Originally Posted by trumpet-205
You use TDP as a measure of performance? Really? Lower TDP not only means lower power consumption, but potentially higher OC headroom (because a cooler can handle it more).
In that case go ahead and buy yourselves BD. To you that's best bang per buck because it has higher TDP.
You know, implying I said something absurd with a question works a lot better in verbal arguments. Re-read my post. I don't think you realize this, but overclocking to higher and higher clockspeeds requires exponentially more power. Adding cores at a given clockspeed requires approximately linear power (for the multi-threaded performance gain). Adding transistors to make cores bigger and increase IPC, well I can't precisely say it's linear but the performance/watt gain is much better than increasing clockspeed with a lower transistor count. My main issue is that Intel is making huge die shrinks without adding tangible CPU performance gains.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong, maybe nobody wants a hex-core i7 with a motherboard+CPU cost under $700. To me the performance gains aren't huge for "mainstream", and it seems like the gap between "mainstream" and "enthusiast" is going to just keep growing. IB-E will have up to 8 cores. IB will have 4. Piledriver will have 10. Eventually AMD is going to catch up especially with Intel fooling around. PD should beat IB for multi-threaded by a decent amount. And just FWIW my next build will be IB, I *personally* need a couple of really fast cores, and there aren't any dual-cores good enough.
One last thing, nobody has any problems with huge monstrous space-heaters for high-end graphics cards. And in fact, AMD and Nvidia are pretty good at increasing performance at a given price point, while (perhaps) slightly lowering TDP. I don't see why anyone would object to Intel keeping die sizes similar at a given price point, after die-shrinks. I'd just like to see Intel put in an honest effort instead of having quads with a $180 price range from cheapest to most-expensive with negligible real differences (short of locked multi, hyperthreading and a little cache).
Originally Posted by BizzareRide
The 77w figure is for the CPU+iGPU. The 2600k are actually 65w parts
Indeed. I also really don't understand why Intel can't lower TDPs for mobile parts. Instead they're using all the "extra" thermal envelope for graphics.