Skylake iGPU Gets Performance Leap, Incremental Upgrade for CPU Performance

[64K]

I will wait for reviews to decide but I'm really wanting to build a new rig. Depending on Skylake vs Ivy Bridge (my present CPU) I may wait for Cannonlake.

I think there is one more reason why Intel wants to improve its iGPU. DirectX 12 and asynchronous multi GPU support.

Today we have DirectX 11 and the iGPU is not used when gaming with a discrete GPU(dual graphics is not important). So, with DirectX11 Intel CPUs win easily against AMD APUs. The iGPU performance doesn't count here.

Tomorrow we will be playing DirectX 12 games. AMD will hopefully have a better architecture with Zen, but even without that, AMD offers more cores at the same prices. With the multithreaded performance that DirectX 12 offers, the difference between using an 4 core APU and a 2 core + HT i3 will be much smaller if any. With asynchronous multi GPU, the iGPU part of the APU will offer much higher help to the discrete GPU, probably making the APU + discrete GPU combination, performing much better than the i3 + discrete GPU combination.

AMD is also loosing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars yearly doing things like that and are now on the verge of bankruptcy. I guess having owned my own business I think differently than most but one of the things that AMD fans love about AMD (cheap prices) is one of the things that has brought AMD to ruin over the years. When I owned my business I charged what everyone else was charging and usually my profit was high, occasionally ridiculously high but I was fine with that. If they didn't do business with me then they would pay the same elsewhere. I provided the best service that I could and beat out my competitors pretty well.

 

[john_]

TL;DR Start rooting for AMD if you want product improvements from Intel that aren't "pointless."

Maybe you should start shouting at Intel to cut the bulling on OEMs and the contra revenue program to give AMD a chance to breath. Then maybe AMD will be also in a position to finance R&D and improve it's products. After that you might want to turn at Nvidia and ask them to stop their practices with the proprietary stuff like GameWorks and PhysX. If they accept your complains, then maybe AMD will become competitive and you will be able to support competition in the PC market by buying.... more Intel and Nvidia hardware

 

[john_]

AMD is also loosing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars yearly doing things like that and are now on the verge of bankruptcy. I guess having owned my own business I think differently than most but one of the things that AMD fans love about AMD (cheap prices) is one of the things that has brought AMD to ruin over the years. When I owned my business I charged what everyone else was charging and usually my profit was high, occasionally ridiculously high but I was fine with that. If they didn't do business with me then they would pay the same elsewhere. I provided the best service that I could and beat out my competitors pretty well.

Cheap prices where a necessity for AMD most of the time. Even when they had faster processors, Intel was controlling the OEMs. Every OEM, or retail store was selling Pentium 4s. After that the Phenom processor wasn't that fast and the Bulldozer architecture a pure disaster. So how can you go out and charge equally or more? The competition is controlling the OEMs, the retail stores, the press. People are used in blaming AMD for the same things they will find plenty of excuses for Nvidia or Intel. When everything is against you, can you really expect to empty your warehouses with prices that are not ultra competitive? Fury X come out at the same price as 980Ti and guess what. Everyone was looking the second decimal on the fps counter to say that the card was a failure. Suddenly a pump noise was compared to a jet engine and tech sites rush to write articles about how AMD failed there. And they rushed because it was already known that the problem was fixed. When everyone is pointing a gun at you, can you really charge extra?

 

[Easo]

WiDi 6.0 ??

Wireless Display.

 

[jabbadap]

Hmm, hope AMD's next cpu can at least compete in games with DX12 active, rather not have anything McAfee in my PC thanks. terrible antivirus company

Heh, speaking of it:

Spoiler: OT

 

[buggalugs]

The 6700K CPU should be a hexacore. It's 2015 and they still consider a quadcore to be "enthusiast" level. C'mon, really!? I see ZERO point in switching and I have a Core i7 920. Only thing that I'd realistically gain is power consumption and some new instructions. Do your math how long can I use my existing i7 920 to justify the price difference in electricity bills...

From what I've checked, everything is identical. Cache sizes, core count, thread count etc. Hell, I even have triple channel on my ancient grunt and Skylake is only dual channel. Like ugh!? Totally pointless product. It only makes sense if you don't have a computer and you're buiying from scratch. Or you have some shitty dual core from 10 years ago...

Dude, you're ancient, Skylake, or even haswell has 100% better single threaded performance than a 920, and more than 100% better multi threaded performance. You're looking at least 50% faster in games.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/7

Add to that new instructions and IPC improvements are huge compared to a 920, plus all the new features on modern boards USB 3 , PCI-E 3, wifi, bluetooth, better audio and networking, etc Everything is much faster, moving data, rendering video, running scans, boot times, ,everything is noticeably faster.. and it uses half as much power.

You cant compare cores and cache and say its the same CPU...

Sure if you only surf the web and play games from 2002, or GPU limited games you might not notice much but I had a 920 and its a dinosaur compared to haswell or skylake.

........and this platform isnt enthusiast, its mainstream X58/ 920 was enthusiast

 

[Naito]

........and this platform isnt enthusiast, its mainstream X58/ 920 was enthusiast

This. Besides, it'd be worth the upgrade just for the native chipset features. Most peeps I know ditched their Nehalems years ago for Sandy or Ivy Bridges.

 

[Ferrum Master]

An update to a thing I do not use... an iGPU...

SCREW it... Sandy Bridge FTW...

 

[NeDix!]

Show me the difference in games between i7 920 at 4,2GHz and that Skylake. It'll probably be identical. Paying premium for 3 seconds less in 7zip compression, I couldn't care less...

You really know how to buy dude, theres no point on move to skylake on any i7 user, theres a point on move to 5820k, but 2011v3 is so expensive D:, but in the future may be worth get 2011v3 now, if u can get a 8/16 used cheap later :v

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The 6700K CPU should be a hexacore. It's 2015 and they still consider a quadcore to be "enthusiast" level. C'mon, really!? I see ZERO point in switching and I have a Core i7 920. Only thing that I'd realistically gain is power consumption and some new instructions. Do your math how long can I use my existing i7 920 to justify the price difference in electricity bills...

From what I've checked, everything is identical. Cache sizes, core count, thread count etc. Hell, I even have triple channel on my ancient grunt and Skylake is only dual channel. Like ugh!? Totally pointless product. It only makes sense if you don't have a computer and you're buiying from scratch. Or you have some shitty dual core from 10 years ago...

Lga1151 is still the mainstream platform.

 

[GhostRyder]

The iGPU does have a place though mostly on the mobile market where getting GPU add in's cost quite a lot so its good for that area. But on the desktop its a minimal thing especially on some of these expensive chips...

I will be holding my 5930K for at least 3+ years.

 

[Petey Plane]

And again - none cares about iGPU progress - I know that many people use only iGPU - BUT they are usually so uninformed (you can insert other synonyms for - being dumb) that they would not spot a difference between HD2000 and irisPRO anyway (both can run movies un fullHD, both can run angrybirds and browse pinterest or run office aps)... So why to bother and give them +30% better iGPU every generation and neglect CPU evolution??? Do you ever have heard or read something like this "omg, these new intel CPUs have sooo better iGPU - I need an upgrade now... Lets go to starbucks afterwards" ?

On every annual Steam hardware survey, Intel iGPU users are the majority of the Steam user base, something like consistent 60% range (edit: actually about 20%, but i think the point still stands as to who Intel's primary market is, and it's not enthusiasts), and those are just the users that actually game. The vast majority of PC users are on laptops and don't play games. Those customer are much more important to Intel than gamers, and make up significantly more of their customer base. Pushing web content at 4K can be very taxing, so having a strong iGPU is important. CPUs are already overpowered for those tasks, so there is little incentive for Intel to spend resources there. The iGPU is much more important to Intel's primary customers, OEMs.

It's easy to be myopic, as an enthusiast, but the reality is, enthusiasts are a pretty insignificant, and not particularly profitable market. If Intel ever had to pick between selling to Newegg, or selling to Lenovo, i think the choice would be pretty easy for them.

 

[Ferrum Master]

On every annual Steam hardware survey, Intel iGPU users are the majority of the Steam user base, something like consistent 60% range, and those are just the users that actually game.
It's easy to be myopic, as an enthusiast, but the reality is, enthusiasts are a pretty insignificant, and not particularly profitable market. If Intel ever had to pick between selling to Newegg, or selling to Lenovo, i think the choice would be pretty easy for them.

I can also those are also the users that don't pay! Take your facts a bit from the realistic point of view. So around 4mil peps actually use the igpu? Are you kidding? From the whole CPU batch?

 

[Phobia9651]

On every annual Steam hardware survey, Intel iGPU users are the majority of the Steam user base, something like consistent 60% range, and those are just the users that actually game.

I reckon that it is just people that have an Intel iGPU in their system (basically all the SNB, IB, Haswell and Broadwell users). Noone I know games on an iGPU.

Edit: A quick look at the actual data tells you that: Nvidia 52%, AMD 27.72%, Intel 19.88% and Other 0.4%
So not sure where you got your "consistent 60%" from. Besides now that I see the actual data, I assume that these are mostly laptop users that use an Intel iGPU.

 

[Petey Plane]

I can also those are also the users that don't pay! Take your facts a bit from the realistic point of view. So around 4mil peps actually use the igpu? Are you kidding? From the whole CPU batch?

I reckon that it is just people that have an Intel iGPU in their system (basically all the SNB, IB, Haswell and Broadwell users). Noone I know games on an iGPU.

Ok, I've been wrong. The current hardware survey shows Intel at about 20% of the Steam GPU user base. So fair enough, it's still a large percentage. And nearly 50% of users only have a 2-core CPU. All that being said, we should still remember that OEM laptop manufacturers like HP, Apple and Lenovo are Intel's biggest market, and why they focus so much on iGPU performance.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Ok, I've been wrong. The current hardware survey shows Intel at about 20% of the Steam GPU user base. So fair enough, it's still a large percentage. And nearly 50% of users only have a 2-core CPU. All that being said, we should still remember that OEM laptop manufacturers like HP, Apple and Lenovo are Intel's biggest market, and why they focus so much on iGPU performance.

Mate... that user count from the percent is less than GTA5 PC copies sold... that actually doesn't run on a iGPU still...

 

[Petey Plane]

Mate... that user count from the percent is less than GTA5 PC copies sold... that actually doesn't run on a iGPU still...

? I'm not sure i understand your comment. That number is from the Steam Hardware & Software Survey, Jan. 2014 to June 2015. Not sure what that has to do with the number of GTA5 copies sold. The point still stands i think, where AMD only has about 8% more user base than Intel.

The survey does have a selection bias, in that if you are buying a discreet GPU, than you are also going to be very likely using Steam, and vice versa. But that also means that non-Steam users are much more likely to be using iGPUs.

 

[Frick]

I still want a Celeron/Pentium/i3 cpu with Iris/Iris Pro in it.

 

[Ferrum Master]

? I'm not sure i understand your comment. That number is from the Steam Hardware & Software Survey, Jan. 2014 to June 2015. Not sure what that has to do with the number of GTA5 copies sold. The point still stands i think, where AMD only has about 8% more user base than Intel.

The survey does have a selection bias, in that if you are buying a discreet GPU, than you are also going to be very likely using Steam, and vice versa. But that also means that non-Steam users are much more likely to be using iGPUs.

You still don't get the idea that igpu gamer count is like drop in the bucket for Intel CPU batch size and overall the provided numbers that you showed using steam... The GTA5 data shows that only one title accumulates more dedicated GPU owners that the whole iGPU user base for Steam at all?

Don't mix up AMD here... and exactly... non steam users, those who user for business activities... the real other batch of CPU's that don't care about Iris really? The thing is useless to begin with... such amount of transistors... there are over 100mil desktop shipments for Intel... their presence numbers cannot be compared apples to apples to AMD presence... The whole majority of the users don't care about the iGPU as long they have something that outputs and image to monitor and shows kitten videos.

 

[RazrLeaf]

A big part of that is because Intel partially reached their current position with anticompetitive practices. AMD could (no way to know for sure, since they've mostly screwed themselves with bad decisions one after the other) be in a better shape today if they had gained the strong lead they deserved with the Athlon 64s, but Intel prevented that by forcing OEMs to delay AMD product launches.

I'd honestly forgotten about that (incident occurred 12 years ago, fine levied 6 years ago).

Maybe you should start shouting at Intel to cut the bulling on OEMs and the contra revenue program to give AMD a chance to breath. Then maybe AMD will be also in a position to finance R&D and improve it's products. After that you might want to turn at Nvidia and ask them to stop their practices with the proprietary stuff like GameWorks and PhysX. If they accept your complains, then maybe AMD will become competitive and you will be able to support competition in the PC market by buying.... more Intel and Nvidia hardware

And I don't want to shout at Intel. Or Nvidia. If they develop something, they are perfectly within their rights to keep it proprietary. They're for-profit companies after all. Though it'll be interesting to see what happens if AMD actually goes the way of the dodo...

 

[tabascosauz]

Bulldozer was 100% AMD's problem, and 100% AMD's downfall. Through the Pentium 4-esque pipeline problem, supremely slow cache and the attempt to stay 'upgradable' by not moving to FCH, AMD still tried to distort the facts and try to make it sound as if Bulldozer was better than SB with its 8 'cores'. When you are fighting an uphill battle with the X6 1100T being all that you have to offer, something like Bulldozer is probably going to hurt you more than staying conventional. Intel had a backup plan for Prescott in the Pentium III that eventually ended up as Yonah and Core 2. AMD had nothing.

You could say that AMD had no resources to devote to making a backup plan because Intel had bribed the OEMs those years ago. Whatever the excuse might be, the burden of Bulldozer rested squarely on an already weak AMD's shoulders, while Intel had a nice surprise with Sandy Bridge supremacy.

In the corporate world, exactly how much space is devoted to conscience and morality? When Intel was fumbling with the monstrosity that was Prescott, what did you expect them to do? Pull an AMD and place all their hopes on Prescott?

 

[john_]

Though it'll be interesting to see what happens if AMD actually goes the way of the dodo...

Well that's what people said in Greece a few months ago. "We already saw the old political parties. Let's try something new. Let's vote for a left government. What could possibly go wrong? It can't become worst than what it is already!"


tabascosauz

They could try to shrink Thuban at 32nm and later add to that chip the good stuff from Bulldozer. I think Intel is doing exactly that with Broadwell. I think they made Broadwell in case Skylake was having problems of any kind.

 

[zithe]

More iGPU speed might be helpful for users of the Cintiq Companion or similar level tablets for painting.

 

[R-T-B]

Dude, you're ancient, Skylake, or even haswell has 100% better single threaded performance than a 920, and more than 100% better multi threaded performance. You're looking at least 50% faster in games.

Uh, 20% actually in IPC. Many Nehalems will clock past a Haswell as well. Put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Petey Plane]

The whole majority of the users don't care about the iGPU as long they have something that outputs and image to monitor and shows kitten videos.

Ok, i get what you're saying, in that users who buy Intel specifically for the iGPU is tiny, which is true. The issue is, is that the iGPU does matter when 1440 and 4k become the standard laptop resolutions, and watching 4k kitten videos (along with netflix, hulu, etc...) will require a powerful iGPU. A lot of other web content is GPU dependent as well. And someone has to make those kitten videos, so editing and transcoding are sped up significantly if you have a more powerful iGPU. There are also plenty of business presentation software that benefits from having a strong GPU.

The other reality is, from a 2600k to a 6700k, both using the same discreet video card, there would only be about a 10% increase in FPS in most games, at 1440 or 4K. But if i can get that 10% increase, with a 30% decrease in power usage, then that sounds good to me. A lot of the users here already have overpowered CPUs for what they mainly do, gaming.

And sorry if i keep repeating myself, but gamers and enthusiasts are pretty close to the bottom of Intel's priority list when it comes to product development. They throw us bones with the K and X CPUs, but compare the number of chips that have those suffix to the number that don't. The K and X parts aren't the revenue generators for Intel.