Can anyone give me a real explanation on why this is actually

HEY /G/ HOW DOES COST/UNIT WORK

>>56035591
The only large improvement in the last few years has been power consumption

>>56035591
Why don't you compare it to the 6500 or 6600k so it's actually an accurate comparison?

>>56035591
In fact the 6600 is its equivalent

>>56035622
Okay but you would think that after FOUR years of progress across THREE generations, something would've happened. Die shrink, 10 less watts and all that other junk is not on the minds of those who buy non-K.

>>56035660
>>56035669

this the 6600 non-k is 9% faster and uses less power, also consider skylake's overclocking ability on a z170 motherboard and the 6400 will be faster as well as better graphics & more support for later hardware like DDR4

File: 3570v6400.png (60KB, 847x487px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 847x487px

>>56035591
6400 beats it in single core performance with a -0.5Ghz slower turbo boost. Comes very close in multicore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUUTS-jOkA

>>56035720
The graphics are the same, arnt they?

>>56036743
Not that guy buy different clockspeed probably. By 50mhz at most though. The different cpus do differ in that regard but I'm not sure if the 6600 & 6600k do. Probably not.

>>56037675
oh ok, thanks

File: moe-tells-it-how-it-is.png (47KB, 163x201px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 163x201px

Intel is focusing on lower power consumption .
they want the same OR slightly less performance for less power consumption .


whether or not you agree with that plan is up to you .

>>56037838
Those low thermals though

File: 6688.png (321KB, 1799x858px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1799x858px

>>56035591
Maybe you should compare the same products?

>allowed
What do you mean? Are you questioning the legality, the consumers, or AMD's amazing incompetence?

>>56037838

Lower power consumption = less heat = more cores

>>56037838
I was hoping Kaby Lake would be a little bit faster than Skylake.

>>56035634
these /v/ cucks only think about speed

power consumption is an important factor, something AMD pajeets will never comprehand

>>56039875
Most of here are using our main bigg riggs™ so it doesn't really matter.

I'm actually pretty mad.

Many interesting algorithms cannot be parallelized, or parallelization does not help. In these cases, to meet time budgets you just need the fastest single thread performance you can get and Intel is not delivering. I don't want 20 logical cores at 3.5ghz, I want 2 logical cores at 5.0ghz

>>56040251
overclock you nig

Yes.
Well really intel is working on power efficiency rather than increased performance.

>>56039458

I wonder how much of that improvement is due to DDR4 vs DDR3.