Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 579 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Off your meds again, I see.

Some of us more rational folk see AMD as a premier technology company, that has been hamstrung in the market by the unethical, and arguably outright illegal tactics of Intel.




Come on guys. Keep it civil.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
In the mid-2000s, one could legitimately paint them as a victim.

But once Bulldozer rolled around, they sowed their own animosity towards them. One blogger in particular exposed the BS really well. His name was Scali.

Only because they put themselves on the brink did finally get the chip they could use to undercut Intel.

I suggest not misusing the word rational, because it is quite the opposite to go around paint extreme generalizations that might not apply in all cases.
Very well said. AMD has only themselves to blame for the disastrous design that was Bulldozer.
 

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
235
333
136
It seems to me that some of you guys "forget" AMD has a loooooooooot less resources than Intel, so its a miracle AMD can catch up or even at times surpass Intel offers. K7, K8 or Zen are incredible achievements for a little company like AMD, compared with Intel muscles. In fact, I would say generations like Bulldozer are more in consonance with their very limited resources. So with this in mind, I would not say Bulldozer was a failure itself.
 
Last edited:

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
I think that's a charitable way to say that Intel has had the technology for years to give us more than 4 cores on the mainstream platform, but as the abusive monopolist they are, they chose to instead milk the market for profits, over the advancement of civilization.

Don't characterize corporations as Good vs Evil. Corporations only exist to make money. They don't exist to give you what you want for a good price, especially when you are in a niche of the market.

It's not bad intent that had us stay on quad cores. It's reasonable use of resources.

Even today quad cores are overkill for the average user. The kind of software that benefits from even more cores, is limited to some kind of rendering. Which means that for most people, extra cores are just idling most of the time.

In the past couple of CPU generations, Intel arguably put it's transistor budget into a more beneficial target. Improving the iGPU. A few generations back, Intel iGPUs were a bad joke. Today they are quite reasonable. This is much more beneficial to larger range of people, than driving up core counts that only niche have a use for.

On top of that, all available evidence, indicates that Intel was going to boost core count with the next big increase in transistor budge (10nm). It looks like Cannon lake desktop would have arrived with up to 8 cores in the mainstream. But 10nm proved more difficult to implement and is late.

So next we get Coffee lake. Stuck at 14nm, we only get 6 cores + iGPU, to hold us over until 10nm brings the possability of 8 cores + iGPU.

AMD made a great move with Ryzen, they shipped a 8 core part on 14nm, by skipping the iGPU/APU, so this let them hold a core count advantage over Intel without building a huge die. Very good strategy to strike where Intel wasn't. But their APU will be back to 4 cores for similar reasons to Intel giving us 4 cores in it's mainstream parts.

They each want to benefit from the economics of relatively small dies for their mainstream parts, and until the next process shrink, we won't see 8 cores + IGP/APU.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
825
136
What people don't realise is the effect on product development from loss of revenue due to illigal practice from Intel, the effect was massive, truly massive.
Intel played a numbers game, it knew the adverse effect on AMD would be so severe and long lasting that it didn't matter if they got busted with a 1B $ fine or even a 10$B fine, AMD was their only competitor and they were practically broke as it was, also they knew as AMD would be so broke and desperate they would settle early for a reduced fee as they could not afford a multi year year long legal rat's nest.
The commission should have worked out the lost earnings due to illegal practice and made Intel pay directly to AMD.
Probably would amount to 10 years of AMDs turnover when you factor in brand damage and market shares, loss of r&d AMD product development, advertising budget etc.
This loss of revenue around the time AMD bought ati was crucial, who knows what would have happened?, AMD had technology leadership at one point and it was directly after this that they could not get knew products out to high quality due to lack of r&d.
Not to mention AMD had its own fabs that had to be sold off and then signed a detrimental buyers agreement that has haunted AMD ever since, only now can we finally say AMD is getting some benefit out of it with it still behind until next year.

Honestly 20$ billion worth of damage at least to AMD whilst adding tens of billions to Intel business over the course of 15 years I'm sure.

How AMD survived this intact and able to push out these new products is mind bending, they have achieved the impossible.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
I am not buying products with company's size in mind, only according product's usefullnes for me.
Yep, not my problem who has the most resources. Only who makes the better product. And obviously, Bulldozer was just a poor design decision. Lets not forget that Ryzen was designed when AMD was in much poorer financial position than when Bulldozer was, but turned out to be a much better product.
But really, we have gone far off topic with all this poor abused AMD vs the evil giant rhetoric. I am done with it.
 

Darkhelmutt

Junior Member
Apr 22, 2017
17
2
16
Well...that is disappointing.

I figured it out,
CPU is at 4.8
GPU 2063
Ram 3200 14-14-14-34

Here is RE6

cOxmzj2.jpg


mOWb4MD.jpg

Shadow of Mordor 1440
frn33yz.jpg

V6k41Qa.jpg
 
Last edited:

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
I've been thinking; if the rumored coffee lake i3 specs turn out to be true and they end up being the direct replacements of kaby lake i3s at the same price points, then they'll basically replace i5s as gamers' go-to midrange gaming processors at much lower price points. It's sort of impressive actually.

The i3-8100 is basically an i5-7500, and i3-8350k an i5-7600k; maybe even better since it's rumored to have 8 MB of L3 cache.

This might be a problem for AMD though. Ryzen 3 will have a hard time competing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

MarkPost

Senior member
Mar 1, 2017
235
333
136
Its not a matter of being a problem or not, its just a matter of remember facts. More resources you have, "easier" to release great products. This is a fact. So when a company with a lot less resources than other, manage to equal or surpass them, its an incredible and really difficult to repeat achievement. This is a fact too. And when this happens, its much better for us, the customers (except for nonsense fanboys). We have better and cheapest products, we have the option to choose the better one for our needs. This is another fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kuosimodo

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,862
1,522
136
Actually, making me choose between IPC and more cores has left me pretty enraged, not just bitter. I know they could have just cut the crap and given us 6/12 on the mainstream a long ass time ago, but nope. They had to milk every last drop out of those lower end HEDT chips and frustrate the customer with that hard choice between 4 faster cores or 6 slower ones. I want revenge for all this in the form of massively reduced margins and market share. I hope Zen 2 really rips their guts out.

And what AMD did in the mean time? Milk the hell out of FXs with the promise that some day they would work fine.
Seriusly this whole thing makes no sence to me. AMD sold smoke for years why you are blaming Intel for selling good chips in that time? What people is right to critiquise is that Intel never provided a good upgrade for anyone that already had a sandy bridge.

And again what is the problem if they deliver a good 6c chip that performs like Ryzen 8c? Specially if they dont try to charge 500 for a mainstream cpu. We need to wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheF34RChannel

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
404
136
I figured it out,
CPU is at 4.8
GPU 2063
Ram 3200 14-14-14-34
Here is RE6

cOxmzj2.jpg


mOWb4MD.jpg

Shadow of Mordor 1440
frn33yz.jpg

V6k41Qa.jpg

Nice. I don't have Mordor, but I can run the RE6 one when I get infront of my machine in a bit. I don't think I can get my 1080ti to clock that high. Anyway you can run them with it 2025 or less?
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,711
2,662
136
It seems to me that some of you guys "forget" AMD has a loooooooooot less resources than Intel, so its a miracle AMD can catch up or even at times surpass Intel offers. K7, K8 or Zen are incredible achievements for a little company like AMD, compared with Intel muscles. In fact, I would say generations like Bulldozer are more in consonance with their very limited resources. So with this in mind, I would not say Bulldozer was a failure itself.
It doesn't matter how big or small the company is. The maker of garbage should be treated like garbage. The inverse would have been used to defend Intel during their P4. "It's Intel. They're the bigger supplier in computers and 'more reliable'".

Prior to mid 2006, even with Intel's tactics, AMD was rolling as the top dog and was the market setter(in CPUs, the champion dictates the market, regardless of size) and things were looking very rosy indeed. But alas, they delayed and reduced the R&D budget for 65nm development when they needed it most, and what became their 65nm was a whole lot of meh, allowing Intel to further establish a lead. Bulldozer was in the works around 2009 and it regardless of what external pressures were their, the architecture was approved, and the marketers crusaded all over the place at the time seemed like they were drinking their own Kool-Aid leading up to the release of the FX-8150, only to be colossally embarrassed, especially to the gamers who were expecting a true $270 chip to compete with the i7-2600. Ryzen was only born because Bulldozer failed to do what Ryzen is doing.

Building CPUs that perform for its target audience requires a minimum amount of money, but once that threshold is passed, it becomes more about the capability of the workers and making sure company culture fosters a fertile environment to make the proper chip for the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markfw

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,651
7,969
136
For those new to this thread, we are trying to keep on task vis-a-vis information regarding Intel's 14nm CPUs plus related chipsets and systems. No need to make this thread even longer by posting tangentially related topics. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.

 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,430
660
136
The conundrum for Intel owners as far up as Kabylake was: what to buy? Get four of the best cores that they have to offer, or - if not in the market for a CPU costing more than $400 - get a 6-core CPU using cores that are out of date?

With Coffeelake, Intel users finally get to choose a 6-core that has the best cores available (and for many users, that means cores that are better than Skylake-X, at least for gaming). 7700k users get an upgrade. 6850k users get an upgrade. It is the logical choice, even if it may seem at first like a baby step for the former HEDT owners. Though HEDT buyers will probably like the platform price of 370/390 quite a bit.

If you're a 6850k owner and you move to, let's say, 8 or 10 cores of Skylake-X, you gain some cores but you lose some performance elsewhere - notably in games. Not everyone is going to want to make that compromise.
.

Never a conundrum to me, since i use the computer for both work and entertainment, in which case HEDT is my go to choice. And honestly, why should i care about having 120 FPS with kaby lake over 100 fps with bw-e or skylake-x... thats the kind of performance loss i have no issue to take.... as i cant see it anyway.

I am not arguing though about the coffee lake not being good enough, it certainly looks great. Its actually be seemingly superior to my 6850k,at the time third fastest hedt cpu, which i bought almost exactly year ago, and tbf, that kind of annoys me - its one of the reasons i am looking at i9s and threadrippers now, as it feels totally dissatisfactory, knowing i could get pretty much 3x faster cpu now, if i waited one more year with the upgrade.
 
Last edited:

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,772
4,740
136
Intel played their dirtiest when chasing Athlon XP; the lawsuit AMD filed was in 2005. But they were also developing products as well as playing the strongarm bully. But without a competitive product, they never would have came back even with all of those supply-side tactics. Once Conroe hit the market, they were well on their way to reclaiming the crown, and AMD was chasing something they could have kept since Ruiz delayed development on the 65nm node at that critical juncture. There were still rolling in dough prior to Conroe and had the means to quickly jump to the next node, but Ruiz delayed, and Intel caught up and never looked back. Bulldozer was K8's successor, and by then, the tactical error and fallout was complete.
Hector Ruiz delaying the process node advancement also slowed them down when they were top dog. Not to mention the crippling arrangment with GloFlo. Idontcare certainly explained that aspect very well.

They could have continued to develop the Stars architecture. They didn't need to make Bulldozer in its actual form either.
I fully blame the Hector Ruiz lead management for most of AMD's distress over the last decade.

Having said that, who or what is AMD or Intel? It's just the name of an organization whose strengths and weakness are in constant flux.
An analogy is AMD as a revitalized sports team with new talent but a terrible recent records history, hungrily looking to upset the status quo. Intel is one with a great recent history, becoming bloated, coasting on its record and slacking off.

edit:
Sorry if off topic.
 
Last edited:

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
404
136
I figured it out,
CPU is at 4.8
GPU 2063
Ram 3200 14-14-14-34

Here is RE6

cOxmzj2.jpg


mOWb4MD.jpg

Well...here is mine with the 1080ti only at 2038MHz...which is about as high as I can run stable.

7820x Core@4.8 Mesh@3.2
GPU 2038
Ram 3600 16-16-16-36

W0nY8Nq.jpg


9dizEBj.jpg





I'll pay to see this head to head result. I'm myself suspicious of some of the results I've seen in reviews.
Do you want our Paypal?...lol


Let's find some more comparisons to run! Anyone else with a 7700k and 1080ti that in curious?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

Darkhelmutt

Junior Member
Apr 22, 2017
17
2
16
Well...here is mine with the 1080ti only at 2038MHz...which is about as high as I can run stable.

7820x Core@4.8 Mesh@3.2
GPU 2038
Ram 3600 16-16-16-36

W0nY8Nq.jpg


9dizEBj.jpg






Do you want our Paypal?...lol


Let's find some more comparisons to run! Anyone else with a 7700k and 1080ti that in curious?
Well...here is mine with the 1080ti only at 2038MHz...which is about as high as I can run stable.

7820x Core@4.8 Mesh@3.2
GPU 2038
Ram 3600 16-16-16-36

W0nY8Nq.jpg


9dizEBj.jpg






Do you want our Paypal?...lol


Let's find some more comparisons to run! Anyone else with a 7700k and 1080ti that in curious?

Interestingly when I dropped to 2025,
hTAhLQ6.jpg
 

TahoeDust

Senior member
Nov 29, 2011
557
404
136
Interestingly when I dropped to 2025,
hTAhLQ6.jpg
Mine actually went up a point when lowered to 2025...
Hb6gLpf.jpg


Looks like we are pretty much within the margin of error at 2560x1440. Want to try 1080p? I bet 7700k starts to pull away. Lets run the GPU @ 2038....I seem to have that pretty stable.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
Interesting that you want revenge on Intel but not on AMD which abandoned this market altogether for half-a-decade.

After Intel paid Dell $Billions and other companies as well in exchange for not using AMD products, its no wonder AMD was damaged so bad and had to stop for a while. Coffee Lake will be great I'm sure, but I have a feeling my next CPU won't be from the Intel family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kuosimodo and inf64

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Mine actually went up a point when lowered to 2025...
Hb6gLpf.jpg


Looks like we are pretty much within the margin of error at 2560x1440. Want to try 1080p? I bet 7700k starts to pull away. Lets run the GPU @ 2038....I seem to have that pretty stable.

Awesome posts guys. Keep it up.

Is there anyone with a 7900 who can chime in?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,709
10,984
136
.
Never a conundrum to me, since i use the computer for both work and entertainment, in which case HEDT is my go to choice. And honestly, why should i care about having 120 FPS with kaby lake over 100 fps with bw-e or skylake-x... thats the kind of performance loss i have no issue to take.... as i cant see it anyway.

Different strokes and all that. Yeah you can go grab an 18c chip in a bit if you want the extra cores. For a lot of people, getting that extra 20 fps (or going from 45-50 fps to 60 fps @ 4k) by making the switch to Coffeelake would be the primary reason to upgrade. Skylake-X won't get them that.

But if it's a work-first machine, then the obvious way to look on the blue side is Skylake-X. Unless there's some Xeon that'll get it done for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kuosimodo

Darkhelmutt

Junior Member
Apr 22, 2017
17
2
16
Mine actually went up a point when lowered to 2025...
Hb6gLpf.jpg


Looks like we are pretty much within the margin of error at 2560x1440. Want to try 1080p? I bet 7700k starts to pull away. Lets run the GPU @ 2038....I seem to have that pretty stable.

Here is 1080, you mentioned Time spy and Fire strike earlier. I'll put them up next if you like?
ww4Y2Ca.jpg

ByBWZdE.jpg