Friday, August 14th 2015
Intel Core "Skylake" Processors Start Selling
Retail availability of the two Core "Skylake" SKUs Intel debuted, the Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K, begins today. This is when you will be able to pick up a boxed chip off the shelf, or order one online. To help ease the socket confusion, online retailers are selling bundles of these chips with compatible socket LGA1151 motherboards at a nominal discount, some of which include DDR4 memory, depending on the motherboard bundled. On its own, the Core i7-6700K is priced at US $343, while the Core i5-6600K is priced at $250.
The i7-6700K offers clock speeds of 4.00 GHz out of the box, with Turbo Boost frequency of 4.20 GHz. It also offers 8 MB of L3 cache, and HyperThreading, which enables 8 logical CPUs for the OS to address. The Core i5-6600K, on the other hand, offers 3.50 GHz clocks with 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost. It offers 6 MB of L3 cache, and lacks HyperThreading. Both are quad-core chips, with unlocked base-clock multipliers, for overclocking. The retail packages of both chips lack stock cooling solutions, so you need to have an LGA115x-compatible cooler ready. The TDP of both chips is rated at 91W. Intel will put out some of the finer micro-architecture details on the 16th of August, 2015. More Core i5 quad-core SKUs in the series will be released on the 29th of August, 2015. Dual-core Core i3 SKUs will be launched towards the end of September, 2015.
The i7-6700K offers clock speeds of 4.00 GHz out of the box, with Turbo Boost frequency of 4.20 GHz. It also offers 8 MB of L3 cache, and HyperThreading, which enables 8 logical CPUs for the OS to address. The Core i5-6600K, on the other hand, offers 3.50 GHz clocks with 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost. It offers 6 MB of L3 cache, and lacks HyperThreading. Both are quad-core chips, with unlocked base-clock multipliers, for overclocking. The retail packages of both chips lack stock cooling solutions, so you need to have an LGA115x-compatible cooler ready. The TDP of both chips is rated at 91W. Intel will put out some of the finer micro-architecture details on the 16th of August, 2015. More Core i5 quad-core SKUs in the series will be released on the 29th of August, 2015. Dual-core Core i3 SKUs will be launched towards the end of September, 2015.
92 Comments on Intel Core "Skylake" Processors Start Selling
People don't realize it but multi-threaded applications spend a lot of time waiting for input from somewhere else. Every time a thread has to lock, it's not being useful. There are techniques for making this "less bad," but there are some instances where you can't do work because of the nature of the application.
If there is enough public interest in such a document, I would be willing to start making something.
Edit: If I were to do this, the documentation would simply be part of a (probably,) Clojure project that can be run, tested, and played with. I would also try to keep it relatively simple as I'm not looking to write a dissertation. :p
Of course, that's $200 per thread (7174/36). If that kind of pricing were offered on "enthusiast" level cores you'd wind up with a 5930k being $2400 (currently sits at $580 on Newegg). Alternatively, you could get the "mainstream" offering of the 4790k for $1600 (currently sitting at $240 on Newegg).
Kinda seems like adding a load of more cores doesn't lead to gaming performance, dang near logarithmically increases CPU cost, and actually forces every core to clock slower (2.5 base for the Xeon, 3.5 base for the 5930k, and 4.0 base for the 4790k). Really, the last high end processors that utilized 2.x frequencies designed specifically for gaming were in the Core 2 series. Yes, IPC improvements mean 2.4 GHz today is better than 2.6 GHz half a decade ago, but that doesn't excuse a huge slide backwards.
Why do we need more cores again?
Newegg and Amazon still don't have i7-6700K inventory. :(
Why should we had more cores until now ? Because Ghz/speed war is over , only real performace gain will come from core count and a bit from ipc increase ,it is why. We need more cores if we want more performance.
Meanwhile, we will fight to achieve our goals, because if we rely on people who have no clue, it would always be without proper order.
The future is not more and more cores.
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/intel-forges-ahead-to-10nm-will-move-away-from-silicon-at-7nm/
www.winbeta.org/news/amd-directx-12-will-finally-unlock-true-potential-your-multi-core-cpu
Either way, I would like to see a game with both DX11 and 12 implementations and see how performance varies. Until then, we really don't have anything reliable to tell us how it will go.
www.pcworld.com/article/2900814/tested-directx-12s-potential-performance-leap-is-insane.html
"But back in reality
Before you look at the results from these tests and assume you're going to see a frickin' 10x free performance boost from DX12 games later this year, zing, zam, zow! You won't. So ease off the hype engine.
What's realistic? I'd expect anywhere from Microsoft's claims of 50-percent improvement all the way to the what we're seeing here in Futuremark's test. This will depend very much on the kind of game and the coding behind it.
The reality is this test is a theoretical test, although one made with advice from Microsoft and the GPU vendors. This test reveals the potential, but translating that potential into an actual game isn't quite as easy.
We won't know for sure until actual DirectX-12-enabled games ship. Microsoft estimates that will be the end of this year."
We're all hoping for the best Sony Xperia. We're just not counting our chickens before they're hatched. Making a CPU buying decision based on what DX12 may be able to bring wouldn't be a good idea imo because we won't know what it will deliver until the first DX12 game drops.
Let's explore the ignorance and short attention span. First off, what current games run DX12? None. What are you basing your magical assumptions off of? Magical numbers from AMD. The same artificially inflated and cherry picked numbers that irrevocably proved that Bulldozer beat the pants off of Intel processors? The same architecture that AMD has officially stated was idiotic and is being ejected with Zen? If you want to make artificial numbers your dogma, then you should get an echo chamber. AMD and Intel both BS us, and until we confirm their claims in reality absolutely everything they say should be taken as optimistic figures.
As far as the short attention span, read my earlier responses. They include the fact that DX12 and Open GL/CL are supposed to make multi-threaded rendering new standards. The previous responses also indicate that CPU development isn't done over night, and that any new developments will take years to be seen in CPUs. While we're on the subject, they also say carving out 6 cores from a 4 core CPU is pants-on-head stupid. It seems like you'd make that point, so I thought it reasonable to cover it.
Assuming you're a troll, go eat a big bag of lemons. Maybe then that sickening smile will be destroyed.
So we're clear about our, relatively recent, history. Netburst was moronic, and AMD beat Intel to the 64-bit punch. That was over a decade ago, yet we still run 99% of programs natively in 32 bit. Most games currently run from some flavor of DX11 right now, but before DX11 rose to prominence DX9 was the standard. DX10 came bundled with the turd that was Vista, so despite improvements over DX9 there was never significant adoption of DX10. AMD beat the pants off of Intel in the P4 era, but has been trailing ever since the release of Phenom. AMD has consistently offered processors with more cores than Intel (do you remember Thuban?) on their mainstream offerings, yet somehow still manages to under perform on the CPU side.
If you are somehow still lacking a grasp on this conversation, please reread previous posts. Your points have all been addressed, answered, and reanswered when asked a second time. Either find some new material, or start your own thread about how mainstream offerings need more than 4 cores. In case you missed it, this thread is about Skylake.
But... the best now is to wait a year or two and check the offers then.
Because there will be 14/16 nm products for both graphics, and from CPU suppliers - both of them.
Are you aware that all AMD CPU work on Crosshair 4 Formula motherboard AM3... Unboxing of that board was before 5 years.
But best board for them is launched before I think 4 years.
AMD Fans wait new Messiah, some Zen. They still didn't learn, after Bulldozer, Hawaii "TITAN Killer", Fury X "TITAN X Killer" they still didn't learn, and AMD's Quantum project with Intel processor is not enough to tell them what to do.
Z170 is good platform for Mini ITX builds. I7-6700K, GSkill have some nice 2x 8GB DDR4 Dual Channels.
Real thing for EVGA Hadron case, GTX980 and Intel 730 SSD.
But only for small rigs, anything bigger and more expensive is wasting money compare to X99.