Intel Releases Broadwell Desktop CPUs: Core i7-5775C and i5-5675C

edxwelch writes: Intel has finally released their Broadwell desktop processors. Featuring Iris Pro Graphics 6200, they take the integrated graphics crown from AMD (albeit costing three times as much). However, they are not as fast as current Haswell flagship processors and they will be soon superseded by Skylake, to be released later this year. Tom's Hardware and Anandtech have the first reviews of the Core i7-5775C and i5-5675C.

Comments

albeit costing three times as much

[nitehawk214]

For the past 5 or 10 years this has been the story of me building new computers. I don't follow tech pages on architectures much any more, just when I go to build a new computer I go and see what the latest offerings from amd/intel/nvidia are.

For pretty much ever it is, "AMD is kill, Intel rules all!" Except the fine print is that in order to rule all, you must pay 2x to 3x as much. So all of my performance/gaming computers for 17 years have been AMD/Nvidia (and VIA chipsets before Nvidia). (I have tried ATI a few times and just never cared for them.) And I get 3+ years out of each computer before it needs to be replaced.

Now, from a heat dissipation and power usage perspective, no amount of price/performance can replace that. And this is why I have not seen an AMD laptop in quite some time.

So why is AMD constantly on the verge of bankruptcy? Is there some Apple effect on Intel that causes people to throw money at them for no better performance increase? Do people simply not care how much they spend on computers? Is the laptop/mobile market cutting into PC/Server that much? Or are they just poorly managed. Over 15 years and I simply don't get it.

Re:albeit costing three times as much

[FlyHelicopters]

The result was I paid $200 for an FX-8350, which probably wasn't AMD's fastest chip at the time

That same $200 would have bought you a Core i5, which is faster in most respects to the AMD chip while using less power.

Yes, there are edge cases where the AMD chip is faster. Are you one of those edge cases?

$120 for an ASRock moberboard with onboard raid.

You can get nice Intel boards for about the same money, the $190 boards are overkill.

Of course, I was already planning a large case with a large heatsink/fan combo, so thermal concerns were not part of my calculation. If I wanted a reasonably sized computer, I would almost have to buy Intel.

Thermal may not matter, but how about your power bill?

The Intel chip will use less power, over 3 years of owning it, the power bill difference can easily wipe out any up front price difference.

And the FX-9590 is 220 Watts?? At this point I should be looking at price/W instead of price/$.

Insane, isn't it? These new Intel chips max out at 65w, and use less when the GPU isn't in heavy use.

However much time your computer is actually in use, times 150w of power, times three years, is how much in your power bill?

---

I'll be frank, a few years ago I didn't much consider the power consumption either, until I replaced my HVAC system with something from this century and then replaced all my incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs. I've started to do the math on how much of my monthly power bill is due to electronics, and the percentage is growing.

So I do now consider the typical lifetime power cost of something before I buy it, something I never used to do.

When do we get a real boost over 2013 speeds?

[rbrander]

I've got a machine over two years old now - I do some pretty heavy number-crunching with GIS map programs and always tell the counter guy I want the nearest thing he's got to a machine that finishes infinite loops. After conceding that the next model up from the i7-3930K was $500 more for another 15% of horsepower, I picked that one.
I'm sure there have been a few percent of gains with two years of subsequent chips, but basically, it's same cores, same GHz. Is this 'skylake' in several more months going to be more than a 10%-15% upgrade over my early 2013 chip? (Actually, it's older, probably came out in 2012?)
I really need to be buying a second machine in just a few months, but I'll endure some inconvenience if we're just a few months after that from a significant upgrade. But frankly, anything under 25-30% speedup in math operations will not be worth the wait.
They say Moore's Law is still going, and in low-power circles, I'd agree. But for the market segment of people who don't mind the computer doubling as a room heater if it'll just crunch numbers on a few million rows of geodatabase table a few minutes faster, it sure feels like Moore's is over for us.