Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[RichUK]

I can't wait for that 7740K that's going to clock higher and cost ~15% less than 7700K! Wait, something's wrong...

Do you mean 4%?

Edit: my bad, I was comparing to the 7700 non K which is the adjacent listing.

 

[BigDaveX]

So we can all agree the ONLY reason why Intel kept us starved for moar cores was because AMD failed to offer any tangible competition for a whole decade? Mmkay!

Ehh, it probably wasn't the only reason why Intel slowly trickled out higher core counts - the high-core variants of Haswell-EP didn't clock high enough to be much use as a desktop chip, and Broadwell-EP doesn't seem to have had great yields - but Zen seems to have been a good excuse for Intel to finally throw their big guns into the mix.

It's kind of like the Emergency Edition all over again... except you know, this time, it'll probably actually work.

 

[coercitiv]

...or perhaps, there isn't? You'll see tomorrow.

I don't need tomorrow to see how prices will evolve until Coffee Lake launch. It's clear Intel chose to react to AMD with both moar cores and better pricing.

People who argued CFL 6c/12t would be more expensive than KBL 4c/8t did so on the assumption that Intel would chose not to react. Personally I did not agree with this idea, simply because rushing both SKL-X and CFL-S launches showed Intel took Zen seriously. That's why I thought 6c SKL-X would be priced more like 5820K rather than 6800K.

Do you mean 4%?

i7 7700K 13,990 ฿
i7 7740K 11,990 ฿

14% according to that price list, while the 7640K would be 20% cheaper than 7600K.

 

[moonbogg]

I personally can't wait to see what intel thinks an 18 core CPU is worth.

 

[wildhorse2k]

i7 7700K 13,990 ฿
i7 7740K 11,990 ฿

14% according to that price list, while the 7640K would be 20% cheaper than 7600K.

Without Ryzen out it might have worked to move people to X299. But with Ryzen it makes no sense to buy any 77**K. It only complicates X299 board designs as they have to be at least partially usable. It would be funny if board makers decided not to actually support these entry level Intel lga 2066 processors lol

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I personally can't wait to see what intel thinks an 18 core CPU is worth.

I'm guessing $2500-$3000.

 

[lolfail9001]

I personally can't wait to see what intel thinks an 18 core CPU is worth.

More than your entire system (with monitor and the rest), i think it's pretty obvious.

 

[IEC]

I personally can't wait to see what intel thinks an 18 core CPU is worth.

Broadwell Xeon E7-v4 processors with 18 cores range from $4000-4500:
http://ark.intel.com/products/93793/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8860-v4-45M-Cache-2_20-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/93804/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8867-v4-45M-Cache-2_40-GHz

Broadwell Xeon E5-v4 processors with 18 cores start at $2400:
http://ark.intel.com/products/91316/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2695-v4-45M-Cache-2_10-GHz

Safe bet Skylake-E 18-cores start at $2000+

 

[BigDaveX]

I personally can't wait to see what intel thinks an 18 core CPU is worth.

It's two more cores than any Threadripper is going to have, so I'd expect them to charge accordingly. It's the price of the 16C model that'll really be interesting; whether they're content to charge a lot more than AMD for slightly higher performance, or if they price it only a little higher and really try squeezing AMD's margins.

 

[RichUK]

The 7820X is mighty tempting.

I don't need it... but I do need it, if you know what I mean.

 

[Zucker2k]

Ehh, it probably wasn't the only reason why Intel slowly trickled out higher core counts - the high-core variants of Haswell-EP didn't clock high enough to be much use as a desktop chip, and Broadwell-EP doesn't seem to have had great yields - but Zen seems to have been a good excuse for Intel to finally throw their big guns into the mix.

It's kind of like the Emergency Edition all over again... except you know, this time, it'll probably actually work.

I don't think it's an excuse at all. The truth is Intel is in the money-making business. If the opportunity presents itself, they'll milk it. AMD's lack of competition in the past decade allowed Intel to get away with giving us as much performance as they could get away with, and that has been 4 cores at the upper mainstream. Have we forgotten so soon AMD using an Intel chip to demo their flagship gpu?
Gaming hasn't helped much if a 4 core processor is the dominant all round cpu. I know there are other variables like code and optimization involved here, but the 4 core cpu/gpu tandem has been a major drawback in the moar cores transition.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

The 7820X is mighty tempting.

I don't need it... but I do need it, if you know what I mean.

I hear you brother...! Yet I actually do need it. And the more parts above the one I favor the better the price will be on it, kind of.

Hopefully the new amounts of cores will inspire game developers to properly code for them, it's been long overdue.

 

[Zucker2k]

It's two more cores than any Threadripper is going to have, so I'd expect them to charge accordingly. It's the price of the 16C model that'll really be interesting; whether they're content to charge a lot more than AMD for slightly higher performance, or if they price it only a little higher and really try squeezing AMD's margins.

Does AMD have any higher core count processor, client-side? Cos it seems like Intel may have stolen AMD's lunch with these leaks. I mean threadripper is supposed to steal the client-side performance crown for AMD, once and for all.

 

[inf64]

I mean threadripper is supposed to steal the client-side performance crown for AMD, once and for all.

Not sure if serious?!?
On a serious note, if you could choose between 16C/32T 3.5Ghz/4Ghz(4.1Ghz) Threadripper at 1K dollars vs 18C/36T 2.5-2.7/4.3Ghz i9 at 2400 dollars, what would you choose and why? Both would have approx. the same mobo price and similar PCIE lanes/QC memory.

 

[Shivansps]

Not sure if serious?!?
On a serious note, if you could choose between 16C/32T 3.5Ghz/4Ghz(4.1Ghz) Threadripper at 1K dollars vs 18C/36T 2.5-2.7/4.3Ghz i9 at 2400 dollars, what would you choose and why? Both would have approx. the same mobo price and similar PCIE lanes/QC memory.

Whiout seeing performance of both that is impossible to answer.

 

[wildhorse2k]

Some people expect Threadripper to be a CCX disaster and will prefer the more expensive Intel, even if they get fewer cores. Lack of problems with software compatibility will make up for the cores. Like Ryzen known ESXi problems..

 

[inf64]

Whiout seeing performance of both that is impossible to answer.

Well you have Ryzen, just adjust for more cores in well MTed workloads, give or take 5%.
Also you have Broadwell-E 10C/20T, multiply by 1.15 for IPC jump (being generous here) and adjust for 1.8x more cores in well threaded workloads.


Edit:
To save you time ,2x less expensive chip performing almost the same as 18C, out of the box, in well MTed workloads is a no brainier. After all you don't buy 16 or 18 cores to have highest STed performance. Maybe the story changes after OCing but that will hardly offset the 2x+ price premium

 

[ManyThreads]

Fresh leak with pricing, looks not too bad if true:

http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake...i9-7920x-7900x-7820x-7800k-i7-7740k-i5-7640k/

 

[inf64]

Fresh leak with pricing, looks not too bad if true:

http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake...i9-7920x-7900x-7820x-7800k-i7-7740k-i5-7640k/

Thanks.
12C/24T at 2.9Ghz means that 18C has to be way lower than that. Likely a 2.4-2.5Ghz range (my estimate). Looks like a knee jerk reaction from intel, having on paper more cores always looks better to average Joe, no matter the performance( look at FX).

 

[IEC]

Fresh leak with pricing, looks not too bad if true:

(bad site that should be ignored)

So lazy that they stole Videocardz' image and forgot to change the watermark on the first image... even though they put their watermark on all the rest.

Go to videocardz to see the original rumor article, ignore WCCFTech:
https://videocardz.com/69900/exclusive-intel-to-launch-18-core-core-i9-7980xe-cpu

 

[ManyThreads]

So lazy that they stole Videocardz' image and forgot to change the watermark on the first image... even though they put their watermark on all the rest.

Go to videocardz to see the original rumor article, ignore WCCFTech:
https://videocardz.com/69900/exclusive-intel-to-launch-18-core-core-i9-7980xe-cpu

I might have missed it but that videocardz link didn't have pricing listed, so I linked to wccftech instead.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

We'll see tomorrow and maybe the prices drop slightly in the following weeks. Either way, I'm on board.

 

[IEC]

I might have missed it but that videocardz link didn't have pricing listed, so I linked to wccftech instead.

Here's a screenie of an Excel spreadsheet with converted prices from the Thai site:

Better than giving WCCFTech clicks.

 

[ehume]

Fresh leak with pricing, looks not too bad if true:

http://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake...i9-7920x-7900x-7820x-7800k-i7-7740k-i5-7640k/

Where does that fit in with prior rumors? i7 was 6-core, i5 was 4/8, i3 was 4/4, Pentium was 2/4, Celeron was 2/2.

 

[Sweepr]

Thanks.
12C/24T at 2.9Ghz means that 18C has to be way lower than that. Likely a 2.4-2.5Ghz range (my estimate).

If it isn't plainly obvious that that particular website is using placeholder specs, let me show where the 2.9 GHz for 12C comes from for you:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/278103/Genuine-IntelR-CPU-0000--

They also have a 10C ES at 3.1 GHz (retail one is 3.3-4.5 GHz). The store did a bad job at it as well, they got L2 cache size and a few other details wrong.

Looks like a knee jerk reaction from intel, having on paper more cores always looks better to average Joe, no matter the performance( look at FX).

Core i9-7980XE has 12.5% more cores/threads than Ryzen i9-1998X, will have better performance per clock thanks to Skylake core with reworked cache structure and superior MT scaling (single mesh / monolithic die vs 4 CCXs MCM solution). 2P ready Xeon Gold 6150 already clocks at 2.7 GHz+ with full speed AVX-512 and all the server goodies @ 165W. Core i9-7980XE should land close to 3 GHz base with very competitive all-core Turbo for non-AVX workloads and >4 GHz for ST - so you can rule out any significant clock speed advantage for Threadripper. And then we have OCing capability, while both won't set records for frequency, Skylake-X should have more headroom if current 14nm+ products and the leaked Turbo clocks are any indication (3.5 GHz -> 4.2 GHz is already a 20% boost).

Edit:
To save you time ,2x less expensive chip performing almost the same as 18C, out of the box, in well MTed workloads is a no brainier

Too early to tell since we don't know the prices yet.

Also, quick look at GameGPU results tells Ryzen 7 1800X struggles to beat a lower clocked (stock) Haswell-based Core i7-5960X in games, so if you're coming from an enthusiast OCed Haswell-E/Broadwell-E system and will do gaming (not only productivity) Skylake-X is the better all-arounder.