Rumour: Intel’s Broadwell-E 10 Core processor, i7-6950X will cost $1500

[nobelharvards]

Techfrag article

 

Original Source, German website?

 

Quote

The Intel Core i7-6950X processor, which will be the flagship processor of the Broadwell-E lineup, is rumored to carry a hefty price tag of around $1500 US. 

Based on Intel’s 14nm process, the Broadwell-E family will succeed the 22nm Haswell based chips in the high-end desktop (HEDT) market. The new Broadwell-E lineup utilizes the same X99 “Wellsburg” platform and features up to 40 PCI-e lanes. Further, it has an integrated memory controller which will allow enthusiasts to configure the base clock to 2133 Mhz or 2400 Mhz, as opposed to usual dynamically overclocking it.

Additionally, all four SKUs in the lineup feature 140W TDP, unlocked base-clock multipliers, and will be compatible with existing socket LGA 2011-3 motherboards. DDR4 memory up to 2400 Mhz will be supported, with the IMC configurable down to 2133 Mhz.

 

Intel Core i7-6800K

Cores/Threads: 6/12
Core Clock: 3.40 GHz
Boost Clock: 3.60 GHz
L3 Cache: 15 MB
Launch Price: ~$450 US

Intel Core i7-6850K

Cores/Threads: 6/12
Core Clock: 3.60 GHz
Boost Clock: 3.80 GHz
L3 Cache: 15 MB
Launch Price: ~$550 US

Intel Core i7-6900K

Cores/Threads: 8/16
Core Clock: 3.20 GHz
Boost Clock: 3.70 GHz
L3 Cache: 20 MB
Launch Price: ~$999 US

Intel Core i7-6950X

Cores/Threads: 10/20
Core Clock: 3.00 GHz
Boost Clock: 3.50 GHz
L3 Cache: 25 MB
Launch Price: ~$999 US

$1500 10 core processor. Will probably cost closer to $2200 in Australia.

 

Will still fail to scale properly running older games that only use 2-4 threads.

 

How close to retirement would I be if I got a dollar every time someone will make a "this processor costs more than my entire rig!" joke/meme?

[Hman1250]

I don't see it being that much of an upgrade to be honest. It's still the same socket, just a different process, from 22nm to 14nm. I could be wrong though, we will wait till then. However, for owners that already own LGA 2011-3 sockets, I wouldn't advise upgrading.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, nobelharvards said:

$1500 10 core processor. Will probably cost closer to $2200 in Australia.

 

Will still fail to scale properly running older games that only use 2-4 threads.

 

How close to retirement would I be if I got a dollar every time someone will make a "this processor costs more than my entire rig!" joke/meme?

You dont buy a $1500 to play "older games"

 

4 minutes ago, Hman1250 said:

I don't see it being that much of an upgrade to be honest. It's still the same socket, just a different process, from 22nm to 14nm. I could be wrong though, we will wait till then. However, for owners that already own LGA 2011-3 sockets, I wouldn't advise upgrading.

Its skylake

just look at the huge difference between a 6700k and 5820k in stuff that uses 8 threads or less

now you get that difference in all tasks even if they use over 8 threads

[nobelharvards]

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You dont buy a $1500 to play "older games"

Does not matter. Just because you buy a $1500 10 core processor does not mean you give up playing all the older games you grew up with.

 

As an example, TF2 and CS:GO would still run horribly on it. Only difference in performance between a G3258 and the i7-6950X would be less impact when doing something else, such as streaming on Twitch.

 

Go here, download benchmark1.dem, follow the instructions. I guarantee you the benchmark will not yield 200+ fps unless you have a Skylake processor.

 

Do not say any bullshit about using net_graph or cl_showfps 1, that stuff is not valid, run a timedemo. Same demo, apples to apples.

[Hman1250]

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

You dont buy a $1500 to play "older games"

 

Its skylake

just look at the huge difference between a 6700k and 5820k in stuff that uses 8 threads or less

now you get that difference in all tasks even if they use over 8 threads

I'm aware how well skylake performed in terms of other application tests such as cinebench and the perks of using skylake. However, I'm not saying no one should buy this, I'm saying there won't be much big of a need for people who already own X99 chips. If someone is upgrading from like a core i5 laptop and does heavy work, I'd obviously recommend this or at least the 6700k.

[Enderman]

7 minutes ago, nobelharvards said:

Does not matter. Just because you buy a $1500 10 core processor does not mean you give up playing all the older games you grew up with.

When did I say you had to give up on playing older games?

my point is that more cores dont help games that can use that many cores so of course its going to perform the same as an i5

so someone looking to only play older games would not buy this CPU

content creators or pro gamers/youtubers would buy it

[Maverick5500]

4 CPU's?

 

Seems interesting. I know it's all rumors.  I agree with @Hman1250 in saying that its wont be a crazy upgrade from haswell-e

[nobelharvards]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

When did I say you had to give up on playing older games?

my point is that more cores dont help games that can use that many cores so of course its going to perform the same as an i5

so someone looking to only play older games would not buy this CPU

content creators or pro gamers/youtubers would buy it

I was insinuating uninformed and uneducated people who only play something like TF2 or CS:GO will completely ignore single threaded performance and instead go for the most expensive processor, then only realise later why their game only runs fractionally better than someone with a G3258 or a high clocked i3. It may possibly even run worse if they leave it at stock clocks with a stock cooler.

 

I.e. This processor and news is meaningless to most people, who simply play the same older games.

[79wjd]

16 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

Its skylake

just look at the huge difference between a 6700k and 5820k....

Its broadwell, not skylake.

[2FA]

When it was on Intel Ark, didn't the spec sheet say $1000?

[patrickjp93]

56 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You dont buy a $1500 to play "older games"

 

Its skylake

just look at the huge difference between a 6700k and 5820k in stuff that uses 8 threads or less

now you get that difference in all tasks even if they use over 8 threads

It's Broadwell. The x8xx and x9xx for desktop processors are always the generation previous to the current mainstream. Where the 6700K is Skylake, the 6800 and 6900 chips are Broadwell. For mobile, it's all the same generation (confusing, I know...)

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's Broadwell. The x8xx and x9xx for desktop processors are always the generation previous to the current mainstream. Where the 6700K is Skylake, the 6800 and 6900 chips are Broadwell. For mobile, it's all the same generation (confusing, I know...)

 yeah i know i forgot about broadwell

someone else already told me that, look above your post

[Deli]

1 hour ago, nobelharvards said:

I was insinuating uninformed and uneducated people who only play something like TF2 or CS:GO will completely ignore single threaded performance and instead go for the most expensive processor, then only realise later why their game only runs fractionally better than someone with a G3258 or a high clocked i3. It may possibly even run worse if they leave it at stock clocks with a stock cooler.

 

I.e. This processor and news is meaningless to most people, who simply play the same older games.

Don't think 6950X will come with any "stock" cooler.

 

Buying a $1500 CPU without doing any research, then find out it doesn't work as expected later. They have no one but themselves to blame.

[Dabombinable]

56 minutes ago, nobelharvards said:

I was insinuating uninformed and uneducated people who only play something like TF2 or CS:GO will completely ignore single threaded performance and instead go for the most expensive processor, then only realise later why their game only runs fractionally better than someone with a G3258 or a high clocked i3. It may possibly even run worse if they leave it at stock clocks with a stock cooler.

 

I.e. This processor and news is meaningless to most people, who simply play the same older games.

Either way, considering that 3.1GHz (I don't count the 3.3GHz boost speed since its only realistically for 1 core, and not constant) i5 4440 is enough to play any game from the mid 90's (with an emulator if its not from Windows NT 32bit) right up to games such as Fallout 4 flawlessly, and considering the IPC improvements of Skylake, even at 3GHz the Skylake Enthusiast series of chips will be more then enough for any game, old or otherwise. Your probably thinking of the FX series, which is notoriously bad when it comes to older games. BTW, I could give you a long list of all of my games from the late 90's to present that play perfectly on my i5 4440 if you want me to. Also, since the older games use 1-2 threads at most, turbo boost will kick in and have the CPU running well above 3GHz-keep that in mind.

[Clyne]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Either way, considering that 3.1GHz (I don't count the 3.3GHz boost speed since its only realistically for 1 core, and not constant) i5 4440 is enough to play any game from the mid 90's (with an emulator if its not from Windows NT 32bit) right up to games such as Fallout 4 flawlessly, and considering the IPC improvements of Skylake, even at 3GHz the Skylake Enthusiast series of chips will be more then enough for any game, old or otherwise. Your probably thinking of the FX series, which is notoriously bad when it comes to older games. BTW, I could give you a long list of all of my games from the late 90's to present that play perfectly on my i5 4440 if you want me to. Also, since the older games use 1-2 threads at most, turbo boost will kick in and have the CPU running well above 3GHz-keep that in mind.

Some games that will run shit no matter how powerful the CPU is. Some games are like programmed for a single core processor that a multi core processor wouldn't handle it well. 

It could be like a 486 vs 386 scenario, a normal clocked 486 would run a game too fast compared to a 386 running the game at it's normal speed. So many Turbo buttons during the 486 era...

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

....and considering the IPC improvements of Skylake, even at 3GHz the Skylake Enthusiast series of chips....

Broadwell, not skylake.

 

6 minutes ago, Bubblewhale said:

Some games that will run shit no matter how powerful the CPU is. Some games are like programmed for a single core processor that a multi core processor wouldn't handle it well. 

It could be like a 486 vs 386 scenario, a normal clocked 486 would run a game too fast compared to a 386 running the game at it's normal speed. So many Turbo buttons during the 486 era...

What old game/s wouldn't run well on an a 3ghz broadwell i5/i7 but would run well on a g3258 at 4ghz+?

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, Bubblewhale said:

Some games that will run shit no matter how powerful the CPU is. Some games are like programmed for a single core processor that a multi core processor wouldn't handle it well. 

It could be like a 486 vs 386 scenario, a normal clocked 486 would run a game too fast compared to a 386 running the game at it's normal speed. So many Turbo buttons during the 486 era...

Games that old of course some will see issues. Which is why I'm getting my 386 DX40's motherboard repaired (and since it has a socket, with the right 386 I could use a slower one if need be). As it is though, in DOS box my current DOS games don't require me to change the emulated CPU speed. And what games that are programmed for single cores and don't run well on multi cores? Either way they will only use 1 thread as that's all they were programmed to do-just like on my Abit VP6 with its dual Pentium III 1000EB. Games don't run any worse with both installed, at all.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Broadwell, not skylake.

Missed that part. Either way there is a small IPC increase over Haswell.

[Clyne]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

What old game/s wouldn't run well on an a 3ghz broadwell i5/i7 but would run well on a g3258 at 4ghz+?

Oh, they'd be fine with some "tuning".

You'd have to like change the directx settings, set max amount to cores to one or so, and allocate the performance.

One game that i'm talking about is Scarface: The World is Yours.

It also had the problems on the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility thing, if the Cell CPU had to emulate the PS2 CPU then it would run laggy. 

@Dabombinable for the game.

[Bluetac]

bugger just recently bought the 5960X too, same old record if only i had waited lol

Apart from the die shrink i really dont see the point if the thermals are not going to be coming down?

 So my 5960X is just 0.2ghz slower than the upcoming 6900K, both have 8 cores, 20 meg cache and 140 watt TDP, apart from the memory speed it is not a lot to get excited over imho

[shdowhunt60]

If it's going to be that expensive, then I'm not going to care. The lower end hex-core still presents the most sensible choice out of Intel's entire lineup.

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, Enderman said:

You dont buy a $1500 to play "older games"

 

Its skylake

just look at the huge difference between a 6700k and 5820k in stuff that uses 8 threads or less

now you get that difference in all tasks even if they use over 8 threads

It's Broadwell-E

Meaning 5-7% faster than haswell but not quite skylake speeds either

[spartaman64]

so its basically like about 26% faster than the 5960x while being 50% more expensive

[Serin]

Over 2k AUD at the current dollar including import tax.
Eh. Not worth it.

[DocSwag]

Isn't this like super old and probably a repost at this point?