Intel Skylake Launch Schedule Surfaces

Right on time to kill Zen if it even manages to deliver, huh?

 

Saving up for Skylake. Finally upgrading my Sandy i think...

Anyway, still dont understand why Broadwell exists when Skylake is this close.

 

Not really, those getting this over Zen would have got this anyway. For those more open minded, they will look at Zen as to what it will hopefully be, and look at Skylake and see Sandy Bridge... and go for the better value option.

 

This intel's generation does not matter. Its launch does not matter. It is not upgrade worth purchasing to anyone who has decent 4 years old CPU.
6-cored i5 or better luck next time.

 

Totally agree, at least that’s what I intend to do wait and see how everything folds

 

is it worth upgrade over sandy to skylake ?
i mean price/performance ratio, with still high price DDR4


i myself think wait for skylake-e for upgrade

 

problem being Zen is still far down the road, and we can only speculate on it's performance relative to Intel

AMD needs sleepy, disinterested Intel for Zen to work

if Skylake or Cannonlake turn out to be anything more than just very modest upgrades, it's going to be Buldozer all over again

 

Not really. Next year intel comes with 6-core i5 or I say: "GTFO" because Gaming will be about 6+ full threads and HT does not cut it good enough (based on tests).
Optimally 8 full threads.

Even Excavator with its low power/ OK performance lithography would be good 8-xore FX chip as its efficiency per module touches steamroller at 25W per module. (8 cores = 4 modules => 100W on CPU cores + logic; It may do at 115W as well as bulldozer-FX does with 225W)

So even if AMD brings only 20% improved IPC over excavator (which I think they can easily do just by move from CMT to SMT and little work on memory controller) it will be very good 8-core CPU.

Bulldozer failure was not in total performance, but in fact that 4 core i5 IPC was like 60~70% higher. Therefore unless intel can make same IPC jump again they have to bring 6-cores to i5.
And here it is clear that AMD has a lot of space to improve, but how much space there is left for intel?

 

You guys are making an awful lot of declarative statements without knowing how Skylake or Zen are going to perform.

 

You do not need to know exact performance at all. You only need to know what will market need.
Total performance of FX-8350 is 30% higher than my i5-2500k provides (at same price).
Next gen games (DX12/Vulkan) will use 6~8 cores that means those FX CPU's will finally show some teeth after years.

Since FX-8350 AMD increased IPC about same as intel. Now they move from CMT to SMT, that is nearly free gain. And then they will still have some headroom (to catch on intel's IPC).
So even if AMD an intel do from that time same IPC improvement (and intel keeps same advantage) 4 core intel will do in games worse than 8 core AMD because there will be use for those cores.

I have maybe another 6 months where new games will be better on my CPU than on AMD's. So for me it was very good choice those years ago.
But next year there will be reason to upgrade. Either intel brings decently priced 6-core or AMD's 8-core gets all sales.

 

That doesn't bother them ONE BIT. Look ^^

 

DX12 is meaningless because an 8 core AMD processor isn't going to suddenly become a 500fps monster. Read here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm/4

In a demo specifically designed to maximize the number of draw calls, a dual core i3 was sufficient. So that's out.

 

If you have seen those numbers and consider them enough, then you do not need that graphics card, you could get there with gtx680 and i3 easily.
But reality vs starswarm bench are quite different stories.

 

Everything in this quote has no meaning.

 

Reality is that fx 8350 at 4ghz cant even beat i5 2500k at 3.3ghz.

FX's wont be magically faster. It is what it is and it will stay there.

 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/382806?baseline=2612661
Looking at sub tests and where 2500k @4.5GHz has upper hand... those things really matters not.
If you take best 2500k score which is around 5.2GHz vs this FX-8350 which is not best score, then i5 still loses in total performance. And then you can look again at subtest and think about which of them are used most of time and which are in use maybe 25 minutes per month.

 

What you've linked here shows a 3.3ghz 5 year old Intel processor against a 2.5 year old, 4.6ghz AMD one and the Intel still wins or ties in everything that isn't purely integer and synthetic.

No, it doesn't lose in total performance, unless your definition of "total performance" is a purely integer based synthetic benchmark. Then yeah, obviously, it's got 8 full integer cores. Unfortunately for you those aren't really that useful without the rest of the core, in real life.

I think it's telling that you chose to compare the two processors in the best case for the AMD one and compared it to a CPU made in 2010.

 

My dear, I tend to link benches of my own system, running i5-2500k at 4.5 GHz and I accidentally happen to be on W10. Stock 3.3GHz i5 scores 8800points while OCed FX 8-core chips do around 16000.

And to put you into perspective:
You believe that 3.3GHz 4 cored i5 is quite equal (or even stronger since: "No, it doesn't lose in total performance") to 8-core AMD's @4.6GHz.

That would require intel to have 2.7x higher IPC&FP than AMD.

 

Spare me.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/455590