https://thestack.com/iot/...nergy-efficient-chips/

Seth, I find your information about the Zen processor interesting. I have been considering to buy an AMD processor for a very long time, but looking after many reviews, everybody says to just buy an i5. The new Zen that comes, I do hope it puts some immediate competition on the market. My wife and I were thinking to build an AMD computer, and have had our eyes on Zen for a while, and when it comes out, we will be considered to buy it.
If what you say is true, i'm willing to doubt that Intel would think to make their CPUs slower for energy savings. That's what the BIOS is for. Not really sure why Intel would consider sacrificing performance for energy.

The way I read it was in the early stages of the newer chips the power & speed would be down @ first . Giving them time for speed devolopment in the future.

It's not necessary to people throw money on new processors constantly with so small performance difference. 
I'm sorry because X99 is not launched now, I could use Z77 even longer than 3.5 years but that was not enough reason for missing X99.
But NVIDIA every 13-15 months give 60-70-80% faster graphic cards and that's much better investment.
You get more performance if you change graphic every year than processor on 3-4 years. 
On that field limitation is not even close... 
 
Intel will not produce slower products literary, only want to customers look on less power consumption same as more performance now and that will not happen many years. But people will soon start to look for powerful computers same size as Mac Mini. 
With high end graphics and fastest processors. That will be task for companies, and for cooling and for production. 
 
 
 

Brad_Hawthorne
Marketing spin on hitting a technological brick wall on speed.

Exactly! More work for the developers now.

That's exactly where this generation/industry is taking us, there is no more advanced development (that I see, please show me if i'm wrong) for processor technology other than stacking cores on top of each other, or next to each other, and calling it an advanced processor. That's not making them better, that's just allowing the processor(s) to take more and do more when you're "multitasking", and when you're doing single applications, what's the benefit of an 8 core processor? None.

In context, the message is basically we are not in a GHz war.  By the way smaller circuits REQUIRE less power to stop leakage.
 
"Intel has said that new technologies in chip manufacturing will favour better energy consumption over faster execution times – effectively calling an end to ‘Moore’s Law’, which successfully predicted the doubling of density in integrated circuits, and therefore speed, every two years."
 
So it would seem that parallel processing and other changes to structure will have to be implemented in order to improve Throughput at lower GHz.
 
Performance will indeed improve even if the GHz races are over.

I agree that more cores does very little for those whose programs can't saturate 4 cores.
 
However, if more work is accomplished per clock / core then performance increases.
 
Be it through new structure, new code / instructions, efficiency improvements ....

I won't update my  machine again until I feel it's 'slow'...
 
which probably won't happen for a while.
 

Maybe for mobile chips since batteries aren't getting better.

Intel has no rival, they can charge whatever they want and keep releasing Core i# with no real improvements. Remember how crazy things were when the first i7 came? When was the last time Intel wowed us or had too?
Its all about marketing and long term survival.
Why not just make chips slower and more energy efficient so we get excited when a new quad core comes out that clocks at 2.5ghz and a year later at 2.8ghz and only uses 60 watts of power under a max load.
I think Intel sees a company light Qualcomm (SnapDragon) taking over the future of computers (tablets) and they just want to get in that game before they become the next AMD.

This might be awesome for the mobile market but not for the desktop. We don't need an energy star rated i7 we need (want) more power!
Maybe Intel is slowly moving away from they desktop market because they can see its slow death. Think about how much more money they will make with a low powered CPU being sold for laptops and tablets than they will a 200w core i7 desktop CPU.
 
 
Just my two cents, I have been pretty good with market trends so far and feel like I may be on to something.
This is why I called BS earlier. 

Still faster than AMD...

Intel CHAMPION! 
I will ask you now when Broadwell-EP 10 cores show up what you think about performance and overclocking.
He make happy little kids not 65W models. 
 

 
 No better moments for us than launching new i7 Extreme processors and new GeForce graphic cards.
 

Vlada011
Intel CHAMPION! 
I will ask you now when Broadwell-EP 10 cores show up what you think about performance and overclocking.
He make happy little kids not 65W models. 
 

 
 No better moments for us than launching new i7 Extreme processors and new GeForce graphic cards.
 

Vlad, you know a lot when it comes to technology. I give you a job-well-done having the information on hand. You're one of the top dogs on here that knows their stuff... But I have to really ask you... What on earth will you be doing that would really require a 10core processor...?
 Knowing that we're still in the multiple phases of core utilization on programs and applications, I really don't see any benefit of a 10 core processor. This is the point I was making earlier. Intel has (as many have mentioned) have hit a brick wall when it comes to processor advancement
 
If your answer is "future-proofing", then what purpose is it for someone to buy one of these if they already have a 4960 or a 5960? These have 6 cores.
 
Maybe I was hoping that Intel would release this futuristic "fusion" core designed for home PCs. LOL