Broadwell E will use the X99 chipset.
With that mentioned, I wonder how well it will overclock since Anandtech only got 4.2 Ghz for the Broadwell C?
I really was ready to build a new PC, but with this thread and others I can't help but feel that this is the absolute worst time to build a new rig. Broadwell e is right around the corner, but I hear it will use the x99 dinosaur chipset. Skylake comes with some pretty mobos, but Intel has essentially admitted its a half baked release and Kaby Lake is the one to get. Getting Haswell e just feels wrong. That is like paying full price for a 2 year old steam game.
I just think a lot of budget/younger gamers are going to pick the i5 series since they are more likely to allocate the savings towards a better monitor/videocard. Someone looking for an i7 is probably not so much concerned about budget and if performing work on their computer is more likely to considering spending just a bit more for the 6-core. I think the i7-6700K is overpriced for what it is. I feel like Intel should have clocked it at 4.4Ghz or maybe allowed all 4 cores to hit 4.2Ghz on all motherboards. I guess they are saving it for Kaby Lake.
"Buys a $200+ Z97/Z170 board to overclock their i5, proudly exclaims how the i7 and X99 is overpriced and HT is useless in gaming."
Also if you on a budget you shouldn't even *think* of overclocking to begin with. OCing is more or less schmuck bait these days.
Not sure I get it. Overclocking is more accessible than ever because it's so easy now.
Completely disagree; this is a good time to build a new PC.
Kabylake will be an iGPU improvement only most likely, no improvement on CPU. Broadwell-E is on the way, but it probably won't be that big of an upgrade over Haswell-E.
is there a source for this speculation? Every "tock" comes with CPU improvements, even if they are minor.
Don't get me wrong it's an alternative, and it's soldered as well.
I really was ready to build a new PC, but with this thread and others I can't help but feel that this is the absolute worst time to build a new rig. Broadwell e is right around the corner, but I hear it will use the x99 dinosaur chipset. Skylake comes with some pretty mobos, but Intel has essentially admitted its a half baked release and Kaby Lake is the one to get. Getting Haswell e just feels wrong. That is like paying full price for a 2 year old steam game.
I know what you're saying...but do you realize x99 is only 1 year old, as of this month? Haswell-E won't even be 1 year old for another 2 1/2 weeks.
Haswell-E only seems old because it's 2 generations behind the current mainstream DT, Skylake. It's only been out for 12 months, by no means its a dinosaur.
With that being said, I really want Intel to update us on their HEDT at IDF. I want to know how far Broadwell-E is out, and then Skylake-e from there. The window to get a 5820k is getting smaller for me.
BDW-E is Q1 2016.
http://www.xfastest.com/thread-159434-1-1.html
Skylake-E is 2017, 1H 2017 if we're lucky, 2H 2017 if we're unlucky.
"Buys a $200+ Z97/Z170 board to overclock their i5, proudly exclaims how the i7 and X99 is overpriced and HT is useless in gaming."
Also if you on a budget you shouldn't even *think* of overclocking to begin with. OCing is more or less schmuck bait these days.
BDW-E is Q1 2016.
http://www.xfastest.com/thread-159434-1-1.html
Skylake-E is 2017, 1H 2017 if we're lucky, 2H 2017 if we're unlucky.
Thanks for the link. 6600k aside, those results reinforce the opinion 6700k is better for a gaming rig than 2011-3 alternatives, for both price and performance. Entire platform is cheaper and generally performs on par, give or take a couple % depending on the game, and it should oc higher in general giving it the lead the majority of the time.
It's worth noting too, in games like ArmA3 and Total War where IPC and clock speed are king, it's a good ~20-25% faster than 2011-3 CPU's. Sure, those games don't multithread as well as they should, but many such games exist and 6700k will give you significantly more performance in them.
I am not seeing the info in your links/graphs that shows SK-E delayed to 1H 2017? Last time I saw the roadmaps, Q1 2016 for BW-E and SK-E Q3 2016, maybe Q4 2016. I keep seeing this mention that SK-E is delayed to 2017 but I haven't seen a reputable site mention it. Maybe I missed it?
Better IPC, memory scaling, overclock and surely faster in any game that doesn't run over 6 threads.
Yes 6, not 4, cause it's 4+HT+greater IPC vs 6 real cores, so damn close except in few cases.
What, do you mean that Intel made their own version of Bulldozer there?You do make a great point. It calls into question buying a $160+ Z170 board, $40+ after-market cooler likely necessary to keep this CPU < 80C and an i5-6600K because a stock i7-6700 with a budget $90 board will beat it overall.
In fact, the i5-6600K is so far behind sometimes vs. the i7-6700K that it can barely keep up with a stock i7 2600K from 4 years and 8 months ago:
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20862-intel-core-i7-6700k-och-i5-6600k-skylake/5#content
Of course in the main Skylake thread, they don't want to hear about how Skylake is a the worst tock in the last 5 years.
You're off your rocker on that comment. Real cores trump HT always. Your comment actually made me interested enough to test this myself, so I clocked down to the 6700K's default 4.2GHz, and disabled two cores and Hyperthreading. Decided Cinebench was probably the best case scenario for the 6700K as it scales insanely well with hyperthreaded cores. From looking about the web reviews it seems the 6700K (4C/8T) scores from the mid 800s up to the very low 900s.
(6C/6T)
Most of the time there isn't going to be anyway for us to tell short of asking the reviewer. I'm guessing most of the z170 boards have enhanced multicore available if not enabled by default so it's hard to tell just what speeds these are running at in the reviews. Beyond the ram speeds used, this may also explain why we are seeing so much variance.Also note that your chips has 20MB of L3 vs 8 for the quad, that affects cinebench a lot, and Skylake turbos at 4.0GHz only on more than 1 core load, so in the end they are much closer than it suggest here.
For mini-ITX (in the living room), wouldn't the 35W i7-6700T be a cool option too?
In that case why even buy an i7 over the i5? Another way to look at it is going from an i5-6600K to i7-6700K just adds a bit more cache, HT and slightly higher clocks. Paying a bit extra over the i7-6700K adds 2 more cores. What do you think is going to matter more over the next 5 years?
1) $110 extra to get HT + 2MB cache and slightly higher clocks
2) ~ $80-100 extra to get 2 more cores that have HT and even more cache?
You are right that if power usage is a key factor and you want this rig in your living room, don't want to OC, i7-6700k is a safer choice. Having said that I don't think people are picking 5820K over 6700K just to justify their purchase. Even for someone who doesn't own either, it's not a clear slam dunk for the 6700K for now imo. I will say that some people buying X99 sometimes have the urge to buy $400-550 boards which completely destroys the value proposition of the X99 platform. In that case 6700K will start to pull away significantly in terms of bang-for-the-buck. I've seen some people buy a 5820K with a $550 board which is just absurd and a complete waste of $. I feel like those boards are made specifically for 5930K or even 5960X.
However difficult the choice is now with 5820K, it's only going to get worse for 6700K if Intel launches Broadwell-E in Q1 2016 and it's going to get ever harder to recommend the 6700K once Skylake-E launches in Q3/4 2016 if the overall platform premium will be just $100. I foresee Skylake-E overclocking well and running cooler than 6700K OC since it'll have solder and better binned chips. There might be a 200-300mhz disadvantage at the top speeds but from nearly every review I've read, 6700K OC is hitting 80-92*C when all the CPU is maxed out and that's on great coolers like Noctua NH-D14/15, Corsair H100/110i. These temperatures are probably fine and won't kill the CPU since Intel tends to rate them to 100*C but still, sounds like the use of TIM, no matter how good the TIM is, was a low blow again!
Maybe Intel has a cunning plan to get more PC gamers to move to the workstation platform since they make more $ selling chipsets on those boards than they would on Z170.
Also, I think a lot of gamers are not ready to discount DX12. If DX12 games come through, we could start to see 6-core CPUs provide a tangible advantage over quads over the next 5 years. Consider another scenario where you have 20-50 tabs open, a bunch of Excel/Word/PDF documents for work, and you decide to launch a game. Are you going to close all of that just to play a game for 1-2 hours? With a 6-core, you probably don't even have to think about it.
I just think a lot of budget/younger gamers are going to pick the i5 series since they are more likely to allocate the savings towards a better monitor/videocard. Someone looking for an i7 is probably not so much concerned about budget and if performing work on their computer is more likely to consider spending just a bit more for the 6-core. I think the i7-6700K is overpriced for what it is. I feel like Intel should have clocked it at 4.4Ghz or maybe allowed all 4 cores to hit 4.2Ghz on all motherboards. I guess they are saving it for Kaby Lake.
Budget arguments are silly, for people in-the-know the 4/8 i7 is(was) the only processor to buy because it easily retains half of its value after five or more years and remains a viable upgrade pass for everyone else who fell for Celerons, Pentiums and i3 the first time around. Not to mention the highest single thread performance of all of Intel line-up including 9k$ Xeons
Intel however sullied this Goldilocks choice, destroyed the resale value if you de-lid CPUs, and thermally limited their OC potential for those who don't delid. Which is why this debate as relevant as ever. The alternative however is either a bottom of the barrel wasteful 6-core or a thousand dollar 8 core monstrosity for those beyond reason, or actual work compute work.