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.
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?
The harsh / glorious reality hasn't changed. If you want to get real work done it's going to be on a desktop.
Depends what you mean by "real". Yes, I got paid megabuck(s) in banking to optimise quant algos across cores, CPUs and servers in (eg) the Credit dept at Lehman's, but I find my nominally underpowered MacBook Air (the saleswoman was slightly reluctant to sell it to me when I said I was a dev) to generally be damn good for what I need, including some decent data driven models and analysis, wrapped in not-even-optimised C++ unit tests, and running within a Java-based IDE!
So, horses for courses.
Also, I am the happy owner of an RPi that does all the work a Sun server farm used to do for me:
http://www.earth.org.uk/note-o...
and I target my primary code to 8-bit MCUs similar to a Z80A form 30Y ago in power, running some nice slim highly-optimised distributed coding.
Cut your suit to fit your cloth.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
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 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!)
... at either company. Right now, Intel just has no financial incentive to innovate. Maybe that is going to change in 2017.
So many people without clues these days. Around here, I expect more understanding, even if the reader's needs don't fit the niche.
If your primary interest is in performance, especially when overclocking, a laptop chassis isn't going to have the thermal dissipation.. Hell never mind that, just try a 5 hour video encode on most laptops.. I wish you luck. They'll hit max temp and throttle big time. I've seen some with warped boards from excessive heat damage..