Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

[jdwii]

No that is not true at all, Intel simply disabled overclocking on those other parts to save money

 

[jimmysmitty]

No that is not true at all, Intel simply disabled overclocking on those other parts to save money

How exactly does Intel save money from a CPU not being able to overclock?

And it was never disabled. You have been able to OC with the BCLK even since Sandy Bridge. Problem is that with some lines they had the BCLK tied in with the clock generator for the PCIe and SATA clock generators. That caused instability in those parts since they are only designed to run at 100MHz, not faster. Haswell moved to separate clock generators which allowed for some BCLK OCing but not much.

Do you not remember the Pentium D 805? that OCing champ of its time? Was $150 bucks and overclocked like crazy.

@turkey3_scratch, Intel has been doing binning for ever and in any lineup the top chip is normally going to be the best of the batch. While a lower end one can possible clock as high it is normally not as stable.

 

[jdwii]

No that is not true at all, Intel simply disabled overclocking on those other parts to save money

How exactly does Intel save money from a CPU not being able to overclock?

And it was never disabled. You have been able to OC with the BCLK even since Sandy Bridge. Problem is that with some lines they had the BCLK tied in with the clock generator for the PCIe and SATA clock generators. That caused instability in those parts since they are only designed to run at 100MHz, not faster. Haswell moved to separate clock generators which allowed for some BCLK OCing but not much.

Do you not remember the Pentium D 805? that OCing champ of its time? Was $150 bucks and overclocked like crazy.

@turkey3_scratch, Intel has been doing binning for ever and in any lineup the top chip is normally going to be the best of the batch. While a lower end one can possible clock as high it is normally not as stable.

That's hard for me to agree with when back in the day i clearly remember cheaper CPUs(2005-2008) overclock well if anything the higher-end parts were pushed so much that you didn't get much from overclocking the best of the best.

Also Intel locks their lower priced stuff to save money since it would cost them more not to do it as it would give people less of an excuse to buy higher-end stuff.

Basically one of the few things i like about Amd is they have more unlocked CPUs.

 

[jimmysmitty]

No that is not true at all, Intel simply disabled overclocking on those other parts to save money

How exactly does Intel save money from a CPU not being able to overclock?

And it was never disabled. You have been able to OC with the BCLK even since Sandy Bridge. Problem is that with some lines they had the BCLK tied in with the clock generator for the PCIe and SATA clock generators. That caused instability in those parts since they are only designed to run at 100MHz, not faster. Haswell moved to separate clock generators which allowed for some BCLK OCing but not much.

Do you not remember the Pentium D 805? that OCing champ of its time? Was $150 bucks and overclocked like crazy.

@turkey3_scratch, Intel has been doing binning for ever and in any lineup the top chip is normally going to be the best of the batch. While a lower end one can possible clock as high it is normally not as stable.

That's hard for me to agree with when back in the day i clearly remember cheaper CPUs(2005-2008) overclock well if anything the higher-end parts were pushed so much that you didn't get much from overclocking the best of the best.

Also Intel locks their lower priced stuff to save money since it would cost them more not to do it as it would give people less of an excuse to buy higher-end stuff.

Basically one of the few things i like about Amd is they have more unlocked CPUs.

AMD only unlocks them to have a sales advantage but it takes a lot of overclocking from an AMD CPU to even equal most stock clocked i5s let alone their i7s.

If AMD had more control of the market they would not have as many unlocked CPUs.

And again from SB to Haswell it was due to the clock generator not them locking anything. It was a design choice when they moved the SB to the CPU, something that will happen if AMD makes the same decision unless they separate the clock generators.

And when I bought my Q6600 I bought it for the "free" 3GHz overclock but a QX6850 at the time overclocked way better than my Q6600 did as it was a chip binned for it.

Still, Intel does not "save" money by locking CPUs. The overclocking community is very small, it is a small part of the enthusiast community. It has grown due to auto overclocking and OEM overclocking but if you look at the big picture, it wouldn't make a difference to Intel. Especially since they make all their money in the server market where people pay a couple grand per CPU. Hell I had to ship a pretty old server back to my corporate headquarters and it was still worth $7K.

The consumer market is not where Intel focuses their energy for money making. If they did they could easily charge double for their top end LGA1151 i7 since nothing AMD has at stock touches it.

 

[Vogner16]

overclocking a lower end part to be as fast as a higher end part is good, but the higher end part would overclock to be better than the best part.

if you get a 3 ghz part and oc to 3.5 then pay more for a 3.5ghz that oc's to 4 its worth the money. why intel dosent unlock all parts I think is due to keeping customers happy from average consumers overvolting componets as they don't know what there doing and then blame the chip not their messing with it.

even if its not overclocked it works and intel cant be blamed for not letting you get more than what they sold you, but if you break it because you were trying to get more than advertised "its a cruddy part"

people do this with fury cards complaining they are poor overclockers while amd locked voltages to prevent people from doing this, and people flashed new bios and then fry a $600 card and complain about a garbage card... lock it all down and nobody can fry it and complain. prevents customers from bashing company name I think. and when they have market majority why not?

 

[gummean]

You might see this when the arm socs with a53/57 cores and cadrephotos hevc hardware support becomes commonplace.

 

[Cazalan]

Deca-core's incoming for Desktop. $1500

http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-e-core-i7-6950x-price/

Only good part really is it slightly pushes down the Hex-core prices.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

If they sell the I7-6800K for only $350, that'll be incredible, and will just slap Skylake in the face. The 6700K sells for $420 lowest right now.

 

[okcnaline]

12 core i7? I wonder what they'll come out for Broadwell-EP. 24 core Xeon?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

No, the I7-6950X is 10 core not 12.

 

[Turb0Yoda]

We already have 18 core Xeons. Would not be surprised if they jumped to 22.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

We already have 18 core Xeons. Would not be surprised if they jumped to 22.

Agree.

Heck, the iGPU takes up the vast majority of area on Intel CPUs, they could pack tons of cores if they wanted.

 

[Cazalan]

Supposed to be up to 22 cores for Broadwell Xeons, and up to 28 cores for Skylake Xeons.

 

[logainofhades]

Broadwell-E possibly showing up in Q2?

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/matthew-wilson/intel-to-release-broadwell-e-processors-in-q2/

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Q2, crap, I was hoping Q1.

 

[fudgecakes99]

Well considering more cores dont exactly equate to more betters in most applications, it'd be kind of a moot point, well at least at a general niche consumer level.

 

[logainofhades]

I would be interested in a 6 core model, if the stars align right for me financially.

 

[Turb0Yoda]

^ Same... I barely live on a dual core...
md5 sums take years to work on this crusty thing, along with all the stuff I have running and are using at the same time.

 

[logainofhades]

If they sell the I7-6800K for only $350, that'll be incredible, and will just slap Skylake in the face. The 6700K sells for $420 lowest right now.

The 5820k has been selling around $375 for awhile, and is already doing a good job of that. :lol:

 

[fudgecakes99]

i paid 350 for my 6700k

 

[turkey3_scratch]

i paid 350 for my 6700k

Back when it was new. High demand and low supply have only increased its price. They should charge $450, people would buy it at that price.

 

[logainofhades]

It is over $400, everywhere it is in stock. MC, after tax, would push it over $400 too, most likely too. The 5820k sells for less, than the 6700k there too.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($411.88 @ OutletPC)
Total: $411.88 ($389.99 @ MC)
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-02 09:31 EST-0500

vs


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($374.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $374.99 ($319.99 @ MC)
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-02 09:33 EST-0500

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I always recommend the 5820K, can't recall when I ever recommend the 6700K at that price. But then people go, "Blah blah blah 6700K better for gaming blah blah" and I say - wait a second - why aren't you getting an I5 for gaming? An I7 is not meant for sheer gaming. For multi-threaded workstation-oriented tasks, or productivity, or recording and video editing, the 5820K is a no-brainer, but people in their foolishness don't get a 6600K for gaming and then talk crap about the 5820K because the 6700K is better.

Just had to let that out

 

[fudgecakes99]

I always recommend the 5820K, can't recall when I ever recommend the 6700K at that price. But then people go, "Blah blah blah 6700K better for gaming blah blah" and I say - wait a second - why aren't you getting an I5 for gaming? An I7 is not meant for sheer gaming. For multi-threaded workstation-oriented tasks, or productivity, or recording and video editing, the 5820K is a no-brainer, but people in their foolishness don't get a 6600K for gaming and then talk crap about the 5820K because the 6700K is better.

Just had to let that out

Not entirely, i'd imagine in certain games like say, total war which is pretty heavily cpu intensive it'd outperform a 6600k, but for the most part i'd be hard pressed to choose a 6700k over a 6600k for just pure gaming.in most situations. That said i swear you changed your profile pic to a snake a few days ago? or am i just seeing things?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I always recommend the 5820K, can't recall when I ever recommend the 6700K at that price. But then people go, "Blah blah blah 6700K better for gaming blah blah" and I say - wait a second - why aren't you getting an I5 for gaming? An I7 is not meant for sheer gaming. For multi-threaded workstation-oriented tasks, or productivity, or recording and video editing, the 5820K is a no-brainer, but people in their foolishness don't get a 6600K for gaming and then talk crap about the 5820K because the 6700K is better.

Just had to let that out

Not entirely, i'd imagine in certain games like say, total war which is pretty heavily cpu intensive it'd outperform a 6600k, but for the most part i'd be hard pressed to choose a 6700k over a 6600k for just pure gaming.in most situations. That said i swear you changed your profile pic to a snake a few days ago? or am i just seeing things?

I think you're hallucinating.

no just kidding I did but it wasn't a snake