Tuesday, May 3rd 2016

Intel Core i7-6850K Pictured, Tested

Intel's upcoming Core i7-6850K six-core processor made its way to the hands of an enthusiast on OCN, who wasted no time in picturing the chip, and putting it through a few handy tests. Built for the LGA2011v3 socket, the i7-6850K is based on the 14 nm "Broadwell-E" silicon, and features six cores, HyperThreading enabling 12 logical CPUs, 15 MB of L3 cache, and a nominal clock speed of 3.60 GHz. To begin with, while the i7-6850K is pin-compatible with existing socket LGA2011v3 motherboards (and logically features an identical pin-map to "Haswell-E,") the package is slightly different. Its fiberglass substrate is slightly thinner (1.12 mm vs. 1.87 mm of "Haswell-E,"). Its thickness is made up for by a chunkier IHS (integrated heatspreader).

The i7-6850K sample was installed on a machine with ASRock X99 Extreme3 motherboard (BIOS: P3.30), 16 GB of quad-channel DDR4-2133 memory, and a single GeForce GTX 980 Ti graphics card. It was compared to a Core i7-5820K processor on the same setup. The i7-6850K based setup was barely (~1%) faster at 3DMark FireStrike Extreme in its final score, however, its CPU-intensive Physics score was 14.9% higher. Moving on to the community favorite Cinebench R15, the i7-6850K yielded a 10% higher score. To test its single-core performance, the chip was put through SuperPi 32M, where the i7-6850K crunched through the test in 8m 27.854s, compared to 8m 38.866s by the i7-5820K.

Source: OCN
Add your own comment

31 Comments on Intel Core i7-6850K Pictured, Tested

#1
proxuser
flexible 0.03mm thin intel cpu's coming soon.. looks like no need to upgrade next 5 years.
Posted on Reply
#2
R-T-B
proxuser said:
flexible 0.03mm thin intel cpu's coming soon.. looks like no need to upgrade next 5 years.
The whole thickness of the substrate thing isn't really worth worrying about if coolers are just made properly and you know not to literally crush your CPU by over tightening.
Posted on Reply
#3
GhostRyder
Not bad, however if I am reading correctly it has 300mhz more stock clocks which kinda knocks down the performance improvements a notch. I wonder though how many lanes it has?
Posted on Reply
#4
Dionysus
In comparison to the 5820K, which I recently upgraded to from an FX-8350, I don't think there is much reason to come up from the 5820K. Just my opinion though, since I don't need a large number of PCIe lanes.
Posted on Reply
#5
xkm1948
GhostRyder said:
Not bad, however if I am reading correctly it has 300mhz more stock clocks which kinda knocks down the performance improvements a notch. I wonder though how many lanes it has?
You are reading it wrong. The testing was done at 4.2GHz for both 5820K and 6850K. So a solid 10% IPC improvement.
Posted on Reply
#6
Chaitanya
GhostRyder said:
Not bad, however if I am reading correctly it has 300mhz more stock clocks which kinda knocks down the performance improvements a notch. I wonder though how many lanes it has?
Most probaly 40, since there is a rumoured 6800K which will sit at the bottom of Hedt stack and will have a 28 pci-e lanes.
Posted on Reply
#7
badtaylorx
I wonder if it'll make the intel retail edge summer sale???
Posted on Reply
#8
techy1
xkm1948 said:
You are reading it wrong. The testing was done at 4.2GHz for both 5820K and 6850K. So a solid 10% IPC improvement.
where did you read that? in case if your claim is false .... there is precise 0.00 IPC improvments
Posted on Reply
#9
bogami
So thin. There is no good to remove the cover as it will certainly twists as we sow on the 6700K .and thermal behavior will certainly worse as the disperser is thicker .81 ° but we do not know with what there are cooling.
Posted on Reply
#11
silentbogo
techy1 said:
where did you read that? in case if your claim is false .... there is precise 0.00 IPC improvments
HWInfo window on the screenshot. Maximum core clock column.
Posted on Reply
#12
9700 Pro
Why they had to make the PCB thinner even on the enthusiast platform? What next, crappy TIM instead of solder on these chips?
Posted on Reply
#13
Ferrum Master
It looks a bit more cool too, looking at the Max temps. I was expecting more.
Posted on Reply
#14
jaggerwild
He's testing it on a low End AsRock
Cooler is Intel 120mm BXTS13X
,
Posted on Reply
#15
Caring1
jaggerwild said:
He's testing it on a low End AsRock ,
How did you deduce that from using an Intel aftermarket AIO cooler?
They could be using any brand motherboard.
I see they used the same Asrock Extreme 3, not quite low end.
It seems they have overcome the TSX bug and implemented it again in this processor.
Posted on Reply
#16
Ferrum Master
Caring1 said:
How did you deduce that from using an Intel aftermarket AIO cooler?.
Read the OCN thread.
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Caring1 said:
How did you deduce that from using an Intel aftermarket AIO cooler?
They could be using any brand motherboard.
I see they used the same Asrock Extreme 3, not quite low end.
It seems they have overcome the TSX bug and implemented it again in this processor.
I don't know what you consider low end but the asrock extreme 3 is about as bottom of the barrel as x99 goes.
Posted on Reply
#18
GhostRyder
xkm1948 said:
You are reading it wrong. The testing was done at 4.2GHz for both 5820K and 6850K. So a solid 10% IPC improvement.
Oops, just noticed the maximum core clocks and forgot that Cinebench does not report that. Then its about what I expected in performance jumps.
Chaitanya said:
Most probaly 40, since there is a rumoured 6800K which will sit at the bottom of Hedt stack and will have a 28 pci-e lanes.
Yea, sounds about right but still it would not surprise me if they made two that had the lower PCIE amounts.
Posted on Reply
#19
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
GhostRyder said:
Yea, sounds about right but still it would not surprise me if they made two that had the lower PCIE amounts.
I'm hoping they bump it up some to allow more nvme. 36 lanes would be rather nice in the entry level chips
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cdawall said:
I don't know what you consider low end but the asrock extreme 3 is about as bottom of the barrel as x99 goes.
Probably why he can only get 4.2GHz on the 5820k, what he said is why he limited the 6850K to 4.2GHz, but still respectable enough for testing performance improvement between the two chips.

Though, I'd be interested in what is able to get the 6850K to in the same board.
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
newtekie1 said:
Probably why he can only get 4.2GHz on the 5820k, what he said is why he limited the 6850K to 4.2GHz, but still respectable enough for testing performance improvement between the two chips.

Though, I'd be interested in what is able to get the 6850K to in the same board.
I would be as well, would be interested in power consumption between the two is.
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
techy1 said:
where did you read that? in case if your claim is false .... there is precise 0.00 IPC improvments
Look at the screenshots and the peak clocks... or the thread.. .or...........
If you look at the screenshots, he made all the settings the same. 4.2GHz core, 3.3GHz Cache, 2666MHz RAM (4x4GB 13-14-14-39 2T 347 TFRC). Only thing I see different is 6850k is 0.02v lower VID (1.2v 5820k vs 1.18v 6850k). All the performance increase you see is from better IPC.
As far as the mobo... not sure it will make too much difference... remember, Broadwell still has the FIVR on the CPU so the motherboard plays less of a role on power delivery as compared to CPUs without it. Unless, I have my processors mixed up?
Posted on Reply
#23
truth teller
10% improvement in cinebench
2% improvement in superpi
substrate easier to bend with cooler weight
definitely priced higher than 10% over previous competitor
what am i looking at here? is this supposed to make me excited? cause its not...
Posted on Reply
#24
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
EarthDog said:
As far as the mobo... not sure it will make too much difference... remember, Broadwell still has the FIVR on the CPU so the motherboard plays less of a role on power delivery as compared to CPUs without it. Unless, I have my processors mixed up?
Unless he picked 4.2 out of his ass for a number the board still plays some roll. My chip does 4.5 on one of the two gb x99's and 4.6 on the other all other settings equal and those are two identical boards. I would imagine a cheaper board would do worse.
Posted on Reply
#25
EarthDog
I picked 4Ghz out of my ass for an upcoming review... why? Because I know all CPUs can reach it, and I have other data sets there. So....maybe. ;)

It depends on the board. But at a meager 4-4.2GHz, for the most part, the 'cheapest' board won't have an issue reaching those clocks. When you get to the higher clocks, there may be a slight difference and board would play a role in up that high. But not where most venture. Worst case is 100Mhz or so and give or take a bit on voltage. But 90% of Intel boards will take a CPU to its ambient cooled limits......... unless you are AMD trying to run an octo core where boards DO matter A LOT, LOL!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment