There is no chance of that
BTW the main improvement Intel taughts for Skylake is reduced platform power. Reducing the power consumption of everything around the plain CPU cores. That should be show through most in real battery life (not advertised) for the quad cores which still aren't true SoCs as of Haswell.
Performance improvements should be minor at best.
Essentially Skylake is the improved bug reduced version of Broadwell. 2nd Gen 14nm.
You go on about first gen problems but that is Broadwell. Skylake should be like Haswell. And Intel was so delayed with the 14nm launch that some Broadwells got so delayed that they just put the already finished skylake into the production line. That is why it is very possible that they deliver them by the end of the year. They replace what would have been Broadwell quad cores in the production line.
Honestly I've got enough that if I wanted to buy it the moment it comes out I could. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to **** all over the platform, it does a lot of interesting things and I plan on building and overclocking the hell out of Skylake.....on desktop with aftermarket cooling. I just don't think it will be a good mobile platform, I've seen it before and it'll happen again.
Just remember there are 2 things going on here, the transistor node and the architecture design. It'll be Intel's second crack at 14nm node but it'll be the first time at the Skylake platform. Normally new arch is problem prone, specifically with high rates of defects and TDP issues, this is across the board with just about everyone.
The problem is the 14nm node is a disaster and I've yet to read anything indicating they have the node figured out much less a new arch. New arch on a new-ish node is normally a recipe for disaster. It's been done before like it was with nVidia's Fermi and others but normally it doesn't go well. But I'll grant you that each node is different but if you go by the last couple of years:
-Nehalem (45nm) Old node, new arch. Great performance & scaling, terrible TDP
-Westmere (32nm) New node, old arch. Typical die shrink, good power, minimal performance gain
-Sandybridge (32nm) Old node, totally new arch. One of the few that went very well and arguably the best Intel CPU in the last 10 years
-Ivy Bridge (22nm) New node, old arch. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Little gains, refused to scale without enormous hit to power
-Haswell (22nm) old node, old-ish arch. Also terrible, same problem as Ivy, wouldn't scale without massive power hit, OK at lower freq, decent power consumption
-Broadwell (14nm) new node, old-ish arch. Heavily delayed, again same problem as Ivy, wouldn't scale at higher freq but great power at lower speeds
-Skylake (14nm) old node, totally new arch.
I guess we'll see how it does but I'm not convinced, sorry. The trend has been that at lower speeds and few cores the new nodes do quite well but the moment you try to scale it to production the whole thing falls apart. The reason why we don't have a Broadwell Macbook is because the 14nm node is jacked up. If it were working well I'd say godspeed but I think it's way too risky to roll the dice on a new arch on a problematic node in a laptop. They'll make it, sure, but it'll be heavily delayed and the only chips you'll find are the ones you don't want, just like it is now.
By the time they get Skylake under control it'll be damn near time for Cannonlake which IMO is the safer bet. I may eat my words but honestly I wouldn't bet the farm on this one chip. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised and be completely wrong but I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited: