Intel Leaks Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition On Company Website

[btarunr]

Intel over the weekend, leaked its upcoming Core i7-6950X processor in the change-log of its latest Management Engine software, on the company's Support website. In its CPU support list, the entry for "Intel Core i7-6950X Processor Extreme Edition" stands out. It also leaks two key specifications - 25 MB of L3 cache, and a clock speed of up to 3.50 GHz. The Core i7-6800 and i7-6900 series are a family of six-, eight-, and ten-core processors based on the 14 nm "Broadwell-E" silicon, and built in the LGA2011v3 package, compatible with existing Intel X99 Express chipset motherboards, with BIOS updates.

It's being speculated that the i7-6950X will be the first client-platform CPU with 10 cores. Intel could position this product at a new price-point that's above even the $999 it traditionally reserved for its high-end client chips. At $999, the company could offer an 8-core Core i7-6900K; followed by 6-core Core i7-6850K and i7-6800K at the traditional $600 and $400 price points, respectively. Intel could launch these chips some time within Q2-2016.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Caring1]

So a base clock of around 3Ghz with a boost up to 3.5Ghz?
Might not have the speed people expected but for those that can use all those cores it will be nice.

 

[Chaitanya]

Somehow wierd pricing policy of Intel means that Hedt based entry level Cpu+Motherboard are cheaper option to highend Mainstream Cpu+Mid range motherboard.

 

[btarunr]

Somehow wierd pricing policy of Intel means that Hedt based entry level Cpu+Motherboard are cheaper option to highend Mainstream Cpu+Mid range motherboard.

But then there are other platform costs (quad-channel memory / will work with two memory sticks just fine), bigger aftermarket cooler, and bigger PSU.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Still waiting for Zen

 

[Chaitanya]

But then there are other platform costs (quad-channel memory / will work with two memory sticks just fine), bigger aftermarket cooler, and bigger PSU.

But now a days Intel has stopped bundling stock cooler with their K series chips on mainstream platforms. which means anyone getting K series cpus have to get after market cpu cooler. DDR4 prices now have come down enough that you can easily get 32GB DDR4-2400 kit for 150$. Many gamers will be going for aftermarket cpu cooler plus gpu, that really makes the entry level hedt platform very attractive for majority of gamers and enthusiats.

 

[Ferrum Master]

We need to know how well it clocks...

I suspect it being very very hot....

 

[btarunr]

But now a days Intel has stopped bundling stock cooler with their K series chips on mainstream platforms. which means anyone getting K series cpus have to get after market cpu cooler. DDR4 prices now have come down enough that you can easily get 32GB DDR4-2400 kit for 150$. Many gamers will be going for aftermarket cpu cooler plus gpu, that really makes the entry level hedt platform very attractive for majority of gamers and enthusiats.

You can make do with a cheap $20-ish Cooler Master on LGA1151 K chips. You'll have to buy something much bigger and costlier on 140W HEDT chips.

 

[techy1]

you better hope that it will be 999$... so in these 2 years we actually got some price performance increase - then we will get a 10 core 3.0 for the same price of i7-5960x (8 core 3.0) and same goes for one CPU down the line ("i7-5930x"-like CPU now with +2 cores for the same price).... One can argue that 2 years and Enthusiast platform would be inclined for more performance increase - but sadly - we are in times now that a 7 year old i7-920 is good enough and there are zero to none need for upgrade... if someone would tell me that 10-5 years ago - that a 7year old and more CPU will still be only 30-40% slower than the one of newest generation out there (in same class) - I would laughed in his face and I spit in his eye (Johnny Cash 25 minutes to go). in case if Intel shifts price up so 10 core costs 1500$ and 8 core (basically the 1:1 of i7-5960x) cost the same 999$ - well then we are totally screwd - absolutely 0.0 progress has been made.

 

[techy1]

You can make do with a cheap $20-ish Cooler Master on LGA1151 K chips. You'll have to buy something much bigger and costlier on 140W HEDT chips.

yes... and that would be 30$ extra

 

[Nokiron]

So a base clock of around 3Ghz with a boost up to 3.5Ghz?
Might not have the speed people expected but for those that can use all those cores it will be nice.

Well, its pretty much at the level of 5960X, but with two extra cores. That's not shabby!

 

[dj-electric]

Also, actual power consumption should be a bit less than 5960X

 

[Breit]

you better hope that it will be 999$... so in these 2 years we actually got some price performance increase - then we will get a 10 core 3.0 for the same price of i7-5960x (8 core 3.0) and same goes for one CPU down the line ("i7-5930x"-like CPU now with +2 cores for the same price).... One can argue that 2 years and Enthusiast platform would be inclined for more performance increase - but sadly - we are in times now that a 7 year old i7-920 is good enough and there are zero to none need for upgrade... if someone would tell me that 10-5 years ago - that a 7year old and more CPU will still be only 30-40% slower than the one of newest generation out there (in same class) - I would laughed in his face and I spit in his eye (Johnny Cash 25 minutes to go). in case if Intel shifts price up so 10 core costs 1500$ and 8 core (basically the 1:1 of i7-5960x) cost the same 999$ - well then we are totally screwd - absolutely 0.0 progress has been made.

Let me guess: You own a i7-920?
So why the rant if your i7-920 is plenty enough for you? Just be happy that you don't need to buy a new machine?!

So I'm not sure where you are getting with this. As far as I remember the i7-920 was a quad core part. So even if this new i7-6950X has 40% higher performance per core than your i7-920 (with no other advancements on the platform considered), it will have a total performance advantage over the i7-920 of ~350%!! I wouldn't call that exactly "absolutely 0.0 progress"?!

 

[techy1]

Let me guess: You own a i7-920?
So why the rant if your i7-920 is plenty enough for you? Just be happy that you don't need to buy a new machine?!

So I'm not sure where you are getting with this. As far as I remember the i7-920 was a quad core part. So even if this new i7-6950X has 40% higher performance per core than your i7-920 (with no other advancements on the platform considered), it will have a total performance advantage over the i7-920 of ~350%!! I wouldn't call that exactly "absolutely 0.0 progress"?!

you guessed it wrong... and i7-920 was sub 600$ (not 999$ top of the line chip) - so should be compared with i7-5930x... and if intel will shift prices up then should be compared with i7-6850K and guess what - a 7 year old chip is still good (which is bad)... but who cares if I have i7-920 or want one or think it is still good... - the main issue is - the progress has decreased significantly (and full stopped if intel will shift prices up)... and we should call it out, cuz none else will. ... I do not want to pay for newest top of the line chip +350% more of what one paid for i7-920 7 years ago, just because it is +350$ performance increase.... if the same analogy would be applied back then then i7-920 should cost like 1500$ back then because it smoked previous gen (and if that analogy would go further then 1500$ x350% would be new price of the top end chip)

 

[dj-electric]

Who said you have to? It is the TITAN analogy.
You can pay 300$ (if you live in the USA) or 390$ for a 5820K hexa-core chip (like i did) and get "only" about 120% increase. That, plus new outputs, decreased power consumption etc.

The good thing about new technology is that you can enjoy the mid-range much more.

 

[matar]

If intel prices the 6950x above @ $999 that's Bad NEWs then the 6900K will be @$999 but @ the $599 price that's the usual price point and it will make x79 users consider the upgrade because we have to upgrade motherboard and ram in order to upgrade there CPU.

 

[HumanSmoke]

you guessed it wrong... and i7-920 was sub 600$ (not 999$ top of the line chip) - so should be compared with i7-5930x

Nope. The i7 920 was the entry level CPU for the X58 platform. The analogue would be the 5820K.

Bloomfield............................................Gulftown..............................................Sandy Bridge-E.......................................Ivy Bridge-E................................Haswell-E
i7 920 ($284) 4C/8T...........................................................................................i7 3820 ($294) 4C/8T...........................i7 4820K ($310) 4C/8T............i7 5820K ($389) 6C/12T
i7 940/950/960 ($562) 4C/8T........................................................................i7 3830K ($583) 6C/12T......................i7 4930K ($555) 6C/12T.........i7 5930K ($583) 6C/12T
i7 965/975 ($999) 4C/8T................i7 980X/990X ($999) 6C/12T........i7 3690X/3790X ($999) 6C/12T........i7 4690X ($990) 6C/12T.........i7 5960X ($999) 8C/16T

Lynnfield top part (i7 870 $562)...................................................................SB top part (i7 2600K $317)..............IB top part (i7 3770K $313)....Haswell top part (i7 4790K $339)

... and if intel will shift prices up then should be compared with i7-6850K and guess what - a 7 year old chip is still good (which is bad)

Kind of depends what workloads the user intends. Light productivity and gaming for a HEDT platform is like buying a supercar just to carry a bag of groceries from the seven-eleven. It has already been established that these mainstream workloads can be effectively executed by more budget minded systems of either vendor. If you buy a HEDT platform for a bunch of single threaded or lightly multi-threaded apps, you're doing something wrong

Spoiler

I do not want to pay for newest top of the line chip +350% more of what one paid for i7-920 7 years ago, just because it is +350$ performance increase.... if the same analogy would be applied back then then i7-920 should cost like 1500$ back then because it smoked previous gen (and if that analogy would go further then 1500$ x350% would be new price of the top end chip)

That's some weird screwed up logic right there. The 920 was $284 at launch, the 5820K was $389 at launch. That is a 24% increase in price factoring in inflation for a 50% increase in core count, a 30% increase in single threaded IPC, and well over a 100% increase in performance for software that is effectively multi-threaded. Your little rant seems like some oddball scenario designed as a worst case scenario. Why bother comparing a 920's pricing with a chip priced one tier higher when a like for like comparison would use the 940/950/960 as a baseline? If you're arguing that extreme chips aren't worth the price increase then that is hardly news - even someone with rudimentary knowledge of the market would know that Kentsfield's XE was $1200 (QX6800) and Yorkfield's XE was $1400 (QX9770)

 

[Frick]

If I had money and was building a machine that would hold for years I probably would go for an extreme chip.

 

[Breit]

I see the Broadwell-E announcement as good news since my i7-3930K is aging and this seems to be the first new chip from Intel that is even worth to be considered an upgrade.
I mean my 3930K is clocked 4.8GHz on all cores, the successor IvyBridge-E had ~10% increase in IPC, but would have clocked worse topping out at ~4.5GHz giving about the same performance.
Haswell-E would have been the first chip really pushing performance forward, but only when bought with an 8-core chip instead of the 6-core. But then the whole platform had to be replaced, wich made absolutely no sense considering the performance gained. I mean this would've been at least a $2K investment for a little gain in performance.
But now with 8-/10-core chips and another increase in IPC this could finally be worth the money. Exciting.

 

[ensabrenoir]

.................enthusiasts need only to see the word new...... Those who are satisfied with what they have.......stay there.... Racers will spend thousands on tech for less than a second improvement so i guess its all relative to who you are and whats your usage. Thankfully ddr4 prices are way better. Intel is in the business to make money to survive. They do their job well.

 

[Aquinus]

I see the Broadwell-E announcement as good news since my i7-3930K is aging and this seems to be the first new chip from Intel that is even worth to be considered an upgrade.
I mean my 3930K is clocked 4.8GHz on all cores, the successor IvyBridge-E had ~10% increase in IPC, but would have clocked worse topping out at ~4.5GHz giving about the same performance.
Haswell-E would have been the first chip really pushing performance forward, but only when bought with an 8-core chip instead of the 6-core. But then the whole platform had to be replaced, wich made absolutely no sense considering the performance gained. I mean this would've been at least a $2K investment for a little gain in performance.
But now with 8-/10-core chips and another increase in IPC this could finally be worth the money. Exciting.

I think I personally would wait for a socket change before upgrading my platform and even then, my i7 probably would find its way into my gateways server instead.

 

[Breit]

I'll at least wait for the first reviews to get an estimate on how much this new platform actually brings, that's for sure.

 

[PP Mguire]

If intel prices the 6950x above @ $999 that's Bad NEWs then the 6900K will be @$999 but @ the $599 price that's the usual price point and it will make x79 users consider the upgrade because we have to upgrade motherboard and ram in order to upgrade there CPU.

Most of us on x79 are ignoring X99.

 

[cdawall]

Still waiting for Zen

I'm not. AMD PR is a box of lies and always has been the only saving grace is who designed the CPU and he has been working in the mobile market for a while.

 

[mcloughj]

Going to buy one of of these to pair up with my AMD HD6950 graphics card!