Monday, August 3rd 2015

Intel Core "Skylake" Retail Boxes Surprisingly Colorful

The retail packaging of Intel's 6th generation Core "Skylake" processors in the LGA1151 package, will be surprisingly colorful, and a throwback to the pre-Pentium 4 era, according to spy-shots of the retail boxes of the upcoming Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K. What's even more surprising, is that packages of the i7-6700K and i5-6600K, which feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, making them primed for overclocking, do not include stock cooling solutions. Their retail packages resemble those of Intel's Core i7 HEDT processors. In the box, you'll find just the processor, its case-badge, and basic documentation.

Both the Core i7-6700K and Core i5-6600K feature the same integrated graphics SKU - HD Graphics 530. Both feature integrated memory controllers that support both DDR3L and DDR4 memory types. The Core i5 predictably lacks HyperThreading, and only features 6 MB of L3 cache, while the Core i7 features HyperThreading, and the full 8 MB present on the chip. The "Skylake" silicon will be built on the 14 nm process.
Add your own comment

37 Comments on Intel Core "Skylake" Retail Boxes Surprisingly Colorful

#1
Sony Xperia S
Where is my maintsream 8-core 16-thread CPU?

Intel, wake up from this years-long sleep!
Posted on Reply
#2
BorisDG
No cooler included, so ... may be "Be prepared for high temps like Haswell or even worse". :D

It's nice to see tho, that chip uses the new Broadwell cap design.
Posted on Reply
#3
micropage7
looks nice after the previous sad design

first impression is important
Posted on Reply
#4
remixedcat
next they need the "Pentium guys" (bunny suit) plushie they had w the P2. I had one of those!
Posted on Reply
#5
Assimilator
What's even more surprising, is that packages of the i7-6700K and i5-6600K, which feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, making them primed for overclocking, do not include stock cooling solutions.
Freaking FINALLY. This has a two-fold benefit: fewer idiots buying K-series SKUs but never overclocking them, and fewer idiots buying K-series SKUs and whining on forums when they overclock using the stock cooler and their PCs shut down due to overheating.

Sony Xperia S, post: 3324924, member: 148671"
Where is my maintsream 8-core 16-thread CPU?

Intel, wake up from this years-long sleep!
The number of desktop users who require any more than 4 threads is vanishingly small, and for those people there's LGA-2011 or the Xeons. Intel isn't going to cram MOAR CORES onto every die when there would be no benefit for most consumers.
Posted on Reply
#6
Slizzo
Assimilator, post: 3324948, member: 7058"
The number of desktop users who require any more than 4 threads is vanishingly small, and for those people there's LGA-2011 or the Xeons. Intel isn't going to cram MOAR CORES onto every die when there would be no benefit for most consumers.
Even most gamers wouldn't see a benefit. Until the next round of games come out which are now multi-core aware and built for the 8 "core" AMD processors now in consoles. Which is very good IMO.
Posted on Reply
#8
remixedcat
Assimilator, post: 3324948, member: 7058"
The number of desktop users who require any more than 4 threads is vanishingly small, and for those people there's LGA-2011 or the Xeons. Intel isn't going to cram MOAR CORES onto every die when there would be no benefit for most consumers.
Yeah Intel isn't AMD

Posted on Reply
#9
Disparia
Cool. Not that I really want a K, but non-Ks shouldn't be too far off and we should be seeing more board releases.
Posted on Reply
#10
jboydgolfer
C'mon intel....Are you kidding? for what They charge I want a Damn sorry attempt @ a cooler ;) ...even if it is nothing special..They have come in handy in the past for me in a pinch.
Posted on Reply
#11
Sony Xperia S
Assimilator, post: 3324948, member: 7058"
The number of desktop users who require any more than 4 threads is vanishingly small, and for those people there's LGA-2011 or the Xeons. Intel isn't going to cram MOAR CORES onto every die when there would be no benefit for most consumers.
I think you confuse yourself and the others.

Only ask people whether they want their CPUs with 8-real cores instead of whatever they are forced to buy and you will see.

The results from the poll will be pro more cores. Never use people's lack of knowledge and ignorance to spoil technological advancement.

You need more cores to give customers better experience. The only question is if you want or not.
Posted on Reply
#12
Uplink10
Assimilator, post: 3324948, member: 7058"
The number of desktop users who require any more than 4 threads is vanishingly small, and for those people there's LGA-2011 or the Xeons. Intel isn't going to cram MOAR CORES onto every die when there would be no benefit for most consumers.
Maybe this CPUs do have more cores but Intel disabled the cores so it can sell some cheaper and some costlier. I never really understood how can a company be all ECO while it is disabling cores (the ones that are working) just to sell them in different models.
The CPUs should be used to maximum potential and if someone wanted fewer cores he could go to BIOS and disable them, the same goes with frequency on locked models.

I wish people would stop buying "unlocked" versions because nowadays they have a premium vs. locked versions and price per performance is not anymore better because Intel started to cash in (take advantage of or exploit) overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#13
R-T-B
BorisDG, post: 3324925, member: 131245"
No cooler included, so ... may be "Be prepared for high temps like Haswell or even worse". :D

It's nice to see tho, that chip uses the new Broadwell cap design.
It also could be that Intel CPU coolers were never really meant for overclocking, and basically sucked for anything but stock specs.

remixedcat, post: 3324943, member: 84450"
next they need the "Pentium guys" (bunny suit) plushie they had w the P2. I had one of those!
Sure beats whatever the hell that... thing is on the front of Intel's 5820k box.



Sony Xperia S, post: 3325007, member: 148671"
I think you confuse yourself and the others.

Only ask people whether they want their CPUs with 8-real cores instead of whatever they are forced to buy and you will see.

The results from the poll will be pro more cores. Never use people's lack of knowledge and ignorance to spoil technological advancement.

You need more cores to give customers better experience. The only question is if you want or not.
That's like asking people if they want Chocolate. MOAR CORES sounds good on paper, but sometimes making existing cores more efficient makes far more sense. Right now it does, and it won't make you fat either.
Posted on Reply
#14
Sony Xperia S
R-T-B, post: 3325053, member: 41983"
That's like asking people if they want Chocolate. MOAR CORES sounds good on paper, but sometimes making existing cores more efficient makes far more sense. Right now it does, and it won't make you fat either.
There is no problem at all in eating chocolate. The only side effect is that you need to burn those additional calories. Which is also not a problem at all, for those who are not lazy to move their bodies enough.

You don't need more efficient cores. What you need is corporations, governments and people who are much less greedy. You need a world open to new energy source - there are but the world decided to use dirty oil and coal. Tries also to confuse itself that the solution is using less power.

When the solutions are either less greed - means for instance prices of electricity at 10% of current rates.
Or usage of completely new energy sources.

At more than 1000$ per one processor 5960X, intel is doing gigantic profit margins. And contributes little to nothing for a better world.

Just imagine that every household has that 8-core 16-thread processor and all of them are connected in a gigantic worldwide network for different helpful calculations.
Posted on Reply
#15
R-T-B
I'm speaking not of energy efficiency, but actually of instructions per clock.
Posted on Reply
#16
tabascosauz
Sony Xperia S, post: 3325103, member: 148671"
There is no problem at all in eating chocolate. The only side effect is that you need to burn those additional calories. Which is also not a problem at all, for those who are not lazy to move their bodies enough.

You don't need more efficient cores. What you need is corporations, governments and people who are much less greedy. You need a world open to new energy source - there are but the world decided to use dirty oil and coal. Tries also to confuse itself that the solution is using less power.

When the solutions are either less greed - means for instance prices of electricity at 10% of current rates.
Or usage of completely new energy sources.

At more than 1000$ per one processor 5960X, intel is doing gigantic profit margins. And contributes little to nothing for a better world.

Just imagine that every household has that 8-core 16-thread processor and all of them are connected in a gigantic worldwide network for different helpful calculations.
First of all, it's the business world. I'm afraid you might have to just deal with it. Everything is relative and there is not black and white. TPU all ain't about the environment, so let's talk about the other things here. I don't feel that it is correct to label "corporations" as greedy, monstrous entities, since throughout history, it has been shown that many corporate endeavors first require government approval / apathy / permission. For example, take the oil pipeline that was supposed to be constructed across Afghanistan in the 1990s to provide Pakistan with better access to oil. Afghanistan was a state of open civil war and chaos, and the Pakistani government sought to take advantage of their long-time adversaries through this project. The US government turned a blind eye to Afghanistan's plight because of how important Pakistan was as an American ally, and so the company Unocal went ahead with it. Moreover, ironically, the good things that companies are undertaking are never documented in the media, such as GE's recent commitments to using microbes for biogas/biomass/electricity production in cities in North America. But TPU isn't about business, so let's move on to the important part.

What does contribute to a better world? Does a Pentium G3258 make a big improvement in the innovative yet horribly twisted world that we live in? It provides gamers with a cheap, overclockable CPU. Does it rake in big points in BOINC or FAH? I don't think so. Does it push CPU progress along? I don't think so; that job was left to whatever CPU was the guinea pig or first engineering sample for the Haswell family, and it sure as hell wasn't the G3258. The 5960X is more significant because it is basically the first new die in the HEDT generations since 2 generations ago, where HEDT was a six-core design.

I'm going to leave this here:



How well did that turn out? I'm no Intel fanboy and I know exactly what AMD's potential exit from the market means for us all. More cores? AMD knew that Intel was slow on the cores front, so they took advantage of consumers and advertised integer units as "cores". They tried to play the consumers, the vast majority of whom don't know and don't care for the difference between a Haswell "core" and a Piledriver "core" (again, not even a module, just an AMD "core"). Why did this happen? All because we constantly complained and demanded more cores from Intel.

So what about every household having an affordable, powerful 8-core CPU that isn't AMD FX? How many people would you expect to provide their system's processing power for crunching and folding for free? Out of all the enthusiasts in the world, only a tiny fraction are involved in folding. I don't pretend that I fold all the time; I go on and off because my 4790K is not low power and super efficient, and my 280X just about draws enough power to sustain an northern Afghan village.

A logical answer to this problem would be to make it mandatory, then. But with all the debate surrounding Windows 10's forced updates and supposed "backdoors" implemented by MS, how likely is it that we would be able to harness the power of those CPUs?
Posted on Reply
#17
horik
I'm impatiently waiting for this CPUs to be released, anyhow we all know the coolers are not good for more than clock speed uses, but I'm sure they will not lower the price for not including them in the box.
Posted on Reply
#19
peche
Thermaltake fanboy
Sony Xperia S, post: 3324924, member: 148671"
Where is my maintsream 8-core 16-thread CPU?

Intel, wake up from this years-long sleep!
intel's 4c/8t design still beats amd shitty units... dont see your point there dude....

micropage7, post: 3324938, member: 82848"
looks nice after the previous sad design

first impression is important
correct ... gay scheme on i7's ....

tabascosauz, post: 3325111, member: 158152"

best post ever.....
Posted on Reply
#20
cadaveca
My name is Dave
BorisDG, post: 3324925, member: 131245"
No cooler included, so ... may be "Be prepared for high temps like Haswell or even worse". :D
Nope. You couldn't be further off the mark. Sorry. Intel's just maximizing profits. Probably 95% of "K"-SKU purchasers also purchase an aftermarket cooler. So they saved themselves $7. No discount for no cooler. :P
Posted on Reply
#21
Animalpak
Nice box ! They have a little bit of fantasy too !


But sure will be a 6790K in future...
Posted on Reply
#22
vega22
Prima.Vera, post: 3324961, member: 98685"
80's are back!! :))
nah, it was all smiley faces and blokes in make up. that design is very 90s....
Posted on Reply
#23
peche
Thermaltake fanboy
my humble opinion, the best intel retail box,

Posted on Reply
#24
Zeki
I'm going to leave this here:



You sir just fucking killed me :)
Posted on Reply
#25
Chloe Price
Sony Xperia S, post: 3324924, member: 148671"
Where is my maintsream 8-core 16-thread CPU?

Intel, wake up from this years-long sleep!
I'm pretty sure you need to wait a "few" years for those..
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment