Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X Processors Launching In August 2017

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Coinciding with the world’s largest gaming conference, Intel will be releasing its latest high-end desktop assortment for their new Basin Falls X-Series platform later this year. The chips, all of which will be labeled as Core i7-7000s, include 4-core models, utilizing Kaby Lake architecture, all the way up to 10-core models, which will be Skylake-based. However, there is a suggestion that these are actually “K” chips and not “X” chips, which means there won’t be an Extreme Edition at launch.

The Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X processors will launch at Gamescom 2017, which will take place in Cologne, Germany. The launch lineup will include at least four SKUs that will make their way to the X299 platform. All processors will utilize the 14nm process node; however, the Kaby Lake-X chips may have a slight edge due to the process optimizations. This would result in better clock speed with reduce power consumption, adding to the efficiency. The four SKUs will include a 10 core, 8 core, 6 core and 4 core model. The 10, 8 and 6 core models will be based on Skylake architecture. The 4-core model will be based on the Kaby Lake architecture, which launched on mainstream platforms earlier this month. All Skylake-X chips will feature a rated TDP of 140W, while the Kaby Lake-X chip will feature a TDP of 112W. All chips will be marketed as the Core i7-7000 series processors.
 
Last edited:
Is there really any reason or benefit to having both? They're both so similar with Kaby just being some minor tweaks...
 
What I don't get is this: Skylake-X is a HEDT model, and therefore has more PCIe lanes, yet they restrict all except the highest end model to 28 PCIe lanes, in addition, they don't have integrated graphics. Kaby Lake is the mainstream desktop model, so it only has 16 PCIe lanes and has integrated graphics, yet Kaby Lake-X is neither HEDT because it only has 16 PCIe lanes and not a mainstream because it doesn't have integrated graphics.

What purpose does Kaby Lake-X serve? It seems really limited.

Also: Why limit the PCIe lanes on the SkyLake-X CPUs so much? Do they have something against having enough IO capabilities? 10Gbe is heading closer to mainstream, and NVMe drives are headed toward mainstream at a hectic pace. To have NVMe and 10Gbe, a mainboard would have to support 16 PCIe lanes just for those, and have another 16 for a single graphics card. It looks like they're actively trying to limit multiple graphics cards to just the highest end processors, which really damages the entire market in unpredictable ways.

These are some really stupid decisions.
 
Ok now we are talking. Unlike AMD, we all know Intels performance is legendary. Here's the dillio tho ... I hope Ryzens 8 core brings Intel's 8 core Kabylake X/Z or whatever down to around $500 or $600. That ... would .... be ... incredible.
 
yeah Intel will still keep their pricing to the same levels it's always been at.

I have a new Kaby Lake 7700k running at 5.1Ghz @ 3200mhz stable. AMD is years away from this I bet.
 
dgingeri said:
What I don't get is this: Skylake-X is a HEDT model, and therefore has more PCIe lanes, yet they restrict all except the highest end model to 28 PCIe lanes, in addition, they don't have integrated graphics. Kaby Lake is the mainstream desktop model, so it only has 16 PCIe lanes and has integrated graphics, yet Kaby Lake-X is neither HEDT because it only has 16 PCIe lanes and not a mainstream because it doesn't have integrated graphics.

What purpose does Kaby Lake-X serve? It seems really limited.

Also: Why limit the PCIe lanes on the SkyLake-X CPUs so much? Do they have something against having enough IO capabilities? 10Gbe is heading closer to mainstream, and NVMe drives are headed toward mainstream at a hectic pace. To have NVMe and 10Gbe, a mainboard would have to support 16 PCIe lanes just for those, and have another 16 for a single graphics card. It looks like they're actively trying to limit multiple graphics cards to just the highest end processors, which really damages the entire market in unpredictable ways.

These are some really stupid decisions.
Click to expand...

It's unadultered money grab.
 
Only the bottom Kaby Lake-X is a K processor brought up to X, so you no longer have to choose a new motherboard between newest architecture or max pcie/cores. They want to give HEDT buyers a better upgrade option to include the latest processor (because their $1000-$1500 HEDT cpu sales are lacking). The high core count Kaby Lake-X cpus should be released next year; unless they actually use this opportunity to bring the 1.5 year technology gap down to 6 months and go straight for a high core count Coffee-X (only seems possible since it's practically the same damned cpu as Kaby Lake with a better iGPU).
 
Im wondering when Ryzen will get quad channel memory to put it on par with Intel HEDT. Or maybe they will keep it dual channel for now and then implement HBM at varying levels on die eventually. 512GB/s bandwidth vs ~60GB/s of Intels design, would make thermals more of a challenge though. I guess also require a processor design that can make use of that kind of bandwidth.
 
4 Core in the HEDT lineup, what fucking year is it? Also, why would they release both Kaby and Skylake based X299 processors, am I missing some big difference between Kaby and Sky (other than useless Netflix 4k)?
 
quad channel memory? That's a big deal. 10% performance is great. Manage your expectations please. Intel 3.1 support, I am sure many other improvements.

There is a new video floating around that actually addresses Intel CPU's and the perceived notion that there are haven't been any improvements. That's just not true, tons of graphics, numbers etc that prove otherwise.

People are expecting giant technological leaps over mountains or something. smh
 
I really am hoping ryzen is at least half as good as the hype suggests, otherwise we all will be spending big money just for the most basic of hardware.
 
SixFootDuo said:
quad channel memory? That's a big deal. 10% performance is great. Manage your expectations please. Intel 3.1 support, I am sure many other improvements.

There is a new video floating around that actually addresses Intel CPU's and the perceived notion that there are haven't been any improvements. That's just not true, tons of graphics, numbers etc that prove otherwise.

People are expecting giant technological leaps over mountains or something. smh
Click to expand...

Unlike Cellphones, Processors DO NOT LOOK GOOD OR SELL GOOD with a shiny new coat of paint on them every year, nor do you have to replace them when their screens crack. Most of these are being bought by people that want to improve their bottom line in business, and if you don't have to buy a processor for 5+ years to do that, then you won't. Aside from the lack of need for these, most retail businesses are using crap apu's, equivalent of a cellphone chip to run their virtual clients or 'thin' clients. Since the graphics industry has been at a standstill with pci-e for years now, you have literally no reason to upgrade anything but a graphics card if you are a serious gamer. There was a time you could take a 150$ cpu and overclock it to run like a 1K$ cpu, when that performance difference was night and day. Unfortunately, the performance gap from mid-end to extreme high end is almost non existent anymore, especially in gaming.

Besides, we don't need anything to get a boost in fps anymore, You either design a system for under 4k resolutions, which don't cost a fortune anymore to run games maxed out, or you have a spendy trip down 4k lane. The Number of people buying titans and running 4k with a high end cpu is so far outside of the bell curve that it may not even show up in a statistic. (unless you are using double spaced comic sans font)
 
SixFootDuo said:
quad channel memory? That's a big deal. 10% performance is great. Manage your expectations please. Intel 3.1 support, I am sure many other improvements.

There is a new video floating around that actually addresses Intel CPU's and the perceived notion that there are haven't been any improvements. That's just not true, tons of graphics, numbers etc that prove otherwise.

People are expecting giant technological leaps over mountains or something. smh
Click to expand...

Perhaps we've been spoiled in the past. Going from P4 to Core 2 Duo to Core i series were all pretty large jumps.

A lot of improvements with other aspects of the CPU other than speed. Do I need it? Not really. Do I want it? Yea. Just not hitting any ceiling as it is.

USB 3.1 support? Would I notice that in game? I know CPU/GPU/RAM speeds will make a difference.

People used to upgrade their PC's because they were slow. They wouldn't run the latest program. The new CPU was WAY faster than the old one. Better features are great, but I unless I really NEED it, I'm not going for it. Like the 10 core CPU. I don't do any work that requires that many cores. So, I probably won't get it. I'd love to have it. It'd be wicked cool. Just like the other features I'd get from upgrading. But, I don't need it. I wouldn't really benefit much from it as much as someone that did need it. It'd be a want. Yea, I want it. Just can't justify the cost of it.

Definitely a lot of improvements, though. Not doubting that. Just nothing that I can say " I NEED THAT! ".
 
Jim Kim said:
Ryzen, doa before birth. sigh
Click to expand...
yea sure. like there was much difference between skylake and kabylake clock for clock. Far from DOA, and yes I have intel 6850k right now, so no fan boy stuff here. There is isn't really much IPC gain here.
 
Unless Kaby Lake X is a cherry picked bin quad core that has a 4.5Ghz base and 5.0Ghz Turbo...

Gives Intel bragging rights and lets them keep the so called performance crown.
 
Well, now I finally understand the purpose of Kaby-X: sell the same 7700k in a different package, with iGPU disabled, but an E upgrade path.

The optimist in me screams: WHAT THE FUCK TOOK SO LONG? Intel's chipsets all use the same DMI bus, and Intel already proved it could handle 2 PCIe configs. And Quad-channel memory falls-back to dual-channel effortlessly. So why did this take so long?

The realist still wanting a word says: these people will NEVER UPGRADE, and they won't spend much more on their motherboard (versus z270). BUT, these poor E motherboard manufacturers are going to have to handle NOT TWO, but THREE separate PCIe configurations, raising test and implementation complexity. Who absorbs that extra cost? CLUE: not Intel!

And this is Intel we're talking, so they will undoubtedly charge premium for this Kaby-X processor, since it will be relatively low-volume.
 
Last edited:
Intel is becoming the GPU side of AMD. Too many fuckin side grades and new node and shit. But that is what happens when you have no competition. Ryzen better be fuckin atleast somewhat competitive or we are all in for year after year of repackaged shit and forced motherboard upgrades. Why the fuck a highend intel board can't last more than 2 years is beyond me but again they will abuse it until there is competition, we all better hope Ryzen and this comes from a guy who has 6850k! Lol
 
So, what did that comedian call it when he sneezes, coughs and farts at the same time?
 
funkydmunky said:
a competitive AMD
Click to expand...
lol - is that and oxymoron i see!? ;)

Finanlly, been waiting for an x99 upgrade. Should have been Kaby Lake X though. But alas they still keep the HEDT behind a "generation". annoying a.f!

But i've had this 1366 system for over 6 years and i'm wanting some NVMe m.2 goodeness so i'm gonna be jumping**




** Provided there is a decent priced CPU in the 6 or 8 core variant thats not frequency limited. i want 4.5+ and preferably on the 8 core. Don't see it though considering they aren't Kaby Lake. grumble. grumble. whinge whing.
 
Jim Kim said:
Ryzen, doa before birth. sigh
Click to expand...

Oh yeah because Intel is going to blow past them with a whopping few percent IPC increase.. have you paid attention to anything Intel has released the last 6 years or [H] own article on the front page regarding this?

HoffY said:
** Provided there is a decent priced CPU in the 6 or 8 core variant thats not frequency limited. i want 4.5+ and preferably on the 8 core. Don't see it though considering they aren't Kaby Lake. grumble. grumble. whinge whing.
Click to expand...

There is this thing in late feb called Ryzun! It could quite possibly tick all those boxes.
 
N4CR said:
Oh yeah because Intel is going to blow past them with a whopping few percent IPC increase.. have you paid attention to anything Intel has released the last 6 years or [H] own article on the front page regarding this?
Click to expand...
In the past 6 years I have seen Intel make CPUs and AMDs sole response has been a DOOM video.
Did I miss anything?
 
Yup, prices actually went UP $40-80 for Broadwell-E for virtually no performance increase (along with that ludicrous $1800 10-core!), and yet I see people here recommending it left and right :rolleyes:

You people want better prices on 'Intel E-series? How about you learn the first step in negotiations by figuring out how to keep your wallet closed?

Prices drop on components when products sales fall. END OF STORY. So SOMEONE must be buying these things.
 
Last edited:
SixFootDuo said:
Ok now we are talking. Unlike AMD, we all know Intels performance is legendary. Here's the dillio tho ... I hope Ryzens 8 core brings Intel's 8 core Kabylake X/Z or whatever down to around $500 or $600. That ... would .... be ... incredible.
Click to expand...
It'd need to perform similarly for that. I doubt it will beat a 6 core hedt haswell.
 
If Ryzen isn't worth going with then I have two options left open to upgrading my 3570K. Either get a 7700K or wait for x299. If I knew what clock speeds the new CPUs for x299 were going to have it would make the decision to wait easier.
 
Jim Kim said:
In the past 6 years I have seen Intel make CPUs and AMDs sole response has been a DOOM video.
Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

You are being ignorant to what he meant. You are calling Ryzen DOA because of these chips. Saw any ipc gain going to kabylake 7700k from 6700k? Nope! So how does RYZen become DOA.
 
NKD said:
You are being ignorant to what he meant. You are calling Ryzen DOA because of these chips. Saw any ipc gain going to kabylake 7700k from 6700k? Nope! So how does RYZen become DOA.
Click to expand...

Was there any IPC increase from Haswell to Skylake? If <5%, I'm considering Ryzen to have major hope.
 
funkydmunky said:
And some of you knuckleheads say you don't need AMD in the market place.
This is why you need a competitive AMD in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone rational is saying AMD isn't needed in the marketplace.

The challenge is, how do we get AMD to recognize the need for a competitive AMD in the marketplace..?
 
DPI said:
I don't think anyone rational is saying AMD isn't needed in the marketplace.

The challenge is, how do we get AMD to recognize the need for a competitive AMD in the marketplace..?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain they recognize the need to be competitive, and are working as hard as they can to improve their position. However, the damage done by the whole 440BX debacle (where Intel witheld 440BX supplies to OEMs who produced AMD Athlon products) is still haunting AMD. They lost billions in potential revenue due to Intel's underhanded tactics, and could not hire as many people as they needed to keep pace with Intel in the CPU arena. That dropped them even further back during the early Core days. Then AMD made the horrible mistake that is Bulldozer.

AMD has a quarter of the CPU engineers that Intel does, and none of the process engineers. So, yeah, it took them many years to catch up. Luckily, Intel has been resting on their laurels for the last several years, allowing AMD's engineers the time to (hopefully) catch up with this new Ryzen. We'll find out soon if they have managed to make a competitor. They certainly have been working at the goal of catching up.
 
dgingeri said:
I'm fairly certain they recognize the need to be competitive, and are working as hard as they can to improve their position. However, the damage done by the whole 440BX debacle (where Intel witheld 440BX supplies to OEMs who produced AMD Athlon products) is still haunting AMD. They lost billions in potential revenue due to Intel's underhanded tactics, and could not hire as many people as they needed to keep pace with Intel in the CPU arena. That dropped them even further back during the early Core days. Then AMD made the horrible mistake that is Bulldozer.

AMD has a quarter of the CPU engineers that Intel does, and none of the process engineers. So, yeah, it took them many years to catch up. Luckily, Intel has been resting on their laurels for the last several years, allowing AMD's engineers the time to (hopefully) catch up with this new Ryzen. We'll find out soon if they have managed to make a competitor. They certainly have been working at the goal of catching up.
Click to expand...


Oh AMD has had it's screwups....here's how history COULD have been written.


The screwup started with not releasing faster Athlon X2 and rushing Phenom. (early 2007)

That one change would have allowed them to release Phenom with the (Phenom II internals) 3rd quarter 2008

That would have allowed them to release a (different 32nm) Phenom II 2nd half of 2010

Which would then still given us something like piledriver in 2012 for servers.

am


The key points:
  • Athlon 64 X2 could have been stretch a bit longer, 65nm 3.0Ghz Brisbane core 2x512KB L2 @ 95 watts TDP was possible, just wasn't produced.... as all focus was on rushing Phenom out the door.
  • The Phenom II processor was a good product, but was just too late to the market. Clk against Clk it was very competitive with Core2
  • Phenom II (on 32nm didn't exist) but would have only had a 20% IPC penalty compared to the i7, assuming the clock speed increase was minor or nonexistant, and the benefit was mostly a lower TDP, this processor would probably would have still been somewhat competitive
  • Piledriver based server chip in 2012, would have landed with a meh...

The above changes would have re-written AMDs financial history.
 
whateverer said:
How about you learn the first step in negotiations by figuring out how to keep your wallet closed?
Click to expand...

how about you learn the first step in negotiations.... create a monopoly (ya know, then people are forced to open their wallets). ;)
 
Jim Kim said:
In the past 6 years I have seen Intel make CPUs and AMDs sole response has been a DOOM video.
Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

If upcoming Ryzen does sit where it appears to from all known data, then latest and greatest Intels chip will only be a slight incremental improvement over it.
 
Why suddenly X anyway? What was wrong with E? X to me says high end workstation / server, not desktop. It takes me back to PCI-X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top