t versions of skylake chips are nearly nonexistent. Why?

[chrles12]

I'm building a new pc and it's going to be in an mitx case (the ml08b). I find the idea of the lower power consumption and the lower temps of the t versions of skylake chips very attractive, but the only place I can find them for sale (let alone any first-hand info or benchmarks on them) is on Amazon for much more than I'd expect them to be ($60 more for an i5-6500t compared to a regular i5-6500). Why do no retailers other than Amazon carry the t versions of the skylake chips, and why would a chip that operates at a lower frequency than its stock counterpart cost that much more? Any info or thoughts are appreciated, because I am confused. I have other questions regarding the t series, but this is long enough as it is. Thanks for reading.

 

[Gam3r01]

Very low demand, people generally dont want those "gimped for power consumption" chips.

You can get the 6400T fairly cheap, but its not sold by amazon, rather listed with them from a third party:
http://pcpartpicker.com/product/mn7CmG/intel-cpu-cm8066201920000

 

[chrles12]

Very low demand, people generally dont want those "gimped for power consumption" chips.

You can get the 6400T fairly cheap, but its not sold by amazon, rather listed with them from a third party:
http://pcpartpicker.com/product/mn7CmG/intel-cpu-cm8066201920000

Thank you for the quick, helpful response. It is much appreciated. I do understand that it's gimped, but could you further explain to what extent the lesser frequency makes a difference? The i5-6500t operates at a frequency of 2.5-3.1ghz, while the stock 6500 operates anywhere from 3.2-3.6ghz. As best I can tell from my research, that difference equates to something like 20 fps less on average, but because of how few benchmarks exist for the 6500t an inexperienced builder like me has a tough time telling for sure. Would you say that 20 fps less on average is roughly accurate? I'll mostly just be gaming with this machine, so fps is the main difference I'm looking at, but any info is helpful. Thank you once again for taking the time to help me out.

 

[synphul]

If you're going for modern AAA gaming I don't think I'd bother with a slow clocked i5 like that barely reaching 3ghz. May as well get an i3 6100, it would probably perform better in some games. Going by passmark scores the 6500t version runs around 18% slower than the standard 6500. Some games aren't as cpu dependent so it may not matter as much, for those that are and that scale better with clock speed it will be a detriment. Just like the stock 6500 vs a 6600k oc'd. Given the $60 increased cost up front I think pretty much any power savings in terms of cost just went out the window. Cpu's themselves don't use a ton of power, less than gpu's use.

The difference in power consumption between an i3 6100 and i5 6500 is only around 10-13w under load, doing the math to convert that to kwh that means that 'if' both cpu's were run full out 100% load max power consumption (prime95) 24hrs a day, 365 days a year the i5 6500 would use 113.88 kwh more during the entire year than the i3. Going by average price of power in the u.s. at $0.12/kwh you're looking at a whopping $13.68/yr cost increase. Less though since no one is likely running their cpu 24/7/365 100% use. If using the same math to figure out the cost difference of gaming on the i5 vs i3 6hrs a day every day all year long, the cost difference is $3.41.

Maybe you're still interested in the low power aspect but putting it into perspective there's very little real world difference. You'd save more power by turning off 1 cfl light bulb with a 75w output equivalent since they run around 17-18w.

 

[chrles12]

If you're going for modern AAA gaming I don't think I'd bother with a slow clocked i5 like that barely reaching 3ghz. May as well get an i3 6100, it would probably perform better in some games. Going by passmark scores the 6500t version runs around 18% slower than the standard 6500. Some games aren't as cpu dependent so it may not matter as much, for those that are and that scale better with clock speed it will be a detriment. Just like the stock 6500 vs a 6600k oc'd. Given the $60 increased cost up front I think pretty much any power savings in terms of cost just went out the window. Cpu's themselves don't use a ton of power, less than gpu's use.

The difference in power consumption between an i3 6100 and i5 6500 is only around 10-13w under load, doing the math to convert that to kwh that means that 'if' both cpu's were run full out 100% load max power consumption (prime95) 24hrs a day, 365 days a year the i5 6500 would use 113.88 kwh more during the entire year than the i3. Going by average price of power in the u.s. at $0.12/kwh you're looking at a whopping $13.68/yr cost increase. Less though since no one is likely running their cpu 24/7/365 100% use. If using the same math to figure out the cost difference of gaming on the i5 vs i3 6hrs a day every day all year long, the cost difference is $3.41.

Maybe you're still interested in the low power aspect but putting it into perspective there's very little real world difference. You'd save more power by turning off 1 cfl light bulb with a 75w output equivalent since they run around 17-18w.

Well, that's certainly a through answer. Thank you very much. I was interested in the t series, but honestly when you put it into perspective like that it's just not worth it. Thank you again for your response.