Monday, October 31st 2016

Intel Kaby Lake Desktop Processors Specifications Detailed In Official Documents

News and specifications about Intel's upcoming Kaby Lake-based desktop CPUs are thin, but a recent leak has made it possible to discern at least some details, due to an Intel product change notification (PCN) document.

A PCN is a document issued by a manufacturer to inform customers about a change to a mass-produced product or its manufacturing process. In this PCN, Intel details a new factory in Vietnam which will work in order to "ensure a continuous supply of the Select Intel Xeon Processor E3-1205, Intel Core i5-7400 Processor, Intel Core i5-7400T Processor, Intel Core i5-7500 Processor, Intel Core i5-7500T Processor, Intel Core i5-7600 Processor, Intel Core i5-7600K Processor, Intel Core i5-7600T Processor, Intel Core i7-7700 Processor, Intel Core i7-7700T Processor and Intel Core i7-7700K Processor products".
According to the document, Intel is readying a first release wave of at least 11 quad-core processors. The chips keep the usual Intel nomenclature of cores and Hyper-Threading scaling from i3 (2 cores, 4 threads) through i5 (4 cores, 4 threads) and i7 (4 cores, eight threads) models. As has been the case in the past, Intel will have available high-performance K variants (i.e., with an unlocked multiplier and 95W TDP), T variants (low-power, 35 W TDP) and standard, 65 W versions of their Kaby Lake processors. THE PCN also "details" what looks like a Xeon part, E3-1205v6, though not much about it is known at this time, with the exception of its 3.0 GHz frequency.
Of these 11 processors, three will be Core i7 models, filling TDP levels of 95, 65 and 35 W (i7-7700K, with base frequency of 4.2 GHz and 95 W TDP; i7-7700, with reduced clockspeed of 3.6 GHz and 65 W TDP, and a a low-power, 2.9 GHz i7-7700T). Another seven CPUs will fit in the i5 bracket (from the top-of-the-line i5-7600K, an unlocked-multiplier CPU operating at 3.8 GHz and 95W TDP through to the lowest-performing processor, the 35 W, 2.4 GHz i5-7400T.

Architecture-wise, not much of a difference is expected between the upcoming Kaby Lake family of processors compared to their Skylake predecessors, barring some eventual refinements here and there (if you choose to count Intel's Speed Shift v2 technology here, feel free to do so). The same is true for their manufacturing process, with Intel's 14nm+ basically enabling a bump in frequencies for all Kaby Lake processors' stock clocks when compared to their Skylake predecessors ranging between a moderate 300 Mhz (i5-7600K against the i5-6600K, for instance) and a measly 100 MHz increase (i7-7700T against its 17-6700T counterpart).
It's likely that most performance improvements with Kaby Lake will stem from their increased frequency, as well as the ability to more quickly change between frequency states, but to how much of an improvement that will bring remains to be seen. It may be that the refined 14nm+ manufacturing process that Intel is leveraging here will allow for increased overclocking potential - and then again, those eventual gains may already be reflected in the base frequency bump Intel has applied to the Kaby Lake family.
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Intel Kaby Lake Desktop Processors Specifications Detailed In Official Documents

#26
GelatanousMuck
xorbeNice, that's gonna last a while.
It's been running like that for 3 1/2 years now, so even at this point it has well served beyond it's expectations, and I have no regrets or complaints if it dies today!

Were you being sarcastic?
Posted on Reply
#27
jrau
ParticleI find it amusing that the refrain seems to always be:

"AMD has released a new part which doesn't meet our expectations. This is AMD's fault."

but also:

"Intel has released a new part which doesn't meet our expectations. This too is AMD's fault."

Intel can do no wrong in the minds of many.
And at the same time Intel is expected to deliver twice the performance at half the price or they are milking the consumer.
Posted on Reply
#28
Nergal
jrauAnd at the same time Intel is expected to deliver twice the performance at half the price or they are milking the consumer.
Hmmm, this is certainly true for NV, but not for intel.

Example, take the launch prices of the topline of each generation of I-7.
Compare
Take into account world average inflation
(repeat for GPU NV-AMD segment)

2011 pricing was 319(2600K), now its around 350-ish?

So for the end-user; the prices have stayed the same; but not for the industry (real high-end CPU´s).
The biggest pushes were done there; which is logical. Normal PC users have no real need for the heavy guns these days. Just surfing doesnt take much; and most of the heavy lifting with games is done by the GPU.
Posted on Reply
#29
Fluffmeister
ParticleI find it amusing that the refrain seems to always be:

"AMD has released a new part which doesn't meet our expectations. This is AMD's fault."

but also:

"Intel has released a new part which doesn't meet our expectations. This too is AMD's fault."

Intel can do no wrong in the minds of many.
Well sadly for us consumers AMD are the only competition in the CPU market, so ultimately it is their fault if they don't deliver.

Sucks to have a x86 license I guess.
Posted on Reply
#30
xorbe
GelatanousMuckIt's been running like that for 3 1/2 years now, so even at this point it has well served beyond it's expectations, and I have no regrets or complaints if it dies today!

Were you being sarcastic?
No, I really meant, your 5Ghz 3770k should get you along for quite a while, performance-wise! Try to rock some low latency high speed ram with that nice cpu clock rate.
Posted on Reply
#31
Caring1
RaevenlordNews and specifications about Intel's upcoming Kaby Lake-based desktop CPUs are thin, but a recent leak has made it possible to discern at least some details, due to an Intel product change notification (PCN) document.

A PCN is a document issued by a manufacturer to inform customers about a change to a mass-produced product or its manufacturing process. In this PCN, Intel details a new factory in Vietnam which will work in order to "ensure a continuous supply of the Select Intel Xeon Processor E3-1205, Intel Core i5-7400 Processor, Intel Core i5-7400T Processor, Intel Core i5-7500 Processor, Intel Core i5-7500T Processor, Intel Core i5-7600 Processor, Intel Core i5-7600K Processor, Intel Core i5-7600T Processor, Intel Core i7-7700 Processor, Intel Core i7-7700T Processor and Intel Core i7-7700K Processor products".
Found an i5-7600K in the wild already.
www.3dmark.com/fs/10664505?_ga=1.108051078.507117041.1462523653
and an i7-7700
www.3dmark.com/pcmv/600621?_ga=1.147463859.507117041.1462523653
Posted on Reply
#32
hellrazor
Has anybody noticed that the chart says it lists speed in GHz when it clearly does so in MHz?
Posted on Reply
#33
bug
jrauFirst time post ...

Is it a valid assumption that Intel is "holding back" on CPU development? The general assumption is that because there isn't an alternative choice for x86 CPUs at the high performance end of the product line Intel isn't "trying".

AMD went back to the beginning with what some say is one of the best CPU designers in the business. If they get to 80% of Intel's top performance does that mean Intel really is trying hard and maybe CPUs don't get way faster each generation forever.

On a more personal level ... I work in Excel all day long. A few years ago I built a PC that was faster than my work PC. That led to a faster work PC. While the improvement was immediate and huge I have learned that if I write a better macro (VBA code) I get bigger performance gains that what a new PC delivered.

It might not be possible for Intel to deliver a CPU that can overcome poorly written code ...
It's not that intel isn't trying, it's just they're not trying to improve in an area where they are not challenged (IPC). With the rise of mobile computing, they improved in power consumption and IGPs instead. Which poses another problem for Zen, one few are talking about: if Zen shows adequate IPC, will it also be competitive in power consumption? Because if it won't, notebooks will remain intel-only. And that will hurt a lot.
Posted on Reply
#34
arterius2
hellrazorHas anybody noticed that the chart says it lists speed in GHz when it clearly does so in MHz?
Well the marketing department made those charts, so don't expect them to know a thing or two about computers.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jan 22nd, 2025 05:45 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts