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

  • 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: 25,347
    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.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    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?
  • 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: 25,347
    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.
  • 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)
  • barasawabarasawa Member UncommonPosts: 618
    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: 25,347
    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.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:

    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
    Never said it was a theory; its reality.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    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?
    Its clear now that you have NO clue what i post.

    As i said before show me Intel CPU for 100$ that is better than FX83xx/FX9xxx

    Real user experience, as WELL as those who actually dive much deeper in performance like extreme OCers confirmed what is truth and what is crap...and well, as always, Intels pamflets (as well as you just parroting those) are crap rofl. If we actually add up all performance improvements INTEL claims over gens, Skylake is 70-100% faster than Snad Brigde ROFL

    Quizzical said:
    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.
    Thats all nice and dandy, but with such selective reasning AMD CPUs easily beat Intels 2-3 times more expencive offerings. Just use integer operations and all 8 cores lol

    AND this is gaming site and primarily gaming performance in question, im sure if you search far and wide youll find isolated cases where i7 6700 beats i7 4790 by 15% but in VAST MAJORITY of stuff (including MOST USED stuff) AND IPC its barely 5% faster, and in gaming specifically theres pretty much NO difference even to 2nd gen Sandy Bridge, let alone Devils Canyon lol

    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:

    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
    Never said it was a theory; its reality.
    Its pure theory, and it isnt even applicable to what you want to apply it. Its obvious that you have 0 experience iny any of it.


    Post edited by Malabooga on
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    Torval said:
    barasawa said:
    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.
    I never said it was how fast a processor is. I said it was about counts, although I can't think of a processor that doubled its transistor count that was less powerful than the previous generation.

    Moore's Law (since several people here have forgotten or modified it's definition): "refers to an observation made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965. He noticed that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since their invention." Much later revised that to two years, because he realized that the original pace was unsustainable and that there was an end to the law.

    The number of transistors isn't doubling every year, or even two years. I was wrong about the Skylake to Kaby Lake timeline as Quizzical so respectfully pointed out. I was looking at process node shifts and mixed up some dates. Nonetheless the point still stands that the time to double is slowing down as is the entire release and update cycle. Moore's Law has almost played itself out.
    If you just look at a CPU core, your right, transistor count hasn't moved much in recent years.

    But if you look at per silicon die (which is what, if we are being technical, Moore's Law states) - between improvements in IGP on consumer chips, and additional cores and cache on server chips, Moore's Law is pretty well still holding up.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited November 2016
    Malabooga said:

    Its pure theory, and it isnt even applicable to what you want to apply it. Its obvious that you have 0 experience iny any of it.
    Pure theory? Even though SAP have a market capitalization of c.$100 billion.

    What does that make AMD then with a capitalisation of c. $6 billion? An illusion. You mean your post is just a fairy tale? 

    There are providers other than SAP as well. I mentioned SAP because Intel in c. 2005 transitioned from in-house ERP stuff to SAP HANA. A move that took c. 5 years. And guess what the Business Intelligence (BI) modules do? Collect and analyse e.g. warehouse data. 

    Maybe I need to mention the $100 billion number again in case you skipped over it. 

    And as for thinking I know nothing about this keep dreaming. 


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    Malabooga said:
    Quizzical said:
    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.
    Thats all nice and dandy, but with such selective reasning AMD CPUs easily beat Intels 2-3 times more expencive offerings. Just use integer operations and all 8 cores lol

    AND this is gaming site and primarily gaming performance in question, im sure if you search far and wide youll find isolated cases where i7 6700 beats i7 4790 by 15% but in VAST MAJORITY of stuff (including MOST USED stuff) AND IPC its barely 5% faster, and in gaming specifically theres pretty much NO difference even to 2nd gen Sandy Bridge, let alone Devils Canyon lol

    Yes, there are situations where AMD CPUs outperform Intel.  For example, something very heavy on random lookups into a 1 MB table would probably do it, as some AMD CPUs can fit that table in L2 cache and Intel can't.  Heavy use of FMA4 in situations where FMA3 doesn't work might do it, too, especially your algorithm makes it impractical to use SSE or AVX.  And if you know that's your use case, you absolutely should buy AMD CPUs rather than Intel.

    Just because a given product is best for the "average" consumer doesn't mean it's best for everyone.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:

    Its pure theory, and it isnt even applicable to what you want to apply it. Its obvious that you have 0 experience iny any of it.
    Pure theory? Even though SAP have a market capitalization of c.$100 billion.

    What does that make AMD then with a capitalisation of c. $6 billion? An illusion. You mean your post is just a fairy tale? 

    There are providers other than SAP as well. I mentioned SAP because Intel in c. 2005 transitioned from in-house ERP stuff to SAP HANA. A move that took c. 5 years. And guess what the Business Intelligence (BI) modules do? Collect and analyse e.g. warehouse data. 

    Maybe I need to mention the $100 billion number again in case you skipped over it. 

    And as for thinking I know nothing about this keep dreaming. 


    And this PROVES you have 0 experience with that in practice and real world.

    Thats the problem with your "know about". It rarely EVER applies in real world.

    Quizzical said:
    Malabooga said:
    Quizzical said:
    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.
    Thats all nice and dandy, but with such selective reasning AMD CPUs easily beat Intels 2-3 times more expencive offerings. Just use integer operations and all 8 cores lol

    AND this is gaming site and primarily gaming performance in question, im sure if you search far and wide youll find isolated cases where i7 6700 beats i7 4790 by 15% but in VAST MAJORITY of stuff (including MOST USED stuff) AND IPC its barely 5% faster, and in gaming specifically theres pretty much NO difference even to 2nd gen Sandy Bridge, let alone Devils Canyon lol

    Yes, there are situations where AMD CPUs outperform Intel.  For example, something very heavy on random lookups into a 1 MB table would probably do it, as some AMD CPUs can fit that table in L2 cache and Intel can't.  Heavy use of FMA4 in situations where FMA3 doesn't work might do it, too, especially your algorithm makes it impractical to use SSE or AVX.  And if you know that's your use case, you absolutely should buy AMD CPUs rather than Intel.

    Just because a given product is best for the "average" consumer doesn't mean it's best for everyone.
    The scope of this forum is avearge home user AND mostly on games. Delving into stuff that 99.9% of your average users will never encounter is pretty much beyond this forum.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Malabooga said:
    gervaise1 said:



    And this PROVES you have 0 experience with that in practice and real world.

    Thats the problem with your "know about". It rarely EVER applies in real world.



    How does modern manufacturing work then? Eh?
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Thsi is not about manufacturing, its abot selling lol. Whole selling channel is not single company, in fact its quite a few comanies along the channel which differ greatly in....everything lol
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Malabooga said:
    Thsi is not about manufacturing, its abot selling lol. Whole selling channel is not single company, in fact its quite a few comanies along the channel which differ greatly in....everything lol
    Ah you don't have a clue.

    And did I say anything at any point about single company? No. That was your position remember that Intel / AMD don't talk to mobo makers. 

    As I  said above: Modern manufacturing companies work in collaboration as well as in competition.

    And no it is not just about selling. Again as I said above sales data is fed back and influences future manufacturing.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Sometimes a company releases something that doesn't quite work the way they hoped.  It happens to them all.  Its the overrral track record that matters.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    gervaise1 said:
    Malabooga said:
    Thsi is not about manufacturing, its abot selling lol. Whole selling channel is not single company, in fact its quite a few comanies along the channel which differ greatly in....everything lol
    Ah you don't have a clue.

    And did I say anything at any point about single company? No. That was your position remember that Intel / AMD don't talk to mobo makers. 

    As I  said above: Modern manufacturing companies work in collaboration as well as in competition.

    And no it is not just about selling. Again as I said above sales data is fed back and influences future manufacturing.
    Uh huh, how did that "collaboration" turned up for Intels mobile pitful endevours?

    You have 0 clue what youre talking about.
Sign In or Register to comment.