Friday, February 10th 2017
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
*eats popcorn*
Maybe take a look here.
wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/
That's what you can get for 400$
But how are you able to determine Ryzen's IPC when we don't even know the clock? These models will feature "XFR" which is an extra boost feature.
You cant blame Intel for doing it; with NO compatition for years the people setting the price is them so they only have to steir free of monopoly charges :) When it comes to apple people HAVE a choice; its just that alot of people are easily tricked ;)
"It’s not clear whether the engineering sample was running at 3.4GHz without any turbo functionality during testing or if the application simply failed to read the turbo clock."
BTW, the OS needs new drivers to read turbo frequencies correctly.
We'll need a wide range of benchmarks to determine the IPC, and of course a locked clock frequency. (not that I'm saying anyone should use it that way)
We'll need wide range but this is still a benchmark. Whoever will procure benchmarks I'm sure that person will use same suit for benchmarking.
No, there is not time for improvement and fixes. It takes 4-6 months to incorporate any change in silicon. The only parameters they have the ability to tweak at this point are the binning and the clock speeds/voltage.
There is no confirmation that the turbo boost is working during the benchmark either and in the article author is assuming only that it doesn't. So it depends. What i'm saying is regardless if the turbo is working or not the performance is great and if it really isn't working during the benchmark that would only mean the CPU will performs even better with the boost.
I mean, they might as well say, "We know you're dumb, so believe it and buy some LOLtel chips."
My pick is 1700x or pro though i'm not sure what pro gives either way i'm buying AMD. even if it aint superior to intel it's worth buying just for the sake of it :D
A 1Ghz base to 1.15Ghz is still 15% increase...
IMO that is a "cheat" but it is truly a 15% increase on one Cpu, not all...
Hint: I don't care about your sleeping problems ( don't wanna say "we" since others might but that can be discussed in other thread since this one is reserved) :) You could have given at least a comment for what was written above since you had to go through all the replies :)