It's the launch of the Z170 chipset, DDR4 is finally here in a way that is easier to access than it was with X99. Kits are cheaper, the CPUs have better IMCs and frequencies are only bound to rise. Entry to the platform is also cheaper. Overall it’s a great place to be if you’re an enthusiast and overclocker. It does mean letting go of older platforms just yet, but at the very least the focus will be on Z170. After all, we are receiving a more powerful platform, with better efficiency and a slightly better IGP. The Intel 530 Graphics core in the CPUs is a worthwhile update to what was previously available. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were not more overclocking competitions that involved the IGP specifically going forward, especially given how this plays directly into vendor’s marketing and sales needs as opposed to more traditional overclocking events with a discreet GPU and a chipset (At least as far as cost is concerned). Regarding the platform and where it may lead us in the competitive landscape, Skylake is noteworthy. That the release coincided with the Windows 10 as well has forced us to reevaluate our operating systems as the verdict is still out on the HPET issue as it affectd Windows 8. If Windows 10 proves to be just as fast as Windows 8.1 in the chosen benchmarks, but without the folly of not supporting a real time clock, it could be the way forward. Perhaps even negating the need for Windows 7 if for some reason 3DMark11 performance improves in future. Past just the operating system, it could be an opportune time to re-evaluate the benchmarks. Personally I don’t believe there could be too many so the number isn’t the issue. The issue may be the points awarded for the number of benchmarks. As overclocking or competitive overclocking goes forward, it will become increasingly impractical to have benchmarks awarded points where new entrants into the hobby have no way of participating. For instance, if there’s a special trick needed to run 3DMark 2001SE and 3DMark03 in Windows XP. Perhaps those are benchmarks that should be relegated to a legacy status where they do not impact the rankings as much as they do. It’s just a thought and of course the ones directly involved with this will figure it out. Materially, the simple change to DDR4 places many on even footing where there’s no chance of any one person, or team having DDR3 memory that has long since seized
production. We had that issue with BBSE/PSC memory, where if you only started competitive overclocking in the last couple of years. You had no chance of matching those kinds of memory ICs with what was eventually available. That meant regardless of how much you tuned your system and how great your CPU was, there was no possible way you could match the C6 timings of PSC and as such you would always be at a disadvantage. Purely because you happened to get involved in competitive overclocking, later than others. So I for one look at Z170 despite the teething issues with great enthusiasm. The memory frequencies that were once the domain of LN2 with DDR3 have been surpassed via air cooling as is. Not just for validations but completing benchmark runs as well. This of course, is of particular importance to the point mentioned previously regarding the IGP. That aside, I have to say despite or contrary to all evidence and reason. (I’m being intentionally irrational) I do believe AMD can turn itself around and once again provide viable alternatives to INTEL and NVIDIA products. There’s no denying that the management at AMD has been absolutely appalling for almost a decade if not more. However, there is still valuable IP within the firm, great engineers and at the very least people still willing to compete with the aforementioned companies. It’s not a lost cause just yet even though AMD, from a consumer point of view is in its twilight years. There is hope in their GPUs still as the company has been competitive or at least more so than they have been with CPUs. The uphill battle that they must undertake for a competitive chance against INTEL is monumental to say the least. Contrary to what they are facing in the GPU arena against their chief rival. It is a situation where a node shift could help keep the firm in the fight somewhat. Fury and FuryX aside, AMD did itself no favours by re-releasing Hawaii GPUs under a different name. A victory against the reference GTX 980 is hollow as within the target demographic, few purchase reference cards. Most users opt for factory overclocked models. It is these models that have been on the market for nearly a year this month which remain more compelling than the 390X in all measurable ways. That said, with NANO out soon, perhaps AMD will once again claw back some of the lost market share provided that it can actually supply these GPUs. Hopefully not a FuryX situation which is near impossible to find in many regions around the globe. Whatever your take on all of this, interesting times ahead. Have an opinion on any of this?