Monday, August 22nd 2016

Intel Core "Kaby Lake" Desktop Processors First Wave Detailed

Intel is reportedly planning launch its 7th generation Core "Kaby Lake" processors by Q4-2016. Its desktop variants, built in the existing LGA1151 package, will be the third Intel micro-architecture built on the 14 nm process (after "Skylake" and "Broadwell" architectures). With this generation, Intel is planning to sub-classify LGA1151 into three categories, to ensure people don't try to install higher-powered CPUs on low-power machines.

These are LGA1151-Standard Power; LGA1151-Low Power; and LGA1151-Ultra Low Power. These are defined by the TDP of the packages. Standard Power chips run at 95W TDP, Low Power at 65W TDP, and Ultra Low Power at 35W TDP. There could be motherboards and machines that, depending on their VRM setup, completely shut out Standard Power or even Low Power chips.

Among the Standard Power Core "Kaby Lake" chips are the Core i7-7700K and the Core i5-7600K. The two feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, and are targeted at PC enthusiasts. The i7-7700K leads the pack with 4.20 GHz clock-speed, a staggering 4.50 GHz Turbo Boost frequency, 8 MB of L3 cache, and HyperThreading enabling 8 logical CPUs. The i5-7600K features 3.80 GHz clocks with 4.00 GHz Turbo Boost, 6 MB of L3 cache, but as characteristic of Core i5 quad-core chips, it lacks HyperThreading.

The 65-Watt "Low Power" LGA1151 is made up of four SKUs, all of which are quad-core. Leading the pack is the i7-7700 (non-K). This chip features lower clock speeds than the i7-7700K, with 3.60 GHz and an unknown Turbo Boost frequency; HyperThreading, and 8 MB of L3 cache. It's the same story with the i5-7600, which features 3.50 GHz clocks, and 6 MB of L3 cache. The i5-7500 is clocked at 3.40 GHz, and the i5-7400 at 3.30 GHz. Thankfully, Intel isn't designing a sub-3 GHz part like the i5-6400 in this sub-category.

The 35-Watt "Ultra Low Power" lineup includes the quad-core Core i7-7700T, featuring 2.90 GHz clocks, 8 MB of L3 cache, and HyperThreading; Core i5-7600T with 2.60 GHz clocks and 6 MB L3 cache; and the Core i5-7500T, with 2.40 GHz clocks.
Source: OCaholic
Add your own comment

116 Comments on Intel Core "Kaby Lake" Desktop Processors First Wave Detailed

#76
Makaveli
cdawall said:
This isn't the enthusiast grade release from AMD. We don't know what all AMD is going to release. They have already announced that these will scale to 16/32 if AMD does one thing good its more cores.

So you have no point other than Intel offers a CPU with more cores right now. Luckily we all knew that. So thank you captain obvious.
My point to the guy was in the consumer space AMD Zen which is an enthusiast processor will be 8c/16t which he said has them winning in core count. That is incorrect based on the X6950.

You then came in talking about server cpu's to prove your point and that is off topic and it just changing the goal post.

AMD won't be releasing anything higher than 8c/16t on the Zen consumer chip so i'm not sure where you are getting it isn't the enthusiast grade release everything that I've seen posted so far says it is.
Posted on Reply
#77
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Makaveli said:
AMD won't be releasing anything higher than 8c/16t on the Zen consumer chip
Are you sure? Do you have an insider at AMD that knows this as a matter of fact or are you guessing based off of a year old PR slide?
Posted on Reply
#78
Makaveli
cdawall said:
Are you sure? Do you have an insider at AMD that knows this as a matter of fact or are you guessing based off of a year old PR slide?
I'm not going anywhere and will be here on launch day.

Lets just wait and see.
Posted on Reply
#79
noname00
Unfortunately comparing this Kaby Lake to Zen is completely irelevant. We have no idea what AMD will release and what the prices will be, we just have an educated guess that 7700k will have at least 5% performance improvement over 6700k, as this is the base frequency increase and it's safe to say that IPC won't be worst.
I just hope AMD will force Intel to offer a $300 6c/12t or 8c/16t CPU.
This way everybody wins. AMD fanboys will be able to buy something that is at least as fast as a 6700k, Intel fanboys will be able to upgrade their CPU. And the 95% of buyers that remain will just have bettter options.
AMD will sell performant CPUs again, and Intel will sell more because now we will have a reason to upgrade a 2500k.
Posted on Reply
#80
mcraygsx
RejZoR said:
To be honest, nothing. Skylake was a huge disappointment by itself. First there were mentions of L4 eDRAM and then it turned out only few versions had it and even that only for graphics. Boooooring.
Devils Canyons 4790K still had no competition. Least Intel could have increased the Cache to different Kaby Lake from Sky Lake. 100Mhz is hardly an improvement. In my eyes its a mainstream product rather then enthusiast grade.
Posted on Reply
#81
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Makaveli said:
I'm not going anywhere and will be here on launch day.

Lets just wait and see.
Launch day isn't the entire AMD lineup.

mcraygsx said:
Devils Canyons 4790K still had no competition. Least Intel could have increased the Cache to different Kaby Lake from Sky Lake. 100Mhz is hardly an improvement. In my eyes its a mainstream product rather then enthusiast grade.
It is a mainstream product in everyone's eyes. Hence why it is being released on the poverty socket and not 2011.
Posted on Reply
#83
Makaveli
noname00 said:

I just hope AMD will force Intel to offer a $300 6c/12t or 8c/16t CPU.
.
I think most would love to see this kind of pricing I just don't think it will happen.

Current 8c intel chip right now is very over priced

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117645&cm_re=intel_6900-_-19-117-645-_-Product

$1,399.99

Even with a AMD releasing a competitive Zen chip that would be a $1000 drop in price and highly unrealistic.

AMD is still trying to make a profit so the question is what are they go price their 8c/16t chip at. If performance is on par why would they be charging way less?

I think the price performance parts everyone will be looking at will be the 4c/6c versions that AMD will most likely release.
Posted on Reply
#84
EarthDog
Even if its $500 for their 8c/16t CPU is still "way less" than Intel. AMD will not try to affect the market like that. They need profits.
Posted on Reply
#85
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
EarthDog said:
Even if its $500 for their 8c/16t CPU is still "way less" than Intel. AMD will not try to affect the market like that. They need profits.
Depends on performance level if it can actually compete clock for clock, and scale to the same clock speed we will see a matched pricing I am sure with hopefully a bargain bin 8 core with shit clock speeds and an unlocked multi.
Posted on Reply
#86
EarthDog
Of course if performamce is close... that was assumed in my mind. :)
Posted on Reply
#87
Caring1
cdawall said:
What software uses 6/12? Most software developers still only uses 4 cores...
BOINC
Posted on Reply
#88
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
EarthDog said:
Of course if performamce is close... that was assumed in my mind. :)
I assumed as well just stating it for the more feeble minded.

Caring1 said:
BOINC
Not a mainstream user program.
Posted on Reply
#89
Caring1
cdawall said:
Not a mainstream user program.
It's certainly not designed for power users, and there is over 4M instances of it running.
Posted on Reply
#90
Nobody99
yogurt_21 said:
seems abit like Haswell to Devils Canyon ie same basic chip with a bit more frequency. Though I'm not liking the tdp trends

3770K 77w
4770K 84w
4790k 88w
6700k 91w
7700k 95w

everywhere else in the line ups the trend has been reverse or at least it stays the same.
5005u 15w > 6100u 15w etc.
5005U and 6100U are CPUs used in laptops so they have to be power efficient while the desktop K CPUs don't have to be since they won't be in a laptop. They are similar to server CPUs, have to follow some kind of scale with the same TDP but better performance (higher clocks each year).
Posted on Reply
#91
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Caring1 said:
It's certainly not designed for power users, and there is over 4M instances of it running.
Tell you what when I have a regular user bring in a machine with BOINC installed I'll call it mainstream. Normal users can't tell you the difference between an ssd and a hdd. Remember how many more machines those people buy than than enthusiasts. That is why Intel offers an i7 in the mainstream socket. Quads are mainstream and have been so for 6 or so years. There isn't a normal user app out there that a 6700 isn't comfortable pushing. When software catches up I would worry about people needing more than 4 cores.
Posted on Reply
#92
$ReaPeR$
chaosmassive said:
If Zen able to output 90% performance of Skylake Haswell with 50% price of 6-8 cores CPU Intel, AMD is win.
well, 50% of the price is a bit on the low end imo, but a 75% price point would be very realistic and it would be still a win for the consumer.
Posted on Reply
#93
noname00
Makaveli said:
Current 8c intel chip right now is very over priced

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117645&cm_re=intel_6900-_-19-117-645-_-Product

$1,399.99

Even with a AMD releasing a competitive Zen chip that would be a $1000 drop in price and highly unrealistic.

AMD is still trying to make a profit so the question is what are they go price their 8c/16t chip at. If performance is on par why would they be charging way less?

I think the price performance parts everyone will be looking at will be the 4c/6c versions that AMD will most likely release.
A 6800K is $440 on newegg. They just need to launch one for the 1151 platform and drop the price by 20%.
But I agree, we won't have a sub $400 8 core CPU from intel before 2018.
AMD needs to have better performance/price than Intel, but it won't be alot better. I just hope it's enough to push Intel into offering a 6c CPU for the price of a 6700k.

$ReaPeR$ said:
well, 50% of the price is a bit on the low end imo, but a 75% price point would be very realistic and it would be still a win for the consumer.
Even 80-85% of the intel price for the same performance will be fine.
Posted on Reply
#94
alexsubri
cdawall said:
The server class AMD stuff is going to be 16/32
Posted on Reply
#95
Audiophizile
TheLostSwede said:
Yes, Nvidia took it to the extreme this time around. Intel has been quite good at it, so let's see if they follow Nvidia and let the 7700K retail for $500++
The 6700k is currently ~$300 so its pretty doubtful they would raise the price $200 for a slightly higher clock and a few new features. It will most likely come in at $330-340 like the 6700k did. Maybe $350 which would be sad. Nvidia did bump up the price of the 1080 vs 980 by $50. 1070 vs 970 by $80 and 1060 vs 960 by $50. However the 1060 performance is inline with the rx480 and is only $10-20 more. So did AMD raise their prices $30-40 as well? I wouldn't call $10 gouging. Maybe scratching?
Posted on Reply
#96
775649848
this is pretty good information so far. so VR, HVEC, H.264, vp9 4k resolution playback. um, coming from the broadwell architecture, well, especially for gaming PCs, not necessarily for work-load PCs. shipping 7700k's at 4.5 turbo without a "liquid cooler" or really any cpu-heatsink at all, isnt that a bit decieving or reckless. for example when translating like GNU libraries, HTML, PHP, c++, NVIDIA/AMD cuda cores, ram extentions from gpu to cpu, i don't particularly think this turbo boost speed would do well. to give an example of the throughput chain is like Need for speed Online. well something with a high bit-rate and obviously using alot of threads, with just a standard cooler, is like a melt-down/shut-off case for at least one component in the PC. if they put these in slim-orientated/non-heatflow type of models eventually like laptops i can see alot of tech repairs being needed. so, particularly for alot of people these days youtube videos function on vp9 so over skylake even 1080p+ and probably the entire site will function faster/smoother which is great for people that don't like to read.

people are overclocking skylake to 4.4-4.5 pretty stable, but turbo boost is different. in mathematics, with other components is not rounded off or particularized linearly. especially when dealing with

4.2ghz for the cpu
1.8-2.025ghz for new gpus
2400-3600ghz for new ram
2400+ is good for the GPU kind of except its internal frequencies can be 8k to 10k
so a factor of 4 is actually closer.
about 3 or 3.2 would be good for the cpu through the mobo bus frequency.
then wireless/wired data from 54mbps and 16-40gbps

well if you get the picture it seems like instability in a sense of clock formation. 4.5? already at 95w....

i dont know, in a way it seems like it is the processor to get 77 is actually translates to "christ" in gemetria or the spiritual master, and is also nietzche's rational thought number.

in other ways i dont think its finished yet.
Posted on Reply
#97
EarthDog
775649848 said:
this is pretty good information so far. so VR, HVEC, H.264, vp9 4k resolution playback. um, coming from the broadwell architecture, well, especially for gaming PCs, not necessarily for work-load PCs. shipping 7700k's at 4.5 turbo without a "liquid cooler" or really any cpu-heatsink at all, isnt that a bit decieving or reckless. for example when translating like GNU libraries, HTML, PHP, c++, NVIDIA/AMD cuda cores, ram extentions from gpu to cpu, i don't particularly think this turbo boost speed would do well. to give an example of the throughput chain is like Need for speed Online. well something with a high bit-rate and obviously using alot of threads, with just a standard cooler, is like a melt-down/shut-off case for at least one component in the PC. if they put these in slim-orientated/non-heatflow type of models eventually like laptops i can see alot of tech repairs being needed. so, particularly for alot of people these days youtube videos function on vp9 so over skylake even 1080p+ and probably the entire site will function faster/smoother which is great for people that don't like to read.

people are overclocking skylake to 4.4-4.5 pretty stable, but turbo boost is different. in mathematics, with other components is not rounded off or particularized linearly. especially when dealing with

4.2ghz for the cpu
1.8-2.025ghz for new gpus
2400-3600ghz for new ram
2400+ is good for the GPU kind of except its internal frequencies can be 8k to 10k
so a factor of 4 is actually closer.
about 3 or 3.2 would be good for the cpu through the mobo bus frequency.
then wireless/wired data from 54mbps and 16-40gbps

well if you get the picture it seems like instability in a sense of clock formation. 4.5? already at 95w....

i dont know, in a way it seems like it is the processor to get 77 is actually translates to "christ" in gemetria or the spiritual master, and is also nietzche's rational thought number.

in other ways i dont think its finished yet.
Sorry.... what?
Posted on Reply
#98
Makaveli
EarthDog said:
Sorry.... what?
This +1

Wut?
Posted on Reply
#99
Prima.Vera
btarunr said:
Among the Standard Power Core "Kaby Lake" chips are the Core i7-7700K and the Core i5-7600K. The two feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, and are targeted at PC enthusiasts.
??

I apologies, but what is so enthusiastic about those CPUs that are basically the same as the ones launched 5 years ago?!?
Posted on Reply
#100
Audiophizile
Prima.Vera said:
??

I apologies, but what is so enthusiastic about those CPUs that are basically the same as the ones launched 5 years ago?!?
Nothing enthusiastic. Slightly better performance with a few new features. Slightly better feature gain than the move to skylake was and probably the same performance gain while using the same amount of power. Nothing revolutionary but a sure 15+% performance increase and good feature increase for people upgrading from a 4-5 year old Intel chip.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment