# Intel Leaks Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition On Company Website



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2016)

Intel over the weekend, leaked its upcoming Core i7-6950X processor in the change-log of its latest Management Engine software, on the company's Support website. In its CPU support list, the entry for "Intel Core i7-6950X Processor Extreme Edition" stands out. It also leaks two key specifications - 25 MB of L3 cache, and a clock speed of up to 3.50 GHz. The Core i7-6800 and i7-6900 series are a family of six-, eight-, and ten-core processors based on the 14 nm "Broadwell-E" silicon, and built in the LGA2011v3 package, compatible with existing Intel X99 Express chipset motherboards, with BIOS updates.

It's being speculated that the i7-6950X will be the first client-platform CPU with 10 cores. Intel could position this product at a new price-point that's above even the $999 it traditionally reserved for its high-end client chips. At $999, the company could offer an 8-core Core i7-6900K; followed by 6-core Core i7-6850K and i7-6800K at the traditional $600 and $400 price points, respectively. Intel could launch these chips some time within Q2-2016.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 4, 2016)

So a base clock of around 3Ghz with a boost up to 3.5Ghz?
Might not have the speed people expected but for those that can use all those cores it will be nice.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 4, 2016)

Somehow wierd pricing policy of Intel means that Hedt based entry level Cpu+Motherboard are cheaper option to highend Mainstream Cpu+Mid range motherboard.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Somehow wierd pricing policy of Intel means that Hedt based entry level Cpu+Motherboard are cheaper option to highend Mainstream Cpu+Mid range motherboard.



But then there are other platform costs (quad-channel memory / will work with two memory sticks just fine), bigger aftermarket cooler, and bigger PSU.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 4, 2016)

Still waiting for Zen


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 4, 2016)

btarunr said:


> But then there are other platform costs (quad-channel memory / will work with two memory sticks just fine), bigger aftermarket cooler, and bigger PSU.


But now a days Intel has stopped bundling stock cooler with their K series chips on mainstream platforms. which means anyone getting K series cpus have to get after market cpu cooler. DDR4 prices now have come down enough that you can easily get 32GB DDR4-2400 kit for 150$. Many gamers will be going for aftermarket cpu cooler plus gpu, that really makes the entry level hedt platform very attractive for majority of gamers and enthusiats.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 4, 2016)

We need to know how well it clocks... 

I suspect it being very very hot....


----------



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> But now a days Intel has stopped bundling stock cooler with their K series chips on mainstream platforms. which means anyone getting K series cpus have to get after market cpu cooler. DDR4 prices now have come down enough that you can easily get 32GB DDR4-2400 kit for 150$. Many gamers will be going for aftermarket cpu cooler plus gpu, that really makes the entry level hedt platform very attractive for majority of gamers and enthusiats.



You can make do with a cheap $20-ish Cooler Master on LGA1151 K chips. You'll have to buy something much bigger and costlier on 140W HEDT chips.


----------



## techy1 (Apr 4, 2016)

you better hope that it will be 999$... so in these 2 years we actually got some price performance increase - then we will get a 10 core 3.0 for the same price of i7-5960x (8 core 3.0) and same goes for one CPU down the line ("i7-5930x"-like CPU now with +2 cores for the same price).... One can argue that 2 years and Enthusiast platform would be inclined for more performance increase - but sadly - we are in times now that a 7 year old i7-920 is good enough and there are zero to none need for upgrade... if someone would tell me that 10-5 years ago - that a 7year old and more CPU will still be only 30-40% slower than the one of newest generation out there (in same class) - I would laughed in his face and I spit in his eye (Johnny Cash 25 minutes to go). in case if Intel shifts price up so 10 core costs 1500$ and 8 core (basically the 1:1 of i7-5960x) cost the same 999$ - well then we are totally screwd - absolutely 0.0 progress has been made.


----------



## techy1 (Apr 4, 2016)

btarunr said:


> You can make do with a cheap $20-ish Cooler Master on LGA1151 K chips. You'll have to buy something much bigger and costlier on 140W HEDT chips.


yes... and that would be 30$ extra


----------



## Nokiron (Apr 4, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> So a base clock of around 3Ghz with a boost up to 3.5Ghz?
> Might not have the speed people expected but for those that can use all those cores it will be nice.


Well, its pretty much at the level of 5960X, but with two extra cores. That's not shabby!


----------



## dj-electric (Apr 4, 2016)

Also, actual power consumption should be a bit less than 5960X


----------



## Breit (Apr 4, 2016)

techy1 said:


> you better hope that it will be 999$... so in these 2 years we actually got some price performance increase - then we will get a 10 core 3.0 for the same price of i7-5960x (8 core 3.0) and same goes for one CPU down the line ("i7-5930x"-like CPU now with +2 cores for the same price).... One can argue that 2 years and Enthusiast platform would be inclined for more performance increase - but sadly - we are in times now that a 7 year old i7-920 is good enough and there are zero to none need for upgrade... if someone would tell me that 10-5 years ago - that a 7year old and more CPU will still be only 30-40% slower than the one of newest generation out there (in same class) - I would laughed in his face and I spit in his eye (Johnny Cash 25 minutes to go). in case if Intel shifts price up so 10 core costs 1500$ and 8 core (basically the 1:1 of i7-5960x) cost the same 999$ - well then we are totally screwd - absolutely 0.0 progress has been made.



Let me guess: You own a i7-920? 
So why the rant if your i7-920 is plenty enough for you? Just be happy that you don't need to buy a new machine?!

So I'm not sure where you are getting with this. As far as I remember the i7-920 was a quad core part. So even if this new i7-6950X has 40% higher performance per core than your i7-920 (with no other advancements on the platform considered), it will have a total performance advantage over the i7-920 of ~350%!! I wouldn't call that exactly "absolutely 0.0 progress"?!


----------



## techy1 (Apr 4, 2016)

Breit said:


> Let me guess: You own a i7-920?
> So why the rant if your i7-920 is plenty enough for you? Just be happy that you don't need to buy a new machine?!
> 
> So I'm not sure where you are getting with this. As far as I remember the i7-920 was a quad core part. So even if this new i7-6950X has 40% higher performance per core than your i7-920 (with no other advancements on the platform considered), it will have a total performance advantage over the i7-920 of ~350%!! I wouldn't call that exactly "absolutely 0.0 progress"?!



you guessed it wrong... and i7-920 was sub 600$ (not 999$ top of the line chip) - so should be compared with i7-5930x... and if intel will shift prices up then should be compared with i7-6850K and guess what - a 7 year old chip is still good (which is bad)... but who cares if I have  i7-920 or want one or think it is still good... - the main issue is - the progress has decreased significantly (and full stopped if intel will shift prices up)... and we should call it out, cuz none else will. ... I do not want to pay for newest top of the line chip +350% more of what one paid for i7-920 7 years ago, just because it is +350$ performance increase.... if the same analogy would be applied back then then i7-920 should cost like 1500$ back then because it smoked previous gen (and if that analogy would go further then 1500$ x350% would be new price of the top end chip)


----------



## dj-electric (Apr 4, 2016)

Who said you have to? It is the TITAN analogy.
You can pay 300$ (if you live in the USA) or 390$ for a 5820K hexa-core chip (like i did) and get "only" about 120% increase. That, plus new outputs, decreased power consumption etc.

The good thing about new technology is that you can enjoy the mid-range much more.


----------



## matar (Apr 4, 2016)

If intel prices the 6950x above @ $999 that's Bad NEWs then the 6900K will be @$999 but @ the $599 price that's the usual price point and it will make x79 users consider the upgrade because we have to upgrade motherboard and ram in order to upgrade there CPU.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Apr 4, 2016)

techy1 said:


> you guessed it wrong... and i7-920 was sub 600$ (not 999$ top of the line chip) - so should be compared with i7-5930x


Nope. The i7 920 was the entry level CPU for the X58 platform. The analogue would be the 5820K.

Bloomfield............................................Gulftown..............................................Sandy Bridge-E.......................................Ivy Bridge-E................................Haswell-E
i7 920 ($284) 4C/8T...........................................................................................i7 3820 ($294) 4C/8T...........................i7 4820K ($310) 4C/8T............i7 5820K ($389) 6C/12T
i7 940/950/960 ($562) 4C/8T........................................................................i7 3830K ($583) 6C/12T......................i7 4930K ($555) 6C/12T.........i7 5930K ($583) 6C/12T
i7 965/975 ($999) 4C/8T................i7 980X/990X ($999) 6C/12T........i7 3690X/3790X ($999) 6C/12T........i7 4690X ($990) 6C/12T.........i7 5960X ($999) 8C/16T

Lynnfield top part (i7 870 $562)...................................................................SB top part (i7 2600K $317)..............IB top part (i7 3770K $313)....Haswell top part (i7 4790K $339)


techy1 said:


> ... and if intel will shift prices up then should be compared with i7-6850K and guess what - a 7 year old chip is still good (which is bad)


Kind of depends what workloads the user intends. Light productivity and gaming for a HEDT platform is like buying a supercar just to carry a bag of groceries from the seven-eleven. It has already been established that these mainstream workloads can be effectively executed by more budget minded systems of either vendor. If you buy a HEDT platform for a bunch of single threaded or lightly multi-threaded apps, you're doing something wrong


Spoiler














techy1 said:


> I do not want to pay for newest top of the line chip +350% more of what one paid for i7-920 7 years ago, just because it is +350$ performance increase.... if the same analogy would be applied back then then i7-920 should cost like 1500$ back then because it smoked previous gen (and if that analogy would go further then 1500$ x350% would be new price of the top end chip)


That's some weird screwed up logic right there. The 920 was $284 at launch, the 5820K was $389 at launch. That is a 24% increase in price factoring in inflation for a 50% increase in core count, a 30% increase in single threaded IPC,  and well over a 100% increase in performance for software that is effectively multi-threaded. Your little rant seems like some oddball scenario designed as a worst case scenario. Why bother comparing a 920's pricing with a chip priced one tier higher when a like for like comparison would use the 940/950/960 as a baseline? If you're arguing that extreme chips aren't worth the price increase then that is hardly news - even someone with rudimentary knowledge of the market would know that Kentsfield's XE was $1200 (QX6800) and Yorkfield's XE was $1400 (QX9770)


----------



## Frick (Apr 4, 2016)

If I had money and was building a machine that would hold for years I probably would go for an extreme chip.


----------



## Breit (Apr 4, 2016)

I see the Broadwell-E announcement as good news since my i7-3930K is aging and this seems to be the first new chip from Intel that is even worth to be considered an upgrade.
I mean my 3930K is clocked 4.8GHz on all cores, the successor IvyBridge-E had ~10% increase in IPC, but would have clocked worse topping out at ~4.5GHz giving about the same performance.
Haswell-E would have been the first chip really pushing performance forward, but only when bought with an 8-core chip instead of the 6-core. But then the whole platform had to be replaced, wich made absolutely no sense considering the performance gained. I mean this would've been at least a $2K investment for a little gain in performance.
But now with 8-/10-core chips and another increase in IPC this could finally be worth the money. Exciting.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 4, 2016)

.................enthusiasts need only to see the word new...... Those who are satisfied with what they have.......stay there.... Racers will spend thousands on tech for less than a second improvement so i guess its all relative to who you are and whats your usage. Thankfully ddr4 prices are way better. Intel is in the business to make money to survive. They do their job well.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 4, 2016)

Breit said:


> I see the Broadwell-E announcement as good news since my i7-3930K is aging and this seems to be the first new chip from Intel that is even worth to be considered an upgrade.
> I mean my 3930K is clocked 4.8GHz on all cores, the successor IvyBridge-E had ~10% increase in IPC, but would have clocked worse topping out at ~4.5GHz giving about the same performance.
> Haswell-E would have been the first chip really pushing performance forward, but only when bought with an 8-core chip instead of the 6-core. But then the whole platform had to be replaced, wich made absolutely no sense considering the performance gained. I mean this would've been at least a $2K investment for a little gain in performance.
> But now with 8-/10-core chips and another increase in IPC this could finally be worth the money. Exciting.


I think I personally would wait for a socket change before upgrading my platform and even then, my i7 probably would find its way into my gateways server instead.


----------



## Breit (Apr 4, 2016)

I'll at least wait for the first reviews to get an estimate on how much this new platform actually brings, that's for sure.


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 4, 2016)

matar said:


> If intel prices the 6950x above @ $999 that's Bad NEWs then the 6900K will be @$999 but @ the $599 price that's the usual price point and it will make x79 users consider the upgrade because we have to upgrade motherboard and ram in order to upgrade there CPU.


Most of us on x79 are ignoring X99.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 4, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Still waiting for Zen



I'm not. AMD PR is a box of lies and always has been the only saving grace is who designed the CPU and he has been working in the mobile market for a while.


----------



## mcloughj (Apr 4, 2016)

Going to buy one of of these to pair up with my AMD HD6950 graphics card!


----------



## matar (Apr 4, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Most of us on x79 are ignoring X99.


Your are so right I think I might do the same and skip broadwell-E because intel skylake will introduce us to a new X motherboard platform.
broadwell-E is the end for X99


----------



## galta (Apr 4, 2016)

Over the last years, it has been funny to read posts related to new CPUs.
It all starts with someone saying that the extra cores are nice and make all the difference.
Right after that, someone disagrees and says that, unfortunately, modern games are not able to extract all the power of muticore CPU, being limited to 2-4 cores, at most.
Next comes a guy saying how reliable his old Pentium III is, still able to perform greatly in latest titles.
A couple of posts later someone complains about AMD being unable to compete and how that leads to obscene pricing from Intel, adding that he/she is confident that next generation of AMD processors will change the game.

A couple of things we have to accept:

·         More’s law seems to be no longer valid, not at least on the per core performance. You are entitled to expect a +30% gain per core every new generation, but be ready for disappointment. It is just not going to happen again, not in the foreseeable future.
·         Having said that, Intel has been able to show significant progress on core count. 10 or 12 years ago 2 cores were a must; now you can get 4-6 cores by the same nominal price (or so), plus gains on the single thread performance.
·         Although AMDs competition could make Intel sweat, it has not happened at least since 2006. I really wish it were different, but I am not holding my breath.
·         It’s been more than 10 years since Intel’s flagship costs $1,000, so I see scarce evidence of them ripping us.
·         It is a fact that few titles are able to “extract all the power of multicore CPUs”. The one to blame, however, is not Intel, but software houses. I haven’t seen many complaints about them. Also remember that Intel has not only gamers in their mind when they develop a new CPU.
·         No, I am not an “Intel fan boy”.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 4, 2016)

You new to forums galta? Normal stuff bub.


----------



## galta (Apr 4, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You new to forums galta? Normal stuff bub.



Yeah, new.
But message remains.


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 4, 2016)

galta said:


> Over the last years, it has been funny to read posts related to new CPUs.
> It all starts with someone saying that the extra cores are nice and make all the difference.
> Right after that, someone disagrees and says that, unfortunately, modern games are not able to extract all the power of muticore CPU, being limited to 2-4 cores, at most.
> Next comes a guy saying how reliable his old Pentium III is, still able to perform greatly in latest titles.
> ...


Intel has been selling flagship products for 1000 for years at a marginal difference between the rest of the lineup. The first "major" difference was the 5960x that added 2 more cores. This time we're looking at a 500 dollar increase in cost for the flagship and the lineup was simply extended to accommodate current pricing structure. 1500 for a 10 core extreme processor on a platform that will be obsolete by Q4 seems like a rip to me and I don't even have any plans of moving to X99.


----------



## remixedcat (Apr 4, 2016)

Hell my 3570k seems to do pretty good for its age


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Intel has been selling flagship products for 1000 for years at a marginal difference between the rest of the lineup. The first "major" difference was the 5960x that added 2 more cores. This time we're looking at a 500 dollar increase in cost for the flagship and the lineup was simply extended to accommodate current pricing structure. 1500 for a 10 core extreme processor on a platform that will be obsolete by Q4 seems like a rip to me and I don't even have any plans of moving to X99.



Hummm. Let's see:


10 year inflation in the US adds up to 20%
The number of cores has increased 400% (2 to 10)
Leaving aside per core gains of performance, anything below $4,800 sounds to me like an "anti-rip".
In the end you are saying you have no use for 10 cores. Neither do I, so let's not upgrade. Just understand that it is not a matter of if being expensive (or a rip); it costs a lot of money (different thing), and this lot of money could be actually a bargain if we really needed the performance.


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 5, 2016)

galta said:


> Hummm. Let's see:
> 
> 
> 10 year inflation in the US adds up to 20%
> ...


You must be new to this, so I'll let it slide.

I'll reply to the end instead, when we need the performance it'll be outdated and still rather costly. Just go look at the pricing for used X58 gear.


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> You must be new to this, so I'll let it slide.
> 
> I'll reply to the end instead, when we need the performance it'll be outdated and still rather costly. Just go look at the pricing for used X58 gear.



Not quite new. I've been assembling PCs since 486s, so I'll let you slide as well.

When you (and me) actually need 10 cores in 10 years from now, CPUs with 30 cores and 150Mb of cache will be available on the newest X159 chipset for the same $1,000 ($1,500 still to be confirmed) they cost today. If all we need are 10 cores, they we be available for $300, so guess what: complaining that 30 cores cost $1,000 in 2026 will still make no sense.
The price of old and used X99 platforms will be of interest for archeologists only.

Anyway, talk to you again in 2026.

All the best.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 5, 2016)

galta said:


> Not quite new. I've been assembling PCs since 486s, so I'll let you slide as well.
> 
> When you (and me) actually need 10 cores in 10 years from now, CPUs with 30 cores and 150Mb of cache will be available on the newest X159 chipset for the same $1,000 ($1,500 still to be confirmed) they cost today. If all we need are 10 cores, they we be available for $300, so guess what: complaining that 30 cores cost $1,000 in 2026 will still make no sense.
> The price of old and used X99 platforms will be of interest for archeologists only.
> ...



Prices have dropped substantially since 486 days so bad example. The price jump is just intel being intel and have the market so they can do whatever they want.


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Prices have dropped substantially since 486 days so bad example. The price jump is just intel being intel and have the market so they can do whatever they want.



Dear God...
Once I was guilty of being a newbie, now I am guilty of being old. It never really ends, does it?

Yes, they can do what they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences, and yes, if AMD had good products and some 40% of market share prices would lower.

All things said (or sad), think about it: 10 years ago, when AMD was a real player and Intel's flaship would retail for the same $1,000 it costs today, people would not complain as much as they do today. There is no sense at all.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 5, 2016)

galta said:


> Dear God...
> Once I was guilty of being a newbie, now I am guilty of being old. It never really ends, does it?
> 
> Yes, they can do what they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences, and yes, if AMD had good products and some 40% of market share prices would lower.
> ...



Prices wouldn't be lower. AMD proved they would do the exact same thing intel does.

Athlon 64 FX 51 (socket 940 aka the server socket) $733
Athlon 64 FX 53 (socket 939 so desktop finally) $733
Athlon 64 FX 55 $827
Athlon 64 FX 57 $1031
Athlon 64 FX 60 $1031
Athlon 64 FX 62 $1031

The next batch of AMD chips were a real value  if you didn't include platform costs. AMD's original attempt to compete with the C2Q extremes is a bit of a bust.

Athlon 64 FX 70 $599 pr (2 required for quadfather platform which again is server based)
Athlon 64 FX 72 $799 pr
Athlon 64 FX 74 $999 pr


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Prices wouldn't be lower. AMD proved they would do the exact same thing intel does.
> 
> Athlon 64 FX 51 (socket 940 aka the server socket) $733
> Athlon 64 FX 53 (socket 939 so desktop finally) $733
> ...



Thank you very, very much.

I-hate-Intel-monopoly guys, something else to add?

No? Ok, thanks.
Talk to you guys again when 7xxx is out.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 5, 2016)

LOL, this guy is a real gem...


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 5, 2016)

galta said:


> *Not quite new. I've been assembling PCs since 486s*, so I'll let you slide as well.
> 
> When you (and me) actually need 10 cores in 10 years from now, CPUs with 30 cores and 150Mb of cache will be available on the newest X159 chipset for the same $1,000 ($1,500 still to be confirmed) they cost today. If all we need are 10 cores, they we be available for $300, so guess what: complaining that 30 cores cost $1,000 in 2026 will still make no sense.
> The price of old and used X99 platforms will be of interest for archeologists only.
> ...


Then you should know that business major financial math doesn't work in the PC world for a multitude of reasons.


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Then you should know that business major financial math doesn't work in the PC world for a multitude of reasons.



Never said otherwise...


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 5, 2016)

galta said:


> Never said otherwise...


*Looks above*....k.


----------



## galta (Apr 5, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> *Looks above*....k.



Oh, that?

It was not business major financial math. Just arithmetic - which applies everywhere - plus a strong statement susceptible to empirical verification: absent inflationary problems in the US, I expect Intel flagships to remain around $1,000 in the foreseeable future, just like it has over the last 10 years.
Therefore, an i7-6950x for $1,000 today is way cheaper than QX6700 was in 2006, even if gains from previous generation are way smaller.
Again, no finance.
But I believe we have amused our audience enough for now.
Let's talk again in 2026 so we have facts, instead of opinions, to prove who was right.
Right?


----------



## johnspack (Apr 6, 2016)

I'm waiting for an octo core that can do 5ghz,  so I can game as well as transcode and run vms on the same dam machine.  How practical would that be?  I bet people would pay for that.


----------



## Breit (Apr 6, 2016)

johnspack said:


> I'm waiting for an octo core that can do 5ghz,  so I can game as well as transcode and run vms on the same dam machine.  How practical would that be?  I bet people would pay for that.



There were rumors about a quad core Xeon E5-2602 v4 as part of the Broadwell-EP lineup clocking up to 5.1GHz per default a few weeks back. Allthough this chip is not targeted towards the retail market, it shows that the Broadwell-E(P) die can clock very high.
So your dream may eventually become true this generation...


----------



## PP Mguire (Apr 6, 2016)

johnspack said:


> I'm waiting for an octo core that can do 5ghz,  so I can game as well as transcode and run vms on the same dam machine.  How practical would that be?  I bet people would pay for that.


Isn't this like the main defense of the AMD FX line?


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 12, 2016)

johnspack said:


> I'm waiting for an octo core that can do 5ghz,  so I can game as well as transcode and run vms on the same dam machine.  How practical would that be?  I bet people would pay for that.



They probably will, but the big issue is that not enough people will pay for it.

Not every niche is a worthwhile one to build products for  AMD still needs to learn this, FX 9590 and Fury X I'm looking at you.

Also, power consumption will go through the roof. Being able to clock high, and being able to do so for 24/7 use are two different things. You don't go 24/7 on LN2 and you also don't run these high cost chips on the very edge of what's possible in terms of vCore, degradation and all that... And then there is the 8 cores. Broadwell-E 10 cores with a 140w base TDP, I reckon 10x5.1 Ghz will easily go past 350w.


----------

