Slashdot Mirror
Intel Core I7-7700K Kaby Lake Review By Ars Technica: Is the Desktop CPU Dead? (arstechnica.co.uk)
Reader joshtops writes: Ars Technica has reviewed the much-anticipated Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake, the recently launched desktop processor from the giant chipmaker. And it's anything but a good sign for enthusiasts who were hoping to see significant improvements in performance. From the review, "The Intel Core i7-7700K is what happens when a chip company stops trying. The i7-7700K is the first desktop Intel chip in brave new post-"tick-tock" world -- which means that instead of major improvements to architecture, process, and instructions per clock (IPC), we get slightly higher clock speeds and a way to decode DRM-laden 4K streaming video. [...] If you're still rocking an older Ivy Bridge or Haswell processor and weren't convinced to upgrade to Skylake, there's little reason to upgrade to Kaby Lake. Even Sandy Bridge users may want to consider other upgrades first, such as a new SSD or graphics card. The first Sandy Bridge parts were released six years ago, in January 2011. [...] As it stands, what we have with Kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes. Where the next major leap in desktop computing power comes from is still up for debate -- but if Kaby Lake is any indication, it won't be coming from Intel. While Ars Technica has complained about the minimal upgrades, AnandTech looks at the positive side: The Core i7-7700K sits at the top of the stack, and performs like it. A number of enthusiasts complained when they launched the Skylake Core i7-6700K with a 4.0/4.2 GHz rating, as this was below the 4.0/4.4 GHz rating of the older Core i7-4790K. At this level, 200-400 MHz has been roughly the difference of a generational IPC upgrade, so users ended up with similar performing chips and the difference was more in the overclocking. However, given the Core i7-7700K comes out of the box with a 4.2/4.5 GHz arrangement, and support for Speed Shift v2, it handily mops the floor with the Devil's Canyon part, resigning it to history.
If the article ends with a question mark, the answer is "No". Because if they had evidence to say it, they would have just put a period.
A story comes out like this at least twice a year. The harsh / glorious reality hasn't changed. If you want to get real work done it's going to be on a desktop. Even laptops get docked with a proper keyboard, mouse and at least 1 extra monitor when it's time for heavy lifting.
Then again one has to wonder at the headline. Tech update 'NEW Cpu!' Combined with the leading question, 'Is the desktop dead'. Will the new Slashdot owners please stop treating these message boards like the alphabet channels and focus on the geek culture? Sure it's yours but can you at least pretend it's not been subjugated by the mainstream entertainment industry?
Also, any headline that asks a question can be answered with 'No'.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
For me, docking stations and big monitors allow me to use my laptop in a reasonably comfortable work environment. But, there are still use cases for desktop PCs, especially those that aren't shoved into the back of an all-in-one monitor. You're not going to let a call center employee in a regulated, locked down environment pull out his iPad or laptop to work, for example. A cash register is likely going to be some sort of PC, same thing with a kiosk or ATM. And at the high end, workstations are meant for "real" work - though most have the Xeon processors in them. It's an interesting time; desktops and thin clients are sort of merging and tablet use is demanding more of CPU manufacturers' attention. And this makes sense - mobile stuff has the constant pressure to be squeezed into smaller spaces, produce less heat, provide more on-chipset functionality and run cooler at the same time. I'm still surprised when I see a Surface Pro or other convertible tablet and remember that there's a full-fat Intel processor crammed inside that tiny case without melting through the bottom!
I just think the desktop market is maturing and there's less and less that Intel processors and chipsets don't natively provide. PC processors are already insanely fast and powerful for what typical users throw at them. Desktops aren't dead, they're just a niche market these days, but one that is still there. The pundits want to claim that no one wants a powerful client device and just wants all their stuff streamed from the cloud onto a tablet or phone they don't control. I think that's true in the consumer space, but businesses still have use cases for desktops.
How many times do we need people to declare the "desktop is dead!" or some other equally preposterous hyperbolic statement? Does someone feel like /. doesn't have enough hyperbole because I will just die if there is someone like that. -_-
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... at either company. Right now, Intel just has no financial incentive to innovate. Maybe that is going to change in 2017.