So is Skylake already a failure?

[Matt Boehm]

I was waiting on Skylake to build my computer but reading various reviews it doesn't seem to impress at all now that it's out. Is it already a failure? Should I just go with a 4790K?

 

[nymzy]

I personally bought the 4790k a month ago, its plenty when it comes to gaming.

Also you don't need a fancy 1151 motherboard and ddr4 ram which will cost a lot more

 

[airwalkrr]

Overclocking enthusiasts will probably enjoy the new Skylake processors. The 4790K is still great for gaming, more than you need really.

 

[Saberus]

These are just the first, I think. There could be more on the way, and those might have a bit more bite.

 

[rgd1101]

These are just the first, I think. There could be more on the way, and those might have a bit more bite.

My guess there is more, that why they didn't use the i7 6750k or i7 6790k for this.

 

[spentshells]

Skylake is nothing to write home about, it hardly seems to improve on much, that's the game intel is able to play these days.

 

[Matt Boehm]

Skylake is nothing to write home about, it hardly seems to improve on much, that's the game intel is able to play these days.

Well at the very least, hopefully it reduces the price of the 4790K further?

 

[bmacsys]

Skylake is nothing to write home about, it hardly seems to improve on much, that's the game intel is able to play these days.

Well at the very least, hopefully it reduces the price of the 4790K further?

Intel processors never go down in price. Even new old stock.

 

[synphul]

I wouldn't say it's a failure. It's what many people who have watched intel's performance/progress expected. An update on the core series, like sandy bridge, ivy bridge, haswell, haswell refresh/devil's canyon all were. Overclocking performance is similar to previous generations. Stock performance puts the i7 6700k roughly between a 4790k and 5820k hex core when it comes to things like encoding and transcoding. In handbrake it scores higher than the 5820k or 4960x.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,11.html

I think it depends on what you intend to use it for. There's nothing wrong with using a pc for strictly gaming but then it's not their only function either. People who benefit most from stronger cpus are typically doing more than gaming. If gaming is the primary role for your system and you're not doing a whole lot else then you probably won't see much benefit as even current and last gen i7's are overkill for gaming.

Personally I didn't expect a huge leap in skylake, it's still part of the core series architecture. It's not a redesign really, not in the way zen will be for amd or the way the core series was to the pentium4. As bmacsys said, intel cpu's don't drop in price. They may fluctuate by $5-10 here and there throughout the year, but it's not like when a new gpu comes out and the previous generation takes a generous price slash because of it. It's also leading the performance charts in just about every category so there's no reason they have to heavily discount their products to move them off the shelf or try and increase value.

 

[Ra_V_en]

Status Quo it is... the thing is, its very likely 4790K will slowly go off the market leaving Broadwell and Skylake as the only possible choices. If people are about to buy new CPU, they should consider getting one sooner rather then later. While it is still available on the market, supply will be cut but demand can still be high so in fact price could even rise.
Just look over partpicker what is happening with 4770k vs 4790k:
Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz $399.99
Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz $328.99
Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz $359.99

Logic suggest 4770k will go off the market very soon, 4790k will rise due to limited supply in few month, 6700k will be cheaper since you now are paying premium for proximity of release date.

 

[Wild Biker Bill]

I was waiting on Skylake to build my computer but reading various reviews it doesn't seem to impress at all now that it's out. Is it already a failure? Should I just go with a 4790K?

For the past couple of generations the performance improvements of the processor have been relatively modest. I think Intel is more focused on power efficiency because of mobile, and ramping up the capabilities of the iGPU. The latter can be important if you are big into portable performance or video. As a Gamer, the latter will be irrelevant.

So go for the cheaper option, the difference will hardly be noticed. I am still running an i7-3770K with the Radeon R9 270X. I can play back and cut between five 1080p30 video streams buttery smooth in real time in Sony Vegas 13 Pro, so I'm happy. So it's all about what you use it for.

 

[Ra_V_en]

I think Intel is more focused on power efficiency because of mobile, and ramping up the capabilities of the iGPU.

Which is hardly relevant for most enthusiasts anyways. They are simply putting effort in meaningless things so they can call it a new product (I've read some adverts of the new Skylake CPU on some on line shops in my country... that was seriously hilarious reading).
If you look closely at the arch, there is so much space wasted for igpu, we could easily have 8 core models now without any effort whatsoever... but the question is what for? It's a monopoly situation where Intel is simply dictating what you should buy, ripping us of every cent, simple as that.
I'm praying for Zen to come out with competitive performance, if not we are doomed.

 

[CDdude55]

Skylake was really meant in my view to introduce new standards into the mainstream. DDR4, NVMe, M.2 etc. I don't think it's fair to call it a failure, granted it's nothing a lot of people were saying it was. It didn't create incentive for an upgrade in regards to CPU performance. As mentioned, i'd wait till Zen so we can see what AMD can do working from the ground up. It's been almost 10 years since AMD held the performance crown, so if the paradigm shift moves in their favor it would probably incentivize Intel to create something significant. But until then we'll probably have to suffice with their focus on power and heat efficiency with slight performance increases.

 

[Goomb4_]

I'm hoping that Zen will save us from the game that Intel is playing. Seeing as AMD has hired the same guy that was responsible for the older Athlon series gives me a tiny bit of hope for AMD because back then they were the king when it came to performance. Otherwise forget about CPU improvements as Intel has pretty much all the market share at that point and will likely hike up prices by a generous amount.

 

[jaguarskx]

Personally, I have no plans on upgrading my desktop which has the i5-4670k CPU (too lazy to update my sig) in the near future. It provides me with sufficient performance for my needs.


On the other hand, I am looking to replace my old 14" Lenovo IdeaPad Y470 with a laptop using a Skylake CPU. The Y470 works, but 1366x768 resolution screen is too low for my preference and I don't really use it to play games anymore.

 

[synphul]

People are irritated at intel for not making leaps and bounds in performance when they're already well ahead of amd's offerings. Of course if intel were to make those performance leaps and bounds they'd completely bury amd for good and people would complain about that. Why all the intel hate, if people don't like that amd is gimping along why not complain to them? It's not intel's fault they can't keep up.

In terms of the igpu taking up too much room on the chip, that's neither here nor there. There's already 6 and 8 core i7 models without the igpu, they cost $500 and $1000. The 5930k and 5960x. Amd had budget 6 and 8 core cpus and the additional cores aren't helping them out much. They have a struggle matching intel quad cores with their 8 core designs and no competition to intel's 6/8 core cpus. There's no real need for intel to make cheap mainstream 8 core cpus. Not when they're leading the pack with half the hardware.

Intel isn't ripping anyone off. They're not pushing fx 6300 equivalents for $300. As a matter of fact amd had to cut their prices due to their poor performance in an attempt to make their pricing to performance ration comparable to intel's. Amd isn't in the charity business, nor are they the 'bang for the buck' leader - "discount for the fizzle" maybe. If amd hadn't cut prices, could people imagine how ridiculous it would be for an fx 6300 with similar performance to a $120 i3 to be priced the same as a $220 i5? Of course that would be a bargain though, intel's cheapest 6 core is the 5820k at $375 so an fx 6300/6350 at $300 would be a steal right?

Do people think better products should really be no more expensive? It's free market and it's common with everything from electronics to cars to tools. Try and buy a wireless printer/scanner/copier unit capable of scanning at higher dpi with 18ppm color and 28ppm black for the same or less than a budget printer which manages 8ppm color and 12ppm black. Does anyone accuse the better peforming printer of playing games because of the higher pricetag? Especially when it has no competition? People accept that for some reason or they accept that a nicer restaurant costs more than fast food but when it comes to cpu's everyone has a fit.

Today the fx 8350 runs around $155-170, when it released back in 2012 the initial price was $195. At release, the most expensive skylake being the i7 6700k is scheduled to sell for $350, $150 more. For a cpu that will easily last 4yrs even for those who frequently upgrade, it's a $37.50 premium per year cost difference. I don't think anyone can argue it easily outperforms the 8350. For that matter it outperforms the 9590 which runs $262 (with cooler). The premium becomes $22/yr for a superior product. Where is the ripoff? True, the motherboards cost more than amd but they're also better quality, higher vrm phases, a more efficient platform and amd doesn't have anything that supports ddr4.

The last I checked, zen is scheduled for late 2016 and it won't be leading off with an fx 8xxx replacement but rather a refreshed apu about 10-15% better performance than their current apu's. So that pushes the fx replacement closer to the end of 2016 or early part of 2017. Is amd planning to leave their customers with ddr3 and 2012 tech for the next 18mo while intel's releasing 2015 tech? People hate on intel but amd have left their customers out in the cold.

 

[Karsten75]

synphul, props to you for being thorough in espousing the sensible viewpoint on a thread that starts with an inflammatory premise. I'm constantly surprised at the shortsightedness and lack of technological and marketing factors of posters here that comment on the introduction of new processors and the AMD vs Intel debate.

Fact is that since the early 2000s, AMD hasn't had a price/performance leader and their last innovation was with the 64-bit architecture. If it wasn't for that and the technology cross-licensing agreements that sprang from it, they'd have been long gone. Seems that they're doing the same with ATI, but that may have already been in the pipeline since before the takeover.

And don't misunderstand me - if anything, I used to be an AMD devotee, using their processors until long after it made sense. I still run AMD graphics cards, but even that may not persist after my next upgrade, which will probably be to Skylake come December. (It's time to retire my long-suffering Atom server and my Ivy Bridge family computer.)

 

[synphul]

I don't hate amd, they're priced fairly evenly with their competitive intel counterparts. Amd's spoken about this and stated as much. People seem to hate on intel though and I would understand it if they were constantly pulling bad business moves to drown amd or something. Right now amd's biggest enemy is themselves. At the moment there's a much greater price spread between amd's often used cpu's (far more using 8320/8350 than 9590) compared to intel's brand new release. People forget what the introductory prices were for amd's chips almost 3yrs ago and that they were higher than what they are now. Or don't factor the mainstream desktop market flagship to flagship which good value or not pits the 9590 (at a much higher price) to the 6700k.

I've said this before, my biggest gripe with amd is in the motherboards. Not sure who's to blame there, the motherboard manufacturers, amd's design/pricing schedule. If amd tells a manufacturer where the retail price needs to fall they're stuck building budget gear to keep price margins in check. Some newer boards for amd are improving but only recently. It's been no surprise to anyone that amd chips (fx specifically) draw more power. It's not bashing on amd cpu's for having higher power requirements, but if they know this then plan for it. Don't pair a power hungry chip with weak vrm's. Half the boards that say they're compatible with 125w tdp amd cpu's have all sorts of problems with thermal throttling and power delivery issues.

This just isn't a problem with intel platforms. Intel's motherboards come with 4 phase vrm's typically using doublers on even their budget boards. Much less the premium boards with 6-8 power phases and doublers. Amd on the otherhand usually has 4+1 phases on their low/mid range boards and in my opinion it's just not acceptable. Amd users shouldn't have to use all sorts of extra cooling or have to replace their motherboards simply because the vrm are too weak to support chips listed as compatible. That's a downright design flaw to me. If I'm not mistaken, z170 motherboards are sporting even higher power phases than previous z97 boards.

If amd could come up with cpu's competing with intel's i5's and i7's, I have a feeling we'll see higher priced amd platforms. They might be $10 cheaper, but not by much. We've already seen amd had hoped their chips would promise higher prices before performance differences required a price reduction. It might be a bit cynical but in the world of business and profits I highly doubt we would see amd's performance rise and retain current pricing models with intel cutting prices. Instead more than likely the other way around especially since amd needs the profits now more than ever. Zen is also said to be a more costly architecture for them so I can already see indications of higher prices.

Should amd be able to make an fx 6xxx counterpart in zen competitive with an i5 and an 8xxx competitive with an i7 I have a feeling amd customers may be in for a bit of a shock with $200+ 6xxx and $300+ 8xxx zen replacements. Not the $120-150 they've been used to.

 

[Darkbreeze]

As bmacsys said, intel cpu's don't drop in price.

Given that it's now November, and the 4790k is about 75-90 bucks cheaper than it was in August, and the 4690k is about fifty bucks cheaper from the same time frame, it would seem that no longer holds true. Previously it was pretty well known that they didn't drop in price even after newer releases arrived, but this time it seems to have dropped a fair amount, all things considered.

 

[Darkbreeze]

What "RAM fiasco" are you referring to? What are you trying to imply by clock rates indicate "trouble at mill". Both these are news to me and I've been pretty thoroughly investigating the entire architecture. Maybe I've missed something, but if I have it hasn't been terribly prominent.

 

[synphul]

Not sure where the i5's have dropped $50. When they came out they were around $242 I believe and black fri came shortly after where we did see sales dropping them to $204 was the lowest I personally saw (not including microcenter since it's limited availability, in store only). This year black friday is around the corner and once again the 4690k has dropped to $209 already though for much of the summer it was staying around $230/240 which is where it was introduced at.

For the past several months the 4790k has been around $330-340 which is also where it was at last year. Only recently did it drop to around $300 which is abnormal for intel. Last holiday season when the black fri and cyber monday deals hit the previous haswell cpu's didn't see much of a price drop at all. Just the devil's canyon which meant people were snatching up the 4690k since it was not only newer and a tiny bit faster than the 4670k, it was also cheaper.

Micro center can change the price a lot more but it's pretty limited since it's in store only. Not everyone has a microcenter close by where compared to newegg or amazon or other etailers where people can buy all over the u.s. regardless where they're at.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yeah, just saying that these price differences we're seeing now are not typical for Intel processors, so who knows what further changes may happen. As is, it's unexpected really. Still not sure what Tea Urchin was talking about though.

 

[synphul]

I don't know either, just spitballing here so I could be off. I can't speak for what tea urchin meant but maybe talking about the lower frequencies we're seeing on skylake and the fact that intel had difficulty getting to 14nm. The fab process shrinking to 14nm and those troubles are what delayed broadwell and caused broadwell and skylake to release on top of one another.

To a certain extent we're seeing more efficiency because silicon is reaching its physical limitations. We saw cpu's go from sub 1ghz to 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and now 4ghz but that's where it's remained for quite some time. Outside of extreme overclocking conditions we're not seeing mainstream 5-6ghz chips from either amd or intel and when you can't push the silicon any faster you have to make the improvements somewhere.

That's where the architecture changes and efficiency comes in. Not just in terms of power efficiency but ways to improve ipc with what you've already got and refining the process further since slapping more speed on it really isn't an option. Moving trace paths to 3d style connections where gates and transistors can attach not only left/right on a horizontal plane but up and down vertically and diagonally to reduce data path lengths.

The chips that ibm is working on along with sumsung and global foundaries are exploring a hybrid silicon option on the 7nm scale because silicon alone just isn't panning out anymore so it's time to get creative.

As for the ram fiasco, that I'm not sure. Maybe the ddr3 vs ddr3L debate?

 

[Darkbreeze]

I was thinking maybe he was referring to DDR4 not really showing any serious performance improvements over DDR3, but we saw similar results during the shift from DDR2 to DDR3. It also stands to reason that the higher amounts of L3 cache on chip are mitigating any performance advantages that might otherwise have been noticeable with faster RAM. Seems right now that DDR4 3000 is pretty much the top dog and after that there isn't much if anything to be gained by going faster unless you're just looking for records.

 

[gameofwar]

I got skylake because I got a really cheap deal for it at microcenter for $320 right now its selling for $360 and $400+. I got a great deal on it and it runs amazing. It is a lot better than 4790k.