newtekie1Honestly, 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...

MindweaverYou 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.

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

WCG is not mainstream users.

MindweaverI 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.

MindweaverYea, 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.

sameol'tekie1No, 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.

MindweaverObviously 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.

MindweaverObviously 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.

newtekie1Yeah, 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.

cadavecaThat'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.

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).

Mindweaver2011 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

MindweaverHonestly 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! ;)

MindweaverNo 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.

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

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

newtekie1And 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.

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,

Googlen. 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.

MindweaverYea, 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

cdawall6 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.

Dj-ElectriCIf 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.

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.

Prima.VeraPathetic! 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? :)

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.

PP Mguire6 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):

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

AquinusI 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.

cdawallCorrect 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.

cdawall6 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!

MindweaverNo 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. :P That's what a forum is, is a place to discuss our hobby!

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.

cadavecaYou 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. :p 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.

cadavecaYou 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. :p 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. :toast: Ok now my wife is calling my name.. lol

AquinusThe 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.

TheinsanegamerN... 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