The 10nm process should see a 25% gain in the power reduction compared to 14nm++

No man. It's EITHER: 45% power reduction OR 25% higher performance. https://abload.de/img/intel_tech_manu_15bpumn.jpg 10nm++ should bring additional 30% power reduction, or 15% higher performance, compared to 10nm.

Think about it for a sec. 25% lower performance would be real measly for a full node shrink.

I'll read up and check the news-item from Aritra in a second. He probably misinterpreted the chart.

Intel should completely open up their fabs to everyone and pocket all that sweet TSMC money.

My question is: What's the best guess for when we'll actually be able to buy laptops with tech beyond the current Kaby Lake? Dec 2017? Feb 2018? Trying to plan...

Finally some news from Intel. I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!

I would like to see Intel deploy Cannon Lake for tablets with more improvements to the igpu.

I'll read up and check the news-item from Aritra in a second. He probably misinterpreted the chart.

That would be easy to do. I have not seen worse product graphs in years.

Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.

Finally some news from Intel. I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!

Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores? And what do 4 cores limit you with? If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything... I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best. Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.

Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores? And what do 4 cores limit you with? If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything... I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best. Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.

Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.

Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.

Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks. Intel doesn't much care about our preferences either way.

Nice this is exactly the information that I was looking forward to. I hope that this happens. If you are into portable gaming and doing video editing on the go this is the answer. I may get a cannon lake based laptop at some point. Laptops need more than 4 cores if they want to be relevant as their big brother desktop.

Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.

Knowing Intel and because it's a new expensive and troublesome node, I doubt it. But hey, now there is competition.

Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores? And what do 4 cores limit you with?

Not this again... In 2007 I felt the need to upgrade my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and in 2008 bought a E8400. Just 2 years later I felt the need for more cores again so in 2011 I bought the CPU I have today still. It's been 6 years, why didn't we move forward? Lack of competition, lack of software support (API level) and we hit a wall. We need more cores at the mainstream level so developers can take advantage of new existing today APIs and develop more complex and immersive games with thousands of units on display. I'm not a VR or streaming kind of guy but that needs allot of CPU kick. I do like to record wile gaming, edit and post on youtube. So, even if you wouldn't take advantage of more cores today, there's people who would.

Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.

ahahah well said. It's not like a 7700k wouldn't play it but the CPU would be close to max, turn on streaming and you can't play. (don't even try recording at the same time)

Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks.

What people fail to realise is that adding 2 more cores and lowering the clocks a bit would offer more performance for less power. Having CPU's clocking over a certain point is stupid and inefficient.

Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores? And what do 4 cores limit you with? If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything... I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best. Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.

I think the same way. The only reason to need more than 4 cores is if most games really start to require them otherwise they seem such a waste for those who don´t use their system for professional use.

Fox2232, Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.

Are you sure that you need a cpu with more cores for this type of cases??? I could be wrong but i think the problem with this kind of MP games is the network part that can´t handle so many players at the same time, not the cpu having insufficient cores... But i could be wrong, of course, so maybe you have some evidence to support this? Remember there´s a reason tech sites like Guru3d don´t use MP games as benchmarks.

Are you sure that you need a cpu with more cores for this type of cases??? I could be wrong but i think the problem with this kind of MP games is the network part that can´t handle so many players at the same time, not the cpu having insufficient cores... But i could be wrong, of course, so maybe you have some evidence to support this? Remember there´s a reason tech sites like Guru3d don´t use MP games as benchmarks.

I am as sure as is my CPU utilization in BF1 multiplayer... I am 4 times 100% sure. And actually I can tell that only reason why MP is not benchmarked is fact that you will have damn hard time getting consistent results. In BF1 CPU utilization is very different in SP and MP. When I 1st time kicked SP, I was running all usual stuff in background. (Around 1 core used by stuff.) Everything was fine. But once I went to MP, i was shocked. Had to alt+tab and kill all my stuff. I am constantly on 4x 100% utilization. And GPU sits at 25~35%, tends to even downclock. Nothing can be done about it. Yes, kaby i5 has quite higher performance per core, but it is still limiting factor. One needs at least i7.

I am as sure as is my CPU utilization in BF1 multiplayer... I am 4 times 100% sure. And actually I can tell that only reason why MP is not benchmarked is fact that you will have damn hard time getting consistent results. In BF1 CPU utilization is very different in SP and MP. When I 1st time kicked SP, I was running all usual stuff in background. (Around 1 core used by stuff.) Everything was fine. But once I went to MP, i was shocked. Had to alt+tab and kill all my stuff. I am constantly on 4x 100% utilization. And GPU sits at 25~35%, tends to even downclock. Nothing can be done about it. Yes, kaby i5 has quite higher performance per core, but it is still limiting factor. One needs at least i7.

Well if that´s the case then you have a point. I never had my cpu reach 100% on all 4 core and it was a Q9550. But i rarely play MP games nowadays, most of them just bore me to death. But even if you have a better cpu with more cores, the network problem will still exist or no??? I could be wrong but i think that the network part of huge MP games is the biggest bottleneck they have right now. Having 64 players going at each other has to create some problems i think.