ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K SkyLake Specs ?
There is a bit of controversy on the web at the moment as some info appeared on the web regarding Intel's upcoming Skylake lineup. The information claims the existence of a Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K, runing up-to 4.2 GHz.
Now here's the thing, we stated controversy on the first paragraph as the source is a website called PCFrm and they have no track record whatsoever in regard to validity.
The Core i7 6700K would be a 4.0 Ghz processor that can boost to 4.2 GHz, the 6600K model would do 3.5/3.9 GHz.
- Core i7 6700K
4 cores and Hyper-Threading, 4.0GHz frequency, 4.20GHz maximum Turbo Boost frequency, 8MB last-level cache, dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 memory controller with 1600MHz or 2133MHz support, 95W TDP, Intel HD Graphics 5000-series integrated graphics core, LGA1151 packaging - Core i5 6600K
4 cores, 3.50GHz frequency, 3.90GHz maximum Turbo Boost frequency, 6MB last-level cache, dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 memory controller with 1600MHz or 2133MHz support, 95W TDP, Intel HD Graphics 5000-series integrated graphics core, LGA1151 packaging;
Skylake is the codename used by Intel for the 14nm processor microarchitecture under development and due to launch in 2015 as the successor to the Broadwell architecture. Intel 14nm Skylake processors will feature PCIe gen 4, DDR4 Memory and SATA Express support. Now anybody can type up this stuff so yeah, take it with a big grain of salt.
Intel Broadwell Core i7-5775C & Core i5-5675C released mid-may - 04/19/2015 10:09 AM
There has been a lot of talk about Intel Broadwell processors. In specifically for the PC side of things, 14nm desktop Broadwell processors in the form of the Core i7-5775C & Core i5-5675C. These...
Need a Beast of a PC ? GamingPC Releases 4.4 GHz Core i7-5960X Gaming System - 09/06/2014 10:59 AM
Got cash to burn ? GamingPC introduces The Beast, a water-cooled 8 core Intel's new 5960X clocked at 4.4 GHz, 64 gigs of GSkill DDR4 memory and 4 x NVIDIA GeForce Titan Black in Quad-SLI built for ...
Intel Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition starts listing for €954 - 08/25/2014 03:44 PM
If you look around a bit at price-watch engines you will notice that Haswell-E already is being listed. Polish based Kombo is listing the 8-core flagship model with specs and everything. The processor...
Cyberpower Raven X6 Notebook has Intel Core i7-4710HQ - 08/22/2014 08:00 AM
CyberPower unleashed its all-new Raven X6 - a powerful and stylish gaming notebook featuring NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M graphics cards and the 4th Generation Intel Core i7-4710HQ mobile processor. ...
Intel Core i7-5960X De-Lidded Haswell-E Uses Soldered TIM - 07/29/2014 10:21 AM
For its most powerful Haswell-E based processors Intel will use Soldered TIM based on a strong epoxy. OCDrift discovered that when they removed (read forced off) the heatspreader. Beneath the adhes...
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 14043
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 14043
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5055693 Posted on: 04/22/2015 03:12 PM
There was an article that I've posted before that I can't find now -- but basically it explained why they moved away from solder and the jist was that the die sizes of modern desktop chips are getting smaller, faster then they are lowering power consumption. So the same amount of thermal energy is essentially spread across a smaller area. The type of fluxless solder they were typically using for TIM was causing issues in such a small area, when it was heated and cooled repeatedly, it would crack.
There is different grades of solder and I think that's what they ended up doing for like Devil's Canyon and stuff, but it probably costs more, requires retooling at the manufacturing level, and probably isn't worth that extra cost on regular consumer chips (the vast majority of people don't overclock).
I imagine that the larger chips will still get solder as the die area is larger, but I think the cheaper stuff will probably still use paste.
Since this will be a tock CPU makes me wonder if Intel will go back to solder in between the heat spreader and CPU di. Or that is only reserved for the -E based CPUs with 6-8 cores or more.
There was an article that I've posted before that I can't find now -- but basically it explained why they moved away from solder and the jist was that the die sizes of modern desktop chips are getting smaller, faster then they are lowering power consumption. So the same amount of thermal energy is essentially spread across a smaller area. The type of fluxless solder they were typically using for TIM was causing issues in such a small area, when it was heated and cooled repeatedly, it would crack.
There is different grades of solder and I think that's what they ended up doing for like Devil's Canyon and stuff, but it probably costs more, requires retooling at the manufacturing level, and probably isn't worth that extra cost on regular consumer chips (the vast majority of people don't overclock).
I imagine that the larger chips will still get solder as the die area is larger, but I think the cheaper stuff will probably still use paste.
nexus_711
Senior Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 2010-09-23
Senior Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 2010-09-23
#5055707 Posted on: 04/22/2015 03:33 PM
Where is this technological advancement on AMD's side that I'm not aware of? They have 3 year old CPUs on the market for crying out loud. Their architecture-to-architecture improvements have been close to null.
At least Intel made their architectures more efficient even if their performance haven't increased a lot. But then again WHY would Intel give us more performance? They don't have to, AMD cannot compete. They barely even focused on laptop CPUs and those have actually seen decent performance improvements purely as the fruit of more efficient desktop architectures.
AMD's downfall in the CPU market is simply due to the inefficient nature of Bulldozer. You cannot expect people to buy a 220W CPU when their similarly performing counterparts eat up almost 2.5x less power. Hell, my GPU doesn't eat that much power. And a byproduct of this inefficiency is the impossibility to compete in the laptop market. You cannot throw a 50W CPU in a laptop and expect it to be bought, not when the competition has far better performance using the same 50W.
Only then come the stupid market decisions, like trying to force feed us those APUs that nobody gives a crap about because gamers will always prefer a dedicated card and you don't need that kind of GPU power for HTPC builds.
The APU idea is great. I commend AMD for it. But they are and will continue to be bottlenecked by RAM throughput, there is absolutely no way around that, not even with DDR4. They need to get their attention away from those damn APUs.
Saying that AMD's chips from 2012 are more advanced compared to today's Intel chips is the worst twaddle I've heard in years, have you been living under a rock? AMD began losing CPU market starting with Intel's Core architecture, this all started 9 years ago.
/\ /\
Well said!
Where is this technological advancement on AMD's side that I'm not aware of? They have 3 year old CPUs on the market for crying out loud. Their architecture-to-architecture improvements have been close to null.
At least Intel made their architectures more efficient even if their performance haven't increased a lot. But then again WHY would Intel give us more performance? They don't have to, AMD cannot compete. They barely even focused on laptop CPUs and those have actually seen decent performance improvements purely as the fruit of more efficient desktop architectures.
AMD's downfall in the CPU market is simply due to the inefficient nature of Bulldozer. You cannot expect people to buy a 220W CPU when their similarly performing counterparts eat up almost 2.5x less power. Hell, my GPU doesn't eat that much power. And a byproduct of this inefficiency is the impossibility to compete in the laptop market. You cannot throw a 50W CPU in a laptop and expect it to be bought, not when the competition has far better performance using the same 50W.
Only then come the stupid market decisions, like trying to force feed us those APUs that nobody gives a crap about because gamers will always prefer a dedicated card and you don't need that kind of GPU power for HTPC builds.
The APU idea is great. I commend AMD for it. But they are and will continue to be bottlenecked by RAM throughput, there is absolutely no way around that, not even with DDR4. They need to get their attention away from those damn APUs.
Saying that AMD's chips from 2012 are more advanced compared to today's Intel chips is the worst twaddle I've heard in years, have you been living under a rock? AMD began losing CPU market starting with Intel's Core architecture, this all started 9 years ago.
/\ /\
Well said!
Hughesy
Senior Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 2012-05-13
Senior Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 2012-05-13
#5055712 Posted on: 04/22/2015 03:37 PM
I thought Skylake would be the one, at the moment we know nothing really. My 3570k is still going strong, but I do think it struggles a bit in some game (lowest framerate) GTA V really pushes my CPU, I feel I'd get a consistent 60fps at all times with a better CPU. I really wanted an affordable 6 core Intel CPU. I'd probably plum for a i7, I'll wait to see the performance before passing judgement.
I thought Skylake would be the one, at the moment we know nothing really. My 3570k is still going strong, but I do think it struggles a bit in some game (lowest framerate) GTA V really pushes my CPU, I feel I'd get a consistent 60fps at all times with a better CPU. I really wanted an affordable 6 core Intel CPU. I'd probably plum for a i7, I'll wait to see the performance before passing judgement.
Visor
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-04-22
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-04-22
#5055724 Posted on: 04/22/2015 04:11 PM
I was looking for news on Skylake on Google and stumbled upon this thread. Since I'm extremely hyped for the upcoming CPUs, I took the effort of registering here and replying to a few posts I don't agree with.
I've shortened the links with bitly and replaced them with text since I don't have 5 posts yet.
I don't think that's the strategy Intel plans to keep on following.
According to an economical news report (bit.ly/1OevbmS), Intel's CEO believes that people have less incentive to upgrade, because even the 4 year old platforms remain powerful enough for most PC users.
So, any other time Intel, as per being the de-facto monopolist on the high-end market, would normally prefer to artificially slow down the progress. But in the current situation with dwindling PC sales, they have no other choice but to get back on track and start rolling out real "tocks", capable of tickling the upgrade itch. We're talking about at least 20% performance increase compared to last-gen. But I personally believe it will be far more; 30-40% in average, with up to 70% in specialised tasks like encryption, voice recognition etc. (compared to Haswell/Devil's Canyon/Broadwell).
I don't think being so categorical in your estimations is the right choice here.
bit.ly/1HkQbUT : this is a SiSoft Sandra becnhmark for an engineering sample of quad core Skylake @ 2.3GHz with HT. It was made at the end of last year. ~97 GOPS
bit.ly/1JbBlka : 4790 @ 4GHz ~120 GOPS
bit.ly/1DhJRXJ : i7-4700MQ @ 2.4GHz ~70 GOPS
I suppose these results can give us some good hints. Assuming ideal conditions, a similarly clocked Haswell is roughly 30% slower than a ES Skylake.
I was looking for news on Skylake on Google and stumbled upon this thread. Since I'm extremely hyped for the upcoming CPUs, I took the effort of registering here and replying to a few posts I don't agree with.
I've shortened the links with bitly and replaced them with text since I don't have 5 posts yet.
One would hope. But considering the lack of competition in this segment I strongly believe we will see another small 10% performance increment. I mean there's not much incentive for them to push their own boundaries.
I don't think that's the strategy Intel plans to keep on following.
According to an economical news report (bit.ly/1OevbmS), Intel's CEO believes that people have less incentive to upgrade, because even the 4 year old platforms remain powerful enough for most PC users.
So, any other time Intel, as per being the de-facto monopolist on the high-end market, would normally prefer to artificially slow down the progress. But in the current situation with dwindling PC sales, they have no other choice but to get back on track and start rolling out real "tocks", capable of tickling the upgrade itch. We're talking about at least 20% performance increase compared to last-gen. But I personally believe it will be far more; 30-40% in average, with up to 70% in specialised tasks like encryption, voice recognition etc. (compared to Haswell/Devil's Canyon/Broadwell).
On topic, nope, this CPU's will have up to 10% improvements, same as those before, the difference is higher default clocks (and TDP), so effective stock speed would probably be up to 20%, with new RAM types and some instruction sets.
I don't think being so categorical in your estimations is the right choice here.
bit.ly/1HkQbUT : this is a SiSoft Sandra becnhmark for an engineering sample of quad core Skylake @ 2.3GHz with HT. It was made at the end of last year. ~97 GOPS
bit.ly/1JbBlka : 4790 @ 4GHz ~120 GOPS
bit.ly/1DhJRXJ : i7-4700MQ @ 2.4GHz ~70 GOPS
I suppose these results can give us some good hints. Assuming ideal conditions, a similarly clocked Haswell is roughly 30% slower than a ES Skylake.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2004-09-28
Since this will be a tock CPU makes me wonder if Intel will go back to solder in between the heat spreader and CPU di. Or that is only reserved for the -E based CPUs with 6-8 cores or more.