Intel Core i7 "Broadwell-E" to Launch in Q2-2016

[Aquinus]

You are correct. The 4820 was a k. My bad.

Personally I'm hoping they go back to not gimping the PCI-E controller and just sticking with 3 parts with different core counts.

 

[johnspack]

Yes, buy those Broadwell-Es, and sell your used Haswell-Es nice and cheap please! I need a cheap 8 core with higher ipc.....

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

I would roll laughing if 3 to 6 months down the line, they make another variant with 12 cores. Name it Intel Core i7 "Broadwell-E X" 6990x SEE (Super Extreme Edition). Similar scenario like the i7 980x on the old 1366 platform. From 960, they came out with the 975, and then jump to the 980x right before X99 was released. I think my next setup or built will be a 2 physical processor Mobo with next Gen cores for rendering... Here is my thoughts on i7 6950x: 2 extra "cores," less than 10% gains on PC gaming at 4.0Ghz, barely can OC to 5.0Ghz at high temperatures, extra 2 cores don't do squat for PC gaming, but rendering and number crunching is improved by another 20%--GG come send more money to Intel PC enthusiast. Intel.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Similar scenario like the i7 980x on the old 1366 platform. From 960, they came out with the 975,

That would be - in a word - wrong.
1. The i7 975XE ($999), was a D0 successor to the C0 step i7-965XE (also $999). The i7-960 ($562) was a successor to the i7-950 (also $562)
2. " From 960, they came out with the 975" . No mean feat considering the 975 actually launched 4 months before the 960.

and then jump to the 980x right before X99 was released.

Actually, the 980X dropped in March 2010. The X79 (not X99) platform didn't launch until November 2011. For those counting, that's over a year and a half between the two. Even if you use the actual product progression ( i7-990X -> i7-3960X), the gap is 9 months....and pretty much everyone knew the 990X was a last hurrah and benchmark queen for the X58 platform.

I think my next setup or built will be a 2 physical processor Mobo with next Gen cores for rendering Here is my thoughts on i7 6950x: 2 extra "cores," less than 10% gains on PC gaming at 4.0Ghz, barely can OC to 5.0Ghz at high temperatures, extra 2 cores don't do squat for PC gaming, but rendering and number crunching is improved by another 20%

You know that i7's lack a second QPI and aren't compatible with dual socket (C612) boards right? I'd suggest some research before doing the CPU and mobo buying.

 

[mcraygsx]

I hope it overclocks fast better then Broadwell 5770C and offers better IPC as compare to Haswell-E

 

[bubbleawsome]

Dang, I could use more cores. This cores>clockspeed thing is pretty good, hoping it trickles down to 6-core normal i7's by the next generation or two.

 

[mcraygsx]

Dang, I could use more cores. This cores>clockspeed thing is pretty good, hoping it trickles down to 6-core normal i7's by the next generation or two.

6 - Core for mainstream should be standard by now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Disappointed, I am. Haswell-E to Broadwell-E is insignificant. I think I wait for Kaby Lake or Skylake.

 

[EpicShweetness]

6 - Core for mainstream should be standard by now.

Unfortunately it is not, I blame lazy programming with lots of software, not just games, that hasn't made the need for more than 4 cores more than "mainstream".

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There isn't many workloads out there that can put >4 cores to work outside of CAD/encoding/scientific. Not because it couldn't but modern CPUs are so powerful they tackle it with ease. In the case of games, the GPU will usually bottleneck before the CPU.

LGA-2011 is a workstation/server platform for a reason.