Prima.VeraPeople 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

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.

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.

cadavecaSFF 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/

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.

Prima.VeraPeople 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?

PP MguireThat 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.

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. :toast:

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

cdawallThe 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?

MindweaverThat'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.

EarthDogMeh. 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.

PP MguireI 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.

cadavecaOff 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?

PP MguireThe 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

PP MguireThe 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.

cdawallIt 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

cadavecaYou'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.

MindweaverGood 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. :toast:

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. ;)

PP MguireTo 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.

EarthDogSo, 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. ;)


Funny, I answered those exact talking points...with numbers from newegg even. Oh well.

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

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.

cadavecaAgain, 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.

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. :)

EarthDogYou 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.

PP MguireThe 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.

PP MguireThe 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.

PP MguireThe 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...

cadavecaI 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?

cdawallIf 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.

EarthDogYou 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?