CPU question

[Chaos27]

Just wondering.
Maybe there is not much reason to upgrade to Skylake unless you need a new PC.

But is it true that new CPU are shrinking and becoming more efficient but with same performance?

Or are they shrinking becoming more energy efficient and faster?

Because if its just becoming more efficient and same performance then is there much point?

[shaithis]

Intel CPUs since SandyBridge have normally added ~5% CPU performance per generation. Any "savings" made have been ploughed into transistors for the iGPU.

[Chaos27]

So if you don't use the built in graphic card on the CPU you wont get any more efficient power use wise?
Only on the GPU.
So since Sandybridge CPU has been %5 improvement every generation. And when it says its more efficient each time its if you use the built in GPU?

Thanks

[kalniel]

So if you don't use the built in graphic card on the CPU you wont get any more efficient power use wise?
Only on the GPU.
So since Sandybridge CPU has been %5 improvement every generation. And when it says its more efficient each time its if you use the built in GPU?

Thanks

The shrinking bit is what's enabled more stuff on the built in GPU.

Even not talking about the GPU they are a tiny bit more efficient and a tiny bit faster than previous chips, but you're right, not worth upgrading to for performance or efficiency reasons if you have a recent CPU.

[EndlessWaves]

They've shrunk dramatically. An i7-750 was 296mm² for the CPU (& uncore) alone, the latest Skylake 4C+GT2 chip (desktop i5/i7) is 122.4mm² and probably 40% of that area is GPU.

They are getting faster. Anandtech reckoned Skylake was about 25% faster than Sandy Bridge at the same clockspeeds and clockspeeds have been creeping up too. The fastest dual core Sandy Bridge on launch was 3.3Ghz, the fastest Skylake is 3.9Ghz.

Obviously this is desktop chips which these days are a fringe use of the design. Look at the core of the range and compare 17W Sandy Bridge chips to 15W Skylake chips and you'd see bigger improvements.

[Chaos27]

So performance wise it does improve.
Energy efficient wise it improves by using 2 watts less.


nice to know thanks

[EndlessWaves]

Energy efficient wise it improves by using 2 watts less.

The wattage I quoted is maximum heat output not typical power consumption. I mentioned those figures because heat output tends to be how chips are classified because larger devices can disperse more heat. Those would be comparable processors whatever their typical power use.

It looks like they got around a 50% improvement in performance:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...it=0&daysold=0

Go further down the range and compare a 4.5W Core M with the equivalent Intel chip from four years ago and you'd likely see even bigger improvements. What would that have been, Atom N2600?

And of course the graphics is a huge part of the chip these days, on most of them it takes up more space than the CPU. Graphical performance has ramped up even faster than CPU performance. HD 3000 to HD 520 is three times the speed. Compare it to the HD 540 instead and you're looking at another doubling in speed.

[cam1986]

My Uncle is looking to go Skylake. He is building from scratch though, with my help.