Ars Rips on intel with KL review

[RichUK]

What games benefit from more than 4 cores with HT?

BF1 only has a marginal benefit.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

So much misunderstanding of ipc
"
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge: Average ~5.8% Up
Ivy Bridge to Haswell: Average ~11.2% Up
Haswell to Broadwell: Average ~3.3% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR3): Average ~2.4% Up
Broadwell to Skylake (DDR4): Average ~2.7% Up
"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

The progress is always exagerated. But having multiple generation tested paint the right picture.

^^^ This. Folks keep crowing that Sky/Kabylake is the only CPU fit for gaming.
Absolute BS - a Sandy at the same frequency is only ~24% slower. It's not like trying to use a Q6600 for modern gaming
Upgrading my spare Z77 rigs this evening with 2600Ks ($90 each on CL). Should keep them going for a LONG time yet (have 16GB of 2133 DDR3 and 780s currently).

 

[CakeMonster]

The only evidence I have seen is that 8 threads are getting more and more use. The mainstream i7's have been pulling ahead slowly but surely. But 4 cores are still perfectly fine and it doesn't look like that's changing in the short time frame. So the little advantage above 4 threads is easily taken care of by the mainstream i7's for now. And with Intel lagging severely with aged architecture and lower clock speeds on HEDT, the choice is easy for gamers right now.

 

[krumme]

I cant have sufficient high min fps on the huge 64man bf1 maps. And that is running a ib i5 quad at all core 4.2.
At the same time we have people saying this forum today a 2c 4t is the minimum for gaming with a dgpu.
Hell no! If anything 4c is a bare mimimum and 6c or 8c is where desktop mainstream and enthusiast ought to be. Not another quad with same perf as 3 years ago and only marginal improved from 2011 sb 2500k oc.
Intel will take a serious beating with club knife and showel for this stupid camping. Man i hate campers

 

[krumme]

The only evidence I have seen is that 8 threads are getting more and more use. The mainstream i7's have been pulling ahead slowly but surely. But 4 cores are still perfectly fine and it doesn't look like that's changing in the short time frame. So the little advantage above 4 threads is easily taken care of by the mainstream i7's for now. And with Intel lagging severely with aged architecture and lower clock speeds on HEDT, the choice is easy for gamers right now.

Who is buying a cpu to keep it for 2 or 3 years these days?

It have taken years to get the games to use more threads but the consoles have forced it and while it will only progress very slowly the tendency will only continue. No need to buy something that is outdated in 2 years when the clean dx12 engines hit us.

A 350 usd 7700 buys you like 30% more perf than a 6 year old 2600 oc vs oc. Its nothing.
I got 60% more perf uplift than that just plugging in a k6-2 400 instead of the k6 200. For a cost of about 60 usd. And after a year or two. Lol.

I demand a 350 usd 8c 16t cpu. I will take it at low freq out the box if it pleases the marketing department and will take the 10min to oc it myself. After waiting for 5 years and nothing have happened this is only reasonably.

 

[cytg111]

I cant have sufficient high min fps on the huge 64man bf1 maps. And that is running a ib i5 quad at all core 4.2.
At the same time we have people saying this forum today a 2c 4t is the minimum for gaming with a dgpu.
Hell no! If anything 4c is a bare mimimum and 6c or 8c is where desktop mainstream and enthusiast ought to be. Not another quad with same perf as 3 years ago and only marginal improved from 2011 sb 2500k oc.
Intel will take a serious beating with club knife and showel for this stupid camping. Man i hate campers

You feel like your "ib i5 quad at all core 4.2" is holding you back in bf1, 64p maps? You sure something else is not running (origin) or bad netcode?

 

[CakeMonster]

I demand a 350 usd 8c 16t cpu. I will take it at low freq out the box if it pleases the marketing department and will take the 10min to oc it myself. After waiting for 5 years and nothing have happened this is only reasonably.

As a gamer, IPC and frequency is what I'm looking for. Its not that I don't want more cores, its that I don't want to pay the price of lower real world gaming performance given the actual alternatives. The Intel HEDT platform delivers an older architecture and lower clock speeds. Its not a match for mainstream SL/KL. If AMD can rival that, I'd be ecstatic. But more cores has a price, and that price has to be paid whether you go with Intel or AMD.

 

[RichUK]

I cant have sufficient high min fps on the huge 64man bf1 maps. And that is running a ib i5 quad at all core 4.2.
At the same time we have people saying this forum today a 2c 4t is the minimum for gaming with a dgpu.
Hell no! If anything 4c is a bare mimimum and 6c or 8c is where desktop mainstream and enthusiast ought to be. Not another quad with same perf as 3 years ago and only marginal improved from 2011 sb 2500k oc.
Intel will take a serious beating with club knife and showel for this stupid camping. Man i hate campers

My i3 6100 overclocked to 4.5ghz ran BF1 at max settings at 1080p 60fps just fine.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

You feel like your "ib i5 quad at all core 4.2" is holding you back in bf1, 64p maps? You sure something else is not running (origin) or bad netcode?

To be fair, a 4.2GHz SB/IVB i5 is a little on the anemic side. 4.6GHz+ or an SB/IVB i7 sure.

 

[dahorns]

As a gamer, IPC and frequency is what I'm looking for. Its not that I don't want more cores, its that I don't want to pay the price of lower real world gaming performance given the actual alternatives. The Intel HEDT platform delivers an older architecture and lower clock speeds. Its not a match for mainstream SL/KL. If AMD can rival that, I'd be ecstatic. But more cores has a price, and that price has to be paid whether you go with Intel or AMD.

Yeah, I mean, the simple fact is more cores also means slower clock speeds. Right now four faster real cores is often better than 8 real cores (which by necessity are slower). Single thread performance reigns supreme. And evidence of change in that regard is lacking.

 

[Doom2pro]

It doesn't matter what KL was "supposed" to be, it's going to get judged vs whatever Ryzen ends up being, and if Ryzen ends up being as good as it sounds like it's going to be, KL is a disaster.

 

[cytg111]

To be fair, a 4.2GHz SB/IVB i5 is a little on the anemic side. 4.6GHz+ or an SB/IVB i7 sure.

I am still not convinced it is the 8 threaded nature of an i7 that gives it an edge, 8 vs 6 megs l2 cache thats a 33% edge right there.
I am not aware of any benches that pits a i5 vs i7 with HT disabled vs i7 with HT enabled ... But i'd like to see one.

 

[krumme]

You feel like your "ib i5 quad at all core 4.2" is holding you back in bf1, 64p maps? You sure something else is not running (origin) or bad netcode?

99.99% its fine. But i want it 99.999% if i have 1 sec in 20 min where it is bad its not good enough imo. I am a bit hysterical here. And actually had good benefit of mantle in bf4 but dx12 is junk in bf1 so i use dx11.
It doesnt strike me as netcode problems but i will have to look into it when you mention it. And see if origin is guilty because it is running.

 

[krumme]

As a gamer, IPC and frequency is what I'm looking for. Its not that I don't want more cores, its that I don't want to pay the price of lower real world gaming performance given the actual alternatives. The Intel HEDT platform delivers an older architecture and lower clock speeds. Its not a match for mainstream SL/KL. If AMD can rival that, I'd be ecstatic. But more cores has a price, and that price has to be paid whether you go with Intel or AMD.

Now i can use mt perf for some seldom rendering but i tend to favor my min fps over it. But there is multiple purpose.
The difference for bwe vs skl ipc is a miniscule 3% and bwe oc to 4.4. I take a 8c 4.4 bwe vs a 4.8 kbl in that situation any day of the week if it is similar cost.
Thats even before thinking of where the 2018 dx12 engines gets us. If zen gets into 2019 ps5 and xbox a future quad kbl will easily be to slow. Its 3 years from now.

 

[StinkyPinky]

As a gamer, IPC and frequency is what I'm looking for. Its not that I don't want more cores, its that I don't want to pay the price of lower real world gaming performance given the actual alternatives. The Intel HEDT platform delivers an older architecture and lower clock speeds. Its not a match for mainstream SL/KL. If AMD can rival that, I'd be ecstatic. But more cores has a price, and that price has to be paid whether you go with Intel or AMD.

I tend to agree. I think 4 cores with HT is the best combo for gaming and I think it will stay that way for the current generation of games at least (so 2-3 years).

Will be interesting to see what the 4 core (and maybe 6 core) Zen cpu's offer. The 8 core will probably be too low frequency to be acceptable for gaming and probably more suited for people doing hardcore encoding, image manipulation etc.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I am still not convinced it is the 8 threaded nature of an i7 that gives it an edge, 8 vs 6 megs l2 cache thats a 33% edge right there.
I am not aware of any benches that pits a i5 vs i7 with HT disabled vs i7 with HT enabled ... But i'd like to see one.

Good point, had forgotten about the L2 cache size difference. Hasn't someone done gaming benches with various i7s with HT disabled?

 

[Ajay]

Well,the Intel of today isn't the same Intel of Noyce, Grove and Moore. Innovation and cost reduction drove new market opportunities. For all that Intel spends on R&D, they are really only increasing perf/watt and not perf/$ at any significant pace. No one can really say that this is the wrong approach unless a competitor proves them wrong. Though this is, unsurprisingly, frustrating to enthusiasts, it's really just business (where the bottom line rules).

 

[krumme]

Good point, had forgotten about the L2 cache size difference. Hasn't someone done gaming benches with various i7s with HT disabled?

Yep and the results are more or less like the old days meaning less than impressive results with ht
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...rks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

But its also a result of the testing at high gpu setting and the selection of games. Secondly its worth noticing its a thread not core.

When the new games comes like ashes the picture will change
www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/har...ou-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.amp.html

But yeaa it takes years to get there. But as i wrote who buys a completely new pc to have it only for 2-3 years. I mean i should last at least 6 years better 8 and take 3 gens of gpu.

 

[C@mM!]

I would argue with consoles being 8 core designs, and code being shared between all three platforms, that having at least 8 threads (if not cores) is where you would be aiming to futureproof yourself in gaming. Sure, those console cores are weak, but cores switching workload instructions is always going to be detrimental for performance.

KL i7's are still a valid purchase I think, but I'd be wary of i5's going forward. But the real thing is, why would anyone upgrade now with Zen around the corner, if at least to see either price drops or if Zen is the better buy?

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

But yeaa it takes years to get there. But as i wrote who buys a completely new pc to have it only for 2-3 years. I mean i should last at least 6 years better 8 and take 3 gens of gpu.

Not in the past. But yeah, the i7 920 D0 and 2500K will go down as my longest lasting CPUs.
If the X58 mobos weren't fetching such insane prices on eBay (and Sandy CPUs not so cheap to come by, eg. $50 for 2500K and $90 for 2600K), I'd still be using these faithful girls :

 

[krumme]

Well,the Intel of today isn't the same Intel of Noyce, Grove and Moore. Innovation and cost reduction drove new market opportunities. For all that Intel spends on R&D, they are really only increasing perf/watt and not perf/$ at any significant pace. No one can really say that this is the wrong approach unless a competitor proves them wrong. Though this is, unsurprisingly, frustrating to enthusiasts, it's really just business (where the bottom line rules).

I think its shortsighted business development. Instead of making the x86 thrive Intel have brought themselves in a situation where pc market is decreasing and they are threatened by arm. Its darn risky to take so much milk from the cow - you end up killing it.

Thats what happen when its not a family run business but a board with slim influence and ceo with 5 year plans.

Thats not to say its easy for them but it sure is much easier than beeing eg amd. Lol.

 

[jpiniero]

If you think about it, they've spent the last 2-3 years trying to make Core work with tablets and smartphones... and it was a huge flop.

 

[krumme]

Not in the past. But yeah, the i7 920 D0 and 2500K will go down as my longest lasting CPUs.
If the X58 mobos weren't fetching such insane prices on eBay (and Sandy CPUs not so cheap to come by, eg. $50 for 2500K and $90 for 2600K), I'd still be using these faithful girls :

Yep it is crazy prices. But those i7 920 and 2500k is classic and if we look at perf oc numbers alone 90usd for a 2600k is super perf vs what you pay for it used. So no wonder its those prices even after 6 years.
Try going back 20 years in time and tell that story to a pc enthusiast??
And he would ask if you were from the future or the 50ties.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I demand a 350 usd 8c 16t cpu. I will take it at low freq out the box if it pleases the marketing department and will take the 10min to oc it myself. After waiting for 5 years and nothing have happened this is only reasonably.

8 cores is a bit much. I would be happy with six cores. In fact the way I see it six cores is the perfect upgrade:

-fewer cores helps overclocking

-a 50% multithreaded boost on paper makes the inner nerd in me feel like "I finally got an upgrade from Sandy"

In fact the 5280k is almost perfect for meeting these requirements so I have last one to add:

I want all that working on a modern $100 mobo.

That is what I hope AMD delivers.

 

[krumme]

If you think about it, they've spent the last 2-3 years trying to make Core work with tablets and smartphones... and it was a huge flop.

Apple qualcom and samsung kind of prefer their own cpu core...so it was doomed to be a failure and i said so 4 years ago in this forum also remarking perhaps x86 wasnt the best position to start from. From that i took so much flak i still have to play bf to get rid of some of it. It turned out the atom soc for mobile was bad so it went from impossible to worse. It was played to the tune of 4b a year.