Intel Core "Skylake" Processors Start Selling

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Dieinafire]

Will this be faster then a amd cpu?

 

[RejZoR]

Considering AMD has no answer to it currently, yes, it'll be faster than AMD CPU's. But will it be cost efficient, not so sure. Especially since you have to change motherboard and memory...

 

[Sony Xperia S]

AMD FX CPUs are competitive for gaming PCs. Don't believe? Read this article from TechnologyX here http://www.ow.ly/QRKv3.

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/3/

Done reading? Buy one here: http://www.ow.ly/QRKv4 from AMD Shop.

 

[btarunr]

Considering AMD has no answer to it currently, yes, it'll be faster than AMD CPU's. But will it be cost efficient, not so sure. Especially since you have to change motherboard and memory...

You needn't change memory if you buy a DDR3 motherboard.

 

[RejZoR]

Which are not yet available afaik. I think only Biostar talked about it if I remember correctly. Being limited to one board model kinda sucks in the end...

 

[hojnikb]

AMD FX CPUs are competitive for gaming PCs. Don't believe? Read this article from TechnologyX here http://www.ow.ly/QRKv3.

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/3/

Done reading? Buy one here: http://www.ow.ly/QRKv4 from AMD Shop.

If you want old stuff, you're better off getting a used sandy bridge and Z67 mobo. Much better value and will still kick ass in games.

Also, this review fails to test games, that are poor in multithreading. While lots of games work just fine under both camps when set to the max (ie gpu bottleneck), some games just plain sux on amd due to poor single thread performance.

So yeah, if you want 4+ year old platform, you're better off with sandy bridge.

 

[iSkylaker]

Actually, they started selling the 5th in most countries except the US, the i5-6600K is appearing in stock on most online retailers (Newegg, Amazon and Tiguerdirect) since 1-2 days ago. But the i7-6700K is nowhere in the US. I wish I could find that i7-6700K for $343 here.

 

[iSkylaker]

AMD FX CPUs are competitive for gaming PCs. Don't believe? Read this article from TechnologyX here http://www.ow.ly/QRKv3.

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/3/

Done reading? Buy one here: http://www.ow.ly/QRKv4 from AMD Shop.

Yeah, how much?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Which are not yet available afaik. I think only Biostar talked about it if I remember correctly. Being limited to one board model kinda sucks in the end...

The DDR3 boards will mostly be marketed to OEMs. A few will make it to consumer channels but, yeah, don't expect much choice. They only exist to get rid of some DDR3 supply.

Actually, they started selling the 5th in most countries except the US, the i5-6600K is appearing in stock on most online retailers (Newegg, Amazon and Tiguerdirect) since 1-2 days ago. But the i7-6700K is nowhere in the US. I wish I could find that i7-6700K for $343 here.

Yup, I still don't see any 6700Ks that aren't being gouged. Maybe that will change in the next 12 hours.

 

[Easo]

Yeah, they were selling already, for example, 1a.lv (Latvia, obviously), had the i7-6700K in stock for the last few days.

 

[Dennis77]

Skylake = Another disappointment from Intel.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/08/05/intel-plays-press-skylake-stupidity/

Probably 2-5% in procesor performance increase and 20-30% in integrated
graphics increase.

Taking in account that no gamer looks for integrated
graphics as everybody have decent graphics card/s so it stays at best 5%
increase. Intel is forcing everybody to buy their low performance integrated graphics card which to gamer is like a spare part. Like I would buy another graphics card and kept it in attic and use it only when my AMD Radeon or Nvidia GPU would blow up. Not even then as if my AMD or Nvidia would got broken I wouldn't use Intel iGPU just went to the shop and bought another AMD or Nvidia GPU. So Intel is scamming me into buying product which I will never use!

Even worse Skylake has still only 4 cores by default! We had 4
cores default for last 8 processor generations and 5 technology shrinks:
65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm and now 14nm. This is an outrage. Nehalem in
2008 had 4 cores 8threads configuration(45nm) I had Core 2
Quad(Kentsfield 65nm) on LGA 775 which had...4 cores! in March...2007!

My point is that with each process shrink there should be more cores
added: 65nm-4cores, 45nm-6cores,32nm-8cores,22nm-12cores,14nm-16cores as
standard keeping the same price per each processor generation. And all
that without integrated graphics card which no gamer needs. Intel puts
iGPU to manipulate marketing saying that they
achieved 30% increase over last generation. (but it is only 3-5%
processor increase!) iGPU actually only lower yields and
adds to price and thermal generation effectively lowering OC
capabilities. iGPU has only sense in low power laptop/tablet solutions.

Why they do not add more cores keeping same price? Because it would make
a competition to their server business.

Intel is laughing at us and we are stupid to buy their processors. They are milking us. Skylake is another joke!

I haven't bought any new processor since my sandy 2500K
running at 4.7Ghz i.e. since 2011. I hoped for Skylake to be 6-8 core by
default with 4-6core price range but now I know it is another Intel
emberassment.The problem is that there is no real alternative. So the
only strategy for us is to wait. Either they will do some changes in
their policy or they will bankrupt. I will wait for processor with at
least 10 cores in price of todays 4 core to change. No more milking! Very
disappointed.

The point is we should have 16core processors on 14nm process BY DEFAULT already.(it goes for Intel, AMD and all other CPU makers)

It is easy: if current Skylake 4 core is only 40% of CPU die space and 60%
is integrated graphics then just remove iGPU and add 60% of space CPU
cores(i.e. 6cores) = you end up with 10core CPU (maybe with a bit lower
clock) within the same price range as 4 core Skylake Intel is feeding
us. (also skylake die is very small it could easily be bigger with little price increase = 16 or 20 cores)

Then when you need extra power and want to pay more you can
calculate it for current Intel 6 core model = would be 16 core and
current 8 core model would be 20core in the corresponding price ranges.

And yes, I am aware that not all apps can use more cores(nondeterministic polynominal problems) but many other mathematical algorithms do. So the only way now to give us more processing power is add more cores! (hope new materials in the future will add more speed i.e. 1Thz but that is very far away from now) Developers would quickly utilize extra power.

I hope everybody understand my point now. i.e. We could have 10 core Skylake in
price of 4 core Skylake now and there is no technical problem to do
so... only Intel's policy.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@Dennis77 Welcome to TPU. You mad, bro? I've see some rants, but that one pretty much puts the blame on them for everything except climate change.

Seriously, yes you had 4 core Kentsfields and Yorkies in 2007, but they weren't really true quadcores, needed a small fission reactor to power them, and....here's where your complaint falls down: an i3-4130 will run circles around most of those Q9xx0 chips. You have to look at the actual processing power of newer chips, not just a straight core to core number count.

As to the need for serious calculations, well Skylake is mainstream. It's for normal use, and for gaming, and light whatever. Professional use, and heavy calculations are not what you buy Skylake for. So 4 cores, or 4 cores and 8 threads on i7-6700k is plenty.

 

[Sony Xperia S]

@Dennis77well Skylake is mainstream. It's for normal use, and for gaming, and light whatever. Professional use, and heavy calculations are not what you buy Skylake for. So 4 cores, or 4 cores and 8 threads on i76700k is plenty.

Skylake is mainstream, so for the average joes who have no clue, neither for where their money goes, nor to what exactly they buy. And that is crap, compared to what could have been in a better world.

 

[RejZoR]

But Nehalem a year later was a true quad core with 8 threads, just like Skylake. Haswell-E has moved to 6 cores so you can expect the same from Skylake-E base models, but that's frankly really late. That's why everyone hope AMD's Zen will really be a total Intel killer. Even those who want to buy Intel. If anyone remembers Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era knows what I mean. It kicked Intel in the butt and forced them to create a bigger leap in order to compete with AMD's processors. And frankly, I'd like to return to AMD again. I kinda miss their underdog status...

 

[64K]

Skylake = Another disappointment from Intel.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/08/05/intel-plays-press-skylake-stupidity/

Probably 2-5% in procesor performance increase and 20-30% in integrated
graphics increase.

Taking in account that no gamer looks for integrated
graphics as everybody have decent graphics card/s so it stays at best 5%
increase. Intel is forcing everybody to buy their low performance integrated graphics card which to gamer is like a spare part. Like I would buy another graphics card and kept it in attic and use it only when my AMD Radeon or Nvidia GPU would blow up. Not even then as if my AMD or Nvidia would got broken I wouldn't use Intel iGPU just went to the shop and bought another AMD or Nvidia GPU. So Intel is scamming me into buying product which I will never use!

Even worse Skylake has still only 4 cores by default! We had 4
cores default for last 8 processor generations and 5 technology shrinks:
65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm and now 14nm. This is an outrage. Nehalem in
2008 had 4 cores 8threads configuration(45nm) I had Core 2
Quad(Kentsfield 65nm) on LGA 775 which had...4 cores! in March...2007!

My point is that with each process shrink there should be more cores
added: 65nm-4cores, 45nm-6cores,32nm-8cores,22nm-12cores,14nm-16cores as
standard keeping the same price per each processor generation. And all
that without integrated graphics card which no gamer needs. Intel puts
iGPU to manipulate marketing saying that they
achieved 30% increase over last generation. (but it is only 3-5%
processor increase!) iGPU actually only lower yields and
adds to price and thermal generation effectively lowering OC
capabilities. iGPU has only sense in low power laptop/tablet solutions.

Why they do not add more cores keeping same price? Because it would make
a competition to their server business.

Intel is laughing at us and we are stupid to buy their processors. They are milking us. Skylake is another joke!

I haven't bought any new processor since my sandy 2500K
running at 4.7Ghz i.e. since 2011. I hoped for Skylake to be 6-8 core by
default with 4-6core price range but now I know it is another Intel
emberassment.The problem is that there is no real alternative. So the
only strategy for us is to wait. Either they will do some changes in
their policy or they will bankrupt. I will wait for processor with at
least 10 cores in price of todays 4 core to change. No more milking! Very
disappointed.

The point is we should have 16core processors on 14nm process BY DEFAULT already.(it goes for Intel, AMD and all other CPU makers)

It is easy: if current Skylake 4 core is only 40% of CPU die space and 60%
is integrated graphics then just remove iGPU and add 60% of space CPU
cores(i.e. 6cores) = you end up with 10core CPU (maybe with a bit lower
clock) within the same price range as 4 core Skylake Intel is feeding
us. (also skylake die is very small it could easily be bigger with little price increase = 16 or 20 cores)

Then when you need extra power and want to pay more you can
calculate it for current Intel 6 core model = would be 16 core and
current 8 core model would be 20core in the corresponding price ranges.

And yes, I am aware that not all apps can use more cores(nondeterministic polynominal problems) but many other mathematical algorithms do. So the only way now to give us more processing power is add more cores! (hope new materials in the future will add more speed i.e. 1Thz but that is very far away from now) Developers would quickly utilize extra power.

I hope everybody understand my point now. i.e. We could have 10 core Skylake in
price of 4 core Skylake now and there is no technical problem to do
so... only Intel's policy.

I will make the same argument that I don't want to pay for something I don't need too. If Skylake were 6 or 8 cores by default then I would be forced to pay for 2 to 4 cores that I don't need. Listen to some of the programmers that post here. There are problems with writing code using multiple threads in some apps. Most people don't want more slower cores. That's why most people reject AMD 8 core CPUs.

Also you need have no fear that Intel will go bankrupt. Last year they had a revenue of 55.87 billion dollars and a net income of 11.7 billion dollars with a market cap of 137 billion dollars. If you compare that with AMD's (including GPU sales and revenue from all the console chips) for a revenue of 5.51 billion dollars and a net income of -403 million dollars (loss) and a market cap of 1.48 billion dollars then it's pretty clear that Intel is robust financially.

 

[Sony Xperia S]

I will make the same argument that I don't want to pay for something I don't need too. If Skylake were 6 or 8 cores by default then I would be forced to pay for 2 to 4 cores that I don't need.

There is no such movie that you don't need MOAR cores. You can always saturate them by simply using multiple applications simultaneously and adjusting their load respectively.

 

[ensabrenoir]

Skylake = Another disappointment from Intel.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/08/05/intel-plays-press-skylake-stupidity/

Probably 2-5% in procesor performance increase and 20-30% in integrated
graphics increase

.......that is the reason/Intel's goal for skylake....... can we just come to the agreed conclusion that only people suffering from dome sort of deficiency would expect a major jump in performance given Intel's tick tock cycle. No where......whether it be graphics cards or cpus.........always skip a gen or two. Just so happen to need to build a new system .......yes. Just wanna upgrade just because....yes. Looking for more....NO!!!!

 

[Sony Xperia S]

major jump in performance

It's needed, otherwise 4K hangs in the air completely useless.

I guess you do not expect AMD to take all the responsibility with faster graphics only.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Meh. Ill keep my 2600K and a swollen wallet.

 

[EarthDog]

There is no such movie that you don't need MOAR cores. You can always saturate them by simply using multiple applications simultaneously and adjusting their load respectively.

I can't believe you actually exist.




Anyway, back to reality... where are these being sold? Still not in the USA...

 

[buggalugs]

These things have been on sale and in stock for 2 weeks in Australia, with a few motherboards options from Asus and MSI, few days later they added Gigabyte and AsRock boards. Seems to be plenty of stock.

Impossible to buy any Fury or FuryX graphics cards though, all sold out and no ETA. Its been that way for a few weeks....... No wonder AMD cant make money.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think Fury supply problems stem from HBM. Hynix was giving AMD priority for shipments but apparently they aren't making them fast enough. I'm sure the quality controls on it are brutal. They can't just remove a bad chip and quickly replace it. Once it is put into the interposer, it isn't going anywhere and if that chip was bad, AMD would either have to bin it as a lower model or scrap the whole thing.

I think Intel still hasn't filled all the preorders for 6700K in the USA which is why they still aren't available for retail purchase.

 

[peche]

Skylake = Another disappointment from Intel.

http://semiaccurate.com/2015/08/05/intel-plays-press-skylake-stupidity/

Probably 2-5% in procesor performance increase and 20-30% in integrated
graphics increase.

Taking in account that no gamer looks for integrated
graphics as everybody have decent graphics card/s so it stays at best 5%
increase. Intel is forcing everybody to buy their low performance integrated graphics card which to gamer is like a spare part. Like I would buy another graphics card and kept it in attic and use it only when my AMD Radeon or Nvidia GPU would blow up. Not even then as if my AMD or Nvidia would got broken I wouldn't use Intel iGPU just went to the shop and bought another AMD or Nvidia GPU. So Intel is scamming me into buying product which I will never use!

Even worse Skylake has still only 4 cores by default! We had 4
cores default for last 8 processor generations and 5 technology shrinks:
65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm and now 14nm. This is an outrage. Nehalem in
2008 had 4 cores 8threads configuration(45nm) I had Core 2
Quad(Kentsfield 65nm) on LGA 775 which had...4 cores! in March...2007!

My point is that with each process shrink there should be more cores
added: 65nm-4cores, 45nm-6cores,32nm-8cores,22nm-12cores,14nm-16cores as
standard keeping the same price per each processor generation. And all
that without integrated graphics card which no gamer needs. Intel puts
iGPU to manipulate marketing saying that they
achieved 30% increase over last generation. (but it is only 3-5%
processor increase!) iGPU actually only lower yields and
adds to price and thermal generation effectively lowering OC
capabilities. iGPU has only sense in low power laptop/tablet solutions.

Why they do not add more cores keeping same price? Because it would make
a competition to their server business.

Intel is laughing at us and we are stupid to buy their processors. They are milking us. Skylake is another joke!

I haven't bought any new processor since my sandy 2500K
running at 4.7Ghz i.e. since 2011. I hoped for Skylake to be 6-8 core by
default with 4-6core price range but now I know it is another Intel
emberassment.The problem is that there is no real alternative. So the
only strategy for us is to wait. Either they will do some changes in
their policy or they will bankrupt. I will wait for processor with at
least 10 cores in price of todays 4 core to change. No more milking! Very
disappointed.

The point is we should have 16core processors on 14nm process BY DEFAULT already.(it goes for Intel, AMD and all other CPU makers)

It is easy: if current Skylake 4 core is only 40% of CPU die space and 60%
is integrated graphics then just remove iGPU and add 60% of space CPU
cores(i.e. 6cores) = you end up with 10core CPU (maybe with a bit lower
clock) within the same price range as 4 core Skylake Intel is feeding
us. (also skylake die is very small it could easily be bigger with little price increase = 16 or 20 cores)

Then when you need extra power and want to pay more you can
calculate it for current Intel 6 core model = would be 16 core and
current 8 core model would be 20core in the corresponding price ranges.

And yes, I am aware that not all apps can use more cores(nondeterministic polynominal problems) but many other mathematical algorithms do. So the only way now to give us more processing power is add more cores! (hope new materials in the future will add more speed i.e. 1Thz but that is very far away from now) Developers would quickly utilize extra power.

I hope everybody understand my point now. i.e. We could have 10 core Skylake in
price of 4 core Skylake now and there is no technical problem to do
so... only Intel's policy.

moar moar cores, cores here , cores there ...
where are you from AMD?

 

[Static~Charge]

But Nehalem a year later was a true quad core with 8 threads, just like Skylake. Haswell-E has moved to 6 cores so you can expect the same from Skylake-E base models, but that's frankly really late. That's why everyone hope AMD's Zen will really be a total Intel killer. Even those who want to buy Intel. If anyone remembers Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era knows what I mean. It kicked Intel in the butt and forced them to create a bigger leap in order to compete with AMD's processors. And frankly, I'd like to return to AMD again. I kinda miss their underdog status...

^ This. If nothing else, Intel needs some serious competition for the consumer's sake. Intel has gotten more and more complacent as AMD slips behind in processor performance. If AMD's Zen is truly competitive, in both performance and power consumption, I'd gladly buy it.