Friday, February 10th 2017
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1721205152158.png)
8th Gen Core "Cannon Lake" Over 15% Faster Than Kaby Lake: Intel
At an investor meeting in February, Intel touched upon its performance guidance for its 8th generation Core processor family due for later this year. Based on the 14 nm "Cannon Lake" silicon, these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."
In a slide titled "advancing Moore's Law on 14 nm," Intel illustrated how Kaby Lake processors are on average 15 percent faster than Skylake parts, in SYSmark. While Kaby Lake has negligible IPC gains over Skylake, the newer chips are clocked significantly higher, making up Intel's performance targets. Unless Cannon Lake is a significantly newer micro-architecture than Kaby Lake, we could expect them to come with even higher clock speeds. Will the Core i7-8700K be a 5 GHz chip?
Source:
VideoCardz
In a slide titled "advancing Moore's Law on 14 nm," Intel illustrated how Kaby Lake processors are on average 15 percent faster than Skylake parts, in SYSmark. While Kaby Lake has negligible IPC gains over Skylake, the newer chips are clocked significantly higher, making up Intel's performance targets. Unless Cannon Lake is a significantly newer micro-architecture than Kaby Lake, we could expect them to come with even higher clock speeds. Will the Core i7-8700K be a 5 GHz chip?
97 Comments on 8th Gen Core "Cannon Lake" Over 15% Faster Than Kaby Lake: Intel
I have another computer with a stock 6700K and comparing it to my 5960X at 4Ghz is a joke. The 6700K completely demolishes it in every single game out there.
There a very few cases (not games) where the extra cores actually makes a difference.
I'm not sure what kind of miracle you expect with AMD's release, do you believe you will get better performance than other alternatives?
I want AMD to succeed as well as anyone, but i'm trying with critical reasoning here.
Regarding your other statements:
You are underestimating Intel's dominance on the market, a strong brand and presence in every single computer out there. AMD has a gigantic mountain to climb to even begin to take market shares back. Just look at the progress with AMDs GPUs in comparison to Nvidia.
I work in IT and AMD gets such a bad rep just for being AMD.
Buying for the future, sure but does it really matter though? AMDs biggest problem is just that, gambling for the future. And we do know how well that worked so far with Bulldozer and DX12. The ideas are novel and all but very risky and they have had a really lousy track record.
So far nothing has changed, the bottlenecks are still GPUs not CPUs.
There are plenty of cases where you really want to buy an X99-rig over Ryzen if you know you need specific performance. (Memory bandwidth, PCI-lanes, HPC)
I mean, Ryzen is rumored to have a die-size of 44mm2 compared to ~240-something in Haswell-E and Broadwell-E. Do you really think all that die-space is just waste space?
Skylake, Kaby Lake, Kaby Lake 2.0, Cannonlake. All together with a smaller improvement than Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Guess I will hold my 1275v5 for 2 more years until Coffee lake 10nm 6 core becomes reasonably priced.
The cpu industry hit a brick wall. It just took AMD a little longer to get there.
ill sum up: Intel calling performance bump at this time is ironic. You can argue all you want go for it! All you arguments have to do with something else that what is just stated. You can disagree all you want and defend them for not being the greedy bastards. Regarding the die size; well yeah thats the point right: if your mar ket want a discret GPU build in its a good thing: but if your market is going to install a graphiccard for gaming; yes the space (and power) is completely wasted. (but then again that is a whole other thing.)
If Intel stays on current trend ,no one will be excited.
In the mean time, Intel is not just earning from CPUs, but chipsets as well.
Come to think of it, last 3 Intel CPU/chipsets had nothing new. Adding more USB ports, Thunderbolt and PCIe lanes is not a generational leap. They are fooling us.
In the Pentium 4 days, we had Williamette, Northwood, Prescott, all called Pentium 4. Worked wonderfully. a 200 Mhz increase shouldn't be called a new generation
forums.anandtech.com/threads/i7-7700k-and-i5-7600k-turbo-boost-cores-active-ratio.2498708/#post-38723230