Skylake-K SKUs leaked

[mikk]

http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-core-i7-6700k-haziran-ayinda-geliyor/

 

[Arachnotronic]

http://www.pcfrm.com/intel-core-i7-6700k-haziran-ayinda-geliyor/

4GHz base looks good to me for the 6700K.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

How much are these going to cost?

 

[burninatortech4]

How much are these going to cost?

Just guessing... ~$350 US. Similar to the price of the last gen i7's on release.

 

[sm625]

It is hard to imagine how a 14nm quadcore with no HT is going to possibly run anywhere near 95W even at 3.9GHz. I thought the 4690 topped out around 70 watts in real world testing? And the 6MB cache is just a plain ol ripoff. These chips are going to be so frickin small they are going to be gouging the everloving crap out of us if they charge the same price as a 2500k which is like 5 times bigger. We are rapidly approaching the point where the Intel useless gpu tax is exceeding half the cost of the part. How long will enthusiasts tolerate that?

 

[Arachnotronic]

It is hard to imagine how a 14nm quadcore with no HT is going to possibly run anywhere near 95W even at 3.9GHz. I thought the 4690 topped out around 70 watts in real world testing? And the 6MB cache is just a plain ol ripoff. These chips are going to be so frickin small they are going to be gouging the everloving crap out of us if they charge the same price as a 2500k which is like 5 times bigger. We are rapidly approaching the point where the Intel useless gpu tax is exceeding half the cost of the part. How long will enthusiasts tolerate that?

Do you measure the worth of a chip by the size of the silicon or the value delivered?

 

[ShintaiDK]

It is hard to imagine how a 14nm quadcore with no HT is going to possibly run anywhere near 95W even at 3.9GHz. I thought the 4690 topped out around 70 watts in real world testing? And the 6MB cache is just a plain ol ripoff. These chips are going to be so frickin small they are going to be gouging the everloving crap out of us if they charge the same price as a 2500k which is like 5 times bigger. We are rapidly approaching the point where the Intel useless gpu tax is exceeding half the cost of the part. How long will enthusiasts tolerate that?

AVX2 load is the key issue. Also 95W may still be the platform and not actual chip.

 

[sm625]

Do you measure the worth of a chip by the size of the silicon or the value delivered?

You cannot measure worth by "value delivered" since that invokes circular logic. You have to measure by the size of the silicon as it relates to the fractional cost of the wafer. In this case they are getting a crapton of cores from one wafer. They are probably paying only $12 per core for the actual silicon. So when we buy a i5 quadcore we are basically paying for $50 worth of cpu and another $50 of useless gpu and $130 for intel's shareholders and CEO. They shouldnt be wasting half of their wafers on gpu transistors that no K model purchaser is going to actually use.

 

[lopri]

4.0 GHz base 4.2 GHz Turbo? Only other CPU that does is FX-8350.

 

[Magic Carpet]

AVX2 load is the key issue. Also 95W may still be the platform and not actual chip.

95W doesn't mean anything. My 4770K consumes more than 84 watts (official TDP), fully stock, when running LinX.

4.0 GHz base 4.2 GHz Turbo? Only other CPU that does is FX-8350.

Here's to hoping, it's faster

 

[frozentundra123456]

It is hard to imagine how a 14nm quadcore with no HT is going to possibly run anywhere near 95W even at 3.9GHz. I thought the 4690 topped out around 70 watts in real world testing? And the 6MB cache is just a plain ol ripoff. These chips are going to be so frickin small they are going to be gouging the everloving crap out of us if they charge the same price as a 2500k which is like 5 times bigger. We are rapidly approaching the point where the Intel useless gpu tax is exceeding half the cost of the part. How long will enthusiasts tolerate that?

Until someone builds a better chip? Besides, obviously, the major cost is not the actual physical cpu, but the research, design, development, manufacturing, and quality control that goes behind it.

Edit: granted you can get more chips from a wafer at 14nm, but I bet the wafer is more expensive, and you also have to amortize the development cost of a new node. I too would rather see a hex core than a big igp, but I am not going to get my shorts in a bunch worrying about it. I think cpus are a fantastic bargin now, since I grew up in the era of chips of a few hundred mhz costing hundreds of dollars, and that was without any igp at all.

 

[bullzz]

@sm625 - if u think igpu is useless skylake-E is your chip. more cache more cores. this may not be intended for you

 

[frozentundra123456]

4.0 GHz base 4.2 GHz Turbo? Only other CPU that does is FX-8350.

No, 4790K is 4ghz base 4.4 single turbo I believe.

But if these clocks are correct, it will debunk some of the claims that 14nm would not clock as high as 22nm. Wonder how it will overclock? I am not expecting much more than Haswell unfortunately.

 

[Ajay]

@sm625 - if u think igpu is useless skylake-E is your chip. more cache more cores. this may not be intended for you

SKL-E should make an awesome HEDT system, but it's at least 1.5 years out

 

[lopri]

You would have thought a "Tock" would debut with a rather conservative frequency.

Unless 4.0 GHz is a conservative frequency, that is, but that hope is quickly dashed by 4.2 GHz Turbo.

 

[witeken]

But if these clocks are correct, it will debunk some of the claims that 14nm would not clock as high as 22nm. Wonder how it will overclock? I am not expecting much more than Haswell unfortunately.

III-V expected 5GHz.

 

[cytg111]

That 5% "Turbo" .. we need to have a talk about the meaning of the word...

 

[imaheadcase]

You cannot measure worth by "value delivered" since that invokes circular logic. You have to measure by the size of the silicon as it relates to the fractional cost of the wafer. In this case they are getting a crapton of cores from one wafer. They are probably paying only $12 per core for the actual silicon. So when we buy a i5 quadcore we are basically paying for $50 worth of cpu and another $50 of useless gpu and $130 for intel's shareholders and CEO. They shouldnt be wasting half of their wafers on gpu transistors that no K model purchaser is going to actually use.

Umm last i checked people cared about performance vs any of that stuff.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I may settle with a i5 6500 if its sub 65W. Assuming 3.4/3.8.

 

[escrow4]

Don't forget not everyone games with these CPUs. I run a 4770 non K in my office box so the iGPU is essential otherwise I'd need to fork out for a dGPU I don't need. Won't be upgrading either. I'll be running this box into the ground first. That iGPU is useful for hardware media decoding too.

 

[jpiniero]

It is hard to imagine how a 14nm quadcore with no HT is going to possibly run anywhere near 95W even at 3.9GHz

Heat density. 4.0 / 4.2 is much better than I had expected although don't expect much an overclock. Keep in mind it doesn't have the L4 that Broadwell (C?) does so if the overclocks aren't much different the later would be faster.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Don't forget not everyone games with these CPUs. I run a 4770 non K in my office box so the iGPU is essential otherwise I'd need to fork out for a dGPU I don't need. Won't be upgrading either. I'll be running this box into the ground first. That iGPU is useful for hardware media decoding too.

Let us not forget that Skylake = Gen9 graphics. That will be Intel's second revision of iGPUs that are supposed to be better-suited to GPGPU applications than previous generations. There will probably be a lot that devs can do with that silicon given sufficient motivation.

 

[Idontcare]

III-V expected 5GHz.

xtors probably could do it, but the shrunken metal lines (higher RC) just sucks. Its a tradeoff that comes down to cost vs. performance.

The reality is that the best xtors in the world would be best served with node N-1 BEOL metal. But those xtors are hamstrung with node N metal layers for the sake of reducing cost (die size).

 

[IntelUser2000]

We are rapidly approaching the point where the Intel useless gpu tax is exceeding half the cost of the part. How long will enthusiasts tolerate that?

Actually, you don't pay for it. The people who use GPUs do. Also, look at my sig, there are people that buy K CPUs for iGPU. I've seen people on forums with K + iGPU too. If they didn't make money, they wouldn't do this.

In these parts though, GPU shouldn't be a big portion. The reason is because they are only GT2.

You have to remember how they make smaller die parts. They take the base die, and cut things off. That is why the top CPU config is also the top GPU config. It's just minus and minus from there.

 

[Nothingness]

i7-6700K 4/4.2GHz with a TDP of 95W, against i7-4790K 4/4.4GHz with a TDP of 88W? Is that due to the iGPU? Or perhaps Intel will put AVX-512 in K variants (yeah, sometimes I make crazy dreams with carebears all around the place).