> <i>Intel’s big aim with the new processors is, as always, to tackle the growing market of 3-5+ year old devices still being used today, quoting better performance, a better user experience, longer battery life, and fundamentally new experiences when using newer hardware. Two years ago Intel quoted 300 million units fit into this 3-5+ year window; now that number is 450 million.</i><p>Yep, Intel's problem is that most folks don't <i>need</i> a new CPU, especially for a computer that's always plugged in.<p>I'm refurbishing a 6-year-old system with a Pentium E5800 for a friend, and initially it felt dog slow. However, once I swapped the mechanical hard drive with a solid state disk, it instantly feat like a zippy little machine. It already had enough processing power for everything they wanted (browsing, office, youtube, etc.)
Still LPDDR3 with 16GB RAM limitation. What an embarrassment, all phone SoC today use LPDDR4(x) and technically support more RAM than the desktop Intel CPUs.
I'm kind of disappointed in this. While they are upping the core count, the overall clock speed is being decreased across the board. This means that single threaded processes will theoretically perform slower (I know it still turbos up).<p>Honestly, I just upgraded to Ryzen from a 3770k and. My 3770k ran all cores at 4.2GHz (overclocked, obviously) and the only reason I updated was becasue I wanted to upgrade to NVMe and DDR4. That was 4 years old and I had no CPU-bound performance issues. I really think Intel needs to start innovating more rather than being complacent or AMD is actually going to steal the show.<p>Super happy for the competition though!
I wonder how companies like Apple, that have quite stagnant and stable release cycles (compared to other brands) will handle that situation. Does it mean their customers will have to sit on 'old' CPU's again for another generation or two? Latest MacBooks were released ~80 days ago and their release cycle is ~300 days on average. Obviously I wonder, because I was about to order a new Apple machine for myself and now I'm not sure if I shouldn't (the same problem over and over again) just wait a bit longer.
What does the term "lake" represent in these family of CPUs?<p>Apparently asking this makes me an idiot to some... while I'll admit to simply laziness...<p>I assume that it would tie a technology together as a code name for this family of procs, but in the case of "lake" they use it in multiple differing technologies...<p>So was curious if it meant something else non-obvious to me.
I remember seeing claims of 15-30% improved single-threaded performance. Does anyone know how legitimately I should take these? They sound way too good to be true...
I wonder how many Programmers here using Macbook Pro need an Iris Graphics? Compared to this newest UHD 620 ( Which really is just HD 620 with HDMI 2.2 support ), the Skylake Iris Graphics is rougly 50% to 60% faster. But with Kaby Lake Refresh you get Quad Core instead of Dual Core.<p>I wonder how many would prefer to have a Quad Core Macbook Pro 13" instead.<p>* These 15W parts can be TDP Config up to 25W. Which Fits the Macbook Pro uses.
The Turbo/base ratio is getting interesting. The previous generation saw a 1.6x Turbo max but this generation now sees 2.2x -- a clear testimony how the four cores, alas, are for show. Obviously there will be a little improvement but I wouldn't expect earth shattering results.
Isn't it better to have more powerful single thread performance for developing in single threaded languages? Looks like a step backwards than? Double the core count and more l3 cache sounds good, even though they crippled the base clock speed.