• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

core i7-2700k is coming

B

blackened23

Diamond Member
Yesterday, Intel updated their Material Declaration Data Sheets (MDDS). New updated MDDS include product code for Core i7-2700K which confirms that Intel will launch the successor to i7-2600K in near future. Product codes which confirm the Core i7-2700K are BXC80623I72700K (for Chinese Market) and BX80623I72700K. “I72700K” in the end of both codes refer to the Core i7-2700K.
Click to expand...

What we know is that it will likely have a 3.5 or 3.6ghz clock with 4ghz turbo. Pricing will be a few dollars more than 2600k, and 2600k will be discontinued / phased out.
 
Any word on timing of the release? I am pretty close to pulling the trigger on an i7-2600K and this will hopefully push the price down a little.
 
This is good for consumers, but I feel bad for amd. I can't imagine that they'll be able to compete with that even in multithreaded.
 
nonameo said:
This is good for consumers, but I feel bad for amd. I can't imagine that they'll be able to compete with that even in multithreaded.
Click to expand...

On the other hand if you want to feel good for AMD you could also think that the release of a 2700K might mean Intel felt the 2600K wasn't enough vs BD. After all why would Intel create even stronger competition for their unreleased SB-E?

It is the good thing of lack of information, one can do whatever reading makes one happier. 🙂
 
I dont think this will be a 4.0 turbo part,the 2500 to 2600 added 4 more threads and more cache along with more mhz.

going to 2700 and only adding 100mhz turbo is a waste,this part will probably turbo to 4.3 ghz
 
i5-2500k: 3300mhz
i7-2600k: 3400mhz
i7-2700k: probably 3500mhz with 4000turbo.


2600k has more cache and more threads because its i7. 2500 doesn't have that because it is an i5 part. So with the above, it stands to reason that 2700k will *probably* be 2700k with a 4ghz turbo. Its going to be around the same price as 2600k, while the 2600k is phased out.

So the same money for something slightly better? Intel really has no reason to do anything grandiose here, it wont be more than a 100mhz increase since its the same price. (as a 2600)
 
blackened23 said:
i5-2500k: 3300mhz
i7-2600k: 3400mhz
i7-2700k: probably 3500mhz with 4000turbo.


2600k has more cache and more threads because its i7. 2500 doesn't have that because it is an i5 part. So with the above, it stands to reason that 2700k will *probably* be 2700k with a 4ghz turbo. Its going to be around the same price as 2600k, while the 2600k is phased out.

So the same money for something slightly better? Intel really has no reason to do anything grandiose here, it wont be more than a 100mhz increase since its the same price. (as a 2600)
Click to expand...

you do know that there is a rumor 2800k coming too right?

I think they are going to release 3 I7s to fill in the I7 top end when sandy E comes out.

so I7

2600 3.9 turbo
2700 4.2 turbo
2800 4.4 turbo

would make sence since the sandy E will have 3xxx part numbers and take over in the extreme high end.

2600 can hit 4.4 with ease so it can be done.Intel is in a spot right now that it can take over every part of the market from extreme low end to the very expensive top end.
 
GaiaHunter said:
On the other hand if you want to feel good for AMD you could also think that the release of a 2700K might mean Intel felt the 2600K wasn't enough vs BD. After all why would Intel create even stronger competition for their unreleased SB-E?
Click to expand...

No. If BD was truly competitive per core, then AMD would have released lower clocked versions of the CPU in Q1/Q2, and as yields improved, simply launched faster versions of BD with revised steppings in Q3. Secondly, if BD was fast per core, AMD wouldn't need 8 core FX-8100 to compete with a 4 core 2500k/2600k. It's obvious that BD can't compete on a per core basis which is why AMD is desperately trying to ramp up clock speeds with 4-5 re-spins now. If this wasn't the case, we would have seen BD at 3.0ghz speeds already. If AMD improved IPC by only 10-20%, a 2.9-3.1ghz FX BD would easily beat an X6 1100T. But AMD didn't launch such a processor.

Also, Intel has released faster processors before to "compete with itself" as you put it. Core i5 750 and i7 860 were updated to i5 760 / 870 despite no competition from AMD. i5 750 and i7 860 are still faster than anything AMD has. Also, when i7 860 launched, it cost the same as i7 920 but had 2.8ghz clocks vs. 2.66 on the 920.

Don't forget that SB-E is primarily a 6-core platform aimed at enthusiast / workstation users. I am not sure why people keep comparing a 4-core SB-E to 2600k/2700k since the slowest 4-core SB-E doesn't make any sense to begin with after taking into consideration much more expensive mobo + 4-channel ram requirements. Intel had i7 920/930 CPUs on more expensive LGA1366 while you could have purchased i7 860/870/875k cpus on cheaper 1156. So having a faster clocked 2700k to be at least as good as their slowest 4 core SB-E is nothing unusual.

Finally, if Intel was worried about BD, they would have pushed IB launch forward, not back to Spring 2012 at the earliest.
 
Last edited:
They should release some more i5 'k' variants as well. It makes me wonder if they are going to also possibly phase out the 2500k and just leave 2700k and 2800k.
 
GaiaHunter said:
On the other hand if you want to feel good for AMD you could also think that the release of a 2700K might mean Intel felt the 2600K wasn't enough vs BD. After all why would Intel create even stronger competition for their unreleased SB-E?

It is the good thing of lack of information, one can do whatever reading makes one happier. 🙂
Click to expand...

there is onle 1 cpu out right now in the 1155 socket that is an I7.Intel knows people wont upgrade to socket 2011 and its not even a mainstream platform(wont see those pcs at bestbuy)and intel needs a higher end 1155 to fill the gap.

it only makes sence to realese 2700-2800 I7s on 1155 since they wont sell sandy E to the mainstream market.

intel hit a home run with sandy from i3s-i7s and will only get better with 22nm if they can get that right.

I only wished there 1155 ivys came out since I need a new laptop and hp has 30% off coupons since they are getting out of the pc market.

I built a quad core,17in 1080p,blu ray,8gb ram i7 beast and with the coupon it came out to under 1200 shipped,it was like 600 dollars off!!! if only those ivys were out 🙁
 
Last edited:
grkM3 said:
so your saying that 22nm i7 2800 wont hit 4.2-4.4 turbo?

🙄
Click to expand...

If you overclock it, sure. Intel has shown time and time again since the 486 days that they don't make products to compete with themselves, and intel isn't going to make a 4.2 / 4.4 ghz turbo part.....they are binned the same as 2500/2600 are. Same reason they didn't release 4ghz lynnfields 🙄
 
Last edited:
blackened23 said:
If you overclock it, sure. Intel won't sell it as that....they are binned the same as 2500/2600 are.

Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

what the hell are you talking about? the 1155 ivys are not out yet and every single 2600k will do 4.2-4.4 with ease even if they wanted to keep 2800s on 32nm
 
grkM3 said:
what the hell are you talking about? the 1155 ivys are not out yet and every single 2600k will do 4.2-4.4 with ease even if they wanted to keep 2800s on 32nm
Click to expand...

So the basis of your argument is that since 2600 will overclock to 4.4 easily, that they will release a 4.4ghz part. Nice. I was wondering why there wasn't a 4ghz lynnfield. 2700/2800k will be binned the exact same as 2500/2600, not gonna happen.
 
blackened23 said:
So the basis of your argument is that since 2600 will overclock to 4.4 easily, that they will release a 4.4ghz part. Nice. I was wondering why there wasn't a 4ghz lynnfield. 2700/2800k will be binned the exact same as 2500/2600, not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

how many times do I have to state 22nm for you to actually read it and understand ?

todays 2500-2600 are on 32nm
 
Last edited:
As has been stated elsewhere on this forum (although I think most eloquently by IDC, though I can't find the post atm) Intel mostly competes with itself, not AMD. This very likely has nothing to do with how good BD is or isn't.


And also remember that OC headroom != able to ship product at that speed. OCing reduces reliability and increases power usage. If Intel wants to keep that 95W envelope and warranty costs down, they probably have a lot less headroom than we do 😀


And, lets wait for 22nm parts to actually ship before we figure out how much headroom they have...
 
GaiaHunter said:
Of course 2 BD cores are about the same size of 1 intel core.

Believing that 1 BD core half the size of a SB core size can compete with it is a bit unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Whose fault is that? Sounds like an engineering decision to me. AMD engineers decided to focus on producing the best processor for 6-8 threaded applications. Sounds to me like they prioritized server market over desktop.

So what does that mean in the real world then? 8 Core BD running most programs that only use 2-4 threaded apps? We are back to square one then with FX-41xx series vs. 2500k, where 1 SB core = 2 BD cores .At this point, this is looking even worse than Phenom I launch.

blackened23 said:
If you overclock it, sure. Intel has shown time and time again since the 486 days that they don't make products to compete with themselves,
Click to expand...

And whom exactly was Intel competing with from Summer of 2006 (#49 and #58) then?
 
Last edited:
RussianSensation said:
Whose fault is that? Sounds like an engineering decision to me. AMD engineers decided to focus on producing the best processor for 6-8 threaded applications. Sounds to me like they prioritized server market over desktop.

So what does that mean in the real world then? 8 Core BD running most programs that only use 2-4 threaded apps? We are back to square one then with FX-41xx series vs. 2500k, where 1 SB core = 2 BD cores .At this point, this is looking even worse than Phenom I launch.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I meant.

It surely is a trade off.

But people can't just bash BD based on the fact that AMD 8 core goes against a quad+HT SB.

We need to see a benchmark with a retail product to see the trade offs of the concept.

But if BD is slightly slower in single thread and faster in heavy threads, it seems right on the target.
 
Last edited:
If Core i7 2700K will be at 3.6GHz it will directly compete with quad core SB-E in socket 2011.

Its getting harder and harder to justify a Quad core purchase in 2011 platform.
 
RussianSensation said:
after taking into consideration much more expensive mobo + 4-channel ram requirements.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this? Yes, the mobo will be slightly more $$, but the RAM is the same price. In fact, it is cheaper to buy four 2GB sticks (quad channel) than it is to buy two 4GB sticks (dual channel). So that arguement is not valid. Tripple channel was more expensive only because you have to buy special kits of 3. That is not going to be the case with quad channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top