Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D Reviews & Videos
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 20-07-15, 05:04 PM
tinytomlogan's Avatar
tinytomlogan tinytomlogan is offline
The Guvnor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: TTL Towers
Posts: 20,823
Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking



The latest Intel CPUs are upon us, replete with Iris Graphics. We see how they perform.


Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking

__________________
If you recommend a product LINK THE REVIEW


Get along or run along. Your choice
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-07-15, 05:05 PM
MadShadow MadShadow is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: St Andrews, Scotland
Posts: 3,282
Much excite, I wanna read the review! :P
__________________
|i5 4460|8GB RAM|R9 380 4GB|ASUS Z97-I Plus|WD Blue 1TB|Corsair RM650|Phanteks Enthoo EVOLV ITX|


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-07-15, 07:57 PM
timerwin63 timerwin63 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1
So, Intel made a GPU. Great, put it on an i3, just give me a real processor... If I'm buying a top of the line chip, it's pretty safe to assume I won't be using the integrated graphics.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-07-15, 08:04 PM
skl27 skl27 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4
I´m waiting for ZEN and then compare only the raw CPU power.
because i want to upgrade from a 3570k cause I´ve been having some issues but for me a iGPU isn´t really needed.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-07-15, 09:11 PM
Wraith's Avatar
Wraith Wraith is offline
Bettyswollocks
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: On the Moon.
Posts: 7,495
Holy smeg-o-rama! That iGPU is stonking, kudos Intel kudos indeed.
__________________
“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.” ~ Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21-07-15, 12:57 AM
ancientscream ancientscream is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1
jeesh how much die area is spent on GPU ? intel we want C

jeesh how much die area are Intel wasting on they're flaming integrated GPU's ? intel we mainly want CPU's from you - not GPU's? I don't care about integrated graphics in desktop processors ? your spending so much energy on something, no one asked for? whose ambition is this ? wheres the cheap 8/16 core processor there should be here - by now ? instead at 14nm were still at quad core, the same as my 65nm q6600 processor wayback when ? a 4x reduction in process should mean if we have the same wafer area attributed to each die, 64 cores by now ? in very rough theory? if you just scaled down the q6600 transistor count cpu layout to the 14nm scale on the same die area as a q6600? (square area rule?) your deliberate failure to focus on more cores or the CPU portion of the processor transistor count, is beginning to be aggravating in the extreme ? moores law has been broken for 8 years and you have not really delivered imo much CPU performance increase. Everyone but a minority seems unaware or happy with the status quo performance wise youv'e been delivering? that consumers have been roughly receiving the same quad core power with small performance bumps for a long time, you may not have allot of competition from AMD but you've been taking the mickey compared to your illustrious history of performance increase in the past. and yes more cores don't always translate to more performance in individual programs depending how they're written, compared to higher frequencies etc, but lets be honest running many programs at once is smoother with many more cores. if any CPU manufacturer delivered a non iGPU CPU and threw down the CPU performance hat once more it would be interesting to see what could really be offered at this process scale ?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21-07-15, 01:38 AM
realneil's Avatar
realneil realneil is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancientscream View Post
that consumers have been roughly receiving the same quad core power with small performance bumps for a long time, you may not have allot of competition from AMD but you've been taking the mickey compared to your illustrious history of performance increase in the past.
They're doling it out a little at a time because they can. People still buy their newest offerings every time they come out,....so they're doing what they can get away with.

If someone was to come out with a serious performance CPU to challenge them, they would start releasing better stuff, faster.
They probably have a closet-full waiting in the wings.
__________________


********************************************
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21-07-15, 04:20 AM
Wraith's Avatar
Wraith Wraith is offline
Bettyswollocks
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: On the Moon.
Posts: 7,495
Also screaming more cores more cores is pointless anyway... what uses them in an everyday desktop? The average Joe gamer doesn't need more cores 4 - 6 are plenty.. developers and pros use Xeons.... so what would be the point in Intel developing something for the masses that isn't "needed", you might not need integrated graphics but HTPCs do, laptops do, tablets do, smart phones could... the future of these dies for Intel is going to be awesome.
__________________
“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.” ~ Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21-07-15, 05:41 AM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is online now
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Middle-Earth
Posts: 15,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancientscream View Post
jeesh how much die area are Intel wasting on they're flaming integrated GPU's ? intel we mainly want CPU's from you - not GPU's? I don't care about integrated graphics in desktop processors ? your spending so much energy on something, no one asked for?
I'm glad you aren't running Intel.


This is some serious improvement in the graphics area. Honestly want to see some comparisons to the top AMD A10 APU. Intel already dominiate the CPU side of things.. with this big of an improvement it makes hard to ever recommend an APU if this 6200 comes down to an i3.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21-07-15, 09:25 AM
Asen Asen is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by timerwin63 View Post
So, Intel made a GPU. Great, put it on an i3, just give me a real processor... If I'm buying a top of the line chip, it's pretty safe to assume I won't be using the integrated graphics.
Not so fast, I'm planning on buying something like the i5 and it's not for me. Somethimes it's better to have an awesome CPU, becuase it gives speed to the overall performance of the system, and having such a strong iGPU gives the oportunity to use it as PC for my parents, who, let's face it, don't play GTA V. It has a market, knowing that you have pretty decent graphics on it. Onother pro for strong iGPUs that I wished it was like this a couple of years ago. When I started building my PC I planned to updrade first my CPU, i5 4670, and to upgrade my GPU next, at least buy one, because I was running everything on my iGPU. Wasn't the best graphics, but I could play some games. If I had these graphics, I would've been a happy man. Of course it isn't even near to my gtx 970, but it's still something for someone who doesn't have the money at the moment or doesn't want to make his parents spend 1200€ at one blow.

Posts merged, please don't double post - use the edit button instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancientscream View Post
jeesh how much die area are Intel wasting on they're flaming integrated GPU's ? intel we mainly want CPU's from you - not GPU's? I don't care about integrated graphics in desktop processors ? your spending so much energy on something, no one asked for? whose ambition is this ? wheres the cheap 8/16 core processor there should be here - by now ? instead at 14nm were still at quad core, the same as my 65nm q6600 processor wayback when ? a 4x reduction in process should mean if we have the same wafer area attributed to each die, 64 cores by now ? in very rough theory? if you just scaled down the q6600 transistor count cpu layout to the 14nm scale on the same die area as a q6600? (square area rule?) your deliberate failure to focus on more cores or the CPU portion of the processor transistor count, is beginning to be aggravating in the extreme ? moores law has been broken for 8 years and you have not really delivered imo much CPU performance increase. Everyone but a minority seems unaware or happy with the status quo performance wise youv'e been delivering? that consumers have been roughly receiving the same quad core power with small performance bumps for a long time, you may not have allot of competition from AMD but you've been taking the mickey compared to your illustrious history of performance increase in the past. and yes more cores don't always translate to more performance in individual programs depending how they're written, compared to higher frequencies etc, but lets be honest running many programs at once is smoother with many more cores. if any CPU manufacturer delivered a non iGPU CPU and threw down the CPU performance hat once more it would be interesting to see what could really be offered at this process scale ?
Actually Intel has CPUs without iGPUs. I'm sure 100% that the i7 5960x doesn't have one, so...here you Intel has such chips, probably all LGA 2011v3 CPUs are like this. I don't mind about iGPUs, knowing that with DX 12 they can ben used for some graphical acceleration and parallel computing. Also it's a temporary solution for someone who hasn't got the money to buy an descrite graphics card at the moment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.