It's because they fixed the 30% performance bug that was in the news last week.. HAHAHA
In other words Intel didn't accomplish much. Wait till the 10nm come out
lol. 30% increase only from a Quad Core part over mobile Dual core. nevertheless, they finally decided to make quad cores as a mainstream mobile CPU. on another hand, my Broadwell laptop turns out to be a good buy, getting a first generation 14nm part that is still current technology.
It could be that Intel are on a Deliberate Go Slow in order to milk us.
If within 20 years, Intel's chips were 20 times faster than the present day, then they would only sell their cheapest and slowest models because nobody would need anything faster.
Better performance - from doing the work smarter? Or from finer miniaturization?
I just hope they don't put out an 8th generation i9 and will still keep i7 as their flagship series.
Anonymous, 30 May 2017Why are there so many AMD fanboys? I know, because android fanboys usually like big numbers... moreFor your information android or ios does not have issue with ryzen or future i9
Hope they don't use cheap tims again in the next generation or else u will need a super watercooling cooler to cool it off
mir, 31 May 2017Maybe you forgot the massive leap forward in energy efficiency since ivy bridge? That's why ma... moreNo, bigger batteries is why. Modern laptops literally have twice the amount of battery than the ones 5 years more. Also lower display consumption which is also ffar more important than CPU. The energy consumption was not that massive in the big scheme of things, it accounts maybe for 20% of the reason why laptops last so much more nowadays...
BTW Macbooks could do excellent battery life long before Intel's "long jump forwards" ... Mostly because that's not what gives modern laptops their battery in the first place...
Wow, no-one should believe a word of this. It’s really sketchy.
Firstly, going from Intel’s 6th-gen to 7th-gen processors nets you 0.1% improvement.
They’re basically the same. And if they say the improvement from 6th to 7th is 15%, then follow-up by saying the jump from the 7th to 8th gen is 15%… well it makes it clear the actual improvement is again 0.1% faster.
Now secondly, PEOPLE READ THE FOOTNOTES. The comparison between the 7th gen and the 8th gen is also between different memory speeds: 2133MHz vs 2400MHz. For all we know the "15% improvement" in their Cherry-Picked benchmark came from the increased memory bandwidth. Or should we say the 0.1% improvement? And did anyone else miss the +/- 7% error margin, hilarious.
So we can actually infer the 8th gen chips are SLOWER than the 7th gen chips, because they NEED faster memory just to KEEP UP. Worse there is a clock speed difference, 4GHz vs 3.5GHz, a difference of 14%. So far we can say the 8th gen chips are only 78% speed of the 7th gen chips. And it gets even more ridiculous since they’re also comparing a 2C/4T chipset to a 4C/8T. Which is exactly double the resources. So the performance of a single 8th gen processor core is ONLY roughly 39% of the performance of a single 7th gen processor core. Stupid.
What Intel should be saying instead is that in the same low power envelope, (even if) they will reduce their IPC performance by 10%, and slightly reduce the same clock speeds… but double the core and thread count. That’s an improvement everyone would want, and we’d be looking at an increase in Total Performance of around +80%. However, it seems more likely that Intel will improve IPC by 0.1% like they did the last “jump”, and increase frequencies slightly like they did the last “jump”, but actually manage to do double the core count in the same TDP –basically a doubling of efficiency. That's even better!
What we don’t know is, what lithography is this “8th gen” built upon:
– Are they still using their +14nm Finfet lithography?
(if it is, it looks like a major rework of their microarchitecture, and a massive leap like from the Core 2 Duo to Sandy Bridge days).
– Or are they using their stated 7nm lithography?
My bet, they haven’t made much (4%) performance improvements to the microarchitecture from the 7th gen to the 8th gen… however, the jump from 14nm to 7nm, which is projected for 2019-2020, has allowed them to double the core/thread count in to the same power/thermal envelope. This brings Quadcore computing to tablets/thin 'n lights (and consoles)... and it means the high-end desktop counterparts can be massive 8 Core beasts to combat AMD's Ryzen 1800X. Though I wonder, should Intel be researching into something like big.LITTLE or DynamicIQ for x86 computing... I mean efficiency IS efficiency!
Anonymous, 31 May 2017Hashwell was like 7% faster than ivy bridge, which in turn was 5% faster than Sandy bridge. ... moreMaybe you forgot the massive leap forward in energy efficiency since ivy bridge? That's why many laptops today enjoy upwards of 8 hrs run time.
Simon, 31 May 2017Its going to be pretty much the same stuff for desktop, however. Intel has been so uninspiring... moreHashwell was like 7% faster than ivy bridge, which in turn was 5% faster than Sandy bridge.
What do you mean that they are unisinspiring since Hashwell. They've been uninspiring for the better part of the decade. An over locked sandy bridge performs better in most tasks than a stock kaby lake. That answers all your questions.
No company in IT, never before was as stagnant as Intel. You have 5 year old tech beating your new one under some trivially easy circumstances. Intel has been seriously slacking off for the longest time. No company can be alive on IT after such an extended period of slacking. The only explanation is that Intel was monopolizing the market so they could do as they pleased. *That's* why AMD 's recent resurgence created so much movement so suddenly. Normally it shouldn't have, it would be business as usual, but AMD returned from the dead and by Now Intel too has forgotten how to be alive. Hence the annual 5% we get from them ... I very much we'll get anywhere near 30% increase, they probably checked (once again) very specific situations that almost nobody is going to use.
We *will* get thew annual 5% because that's all what Intel does these days, serious milking.
Its going to be pretty much the same stuff for desktop, however. Intel has been so uninspiring since Haswell..
Two times the core count obviously improves performance, duh. Intel is the new king of obvious statements. Anyways, I really think their new 3-tiers system is garbage. What's wrong with Tick-Tock?
It will be a 15% performance increase but only 5% will come from micro architectural improvements (as usual) & 10% will be from 4 times increased cache. The claimed 30% may be a posibility in some odd AVX & still optimized workload that you will never see in the real would or usage for that matter.
Then it is better off to wait for Gen8th I9 than buying the Gen7th now.
Read the statement please. It's about one particular CPU that will deliver "up to" 30% better performance over the previous model because it has twice the core number and running at higher frequencies. The impressive part is it does all the above within the same 15W power budget.