Intel Broadwell Thread

[VirtualLarry]

I flinch at buying any CPU that costs over $100. $1500 is... out of the question. (Unless it was a 30-core or better Core chip. Then that pricing might make sense to me.)

 

[III-V]

Intel seems to be betting on the idea that customers who will buy a $1k processor will have no problems paying $1500 for one.

We'll see if this was a good bet or not soon enough...

It's an arms race that basically all of the major corporations are playing right now. Meanwhile, income inequality hasn't been this high since right before the great depression. People are still paying for these overly-expensive things, but less and less of them are, and once it passes a threshold, reality sets in.

Things will collapse soon. How soon is hard to say, but we're looking at our next great depression here... probably around 2018 or 2019, given that the Great Depression had a fairly big recession about 10 years before (so tacking on 10 years to the 2008 crisis puts us at 2018). Might be a little later than that, might be sooner, but yeah... I would not want to be an investor right now.

 

[ShintaiDK]

A good example to that is Apples 30% iPhone cut in Q1. And warehouses filled with iPhones they cant sell.

It seems 2016 will be the start on a new long crisis. RBS told its customers to sell all stocks today. And expects deflation in 2016.

Oil is now estimated between 10$ and 20$ as bottom. Industry production is in free fall.

Zerorates gave everyone huge private debts and keep bad companies afloat.

So ye, its not going to be easy if they charge 1500$. It will be hard enough even at the current 1059$.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel seems to be betting on the idea that customers who will buy a $1k processor will have no problems paying $1500 for one.

We'll see if this was a good bet or not soon enough...

I'd be very surprised if they sell many at $1,500 a pop. D:

What will its stock clockspeed be?

 

[jpiniero]

I'd be very surprised if they sell many at $1,500 a pop. D:

There's always the 8 core at $999 if that's too much. It's 3 Ghz with turbo to 3.5.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'd be very surprised if they sell many at $1,500 a pop. D:

I won't. Remember the gouging on the QX6700?

You could argue that the QX6700 was a bigger deal when it came out, but still, this is Intel's first HEDT decacore CPU.

What will its stock clockspeed be?

I'm gonna just guess and say 3.0 GHz?

 

[ShintaiDK]

You could say the same for the first six and octo core.

The clock is 3Ghz base, 3.5Ghz turbo for the 10 core.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I won't. Remember the gouging on the QX6700?

You could argue that the QX6700 was a bigger deal when it came out, but still, this is Intel's first HEDT decacore CPU.

I just can't see many people(who are effectively desktop users) being silly enough, or having the need for this decacore.

Hell a 6 core, 12 thread CPU demolishes desktop workloads, one hardly needs to step up to a 10 core, 20 thread processor at these supposed prices.

 

[ozzy702]

I flinch at buying any CPU that costs over $100. $1500 is... out of the question. (Unless it was a 30-core or better Core chip. Then that pricing might make sense to me.)

The long term ROI of that $1500 chip is probably higher than the sub $100 chips you purchase all the time.

In all seriousness, Intel will charge what the consumer will pay and lets be honest, the number of people willing to pay $1500 for the top of the line CPU is probably just about the same as the number of people willing to pay $1000 for a CPU. When you want the best, price is rarely an issue.

The base model 6-core chip looks to be promising, it will be interesting to see how these overclock and what kind of power consumption they draw both at stock frequencies and overclocked. Personally 6-core Broadwell-E is a whole lot more interesting to me than the i7-6770k.

 

[Headfoot]

My strategy? Buy a mature 22nm haswell-e 6 core, and by the time 8 or 10 cores regularly get used in games (many years from now), used Broadwell E chips will be cheap

 

[moonbogg]

My strategy? Buy a mature 22nm haswell-e 6 core, and by the time 8 or 10 cores regularly get used in games (many years from now), used Broadwell E chips will be cheap

Don't do that. Instead, take my hand and lets skip together. Lets follow the yellow brick road. I hear it leads to a magical castle called Skylake-E.

Curious about 10 core OC potential though. I think 8 cores is the new place to be for the high end gamer types like myself.

 

[ozzy702]

My strategy? Buy a mature 22nm haswell-e 6 core, and by the time 8 or 10 cores regularly get used in games (many years from now), used Broadwell E chips will be cheap

Or buy a haswell-e chip used for fairly cheap when people upgrade to broadwell-e and then follow your plan and pickup broadwell-e xeon chips down the line for dirt cheap like what many of us have done with the 1366 platform.

 

[tenks]

I won't. Remember the gouging on the QX6700?

You could argue that the QX6700 was a bigger deal when it came out, but still, this is Intel's first HEDT decacore CPU.



I'm gonna just guess and say 3.0 GHz?

So why didn't INtel charge $1500 for its first hex or octocore HEDT cpu?

there is 0 precedent for this.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Guessing because when the first hexacore came out (i7 920, was it?) AMD wasn't quiiiiite so far behind. Yeah, the Phenom II X6 1100T wasn't as powerful, but it's not like the gap today where the 220W FX-9590 can barely even keep up with an 88W Core i7-4790K.

This is monopoly pricing, pure and simple. And the old definition of monopoly based purely on "what % of the market does this company have?" is inadqeuate these days.

(Edit: actually the raw Passmark score seems to say the 1100T is neck and neck with an i7 960...going to take that one with a grain of salt. But I still think the basic thrust of the above, that being "Intel has no competition to speak of," explains this.)

 

[crashtech]

Even in a monopoly you can price things beyond people's willingness to pay, unless it's a life-or-death matter.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Guessing because when the first hexacore came out (i7 920, was it?) AMD wasn't quiiiiite so far behind. Yeah, the Phenom II X6 1100T wasn't as powerful, but it's not like the gap today where the 220W FX-9590 can barely even keep up with an 88W Core i7-4790K.

This is monopoly pricing, pure and simple. And the old definition of monopoly based purely on "what % of the market does this company have?" is inadqeuate these days.

(Edit: actually the raw Passmark score seems to say the 1100T is neck and neck with an i7 960...going to take that one with a grain of salt. But I still think the basic thrust of the above, that being "Intel has no competition to speak of," explains this.)

First hexacore i7 was the i7 980X, which launched for $999, following the quad core i7-975X which was also priced at $999.

At this point, AMD was pretty far behind, with Nehalem/Lynnfield taking AMD's best hex-core Phenom II CPUs to the cleaners.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The price is very high, but I dont see that as the main problem. The main problem I see is what will be the use for the chip? I think even hex core will be more than sufficient for games at least through this console generation. So maybe for some productivity apps, but would not most go the full bore server route for such heavily threaded software? And I cant believe you will not have to sacrifice some overclocking headroom with the 10 core. If it were clearly superior in games, I can see users being willing to pay that price, but I dont think it will be.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The price is very high, but I dont see that as the main problem. The main problem I see is what will be the use for the chip? I think even hex core will be more than sufficient for games at least through this console generation. So maybe for some productivity apps, but would not most go the full bore server route for such heavily threaded software? And I cant believe you will not have to sacrifice some overclocking headroom with the 10 core. If it were clearly superior in games, I can see users being willing to pay that price, but I dont think it will be.

You buy a 6950X or a chip like it for one reason: you want the best, money-is-no-object. It is basically an ego thing.

There is nothing wrong with that, though, IMO. If high performance gaming PCs are your hobby and you have the money to spend (it's not that expensive of a hobby compared to many others), then why not?

 

[frozentundra123456]

You buy a 6950X or a chip like it for one reason: you want the best, money-is-no-object. It is basically an ego thing.

There is nothing wrong with that, though, IMO. If high performance gaming PCs are your hobby and you have the money to spend (it's not that expensive of a hobby compared to many others), then why not?

Agreed, but my point was in what application is it "best"? Would not a six or eight core (assuming better overclocks) be better in most cases anyway?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Agreed, but my point was in what application is it "best"? Would not a six or eight core (assuming better overclocks) be better in most cases anyway?

5960X overclocks very well, even with 2 extra cores compared to 5930k and 5820k. I can't imagine that 6950X won't be a great overclocker, too.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Even in a monopoly you can price things beyond people's willingness to pay, unless it's a life-or-death matter.

Exactly. Some people think Intel is selling tap water.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Agreed, but my point was in what application is it "best"? Would not a six or eight core (assuming better overclocks) be better in most cases anyway?

Correct. Without heavy overclock the 6950X is meh for those desktop applications/games we think on.

 

[rockfella79]

To hell with everything. I will use my current set-up for as long as possible. I have promised myself

 

[ShintaiDK]

In terms of long term lifespan. I think Haswell will be the lower bar. Fast caches and AVX2/FMA3 and you are set. Anything below and you fall out.

AVX512 is server only so no need to worry about that, assuming it would be useful.

 

[NTMBK]

I flinch at buying any CPU that costs over $100. $1500 is... out of the question.

So you just buy fifteen $100 processors instead :awe: