Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[scannall]

they kept prices somewhat stable for years without any good competition, now that AMD is offering interesting CPUs around 200-300 USD is not the time for that.
previous gen Intel normally keeps the price and it dies pretty fast,

They were competing with themselves. Trying to talk people to upgrade with nickel and dime improvements, they couldn't really raise the price.

 

[PeterScott]

They were competing with themselves. Trying to talk people to upgrade with nickel and dime improvements, they couldn't really raise the price.

Intel will have no trouble selling 6 core parts at a premium, and any savvy exec would know that, and take advantage.

6 core prices may drift down over time, but initially they will be higher.

 

[scannall]

Intel will have no trouble selling 6 core parts at a premium, and any savvy exec would know that, and take advantage.

6 core prices may drift down over time, but initially they will be higher.

Probably higher than the 7700k. Not sure if they can push more than $50 over that price though.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

It's a bit too early for me to predict what will happen in the pricing department. Some factual leaks would do us all some good.

 

[formulav8]

I'd think that there'd also have been leaks for a new chipset if Intel intended to launch one.

I read somewhere that they may be re-badging the 270 to 370 and later bring out a 390 chip-set at a later date. Don't remember where I read it a few days ago.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

I read somewhere that they may be re-badging the 270 to 370 and later bring out a 390 chip-set at a later date. Don't remember where I read it a few days ago.

The re-badging is merely someone's thoughts in a 'They better not do that' context if I recall correctly. I wouldn't put too much thought into it for the moment. Although we haven't heard much at all about the upcoming chipsets it could go either way (1151 or 1151 v2). The latest lists that Sweepr posted only showed '1151' but what that means...? Would they add or not add a 'v2' if it is a v2 chipset?

 

[Arachnotronic]

The re-badging is merely someone's thoughts in a 'They better not do that' context if I recall correctly. I wouldn't put too much thought into it for the moment. Although we haven't heard much at all about the upcoming chipsets it could go either way (1151 or 1151 v2). The latest lists that Sweepr posted only showed '1151' but what that means...? Would they add or not add a 'v2' if it is a v2 chipset?

CFL is definitely electrically compatible with Z270/Z170 boards. It is really a question of BIOS/firmware support.

 

[beginner99]

Probably higher than the 7700k. Not sure if they can push more than $50 over that price though.

Pretty sure it will be something like $399. More than a 7700k and yes anything else would be stupid from intels side especially if 4.7 ghz all core is a standard OC.

I read somewhere that they may be re-badging the 270 to 370 and later bring out a 390 chip-set at a later date. Don't remember where I read it a few days ago.

370 will be slightly changed 270 to so it works with cfl. 390 will be the real deal with integrated USB 3.1 and WiFi. depending on your needs and if this is true, 390 isnt really worth the wait. Desktop means LAN and most mobos have usb 3.1 controller anyway.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

CFL is definitely electrically compatible with Z270/Z170 boards. It is really a question of BIOS/firmware support.

Oh yes absolutely! I can only see board vendors (and Intel, because the 300 series means they can sell chipsets) being unhappy with that because surely they want to sell boards and maybe thus not provide the necessary BIOS updates.

370 will be slightly changed 270 to so it works with cfl. 390 will be the real deal with integrated USB 3.1 and WiFi. depending on your needs and if this is true, 390 isnt really worth the wait. Desktop means LAN and most mobos have usb 3.1 controller anyway.

The only two 'advantages' that 390 has over 370 are, at least for me, subpar and like you said not worth the wait.

 

[formulav8]

CFL is definitely electrically compatible with Z270/Z170 boards.

Ahh, so if CL isn't compatible with current 170/270 mobo's, it will likely be an imposed Intel limitation possibly.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Ahh, so if CL isn't compatible with current 170/270 mobo's, it will most likely be a purposeful Intel limitation.

In collaboration with board vendors, let's not put the blame solely on Intel if it turns out to be the case. It would make sense from a business perspective. Coffee Lake socket compatibility information cannot be too far off now...

 

[formulav8]

It would make sense from a business perspective.

Not from a consumer perspective though. Which is what more-so matters to myself. That's the perspective i'm looking from. Don't currently care from Intel's point of view which is usually always milking the cow until she's dead.

If Intel doesn't pull through I will just give up my wife's SB setup for an AMD Ryzen setup for her games. I'm not going to play the Intel game anymore and buy CL and again there be no real upgrade path. Especially since there are true options now.

Edit: I may just do an IB 8 Thread upgrade for her now that people are buying Ryzen setups and selling 1155 based cpu's.

 

[jpiniero]

Ahh, so if CL isn't compatible with current 170/270 mobo's, it will likely be an imposed Intel limitation possibly.

I imagine they would take the opportunity to change something like the power delivery. But yet ensure that the socket is BC with Skylake and Kaby, that's what the OEMs care about.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

I imagine they would take the opportunity to change something like the power delivery. But yet ensure that the socket is BC with Skylake and Kaby, that's what the OEMs care about.

This is indeed the most likely scenario.

 

[Ajay]

I imagine they would take the opportunity to change something like the power delivery. But yet ensure that the socket is BC with Skylake and Kaby, that's what the OEMs care about.

Do OEMs care about backward compatibility? I don't know what HP, Dell, et al care about.

 

[gx_saurav]

Do OEMs care about backward compatibility? I don't know what HP, Dell, et al care about.

OEMs don't seem to care about it from a consumer point of view.

 

[PeterScott]

OEMs don't seem to care about it from a consumer point of view.

They care about the majority.

Not a tiny minority of buyers who will upgrade the CPU on their motherboards.

 

[Phynaz]

Not from a consumer perspective though. Which is what more-so matters to myself. That's the perspective i'm looking from. Don't currently care from Intel's point of view which is usually always milking the cow until she's dead.

If Intel doesn't pull through I will just give up my wife's SB setup for an AMD Ryzen setup for her games. I'm not going to play the Intel game anymore and buy CL and again there be no real upgrade path. Especially since there are true options now.

Edit: I may just do an IB 8 Thread upgrade for her now that people are buying Ryzen setups and selling 1155 based cpu's.

AMD is no better. When Bulldozer came out only half of the boards received the needed BIOS updates. As I keep saying, socket compatibility is red herring. It's system compatibility that's important, and no company promises that.

Heck AMD even failed to deliver in the past when they did promise compatibility. Remember Quadfather?

 

[Phynaz]

Do OEMs care about backward compatibility?

Nope. OEM's sell new systems, there's nothing in it for them to allow you to upgrade an existing system. You may luck out if they decide to use the same platform for a product refresh, but I have never personally experienced it.

 

[Jan Olšan]

they kept prices somewhat stable for years without any good competition, now that AMD is offering interesting CPUs around 200-300 USD is not the time for that.
previous gen Intel normally keeps the price and it dies pretty fast,

It might be Intel's strategy to grow revenue now when competition is increased. They could drop prices in theory, but that just lowers revenue per sale even if it protects marketshare. Or they might attempt to come up with higher priced products that could sell through increased value - basically let AMD have some of the marketshare, but grow your sales by having more expensive products - something like Apple with their phones does. Of course it is not guaranteed to work, but yo can see that Intel did this with Skylake-X. You would expect them to lower prices from Braodwell-e (and partially they did), but they actually reacted by adding higher performing chips above the previous price levels.

 

[utahraptor]

Is there any data to show if coffee lake will have greater performance at equal clock speed to skylake?

 

[dullard]

Is there any data to show if coffee lake will have greater performance at equal clock speed to skylake?

Not exactly. But there is data that is close to what you want. See the top graph on page 4.

https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom...es/11/2017/03/14-nm-technology-fact-sheet.pdf

Skylake is the red line, Coffee Lake is the orange line. That is old data, so things may be slightly different now. But, as of this spring, Intel claims that they can be:
a) 52% less power at the same performance (implied: at the same clock and core count),
b) 26% more performance at the same power level (implied: at the same core count),
or
c) Not shown, but Intel could go for something in between. A bit more speed at the same clock and a bit less power. Think about an arrow that points down and to the right on that graph.

Intel separately claimed about a 10% performance boost on spec int. I assume that Intel did not mention floating point performance since it was less than a 10% gain. Thus, I assume that Intel is going for an arrow on that graph that goes mostly down in power and only slightly more in performance. Doing that would give Coffee Lake roughly a 10% performance boost at about 70% of the power of Skylake. Then Coffee Lake could have the same clock speeds as Skylake and 50% more cores all within about the same power envelope since (91 W for Skylake 6700K) * (1.50 for more cores) * (70% for less power) = (95 W for Coffee Lake 8600K).

Of course, Intel could have gone for a slightly different optimization too. That is just speculation.

 

[sze5003]

I'm thinking of getting a kaby lake 7700k since it will fit my mobo. I see a few reviews on Newegg complaining about heat.

Am I going to see much better performance? I have barely overclocked my 6700k.

 

[crashtech]

I'm thinking of getting a kaby lake 7700k since it will fit my mobo. I see a few reviews on Newegg complaining about heat.

Am I going to see much better performance? I have barely overclocked my 6700k.

You don't need to go from a 6700K to a 7700K, since they have the same IPC. Better use of money would be better cooling and more overclocking on your 6700K. The cooler is a good investment since upcoming mainstream i7s are going to be hexacore and require good cooling.

 

[sze5003]

You don't need to go from a 6700K to a 7700K, since they have the same IPC. Better use of money would be better cooling and more overclocking on your 6700K. The cooler is a good investment since upcoming mainstream i7s are going to be hexacore and require good cooling.

I haven't overclocked in a while but I like that I have a lot of options in the bios to overclock via percentage or ghz or based on what performance I want. I think I'll set it to 4.2 and see how it does. My cooler right now is pretty decent.