dexvx wrote:No public roadmap had Skylake desktop getting 6 cores. You can argue that it should've been 6 cores, but that's a different argu […]
Show full quote
95DosBox wrote:
Skylake was supposed to get six cores. Overall it's a disappointment. Same Quad core as my earliest i5-2500K and going back further Quad core consumer CPUs were around although I skipped the entire socket 775 at the time. Also the integrated GPU lacks XP/Vista Drivers and Blu-ray playback on it doesn't work. You're better getting a pure Intel CPU with no iGPU and cut the cost down. Using that money saved to get a discrete graphics card is better. Ryzen 7 1700 is really a nice welcome. It is 8 cores at 65 Watts. Imagine if it was 35 Watts Intel would be shaking in their silicon boots.
No public roadmap had Skylake desktop getting 6 cores. You can argue that it should've been 6 cores, but that's a different argument.
Also, you seem to portray all quad core CPU's as being the same. A stock 7600K would crush a 4.5GHz O/C 2500K at 1080p gaming, not even going to mention the S775 quads.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2773-intel- … -2017?showall=1
Maybe no official roadmaps stated Skylake would get 6 but it was due for a long time and certain sites speculated some Intel employee's LinkedIn profile had hints of the Skylake possibly getting six cores or at least by Cannonlake.
No not all Quad cores will be the same and that's a given but if you were to gauge how much improvement 4 generations back from Z68 to a single core Pentium 4 3.06GHz it's more a gain than the 4 generations since Z68 to Z170. Each generation does improve performance but upon each generation and I have an i7-6700K that I tested and there were a lot of hurdles getting it to run in XP. But if you look at the time from when dual cores -> quad cores vs how long it is taking consumer quads cores to finally hit six cores yet the power consumption drop hasn't changed much since Sandy and Ivy Bridge for how low it can go. The low end still hasn't dropped below 35 Watts and we should be looking at some 15 to 25 Watt Low end Desktop CPUs by now.
If you were to do a CPU comparison you would probably try to match the tick tock cycle so a i7-3770K would be a better CPU to compare to a i7-7700K. An i5-2500K would be fairer to compare to an i5-6600K.
And not everyone is focused on overclocking performance. I go the other way and underclock and undervolt it so everything runs entire passively without any fans. An 8 core from Intel about now for the Skylake Z170 would have been a perfect upgrade. But AMD's noncompetitiveness and delays allowed Intel to just string us along on quad cores for so many generations.