95W TDP of "Skylake" Chips Explained by Intel's Big Graphics Push

[techy1]

Anyhow - decent discussion. But I highly doubt that even a pentium/i3 client buys PC without crappy discrete... because he has 0 choice there... if he walks in a PC shop (being uninformed as he is) then the sales guy will sale him like "GT610 with 4GB DDR3" (or something those lines) why? cuz he can (cuz client will not understand anyway) and why not take extra 50 $? The same is in online stores bunch of those low cost entry level PC is complete for complete unaware people, those complects are not completed to be most cost efficient - there is almost always some crappy few generations old discrete GPU packed in. so I do not belive that "if mainstream asks for iGPU, then mainstream gets it". but most of what pisses me off that when new CPUs come out - the new iGPU gets the most attention and CPU improvements gets less and less attention and guess what - less and less improvements. cuz there is no need - everything what tech people are talking is 1) how huge of improvment in iGPU department this generation will be and 2) how much mainstream needs it and how good that Intel got their iGPU on this high level

 

[GhostRyder]

Well I am glad they are working on it though a lot of their improvements are going to be coming from the embedded ram improvements on the iris. I do have to agree with some of the people on the choice of chips for these improved graphics. Personally, I would like the mobile processors and some of the lower models to at least have an enhanced iGPU option even if it slightly added to the price (So long as they had others without it).

 

[NightOfChrist]

Personally I believe the iGPU would be useful to me, should I be in the situation where the discrete graphics card is malfunction and I do not have a spare card when needed to use as a replacement or if there is a problem with the discrete graphics card and its driver that prevents boot to Windows. Intel HD Graphics would make things easier, especially if it has excellent performance. To me, It could not hurt to have Intel iGPU ready and it is great Intel has made improvements to its performance. I am looking forward to see what Skylake processors are capable of when they are released.

 

[axxo22]

Cool your jets and calm down. Maybe you should go work for them and design a new CPU if you shit don't stink. If you're really that bent out of shape about the platform then get a HEDT platform and stop complaining.

Good lord. Mods, what does it take to get banned around here, and how has this flaming petulant jackass not managed to meat that criteria a thousand times over yet?

 

[Casecutter]

I know some people are upset that product was canceled because they all talked about how it would revolutionize how games were made.

Intel was smart to realize they wouldn't change 3D gaming engines. Probably figured it out when seeing AMD couldn't make software developers use multiple cores.

 

[ozorian]

If you're really that bent out of shape about the platform then get a HEDT platform and stop complaining.

LOL Do they pay you....!!!!!(intel)
Relax man he can have his own opinion..................!!!!
For god sake and btw i agree with him.
I dont give a shit what if i5/i7 k series are for mainstream platforms, i know that the majority of the buyers are gamers and performance users THAT THEY DONT NEED INTEGRATED GPU!!
About haswell-e which is without integrated gpu, i would choose it if i had more than 3% on gaming performance(4790k vs 5820k).When i dont have that 3% and in order to get it,i must double my budget for a 5960x sorry but "NO THANKS"

PS: sorry for my english :S

 

[Ravendagrey]

LOL Do they pay you....!!!!!(intel)
Relax man he can have his own opinion..................!!!!
For god sake and btw i agree with him.
I dont give a shit what if i5/i7 k series are for mainstream platforms, i know that the majority of the buyers are gamers and performance users THAT THEY DONT NEED INTEGRATED GPU!!
About haswell-e which is without integrated gpu, i would choose it if i had more than 3% on gaming performance(4790k vs 5820k).When i dont have that 3% and in order to get it,i must double my budget for a 5960x sorry but "NO THANKS"

PS: sorry for my english :S

Your argument means nothing... you can spend a measly 50 bucks and get the 5820k over a 4790k get 2 more cores (4 more threads), more cache, ddr4 memory, plus all the other goodies on the x99 platform and considerably more performance in multithreaded tasks (including games that take advantage of cores and with technologies like DX12, Mantle, and Valkan that offload tasks to the CPU) and a far more future-proof system, WITHOUT an iGPU. If you try to argue that x99 motherboards are considerably more expensive and you really should try comparing specs between a low end x99 board vs z97 and you'll discover that for the same price point you're going to get pretty much the same features...

 

[Aquinus]

Why would I invest in a more expensive platform that doesn't benefit me in gaming other than more cores that don't get utilized

Because you're complaining about Intel's mainstream platform having mainstream features. Enthusiasts pay for what they want, quit your complaining and move on.

kinda feels like a waste when most PC enthusiasts will be using a dedicated GPU but then again I can see why too, Intel wanna compete & be above AMD on all levels

Except it's more wasteful for Intel to redesign to not have an iGPU when most consumers do in fact have and use iGPUs. You're not everyone and Intel doesn't care about you unless you pay for it. Get over it, nice stuff doesn't come cheap.

I dont give a shit what if i5/i7 k series are for mainstream platforms, i know that the majority of the buyers are gamers and performance users THAT THEY DONT NEED INTEGRATED GPU!!

Welcome to the consumer market. Gamers are niche and Intel doesn't care about you because they make their money off everyone else and businesses. As far as profit is concerned, they could care less what you think. Simple point is that Intel is going to put an iGPU in every CPU because when it comes to making the CPU itself, it's cheaper because it doesn't require a redesign. Even the CPUs "without iGPUs" on the same socket still have iGPU circuitry in it that's laser cut for one reason or another. This comes down to business for Intel. So stop acting like gamers are super important because Intel, honestly, doesn't really care because that isn't where they make money. So if you consider the market they target and the features they provide, it makes sense. They're not going to custom make a set of CPUs on a gimped platform just to cater to a relatively small portion of the market, and when they do, it ends up in the HEDT lineup and you pay for it. So stop complaining about not getting exactly what you want on a mainstream platform.

You bet I'm an asshole, anyone here at TPU knows that I'm not afraid to speak my opinion.

Good lord. Mods, what does it take to get banned around here, and how has this flaming petulant jackass not managed to meat that criteria a thousand times over yet?

You really registered just to say that? How about not trying to throw the thread off topic.
Everyone already knows I'm an ass, you don't need to point out the obvious.

In summary: Welcome to the mainstream market. It demands iGPUs so Intel includes it on most of their GPUs and have built the PCH around having that iGPU. I personally think it's more dumb to leave out an iGPU when you have all this dedicated crap in your motherboard for it. It's even more dumb to use the power argument because Intel has been power-gating iGPUs since Sandy, so it's not like it even adds to the heat when you have a discrete card. I personally find the argument of leaving the iGPU out amusing since most people with it, use it. Just because your a gamer doesn't mean the entire market is full of PC gamers (even if it should be.)

Lastly, I would prefer having an iGPU powerful enough to do everything I want with it instead of a discrete GPU that's overkill. It depends on what you're using it for, and most people use Facebook, look at email, video, and do everything that isn't 3D acceleration. So if Intel is thinking about how to make more money, I can bet you they're not thinking about catering to gamers.

Side note: I'm on a laptop with an Iris Pro in it now and it works fine for everything that isn't gaming.

 

[RejZoR]

No doubt that is the case and the reason why Intel is doing it this way, but I wonder if they could possibly disable the iGPU on the unlocked models.

They probably design a logic where iGPU part gets entirely shut down, so it doesn't consume power or generate any heat. That is done through BIOS or through the chipset on the motherboard or something.

 

[theonedub]

When I was actively Folding I would use the iGPU on my K series so the PC could actually still be usable when the dedicated is loaded @ 100%.

Its also nice for when you want to run a super slim mITX and need CPU power, but have no desire (or room) for a dedicated GPU. That way you can still have accelerated video playback, fast encoding, etc in that mini case.

 

[Lionheart]

Because you're complaining about Intel's mainstream platform having mainstream features. Enthusiasts pay for what they want, quit your complaining and move on.

Except it's more wasteful for Intel to redesign to not have an iGPU when most consumers do in fact have and use iGPUs. You're not everyone and Intel doesn't care about you unless you pay for it. Get over it, nice stuff doesn't come cheap.

Welcome to the consumer market. Gamers are niche and Intel doesn't care about you because they make their money off everyone else and businesses. As far as profit is concerned, they could care less what you think. Simple point is that Intel is going to put an iGPU in every CPU because when it comes to making the CPU itself, it's cheaper because it doesn't require a redesign. Even the CPUs "without iGPUs" on the same socket still have iGPU circuitry in it that's laser cut for one reason or another. This comes down to business for Intel. So stop acting like gamers are super important because Intel, honestly, doesn't really care because that isn't where they make money. So if you consider the market they target and the features they provide, it makes sense. They're not going to custom make a set of CPUs on a gimped platform just to cater to a relatively small portion of the market, and when they do, it ends up in the HEDT lineup and you pay for it. So stop complaining about not getting exactly what you want on a mainstream platform.

You bet I'm an asshole, anyone here at TPU knows that I'm not afraid to speak my opinion & complain.

You really registered just to say that? How about not trying to throw the thread off topic.
Everyone already knows I'm an ass, you don't need to point out the obvious.

In summary: Welcome to the mainstream market. It demands iGPUs so Intel includes it on most of their GPUs and have built the PCH around having that iGPU. I personally think it's more dumb to leave out an iGPU when you have all this dedicated crap in your motherboard for it. It's even more dumb to use the power argument because Intel has been power-gating iGPUs since Sandy, so it's not like it even adds to the heat when you have a discrete card. I personally find the argument of leaving the iGPU out amusing since most people with it, use it. Just because your a gamer doesn't mean the entire market is full of PC gamers (even if it should be.)

Lastly, I would prefer having an iGPU powerful enough to do everything I want with it instead of a discrete GPU that's overkill. It depends on what you're using it for, and most people use Facebook, look at email, video, and do everything that isn't 3D acceleration. So if Intel is thinking about how to make more money, I can bet you they're not thinking about catering to gamers.

Side note: I'm on a laptop with an Iris Pro in it now and it works fine for everything that isn't gaming.

I say one little thing about an Intel iGPU & you flip your shit ,the only one here complaining here is you! Bitching about other ppl's opinions cause you don't like them, so how about you quit your "complaining" & move on! Complaining about other ppl complaining?? Lol

"kinda feels like a waste when most PC enthusiasts will be using a dedicated GPU but then again I can see why too, Intel wanna compete & be above AMD on all levels" For the 3rd time already did you not read my comment? I said I understand why? Get it through your dense head.

Fixed one of your sentences, call me immature but I don't care, this site needs more humour & less ego.

 

[Aquinus]

I say one little thing about an Intel iGPU & you flip your shit ,the only one here complaining here is you! Bitching about other ppl's opinions cause you don't like them, so how about you quit your "complaining" & move on! Complaining about other ppl complaining?? Lol

"kinda feels like a waste when most PC enthusiasts will be using a dedicated GPU but then again I can see why too, Intel wanna compete & be above AMD on all levels" For the 3rd time already did you not read my comment? I said I understand why? Get it through your dense head.

Fixed one of your sentences, call me immature but I don't care, this site needs more humour & less ego.

I think you're missing my point. It's wasted for people who actually use a discrete card and even that, it's still functionality you wouldn't otherwise have. The simple point, which I've made time and time again is that does not describe most consumers, also it's not really a waste when it's something you wouldn't have had and you even said yourself, why invest more money in a platform you don't need. My point is complaining about features common on a mainstream platform because someone claims to be an enthusiast is asinine. I quote you because you're perpetuating that very problem just as I've quoted others who are doing the same thing. The iGPU is not a disadvantage and people make it sound like it is when for the bulk of users, it's doing them a world of good. That's my problem, but once again, I've been making the same point over and over again. Intel isn't doing it because AMD does, they do it because the market demands it.

Also making comments like this only serve to perpetuate an argument outside the realm of the topic of the thread and I will have no part of that.

call me immature but I don't care, this site needs more humour & less ego.

 

[alucasa]

The iGPU is pretty handy in emergency situations where your GPU simply decides to call it quits. You will have something to work with while a replacement is coming along.

And for those who don't play a lot of games but need a good CPU, it saves some bucks not having to buy a dedicated GPU as well.

 

[tomkaten]

Because it's cheaper for them to just churn out all the same CPU's than designing two different designs, one with iGPU and one without.

Not really, it seems, SB, IB and Haswell all had Xeons(4 cores, hyperthreading) that cost less than their identical I7 counterparts with integrated GPUs.

Make no mistake, you are paying Intel about 50$ for something you will probably never use. It's borderline unfair practice IMO, because you're not given a choice.

OTOH, the cost of R&D for great improvements in this field from one generation to another is probably big, so Intel needs to absorb that by selling integrated GPU's to the masses. That's the best personal justification I can come up with.

 

[xenocide]

Not really, it seems, SB, IB and Haswell all had Xeons(4 cores, hyperthreading) that cost less than their identical I7 counterparts with integrated GPUs.

They also had varying feature sets and locked clocks. You pay for features. You're also kind of agreeing with his point, they just made a certain design and perfected that design--the Xeon variations of things like SB/IB/Haswell are basically i7's with a few features moved here and there. Cost saving measure.

 

[Aquinus]

Not really, it seems, SB, IB and Haswell all had Xeons(4 cores, hyperthreading) that cost less than their identical I7 counterparts with integrated GPUs.

Make no mistake, you are paying Intel about 50$ for something you will probably never use. It's borderline unfair practice IMO, because you're not given a choice.

Well, if you bought a Xeon but don't use VT-d, vPro, ECC memory, or any of the features that Xeons have to offer, then shame on you for buying something you don't need. You're not paying more for the iGPU, you're paying more for the features of a Xeon. Also many Xeons do have integrated graphics, there are more with than without IIRC.

 

[tomkaten]

Well, if you bought a Xeon but don't use VT-d, vPro, ECC memory, or any of the features that Xeons have to offer, then shame on you for buying something you don't need. You're not paying more for the iGPU, you're paying more for the features of a Xeon.

You misread what I said, Xeons are actually CHEAPER, although they support ECC and TSX-NI over their i7 equivalents.

Case in point:

i7 4770:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116900&cm_re=i7_4770-_-19-116-900-_-Product

Xeon E3:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117316&cm_re=xeon_e3-_-19-117-316-_-Product

It's basically the same CPU, but the Xeon is $50 cheaper.

 

[Aquinus]

You misread what I said, Xeons are actually CHEAPER, although they support ECC and TSX-NI over their i7 equivalents.

Oh, sure. When you rule out overclocking, sure, but keep in mind that Xeon you linked is newer than the 4770 and that the Xeon is closer in performance to a 4790, not a 4770 (a quick google search tells me benchmarks are slightly higher on the Xeon despite having a boost that 100Mhz lower than the 4770. You compare the DC CPU instead and you get the equivalent Xeon, it ends up costing only 10 dollars cheaper than the regular 4790. So while you're right, Xeon can cost less but it depends on what you're comparing... but still you throw overclocking out the Window when you do that and a Xeon isn't really an option if you want to overclock. Then if you go to the far end of the spectrum and compare the highest clocked i7 versus the highest clocked Xeon, and you'll be paying more for the Xeon. So it depends on what you're trying to do.

The E3 Xeon 1245v3 is probably a better comparison because the clocks are the same and both have iGPUs. Only the cheapest e3 Xeons don't have iGPUs iirc, not the most performant ones.

All in all, it's still a zero sum game unless there are particular needs for your system.

None of this changes the fact though that no one would really notice a difference if the iGPU was there or not and if you're already spending >500 USD, 10 dollars won't make a huge difference.

 

[tomkaten]

We're beating around the bush here. My links prove that the Xeon with the same architecture and the exact clock speeds (ok, minus 100 MHz in single-core) is 50 bucks cheaper. How did you get to 10 bucks ? You lost me in your argument progression

Now, $50 is pocket change for some and a lot of money for others, depending on where you hail from, but one thing is certain: it's better spent on a superior discrete card. Or more RAM... Or a higher capacity SSD, you name it. Especially if you're never gonna use that iGPU. It's better when I decide what my money goes into instead of Intel.

Direct comparison between the two:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/80910,75122

 

[GreiverBlade]

well not to be bitchy or annoying.

they upped the TDP to 95w for that IGP yet it's still not on the level of a A10-7850K (100w)IGP level and the Kaveri IGP doesn't have eDRAM, yet it's still a bit closer than the HD4600 was ofc.

bear with the french language in the pics ... numbers are universal


ok CPU side it's totally not the same case ...

conclusion: if i want a cpu with a IGP and no need for a discrete, but keeping the Hybrid CFX option in mind... i go AMD and Kaveri instead of Skylake even in 2015/16 (or Godavari or the next APU since Kaveri is bound to a refresh soon)

 

[623]

Intel Core i7-6700K(ES) CPU-Z

 

[RejZoR]

Not really, it seems, SB, IB and Haswell all had Xeons(4 cores, hyperthreading) that cost less than their identical I7 counterparts with integrated GPUs.

Make no mistake, you are paying Intel about 50$ for something you will probably never use. It's borderline unfair practice IMO, because you're not given a choice.

OTOH, the cost of R&D for great improvements in this field from one generation to another is probably big, so Intel needs to absorb that by selling integrated GPU's to the masses. That's the best personal justification I can come up with.

I've said it's cheaper for THEM. I never said it's cheaper for customers.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Can somebody pop the popcorn? This is getting to be interesting.


To the points raised thus far:
1) The inclusion of an iGPU increases the price of a processor.
Technically yes. Realistically, no. The inclusion of an iGPU is a design choice. They start out with it, and it's due to their target audience. Their main audience isn't gaming enthusiasts, it's business applications where multiple tabbed spreadsheets and flash presentations are the most graphically demanding things required. For such usage an iGPU is a minor increase in expense, that pays off hugely with cutting out dedicated video cards. We might not like it as gamers, but we're such a small market segment it is a moot point.

2) AMD competing with Intel, via the APU, is what spurred Intel's development of an iGPU
Nope. Somehow people forget that development of hardware takes years. If Intel was responding to the APU it would just be breaking the 1080p video barrier. This is a move from Intel that was precipitated by ARM. Their recent forays into tablet devices, along with the fact that they cite extra video playback time, is a dead give away. Intel has already relegated AMD to the scrap bin, in no small part to the fact that AMD said they were pulling out of the CPU market. The APU is good, but only because they strapped a functional GPU to a CPU.

3) Intel graphics are crap (paraphrased)
Yeah, I can't argue that. The salient point here is patent law. Nvidea and AMD own a ton of key patents for modern graphics solutions. As neither is looking to license that patent to Intel, they've got to reinvent the wheel. In the span of less than a decade Intel has gone from buggy trash to competent for business use. That's a huge leap, considering AMD and Nvidea took much longer to get there. If you're in doubt of this argument I'd ask you to compare Duke Nukem 3d to Hitman: Blood Money. That's one decade of difference, and you've still got some janky, boxy figures. In comparison the Sandy Bridge iGPU (2011) has already gotten to competent 1080p playback and it's only from 2014.

4) You're a shill for Intel
I wish. If I was paid for this crap I'd be able to enjoy a lot more. As it stands, I'm hoping that Intel sinks too much into iGPU development, Zen is as good as suggested, and Intel gets caught with their pants down. That would precipitate another genuinely great CPU generation, akin to the Sandy Bridge era. Skylake is unlikely to do this, and from the sounds of it just be another 10-15% performance increase. Hopefully this time it's without forfeiting overclocking ability. Energy efficiency is great, but you can't sell several hundred dollars of silicon based on a 60% efficiency increase, when the net savings would require a system run for years before breaking even.

5) Intel including an iGPU is unfair
Simple response: buy something else. I'm unaware of Intel possessing a monopoly. You can buy a CPU from AMD, or perhaps a small fleet of ARM powered devices. Want performance, then buy Intel. It's crap to say, but it's reality. If I want a fast car I pay an insane amount for a Veyron. If I want a pickup truck I buy a Toyota. I can't complain to Toyota that they don't make a budget super car. What you're asking is that Toyota suddenly starts making super cars, when their pickup market represents 90%+ of the global market and prints money. While an automotive analogy isn't perfect, it does highlight the absurdity of catering to a niche market, no?



I'm looking forward to how my words are misconstrued as Intel fanboyism. What I appreciate is performance, and AMD can't do it. If you pay the Nvidea tax you've acquiesced to this point. Most important, reality seems to be against the counter argument. Look at a Steam hardware survey, and most people use an Intel CPU and Nvidea GPU. It seems as though the market has spoken. While wishing for the glory days of the AthlonXP is reasonable, you have to deal with reality. Right now, Intel could have a 0% performance increase with Skylake, focusing only on iGPU, and still make money. Either understand that, or continue to argue that you are somehow special and deserving of a unique CPU. The former is reality, with the later being fantasy bordering on narcissism.

 

[Yorgos]

Intel had GPU's for ages, but they were absolute garbage until AMD forced them to do something. They are still rather rubbish, but at least they improved them significantly.

the iGPU from i7-4700QM that I have in my hands is a little better than the one which was in my Foxconn motherboard with my Pentium D. I say a little better because benchmarks do not show the stability of the driver, even on Dota 2 I get an error at the start of every game, which means that I have to restart the game after the game matching. When I switch some programs/games from the iGPU to the dGPU (750m) then everything works as intended)
OTOH my amd-7850k integrated GPU is behaving as a dGPU which means that I have full support for all the goodies that a dGPU has, unlike the intel iGPU which supports several features from OpenGL (I am running on linux) and is making many programs to crash or misbehave.
On the other APU based laptop that I have, it was dirty cheap with an underpowered APU at 15Watts but every time I use a program that runs on openGL then it behaves flawlessly.
It doesn't matter how big the next iGPU will be, or how many frames there going to be, the fact is that intel does not care enough for their iGPUs to have the full-featured.
I laugh at people owing Macraps that run on Intel w/o a dGPU, and they are stuck with a shitty gpu for ever.

 

[axxo22]

In the span of less than a decade Intel has gone from buggy trash to competent for business use. That's a huge leap, considering AMD and Nvidea took much longer to get there. If you're in doubt of this argument I'd ask you to compare Duke Nukem 3d to Hitman: Blood Money. That's one decade of difference, and you've still got some janky, boxy figures. In comparison the Sandy Bridge iGPU (2011) has already gotten to competent 1080p playback and it's only from 2014.

Two words: Transistor Density.