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.
[sic] does not mean what you think it means.
It seem like the major development is switching to portable devices. Will ARM or the new RISC become the new standard in desktops? The Raspberry Pi's are good enough for most people's needs.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I think that this "joshtops" character may not know about ellipses, and is wrongly using "[sic]" where any sensible person would use "..." to indicate that some text was removed from the quoted material. Even then, given how much text is omitted, any reasonable person would probably just use several separate quotations instead of trying to cram it all into one big and mangled quotation.
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.
Top Kaby Lake Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz has a Passmark score of 12800 for $350 at 95W released Q4 2016
Top Sandy Bridge Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.5GHz has Passmark score of 12651 for $770 at 150W released Q1 2012
So yes, it looks like 4 years got us 1/3 less power and 1/2 price for same performance of the top Extreme Sandy Bridge
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3970X+%40+3.50GHz&id=1799
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700K+%40+4.20GHz&id=2874
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.
I would like to see the CPU RAM bottleneck get as much attention as the CPU itself has. Unless we get that addressed I really don't see faster chips doing much good.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am definitely a bit underwhelmed by the release of the new CPUs from Intel. They're not really all that much better than Sandy Bridge i7s, which is what I have (2 of them.)
Is the desktop computer dead? Na. But it may be dying. The improvements we've come to expect over the years has definitely slowed down quite a bit compared to previous jumps in performance.
Have we reached some kind of 'peak' in designing faster and faster CPU's? I definitely think a kick to the pocket book of Intel is this underwhelming release. If Intel and/or other manufacturers cannot convince users to upgrade their computers it could definitely be trouble for the desktop computer. I certainly don't feel like I need to upgrade, my i7-2600 based PC seems to run anything/everything I throw at it, quite well. Lackluster performance in new generation of computers isn't very wise, because you're going to need a bigger jump to convince people to upgrade. It's of course not helping that older Core series (and Core2's for that matter) are STILL running todays browsers, operating systems and various software quite well. Should be noted, AMD Turion X2s are also about on par with Core2's. Still running todays stuff pretty handily. That hurts the manufacturers a lot, used to be you had to upgrade, now its more like, "might be nice to upgrade, but not really necessary." The more times they release something new and it's lackluster, the more it hurts, cuz people will be in the mindset, like me, "That's not a big improvement, I'll wait for the next big thing." I certainly feel no compelling reason to jump to this new CPU. 600mhz of performance, for the price of basically replacing my entire PC? Na, pass.
One could get the impression the desktop is a dying breed of computer, I suppose. Certainly seems like things are headed in a different direction (mobile computing, tablets, etc) for mainstream consumers. But I definitely feel like the industry can and will cater to whichever group of people will earn them the most profit. That seems to be mobile computing right now. And it seems like the news reflects this. Seeing much bigger jumps in performance in the mobile CPU offerings (Qualcomm's Snapdragon CPU are darn impressive!)
ZEN ZEN ZEN with more pci-e at the same price or less.
Intel may need to go back to there old tricks again to lock out AMD.
ARM doesn't have anywhere near the IPC of intel chips.
But thats on purpose. They are targeting different markets. Intel tried to shoulder in on ARM's power efficiency market and hoped that its greater performance would make up for not being better at power efficiency, but all they ended up with was an under-performing x86 that nobody really wanted. They have since backed off on that push and have instead re-focused on keeping ARM from making a big dent in the server space.
"His name was James Damore."
They will still be a factor, but all strategies are an evolving landscape as transistor counts increase. A pure RISC was a better performing strategy than CISC at one time, and now a hybrid of both is the best performing.... as transistor counts go up things like translation become a non-issue.
Over time the best way to get the most work into the pipeline per cycle changes. Right now Intel CPU's can pull in at most 4 instructions per cycle into the pipeline (unless that has changed with the latest update) and then only if the instructions have already been decoded and cached. The ingenuity of this accomplishment is of course great, but when complex solutions are used to solve otherwise simple problems, its clear that things are near a threshhold where a new take may win out.
"His name was James Damore."
... at either company. Right now, Intel just has no financial incentive to innovate. Maybe that is going to change in 2017.
The impression I'm getting in recent years is that we're transitioning towards a computing world where individual consumers primarily want portables, or alternately, "all in one" or super small form-factor desktops which just use mobile motherboards and CPUs anyway.
The high-end "power users" who tell you they still need a desktop machine for the work they do are best served by a "workstation" class system, vs. a regular desktop PC. The primary differentiation between a "desktop" and a "workstation"? Seems to be the inclusion of a Xeon class processor, originally intended to go into servers. Secondarily, workstations tend to offer the highly costly video cards optimized for use with CAD/CAM and other graphics design packages.
http://techreport.com/review/3... Conclusion: "If time is money for your work, and your work can take advantages of lots of threads, the i7-6950X is the fastest high-end desktop CPU we've ever tested, full stop. If you don't need all of its cores and threads, however, the Core i7-7700K arguably delivers the best gaming performance on the market for about a fifth of the price. Intel's Extreme Edition CPUs have never been good values, but the i7-6950X takes the definition of "halo product" to eye-watering new heights. If the return-on-investment calculations work out for you, though, the i7-6950X is an amazing chip."
Professional software development typically has compilation steps that can use all processors at 100% for minutes at a time. I can easily use 100% of all CPUs for 20 minutes straight when compiling 5 million lines of source code scattered across 25,000 files. Which I do several times per day typically.
Of course, not all of compilation is embarassingly parallel; there is usually a link step at the end which cannot be multithreaded (at least not by current tools) and which just sits there adding another 5 minutes using only a single core the whole time.