- Nov 27, 2016
- 1,395
- 967
- 96
Kabylake is basically a refresh of Skylake with the only real difference is the fabrication process, so why would intel even bother using an inferior process?
Kabylake is basically a refresh of Skylake with the only real difference is the fabrication process, so why would intel even bother using an inferior process?
One new bit of information that Intel confirmed at the SC16 press briefing was that Skylake-EP will utilize the 14nm plus process introduced first with Kaby Lake. Intel claimed improvements over the original 14nm process so it is great to see this technology utilized on Skylake-EP.
There's nothing to skip. The parts that make Kaby Lake different from Skylake would not pe present in HEDT anyway. You're just hung up on marketing names.ty. So, will this mean they will skip kabylake-e?
ty. So, will this mean they will skip kabylake-e?
I knew it was slightly different, but that doesn't really answer my question.Skylake-E is already using a different core to Skylake. It has stuff like AVX-512 units.
I knew it was slightly different, but that doesn't really answer my question.
What would differentiate Skylake-e and Kabylake-e? Wouldn't they end up being nearly identical CPUs with a nearly identical level of performance?
ty. So, will this mean they will skip kabylake-e?
Skylake-EP is manufactured in 14nm+.
Let's hope not, the 14nm+ process seems a step backwards, despite your own beliefs.
Kaby Lake on the other hand is more than just a simple rebranding of the Skylake chips. Even though the 14-nm process was basically not changed, the manufacturer was able to optimize it considerably. The results are surprisingly high clocks or a much lower consumption at the same clocks, respectively. Depending on the frequency range, we can see efficiency improvements somewhere between 15 and 25 percent; it remains to be seen whether the lower clocked Core-m/Y-series might be even better. We are also eager to see the quad-core ULV models. They are planned for 2017 and should introduce the biggest performance gains in the 15-Watt segment we have seen for years.
Let's hope not, the 14nm+ process seems a step backwards, despite your own beliefs.
How in the world can you think it's a step backwards? Even discounting the IGP advances it's clearly a small step forwards, which is exactly what it was always supposed to be.Let's hope not, the 14nm+ process seems a step backwards, despite your own beliefs.