Is this the new 2500K? Maybe it's time to upgrade :-P

Still gonna wait for Zen before I pull the trigger on an upgrade.

Based on the performance, I'd say that it is just a repackaged skylake with higher frequencies kind of like the amd fx9370. I doubt that there is a die shrink as the efficiency would have improved.

Does Kaby Lake even have improved IPC compared to Skylake? Ofc its gonna outperform 6600k when it has higher frequencies. Still, im not getting another quad-core, waiting for Zen.

No, it's basically the same - but it's kind of like a "oh ****" processor. They wanted to ship cannonlake but the node is delayed and I guess it's increasingly difficult to ship new nodes in general so they added the "optimization" phase. I imagine future "optimization" phase processors will come with more changes, this one was like last minute.

6600k = 3.5ghz, 7600k = 3.8ghz. Performance gains appears mostly from that. I presume Kaby Lake advantages focus on other areas or features, ie, graphics and maybe power savings for laptop chips.

Is this the new 2500K? Maybe it's time to upgrade :-P

Hm i remember thatguy91 also saying something about why is Coffee Lake/Cannonlake being delayed, he also mentioned failed node. I just wanted a 6core i5's. Ah, Intel this days. They remind me of Nvidia. :P

I think Intel found pricing 6/8 cores in the mainstream too difficult. You can't just linearly scale up pricing because performance doesn't do that. OEM's won't choose it because the majority of people buying OEM PC's won't want or need it. So you're left with a higher cost processor (manufacturing wise) that fewer people want, that you can't sell for much more then current offerings due to the way multicore performance works. AMD doesn't really have this problem because no one really buys their current processors anyway. So for them, any sale is basically a win regardless to the profit margins on it.

They have repeatedly said during all presentations that they will go for high profit margins, and that's the reason they're after high performance. Intel seems to be needing a redesign that hasn't really happened since the days of Sandy Bridge. I don't even know what they're doing all these years, really.

I think Intel found pricing 6/8 cores in the mainstream too difficult. You can't just linearly scale up pricing because performance doesn't do that. OEM's won't choose it because the majority of people buying OEM PC's won't want or need it. So you're left with a higher cost processor (manufacturing wise) that fewer people want, that you can't sell for much more then current offerings due to the way multicore performance works.

It's only a problem because Intel wants to make enough money to build their own space station and fund a permanent base on Mars. It wouldn't be a problem otherwise. Just compare CPUs and video cards. A video card is basically a computer by itself with the GPU, memory, power handling, cooling, etc, yet the GPU alone has vastly more transistors than CPUs (for example a mediocre R9 380 having 5B vs i7-6700K having 1.75B). 380 costed like 200 dollars, i7-6700K 350 dollars. In other words, 6-core i5 would be no sweat for Intel. They might need to cut their obscene profits a little, but in every healthy business where competition exists, profits aren't as disgusting (from a consumer's pov) as Intel's anyway, so big deal. There's no customer who wouldn't take a 6-core CPU for approx the same price as a 4-core has been before. But nah, Intel wouldn't give i5 even hyperthreading.

I'm not saying that Intel isn't being greedy - I'm just merely explaining why they haven't done it yet. I get why people hate it, I hate it myself - but from a business perspective they are playing it by the book. There is no benefit for them to take risks with new architectures, or lower margins with bigger processors at the same price point. Hopefully Zen will change that. Also, just for the record - GPU transistor layouts are almost entirely synthesized by computer software. CPU's - both AMD & Intel, are mostly designed by hand - which is an order of magnitude more expensive. The profits are probably still higher on CPU's, but you can't really directly compare transistor counts to cost. Idk if Intel's R&D budgets are published for individual processors but it would probably be more accurate comparing that.

I don't even know what they're doing all these years, really.

But nah, Intel wouldn't give i5 even hyperthreading.

they did.... its called an i7...but you can call it an i5 if you like. 🙂