The latest Intel CPUs are upon us, replete with Iris Graphics. We see how they perform.
Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking
Last edited:
Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
The latest Intel CPUs are upon us, replete with Iris Graphics. We see how they perform.
Intel Broadwell i7 5775C Review & Overclocking
timerwin63
New member
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.
ancientscream
New member
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 ?
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 ?
realneil
New member
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.
Wraith
Bettyswollocks
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.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
I honestly just want an iGPU for when I f*ck up a GPU overclock and need to use integrated graphics. Who wants to game on a CPU like this without spending the money on a proper GPU? I mean, its an impressive little graphics chip, but it belongs in an i3, a mobile processor, or MAYBE a lower end i5, not a top of the line i7...
Thelosouvlakia
Classy-Fried-Chicken
It actually may help some people who want to stream games.. Intel Quick Sync will see a performance boost
