Intel X299 Skylake W

[NumLock21]

Intel enthusiast platform is going to get another set of processor based on Skylake W, along with Skylake X and KabyLake X. Skylake W will run on socket 2066 and there will be 3 SkUs to choose from. The entry model will have have 4 cores, with a official ram speed of DDR4 2133MHz, and up to 16 gen 3 PCIe lanes. Next up we got a 6 cores and top of the line model is a 10 core. Both of these will have official support for DDR4 2666MHz and other features such as Intel Turbo Boost, Hyper Thread, but no info on how many gen 3 lanes these 2 cpus will have, although previous gen X99 have 40 lanes (except for 5820K and 6800K). It's odd that the 4 core model lacks any of these features, even though it might cost more than any mainstream cpus Intel has. Now if that 4 cores comes at Core i3's price then maybe, it might have its place, in a enthusiast build. All of them have a TDP of 140w and as of now, it's still in the engineering sample stages. No additional info has been revealed about them, probably more info will become available as we get closer to launch.

 

 

https://benchlife.info/intel-skylake-w-have-three-cpu-03272017/

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbenchlife.info%2Fintel-skylake-w-have-three-cpu-03272017%2F&edit-text=

[2FA]

A 140W i5? Guess we can't pick on AMD for hellfire TDP anymore.

[silberdrachi]

5 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

A 140W i5? Guess we can't pick on AMD for hellfire TDP anymore.

That train left the station ages ago, it aint coming back.

 

But i am really interested in why the hell the stock TDP is that high. I didnt think that there was a point to shoving that much voltage through the i5 k chips to even bother?

[HelplmChoking]

Wait what? A 140W quad core? WITHOUT hyperthreading? When AMD has 16 threads at 95W?

Jesus Intel... Is there actually any point to this chips?

[Not_Sean]

11 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

It's odd that the 4 core model lacks any of these features, even though it might cost more than any mainstream cpus Intel has. 

Why sell someone something they will pay the same money for without it  

 

first we get is "i5" for X amount than later they enable the HypeT and turbo boost and we have a "i5-K/Extreme" and double your profits  

I'll keep a eye on the x299 stuff

[HelplmChoking]

5 minutes ago, silberdrachi said:

That train left the station ages ago, it aint coming back.

 

But i am really interested in why the hell the stock TDP is that high. I didnt think that there was a point to shoving that much voltage through the i5 k chips to even bother?

 

Yeah it's really weird, Intel's i5's don't respond that well to more voltage, so unless they have it at like 6GHz, or X299 offers way more benefits than it ever would, I can't see any reason for this to even exist.

[Cracklingice]

Skylake-W.  It stands for Skylake-Why.
I mean I get the Kabylake-X, but why the Skylake-W to go along with the Skylake-X?

The only thing I can guess is that the W stands for workstation and the CPUs will be similar to Xeons but without the Xeon extras and it's basically going to be a cheaper way to get a workstation when you don't have a mission critical need for ECC RAM.

Also, regarding TDP; I believe Intel rates their Enthusiast platform CPUs at an overclocked value and not a stock clocked value.  Although it makes no sense for this W line to be so high if it is actually a locked sku.  It also makes no sense for the Enthusiast platform if it doesn't have quad channel and at least 32 PCIE lanes.
This not making sense stuff leads me to wonder if maybe Intel is phasing out their consumer line entirely and future CPUs will be Enthusiast platform only.

Also - I suspect the - through boost and hyperthreading is just unknown or misinformed.  It doesn't make much sense to jump from 4 threads to 12.

[AresKrieger]

6 minutes ago, Rangaman42 said:

Yeah it's really weird, Intel's i5's don't respond that well to more voltage, so unless they have it at like 6GHz, or X299 offers way more benefits than it ever would, I can't see any reason for this to even exist.

 

12 minutes ago, Rangaman42 said:

Wait what? A 140W quad core? WITHOUT hyperthreading? When AMD has 16 threads at 95W?

Jesus Intel... Is there actually any point to this chips?

TDP can be measured in a variety of ways, based on the 4 core having the same as the larger cores I'd say that it is using theoretical maximum which would be the same since it is a cut down chip of the others

[WereCat]

22 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

A 140W i5? Guess we can't pick on AMD for hellfire TDP anymore.

Is Intel like "Well, this family of processors has a lot of TDP variety, let's just call all of them 140TDP according to the highest TDP model", or do they really all have 140TDP?

[HelplmChoking]

3 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

 

TDP can be measured in a variety of ways, based on the 4 core having the same as the larger cores I'd say that it is using theoretical maximum which would be the same since it is a cut down chip of the others

 

But TDP is normally (with Intel at least) used as the amount of heat energy the chip is designed to produce, which is odd given it's only needing to power 4 cores. Plus this suggests that you would need to supply 140W to a quad core, non-HT CPU which is pretty unreasonable for a modern chip. Once again, Ryzen is using a third less power to run a CPU 4x the size (I know that's not quite how that works, but you have to admit it's weird).

[2FA]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

Is Intel like "Well, this family of processors has a lot of TDP variety, let's just call all of them 140TDP according to the highest TDP model", or do they really all have 140TDP?

It varies in actuality so I feel like they decided to just go with the highest TDP model.

[AresKrieger]

5 minutes ago, Rangaman42 said:

(I know that's not quite how that works, but you have to admit it's weird).

Its not really that weird if the clock speeds are higher and the ipc is higher, there is a exponential factor to energy use and consequently thermal output as clocks and instructions increase, there is a reason why you need liquid nitrogen to increase the processor speeds by 25+% afterall

[HelplmChoking]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

Its not really that weird if the clock speeds are higher and the ipc is higher, there is a exponential factor to energy use and consequently thermal output as clocks in instructions increase, there is a reason why you need liquid nitrogen to increase the processor speeds by 25+% afterall

 

If it's really fast, I guess that's okay, but I still can't see a reason to have a crazy fast, super hot quad core with limited PCIe lanes and slower RAM compatibility, when you may as well just go with a mainstream chipset and enjoy HT...

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, Rangaman42 said:

If it's really fast, I guess that's okay, but I still can't see a reason to have a crazy fast, super hot quad core with limited PCIe lanes and slower RAM compatibility, when you may as well just go with a mainstream chipset and enjoy HT...

The quad core won't get 140 TPD fyi, as I said the chip is the same as the others so it can accept those levels of power but that is just not going to happen in actuality, intel is using what the processor could have as a TDP based on the larger chip, they don't actually measure it.

[Prysin]

32 minutes ago, Rangaman42 said:

Wait what? A 140W quad core? WITHOUT hyperthreading? When AMD has 16 threads at 95W?

Jesus Intel... Is there actually any point to this chips?

yes. space heating

[HelplmChoking]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

The quad core won't get 140 TPD fyi, as I said the chip is the same as the others so it can accept those levels of power but that is just not going to happen in actuality, intel is using what the processor could have as a TDP based on the larger chip, they don't actually measure it.

 

Yeah I think that's the most likely thing. They'll just quote a generic figure across the board. But even regardless of power and heat, I don't think the enthusiast community is screaming out for a quad core that can't take multi-GPU properly or whatever.

[Belgarathian]

That 140W i5 better be KabyLake IPC at 6GHz or I'm going to pass. 

[HelplmChoking]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

That 140W i5 better be KabyLake IPC at 6GHz or I'm going to pass. 

Even if it was, I still wouldn't want it. What am I meant to do with it? Other than get really high quad core benchmark scores... 

[Belgarathian]

Just now, Rangaman42 said:

Even if it was, I still wouldn't want it. What am I meant to do with it? Other than get really high quad core benchmark scores... 

It would give you great FPS in games, and be useless for most other things.

[HelplmChoking]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

It would give you great FPS in games, and be useless for most other things.

Only ones held up by CPU clock speeds, but that kind of bottleneck is going to need like 2x 1080Ti or whatever, but then you'll be held up by the PCIe lane restrictions.

[Vode]

#worsethanprescott

 

jk

[sazrocks]

inb4 Intel is the subject of CPU toaster jokes.

[MandelFrac]

2 hours ago, silberdrachi said:

That train left the station ages ago, it aint coming back.

 

But i am really interested in why the hell the stock TDP is that high. I didnt think that there was a point to shoving that much voltage through the i5 k chips to even bother?

Look at the Power 8 chips to find your answer. There are a number of problems which just do not scale out to more than a handful of threads, so you build a scale-up chip to compensate. This, in turn, actually makes horizontal scaling better at the same time.

[leadeater]

48 minutes ago, MandelFrac said:

Look at the Power 8 chips to find your answer. There are a number of problems which just do not scale out to more than a handful of threads, so you build a scale-up chip to compensate. This, in turn, actually makes horizontal scaling better at the same time.

If you're exclusively doing something that is being handed of to an accelerator card then a 4 core CPU that is clocked extremely, high hence the TDP, would make sense. Faster you can dispatch jobs the better and that is currently frequency constrained rather than more cores helping.

 

You would need a ton of accelerator cards that are also very powerful to overload 4 cores.

 

Might see this CPU being used in the comms/networking space where everything is offloaded from CPU.

[MandelFrac]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you're exclusively doing something that is being handed of to an accelerator card then a 4 core CPU that is clocked extremely, high hence the TDP, would make sense. Faster you can dispatch jobs the better and that is currently frequency constrained rather than more cores helping.

 

You would need a ton of accelerator cards that are also very powerful to overload 4 cores.

 

Might see this CPU being used in the comms/networking space where everything is offloaded from CPU.

The Power 8s do a lot of the heavy lifting, believe it or not. Those analytics and DB workloads really don't get offloaded to any accelerators.

 

But yes, it would make sense for that sort of workload to have 4 high-speed cores.