pushes all the time, while you can use AMD CPUs on 5 years old boards.
Again.
http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/
future is here.
What IS true is that software needed quite a while to catch up with hardware. But nonetheless its happening. And beside i7 (300+$ CPU) AMD has better deal for new games. And its NEW games that will drive sales.
What do you think people will look, can they pay half the price for same-ish peformance in new games or will their old game run in 120 FPS instead of 140 FPS?
In the end what would YOU choose?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-6.html
Please link to something other than wccftech which has a long standing history of posting cherry picked data.
I can link you several other articles from reputable hardware website which show that overall an FX8350 does NOT outperform an i5. Its *about* 60% of the cost, and performs at baout 70% of the speed of an i5. Objectively it is a better value for money, but its nowhere even in the realm of 50% as much for the same speed. Not even close. If you wanted to argue that point against an i7 then yes you would be correct.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You might say, A offers 2/3 of the performance of B at 1/2 of the price, so A is the better value. The problem is that you don't buy a processor all by itself. If you have to spend $300 on other parts for the computer, then a system with CPU A offers 2/3 of the performance of one with B, but at 4/5 of the price. Measured that way, B offers better performance per dollar.
But neither of those are really the way people buy parts. It's more a case of, you've got a budget and you get the best you can fit into that budget. Today, it would be ridiculous to get an AMD CPU in a $1500 gaming rig, and it would also be ridiculous to get an Intel CPU in a $500 gaming rig. If you've got $500 for the entire computer, a $200 CPU just doesn't fit. And if you've got $1500, then I don't care if the AMD CPU is completely free; you don't want to unnecessarily give up a lot of CPU performance on that budget.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche