Less than 10% of 5960/6900k/6950x can do 4.3 and these x299 chips can do 4.3-4.5 boost ? This is impossible. Intel wants their chips to hit exactly what they write on the box and 4.3 on 7900x is not gonna happen in 20% of CPUs sold (the number won't increase to 100% over night, I mean after 1.5 years). 1.5 years difference between 5960x and 6900k and they don't have very different OC ability. This won't change in 2018. Fake news and good news. Getting 1700X in 2 weeks.

Well, if anyone needed one more reason to lean towards AMD, here it is. Just consider which behavior you'd rather reward with your money: 1) Come from (way) behind (somehow) and reignite competition in the market OR 2) Delay introducing an entire line of high-end processors until forced to do so (and this isn't the only such example). My next CPU purchase will be AMD because their product is now competitive technically (though not the absolute fastest) AND is more than competitive in cost AND we need to support them because otherwise we'll be stuck with #2 above forever. My next GPU purchase will be AMD for much the same reasons. AMD's engineers and investors have gone the extra mile. It's surprising they could do that, and if we all say "well, their chips STILL aren't the fastest" it's very possible that Intel's only competitor in x86/x64, and NVidia's only competition in PC graphics, will vanish. If you really don't want to see that happen, then consider your next purchase very carefully. Some value is hidden.

Well, if anyone needed one more reason to lean towards AMD, here it is. Just consider which behavior you'd rather reward with your money: 1) Come from (way) behind (somehow) and reignite competition in the market OR 2) Delay introducing an entire line of high-end processors until forced to do so (and this isn't the only such example). My next CPU purchase will be AMD because their product is now competitive technically (though not the absolute fastest) AND is more than competitive in cost AND we need to support them because otherwise we'll be stuck with #2 above forever. My next GPU purchase will be AMD for much the same reasons. AMD's engineers and investors have gone the extra mile. It's surprising they could do that, and if we all say "well, their chips STILL aren't the fastest" it's very possible that Intel's only competitor in x86/x64, and NVidia's only competition in PC graphics, will vanish. If you really don't want to see that happen, then consider your next purchase very carefully. Some value is hidden.

That is going to be a monster upgrade for you in the CPU department, totally night and day. I had that kind of feeling when I upgraded from my old Q6600 @ 3.51GHz to my current 6core/12thread CPU, was a really nice change ^^ Totally agree about what AMD has done, really impressive, also leading me to look to them for my next upgrades, especially looking forward to Vega. Maybe later this year I will buy one of their 16 core CPUs too :banana:

Less than 10% of 5960/6900k/6950x can do 4.3 and these x299 chips can do 4.3-4.5 boost ? This is impossible. Intel wants their chips to hit exactly what they write on the box and 4.3 on 7900x is not gonna happen in 20% of CPUs sold (the number won't increase to 100% over night, I mean after 1.5 years). 1.5 years difference between 5960x and 6900k and they don't have very different OC ability. This won't change in 2018. Fake news and good news. Getting 1700X in 2 weeks.

Well broadwell did not clock good. Skylake however is the best clocking architecture since Sandy Bridge in fact on average may clock better. These boosts clocks may not be as far fetched as you think.

News like this is good, but, it's all in the pricing. As for Ryzen, amongst my friends, I don't know anyone who's bought it. Almost everyone has i5 and i7.

I'm planning a mATX or ITX build, and am waiting for the mobos to arrive . Also, x299 and AM44 are soon to be announced, so we'll see where they go too. No rush yet. 😉

Two observations. Why is the 4c/4t 7640 called an i7? Why would they not make a 8c/16t with 44 lanes?

7640k, most likely the most pointless chip ever made 😀 why a 4c/4t on a HEDT... just why. both Kabylakes seem pointless to me, they don't get more L3 or PCIe lanes they don't even get quad channel memory... what is the point of them? :bang::bang::bang: P.S please give the 8c 44 lanes... or even 40, i'd be happy with 40 :banana: First Glance, the clock speeds of the higher models look amazing, Broadwell struggled to get past 4.3/4.4ghz so seeing these chips by default reach 4.5ghz is a promising sign, might be able to overclock these bad boys to 5ghz if they follow the skylake overclocking. (Maybe 5.1ghz if you're that one lucky lottery winner). However, the 8 core disappoints me, i was hoping to go for 8 cores this time around in my new system, but why only 28 pcie lanes? why not 40 like broadwell had. Isn't the biggest thing in the world but you would think with the amount they will charge they could at least give us insane pcie lanes. Though some of the clock speeds seem a bit off, Wasn't the idea of Kaby lake on HEDT to give more power allowing for higher clocks, yet they seem like pretty normal clock speeds to me considering the 114/115w TDP that was rumoured. Then the 6core 7800x only clocks to 4.0ghz seems quite low considering it has the lower core count. Either way as HH says i should take this with a grain (bag) of salt, hopefully we will find out more in the next coming weeks/months.

This is Guru3D, an enthusiast site. Maybe you are preaching at a wrong place? I would be really surprised if the majority here wouldn't have got a better CPU if they could have reasonably afforded one (of course we also have those who already have the best one available for them, as the selection is quite limited, in the end, with only two manufacturers). Saying here that you don't need the power is like going to a sports car forum and telling the people there nobody needs anything better than an ordinary Ford family car.

I bought exactly what I wanted. I could have easily gotten by with an i3.... Instead, I spent the extra and got a 6600K...

With Intel's pricing scheme, the Core i9 7920X might reach close to 2000 dollars.

You have to be a hell of an optimist to see them pricing it at less.

Turbo Boost 3.0 (or Turbo Boost Max how its sometimes called) basically has a bit more flexibility to boost only a single core, and it works in conjunction with a software app running in your OS to determine which core this is, and to instruct the OS scheduler to keep the app running on this core, to boost single-threaded applications. AnandTech had a bit of a write-up in the Broadwell-E review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7-6950x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/2

Cheers, just kinda curious as to why they would show both in the specs. I actually expected Intel to just advertise the max boost that a chip is capable of and leave the fine details for the tech savy to argue over.

I see lots of people saying this and i don´t understand why. Only 10 or 20% of consumers needs more than a quad or a dual core! For most people having a quicker cpu or one with more cores is totally useless because they don´t need it!!!

See, i don't understand posts like yours, especially on a hardware forum. Throughout the years, people like you, were saying the same thing about many aspects of computers. "Oh the majority of people would never need more then 1 core" "Oh the majority of people would never need more then 2Ghz CPU" "Oh the majority would never need more then 1mb of ram" "The majority of people would never need 64-bit OS" The nonsense things that have been stated go on and on and on. If statements like yours were listened to, technology wouldn't advance, because "Why?" would be the biggest thing to overcome. And the reason most things were not "needed" by the majority of users was because the majority of programs did not utilize them to their full potential, same thing with cores. When all programs start using as many cores as possible, it will no longer be "The majority of people don't need over a dual/quad core processor" http://www.technologizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nq-olsen.png http://www.technologizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nq-640.png http://www.technologizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nq-watson.png

I bought exactly what I wanted. I could have easily gotten by with an i3.... Instead, I spent the extra and got a 6600K...

I'm a little confused by your statement in regards to the post because it sounds as though you wouldn't have gotten a better CPU if it was available for the same price or less then you get the 6600k. I think the point that what you quoted was saying was stating that if a 32-core, 64 thread CPU @ 5Ghz Ryzen or Kabylake processor was released for $150 for some nonsense reason, would you still, being a hardware enthusiast, get the 16-core, 32 thread cpu @ 4.2Ghz ryzen or kabylake processor for $50 less? The likely answer is no, even though both processors, currently, would be far more then you would need currently (aside from some specific scenarios) We all have our budgets, and as enthusiasts, we generally all get what we consider to be the best bang for your buck and is futureproof, within our individual budgets.

Offtopic: We live in a consumer society. All that happen for e-peen. Cores, Gbs, Speed etc are only for show and benchmarking. These things don't change everyday's usage experience neither gaming entertainment. You only making AMD/Intel/Nvidia more rich. I am sure you don't even have an income near their top employees not to mention CEO's. But you still trying to buy their best products. You remind me one person who had a Ferrari, but a cheap laptop and a nokia 3330 back in the days and I've just had a Skoda but the best smartphone and a pc of 3000$+. Life is not about comparing useless things. I am more happy with my current 600$ build than I was with back then with that of 3000$+. Because that helped me to buy 6000$+ of books for my personal library. But nobody needs to know that. I know that's an enthusiast site, but it's somewhat pathetic for some people to show off needlessly. 🙂 Ontopic: We should force now software engineers, to use all our cores. Maybe it's time the least usage from 1 core to become a 2-4 cores process. That's the only solution to make greedy companies like Intel, to stop 2 and 4 cores/thread systems. We are in 2017. AMD shows the future. I would love an entry level of 6/8 cores from Intel without the need to label it HEDT.

Offtopic: We live in a consumer society. All that happen for e-peen. Cores, Gbs, Speed etc are only for show and benchmarking. These things don't change everyday's usage experience neither gaming entertainment. You only making AMD/Intel/Nvidia more rich. I am sure you don't even have an income near their top employees not to mention CEO's. But you still trying to buy their best products. You remind me one person who had a Ferrari, but a cheap laptop and a nokia 3330 back in the days and I've just had a Skoda but the best smartphone and a pc of 3000$+. Life is not about comparing useless things. I am more happy with my current 600$ build than I was with back then with that of 3000$+. Because that helped me to buy 6000$+ of books for my personal library. But nobody needs to know that. I know that's an enthusiast site, but it's somewhat pathetic for some people to show off needlessly. 🙂

Who or what are you talking about?

now AMD has to rename all HEDT chips to R9

Offtopic:Life is not about comparing useless things.

True. Makes even more sense if you remove your system specs from your profile. 🤓

True. Makes even more sense if you remove your system specs from your profile. 🤓

Oh, snap! https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/92/f0/00/92f000ee55a86775d74b73f74f18aaf6.jpg

Offtopic: We live in a consumer society. All that happen for e-peen. Cores, Gbs, Speed etc are only for show and benchmarking.

The untruth of this is so blindingly obvious that it's an absolute marvel that anyone would commit it to "print". The vast majority of these processors and systems will never see the inside of a gaming or benchmarking rig, but rather professional and semi-professional systems and only someone completely blinkered and insular would think that Intel produces these parts primarily for the benefit of affluent gamers and benchmark whores. Anyway, while this is an interesting revelation, I'm very sad to see that only the two most expensive models will support 44 PCIe channels. Unless Intel deviates significantly from their past pricing policy I'm guessing it'll be AMD's Snowy Owl for me when I build a new machine in the autumn.

The untruth of this is so blindingly obvious that it's an absolute marvel that anyone would commit it to "print". The vast majority of these processors and systems will never see the inside of a gaming or benchmarking rig, but rather professional and semi-professional systems and only someone completely blinkered and insular would think that Intel produces these parts primarily for the benefit of affluent gamers and benchmark whores. Anyway, while this is an interesting revelation, I'm very sad to see that only the two most expensive models will support 44 PCIe channels. Unless Intel deviates significantly from their past pricing policy I'm guessing it'll be AMD's Snowy Owl for me when I build a new machine in the autumn.

I doubt Intel will release only a 28 lane 8 core. There will likely be two 8 core sku's. I'm taking this leak with a truck load of salt.

True. Makes even more sense if you remove your system specs from your profile. 🤓

He's the dude with the ferrari, get it? :infinity:

Nice...Hope the Successor of 6950x will be good Overclocker..:D

He's the dude with the ferrari, get it? :infinity:

Lol. Well, I have no problem with an additional line under "PSU" for "Car" so he can put Skoda in there.