Friday, February 10th 2017

8th Gen Core "Cannon Lake" Over 15% Faster Than Kaby Lake: Intel

At an investor meeting in February, Intel touched upon its performance guidance for its 8th generation Core processor family due for later this year. Based on the 14 nm "Cannon Lake" silicon, these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."

In a slide titled "advancing Moore's Law on 14 nm," Intel illustrated how Kaby Lake processors are on average 15 percent faster than Skylake parts, in SYSmark. While Kaby Lake has negligible IPC gains over Skylake, the newer chips are clocked significantly higher, making up Intel's performance targets. Unless Cannon Lake is a significantly newer micro-architecture than Kaby Lake, we could expect them to come with even higher clock speeds. Will the Core i7-8700K be a 5 GHz chip?
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

97 Comments on 8th Gen Core "Cannon Lake" Over 15% Faster Than Kaby Lake: Intel

#26
Nokiron
deu
yet you understand that moores law
What? Is this a sentence? I don't follow.


deu
Dude you dont understand anything. AMD is comming out with an 8 core 16 thread CPU; you can argue all you want but the performance (if apps utilize multithreading will push the price/performance ratio (like intel have not done in 4 years) You can see the rest in the thread here is writing the same; disapointment in intel lack of willingness to go from 4 core to 6 or more. You can keep buying expensive low perf/dollar products all you want but Im pretty sure the rest is going to go for the best product at the price. And that will be AMD unless Intel actually push the performance up or price down. (and yes more cores is more performance in the future of desktop)
No, I assure you that you don't understand this since you still believe that Intel has done nothing. I'm all for better performance, but better performance ≠ more cores, multi-threaded workloads are really hard to pull of efficiently. Especially gaming.

I have another computer with a stock 6700K and comparing it to my 5960X at 4Ghz is a joke. The 6700K completely demolishes it in every single game out there.
There a very few cases (not games) where the extra cores actually makes a difference.

I'm not sure what kind of miracle you expect with AMD's release, do you believe you will get better performance than other alternatives?
Posted on Reply
#27
deu
Nokiron
What? Is this a sentence? I don't follow.



No, I assure you that you don't understand this since you still believe that Intel has done nothing. I'm all for better performance, but better performance ≠ more cores, multi-threaded workloads are really hard to pull of efficiently. Especially gaming.

I have another computer with a stock 6700K and comparing it to my 5960X at 4Ghz is a joke. The 6700K completely demolishes it in every single game out there.
There a very few cases where the extra cores actually makes a difference.

I'm not sure what kind of miracle you expect with AMD's release, do you believe you will get better performance than other alternatives?
NOWHERE have I writen that they have nothing. So basically your attack is based of you putting something in my mouth. I said that IF Intel does not respond to ZEN better than they have for now; they will loose marketshares and people are clearly fed up with their greedy attitude towards the entusiast and highend mainstream market pricing. Regarding your 5960X vs 6700; well the funny thing is ; im pretty sure that you did not come from the future where the more cores is actually utilized? Well if not there you have your answer; Games are already starting to make use of 4 cores and WHEN actually dx12 games comes out to a market where there IS 8 cores / more, they will utilize them better. If you think that I somehow believe that 8 cores gives you insane FPS boost well you're out of luck, but generally thinking that more cores will not be a benefit is just play; well outdated thought. I regard to what AMD will release: check the lineup: you can se what they will release; Ryzen 1700 around the price of a 7700K. my bet is that Ryzen will perform worse pr clock but at the double amout of cores that is like arguing that theres no use for a 5960X to someone when you can get a 6700. Everything just isnt about FPS in games from 2015-2016. Im not going to argue more with you because you just want to argue but trust me: Ryzen will take marketshares and be huge success if intel does not react (and as it seems now lowering the prices is their option.) If not you get a cheaper mobo, cheaper CPU with better performance in future games betting on an Ryzen 8 core than a 4 core intel.
Posted on Reply
#28
Parn
I believe Intel has already hit the IPC ceilling of the architecture that originally started with Sandy Bridge. If it wasn't for the PCIe 3.0 and DMI 3.0 offered by 100 series chipsets, I'd have stayed with my Haswell.
Posted on Reply
#29
Nokiron
deu
NOWHERE have I writen that they have nothing. So basically your attack is based of you putting something in my mouth. I said that IF Intel does not respond to ZEN better than they have for now; they will loose marketshares and people are clearly fed up with their greedy attitude towards the entusiast and highend mainstream market pricing. Regarding your 5960X vs 6700; well the funny thing is ; im pretty sure that you did not come from the future where the more cores is actually utilized? Well if not there you have your answer; Games are already starting to make use of 4 cores and WHEN actually dx12 games comes out to a market where there IS 8 cores / more, they will utilize them better. If you think that I somehow believe that 8 cores gives you insane FPS boost well you're out of luck, but generally thinking that more cores will not be a benefit is just play; well outdated thought. I regard to what AMD will release: check the lineup: you can se what they will release; Ryzen 1700 around the price of a 7700K. my bet is that Ryzen will perform worse pr clock but at the double amout of cores that is like arguing that theres no use for a 5960X to someone when you can get a 6700. Everything just isnt about FPS in games from 2015-2016. Im not going to argue more with you because you just want to argue but trust me: Ryzen will take marketshares and be huge success if intel does not react (and as it seems now lowering the prices is their option.) If not you get a cheaper mobo, cheaper CPU with better performance in future games betting on an Ryzen 8 core than a 4 core intel.
I'm arguing because there is no objectivity in your posts. It's all responses with AMD-tinted eyes. I'm not attacking anyone here, If you are interpreting that from my posts I have no idea where you are getting that from.
I want AMD to succeed as well as anyone, but i'm trying with critical reasoning here.

Regarding your other statements:

You are underestimating Intel's dominance on the market, a strong brand and presence in every single computer out there. AMD has a gigantic mountain to climb to even begin to take market shares back. Just look at the progress with AMDs GPUs in comparison to Nvidia.
I work in IT and AMD gets such a bad rep just for being AMD.

Buying for the future, sure but does it really matter though? AMDs biggest problem is just that, gambling for the future. And we do know how well that worked so far with Bulldozer and DX12. The ideas are novel and all but very risky and they have had a really lousy track record.
So far nothing has changed, the bottlenecks are still GPUs not CPUs.

There are plenty of cases where you really want to buy an X99-rig over Ryzen if you know you need specific performance. (Memory bandwidth, PCI-lanes, HPC)
I mean, Ryzen is rumored to have a die-size of 44mm2 compared to ~240-something in Haswell-E and Broadwell-E. Do you really think all that die-space is just waste space?
Posted on Reply
#30
Nihilus
So the 8700k will be 15% faster (5% real world) than the 7700k. Does that mean it will be slower than the 7740k?

Skylake, Kaby Lake, Kaby Lake 2.0, Cannonlake. All together with a smaller improvement than Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Guess I will hold my 1275v5 for 2 more years until Coffee lake 10nm 6 core becomes reasonably priced.
The cpu industry hit a brick wall. It just took AMD a little longer to get there.
Posted on Reply
#31
3rold
New socket everybody! Who's exited?
Posted on Reply
#32
Dave65
Another great big YAWN from Intel:/
Posted on Reply
#33
$ReaPeR$
benchmark or it didnt happen.
Posted on Reply
#34
kruk
The news title should really include that this is an improvement in SysMark. In real world tests the performance gains could be much lower (if any).
Posted on Reply
#35
deu
Nokiron
I'm arguing because there is no objectivity in your posts. It's all responses with AMD-tinted eyes. I'm not attacking anyone here, If you are interpreting that from my posts I have no idea where you are getting that from.
I want AMD to succeed as well as anyone, but i'm trying with critical reasoning here.

Regarding your other statements:

You are underestimating Intel's dominance on the market, a strong brand and presence in every single computer out there. AMD has a gigantic mountain to climb to even begin to take market shares back. Just look at the progress with AMDs GPUs in comparison to Nvidia.
I work in IT and AMD gets such a bad rep just for being AMD.

Buying for the future, sure but does it really matter though? AMDs biggest problem is just that, gambling for the future. And we do know how well that worked so far with Bulldozer and DX12. The ideas are novel and all but very risky and they have had a really lousy track record.
So far nothing has changed, the bottlenecks are still GPUs not CPUs.

There are plenty of cases where you really want to buy an X99-rig over Ryzen if you know you need specific performance. (Memory bandwidth, PCI-lanes, HPC)
I mean, Ryzen is rumored to have a die-size of 44mm2 compared to ~240-something in Haswell-E and Broadwell-E. Do you really think all that die-space is just waste space?
Just read my comments if you have trouble understanding:

ill sum up: Intel calling performance bump at this time is ironic. You can argue all you want go for it! All you arguments have to do with something else that what is just stated. You can disagree all you want and defend them for not being the greedy bastards. Regarding the die size; well yeah thats the point right: if your mar ket want a discret GPU build in its a good thing: but if your market is going to install a graphiccard for gaming; yes the space (and power) is completely wasted. (but then again that is a whole other thing.)
Posted on Reply
#36
Slizzo
IIRC, isn't Coffee Lake the one that we all were supposed to be eyeing? I thought Cannon Lake was only supposed to mainly be a mobile part?
Posted on Reply
#37
BoyGenius
3rold
New socket everybody! Who's exited?

:laugh::peace:
If Intel stays on current trend ,no one will be excited.
Posted on Reply
#38
R0H1T
Slizzo
IIRC, isn't Coffee Lake the one that we all were supposed to be eyeing? I thought Cannon Lake was only supposed to mainly be a mobile part?
At this point in time it looks like no one really knows what Intel is doing, including Intel themselves, I think :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#39
jagjitnatt
Intel has a trick up its sleep. It introduces a new chipset ever year so that even if the new CPUs are not worth upgrading to, a new builder will opt for the new CPU thinking he is upgrading to a new platform(how the words future proofing come to my mind :rolleyes:). The people who bought a system 2 years ago suddenly start feeling as if they are on an ancient platform.
In the mean time, Intel is not just earning from CPUs, but chipsets as well.


Come to think of it, last 3 Intel CPU/chipsets had nothing new. Adding more USB ports, Thunderbolt and PCIe lanes is not a generational leap. They are fooling us.
Posted on Reply
#40
Blueberries
While I highly doubt there will be a 15% IPC increase this does mean they're able to roll-out stable chips at higher clock speeds which shows that they've really refined their current architecture. The 7700k already comes with a turbo of 4.5GHz, so if the 8th Gen i7 is 4.7GHz or higher stock (non-binned), that is pretty impressive.
Posted on Reply
#41
jagjitnatt
Blueberries
While I highly doubt there will be a 15% IPC increase this does mean they're able to roll-out stable chips at higher clock speeds which shows that they've really refined their current architecture. The 7700k already comes with a turbo of 4.5GHz, so if the 8th Gen i7 is 4.7GHz or higher stock (non-binned), that is pretty impressive.
Why not just release a 7750K with higher clocks?
In the Pentium 4 days, we had Williamette, Northwood, Prescott, all called Pentium 4. Worked wonderfully. a 200 Mhz increase shouldn't be called a new generation
Posted on Reply
#42
mouacyk
FordGT90Concept
i7-7700K = 4.2 GHz
4.2 GHz * 1.15 (15% improvement) = 4.83 GHz

So, not even 5 GHz. Considering the performance gain between i7-6700K and i7-7700K came from the 200 MHz bump in clockspeed, I expect history to repeat here. In other words, absolutely nothing to get excited about. Yet another 14nm part the market doesn't want/need.
Uh... 7700K can turbo all cores to 4.4GHz? 5GHz+ is the result of 15% clock improvement not 4.83GHz.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/i7-7700k-and-i5-7600k-turbo-boost-cores-active-ratio.2498708/#post-38723230
Posted on Reply
#43
Kyuuba
I'm wondering if this is gonna be a new socket, chipset, etc...ie Z370 and their variants, socket 1152 lol
Posted on Reply
#44
Blueberries
jagjitnatt
Why not just release a 7750K with higher clocks?
In the Pentium 4 days, we had Williamette, Northwood, Prescott, all called Pentium 4. Worked wonderfully. a 200 Mhz increase shouldn't be called a new generation
I think it's a clash between engineering and marketing, as consumers these releases feel lackluster compared to other steps but probably required just as much development / research to create. It may also be signifying the death of the Intel Core nomenclature, but that's purely conjecture.
Posted on Reply
#45
neko77025
ZeppMan217
Alternative advancement.
Alternative facts
Posted on Reply
#47
Nokiron
deu
Just read my comments if you have trouble understanding:

ill sum up: Intel calling performance bump at this time is ironic. You can argue all you want go for it! All you arguments have to do with something else that what is just stated. You can disagree all you want and defend them for not being the greedy bastards. Regarding the die size; well yeah thats the point right: if your mar ket want a discret GPU build in its a good thing: but if your market is going to install a graphiccard for gaming; yes the space (and power) is completely wasted. (but then again that is a whole other thing.)
HEDT does not have an iGPU.
Posted on Reply
#48
xorbe
Someone needs to shake up x86 by slashing all the legacy cruft, and simplifying paging and memory types, drop puny 4k page size, replace hardware page walkers with Alpha-like PAL code. Remove self and cross modifying code hardware support. Rework floating point and slash legacy x87.
Posted on Reply
#49
Slizzo
Nokiron
HEDT does not have an iGPU.
Exactly. People need to realize that the 7700K is not a high end processor. That's left up to X99 platforms.
Posted on Reply
#50
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
mouacyk
Uh... 7700K can turbo all cores to 4.4GHz? 5GHz+ is the result of 15% clock improvement not 4.83GHz.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/i7-7700k-and-i5-7600k-turbo-boost-cores-active-ratio.2498708/#post-38723230
The base clock is 4.2 GHz, not 4.0 GHz. Generally Intel's Turbo will not activate unless CPU load is below 100%. Handbrake isn't exactly a good benchmark for testing Turbo's behavior.

Slizzo
Exactly. People need to realize that the 7700K is not a high end processor. That's left up to X99 platforms.
Yet it features a high-end processor price, doesn't it?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment