Monday, May 2nd 2016

Intel Core i7-7700K "Kaby Lake" Processor Detailed

It looks like Intel's 7th generation performance desktop processor, the Core i7-7700K, will be a quad-core part, like the seven generations before it. Leaked SiSoft SANDRA benchmark leaderboards reveal interesting details about the chip. To begin with, this quad-core part will feature HyperThreading enabling 8 logical CPUs for the OS to deal with. It will be clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a TurboBoost frequency of 4.20 GHz. Compare this, to the 4.00 GHz nominal and 4.20 GHz TurboBoost clocks of the current-generation i7-6700K. Bear in mind that this is a pre-release engineering-sample, and may not be accurate for the production chips.

The IMC of the i7-7700K will be clocked at 4.00 GHz, and its integrated graphics core will feature 24 execution units, much like "Skylake-D." The cache setup is unchanged, too, with 256 KB per-core L2, and 8 MB shared L3 caches. The "Kaby Lake" silicon will be built on Intel's 14 nm node, and is rumored to be slightly more energy-efficient than "Skylake." It will be built in the LGA1151 package, and will be compatible with current Intel 100-series and future 200-series chipset motherboard. "Kaby Lake" is the third mainline CPU architecture by Intel on the 14 nm node (after "Broadwell" and "Skylake"). The first 7th generation Core processors could launch later this year.

Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

153 Comments on Intel Core i7-7700K "Kaby Lake" Processor Detailed

#1
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Booooring. And only four cores? That's almost oppresive at this point in time.
Posted on Reply
#2
Fabio Pisco
Frick said:
Booooring. And only four cores? That's almost oppresive at this point in time.
"Inserts THANK YOU gif"
Posted on Reply
#3
Dj-ElectriC
A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo
Posted on Reply
#4
Fabio Pisco
Dj-ElectriC said:
A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo
Mainstream that costs 400€?

Funny xD
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Dj-ElectriC said:
A mainstream CPU for a mainstream platform should have up to 4 cores. If you want more, you can always get a budget 6 core and an X99 mobo
It may be the mainstream market, but that chip is high end.
Posted on Reply
#6
Dj-ElectriC
Fabio Pisco said:
Mainstream that costs 400€?

Funny xD
Yes, and its funny because a budget hexa core for X99 on 14nm will cost you the same. This mainstream CPU will be sold to the masses. That's what makes it mainstream

High end chip? correct. Strongest IPC? correct.
If the mob is angry at intel for making baby steps, it should be angry at its competition for making ant steps.
Posted on Reply
#7
kaellar
Yet another one Intel Core generation that has zero profit over 3 or 4 previous ones? Unless it brings back the soldered IHS instead of crappy TIMs, there's absolutely no practical point to release Kaby Lake over the Skylake other than stupid marketing.

Boy, AMD Zen better be something really serious, or the CPU market stagnation will never end.
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
So, a next generation that is actually worse than current one. Oh joys of monopoly owned by Intel...

Even Skylake was a total disapointment. I thought it would feature EDRAM on all processors for general compute like initial rumors suggested, but it turned out to be another crappy HT quad core with nothing really new to offer. And it costs the same as a lot more powerful 5820K. Which is a HT hexacore capable of running at same clocks as 6700K. Only thing that sets them apart is board cost, but if you want a good one for 6700K, you'll also spend around 300€ very quickly.
Posted on Reply
#9
BorisDG
LOL and no proper replacement of Broadwell i7 5755C "L4/Iris Pro" beast?
Posted on Reply
#10
Fabio Pisco
Dj-ElectriC said:
Yes, and its funny because a budget hexa core for X99 on 14nm will cost you the same. This mainstream CPU will be sold to the masses. That's what makes it mainstream

High end chip? correct. Strongest IPC? correct.
If the mob is angry at intel for making baby steps, it should be angry at its competition for making ant steps.
AMD will never price a CPU with 4 cores at 300 euros. It may happen, but i dont believe it that much. There is no need to keep launching mainstream CPU with 4c/8t, that crap is too old....if AMD can give us 8c/16t for 300€ that would be a killer ;)
Posted on Reply
#11
ShockG
Too much whining about INTEL not making progress.
They actually are, but the problem is that the applications you run are not taking advantage of the progress made.

1. We can't keep saying the vast majority of games are GPU bound, then go on to complain about not being able to see CPU advances in those very games. Witcher 3 or GTA V @ 3840x2160 with 8xAA is a GPU bound scenario. There's no CPU that could change that.

2. We can't keep complaining that games are developed primarily for consoles, or are ports which have weaker host CPUs, but expect INTEL to work magic in those very same games. Those games are simply not designed to take advantage of CPUs more powerful than their original target hardware.

3. Software has always and will always drive hardware progress. If there is no killer application that necessitates the need for faster processors, then we will simply not see the progress we saw before in many generations gone by. The days of office applications like spreadsheet calculations driving development are gone. Games took over and even that has moved to the domain of the GPU.

4. AVX has been around for several generations of CPUs and can add massive performance for applications that take advantage of those instructions. To date, not a simple game uses them. That is a silicon investment INTEL made and the tools to exploit it are there and freely available. Yet developers have not done so.

You can't blame INTEL for not releasing a CPU that will add 20fps to your game, when your game is GPU limited. Doesn't matter how much improvement is made in IPC and clock speed, the bottleneck isn't there and to expect INTEL to somehow work magic around this is just puzzling.
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
Pathetic! For this crap do they expect us to change the mobo again??

@ShockG
You talk exactly like a PR manager from Intel. :)
Before I bought my 3770K I was using a Core 2 Quad Q9650. Afterwards, my FPS in games almost doubled, and that is not an exaggeration.
However since 2600K CPUs, all the performance is almost identical and the same for new processors, so basically in more than 5 years, nothing happened performance wise. Are you going to PR me again? :)
Posted on Reply
#13
ensabrenoir
........the only thing the same is the same people whining. On the consumer main stream side is there really a need for anything more? Sandy bridge chips still pretty much destroys whatever you throw at it..... Blame modern man for not creating a mainstream need form anything much more substantial. Practically everything can be run on a cellphone now. I know we hate the automotive comparison....but why do we expect intel to build a 400hp minivan? And this is not a upgrade for anything made......do I really have to say it
Posted on Reply
#14
the54thvoid
@ShockG makes a very good point. I was about to say "crappy Intel" but the fact my Sandy E is still going along at 4.4Ghz, 4 yrs on and it is NOT the limiting factor in my rig shows how good the chips are.
Yes, there was a huge jump when core i7 chips arrived but since then, there has not been much to take advantage of them.
Contrast with AMD's GCN architecture that has allowed their products to shine so far in DX12. That's a hardware implementation showing excellent software improvements.

If Intel keep making top performing chips with lower and lower power draw, then they're still achieving good progress.
Posted on Reply
#15
Dr_M
This kind of new is like going to the church, to listen all of those old ladies complaining about everything. Who the f*ck cares. Nobody is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, don't buy, it's very simple. Or you kids just complain, because your daddy won't open his wallet?

Posted on Reply
#16
LAN_deRf_HA
I'm guessing there's a financial advantage to releasing so many chips so close together but I don't quite see it. We're getting a new mainstream and a new highend every year with small gains each time. You'd think it would be better to release less but make a bigger splash each time. It's not cheap to launch a new product.
Posted on Reply
#18
Prima.Vera
ensabrenoir said:
........the only thing the same is the same people whining. On the consumer main stream side is there really a need for anything more? Sandy bridge chips still pretty much destroys whatever you throw at it..... Blame modern man for not creating a mainstream need form anything much more substantial. Practically everything can be run on a cellphone now. I know we hate the automotive comparison....but why do we expect intel to build a 400hp minivan? And this is not a upgrade for anything made......do I really have to say it
People are not "whining", just making statements. If you accept everything like a nice little drone, is your choice.
Personally I was expecting after 5 years of nothing to have 6 or 8 Cores as mainstream, 24 or more PCI-Ex 3.0 lines on the CPU,etc,etc. Instead.... pfff
Posted on Reply
#19
Dethroy
I am just glad my Xeon E3-1230v2 is still going strong and easily handles everything I throw at it. Maybe in 2-3 years time it might be worthwile to upgrade when we hopefully see a significant boost in performance.
Posted on Reply
#20
GeorgeMan
Oh, no problem at all. Another year with my i5-2500k.
Posted on Reply
#21
ssdpro
There hasn't been much progress on the CPU since Sandy Bridge back in 2011. You can move to the HEDT segment and have more cores at lower frequency or stay in the enthusiast/mainstream segment. The real changes since SB have been on the chipset side. SB has no USB 3, only 2 bugged SATA 6Gb/s ports, no M.2, no U.2, and the memory controller is poorly tuned and has much lower bandwidth.

Having upgraded from an i7-2600K / Z68 through each series to my current i7-6700K / Z170, I can safely say the i7-2600K / Z68 combo was the most stable and highest quality. It was a GREAT combo and the best Intel has done since the first i7-9xx series with X58. It however lacks many features i actively use on the Skylake build such as M.2, USB 3, 6 SATA ports of which I use 4, and USB BIOS Flashback (ASUS). It is all about feature assessment, needs, and balance. No right answer here.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheLostSwede
This is afaik supposed to use the same socket/chipset as the current models.
From what I've heard, these are supposed to be massive overclockers, unlike previous generations, which is at least something.

That said, I'd also like to see more PCIe lanes as someone pointed out here, especially as we're now getting more and more storage interfaces that requires four PCIe lanes per device. Doing this via the chipset is imho not the best way, since the chipset still only has a x4 PCIe interface towards the CPU, admittedly PCIe 3.0 by now, but it needs to have a wider bus to be able to cope with future technologies. On top of that, 32 lanes for graphics cards ought to be the standard by now, but alas, unless you're willing to spend stupid money, this isn't the case.

Intel clearly doesn't care about "our" opinions, as we're a minority of its customers. For whatever reason it seems like Intel is against adding more PCIe lanes and CPU cores for this market segment.
Posted on Reply
#23
Grings
btarunr said:
It will be built in the LGA1151 package, and will be compatible with current Intel 100-series and future 200-series chipset motherboard
Prima.Vera said:
Pathetic! For this crap do they expect us to change the mobo again??
Posted on Reply
#24
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
Wow, I'm sad we didn't get a new socket for this!.. lol I need a new quad core processor like I need a new hole in the head... I guess I'll skip this one as well for my Gaming rig.. I was hoping this series would have x6 core.. or dare I dream an x8. I bought my wife a i7 4770 middle of last year and honestly my 2600k is better at gaming (of course I have it overclocked) @ 4.0Ghz and I even have it on a stock cooler, because my H50 tapped out a few months ago.. literally green crap every where.. lol I'm sure someone will say you don't need x6 for gaming.. but I don't care... I want it! lol WCG needs it.

Dr_M said:
This kind of new is like going to the church, to listen all of those old ladies complaining about everything. Who the f*ck cares. Nobody is forcing you to buy. If you don't like it, don't buy, it's very simple. Or you kids just complain, because your daddy won't open his wallet?
So, you're one of those people.. Why do you care? This is a tech forum.. bitching kind of goes along with it. You sir should take up cross stitching that's something that never changes and people who do it never complain about it not changing.
Posted on Reply
#25
PP Mguire
ssdpro said:
There hasn't been much progress on the CPU since Sandy Bridge back in 2011. You can move to the HEDT segment and have more cores at lower frequency or stay in the enthusiast/mainstream segment. The real changes since SB have been on the chipset side. SB has no USB 3, only 2 bugged SATA 6Gb/s ports, no M.2, no U.2, and the memory controller is poorly tuned and has much lower bandwidth.

Having upgraded from an i7-2600K / Z68 through each series to my current i7-6700K / Z170, I can safely say the i7-2600K / Z68 combo was the most stable and highest quality. It was a GREAT combo and the best Intel has done since the first i7-9xx series with X58. It however lacks many features i actively use on the Skylake build such as M.2, USB 3, 6 SATA ports of which I use 4, and USB BIOS Flashback (ASUS). It is all about feature assessment, needs, and balance. No right answer here.
I have USB3 (even 3.1 Gen 2), 4 SATA 3 ports (only use 1), and M.2 :p Course I've been on this platform for uh 4 years almost. (damn)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment