Intel illustrated how Kaby Lake processors are on average 15 percent faster than Skylake parts, in SYSmark.

Yet all the tests so far show it's barely 5% faster stock v stock, and even slower clock v clock.

big fat amount of YAAAWWWNNN

I'm on the verge of an ethical purchase. I've not upgraded on Intel as their haswell to Kaby increases has been underwhelming (for my uses). I'll happily buy Zen, even if Intel scramble something out because it would show Intel has been sitting on its hands.
If I buy AMD, I know they have this chip planned to run for a few years.

"+15%" for intel slides in real life means: "+0% IPC and +5% frequency" (that is a fact - not my opinion);.. and for this Cannon Lake - I would not hold my breth for another +5% frequency... so it will be precise +0% gains... well thx intel for honesty (I guess)

btarunrWill the Core i7-8700K be a 5 GHz chip?

i7-7700K = 4.2 GHz
4.2 GHz * 1.15 (15% improvement) = 4.83 GHz

So, not even 5 GHz. Considering the performance gain between i7-6700K and i7-7700K came from the 200 MHz bump in clockspeed, I expect history to repeat here. In other words, absolutely nothing to get excited about. Yet another 14nm part the market doesn't want/need.

"Advancing Moore's law" Wasn't Intel who said Moore's law doesn't apply anymore?

RejZoR"Advancing Moore's law" Wasn't Intel who said Moore's law doesn't apply anymore?

Alternative advancement.

Wait, what? Every other source so far has cited 10 nm for Cannonlake. So either this isn't Cannonlake but another minibump like Kaby Lake, or Cannonlake has officially been taken off 10 nm and instead moved to 14 nm. Either option is pretty big news since it messes up Intel's roadmap significantly, so which one is it?

There's apparently going to be two versions of Cannon Lake:
1. lower power parts that are 10nm (15 watts and lower)
2. mainstream parts that are 14nm

Intel is seeing fantastically horrible yields on 10nm.

Intel's roadmaps have been broken since Devil's Canyon.

So NOW their can pull more than 1-4% performance leap!? :D I am a long time intel owner but: "Intel; milking the customer since ; forever...."

deuSo NOW their can pull more than 1-4% performance leap!? :D I am a long time intel owner but: "Intel; milking the customer since ; forever...."

No, you are just reading it very, very wrong.

Lets hope it is just not another refresh of the 3ooo-4ooo series...

Maybe it will Open op for 6cors on the Mainstream setups.

Meh. My v3 Xeons have much life in them yet.

NokironNo, you are just reading it very, very wrong.

I just read it through; no im 100% on point. I understand that it requires knowledge to do so but I find it rather ironic that they now boast of 15% gains when they have done nothing but incremental performance boost for 3-4 years. My 4770/4790 is more or less on pair with a 7700K more or less divided by the clock difference and powerconsumption. You might be down with that but im happy to see intel feel the burn because of their greed and lack of willingness to push the development of CPUs (instead of discrete GPUs)

deuI just read it through; no im 100% on point. I understand that it requires knowledge to do so but I find it rather ironic that they now boast of 15% gains when they have done nothing but incremental performance boost for 3-4 years. My 4770/4790 is more or less on pair with a 7700K more or less divided by the clock difference and powerconsumption. You might be down with that but im happy to see intel feel the burn because of their greed and lack of willingness to push the development of CPUs (instead of discrete GPUs)

In the same image you're commenting at, they say that Kaby Lake is 15% better than Skylake.

That should tell you something.

Another new socket perhaps, or will (some) customers finally realize that Intel is ripping them off bigly?

NokironIn the same image you're commenting at, they say that Kaby Lake is 15% better than Skylake.

That should tell you something.

Yes it tells me that intel is making things up and you are buying it; 7700K is NOT 15% faster than 6700K in terms of performance.

www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/05/intel_core_i77700k_cpu_synthetic_benchmark_sneak_peek/3

7700 is a refresh of a refresh of a refresh of a... So the 15% if propertional to their claim in performance from skylake to kaby would be around 1-4% (again) So I have to none respect to what they are doing with their development when it comes to CPUs.

deuYes it tells me that intel is making things up and you are buying it; 7700K is NOT 15% faster than 6700K in terms of performance.

www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/05/intel_core_i77700k_cpu_synthetic_benchmark_sneak_peek/3

7700 is a refresh of a refresh of a refresh of a... So the 15% if propertional to their claim in performance from skylake to kaby would be around 1-4% (again) So I have to none respect to what they are doing with their development when it comes to CPUs.

Again, you are reading it wrong, this time it's my post... That's not at all what i'm saying.

Also, what kind of gains or increase in performance do you expect? Where will you notice this? You do know that Ryzen or anything AMD produces won't change the overall performance one bit when we are talking about gaming. Neither will Intel's processors in the foreseeable future.

Where performance will rise and Intel's numbers actually makes sense is in low-power mobile CPUs where 15% improvement from Skylake to Kaby Lake is on point.

"advancing Moore's Law" - They weren't happy with performance merely doubling every year, they increased it to +15%!

Wait...

Ubersonic"advancing Moore's Law" - They weren't happy with performance merely doubling every year, they increased it to +15%!

Wait...

Moore's Law is not about performance though.

NokironAgain, you are reading it wrong, this time it's my post... That's not at all what i'm saying.

Also, what kind of gains or increase in performance do you expect? Where will you notice this? You do know that Ryzen or anything AMD produces won't change the overall performance one bit when we are talking about gaming. Neither will Intel's processors in the foreseeable future.

Where performance will rise and Intel's numbers actually makes sense is in low-power mobile CPUs where 15% improvement from Skylake to Kaby Lake is on point.

Sir; i dont think you understand: You commented on my comment about the topic; you cant just change direction:

My point: Intel have done NOTHING to innovate the market since the got their monopoly; they have pushed for iGPUs and only made incremental improvements on CPUs. (and they have been when it comes to performance since 3770) You can argue whether or not this is a smart choice from an economical standpoint but as a person wanting to push techonological advances; intel have stalled it big time. basically a 4770K performs the same as a 7700 in gaming. Is that the game or the CPU manifactures fault? It is BOTH; Bottom line AMD pushing out 8 cores 16 threads for semi mainstream will disrupt the market (and that is good) intel have done everything in their power to stall these advances. And your power argument is all good and dandy but when it comes to performance in stationary PCs it cant be used as an argument. A 4 year old CPU should not perform on par with a new CPU that cost the same or more. And AMD is here to shake that up; Intel will be forced to increase performance (whether you and intel like it or not if they want to keep their market share :) )

deuSir; i dont think you understand: Intel have done NOTHING to innovate the market since the got their monopoly; they have pushed for iGPUs and only made incremental improvements on CPUs. You can argue whether or not this is a smart choice from an economical standpoint but as a person wanting to push techonological advances; intel have stalled it big time. basically a 4770K performs the same as a 7700 in gaming. Is that the game or the CPU manifactures fault? It is BOTH; Bottom line AMD pushing out 8 cores 16 threads for semi mainstream will disrupt the market (and that is good) intel have done everything in their power to stall these advances. And your power argument is all good and dandy but when it comes to performance in stationary PCs it cant be used as an argument. A 4 year old CPU should not perform on par with a new CPU that cost the same or more. And AMD is here to shake that up; Intel will be forced to increase performance (whether you and intel like it or not if they want to keep their market share :) )

No, I don't think you have the insight to understand it. You will not find more performance with silicon, we are simply at the edge of diminishing returns.
Intel can't stall a thing, they have to push the market, especially their HEDT-platform where they have some serious PowerPC-competition (especially SAP) and demands from manufacturers.

This won't happen with the (in-comparsion) low-power CPUs on the desktop since games are super straight-forward computation. A 4770K performs the same as a 7700K because the CPU is not the bottleneck and have not been since the introductions of Haswell.
And with higher and higher resolutions more resource requirements are shifted to the GPU so processor performance is getting less relevant for gaming.

Probably we will see a 4.8Ghz CPU and that's all. Nothing to see here for the next 2 years...

NokironMoore's Law is not about performance though.

yet you understand that moores law

NokironNo, I don't think you have the insight to understand it. You will not find more performance with silicon, we are simply at the edge of diminishing returns.
Intel can't stall a thing, they have to push the market, especially their HEDT-platform where they have some serious PowerPC-competition (especially SAP) and demands from manufacturers.

This won't happen with the (in-comparsion) low-power CPUs on the desktop since games are super straight-forward computation. A 4770K performs the same as a 7700K because the CPU is not the bottleneck and have not been since the introductions of Haswell.
And with higher and higher resolutions more resource requirements are shifted to the GPU so processor performance is getting less relevant for gaming.

Dude you dont understand anything. AMD is comming out with an 8 core 16 thread CPU; you can argue all you want but the performance (if apps utilize multithreading will push the price/performance ratio (like intel have not done in 4 years) You can see the rest in the thread here is writing the same; disapointment in intel lack of willingness to go from 4 core to 6 or more. You can keep buying expensive low perf/dollar products all you want but Im pretty sure the rest is going to go for the best product at the price. And that will be AMD unless Intel actually push the performance up or price down. (and yes more cores is more performance in the future of desktop)