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.
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
Also, anybody that expects any real speed-ups from Intel in the next 2-3 years has no clue how long it takes to fundamentally improve a CPU.
It's been since 2010's release of the 980x that we've only moved up the charts maybe 50% on a per core basis. Note that a 980x is unlocked and can be increased significantly over its stock clocking. A 4790K (the fastest single core performer) can only be OC'd a little bit, so the actual performance differences may actually be significantly less than 50%. And that's just sad given that it's now 7 years later.
As a final insult, to actually double the performance from 7 years ago, you'll be spending nearly $1500+ for a 10 core 6950, and that's before exercising the considerable headroom of a 980x over that of the 6950.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.