ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
Only difference is quad channel RAM and no iGPU. That isn't going to be worth the cost of the more expensive platform if you're only gaming.
It's pretty much 6-cores:
- Reduce the core size
- Reduce the iGPU size
- Remove hyper-threading capabilities
- Increase its die size to accommodate six cores
The purpose of hyper-threading is to use the idle time of a core when it is in a wait state. Consequently HT doesn't double the core's throughput but only increases it by 25-35% at high load. So a 4/8 cpu is roughly equal to a 6/6.
In theory, doing the maths bassed on Passmark scores, a 6-core 7600k could be 14% better than an i7-7700k multi-threaded. Then if the clock was boosted to i7 levels, it could be 23% better. Without boosting the clock it might not be as good.
As intel wouldn't be rushing to bring out new cpu's without a reason, it is probable there will be a performance boost of some sort or better pricing competitiveness against ryzen.
However, unless you buy a 1080 ti, or the ti-p if that materializes, the chances are that the gpu is the component that governs performance in an i7 system.
Then again, that may take longer than we think, so a 7700k is still good.
Sure they do; SkyLake vs KabyLake is a tick/tock example
http://wccftech.com/intel-tick-tock-strategy-dead/
And this touches on it as well:
http://fortune.com/2017/03/28/intel-keeps-insisting-moores-law-isnt-dead/
Well thanks for the correction.
However, in that case: Process, Architecture and Optimization Strategy
Broadwell (process) > Skylake (Architecture) > Kaby Lake (Optimization)
(I personally ignored and skipped Broadwell as a mere stepping stone, assuming it was still using tick/tock cycles, opting for Skylake - Kaby didn't offer much in the way of gain unless on a Laptop, with better GPU and battery saving, etc)
Then repeat...
Coffee Lake (process) > Cannon Lake (Architecture) > Ice Lake (Optimization)
???
They do say that Cannon Lake will co-exist with Coffee Lake however, and I don't have any specs on it currently (except that it's a 10nm chip).
EDIT:
Actually it would be...
Haswell family: Haswell (tock) > Haswell Refresh (Devil's Canyon - refresh) > Broadwell (tick)
Skylake family: Skylake (tock) > Kaby Lake (refresh) > Coffee Lake (refresh) > Cannonlake (process)
Icelake family: Icelake (architecture) > Tigerlake (optimization) > ??? (process)
Sorry was still getting my head around the reordering without using tick/tock anymore.
Coffee is another refresh, after the Kaby refresh (which confused me). Then it starts over with Cannonlake.