Who's buying Skylake-X? (You may now change your vote)

[wilds]

I hope to see CL support for certain Z170 motherboards. That would be icing on the cake.
Skylake-X needs much improved DDR4 overclocking capabilities, similar to what Intel did with Broadwell-E. Intel's HEDT platform doesn't need more bandwidth, but it does need lower latency.

Hopefully we will also see improved core overclocking as well. If Skylake-X manages considerable improvements on DDR4 and core overclocking, it is a solid win. That will allow Intel to command a solid price premium over the competition.

Will I buy it? No. I want my next gaming CPU to have an L4 cache as well (which probably won't happen). I also hate the idea of buying another Skylake based 14nm core. I already have a Skylake i3-6100 rig that supports Kaby Lake and fast DDR4.

For non-gaming purposes, I don't need the fastest single-threaded performance, which means I can look at the competition for many cores on the cheap.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Socket 1151 is confirmed from three sources, so it's happening. The situation isn't comparable with the past since Intel isn't doing a straight Tick-Tock release anymore, Intel is using a third (or fourth) generation all based on the same CPU uarch which don't require a new socket. Based on Intels policy they should support two generations with current drivers/chipsets. That's why I expect Coffeelake support for the 200series of mainboards - the recent Sisoft entry with a Coffeelake CPU was running on a Kabylake platform, it's a strong hint. That's not really a surprise given that 200series launched in January.

Coffee Lake is definitely LGA 1151 compatible.

 

[scannall]

I won't. I've been using an OC'd x5660 for years now. Hoping to upgrade. But, Intel pricing and segmentation is just a little much for me to want to give them money. AMD has a part I'd like, at a price I'm willing to pay. Intel doesn't. So, come July this Xeon gets retired to the guest bedroom, and a Ryzen takes its place.

 

[moonbogg]

I won't. I've been using an OC'd x5660 for years now. Hoping to upgrade. But, Intel pricing and segmentation is just a little much for me to want to give them money. AMD has a part I'd like, at a price I'm willing to pay. Intel doesn't. So, come July this Xeon gets retired to the guest bedroom, and a Ryzen takes its place.

I think most people feel the same. With Ryzen around I don't see how there's any room for Intel's ripoff tactics anymore. 6 core i5? Get the hell outta hear with that gimped garbage. Give us a real 6 core chip at a sane price like the competition has managed to do or get out. 8 cores for over $600? Don't waste my time with that punch line of a pricing joke. Intel has no room for that tired old junk with Ryzen floating around. They need to release good chips at competitive prices and deliver full featured products without all the price gouged segmentation in the form of no hyper threading, paying over TWO HUNDRED more dollars for a few extra PCI lanes and charging wildly non linear prices for each extra core you buy. $600+ dollars for two extra cores over a 6800K? What on God's green earth is that all about? It won't fly this time, but I'd love to see them try.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I think most people feel the same. With Ryzen around I don't see how there's any room for Intel's ripoff tactics anymore. 6 core i5? Get the hell outta hear with that gimped garbage. Give us a real 6 core chip at a sane price like the competition has managed to do or get out. 8 cores for over $600? Don't waste my time with that punch line of a pricing joke. Intel has no room for that tired old junk with Ryzen floating around. They need to release good chips at competitive prices and deliver full featured products without all the price gouged segmentation in the form of no hyper threading, paying over TWO HUNDRED more dollars for a few extra PCI lanes and charging wildly non linear prices for each extra core you buy. $600+ dollars for two extra cores over a 6800K? What on God's green earth is that all about? It won't fly this time, but I'd love to see them try.

At first, I was optimistic that Ryzen would force Intel to drop prices. Now? The more I think about it, the more I think Intel will still try to charge a huge premium for SKL-X. We might see them slide SKL-X down one level in their pricing ladder (for example, the 6950 equivalent will be priced at the 6900 tier), but IMO, that still isn't enough of a drop.

I can't see Intel releasing an 8 core SKL-X for less than $700. I hope I am pleasantly surprised but I have a feeling that when all is said and done, Ryzen will power my next rig and with the money I save, I'll dump it into faster video cards, memory, storage, etc. Intel completely pissed me off with their handling of Broadwell E's pricing and if they do it again with SKL-X, that might also be enough for me to not consider Coffee Lake.

 

[w3rd]

*facepalm*

No, I think you're very confused about my position. Let me explain below.



Well, at least you do exhibit some good computing tastes - I still have my original Vic 20, C64, C128, and Amiga 2000, along with an Amiga 3000 I picked up a few years ago and rebuilt.



The last time I checked, this is a discussion forum and this is what we do here - discuss. Oh, and "2016 ideology"? My ideas are not based on "2016 ideology" - they're based on factual, historical data and trends.



I did no such thing. I've said in every single reply to you so far that games (which is what we've been discussing in particular) don't generally leverage 6+ cores even though we've had those for nearly 8 years now and that little will be gained by going to more cores for most people. This is EXACTLY what I've been saying to you - that people really don't need 8+ core CPUs nowadays and 8 core CPUs likely won't be the norm for many, many years.

In some posts, you seem to be saying that a huge percentage of people will be running an ungodly number of cores and all this wonderful software will rain down from the heavens which can use 24 cores. And then you spout nonsense like "2016 ideology" and that some super secret software revolution is about to happen in 2017 or 2018. Then, in your next breath, you're posting that people don't really need 8 cores. So what is it that you're trying to argue again?



I'm trying to make a case for Intel? Really? Where did I do that? I simply stated facts and the facts are:

1. Intel still has the faster processor and because of that, they can command a premium and some people will pay it. And by "some," I mean a huge number - you know, like businesses who buy tens of thousands of PC per year. Even when AMD was clearly the performance leader, they made little penetration into corporate IT departments across the nation.
2. Today, if I want the fastest gaming CPU, Intel has that. Again, that's a fact.
3. Intel's platforms are typically very stable and solid and this hasn't been the case with AMD and specifically, there are still issues to be ironed out with Ryzen's platforms.
4. You keep talking about Ryzen's price point. Yes, it is impressive and as I said in another post you may not have read, I am waiting to see AMD's 16C platform, SKL-X, and Coffee Lake before I make my upgrade decision. However, let's not delude ourselves here - Intel can beat AMD's price at will and we all know it. We (or at least, most of us) know that Intel won't have to beat it - they'll reduce prices somewhat and still make money hand over fist without losing significant marketshare to AMD. Personally, I believe AMD made a mistake pricing Ryzen this low on release. They could've charged more, significantly undercut Intel, had higher margin, and THEN had more room to cut prices for when Intel brought more feature-comparable CPUs onto the market. Intel has pricing wiggle room that AMD doesn't and I think AMD made a strategic mistake.
5. In terms of my CPU preferences, I'm on the 7th generation of my top tier system builds. My processors have been (in order of generation): 1. Intel (Pentium 120) 2. Intel (Pentium Pro 180 overclocked to 233) 3. Intel (Celeron 300A overclocked, upgraded with a 733 Mhz Pentium III) 4. AMD (Athlon 1800+ upgraded to 2500+) 5. AMD (Athlon64 3500+ upgraded to Athlon 64 x2 4800) 6. Intel (Core 2 E8400) 7. Intel (i7-2600k). I have no problem going with AMD if it makes sense in terms of pricing and performance. I'm having a LAN party in a couple of weeks and I nearly pulled the trigger on a cheap Ryzen build for an extra system and probably would have if the mini-ITX boards were available.



Well I think that's my point - I can't speak for others, but I personally *won't* pay Intel's current prices for 8+ core CPUs and think Intel is charging too much and the value isn't there. I'm on record all over this forum stating that Intel gouges HEDT prices. Where you might be confused is that I *DID* say I might be willing to pay a small premium for a SKL-X over a Ryzen if the performance justifies it, but a "small premium" is NOT 2 or 3 times the price. In another thread, I told the story of how I had every intention of upgrading to Broadwell E last year but I would never pay those prices for a CPU. That really hasn't changed in a year. The only way I buy a SKL-X is with a SIGNIFICANT price reduction on Intel's end. Otherwise, I'm looking to Ryzen or Coffee Lake.



And here is one of these questionable proclamations I previously referred to. PC sales won't "skyrocket" in 2017 and 2018 unless perhaps several huge global corporations are doing refreshes this year and if that's the case, that heavily favors Intel. PC sales have been declining for years and will continue to do so. There's a small niche in the gaming arena that is growing, and IIRC, notebooks/laptops/ultraportables are still trending upwards. But desktops? Unfortunately, they're a dying breed.

EDIT: Q1 2017 PC sales decline year-over-year:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/04/12/pc-shipments-dip----again/100347930/

Well...
You have dismissed the timeframe of my predictions, and in reading you will see that I have repeatedly stated the time frames in my remarks. I have also prefaced my point with the importance of future 64bit software will hold in the very near future & how developers/coders will be making use of parallelism. (see idSoftware)

Ironically, many posts ago, we already established that laptops are personal computers. As many people have high-end gaming laptops, netbooks, etc. And both are going to explode over the next few years. The Scorpio is going to be the biggest selling electronic device in history. It is essentially a PC w/Cortana & Windows10, with games being run in a shell. Right..?

The fact, you will be able to play your Xbox Game on any median..? Can u see 2 years out... that these gem hand-held game are going to go much more upscale & deeper..? Cloud based engines..?



You make some good points, for your situation, but unfortunately you've been arguing yourself. I am writing the future, you seem to be writing how things were yesterday (2016). Intel and AMD are dropping 12c & 16C gaming CPU this year. <-- What does that do for the gaming market 18 months from now..? (TrueAudio/Havok/etc?)

Thanks for your criticism, but 2016 doesn't matter as much as 2018. We have different opinions, I just find you take on things, a little slow..

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well...
You have dismissed the timeframe of my predictions, and in reading you will see that I have repeatedly stated the time frames in my remarks. I have also prefaced my point with the importance of future 64bit software will hold in the very near future & how developers/coders will be making use of parallelism. (see idSoftware)

You did not preface your "PC sales will skyrocket in 2017 or 2018" remark with any conditions. As I said, they won't skyrocket - they'll likely decline overall and at best, you might see them increase a bit over 2016 as people upgrade or businesses undertake large upgrade refreshes, but these events (particularly business technology refreshes) will favor Intel and that likely means they'll just be selling more quad i5 and i7s. A 1% or 2% growth rate (if it even happens) isn't "skyrocketing."

Ironically, many posts ago, we already established that laptops are personal computers. As many people have high-end gaming laptops, netbooks, etc. And both are going to explode over the next few years.

There is no irony - I specifically stated in several posts which areas within the "PC" category are growing and I included laptops. So you're arguing with yourself here and it seems you're trying to backpedal a bit but unfortunately, it won't work. We are SPECIFICALLY talking about these monster chips with 12+ cores, which you have repeatedly stated will magically cause an explosion in the PC market in terms of sales and that sales will "skyrocket" in 2017 and 2018. So, that begs the question: when are Intel and AMD dropping those 12 and 16 core chips into laptops again? Yeah, I thought so....

As pointed out in one of my previous posts, PC sales fell year-over-year in Q1 2017. I found another source that said they grew 0.6% overall in Q1. I'm not sure which source is correct, but for the sake of argument, let's say the 0.6% is accurate - 0.6% growth is not "skyrocketing" especially when PC sales dropped in 2016 and 2015 as well. They'll likely continue to drop with occasional spikes during big refreshes. The growth in the areas which are stable or maybe even growing (laptops and high-end gaming systems) are eclipsed by declining sales in other areas.

The Scorpio is going to be the biggest selling electronic device in history. It is essentially a PC w/Cortana & Windows10, with games being run in a shell. Right..?

It won't be the biggest selling electronic device in history and I will guarantee that - it might sell 100-200 million units over its lifetime and that is probably a stretch. BTW, that isn't even close to the biggest selling electronic devices of all time (hint: Apple sells far more iPhones each year and eclipses the number above in 6-9 months). Xbox One has been on the market for 3.5 years or so and has sold less than 30 million units worldwide - that is equivalent to about 6 weeks or so worth of iPhone sales in Apple's fiscal Q1 2017).

The fact, you will be able to play your Xbox Game on any median..?

"Median"?

Can u see 2 years out... that these gem hand-held game are going to go much more upscale & deeper..? Cloud based engines..?

And what do you think a cloud-based engine means in terms of needing super powerful, monster CPUs on the device consuming the media? Exactly......

You make some good points, for your situation, but unfortunately you've been arguing yourself. I am writing the future, you seem to be writing how things were yesterday (2016). Intel and AMD are dropping 12c & 16C gaming CPU this year. <-- What does that do for the gaming market 18 months from now..? (TrueAudio/Havok/etc?)

I am arguing how the average person sees, interacts, and uses PCs in this era. I don't "argue myself" (by which, I assume you mean "arguing my situation as being typical") because I'm one of those niche hobbyists I've referred to and recognize I'm an outlier and would jump all over 16 core CPUs because I have no financial constraints preventing me from doing so. That isn't reality for most businesses or consumers, however. PCs are appliances to them and little more.

We've had quad cores since 2006 or so. We've have hexcores since 2009 or 2010. Consoles and smartphones have had multicores for many years. Games still largely don't take advantage of anything beyond 4 cores and you continue to miss that point. There are going to be more and more games as time goes on which will take advantage of more cores - that is obvious, but you likely won't see a game in 3 years that says "requires 12 cores" or anything like that. Sure, there might be a few but those will be relegated to those hobbyists like the ones who frequent Anandtech. Game companies aren't stupid and will write their games to run on the lowest common denominator if humanly possible, and I anticipate that in 2019, the average cores per machine globally (including laptops and desktops) will probably be in the 4-6 core range. That isn't because Intel and AMD won't try to push higher cores; it will be because the massive majority of machines are held by huge businesses (some of which have hundreds of thousands of PCs) and consumers who likely won't upgrade until their machine dies or can't do something they need. I don't think you really have a grasp on the sheer numbers of PCs in the world, where most of them live, and how most people see, interact, and buy machines. Most people in the world would be fine running even a Core 2 PC still.

There will always be a niche of hobbyists who eat these CPUs up, but you are greatly overestimating consumer need for new PCs. There is a reason PC sales keep dropping, and that's because of the smartphone and tablet advancements. Tablet sales have been in retreat for quite some time as well, but many people are content using smart phones as their sole means of internet access.

Thanks for your criticism, but 2016 doesn't matter as much as 2018. We have different opinions, I just find you take on things, a little slow..

My "take on things" is, once again, based on decades of experience following and participating in the industry, working in massive Fortune 20 companies, speaking with some of the top experts in the PC industry, knowledge of actual historical trends, and very deep technical knowledge. You might find it "a little slow," but unfortunately, that is reality.

 

[w3rd]

Sorry once again, you are using me as an excuse to rhetorically answer your own pseudo questions.
You make arguments I would never, then answer yourself based on how you think someone might answer you.

I am not that person...




Again, I never really engaged you. You had criticism for how I saw things.
But I would like to point out to you once more, I really have no clue who you are arguing with(?), as nobody said anything about 12core laptops. So why ramble on about them? To prove a point nobody is arguing? Do you see?

As an example: "And what do you think a cloud-based engine means in terms of needing super powerful, monster CPUs on the device consuming the media? Exactly...... " & "Games still largely don't take advantage of anything beyond 4 cores and you continue to miss that point... "

Again, that is your argument^, not mine.
I was stating that gaming is huge and getting bigger and even apps, are using more cores... and that energy burning, high-data processing won't be needed as much (on local devices). Your own line of reasoning proves my point. You just don't see, or understand it. Cloud-based can calculate answers and provide deep solutions quickly, so things that need GHZ to solve, are pushed off on the net.

In 5 years, the Xbox Scorpio 2 will have 32 cores.
CPUs are going to require less and less Ghz and more and more parallelism, as 64bit software pans out.



I think Intel can only milk the Ghz War for only so long. We are at that era.

 

[Jackie60]

I would buy it if I could simply drop it into my x99 v3 mobo or it gave me 20-30% more IPC. I can't see Intel ever doing either of those things so guess my next build will not be for some time.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sorry once again, you are using me as an excuse to rhetorically answer your own pseudo questions.
You make arguments I would never, then answer yourself based on how you think someone might answer you.

I am not that person...

At this stage, you're talking in circles.

Again, I never really engaged you. You had criticism for how I saw things.

Exactly! Now you're getting it. This is called a forum. Forums are where we discuss ideas and other things. You said things that I and others disagree with and we gave our opinions and questioned your points for further discussion.

But I would like to point out to you once more, I really have no clue who you are arguing with(?), as nobody said anything about 12core laptops. So why ramble on about them? To prove a point nobody is arguing? Do you see?

I'm arguing against the points you've made. Yes, you didn't explicitly mention 12 core CPUs being in laptops but in fact, it is central to your entire argument. The 12 core laptop CPU argument came up to prove that you're not thinking this entire argument through and are shifting the argument away from what our original discussion was. Here is how this discussion has basically gone so far:

YOU: We'll have 12+ C CPUs this year! This is going to cause a huge revolution! PC sales are going to skyrocket in 2017 and 2018!
ME: PC sales have been declining for years, except the small niche of gaming hardware and laptop sales which are holding steady or growing.
YOU: AHA! The irony! I mentioned laptops were in the PC category many posts ago and their sales are going to keep exploding!
ME: There is no irony - I mentioned it several times earlier. So when are we having 12+ core CPUs in laptops then?

You see, you clearly missed the point I was making. I guess I'm just going to have to connect the dots for you. You keep making all these (largely unfounded) proclamations regarding CPUs with large core counts and how they're going to cause "skyrocketing" PC sales THIS YEAR. When it was pointed out that PC sales have been declining for years with no end in sight, you then latch on to one specific component of that market (laptops) and then say how they're going to keep growing and even throw in a mention or two of gaming laptops. I then naturally asked when we're going to see these 12C CPUs in laptops, since your argument the ENTIRE TIME has been that multicore CPUs will drive more advanced gaming and will be the main cause "skyrocketing" PC sales in 2017. You're right that gaming laptop sales will likely continue to increase (which I pointed out), but the one thing you've been touting as the primary reason why PC sales will explode this year and next (machines with 12+ Cores) will have nearly zero effect on laptop sales this year and likely next.

Also, do you actually know why gaming laptops are selling better than ever? Can you tell me a couple of reasons why you think they are? I have a few ideas, but I'll let you answer first.

As an example: "And what do you think a cloud-based engine means in terms of needing super powerful, monster CPUs on the device consuming the media? Exactly...... " & "Games still largely don't take advantage of anything beyond 4 cores and you continue to miss that point... "

Again, that is your argument^, not mine.

*facepalm*

1. You're arguing about how all these multicore CPUs are going to make PC sales skyrocket and "revolutionize" software, etc. In the next breath, *YOU* talk about cloud-based engines. See next quote below for more detail on that point.

2. You keep saying that these massive multicore CPUs will drive gaming, and I've been pointing out (for pages now) the lag time between the release of these CPUs and when gaming will actually support them. I'm not going to detail the timeline again, because I assume you can scroll up to any of my previous posts and review what I've written again. You can't, as you have been, sit here and say "PC sales will skyrocket this year and next! 12+ core CPUs will cause gaming to explode!" and then continually ignore my argument that "Games still largely don't take advantage of anything beyond 4 cores..." and pretend it has nothing to do with the discussion. It has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion and you have not yet addressed it.

I was stating that gaming is huge and getting bigger and even apps, are using more cores... and that energy burning, high-data processing won't be needed as much (on local devices).

We're talking about *your* assertion of 12+ core CPUs helping make PC sales skyrocket THIS YEAR and that somehow gaming will drive a large portion of these (and future) sales. We weren't talking about cloud-based engines or ANYTHING of that nature until *you* brought it up. This whole discussion is about massive multicore CPUs on devices in the PC market - not going off on unrelated tangents.

Your own line of reasoning proves my point. You just don't see, or understand it. Cloud-based can calculate answers and provide deep solutions quickly, so things that need GHZ to solve, are pushed off on the net.

Oh, I understand but I don't think you do. If you want to discuss cloud-based engines, etc, that's fine - start a discussion about it. However, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion we're having (again, large multicore CPUs in PCs, resulting in huge PC sales as a result in a huge increase in gaming). You trot out a discussion point which clearly not only doesn't support your central argument, but directly contradicts it. Maybe you were just making a side observation and that's fine, but understand, it doesn't support your core argument.

In 5 years, the Xbox Scorpio 2 will have 32 cores.
CPUs are going to require less and less Ghz and more and more parallelism, as 64bit software pans out.

Obvious points are obvious, but again, this has zero to do with the discussion at hand - which is PCs with huge numbers of cores, gaming exploding as a result, and PC sales skyrocketing this year and next (which is your claim, not mine). Consoles aren't included in the PC market segment.

I think Intel can only milk the Ghz War for only so long. We are at that era.

Those familiar with computing history are aware we were at that era a little over 10 years ago too, when Intel tried to milk the clock speed race while the Athlon 64s were beating them badly at lower clocks. CPU clock speed has always only been a relative performance indicator within a particular product line and that's what got Intel in trouble against the Athlon 64 - people learned that there was much more to CPU power than just clock speed. A 3.2 Ghz Pentium IV was obviously faster than a 3 Ghz Pentium IV, but both were soundly beaten by a 2.5 Ghz Athlon 64.

 

[cytg111]

I will have to see benchmarks(gaming) showing quads loosing badly before I even consider going hex, octa or ++.. the cores race, I am not buying...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I will have to see benchmarks(gaming) showing quads loosing badly before I even consider going hex, octa or ++.. the cores race, I am not buying...

That's one big advantage of AM4 right now IMO - you can buy a cheaper quad (I just bought a 1500x to build a cheap second gaming system) and if games start using 6-8 cores more extensively in 2-3 years, you can install an 8 core CPU pretty easily.

 

[Shivansps]

That's one big advantage of AM4 right now IMO - you can buy a cheaper quad (I just bought a 1500x to build a cheap second gaming system) and if games start using 6-8 cores more extensively in 2-3 years, you can install an 8 core CPU pretty easily.

Thats a fair point, but AMD has been crazy with the sockets in the last years, they could easily say "no, Ryzen 2 needs AM4+" for wharever reason and you will end up at the mercy of OEMs.

Just buy today, for today. Last time i attemped to do as you say i brought a AM3 board with a Phenom 2 X3. Then AM3+ happened, guess what happen. Good for me though, after that little move i went 2500K when launched, i could have ended with a FX.

So if you go AM4, go 1600 or 1700.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Thats a fair point, but AMD has been crazy with the sockets in the last years, they could easily say "no, Ryzen 2 needs AM4+" for wharever reason and you will end up at the mercy of OEMs.

Just buy today, for today. Last time i attemped to do as you say i brought a AM3 board with a Phenom 2 X3. Then AM3+ happened, guess what happen. Good for me though, after that little move i went 2500K when launched, i could have ended with a FX.

So if you go AM4, go 1600 or 1700.

Well, in my case, I know AM4 will at least support 8 core CPUs. It may or may not support higher core counts in the future - not sure. For me, I am not replacing my main system (rig in sig) now - I just wanted to build a competent second system for gaming parties and the Ryzen 1500X is a cheap way to do that. In the future, I can always get the octocore model if games start showing huge performance gains with more than 4 cores. To me, it is a win-win.

 

[Rifter]

Thats a fair point, but AMD has been crazy with the sockets in the last years, they could easily say "no, Ryzen 2 needs AM4+" for wharever reason and you will end up at the mercy of OEMs.

Just buy today, for today. Last time i attemped to do as you say i brought a AM3 board with a Phenom 2 X3. Then AM3+ happened, guess what happen. Good for me though, after that little move i went 2500K when launched, i could have ended with a FX.

So if you go AM4, go 1600 or 1700.

AMD has already been on record saying zen+ will be AM4, just have not confirmed if zen++ will be or not.

 

[Ajay]

I'm on the fence. It'll really come down to how much a hexacore SKX costs and overclocks. I'm likely to keep my next system for a long time. This Gulftown has been pretty sweet (though I wish I could have picked up a friend's cherry 980x that ran @ 4.8 GHz before he ebayed it).

 

[Sweepr]

Tough choice @Ajay. I believe Basin Falls will be more expensive and perhaps Skylake-X 6C doesn't reach the same clocks as 14nm++ Coffee Lake-S 6C, but the new cache structure + 4-channel DDR4 could have a positive impact on games and certain applications. Long term, we might see Ice Lake-S as soon as H2-2018 or early 2019 on a brand new socket, while LGA 2066 might receive at least another family of chips before it gets replaced. Choices, choices... 🙂

 

[WingZero30]

I have been using my LGA 775 system for more than 7 years now and it is still going strong (Q9650@4.2Ghz). However it is showing signs of age and I am looking to upgrade to a modern system this year. I would like to go with Skylake-X as I plan to keep such system for the next 7-10 years. I only tend to upgrade after several years. The only thing that might dissuade me is the pricing of 2066 platform but I am keeping an open mind about it.

@Sweepr

With regard to the another family of chips on the 2066 do you reckon it will be Coffee lake-X but may be 6+ cores or perhaps even 14 or 16 cores ?

 

[Sweepr]

With regard to the another family of chips on the 2066 do you reckon it will be Coffee lake-X but may be 6+ cores or perhaps even 14 or 16 cores ?

Coffee Lake-X is a given, basically the LGA 2066 version of Coffee Lake-S at a higher TDP. Should arrive next year, unless Intel decided to bring the launch forward like they did to the mainstream version. Regarding Skylake-X's successor, I really don't know what we can expect, but here are some possibilities:

- Skylake-X @ 14nm++: Increased clocks and/or core count. I was recently informed Intel's MCC server die is the base for Skylake-X 12C, so they could increase core count up to 18C for those expensive 'X' models.
- Cannon Lake-X: Older roadmaps included Cannon Lake-EP as a replacement to Skylake-EP (now rename Skylake-SP), but mikk says the more recent ones don't mention it.
- Ice Lake-X: If Purley will receive an Ice Lake based CPU, then I believe it's a possibility for Basin Falls as well - makes sense if Ice Lake cores are using the improved 10nm+ proccess as well.

 

[w3rd]

At this stage, you're talking in circles.



Exactly! Now you're getting it. This is called a forum. Forums are where we discuss ideas and other things. You said things that I and others disagree with and we gave our opinions and questioned your points for further discussion.



I'm arguing against the points you've made. Yes, you didn't explicitly mention 12 core CPUs being in laptops but in fact, it is central to your entire argument. The 12 core laptop CPU argument came up to prove that you're not thinking this entire argument through and are shifting the argument away from what our original discussion was. Here is how this discussion has basically gone so far:

YOU: We'll have 12+ C CPUs this year! This is going to cause a huge revolution! PC sales are going to skyrocket in 2017 and 2018!
ME: PC sales have been declining for years, except the small niche of gaming hardware and laptop sales which are holding steady or growing.
YOU: AHA! The irony! I mentioned laptops were in the PC category many posts ago and their sales are going to keep exploding!
ME: There is no irony - I mentioned it several times earlier. So when are we having 12+ core CPUs in laptops then?

You see, you clearly missed the point I was making. I guess I'm just going to have to connect the dots for you. You keep making all these (largely unfounded) proclamations regarding CPUs with large core counts and how they're going to cause "skyrocketing" PC sales THIS YEAR. When it was pointed out that PC sales have been declining for years with no end in sight, you then latch on to one specific component of that market (laptops) and then say how they're going to keep growing and even throw in a mention or two of gaming laptops. I then naturally asked when we're going to see these 12C CPUs in laptops, since your argument the ENTIRE TIME has been that multicore CPUs will drive more advanced gaming and will be the main cause "skyrocketing" PC sales in 2017. You're right that gaming laptop sales will likely continue to increase (which I pointed out), but the one thing you've been touting as the primary reason why PC sales will explode this year and next (machines with 12+ Cores) will have nearly zero effect on laptop sales this year and likely next.

Also, do you actually know why gaming laptops are selling better than ever? Can you tell me a couple of reasons why you think they are? I have a few ideas, but I'll let you answer first.



*facepalm*

1. You're arguing about how all these multicore CPUs are going to make PC sales skyrocket and "revolutionize" software, etc. In the next breath, *YOU* talk about cloud-based engines. See next quote below for more detail on that point.

2. You keep saying that these massive multicore CPUs will drive gaming, and I've been pointing out (for pages now) the lag time between the release of these CPUs and when gaming will actually support them. I'm not going to detail the timeline again, because I assume you can scroll up to any of my previous posts and review what I've written again. You can't, as you have been, sit here and say "PC sales will skyrocket this year and next! 12+ core CPUs will cause gaming to explode!" and then continually ignore my argument that "Games still largely don't take advantage of anything beyond 4 cores..." and pretend it has nothing to do with the discussion. It has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion and you have not yet addressed it.



We're talking about *your* assertion of 12+ core CPUs helping make PC sales skyrocket THIS YEAR and that somehow gaming will drive a large portion of these (and future) sales. We weren't talking about cloud-based engines or ANYTHING of that nature until *you* brought it up. This whole discussion is about massive multicore CPUs on devices in the PC market - not going off on unrelated tangents.



Oh, I understand but I don't think you do. If you want to discuss cloud-based engines, etc, that's fine - start a discussion about it. However, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion we're having (again, large multicore CPUs in PCs, resulting in huge PC sales as a result in a huge increase in gaming). You trot out a discussion point which clearly not only doesn't support your central argument, but directly contradicts it. Maybe you were just making a side observation and that's fine, but understand, it doesn't support your core argument.



Obvious points are obvious, but again, this has zero to do with the discussion at hand - which is PCs with huge numbers of cores, gaming exploding as a result, and PC sales skyrocketing this year and next (which is your claim, not mine). Consoles aren't included in the PC market segment.



Those familiar with computing history are aware we were at that era a little over 10 years ago too, when Intel tried to milk the clock speed race while the Athlon 64s were beating them badly at lower clocks. CPU clock speed has always only been a relative performance indicator within a particular product line and that's what got Intel in trouble against the Athlon 64 - people learned that there was much more to CPU power than just clock speed. A 3.2 Ghz Pentium IV was obviously faster than a 3 Ghz Pentium IV, but both were soundly beaten by a 2.5 Ghz Athlon 64.

I don't think you understand. I have never taken a point you said, nor even considered arguing any of your points. I have not bothered one bit, to argue a single point with you.

All the points you are making, are with yourself.

Read back, as I have never argued your points and never will argue your points, they are anemic and shallow. You don't have to try and convince me of anything and have already stated your insight is a tad slow.

You might not like my predictions, but having a hissy-fit over them illustrates you are radicalized.



Lastly, you fail to recognize the holiday shopping season this year & next. You insight into 2017 & 2018 hardware, is anemic. Zero point in arguing with your 2016 statistics.

 

[w3rd]

• 6core, 8core, 10core, 12core, 16core...
• Vega, Volta, Navi, Skylake...
• APU, ARMx86...

NOBODY is going to buy any of this in 2017 & 2018.. (no extra PC sales over the next 19 months.) Nothing to see here, nothing to wet excitement and push PC sales.*

* denotes sarcasm.

 

[coercitiv]

I don't think you understand. I have never taken a point you said, nor even considered arguing any of your points. I have not bothered one bit, to argue a single point with you.

Considering you are not discussing any point, can you please take this to private messaging?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't think you understand. I have never taken a point you said, nor even considered arguing any of your points. I have not bothered one bit, to argue a single point with you.

That's because you're not capable. You keep spouting incredibly naïve and uninformed posts and when you're asked to elaborate with facts, you talk in circles and throw out words like "anemic" and "shallow," which is especially hilarious when you're taking to someone who has far more technical expertise and education than you do.

All the points you are making, are with yourself.

Read back, as I have never argued your points and never will argue your points, they are anemic and shallow.

They're probably too complex for you to understand actually. Anyone can make bold proclamations in the safe anonymity of the internet, but it is telling when those same people can't back up a word they say and instead, resort to the tactics you've resorted to. You're the person who blessed us with gems such as "PC sales will skyrocket in 2017 and 2018!" and "Xbox Scorpio will be the best selling electronic device ever!"

If you're not willing to discuss your posts, you should probably not be posting in forums.

You don't have to try and convince me of anything and have already stated your insight is a tad slow.

The last part shows your reading comprehension is quite bad. What was said is that the industry (in this case, the software industry) moves slowly. The timeline has been posted several times to prove this point and you ignore it every time because it isn't that you "won't" argue it, it is that you CAN'T.

You might not like my predictions, but having a hissy-fit over them illustrates you are radicalized.

Errr, I'm radicalized because you were asked to explain and defend your viewpoints? The only one having a hissy fit here is you. I'm trying to discuss them with you, which you're incapable of doing. There is a reason my responses to you are getting likes and yours to me aren't and I'll let you figure that one out. If you need some help, I'd be happy to spell it out for you.

Lastly, you fail to recognize the holiday shopping season this year & next. You insight into 2017 & 2018 hardware, is anemic. Zero point in arguing with your 2016 statistics.

I haven't failed to acknowledge anything. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than for the PC market to make a huge rebound and for sales to skyrocket but they won't. You have failed to acknowledge historical trends (because you obviously don't know them) and your obvious lack of hardware and industry knowledge is on display for all to see. You don't grasp the sheer scale of the situation and it is very apparent.

• 6core, 8core, 10core, 12core, 16core...
• Vega, Volta, Navi, Skylake...
• APU, ARMx86...

NOBODY is going to buy any of this in 2017 & 2018.. (no extra PC sales over the next 19 months.) Nothing to see here, nothing to wet excitement and push PC sales.*

* denotes sarcasm.

Can you please quote where anyone said that no one will buy any of those? Oh, and you can make a very similar list of things released in 2016 and yet, sales fell. You were probably one of those guys who claimed Windows 10 would cause PC sales to explode, too.

We'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that since you're clearly incapable of discussion.

 

[Ajay]

Tough choice @Ajay. I believe Basin Falls will be more expensive and perhaps Skylake-X 6C doesn't reach the same clocks as 14nm++ Coffee Lake-S 6C, but the new cache structure + 4-channel DDR4 could have a positive impact on games and certain applications. Long term, we might see Ice Lake-S as soon as H2-2018 or early 2019 on a brand new socket, while LGA 2066 might receive at least another family of chips before it gets replaced. Choices, choices... 🙂

I can't wait till CFL. I'm going slightly insane just waiting for SKX info. So it will be SKX or Ryzen.
Ryzen has two weakness for me ATM.
1) Somewhat spotty results in terms of platform stability (though picking the right mobo/ram fixes most of this).
2). Terrible overclocking headroom. Miffs me a bit as an avid overclocker that a Ryzen 1700 will at best match the clockspeed of my i7 970 (4 GHz).

Ryzen's main benefit is price (cheap for 8 cores), though I rather sacrifice a bit of MT performance for higher ST performance (with 6C/12T SKX).

 

[coercitiv]

Ryzen's main benefit is price (cheap for 8 cores), though I rather sacrifice a bit of MT performance for higher ST performance (with 6C/12T SKX).

In overclocked scenarios you might not give up any MT performance, that is if SKX is a considerably better overclocker than BDW. I guess it all comes down to what kind of surprise we expect from the new cache structure. Personally I'm very optimistic.