Intel Bringing 6-Core CPU SKUs to Market Soon

chenw said:
A 6C/12T version of 7700k would actually tempt me away from Ryzen. Right now 4C/8T 7700k is, while impressive in performance, the Core count is low enough that Ryzen 7's are equally tempting. I consider them right now with completely equal attracting force.
Click to expand...
I agree. Intel cores are still so advanced, and these even more so. It all depends on system cost though, and what Intel cuts back on the platform for me to make an overall judgement. But I'm already thinking I would prefer this over a R7 1700x cost being equal.
 
Shintai said:
It will be faster than a 7700K in everything. Also its a product known the last 2 years,
Click to expand...

how will it be faster in anything?
it's slower in singlethread than kabylake. and also in 4 core tasks.

Hell, I ain't bashing, this is still real progress! and I'd buy it over the faster 7700K (for gaming and singlethread) anyday :D
 
ole-m said:
how will it be faster in anything?
it's slower in singlethread than kabylake. and also in 4 core tasks.

Hell, I ain't bashing, this is still real progress! and I'd buy it over the faster 7700K (for gaming and singlethread) anyday :D
Click to expand...

The turbo clocks are higher than 7700K in all modes. And cache is increased to 12MB that will give 0-10% depending on application I guess. The ST turbo for example is 4.7Ghz. And I can say the hex turbo is higher than the 7700K all core clock.
 
DrBorg said:
I've been rocking a 3930k 6/12c beast for years now, it will easily clock over 5G.

The only problem is that it idles at ~80C at 5G, lol.
Click to expand...
How is that possible? I mean how is it stable under load if it idles at 80C? My sandy bridge had at least a 30C difference between full load and idle even at 4750. If it had been idling at 80 then it would be well over 100C which is way beyond throttling at that point. I think mine started throttling at 97C And even an NH-D14 couldn't keep it cool at 4750.
 
britjh22 said:
I think Intel has gotten used to not having competition, and so they think any product they can devise will sell. Look at the i3-7350k, or the i7-7740x and i5-7640x, products which make no damn sense but Intel thinks a rube is out there somewhere to buy it (and they are probably right o some extent).
Click to expand...

http://www.microcenter.com/product/473230/core_i3-7350k_kaby_lake_42ghz_lga_1151_boxed_processor so what's a better deal at $130? Yes, it makes no sense at the "recommended customer price" of $170-180 but at $130? You probably would spend roughly the same amount of money on GTX 1060 3GB + Ryzen 5 1400 and a GTX 1060 6GB + i3 7350k @ 4.9GHz and then I am not entirely sure which wins.
 
Last edited:
chx said:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/473230/core_i3-7350k_kaby_lake_42ghz_lga_1151_boxed_processor so what's a better deal at $130? Yes, it makes no sense at the "recommended customer price" of $170-180 but at $130? You probably would spend roughly the same amount of money on GTX 1060 3GB + Ryzen 5 1400 and a GTX 1060 6GB + i3 7350k @ 4.9GHz and then I am not entirely sure which wins.
Click to expand...
This is just my opinion, but unless you are playing a game where 3GB VRAM presents a significant bottleneck, chances are i3 7350k is STILL a crappy buy.

1060 3GB and 6GB performance is close enough that I wouldn't consider their useful service life to be significantly different from each other. So it's down to the CPUs, and we are comparing a 4C/8T CPU with a possible upgrade path to a 2C/4T on a platform that is likely on its way out. Even with higher clocks on the i3, the number of cores is low enough that it's precariously close to have its performance shot from background 'inefficiencies'.

For me it's no contest, Ryzen any day. Hell, if I MUST go Intel, I would be more inclined to choose 1070 and G4560 and game on 4k rather than with 1060 on a i3-7350k.
 
M76 said:
How is that possible? I mean how is it stable under load if it idles at 80C? My sandy bridge had at least a 30C difference between full load and idle even at 4750. If it had been idling at 80 then it would be well over 100C which is way beyond throttling at that point. I think mine started throttling at 97C And even an NH-D14 couldn't keep it cool at 4750.
Click to expand...

probably MSI or Gigabyte board with the stupid Vdroop method where in idle voltages can potentially be way higher than load, old school guys still have that thinking that all C States, speedstep, etc should be disabled when OC'ing so it won't downclock in idle.. all together can make a chip run very hot in idle and very close to load temps.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not sure how old you are. But, Intel used to have a lot less competition and prices were a lot higher for standard mainstream CPU's. The higher end ones were astronomical in price. Competition has brought the prices down and releases more often. So, yea. Competition is nice.
Click to expand...

lol nope, im not talking about competition, im talking about people thinking that 6 core CFL for mainstream is due competition and due a reaction to AMD when it's entirely false, this product has been roadmapped for a bit more than 2 years.. this is not due competition, price are what always has been, a fast example i7 970 6c/12t 3.20ghz tri-channel RAM 550$ launched 7 years ago.. same price was for the 3930k, 4930k, 5930k price went down to 430$ with the i7 6800k so the same 6c/12t went down in price on the same platform,the more recent i7 7800X 380$ again went down in price, and everything in 7 years without competition, funny fact, most of the time is cheaper to buy a 6800k than the quad core 7700k, so naturally the next step was just to replace the mainstream quad core with hexa cores as actually prices even aren't so different.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Not sure how old you are. But, Intel used to have a lot less competition and prices were a lot higher for standard mainstream CPU's. The higher end ones were astronomical in price. Competition has brought the prices down and releases more often. So, yea. Competition is nice.
Click to expand...

Since you mention age and time. Its funny that CPUs have never been cheaper than since 2006 isn't it? And they got cheaper along the way, not more expensive.
 
Araxie said:
probably MSI or Gigabyte board with the stupid Vdroop method where in idle voltages can potentially be way higher than load, old school guys still have that thinking that all C States, speedstep, etc should be disabled when OC'ing so it won't downclock in idle.. all together can make a chip run very hot in idle and very close to load temps.
Click to expand...
Well I had an asrock board, and I remember I had to disable all C states and Speedstep otherwise it wouldn't overclock properly. Only with the last bios released about 2 years into the life of my board was I able to turn speedstep back on and overclock at the same time. But if I remember correctly my idle temps were still nowhere near 80, upper 60s or lower 70s when the ambient was very high.
After speedstep was enabled it dropped to about mid 40s.
 
Shintai said:
Since you mention age and time. Its funny that CPUs have never been cheaper than since 2006 isn't it? And they got cheaper along the way, not more expensive.
Click to expand...
It's not enough that a similar CPU costs less than it did before. It only got cheaper if the top end cpu costs less than what the top end cpu cost in 2006 adjusted for inflation. Otherwise we have no progress.
 
MaZa said:
You are lucky to have 2600K. 4 cores 8 threads and great overclockability that should take it close to stock Skylake performance levels so you are not in a hurry to to upgrade just yet. But my 2500K is definetly starting to show its age, only 4 Sandy cores and threads is a bottleneck these days.
Click to expand...

No doubt, this thing is a little monster. My main hangup is I WANT 8c/16t at 5ghz, dammit. :D
 
Shintai said:
Since you mention age and time. Its funny that CPUs have never been cheaper than since 2006 isn't it? And they got cheaper along the way, not more expensive.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what competition does, drive down costs. :)
 
ManofGod said:
Which is exactly what competition does, drive down costs. :)
Click to expand...

What cost reductions have you seen while there was this "competition" besides Ryzen that was priced too high to begin with? The answer is none isn't it. Because the products are priced on segment levels only.
 
Shintai said:
What cost reductions have you seen while there was this "competition"? The answer is none isn't it. Because the products are priced on segment levels only.
Click to expand...

LOL! If you say so, if you say so. :D
 
If I could go back in time and build a couple more Sandy/Ivy bridge systems, I totally would, it's not often you get a system that supports 5 different Windows versions and still remaining useful after all this time.
 
Shintai said:
The turbo clocks are higher than 7700K in all modes. And cache is increased to 12MB that will give 0-10% depending on application I guess. The ST turbo for example is 4.7Ghz. And I can say the hex turbo is higher than the 7700K all core clock.
Click to expand...

This is not completely certain. If they adopt the Skylake-X "enhancements," then performance goes down 5-10%. Which is one of the reasons it's a hard platform to recommend.

We'll have to see where Cannonlake goes. The rumored specs say traditional 256/2-per-core, but I don't recall anyone leaking the complete change-up of the cache architecture in Skylake-X.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind that too much actually. Skylake-X is still roughly on par with Devil's Canyon, so I'd probably still take that over 7700k, whose main concern I have with is the core count.

Basically, whichever comes first will get my next build: a 6C/12T with same single thread perf as 7700k, or a 8c/16t with single thread at least on par with 4790k.
 
defaultluser said:
This is not completely certain. If they adopt the Skylake-X "enhancements," then performance goes down 5-10%. Which is one of the reasons it's a hard platform to recommend.

We'll have to see where Cannonlake goes. The rumored specs say traditional 256/2-per-core, but I don't recall anyone leaking the complete change-up of the cache architecture in Skylake-X.
Click to expand...

CFL is the exact same as SKL and KBL. Just with a set of cores more and 50% more L3. And then using 14nm++. This is also why the die size only increases to 149mm2.

You first get a new consumer core with ICL next year.
 
chx said:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/473230/core_i3-7350k_kaby_lake_42ghz_lga_1151_boxed_processor so what's a better deal at $130? Yes, it makes no sense at the "recommended customer price" of $170-180 but at $130? You probably would spend roughly the same amount of money on GTX 1060 3GB + Ryzen 5 1400 and a GTX 1060 6GB + i3 7350k @ 4.9GHz and then I am not entirely sure which wins.
Click to expand...

Won't it take a Z170/Z270 board and aftermarket cooler to hit 4.9 GHZ on that 7350k, and only microcenter in store are you going to find that price. The 7350k just doesn't make sense.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I gave my 2600K to my son and took his i5 something or other (2.9Ghz). I NEED this CPU. Holy hell, this thing is SLOW. So, I'm eyeballing a nice VR setup but want more cores on my CPU. Thing will last me 5+ years as the 2600K did. :)

I like competition. :)
Click to expand...
You must be betting on things slowing down, when it seems that with VR and AI and whatnot we are at a crossroads.
Shintai said:
The turbo clocks are higher than 7700K in all modes. And cache is increased to 12MB that will give 0-10% depending on application I guess. The ST turbo for example is 4.7Ghz. And I can say the hex turbo is higher than the 7700K all core clock.
Click to expand...
Can it do 5GHz on air? All cores.
 
bezant said:
You must be betting on things slowing down, when it seems that with VR and AI and whatnot we are at a crossroads.
Click to expand...

Before, I wanted to upgrade. Now that I've downgraded quite a bit, I NEED to upgrade. And I'd get one hell of an upgrade from where I'm at now.

At some point, I have to bite the bullet. If I'm behind the times in 2 years, fine. This 5 year gap I just went through is definitely far from the norm. Longest I've gone between upgrade cycles. For me, it's time to upgrade. I'll check out the roadmaps for the next 6 months ahead of when I decide to do it. If there is something right around the corner, I'll wait that 6 months. Any longer than that, I'll probably just upgrade now without waiting.
 
Intel bringing 6 core CPU's to market because of the competition and heat AMD is bringing to bear. Intel, regardless of the so called road map, would not be doing it if they did not need too because of the competition. In fact, the X299 platform was prematurely released and we can be all but absolutely certain that the prices Intel is now charging for the processors are lower than they wanted to charge, far lower. After all, why would they charge far less than the previous generation 10 core processor if they were not forced too. I LOVE COMPETITION!
 
I am actually less impressed with the cost reductions due to competition, and more impressed with better hardware that would otherwise not exist without the said competition.

EG Broadwell Extreme CPUs capped out at 10C/20T, Xeons capped out at 14C/28T, but now we are going to see 18C/36T non-Xeons much sooner than expected, which probably wouldn't have happened until 2020 at LEAST, given how long Intel took to even release a 10C/20T extreme CPU.

An unfortunate side effect is though, the minimum 40 Lane Skylake-X CPU is now a lot more expensive (7900X) than Broadwell-E's (6850k).
 
I like how cost reductions now that AMD is making an effort to compete are deferred to AMD's efforts, despite Intel increasing performance/keeping cost over time fairly static (which is a decrease with inflation) on mainstream parts since AMD last stopped competing.

Anything to push the religious narrative, it seems, even if it makes no logical sense: Intel has to keep upgrading regardless of what AMD does or does not do. Otherwise they stagnate in the market.


[this narrative also gets applied to Nvidia, except AMD's graphics division hasn't really competed with Nvidia for the top spot since they were ATI, so the fanboism is even more blatant, but I digress...]

P.S.: not a hater of AMD or Intel/Nvidia fanboi any more than supporting whichever makes the best part for my money. Unless AMD can put out an update to Ryzen that can compete with Intel's current single-core performance after overclocking, this Intel 6-core consumer part will be it. And let's not talk about whether AMD will be able to put up a good graphics showing for high-end gaming; we know they won't, so no point in getting butthurt.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I like how cost reductions now that AMD is making an effort to compete are deferred to AMD's efforts, despite Intel increasing performance/keeping cost over time fairly static (which is a decrease with inflation) on mainstream parts since AMD last stopped competing.

Anything to push the religious narrative, it seems, even if it makes no logical sense: Intel has to keep upgrading regardless of what AMD does or does not do. Otherwise they stagnate in the market.


[this narrative also gets applied to Nvidia, except AMD's graphics division hasn't really competed with Nvidia for the top spot since they were ATI, so the fanboism is even more blatant, but I digress...]

P.S.: not a hater of AMD or Intel/Nvidia fanboi any more than supporting whichever makes the best part for my money. And unless AMD can put out an update to Ryzen that can compete with Intel's current single-core performance after overclocking, this Intel 6-core consumer part will be it. And let's not talk about whether AMD will be able to put up a good graphics showing for high-end gaming; we know they won't, so don't no point in getting butthurt.
Click to expand...
I think you need to rethink that part... Broadwell 10c/20T $1700, Skylake (After AMD Ryzen) 10c/20t $1000. A $700 price cut this huge is not static not reflective inversely or directly to inflation.
 
JustReason said:
I think you need to rethink that part... Broadwell 10c/20T $1700, Skylake (After AMD Ryzen) 10c/20t $1000. A $700 price cut this huge is not static not reflective inversely or directly to inflation.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of this thread, I don't. We're talking about a six-core consumer part here.

Above that, Intel does what they want; AMD can disrupt the HEDT space by throwing cores at the problem and Intel can cut a few margins, but that's not this thread, and the volume is inconsequential.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Not in the context of this thread, I don't. We're talking about a six-core consumer part here.

Above that, Intel does what they want; AMD can disrupt the HEDT space by throwing cores at the problem and Intel can cut a few margins, but that's not this thread, and the volume is inconsequential.
Click to expand...
Really? You made the broad statement of price and insinuate AMD has NO impact at all, and Intel in their traditional benevolent behavior has maintained great value price CPUs over the duration of time. Sorry but that isn't how it works.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I like how cost reductions now that AMD is making an effort to compete are deferred to AMD's efforts, despite Intel increasing performance/keeping cost over time fairly static (which is a decrease with inflation) on mainstream parts since AMD last stopped competing.

Anything to push the religious narrative, it seems, even if it makes no logical sense: Intel has to keep upgrading regardless of what AMD does or does not do. Otherwise they stagnate in the market.


[this narrative also gets applied to Nvidia, except AMD's graphics division hasn't really competed with Nvidia for the top spot since they were ATI, so the fanboism is even more blatant, but I digress...]

P.S.: not a hater of AMD or Intel/Nvidia fanboi any more than supporting whichever makes the best part for my money. Unless AMD can put out an update to Ryzen that can compete with Intel's current single-core performance after overclocking, this Intel 6-core consumer part will be it. And let's not talk about whether AMD will be able to put up a good graphics showing for high-end gaming; we know they won't, so no point in getting butthurt.
Click to expand...
Dude, you might think different, but you sound like a hater. Your message is very negative. If you think Intel should be charging higher every year, you don't know a thing about the semiconductors industry and its history. Check out how expensive the first computer ever built was then compare it to the ones today...
 
JustReason said:
Really? You made the broad statement of price and insinuate AMD has NO impact at all, and Intel in their traditional benevolent behavior has maintained great value price CPUs over the duration of time. Sorry but that isn't how it works.
Click to expand...

I made a broad statement relative to the OP, and in that context, my statement remains correct. If Intel is going to react to AMD in terms of features and pricing at the consumer level, it'll be in the future.

bezant said:
Dude, you might think different, but you sound like a hater. Your message is very negative. If you think Intel should be charging higher every year, you don't know a thing about the semiconductors industry and its history. Check out how expensive the first computer ever built was then compare it to the ones today...
Click to expand...

It's also the truth, however your prejudices make it sound: AMD has not competed at the high-end for the better part of a decade, and they've not competed well in the market segments I'm personally interested in. I bought AMD when it made sense, and it hasn't made sense in a long time.
 
JustReason said:
Really? You made the broad statement of price and insinuate AMD has NO impact at all, and Intel in their traditional benevolent behavior has maintained great value price CPUs over the duration of time. Sorry but that isn't how it works.
Click to expand...

There is only one company at the time that have cut prices at the moment and its AMD. And after CFL they are going to have to do it again quite drastically.
 
Shintai said:
There is only one company at the time that have cut prices at the moment and its AMD. And after CFL they are going to have to do it again quite drastically.
Click to expand...
Amd reducing prices on some, SOME, of their CPUs does not constitute a sales slump or indicate sales issues. Could be they had a target price point and released a tad higher for that early adopters tax. Even if it was for your reason, does it matter? You got some AMD stock you are worried about? We here on this site are consumers, all we care about is getting any level of performance as cheap as possible. So I am not sure why AMD reducing prices bother you so much. Maybe jealous because Intel still rapes your wallet even on 5 year old CPUs.
 
JustReason said:
Amd reducing prices on some, SOME, of their CPUs does not constitute a sales slump or indicate sales issues. Could be they had a target price point and released a tad higher for that early adopters tax. Even if it was for your reason, does it matter? You got some AMD stock you are worried about? We here on this site are consumers, all we care about is getting any level of performance as cheap as possible. So I am not sure why AMD reducing prices bother you so much. Maybe jealous because Intel still rapes your wallet even on 5 year old CPUs.
Click to expand...

So you say AMD milked people on purpose? Or is it just the rapid value decrease on your purchase that bothers you?

I keep hearing how competition is so great for prices, yet we see no price change besides from AMD. So somewhere there is a disconnection between reality and certain posts. On the 25th we may get better insight in why ;)
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I made a broad statement relative to the OP, and in that context, my statement remains correct. If Intel is going to react to AMD in terms of features and pricing at the consumer level, it'll be in the future.



It's also the truth, however your prejudices make it sound: AMD has not competed at the high-end for the better part of a decade, and they've not competed well in the market segments I'm personally interested in. I bought AMD when it made sense, and it hasn't made sense in a long time.
Click to expand...
Actually no you are in fact WRONG.

I can tell most people on this site have never run a business or even taken a business course in college. You assume a competitor needs to have some huge marketshare to influence prices and product specs. No! A 1% marketshare competitor can be as influential as a 30% competitor. AMD first released a 6 core with Phenom into the consumer space. It was somewhat competitive IPC wise and having the large core counts definitely lofted their sales a bit. I guarantee Intel took notice. Then we got the construction cores. Higher core count still but a bit less competitive IPC wise. But the writing was already on the wall, AMD was pushing core counts to the mainstream consumer, where Intel relegated that to Server and later HEDT, both of which are priced well outside of mainstream pricing. And not to mention the race to the bottom 5-7nm and the limits to IPC and the need for multithread, higher core counts are inevitable.

The greater complaints I have seen over the years is Intel not having greater than 4c/8t CPUs in the mainstream market. AMDs Ryzen has definitely garnered their attention, the consumer as well as Intel. Hell Intel added >10c CPUs to their HEDT line in response to TR, and it isn't hard to tell it wasn't planned being there are no specs listed for any of them. Intel has to take notice when the R7-1700 is priced at the i7-7700k. For the greater part of the market, performance is relatively equal as well as price, the determining factor then becomes 4c/8t against the 8c/16t CPU.

It is asinine and quite ignorant to assume AMD has no impact on Intel, be it pricing or core counts. It is also asinine to think Intel only now would start reacting when likely they have been all along.
 
Shintai said:
So you say AMD milked people on purpose? Or is it just the rapid value decrease on your purchase that bothers you?

I keep hearing how competition is so great for prices, yet we see no price change besides from AMD. So somewhere there is a disconnection between reality and certain posts. On the 25th we may get better insight in why ;)
Click to expand...
And you don't think Intel has been raping you the whole time? Come on. They change boards every generation or so, upgrading (if you can call it that with Intel) requires the whole system, well the CPU and MoBo at least. Besides AMDs prices on equivalent core counts are far less than Intels,, so the wallet milking award is definitely Intels.
 
JustReason said:
And you don't think Intel has been raping you the whole time? Come on. They change boards every generation or so, upgrading (if you can call it that with Intel) requires the whole system, well the CPU and MoBo at least. Besides AMDs prices on equivalent core counts are far less than Intels,, so the wallet milking award is definitely Intels.
Click to expand...

If CFL doesn't work on all Z170/Z270 boards, Intel is stealing your money. There really was no reason to have Z270 let alone Z370. Let's face it...Optane memory is pretty useless in the face of NVMe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top