# Intel Core i7-7700K "Kaby Lake" Processor Detailed



## btarunr (May 2, 2016)

It looks like Intel's 7th generation performance desktop processor, the Core i7-7700K, will be a quad-core part, like the seven generations before it. Leaked SiSoft SANDRA benchmark leaderboards reveal interesting details about the chip. To begin with, this quad-core part will feature HyperThreading enabling 8 logical CPUs for the OS to deal with. It will be clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a TurboBoost frequency of 4.20 GHz. Compare this, to the 4.00 GHz nominal and 4.20 GHz TurboBoost clocks of the current-generation i7-6700K. Bear in mind that this is a pre-release engineering-sample, and may not be accurate for the production chips.

The IMC of the i7-7700K will be clocked at 4.00 GHz, and its integrated graphics core will feature 24 execution units, much like "Skylake-D." The cache setup is unchanged, too, with 256 KB per-core L2, and 8 MB shared L3 caches. The "Kaby Lake" silicon will be built on Intel's 14 nm node, and is rumored to be slightly more energy-efficient than "Skylake." It will be built in the LGA1151 package, and will be compatible with current Intel 100-series and future 200-series chipset motherboard. "Kaby Lake" is the third mainline CPU architecture by Intel on the 14 nm node (after "Broadwell" and "Skylake"). The first 7th generation Core processors could launch later this year.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Frick (May 2, 2016)

Booooring. And only four cores? That's almost oppresive at this point in time.


----------



## Fabio Pisco (May 2, 2016)

Frick said:


> Booooring. And only four cores? That's almost oppresive at this point in time.



"Inserts THANK YOU gif"


----------



## dj-electric (May 2, 2016)

A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo


----------



## Fabio Pisco (May 2, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo



Mainstream that costs 400€?

Funny xD


----------



## Frick (May 2, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo



It may be the mainstream market, but that chip is high end.


----------



## dj-electric (May 2, 2016)

Fabio Pisco said:


> Mainstream that costs 400€?
> 
> Funny xD



Yes, and its funny because a budget hexa core for X99 on 14nm will cost you the same. This mainstream CPU will be sold to the masses. That's what makes it mainstream

High end chip? correct. Strongest IPC? correct.
If the mob is angry at intel for making baby steps, it should be angry at its competition for making ant steps.


----------



## kaellar (May 2, 2016)

Yet another one Intel Core generation that has zero profit over 3 or 4 previous ones? Unless it brings back the soldered IHS instead of crappy TIMs, there's absolutely no practical point to release Kaby Lake over the Skylake other than stupid marketing.

Boy, AMD Zen better be something really serious, or the CPU market stagnation will never end.


----------



## RejZoR (May 2, 2016)

So, a next generation that is actually worse than current one. Oh joys of monopoly owned by Intel...

Even Skylake was a total disapointment. I thought it would feature EDRAM on all processors for general compute like initial rumors suggested, but it turned out to be another crappy HT quad core with nothing really new to offer. And it costs the same as a lot more powerful 5820K. Which is a HT hexacore capable of running at same clocks as 6700K. Only thing that sets them apart is board cost, but if you want a good one for 6700K, you'll also spend around 300€ very quickly.


----------



## BorisDG (May 2, 2016)

LOL and no proper replacement of Broadwell i7 5755C "L4/Iris Pro" beast?


----------



## Fabio Pisco (May 2, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Yes, and its funny because a budget hexa core for X99 on 14nm will cost you the same. This mainstream CPU will be sold to the masses. That's what makes it mainstream
> 
> High end chip? correct. Strongest IPC? correct.
> If the mob is angry at intel for making baby steps, it should be angry at its competition for making ant steps.



AMD will never price a CPU with 4 cores at 300 euros. It may happen, but i dont believe it that much. There is no need to keep launching mainstream CPU with 4c/8t, that crap is too old....if AMD can give us 8c/16t for 300€ that would be a killer


----------



## ShockG (May 2, 2016)

Too much whining about INTEL not making progress. 
They actually are, but the problem is that the applications you run are not taking advantage of the progress made.  

1. We can't keep saying the vast majority of games are GPU bound, then go on to complain about not being able to see CPU advances in those very games. Witcher 3 or GTA V @ 3840x2160 with 8xAA is a GPU bound scenario. There's no CPU that could change that. 

2. We can't keep complaining that games are developed primarily for consoles, or are ports which have weaker host CPUs, but expect INTEL to work magic in those very same games. Those games are simply not designed to take advantage of CPUs more powerful than their original target hardware. 

3. Software has always and will always drive hardware progress. If there is no killer application that necessitates the need for faster processors, then we will simply not see the progress we saw before in many generations gone by. The days of office applications like spreadsheet calculations driving development are gone. Games took over and even that has moved to the domain of the GPU. 

4. AVX has been around for several generations of CPUs and can add massive performance for applications that take advantage of those instructions. To date, not a simple game uses them. That is a silicon investment INTEL made and the tools to exploit it are there and freely available. Yet developers have not done so. 

You can't blame INTEL for not releasing a CPU that will add 20fps to your game, when your game is GPU limited. Doesn't matter how much improvement is made in IPC and clock speed, the bottleneck isn't there and to expect INTEL to somehow work magic around this is just puzzling.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 2, 2016)

Pathetic! For this crap do they expect us to change the mobo again??

@ShockG
You talk exactly like a PR manager from Intel. 
Before I bought my 3770K I was using a Core 2 Quad Q9650. Afterwards, my FPS in games almost doubled, and that is not an exaggeration.
However since 2600K CPUs, all the performance is almost identical and the same for new processors, so basically in more than 5 years, nothing happened performance wise. Are you going to PR me again?


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 2, 2016)

........the only thing the same is the same people whining.  On the consumer main stream side is there really a need for anything more?  Sandy bridge chips still  pretty much destroys whatever you throw at it..... Blame modern man for not creating a mainstream need form anything much more substantial.  Practically everything can be run on a cellphone now. I know we hate the automotive comparison....but why do we expect intel to build a 400hp minivan? And this is not a upgrade for anything made......do I really have to say it


----------



## the54thvoid (May 2, 2016)

@ShockG makes a very good point. I was about to say "crappy Intel" but the fact my Sandy E is still going along at 4.4Ghz, 4 yrs on and it is NOT the limiting factor in my rig shows how good the chips are. 
Yes, there was a huge jump when core i7 chips arrived but since then, there has not been much to take advantage of them.
Contrast with AMD's GCN architecture that has allowed their products to shine so far in DX12.  That's a hardware implementation showing excellent software improvements.

If Intel keep making top performing chips with lower and lower power draw, then they're still achieving good progress.


----------



## Dr_M (May 2, 2016)

This kind of new is like going to the church, to listen all of those old ladies complaining about everything. Who the f*ck cares. Nobody is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, don't buy, it's very simple. Or you kids just complain, because your daddy won't open his wallet?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 2, 2016)

I'm guessing there's a financial advantage to releasing so many chips so close together but I don't quite see it. We're getting a new mainstream and a new highend every year with small gains each time. You'd think it would be better to release less but make a bigger splash each time. It's not cheap to launch a new product.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

Still sitting on SB-E lol *yawn*


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 2, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ........the only thing the same is the same people whining.  On the consumer main stream side is there really a need for anything more?  Sandy bridge chips still  pretty much destroys whatever you throw at it..... Blame modern man for not creating a mainstream need form anything much more substantial.  Practically everything can be run on a cellphone now. I know we hate the automotive comparison....but why do we expect intel to build a 400hp minivan? And this is not a upgrade for anything made......do I really have to say it


People are not "whining", just making statements. If you accept everything like a nice little drone, is your choice.
Personally I was expecting after 5 years of nothing to have 6 or 8 Cores as mainstream, 24 or more PCI-Ex 3.0 lines on the CPU,etc,etc. Instead.... pfff


----------



## Dethroy (May 2, 2016)

I am just glad my Xeon E3-1230v2 is still going strong and easily handles everything I throw at it. Maybe in 2-3 years time it might be worthwile to upgrade when we hopefully see a significant boost in performance.


----------



## GeorgeMan (May 2, 2016)

Oh,  no problem at all.  Another year with my i5-2500k.


----------



## ssdpro (May 2, 2016)

There hasn't been much progress on the CPU since Sandy Bridge back in 2011.  You can move to the HEDT segment and have more cores at lower frequency or stay in the enthusiast/mainstream segment.  The real changes since SB have been on the chipset side.  SB has no USB 3, only 2 bugged SATA 6Gb/s ports, no M.2, no U.2, and the memory controller is poorly tuned and has much lower bandwidth.  

Having upgraded from an i7-2600K / Z68 through each series to my current i7-6700K / Z170, I can safely say the i7-2600K / Z68 combo was the most stable and highest quality.  It was a GREAT combo and the best Intel has done since the first i7-9xx series with X58.  It however lacks many features i actively use on the Skylake build such as M.2, USB 3, 6 SATA ports of which I use 4, and USB BIOS Flashback (ASUS). It is all about feature assessment, needs, and balance.  No right answer here.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 2, 2016)

This is afaik supposed to use the same socket/chipset as the current models.
From what I've heard, these are supposed to be massive overclockers, unlike previous generations, which is at least something.

That said, I'd also like to see more PCIe lanes as someone pointed out here, especially as we're now getting more and more storage interfaces that requires four PCIe lanes per device. Doing this via the chipset is imho not the best way, since the chipset still only has a x4 PCIe interface towards the CPU, admittedly PCIe 3.0 by now, but it needs to have a wider bus to be able to cope with future technologies. On top of that, 32 lanes for graphics cards ought to be the standard by now, but alas, unless you're willing to spend stupid money, this isn't the case.

Intel clearly doesn't care about "our" opinions, as we're a minority of its customers. For whatever reason it seems like Intel is against adding more PCIe lanes and CPU cores for this market segment.


----------



## Grings (May 2, 2016)

btarunr said:


> It will be built in the LGA1151 package, and will be compatible with current Intel 100-series and future 200-series chipset motherboard





Prima.Vera said:


> Pathetic! For this crap do they expect us to change the mobo again??


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

Wow, I'm sad we didn't get a new socket for this!.. lol I need a new quad core processor like I need a new hole in the head... I guess I'll skip this one as well for my Gaming rig.. I was hoping this series would have x6 core.. or dare I dream an x8. I bought my wife a i7 4770 middle of last year and honestly my 2600k is better at gaming (_of course I have it overclocked_) @ 4.0Ghz and I even have it on a stock cooler, because my H50 tapped out a few months ago.. literally green crap every where.. lol I'm sure someone will say you don't need x6 for gaming.. but I don't care... I want it! lol WCG needs it.



Dr_M said:


> This kind of new is like going to the church, to listen all of those old ladies complaining about everything. Who the f*ck cares. Nobody is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, don't buy, it's very simple. Or you kids just complain, because your daddy won't open his wallet?



So, you're one of those people.. Why do you care? This is a tech forum.. bitching kind of goes along with it. You sir should take up cross stitching that's something that never changes and people who do it never complain about it not changing.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

ssdpro said:


> There hasn't been much progress on the CPU since Sandy Bridge back in 2011.  You can move to the HEDT segment and have more cores at lower frequency or stay in the enthusiast/mainstream segment.  The real changes since SB have been on the chipset side.  SB has no USB 3, only 2 bugged SATA 6Gb/s ports, no M.2, no U.2, and the memory controller is poorly tuned and has much lower bandwidth.
> 
> Having upgraded from an i7-2600K / Z68 through each series to my current i7-6700K / Z170, I can safely say the i7-2600K / Z68 combo was the most stable and highest quality.  It was a GREAT combo and the best Intel has done since the first i7-9xx series with X58.  It however lacks many features i actively use on the Skylake build such as M.2, USB 3, 6 SATA ports of which I use 4, and USB BIOS Flashback (ASUS). It is all about feature assessment, needs, and balance.  No right answer here.


I have USB3 (even 3.1 Gen 2), 4 SATA 3 ports (only use 1), and M.2  Course I've been on this platform for uh 4 years almost. (damn)


----------



## Condelio (May 2, 2016)

Started building my skylake itx build in november...life happened during this months.. Only thing left is a 6700k cpu... Didn't know if buy it or wait for kaby...  and if my skylake z170 mobo would work with a 7700k.. Only thing nice with this small advancements is that your investment lasts a little longer


----------



## ShockG (May 2, 2016)

We have an odd relationship with Sandy-Bridge. 
Sure it was wonderful to overclock, but remember we were stuck with DDR3 2133 and a much poorer platform as well. That virtually all CPUs could do 5GHz 24/7 doesn't mean much when a 6700K @ 4.0GHz is faster and requires less power, while offering more. 
XTU on* Sandy Bridge @ 5.8GHz = 1,206 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/3201843_minicoopers_xtu_core_i7_2600k_1206_marks
XTU on *Skylake @ 4GHz = 1,402 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/3196014_skvortsoff_xtu_core_i7_6700k_1402_marks

But for some reason, we keep saying there's not been any improvement -_-
*Cinebench R15 on Sandy Bridge @ 5.95GHz = 1,059 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/2816223_leeghoofd_cinebench___r15_core_i7_2600k_1059_cb
*Cinebench R15 on Skylake @ 4.8GHz = 1,060 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/3190771_papusan_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6700k_1060_cb

Cinebench doesn't even rely on AVX instructions like XTU at all. At almost 1.2GHz slower, Skylake gives a higher result. 

So yeah, want to point fingers at anyone for the lack of progress. Don't blame INTEL as they have genuinely been doing the work. turn to the devs, which up to today are still largely incapable of taking advantage of more than 4 threads. (Core i3 6320 @ 4.6GHz regularly matched 6600K @ 4~4.4GHz)


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 2, 2016)

@Grings 
Lol. I was talking about myself there. Im on a 3770k, but my mobo is on the verge of colapsing. So I need to change evrything now. CPU, RAM, Mobo... And this pos new CPU doesn't look like it brings something new to the table from the last gen...might as well go for the 6 core old gen one.


----------



## ssdpro (May 2, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> I have USB3 (even 3.1 Gen 2), 4 SATA 3 ports (only use 1), and M.2  Course I've been on this platform for uh 4 years almost. (damn)



Setting aside we aren't talking about HEDT boards and my comparison was SB to following platforms, anything listed can only be on a X79 using a crippled 3rd party add on controller.  I'm talking about native fully functional features boyz.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

ShockG said:


> We have an odd relationship with Sandy-Bridge.
> Sure it was wonderful to overclock, but remember we were stuck with DDR3 2133 and a much poorer platform as well. That virtually all CPUs could do 5GHz 24/7 doesn't mean much when a 6700K @ 4.0GHz is faster and requires less power, while offering more.
> XTU on* Sandy Bridge @ 5.8GHz = 1,206 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/3201843_minicoopers_xtu_core_i7_2600k_1206_marks
> XTU on *Skylake @ 4GHz = 1,402 points* - http://hwbot.org/submission/3196014_skvortsoff_xtu_core_i7_6700k_1402_marks
> ...


And yet despite what synthetics show, my 3960x performs relatively the same as my friend's 5930k similarly clocked and my best friends 5960x @ 4.2 loses to my 4.5GHz clocked 3960x at some real world tasks. Synthetics can be used to show the differences in raw brute power BUT as you've said several times developers in all areas aren't utilizing this power so to us, the end user/consumer, it doesn't make much of a difference. I think the point you're missing here is the simple fact that without any real world differences nobody cares what Intel releases. Software will always be behind hardware and when these modern CPUs actually show a bottleneck there will be something new and shiny that's several gens newer.

Honestly, I quite like a release every year. It means newer technology that's platform dependent gets adopted faster. Can't snub my nose at that. Course if I can get an AIC that does the same thing and save myself a few bucks I'd rather do that.




ssdpro said:


> Setting aside we aren't talking about HEDT boards and my comparison was SB to following platforms, anything listed can only be on a X79 using a crippled 3rd party add on controller.  I'm talking about native fully functional features boyz.


Funny, my 3.1 Gen 2 card is fully functional, and my PCI-E M.2 performs on par with rated speeds. Crippled? I think not. Then again, a PCI-E 2.0 slot will supply enough bandwidth for 3.1 Gen 1 so anybody running a 2500k or 2600k and a single card would have that capability and still run everything. As an early adopter I can tell you there's no real world benefit to using PCI-E M.2 over SATA currently, NVMe or not. Don't see the issue here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2016)

I'm just going to leave this here:


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm just going to leave this here:


Lookit that, lots more room for more cores....oh wait.


----------



## GhostRyder (May 2, 2016)

Wish we would get a little more love on the basic platform, but seeing as how 4 cores will still do enough for a majority of tasks that is where we are going to stay.

Interesting processor clocks, would like to see this chip in action.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2016)

Yeah, we're being robbed and most people don't bat an eye.  8-cores should be mainstream at $300 by now.  Instead, price (inflation adjusted) and core count stays the same while cost to produce goes down.  Intel is making a killing.  Only thing stopping them is ARM devices.

Now to top it off, Moore's Law is collapsing so...Kaby Lake is born.  These are not the best of days for tech.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, we're being robbed and most people don't bat an eye.  8-cores should be mainstream at $400 by now.


Speak for yourself buddy  I think I might get Zen just for S&G's.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2016)

Oh, I know I got robbed but I couldn't wait another 1-2 years for Zen.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oh, I know I got robbed but I couldn't wait another 1-2 years for Zen.


Wouldn't make sense to release boards this year then only release APUs, course it wouldn't be the only dumb thing AMD has done. Guess we'll see. My main rig update will be to Skylake-E so you're not the only one, but I have several uses for more cores too. Will probably last another 4-5 years.


----------



## Sasqui (May 2, 2016)

This is yet another reason for the desktop segment to stagnate.  Other than DDR4, the grass sure isn't much greener beyond Haswell.

Give us something big...


----------



## GhostRyder (May 2, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, we're being robbed and most people don't bat an eye.  8-cores should be mainstream at $300 by now.  Instead, price (inflation adjusted) and core count stays the same while cost to produce goes down.  Intel is making a killing.  Only thing stopping them is ARM devices.
> 
> Now to top it off, Moore's Law is collapsing so...Kaby Lake is born.  These are not the best of days for tech.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Oh, I know I got robbed but I couldn't wait another 1-2 years for Zen.


Yea, I was hoping at least to have the i5 now be the 4 core 8 thread processor with the i7 starting at 6 cores 12 threads but were probably not going to see that anytime soon the way things are going.  Glad I invested in my processor, but I think it won't be changed out for years to come.  Guess I can't complain about being happy with it for years , but would be nice to have major reasons to upgrade on the processor front.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

At the end of the day 1151 is mainstream and 2011 is hedt. Intel is making plenty of money keeping those split. If you want 10 cores buy an x99 and wait. Until then enjoy the fact that Intels mainstream quad core offers similar performance to the last gen of hexa cores from Intel and more performance than the 8 module 16 core amd server chips.


----------



## trog100 (May 2, 2016)

on the one hand we have gear that lasts a long time on the other hand the poor old gearhead has trouble remaining a gearhead.. win some lose some.. 

none of this is about performance its all about an excuse to buy new stuff to play with.. he he..

all we have here is little skylake tweaking under a new name and a new "generation" it seems the latest generation is now what its all about.. my poor old devils canyon (bought last summer) will soon be a geriatric three generations behind.. 

trog


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

trog100 said:


> *on the one hand we have gear that lasts a long time on the other hand the poor old gearhead has trouble remaining a gearhead.. win some lose some..
> 
> none of this is about performance its all about an excuse to buy new stuff to play with.. he he..*
> 
> ...


Can't agree more. I'm bored as shit with X79.


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2016)

Frick said:


> Booooring. And only four cores? That's almost oppresive at this point in time.


If you want cores, use the HEDT platform. This is mainstream.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> If you want cores, use the HEDT platform. This is mainstream.



I don't quite understand why people don't get this. Also people need to remember AMD's current mainstream is an A10 APU. So roughly the performance of a 3rd gen pentium dual core, with a cheap r7 graphics card.


----------



## Toothless (May 2, 2016)

Hey guys, dump your Intel rigs, use a FX6300 for two months, and we'll come back to our i7s and drop a brick in our pants like when we first got our chips.

Fake an upgrade.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

Toothless said:


> Hey guys, dump your Intel rigs, use a FX6300 for two months, and we'll come back to our i7s and drop a brick in our pants like when we first got our chips.
> 
> Fake an upgrade.


When my main rig was down for water upgrades I used my 940BE with only 6GB of DDR2 1066 for about 2 weeks and it really wasn't that bad. The only thing I missed having was my SSD, but only because I was being lazy and didn't want to install crap.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

Toothless said:


> Hey guys, dump your Intel rigs, use a FX6300 for two months, and we'll come back to our i7s and drop a brick in our pants like when we first got our chips.
> 
> Fake an upgrade.



I use one at work every single day side by side with a 4770@4ghz. Oddly enough the internet loads just as fast and data transfers just as fast.


----------



## Frick (May 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> I don't quite understand why people don't get this. Also people need to remember AMD's current mainstream is an A10 APU. So roughly the performance of a 3rd gen pentium dual core, with a cheap r7 graphics card.





EarthDog said:


> If you want cores, use the HEDT platform. This is mainstream.



Sure I get it. But I disagree with it is all. Quad cores have been at the high end of the mainstream for a decade now, and while there are few reasons for it to move to more cores ... it would still be nice, and we're getting there performance-wise. The next gen from Intel should be (on desktop) like now, but bumped up a step. IE 2C/4T for Celeron/Pentium (maybe apart from the €30 CPU's), 4C/4T for i3's and 4C/8T for i5s and 6C/12T (and maybe even 8C/16T Xeon parts for mainstream) for i7's. But then they'd step on their own toes and their precious market segmentation. I just like the idea to start a build with a Celeron and end up with a sixteen thread monster.


----------



## Grings (May 2, 2016)

They should give the i5 hyperthreading on 2 cores, other than the 6600k (and only because its unlocked) the higher clocked i3's are a better proposition


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

Frick said:


> Sure I get it. But I disagree with it is all. Quad cores have been at the high end of the mainstream for a decade now, and while there are few reasons for it to move to more cores ... it would still be nice, and we're getting there performance-wise. The next gen from Intel should be (on desktop) like now, but bumped up a step. IE 2C/4T for Celeron/Pentium (maybe apart from the €30 CPU's), 4C/4T for i3's and 4C/8T for i5s and 6C/12T (and maybe even 8C/16T Xeon parts for mainstream) for i7's. But then they'd step on their own toes and their precious market segmentation. I just like the idea to start a build with a Celeron and end up with a sixteen thread monster.



Why? Is there some mystical software that an average user has that actually needs more than a 4C/8T?


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 2, 2016)

Any news when Intel Core i7-6850K will be released? This i7-7700K is boring like hell


----------



## Grings (May 2, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Any news when Intel Core i7-6850K will be released? This i7-7700K is boring like hell



Is that the Skylake with l4 cache/iris pro? because despite kaby lake working with z170... yeah, new chipset for that one lol


----------



## Fx (May 2, 2016)

Intel doesn't seem to care to motivate me to upgrade from my FX 8350, and at this rate, my Xeon 1270 v3 will be doing just fine as well for a very long time.

I can easily wait until Zen. *yawn*


----------



## cadaveca (May 2, 2016)

You can't get six cores in a socket that doesn't have the pins to support it. It's literally that simple.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> You can't get six cores in a socket that doesn't have the pins to support it. It's literally that simple.



You stop your dirty logic.


----------



## techy1 (May 2, 2016)

it is funny that some people to our intels critique replies with something "do not like it? - go HEDT"... funny that few weeks from now there will be a new gen HEDT and price performance actually is expected go DOWN (from specs and price leaks which happen to be pretty treatable about this time)... so where can we go now? or should we just be happy that a 2 year upgrade (yes - intel upgrades at 2 year rate now) time brings nothing, but higher prices (and some "useful" iGPU performance increase - if not HEDT) ?


----------



## ZoneDymo (May 2, 2016)

Dr_M said:


> This kind of new is like going to the church, to listen all of those old ladies complaining about everything. Who the f*ck cares. Nobody is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, don't buy, it's very simple. Or you kids just complain, because your daddy won't open his wallet?




Look in the mirror and see the irony.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> You can't get six cores in a socket that doesn't have the pins to support it. It's literally that simple.


And oddly they sell us a chip that has 8 logical cores with those pins..  So, it would seem they have figured out how to fit 8 logical cores into a chip that doesn't have the pins to support it.  If Intel can do it I wonder why car companies haven't figured out how to sell us a 4 cylinder with Hyperthreading and sell it as an 8x logical cylinder vehicle. All jokes aside I'm just bored at the moment with CPU's.. I mean I could tell the jump from my old 9550 to a 920, to a 860, and from a 860 to 2600k... and I've bought every socket after my 2600k (_I just haven't upgraded my gaming rig_), but not anything past it. It's actually starting to feel like p3 and p4 days again.. Only thing is AMD doesn't feel like socket A days...

I know we can buy a 6x with 2011 (_I have one_), but those are still extreme prices. I would like to see a 6x with hyperthreading cheaper, for the current price of an i7 k series. Let's have quad core i3's.. I'd like to get excited over a cpu like I did with the C2D E6300 or even the E8400 where I hit 4ghz on a cheap mid level cooler (_I could go back to Math co days, but I feel I will loss my crowd.. and show my age.. lol_). Do we ever expect to see an i8? I'm just an old hardware junky Dave.. I need my fix!..lol



cdawall said:


> You stop your dirty logic.


Dirty indeed!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

I'm not sure why anyone expected anything different.  The socket isn't wired for more than 4c/8t, so that is exactly what we are going to get.


----------



## idx (May 2, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo



Not when it is priced at 380-400 EUR ! what Intel is doing right now is nothing but huge marketing BS.


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2016)

techy1 said:


> it is funny that some people to our intels critique replies with something "do not like it? - go HEDT"... funny that few weeks from now there will be a new gen HEDT and price performance actually is expected go DOWN (from specs and price leaks which happen to be pretty treatable about this time)... so where can we go now? or should we just be happy that a 2 year upgrade (yes - intel upgrades at 2 year rate now) time brings nothing, but higher prices (and some "useful" iGPU performance increase - if not HEDT) ?


Maybe... that depends. We need to see pricing and performance to make that call. 

If leaks are right, seems to be about right give or take a few dollars. Remember, there is a deca-core at the top of the heap, so with normal pricing structure, it should be more than the $1K Octo..


----------



## Frick (May 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Why? Is there some mystical software that an average user has that actually needs more than a 4C/8T?



God no. Avarage users have no need to buy anything over two cores. But a high end chip isn't for avarage users.



cadaveca said:


> You can't get six cores in a socket that doesn't have the pins to support it. It's literally that simple.



Now that I didn't know.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm not sure why anyone expected anything different.  The socket isn't wired for more than 4c/8t, so that is exactly what we are going to get.


I know your expectations are low and everyone else that's ok with these tick, tick, tick, tick.. I gather that, but I choose for my expectations to be high.. I'm ready for a tock... You know push the envelope a little... 

Oh and buddy, I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from.. I don't care if they change the socket to get a 6 or 8 core cpu for at most $329. Everybody is stuck on the socket not supporting more than 4 cores. It hasn't stopped Intel from changing the socket on the last 5 i7's.. So, change it again... and I know we have 2011.. I'm looking for main stream being an x6 not an x4. OK, I've said what I want.. I'm becoming bored with it. buddy you have a blue screen free day!


----------



## Toothless (May 2, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> When my main rig was down for water upgrades I used my 940BE with only 6GB of DDR2 1066 for about 2 weeks and it really wasn't that bad. The only thing I missed having was my SSD, but only because I was being lazy and didn't want to install crap.





cdawall said:


> I use one at work every single day side by side with a 4770@4ghz. Oddly enough the internet loads just as fast and data transfers just as fast.


Okay, then we'll run on PII's and we'll all try to video render while crunching at the same time.

_ALL DA POINTZ



Grings said:



			They should give the i5 hyperthreading on 2 cores, other than the 6600k (and only because its unlocked) the higher clocked i3's are a better proposition
		
Click to expand...

_
Laptops.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

Toothless said:


> Okay, then we'll run on PII's and we'll all try to video render while crunching at the same time.
> 
> _ALL DA POINTZ_



Can't do that well with any CPU.



Frick said:


> God no. Avarage users have no need to buy anything over two cores. But a high end chip isn't for avarage users.



Hence why it isn't on 2011 and came out on 1151 the average socket.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Read the fucking post.


Oddly, this post I didn't find boring.. Let's ask more nicely in the future buddy.  Let's all keep it civil, warning issued.


----------



## Ikaruga (May 2, 2016)

ShockG said:


> 4. AVX has been around for several generations of CPUs and can add massive performance for applications that take advantage of those instructions. To date, not a simple game uses them. That is a silicon investment INTEL made and the tools to exploit it are there and freely available. Yet developers have not done so.


 I think Grid2 uses AVX if avail, and since AVX2 can be used for integer operations too, compilers probably use it all the time for optimizations.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 2, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Lookit that, lots more room for more cores....oh wait.



Its not really about room. More cores would most definitely require more pins. Theres a platform for that too.



Mindweaver said:


> Oddly, this post I didn't find boring.. Let's ask more nicely in the future buddy.  Let's all keep it civil, warning issued.



Will do. I just find he posts more often than not without actually reading the article.


----------



## TheHunter (May 2, 2016)

Crysis3 or MHF online or GTA5 or newer COD's as well, mostly by game loading.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 2, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Speak for yourself buddy  I think I might get Zen just for S&G's.



....so the choices are: spend money on over priced hardware that does deliver or....




spend money on tech thats over hyped but would have been awesome if it was release several years ago...




Either way :




one gonna hurt ya...and one gonna hurt ya...but you'll like it.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> I know your expectations are low and everyone else that's ok with these tick, tick, tick, tick.. I gather that, but I choose for my expectations to be high.. I'm ready for a tock... You know push the envelope a little...
> 
> Oh and buddy, I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from.. I don't care if they change the socket to get a 6 or 8 core cpu for at most $329. Everybody is stuck on the socket not supporting more than 4 cores. It hasn't stopped Intel from changing the socket on the last 5 i7's.. So, change it again... and I know we have 2011.. I'm looking for main stream being an x6 not an x4. OK, I've said what I want.. I'm becoming bored with it. buddy you have a blue screen free day!



Honestly, the 6-core being available for $390 is good.  That is a $200 decrease in price compared to the 6-core from the previous generation.

There is no demand, or need, for more than 4c/8t in the mainstream, so what reason does Intel have to release even cheaper 6-core parts to the mainstream market?


----------



## Toothless (May 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Honestly, the 6-core being available for $390 is good.  That is a $200 decrease in price compared to the 6-core from the previous generation.
> 
> There is no demand, or need, for more than 4c/8t in the mainstream, so what reason does Intel have to release even cheaper 6-core parts to the mainstream market?


Poor people like me to get something op.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

Toothless said:


> Poor people like me to get something op.



Then get a cheap X99 the board is no more expensive


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Then get a cheap X99 the board is no more expensive



Yep, going 2011-3 6c/12t is not that much more expensive than 1151 4c/8t.

Hell, you can go to newegg right now and get an X99 board for $150.


----------



## cdawall (May 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Yep, going 2011-3 6c/12t is not that much more expensive than 1151 4c/8t.
> 
> Hell, you can go to newegg right now and get an X99 board for $150.



Microcenter is $40 off the board when you buy it with a CPU. Open items are half off right now.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Honestly, the 6-core being available for $390 is good.  That is a $200 decrease in price compared to the 6-core from the previous generation.
> 
> There is no demand, or need, for more than 4c/8t in the mainstream, so what reason does Intel have to release even cheaper 6-core parts to the mainstream market?



Yea, I think my 2011 v3 5820k is a great processor and at a great price a year ago when I built it. You don't think it's time for 6 core to be main stream? I mean how long was dual core main stream before quad core came along. That's my only argument. Oh and yes there is a demand for it.. Head over to WCG and ask a few members. There is not a need for it simple because it's not main stream. There wasn't a need for quad cores until later when it became main stream to have a quad core in gaming. If a 6-core becomes main steam then we will see apps that use it. I build all of my apps to be multi threaded apps in visual studio, but before most people had multi threaded cpu's there wasn't a need. I'm just saying lets create the need. 

I spent a little over $1400 bucks on my 5820k system at newegg a year ago. I can't get you guys to see what I'm saying.. I don't see why Intel needs pr when they have you guys pushing their product...


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> You don't think it's time for 6 core to be main stream?



No, no mainstream use requires or even really benefits from more than 4c/8t.



Mindweaver said:


> Oh and yes there is a demand for it.. Head over to WCG and ask a few members.



WCG is not mainstream users.



Mindweaver said:


> I mean how long was dual core main stream before quad core came along.



The first dual-cores came out in mid-2005, and they were mainstream priced at about $250. But they needed to be mainstream, the demand was there, software had outpaced single core processors because we had been on single core processors for so long.  The first quad-core came out in early-2007, but definitely weren't mainstream.  The Q6600 started priced at $850.  It's successor, the Q9550, came out in early 2008 and was still out of mainstream reach at $530.  Quad-core didn't hit the mainstream market until around mid-2009 when the Lynnfield i5's came out in the $200 price range.  But then it was just kind of like..."yeah, mainstream doesn't need anything more."  I mean, what mainstream application can you name that would benefit from a processor with more than 4c/8t?  Sure, there are areas that benefit, but nothing the mainstream user is doing.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Yea, I think my 2011 v3 5820k is a great processor and at a great price a year ago when I built it. You don't think it's time for 6 core to be main stream? I mean how long was dual core main stream before quad core came along. That's my only argument. Oh and yes there is a demand for it.. Head over to WCG and ask a few members. There is not a need for it simple because it's not main stream. There wasn't a need for quad cores until later when it became main stream to have a quad core in gaming. If a 6-core becomes main steam then we will see apps that use it. I build all of my apps to be multi threaded apps in visual studio, but before most people had multi threaded cpu's there wasn't a need. I'm just saying lets create the need.
> 
> I spent a little over $1400 bucks on my 5820k system at newegg a year ago. I can't get you guys to see what I'm saying.. I don't see why Intel needs pr when they have you guys pushing their product...


This. We want to put more than 4 cores at work in SFF machines for coders, compilers and engineers but we can't because you can't get more than 4 Intel cores in a tiny box like that. We would like not to spend 2500 on workstations for people that don't need that type of machine and it's definitely feasible. People need to realize there's more market than consumer.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

sameol'tekie1 said:


> No, no mainstream use requires or even really benefits from more than 4c/8t.
> WCG is not mainstream users.



Obviously you can't see my side. Simply put make it and then there will be a need.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Obviously you can't see my side. Simply put make it and then there will be a need.



Yeah, I get it, it is the classic "if you build it they will come" mentality. The thing is, they did build it, and it hasn't come.  We've had 6, 8 core processors for years now and nothing has come.  

Heck, AMD banked on your exact idea.  They built an architecture around the hopes that if they built 8-core processors, the mainstream software would come around that would take advantage of those extra cores.  It just didn't happen.

It turns out that what mainstream users do with their computer doesn't benefit from more than 4c/8t.  You aren't going to just think up a whole new thing for mainstream users to do on their computer.  Just because they now have more cores, they aren't going to start using their computers to do something new.  And I'd bet, if we knew Intel's actual sales numbers, we'd see the 2c/2t and 2c/4t processors outsold the entire rest of their lineup combined in terms of number of units sold.


----------



## cadaveca (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Obviously you can't see my side. Simply put make it and then there will be a need.


That's the thing.. they do make it. Sure, It's on different socket, but because such devices (high-end SKUs of any platform) do not sell in large numbers, it'd still be adopted in small numbers. Also, there is the cost factor of X99 vs Z170, and for a 6700K now, or a 5820K there is minor differences in cost.

All that said, I have 4960X in multiples, 5820K, 5930K in multiples, but guess what sits in my daily rigs?

6700K. It's low-power, low heat, and thereby low noise, too. It's also clocked higher at stock speeds. The cost of hardware for me is minimal; I could have whatever I wanted, and I don't want a hot 6-core CPU.

Z170 is designed with a specific power envelope, and a 6-core chip would be clocked at likely 2.6 GHz or less in order to work within the design. You do need to keep in mind that you don't just add cores, you also need to add cache, and cache is very hot, and very power-hungry.

Plus, who needs a 6-core with an iGP? Mainstream platform includes iGP for many generations now, and many generation to come. Power design, low pin count, and iGP don't mix. SMH. Maybe in 2020, but even then... I don't see any need.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, I get it, it is the classic "if you build it they will come" mentality. The thing is, they did build it, and it hasn't come.  We've had 6, 8 core processors for years now and nothing has come.
> 
> Heck, AMD banked on your exact idea.  They built an architecture around the hopes that if they built 8-core processors, the mainstream software would come around that would take advantage of those extra cores.  It just didn't happen.
> 
> It turns out that what mainstream users do with their computer doesn't benefit from more than 4c/8t.  You aren't going to just think up a whole new thing for mainstream users to do on their computer.  Just because they now have more cores, they aren't going to start using their computers to do something new.  And I'd bet, if we knew Intel's actual sales numbers, we'd see the 2c/2t and 2c/4t processors outsold the entire rest of their lineup combined in terms of number of units sold.


No last time I checked AMD hasn't made a true consumer 8 core processor... 4 bulldozer cores or what ever they want to call the latest isn't a true 8 core processor.



cadaveca said:


> That's the thing.. they do make it. Sure, It's on different socket, but because such devices (high-end SKUs of any platform) do not sell in large numbers, it'd still be adopted in small numbers. Also, there is the cost factor of X99 vs Z170, and for a 6700K now, or a 5820K there is minor differences in cost.
> 
> All that said, I have 4960X in multiples, 5820K, 5930K in multiples, but guess what sits in my daily rigs?
> 
> ...


2011 isn't main stream and it wasn't affordable up until 1151 that has ddr4. I spent $299 on my Ram in my 5820k a year ago.

@both - You both have good points. I understand your stance. Main stream to me is a system that can be built between 600-800 bucks. Honestly speaking do you think the performance will be any different between a 6700k @4.5ghz than a 7700k @4.5ghz? I don't even think there will be that much of a difference in a 4770k or 4790k at 4.5ghz than the unreleased 7700k @4.5ghz. Now if the 7700k clocks to 5.0ghz on mid cooling then, WIN! Good stuff guys! I just got home and I need to prepare supper for my girls (_mommy included_).


----------



## cadaveca (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> 2011 isn't main stream and it wasn't affordable up until 1151 that has ddr4. I spent $299 on my Ram in my 5820k a year ago.


You can now get 32 GB of DDR4 for <$200



Mindweaver said:


> Honestly speaking do you think the performance will be any different between a 6700k @4.5ghz than a 7700k @4.5ghz? I don't even think there is that much of a difference in a 4770k or 4790k at 4.5ghz than the unreleased 7700k. Good stuff guys! I just got home and I need to prepare supper for my girls (_mommy included_).



OC speeds don't matter. It's stock clocks that matter for mainstream. Choose a side, you can't have both.

But yes, there will always be a difference. Take a look at iGP performance.

Anyway, enjoy!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 2, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> No last time I checked AMD hasn't made a true consumer 8 core processor... 4 bulldozer cores or what ever they want to call the latest isn't a true 8 core processor.



Sure they are.  And in work loads that actually use all 8 of those cores, the 8-Core AMD is very powerful or was for its time.  The FX-83XX series was the go to chip for video encoding on the cheap.  It hung with the 6c/12t intel chips of the time in multi-threaded tasks like video encoding.

But that is besides the point.  The fact is the mainstream market is still dominated by dual-core processors.  We've had quad-cores available in the mainstream price points for years, almost 7 years by my count, and mainstream users aren't buying them in large quantities.  They are buying the dual-core chips.  So if the need for quad-core isn't there, and quad-core has been around for a good long while, what makes you think that just because 6-cores becomes reachable to the mainstream users there will suddenly be a need for them?  It just isn't going to happen.



cadaveca said:


> You can now get 32 GB of DDR4 for <$200



And 16GB, which is more than any mainstream user will need, for $50...


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> And 16GB, which is more than any mainstream user will need, for $50...


It's only in the last 8-12 months that 16 GB is really needed. It is now priced where it needs to be for mainstream adoption, thankfully.

I can't stress this point enough though...* if you aren't using the iGP provided in the mainstream socket, you're not a mainstream user*, so of course Intel's plans for 7700K do not make sense. No big deal. That's what I meant about pins not matched to what's required... anyone that needs/wants 6 CPU cores is using a discrete graphics card. It literally how the market works right now. Us enthusiasts account for such a small part of the market, yet so many of use are not on Intel's enthusiast platform. That platform, the enthusiast HEDT platform, offers everything an enthusiast wants... high core counts, high PCIe connectivity, high number of drive ports, high ram densities. So what if the cost of entry is too high... that just means you need to work harder so you can afford it. Intel isn't about providing the most affordable solutions. That's AMD's market.


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2016)

I've had a really fun time reading this thread. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath (or drink a beer,) and calm down.

First of all, this is a mainstream platform, so lets define "mainstream."
Google says,


			
				Google said:
			
		

> n. the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.



So mainstream would be what the average consumer needs out of a device and traditionally there have been a couple things that the general public wants (in general):

Faster devices
Smaller form factors
Extended battery life (mobile.)
Lower total cost of ownership.
The way that Intel has gone after all of these fairly well by improving IPC from generation to generation with a general increase in clocks up to ~3.6-4Ghz on average, smaller manufacturing processes allow for lower voltages which benefits ULV devices (such as xxxx-U series Intel CPUs on laptops,) and by improving the iGPU there is very little need for *the mainstream user* to need more than what Intel is providing on chip.

So yes, Intel is doing a great job producing a mainstream chip. The problem that people like @Mindweaver has is that he wants his needs from a computer to be mainstream needs, which probably isn't realistic given the kinds of users here at TPU. So while I know that I would want a cheap mainstream chip that runs at high clocks, has a lot of cores and, doesn't have a GPU, that's not realistic for the average consumer or business which is what Intel is trying to target.

...and for what it's worth, I would consider myself a power user considering what I do in my free time as well as being a software engineer professionally but, when push comes to shove even people like me don't always need a super powerful machine. I'm writing this on a laptop with a 4700HQ. It's a laptop, I do laptop like things on it, I even dev on it but, when push comes to shove, if I need more power I use a server which is venturing outside of what would be considered mainstream as I suspect most normal users aren't writing applications or libraries.

Personally, I think this is in line with what Intel has been trying to achieve and that's taking over the iGPU market while reducing TDP on mobile devices. That is what the average consumer wants, so that is what we will get. It's really as simple as that... and if you don't like it, you can always pay for a pair of Xeons just like businesses do. 

tl;dr: We users here at TPU are probably the furthest from the definition of mainstream users but, even us power users don't always need maximum performance. Intel is merely catering to the masses and you shouldn't get too upset because we are the minority. Intel cares about businesses that need long battery life on laptops and slim/cheap/fast workstations and that your run of the mill user wants a computer that simply works. I want a cheap 100 core CPU just as much as the next person but, the reality is that we're confined to dealing with what the masses need or coughing up the dough for what businesses pay for servers. Thats simply reality because more will always cost you.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Yea, I think my 2011 v3 5820k is a great processor and at a great price a year ago when I built it. You don't think it's time for 6 core to be main stream? I mean how long was dual core main stream before quad core came along. That's my only argument. Oh and yes there is a demand for it.. Head over to WCG and ask a few members. There is not a need for it simple because it's not main stream. There wasn't a need for quad cores until later when it became main stream to have a quad core in gaming. If a 6-core becomes main steam then we will see apps that use it. I build all of my apps to be multi threaded apps in visual studio, but before most people had multi threaded cpu's there wasn't a need. I'm just saying lets create the need.
> 
> I spent a little over $1400 bucks on my 5820k system at newegg a year ago. I can't get you guys to see what I'm saying.. I don't see why Intel needs pr when they have you guys pushing their product...



6 Core was mainstream it was called the 1035T, 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, and 1090T


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> 6 Core was mainstream it was called the 1035T, 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, and 1090T


I think that was AMD's attempt to fit the bill as both mainstream and cost-effective performance. The reality is that AMD had the same platform for performance and economy parts which muddied the waters (AM2-AM3+) since both a Sempron and one of those 6c CPUs could run on the same platform.


----------



## rruff (May 3, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> If the mob is angry at intel for making baby steps, it should be angry at its competition for making ant steps.



They will need to make chips that self destruct in 3 years in order force upgrades.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

If we checked Intel sales figures you'd see enterprise market is over half the market share because OEMs buy in bulk (whether it be for large studios, enterprise applications like ours, datacenter, mobile enterprise, whatever). Then OEMs sell to large companies like mine in bulk at a hefty discount. The "Mainstream" user in this case isn't your typical 12 year old internet user or gamer. 6 core SFF machines have been wanted for a while but instead these guys have large expensive workstations under their desk to do tasks that use the CPU but not all of them get these machines because they're extremely expensive even at an enterprise discount. We can get HP Prodesk 800s with Skylake for 400 a pop with 16GB of DDR4 and a 250GB SSD but if we wanted 6 cores and 12 threads we'd have to buy an HP Z440 or Dell Precision equivalent which is over 1500 and that's for Haswell-EP. Before the "6 core will up the price" rebuttal happens they tack the extra cost to workstations because they come stock with a Quadro card. We can get the SFF machines with just IGP which is perfectly fine for a coder, software compiler, or even the media team. If we could get 6 core SFF machines I guarantee you Lockheed would do the next refresh (next year) with a bunch of 6 core i7 "mainstream" chips. That's a huge chunk of cash to whatever OEM we use. We will never do such a thing with workstations because they simply aren't cost effective except for the Catia engineers, which are the only guys who get them.  We can even get the midsize Prodesk 800 equipped with an M2000 for 500. That's a TON better than a Z440 with an M2000, or K4200. Seriously, they would gobble that shit up.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 3, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Pathetic! For this crap do they expect us to change the mobo again??
> 
> @ShockG
> You talk exactly like a PR manager from Intel.
> ...


Did you even read his comment? There have been many improvements in the form of new instruction sets, but no games use them, despite the tools being available for some time. And most games today are GPU bound, thus no real improvement from whatever IPC improvements intel makes. There has been a steady rate of improvement, with the next gen of chips on average doing the same work at 100MHz slower clock rate, but games dont need more CPU power.

I dont understand why people complain though. You get to keep your old parts for way longer, instead of sinking money into the CPU and mobo, you can get larger SSDs, better GPUs, and you can just add new expansion cards for newer interfaces like m.2 and usb 3.1.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> 6 core SFF machines have been wanted for a while but instead these guys have large expensive workstations under their desk to do tasks that use the CPU but not all of them get these machines because they're extremely expensive even at an enterprise discount.



SFF 6-core isn't expensive. It costs the same as any other 6-core build. My render box is based off of this X99 mITX motherboard (which comes with cooler included):

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASRock/X99E-ITX_AC/


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> I think that was AMD's attempt to fit the bill as both mainstream and cost-effective performance. The reality is that AMD had the same platform for performance and economy parts which muddied the waters (AM2-AM3+) since both a Sempron and one of those 6c CPUs could run on the same platform.



Correct and a mainstream platform should allow exactly that. Same thing Intel would be doing if they put 6 core chips on 115x.


----------



## Aquinus (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Correct and a mainstream platform should allow exactly that. Same thing Intel would be doing if they put 6 core chips on 115x.


The only reason AMD could do that though was because a lot of hardware was on the motherboards. Pinning was less important than it is now since a lot of CPUs have moved things like the PCI-E root complex to the CPU instead of having it as part of the motherboard on the Northbridge/PCH/IOH. The main difference in pinning between Intel's current mainstream and HEDT platforms is really to accommodate the PCI-E lanes and the extra memory channels. The number of ground and power pins for CPU logic is relatively small in comparison.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> 6 Core was mainstream it was called the 1035T, 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, and 1090T


Those were also, great chips but nothing compared to an i7. I'm currently crunching with a 1055T @4.0 ghz. I would hardly call that mainstream, buddy. Who are you guys kidding? You don't want a x6 chip from Intel to be mainstream, really?.. I can't believe you guys of all people don't what it as well.. I guess I'm the last of a dying bread.. I want to push what ever chip I buy to it's max on a mid level cooler.. It's like dual core and quad core all over again.. 

If you guys had computer building strips on your shoulders I would rip them off and stomp on them with poop on the bottom of my feet. You guys should form a mediocre clubhouse\group.. Oh wait you did and it's boring.. j/k haha If some one told me today I would be debate against @cadaveca , @cdawall, and @newtekie1 on wanting a new i7 with x6 cores at the same price of the current gen i7 x4 I would laugh.. I'm still laughing pretty hard that one of them is named "_newtekie1_".. I wonder if mediocretekie1 is available to pick up as a new user? It would fit in the same user name socket when logging in. We know how important that is... let's not change.. 

No offense guys I respect your computer knowledge and your stance.. It just makes me scratch my head.. Oh and don't take my humor the wrong way, because I wrote this to be funny. I'm really tired and I'm off to bed.. (_newtekie1 come on buddy that was funny_). Good night all - _olderthandirtweaver out_!


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> No offense guys I respect your computer knowledge and your stance.. It just makes me scratch my head.. Oh and don't take my humor the wrong way, because I wrote this to be funny. I'm really tired and I'm off to bed.. (_newtekie1 come on buddy that was funny_). Good night all - _olderthandirtweaver out_!



You do have semi-valid points that make it fun to banter with. We don't have to agree on stuff to get along... and the lack of agreement gives something to talk about.  That's what a forum is, is a place to discuss our hobby!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 3, 2016)

We aren't saying we wouldn't love to see an Intel 6c/12th chip as cheap as a the current 4c/8t.  We are saying, from Intel's standpoint it doesn't make sense, because the mainstream market doesn't need/demand it.  Plus, the 6c/12t pretty much has come down to the same price as the 4c/8t.  It used to cost $500+ more to go 6c/12t over 4c/8t, now the difference is about $100.

I'm also not saying I'm excited by Intel's progress in the mainstream market.  I'm hoping AMD can get back in the game with Zen and force Intel to make the next mainstream socket more capable, and a 6c/12t processor on the mainstream platform.



cadaveca said:


> You do have semi-valid points that make it fun to banter with. We don't have to agree on stuff to get along... and the lack of agreement gives something to talk about.  That's what a forum is, is a place to discuss our hobby!



Also, this.  Mutual respect for each other makes this a fun discussion of our hobby.  Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we have to hate each other.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> You do have semi-valid points that make it fun to banter with. We don't have to agree on stuff to get along... and the lack of agreement gives something to talk about.  That's what a forum is, is a place to discuss our hobby!


Oh I agree buddy! I've enjoyed it. It's healthy to debate. It keeps us sharp and hopefully it shows our newer forum member not every disagreement needs to be a back and forth argument. We are all here for the same reason, we all love computers.  Ok now my wife is calling my name.. lol


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> The only reason AMD could do that though was because a lot of hardware was on the motherboards. Pinning was less important than it is now since a lot of CPUs have moved things like the PCI-E root complex to the CPU instead of having it as part of the motherboard on the Northbridge/PCH/IOH. The main difference in pinning between Intel's current mainstream and HEDT platforms is really to accommodate the PCI-E lanes and the extra memory channels. The number of ground and power pins for CPU logic is relatively small in comparison.



I just meant the scaling. I personally don't care if intel never exceeds 4/8 for mainstream. I was just simply pointing out that AMD had long since done it.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 3, 2016)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> ... And most games today are GPU bound, ... but games dont need more CPU power.



People keep writing those completely FALSE statements over and over again. Games don't need more CPU power?? Bloody hell they do. How about the enemies and NPCs A.I.? All done in CPU. How about of a world where NPCs are actually doing something instead of just standing still or doing simple scripting tasks? How about complex physics, not those simple stuff? etc, etc...

Anyways, back on topic, the point is, since the 2600K CPUs, every generation had seen a performance increase on average 5%, which is ridiculously and callously low. I bought my 3770K exactly 4 years ago, and in this current rithm, I'll probably going to wait for another 6 years to see a 50% performance improvement over my current CPU. Which is ... LOL


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> People keep writing those completely FALSE statements over and over again. Games don't need more CPU power?? Bloody hell they do. How about the enemies and NPCs A.I.? All done in CPU. How about of a world where NPCs are actually doing something instead of just standing still or doing simple scripting tasks? How about complex physics, not those simple stuff? etc, etc...
> 
> Anyways, back on topic, the point is, since the 2600K CPUs, every generation had seen a performance increase on average 5%, which is ridiculously and callously low. I bought my 3770K exactly 4 years ago, and in this current rithm, I'll probably going to wait for another 6 years to see a 50% performance improvement over my current CPU. Which is ... LOL



All of that could be done better on a gpu


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 3, 2016)

AI in games is fairly stupid.  If there were more CPU cores on average, they could dedicate threads/cores to AI calculating multiple possible outcomes and choosing the best among them.  I've written several programs that do this on a very basic level and the more complex the environment, the more compute power it takes.  I've had the algorithm run for over an hour on a single core, for example.  The problem is consoles lack the CPU power to run the same code.

AI is branching logic that isn't something that can be done GPUs.


----------



## Parn (May 3, 2016)

This is ridiculous, the same 4c/8t formula for last 5 consecutive years. We at least got some new instruction extensions or process node advancement in the last couple of releases, but this Kaby Lake literally brings nothing new.

Maybe the only thing to look forward to is the X-Point storage technology that is set to debut with the 200 series chipset.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> SFF 6-core isn't expensive. It costs the same as any other 6-core build. My render box is based off of this X99 mITX motherboard (which comes with cooler included):
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASRock/X99E-ITX_AC/


That board is a consumer board and you won't find that in an OEM setup. If they made an iTX board like that the chip would be replaced with a Xeon and classified as a Workstation because it's a HEDT chipset. The mindset of this whole forum is consumer, which is understandable, but in debates like these you have to step out of that box. A 6 core i7 on the lower platform would be a cheaper solution and we all know it and it's way past due. Period.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 3, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> People keep writing those completely FALSE statements over and over again. Games don't need more CPU power?? Bloody hell they do. How about the enemies and NPCs A.I.? All done in CPU. How about of a world where NPCs are actually doing something instead of just standing still or doing simple scripting tasks? How about complex physics, not those simple stuff? etc, etc...
> 
> Anyways, back on topic, the point is, since the 2600K CPUs, every generation had seen a performance increase on average 5%, which is ridiculously and callously low. I bought my 3770K exactly 4 years ago, and in this current rithm, I'll probably going to wait for another 6 years to see a 50% performance improvement over my current CPU. Which is ... LOL


How is that false, when the GPU is the stopping point 99% of the time? My 3570k rarely hits 50% usage in most games, and it's the same age. There is plenty of power left over for AI. But the GPUs are still the limiting factor is every game I've played. You can claim it's false, but seeing as no games today use the full power of a four year old ivy bridge chip, there is nothing false in the statement "games today dont need more cpu power" because they DONT. if they did, we would be seeing improvements and maxxed out i5 chips. 

Where are all these games that max out the CPU?


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> That board is a consumer board and you won't find that in an OEM setup. If they made an iTX board like that the chip would be replaced with a Xeon and classified as a Workstation because it's a HEDT chipset. The mindset of this whole forum is consumer, which is understandable, but in debates like these you have to step out of that box. A 6 core i7 on the lower platform would be a cheaper solution and we all know it and it's way past due. Period.


Meh. I could honestly care less there is a clear division between the HEDT platform and mainstream. For a pittance more, you can get a Hex core/X99 over 6700K. The difference is really only found in the quad channel memory, and the $30 premium to snag a 5820K($389 at newegg.com) over a 6700K ($349 at newegg.com). You can find a $150-$200 X99 board that will be perfectly fine for your needs. It is literally ~$100 difference to jump up to a hex over 6700K/Z170. Or ~$600 (CPU @ $350, Mobo @ $175, Ram @ $80). versus $700 (CPU @ $390, Mobo at $190, Ram @ $100). So, say you have a hex you can throw into Z170... why would they price it cheaper than the 6700K? That makes no sense.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

Good morning guys! I just wanted to stop by and let everyone know that keeps saying just buy a 5820k... Well this is a debate on 7700k generation. By the time it's out the 5820k will be long in the tooth and I bet just like the 6700k the 7700k will be $400+ for the first few months.. and a $389 cpu is not mainstream by no means. Now, Intel probably created the need for the 6700k to be $400+ to relieve any stock left of the 5820k and getting it's full price as well. We should be seeing a successor to the 5xxxk series soon. My 5820k is close to a year old now. I do hope they stick with the 2011 socket and just do v4. I'm ready to see new boards to replace the x99. I'm guessing it will be x119 with the older gens being x79 and x99..

OK without further ado! Mediocre clubhouse assemble and rebuttal! lol Actually I have to be in meetings all day.... So, I won't be as active today.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

The 6000 series for 2011 was already announced and will work with current x99


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> The 6000 series for 2011 was already announced and will work with current x99


That's good to know, but have we heard what the next chipset will be, buddy?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> That's good to know, but have we heard what the next chipset will be, buddy?



There is no details on the next HEDT chipset yet, they are just sticking with x99.  Just like they did with x79.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Meh. I could honestly care less there is a clear division between the HEDT platform and mainstream. For a pittance more, you can get a Hex core/X99 over 6700K. The difference is really only found in the quad channel memory, and the $30 premium to snag a 5820K($389 at newegg.com) over a 6700K ($349 at newegg.com). You can find a $150-$200 X99 board that will be perfectly fine for your needs. It is literally ~$100 difference to jump up to a hex over 6700K/Z170. Or ~$600 (CPU @ $350, Mobo @ $175, Ram @ $80). versus $700 (CPU @ $390, Mobo at $190, Ram @ $100). So, say you have a hex you can throw into Z170... why would they price it cheaper than the 6700K? That makes no sense.


I already answered your question twice if you paid any attention at all. Enterprise, *NOT* consumer.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> I already answered your question twice if you paid any attention at all. Enterprise, *NOT* consumer.


Off topic much? Doesn't matter what you said, it doesn't relate since this thread is about mainstream consumer chips anyway. 7700K is not a Xeon, 4 or 6 core. Which makes your earlier post even more pointless?

Not all businesses run Xeon CPUs, anyway. Most run regular CPUs with maybe a Xeon or two in the servers.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Off topic much? Doesn't matter what you said, it doesn't relate since this thread is about mainstream consumer chips anyway. 7700K is not a Xeon, 4 or 6 core. Which makes your earlier post even more pointless?
> 
> Not all businesses run Xeon CPUs, anyway. Most run regular CPUs with maybe a Xeon or two in the servers.


The debate was on the relevance to 6 core on mainstream, there are now two of us giving a very nice side of that coin but it's not relevant? K. Actually, it's plain as day you didn't pay any attention to what I said either with that post. I wasn't talking about Xeons, I was saying when you get into HEDT AKA 2011 AKA Xeon it makes it Workstation class which triples or more the cost of the machine to simply add two more cores. A 6 core i7 on the "mainstream" would cost us a lot less and make a lot more people happy that can actually utilize it. Do I have to spell it out even more simple like for the common folk?


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The debate was on the relevance to 6 core on mainstream, there are now two of us giving a very nice side of that coin but it's not relevant? K. Actually, it's plain as day you didn't pay any attention to what I said either with that post. I wasn't talking about Xeons, I was saying when you get into HEDT AKA 2011 AKA Xeon it makes it Workstation class which triples or more the cost of the machine to simply add two more cores. A 6 core i7 on the "mainstream" would cost us a lot less and make a lot more people happy that can actually utilize it. Do I have to spell it out even more simple like for the common folk?



It doesn't cost more to get a 6 core now and the 6800k shows the same basic price point as the 6700k. I think people invent additional cost when referencing x99


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The debate was on the relevance to 6 core on mainstream, there are now two of us giving a very nice side of that coin but it's not relevant? K. Actually, it's plain as day you didn't pay any attention to what I said either with that post. I wasn't talking about Xeons, I was saying when you get into HEDT AKA 2011 AKA Xeon it makes it Workstation class which triples or more the cost of the machine to simply add two more cores. A 6 core i7 on the "mainstream" would cost us a lot less and make a lot more people happy that can actually utilize it. Do I have to spell it out even more simple like for the common folk?


You've just made mine and cdawalls' posts in response to yours relevant and your reply not. Just saying. I did read your post, and you said it cost too much to get into 6-core SFF, and I provided a product that made it no more expensive than any other 6-core. You then state you're talking about Xeon CPUs, and I responded saying not all business use Xeons. I'm a bit lost as to what your point is... and I'm trying to find out what it is. Don't get angry because I don't understand. All I hear you saying is that for a very limited section of users, a 4-core isn't relevant, but those users are very limited in number, and don't use iGPU in nearly 100% of the cases, meaning they aren't mainstream. Intel doesn't want such users buying mainstream chips.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It doesn't cost more to get a 6 core now and the 6800k shows the same basic price point as the 6700k. I think people invent additional cost when referencing x99





cadaveca said:


> You've just made mine and cdawalls' posts in response to yours relevant and your reply not. Just saying.


Here, lemme quote for you two exactly what I said previously.



> We would like not to spend 2500 on workstations for people that don't need that type of machine and it's definitely feasible





> We can get HP Prodesk 800s with Skylake for 400 a pop with 16GB of DDR4 and a 250GB SSD but if we wanted 6 cores and 12 threads we'd have to buy an HP Z440 or Dell Precision equivalent which is over 1500 and that's for Haswell-EP



I'm not inventing prices, I'm giving a direct quote to what our preferred product team gets from HP that currently has the global Lockheed Martin contract. A workstation class machine is triple the figure even at our discount level even when it's equipped with a shit Quadro K2200. I have Prodesk 600s in my lab that cost Lockheed pennies to the dollar which come with Skylake i5s in them ($300-350 not equipped with SSD). On the other hand the Z440 I'm typing on right now cost 3 grand with a 1650 V3 and a Quadro K4200. That's a hefty price hike simply because it's a workstation class machine. Enterprise doesn't automatically mean everybody runs a Xeon. Most of our machines are enterprise laptops equipped with U series i5s, or Prodesk 600s with desktop i5s. These same people I mentioned before here


> We can get the SFF machines with just IGP which is perfectly fine for a coder, software compiler, or even the media team.


 can utilize more than what the standard i5 has, and it wouldn't cost us nearly as much as a workstation class machine. 

To reiterate what I've said before, the consumer market is only a small portion of the big cheese here. Just because YOU can't find a feasible reason why we would want more than 4 cores in a mainstream model scheme doesn't mean there isn't relevant reason to have it. I've seen our i7 6700s maxed by compilers, coders, software engineers and the like but they won't get workstation class machines because they're told "you don't need it, we can't fit you in the budget". Of course, these people don't understand that the person waiting on something to be finished over time will be paid more in salary than the initial cost of a workstation machine.....but that's a totally different topic on business politics.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Good morning guys! I just wanted to stop by and let everyone know that keeps saying just buy a 5820k... Well this is a debate on 7700k generation. By the time it's out the 5820k will be long in the tooth and I bet just like the 6700k the 7700k will be $400+ for the first few months.. and a $389 cpu is not mainstream by no means. Now, Intel probably created the need for the 6700k to be $400+ to relieve any stock left of the 5820k and getting it's full price as well. We should be seeing a successor to the 5xxxk series soon. My 5820k is close to a year old now. I do hope they stick with the 2011 socket and just do v4. I'm ready to see new boards to replace the x99. I'm guessing it will be x119 with the older gens being x79 and x99..
> 
> OK without further ado! Mediocre clubhouse assemble and rebuttal! lol Actually I have to be in meetings all day.... So, I won't be as active today.


So, a $390 chip isn't mainstream, but a $350 chip is????? That is 10% more in cost on the CPU alone. When taken in context with all the other stuff you need (mobo and ram), that drops to a mere 6.7% of the overall cost. If you use all the cores, it is WAY faster than 6.7%. 

As far as when that is out.... Broadwell-E will take its place. It also will have a Hex core in the same price point as the current Haswell-E.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> To reiterate what I've said before, the consumer market is only a small portion of the big cheese here. Just because YOU can't find a feasible reason why we would want more than 4 cores in a mainstream model scheme doesn't mean there isn't relevant reason to have it. I've seen our i7 6700s maxed by compilers, coders, software engineers and the like but they won't get workstation class machines because they're told "you don't need it, we can't fit you in the budget". Of course, these people don't understand that the person waiting on something to be finished over time will be paid more in salary than the initial cost of a workstation machine.....but that's a totally different topic on business politics.


Again, those aren't mainstream users. Hospitals don't use workstations (the hospital my wife works at, just one in the city, has well over 2500 machines, used by medical and admin staff). Small-to-medium businesses locally don't use workstations (I worked for one of the major local PC retailers who also supplied parts and machines at a discount to other local smaller stores). They use machines with iGPUs, and current mainstream Intel chips fit their bill. They are also similar to your limited purchasing rights in that the hospitals and most small-to-medium businesses have but one manufacturer to buy from; Dell. I used to work for HP (which is struggling still to make a profit while Dell is expanding), so I understand exactly where you are coming from, however, that's not mainstream, and the 7700K is mainstream, and will not fit  the needs of most mass deployments such as your example, since your example is in the minority. You simply have to look at actual sales figures for each sector to see that.

If you want something greater than a quad-core, you choose another platform, and that's not likely to change any time soon.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> So, a $390 chip isn't mainstream, but a $350 chip is????? That is 10% more in cost on the CPU alone. When taken in context with all the other stuff you need (mobo and ram), that drops to a mere 6.7% of the overall cost. If you use all the cores, it is WAY faster than 6.7%.
> 
> As far as when that is out.... Broadwell-E will take its place. It also will have a Hex core in the same price point as the current Haswell-E.
> 
> ...


And I further iterated why that's not relevant in my previous post. I'll also post this here.

http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04400038.pdf

That's the cheapest workstation we can get with more than 4 cores, and the 6 cores sits in the middle of their product stack which only includes Xeons. Workstations do not have the option to come with i7s. If you go to HP's site for retail price the lowest equipped quadcore Xeon machine starts at 1299. That same machine will cost us 700 if we were to buy some. On the flip side if we were to buy an i7 6700 Prodesk it would cost us 300 less for a better performing machine. If we had the availability of a hex mainstream i7 the same situation in cost of workstation vs desktop class machine would be there. Make a little more sense? Consumer pricing has nothing to do with the debate when we add enterprise to the table. So again, there's relevance there. If you don't work IT in an enterprise market, or deal with the vendors then you won't understand if you can't grasp the concept from the info I'm providing.




cadaveca said:


> Again, those aren't mainstream users. Hospitals don't use workstations (the hospital my wife works at, just one in the city, has well over 2500 machines, used by medical and admin staff). Small-to-medium businesses locally don't use workstations (I worked for one of the major local PC retailers who also supplied parts and machines at a discount to other local smaller stores). They use machines with iGPUs, and current mainstream Intel chips fit their bill. They are also similar to your limited purchasing rights in that the hospitals and most small-to-medium businesses have but one manufacturer to buy from; Dell. I used to work for HP (which is struggling still to make a profit while Dell is expanding), so I understand exactly where you are coming from, however, that's not mainstream, and the 7700K is mainstream, and will not fit  the needs of most mass deployments such as your example, since your example is in the minority. You simply have to look at actual sales figures for each sector to see that.
> 
> If you want something greater than a quad-core, you choose another platform, and that's not likely to change any time soon.


Incorrect, the classification of mainstream being used is technically incorrect but for the relevance of the thread it's being used. We call these "desktop" class chips, which to you guys would be mainstream. There's no difference between an i7 6700k and i7 6700 besides an unlocked multiplier but I have 3 machines here with an i7 6700. The point being missed is the fact that is a desktop class processor was to be released that was 6c/12t there would definitely be a major relevance. My example isn't in the minority here, Lockheed Martin and Boeing are huge companies with similar issues. I work at a plant with 16,000 people and this is one location and I happen to be smack dab in the middle of AeroIT and their preferred product group. All company reps go through my lab and I sit down to lunch with these folks. The attitude coming from Intel is they simply don't care. If the mass majority of people think 4 cores is enough and keep buying them, then they'll keep selling you the same product over and over with a smile on their face. Again, that's off topic. The debate was simply there's no relevance to more than 4 cores on "mainstream", but in reality there is.

Also, HP won't budge on pricing but Dell will. HP doesn't seem to care if they lose out to Dell, so I'd say they aren't struggling that bad. Maybe we can get the tides to turn on workstation pricing but I doubt it. They sent us a few Precision workstations but I haven't been told what they want to charge us for them.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

You should refresh before you reply... I deleted that part of my post WELL before you posted... I see you are talking Enterprise in a consumer level thread... 99% of people here could care less about Enterprise. But you all have fun anyway. 

For the record though, I do work in IT and am a part time Data Center manager, so yeah, I get it...also, mindweaver, who you initially quoted, wasn't talking enterprise. It was you who brought that up in this non enterprise based part and thread.

Have fun bub.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You should refresh before you reply... I deleted that part of my post WELL before you posted... I see you are talking Enterprise in a consumer level thread... 99% of people here could care less about Enterprise. But you all have fun anyway.
> 
> For the record though, I do work in IT and am a part time Data Center manager, so yeah, I get it...also, mindweaver, who you initially quoted, wasn't talking enterprise. It was you who brought that up in this non enterprise based part and thread.
> 
> Have fun bub.


The debate was on relevance to 6 core on "mainstream". Enterprise or desktop, it's there. There was no precedence, only people screaming you don't need more than 4 cores which is hogwash. Just because somebody doesn't need 4 cores in their game box doesn't mean there isn't a reason on the planet to up these chips to 6 cores. The thread is also about the 7th gen desktop 7700k being leaked. Doesn't necessarily pertain to just the consumer market. If the 7700k is quad then the 7700 will be quad.


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The debate was on relevance to 6 core on "mainstream". Enterprise or desktop, it's there. There was no precedence, only people screaming you don't need more than 4 cores which is hogwash. Just because somebody doesn't need 4 cores in their game box doesn't mean there isn't a reason on the planet to up these chips to 6 cores. The thread is also about the 7th gen desktop 7700k being leaked. Doesn't necessarily pertain to just the consumer market. If the 7700k is quad then the 7700 will be quad.


I didn't say anything about not needing more than 4 cores. I said that users that do aren't mainstream by Intel's defined product stack, they are HEDT users, which are on another socket. That stands for likely several years yet. Intel wants these users to use different products for a reason; it allows them to have a higher power draw, since mainstream platform is about low power and integrated GPUs. Intel cannot currently fit a 6-core processor with an iGP in a low enough power budget to call it mainstream(All Intel mainstream chips have iGP). Maybe in a few years they can, but that also depends on software usage. Maybe pushing VR will help that, but I doubt it.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The debate was on relevance to 6 core on "mainstream". Enterprise or desktop, it's there. There was no precedence, only people screaming you don't need more than 4 cores which is hogwash. Just because somebody doesn't need 4 cores in their game box doesn't mean there isn't a reason on the planet to up these chips to 6 cores. The thread is also about the 7th gen desktop 7700k being leaked. Doesn't necessarily pertain to just the consumer market. If the 7700k is quad then the 7700 will be quad.



If that's the argument everyone needs a 2P xeon workstation with 10 cores a pop I guess.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> The debate was on relevance to 6 core on "mainstream". Enterprise or desktop, it's there. There was no precedence, only people screaming you don't need more than 4 cores which is hogwash. Just because somebody doesn't need 4 cores in their game box doesn't mean there isn't a reason on the planet to up these chips to 6 cores. The thread is also about the 7th gen desktop 7700k being leaked. Doesn't necessarily pertain to just the consumer market. If the 7700k is quad then the 7700 will be quad.


You keep going on with your bad self...


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I didn't say anything about not needing more than 4 cores. I said that users that do aren't mainstream by Intel's defined product stack, they are HEDT users, which are on another socket. That stands for likely several years yet. Intel wants these users to use different products for a reason; it allows them to have a higher power draw, since mainstream platform is about low power and integrated GPUs. Intel cannot currently fit a 6-core processor with an iGP in a low enough power budget to call it mainstream(All Intel mainstream chips have iGP). Maybe in a few years they can, but that also depends on software usage. Maybe pushing VR will help that, but I doubt it.


They could, except each generation they want to up clock speeds (and add more GPU power) that keep the TDP floating between 80 and 100w. With Broadwell pushing the HEDT stack to 10 cores (and presumably Skylake-E pushing to 12) they could easily achieve this with Canonlake but they don't want to. Why do that if people are happy with 4 cores and make excuses to stay there?



cdawall said:


> If that's the argument everyone needs a 2P xeon workstation with 10 cores a pop I guess.


My argument being exactly the opposite due to cost.



EarthDog said:


> You keep going on with your bad self...


I'm in a conference call that has nothing to do with me. What better way to pass the time than idle banter on TPU?


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> They could, except each generation they want to up clock speeds (and add more GPU power) that keep the TDP floating between 80 and 100w. With Broadwell pushing the HEDT stack to 10 cores (and presumably Skylake-E pushing to 12) they could easily achieve this with Canonlake but they don't want to. Why do that if people are happy with 4 cores and make excuses to stay there?



Because most users are happy enough with their cell phone to access the internet. Intel simply wants to provide a similar experience on a larger screen, and software doesn't give any reason to use more than 4 cores to do so. Nor does software used by the majority of businesses big and small around the globe need more than a quadcore, which is even overkill in most instances. Intel makes products they can sell, and they do very well at it, posting billions in sales in every quarter (13.8 B in Q1 2016). While you might question what they do, their profits dictate when they shift how they do business, as it was recently announced when they planned to lay off a bunch of people from their PC division (12000 people, or 10% of their workforce).

Make no mistake about it; the current decline in PC sales is 100% due to cell phones having internet access and the ability to play and edit videos and pictures.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Because most users are happy enough with their cell phone to access the internet. Intel simply wants to provide a similar experience on a larger screen, and software doesn't give any reason to use more than 4 cores to do so. Nor does software used by the majority of businesses big and small around the globe need more than a quadcore, which is even overkill in most instances. Intel makes products they can sell, and they do very well at it, posting billions in sales in every quarter (13.8 B in Q1 2016). While you might question what they do, their profits dictate when they shift how they do business, as was recently announced when they planned to lay off a bunch of people from their PC division (12000 people, or 10% of their workforce).


I don't question what they do, they literally have said "we don't really care if people will continue to purchase the product for refresh". In other words mocking the people who want to believe quite literally what you just said. There's plenty of software that will use more than 4 cores, businesses are mainly the ones that utilize said software. Was the hospital your wife worked at using Medhost software? All machines there basically have everything done for them via VM which is hosted by a shit ton of servers at their home base. Definitely uses a lot of power. I know a muffler shop that even uses a 6 core older 1366 Xeon for CAD. That's a ghetto off the wall run of the mill muffler shop of all places and they were recently asking for more power. It's ok to bury your head in the sand, but don't think others want to do the same.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> My argument being exactly the opposite due to cost.



Well if cost is prohibitive I guess they are getting 4 cores. Sounds like a mainstream user to me.



PP Mguire said:


> I don't question what they do, they literally have said "we don't really care if people will continue to purchase the product for refresh". In other words mocking the people who want to believe quite literally what you just said. There's plenty of software that will use more than 4 cores, businesses are mainly the ones that utilize said software. Was the hospital your wife worked at using Medhost software? All machines there basically have everything done for them via VM which is hosted by a shit ton of servers at their home base. Definitely uses a lot of power.



I just setup the local hospital down here. They use dell thin clients in the offices and the doctors walk around with Ipads. Imaging rooms use mid range dell workstations with AMD graphics cards and quad core xeons. Not a single complaint about speed.



PP Mguire said:


> I know a muffler shop that even uses a 6 core older 1366 Xeon for CAD. That's a ghetto off the wall run of the mill muffler shop of all places and they were recently asking for more power. It's ok to bury your head in the sand, but don't think others want to do the same.



So they use a CPU slower than a 6700K for CAD. Excellent sounds like a perfect time to give them a 6700K and a CAD card.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Well if cost is prohibitive I guess they are getting 4 cores. Sounds like a mainstream user to me.


Sounds like somebody wants to be stuck on mainline 4 core desktop processors. Congrats, but others don't. Cost is prohibitive when you're talking triple the cost to get 2 more cores. The exact debate here from the enterprise standpoint. 


cdawall said:


> I just setup the local hospital down here. They use dell thin clients in the offices and the doctors walk around with Ipads. Imaging rooms use mid range dell workstations with AMD graphics cards and quad core xeons. Not a single complaint about speed.


Imaging rooms don't require a ton of CPU power. Give them a while, they'll be squawking. Bud of mine just left Medhost because he said hospital employees are hard to deal with if something goes down or machines are running slow because the hospital is too cheap to upgrade.


cdawall said:


> So they use a CPU slower than a 6700K for CAD. Excellent sounds like a perfect time to give them a 6700K and a CAD card.


Sure, I'll send you his Paypal address so you can fund that. I'll let you drive up to Euless to overclock it for him too.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Sounds like somebody wants to be stuck on mainline 4 core desktop processors. Congrats, but others don't. Cost is prohibitive when you're talking triple the cost to get 2 more cores. The exact debate here from the enterprise standpoint.



There is no demand or there would be systems that fit the build. That's how supply and demand works. The physical motherboard and CPU cost next to nothing additional so that would put this on system builders to offer these things. Obviously there is a very small market that needs these items hence how they don't sell them.



PP Mguire said:


> Imaging rooms don't require a ton of CPU power. Give them a while, they'll be squawking. Bud of mine just left Medhost because he said hospital employees are hard to deal with if something goes down or machines are running slow because the hospital is too cheap to upgrade.



People as a whole are hard to deal with and have no concept of speed. Throw an SSD in a 5 year old Core i5 system and most medical "professionals" will be as happy as can be.



PP Mguire said:


> Sure, I'll send you his Paypal address so you can fund that. I'll let you drive up to Euless to overclock it for him too.



So what does he want? Free shit to just fall from the sky? 6700K, 5820K doesn't matter all costs about the same if he buys parts and assembles. Hell if he lives close to microcenter it's all of $120 to have them do it and stand behind the work.


----------



## PP Mguire (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> There is no demand or there would be systems that fit the build. That's how supply and demand works. The physical motherboard and CPU cost next to nothing additional so that would put this on system builders to offer these things. Obviously there is a very small market that needs these items hence how they don't sell them.


There was no demand for consumer quads either, and this convo seems like dejavu when I wanted a 940be over my E8400. Now everybody has a quad and thinks there's no place for a hex. 


cdawall said:


> People as a whole are hard to deal with and have no concept of speed. Throw an SSD in a 5 year old Core i5 system and most medical "professionals" will be as happy as can be.


Do a 10 hour layover waiting on a migration and you'll hear all kinds of complaints. These are people complaining about thin clients, can't exactly put an SSD in there and call it a day. 


cdawall said:


> So what does he want? Free shit to just fall from the sky? 6700K, 5820K doesn't matter all costs about the same if he buys parts and assembles. Hell if he lives close to microcenter it's all of $120 to have them do it and stand behind the work.


Wasn't the point to begin with.

If nobody needs more than 4 cores then why have a 5930k? Why not go with the faster 6700k? You obviously don't have a need for it with that kind of mindset. I max out all 12 threads on my 3960x every single weekend rendering videos and that's just one task.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> There was no demand for consumer quads either, and this convo seems like dejavu when I wanted a 940be over my E8400. Now everybody has a quad and thinks there's no place for a hex.



There is plenty of places for more cores or faster quads. Normal system use isn't one of them.



PP Mguire said:


> Do a 10 hour layover waiting on a migration and you'll hear all kinds of complaints. These are people complaining about thin clients, can't exactly put an SSD in there and call it a day.



Who is waiting this long? Thin clients I sold were i5 quads plenty of power for pretty much every single task they run. Hell one of the local offices just uses fucking acer 11.6" 2:1's with pentium quads. Not a single complaint from them either, except when they purchased a set of Dell's that lasted all of a week.



PP Mguire said:


> Wasn't the point to begin with.



Then what was the point that his ancient ass 1366 system was old? Having 6 cores isn't doing anything for it when a current gen quad is faster. 



PP Mguire said:


> If nobody needs more than 4 cores then why have a 5930k? Why not go with the faster 6700k? You obviously don't have a need for it with that kind of mindset. I max out all 12 threads on my 3960x every single weekend rendering videos and that's just one task.



And? Mainstream users aren't rendering videos every weekend hence why there is a HEDT and mainstream socket. If you want HEDT then buy it? There isn't even a price difference right now or projected into the future.

Actually better option want intel to increase performance more than 5% a generation? Donate an engineer to AMD to give them a reason, or donate to a software engineer that makes normal user software that needs it. I rarely see my 4770 exceed 1.2ghz during normal day to day usage. That's with typical 10-15 tabs open between IE and chrome, not to mention multiple data transfers, and all the other random crap I am to lazy to close out.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> So, a $390 chip isn't mainstream, but a $350 chip is?????


Nope, I would say a non "k" x6 would be a nice mainstream CPU for 279-299 and still offer the K series. The "K" informs the builder that this cpu will accept an overclock which would make it an enthusiast cpu. It's like I'm trying to talk to people that aren't into pc like myself... My wife always tells me when I go over someones head; example: "Hey honey they have no idea what your talking about.. They don't know what a processor is in a computer, nor this thermal compound that you speak of that's between the heatsink and the processor?". I think I'm having an out of body TPU experience.. You guys are really Sales guys and you have done something with my people!

I need to go eat lunch... Okay while I'm gone, I need someone to post in here why it's not important to worry about a $100 dollar difference or heck a $50 difference or that getting something more for your money doesn't really matter.


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> Nope, I would say a non "k" x6 would be a nice mainstream CPU for 279-299 and still offer the K series. The "K" informs the builder that this is cpu will accept an overclock which would make it an enthusiast cpu. It's like I'm trying to talk to people that aren't into pc like myself... My wife always tells me when I go over someones head; example: "Hey honey they have no idea what your talking about.. They don't know what a processor is in a computer, nor this thermal compound that you speak of that's between the heatsink and the processor?". I think I'm having an out of body TPU experience.. You guys are really Sales guys and you have done something with my people!
> 
> I need to go eat lunch... Okay while I'm gone, I need someone to post in here why it's not important to worry about a $100 dollar difference or heck a $50 difference or that getting something more for your money doesn't really matter.



Buy on sale it costs the same. 

Right now 

5820K is $319 at MC and the board is $30 off, that puts the GB X99 UD3P at $144 AMIR. 
6700K is $319 at MC and the board is $30 off, that puts the Asrock Z170 extreme 7 at $159 AMIR (cheapest 4 way sli/xfire so matching spec board)


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> I need to go eat lunch... Okay while I'm gone, I need someone to post in here why it's not important to worry about a $100 dollar difference or heck a $50 difference or that getting something more for your money doesn't really matter.



I use my Surface Pro3 quite a bit; it's handy and portable, and I can steam games to it via STEAM. I offset the higher cost of a HEDT by power savings using the Surface for regular mundane tasks like posting in the forum. 

I still don't own a cell phone, so I use my Surface for most things people use their cell phone for, and then some, thanks to the larger screen. Dang thing gets pretty hot when I play in CAD.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Buy on sale it costs the same.
> 
> Right now
> 
> ...


I didn't realize MC was mainstream... Also, the fact that both of those will be out dated when the 7700 drops.


cadaveca said:


> I use my Surface Pro3 quite a bit; it's handy and portable, and I can steam games to it via STEAM. I offset the higher cost of a HEDT by power savings using the Surface for regular mundane tasks like posting in the forum.
> 
> I still don't own a cell phone, so I use my Surface for most things people use their cell phone for, and then some, thanks to the larger screen. Dang thing gets pretty hot when I play in CAD.


I like my surface pro3 as well.  but the cpu could use more cores and be faster for less money..


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> I didn't realize MC was mainstream... Also, the fact that both of those will be out dated when the 7700 drops



And the price point will stay the same for the 6800k as well.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> And the price point will stay the same for the 6800k as well.


At this point cdawall I don't know where you are going with this stance or your points? I think now I'm just here for the post count, but just so I'm clear you're agreeing with me that a "k" variant is an enthusiast cpu and they are priced for that reason? and that you demand an x6 successor to x4 as being the new mainstream processor, no?


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> At this point cdawall I don't know where you are going with this stance or your points? I think now I'm just here for the post count, but just so I'm clear you're agreeing with me that a "k" variant is an enthusiast cpu and they are priced for that reason? and that you demand an x6 successor to x4 as being the new mainstream processor, no?



I could care less what Intel puts on 115x it's a poverty socket as far as I'm concerned the land of quads and down.

Intel sells a non k series 6 core it's called xeons and they are still unlocked.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> I didn't realize MC was mainstream... Also, the fact that both of those will be out dated when the 7700 drops.
> 
> 
> I need to go eat lunch... Okay while I'm gone, I need someone to post in here why it's not important to worry about a $100 dollar difference or heck a $50 difference or that getting something more for your money doesn't really matter.


You can lead a horse to water as they say...

We all want something more for less, but, the market(consumers) doesn't remotely NEED such a thing. What you (royal "you") seem to have an issue with is Capitalism. Sorry that businesses are there to make a profit. Sorry there is little competition in this segment to DRIVE more improvements and cheaper costs.

It really is whining and complaining about you (again royal "you") not being able to/want to afford a CPU with more cores. I mean, ignore the fact that the difference is less than 10% on an entire system (again talking consumer level, what that CPU and this thread is about - that enterprise discussion was, to me, a straw man argument).


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You can lead a horse to water as they say...
> 
> We all want something more for less, but, the market(consumers) doesn't remotely NEED such a thing. What you (royal "you") seem to have an issue with is Capitalism. Sorry that businesses are there to make a profit. Sorry there is little competition in this segment to DRIVE more improvements and cheaper costs.
> 
> It really is whining and complaining about you (again royal "you") not being able to/want to afford a CPU with more cores. I mean, ignore the fact that the difference is less than 10% on an entire system (again talking consumer level, what that CPU and this thread is about - that enterprise discussion was, to me, a straw man argument).


and yet I (royal "I") sit over here with a 5820k. /class


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> and yet I (royal "I") sit over here with a 5820k. /class



So you were able to leave mainstream and spend the millions of extra dollars to buy hedt?


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> So you were able to leave mainstream and spend the millions of extra dollars to buy hedt?


I did - _post count +1_


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

Mindweaver said:


> and yet I (royal "I") sit over here with a 5820k. /class


So what's your horse in the race outside of post count ? Just wanted it cheaper?


----------



## cdawall (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> So what's your horse in the race outside of post count ? Just wanted it cheaper?



That's kinda what I'm thinking. My board was free so I can't go much cheaper.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2016)

I had to check to see if I was at OCN with the way this thread went!!!


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> So what's your horse in the race outside of post count ? Just wanted it cheaper?


I just want to go fast! Wow,.. I've coded so much today my eyes are crossing.. lol Hence when I rarely post in any thread, but when I see the caliber of people contributing in a thread that I'm interested in, I join. You guys have given me another perspective. I've just got the itch... I'm just ready for that feeling again were I had a 286 and started using a 386 or picked up a p100 or when I jumped from a p200 to a PII 400... K6... PIII 600 to a PIII 933 or to 1ghz Thunderbird.. Or Athlon XP Thoroughbred, to a Athlon XP Barton, to a P4... or to an E6300 for 189 bucks that overclocked to the extreme chip on air... I can go on or go back before the 286 or to my i7 970 which I find to be still a good chip for it's time.. I have a whole box of cpus in trays... but to sum it up that feeling of excitement for a new CPU. I've not had that feeling in awhile with the latest CPU's.  

I guess pushing more cores won't do it at the moment. I know Intel will sit in a lane and not innovate.. They.. we need AMD to push the pace. I hope Zen is good... What is the max processors, x16 on paper?


----------



## Grings (May 3, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Buy on sale it costs the same.
> 
> Right now
> 
> ...



Holy shit, £319 for a 5820k here!!! 6700k is £279 or so, and a decent z170 is £100-150, a decent x99 is £180-250
even on sale i have only seen 5820's drop to £290, and 6700k at £260

It seems here in the UK you are looking at at least an extra £100 to go hedt still

last time i checked US prices it wasnt worth me shipping stuff, next time i buy something big i'll have to check again


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

Grings said:


> Holy shit, £319 for a 5820k here!!! 6700k is £279 or so, and a decent z170 is £100-150, a decent x99 is £180-250
> even on sale i have only seen 5820's drop to £290, and 6700k at £260
> 
> It seems here in the UK you are looking at at least an extra £100 to go hedt still
> ...


Yea, I wish I had a Micro Center near me... Hey guys can I renege wanting a mainstream x6 processor for a Micro Center near me!


----------



## ERazer (May 3, 2016)

seems like im gonna be holding onto my 2600k longer


----------



## Mindweaver (May 3, 2016)

Okay so for the biggest twist of all.. and stick with me.. The biggest reason I want x6 to be mainstream is so maybe just maybe we will get an hedt x8 2011v4! Boom! I just went there.. I can't believe you guys didn't jump all over that sappy story about wanting that feeling again.. lol I was cracking up while typing that and almost slipped and put an Athlon 64 FX in there.. lol Those were no where near mainstream and very high priced.. lol



			
				Mediocre Club said:
			
		

> What are we going to do with an x8?





			
				royal "Me" said:
			
		

> The same thing we do every night, Mediocre Club - try to take over the world!


----------



## cadaveca (May 3, 2016)

I don't talk about unreleased NDA products that do not have info in the public space....  But we did see a ES 6950X for sale... it's a 10-core CPU. Rumoured to have 3.0 GHz stock, 3.5 GHz Turbo. It'll be interesting to see what number of cores actually run @ 3.5 GHz.

That's why the 4-core iGPU chips have going for them, the higher clock speeds. the cache to support more than 4 cores generates too much heat at high speed use. 1 GHz on Intel is a decent boost in performance, but 500 MHz is rather... meh.

AMD's 8-core 9-series chips have 4.7 GHz stock Turbo clocks, and for most uses, do fairly well. They also cost 1/8th what an 8-core Intel chip @ 4.7 GHz would. Maybe you should buy one. It's $50 less than a 6600K locally.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 5, 2016)

Just curious if this one will be a better overclocker than previous gen. I mean, even the base freq is 400Mhz lower...


----------

