How the 6700K should have been.

[kylew_is_back]

 

[NZXT30]

Intel has grown way too greedy for something like that to happen. Hopefully amd can save the situation.

 

[DragonQ]

Excuse me sir, forgive me for questioning you but...how are you going to dissipate that heat?

 

[kylew_is_back]

Excuse me sir, forgive me for questioning you but...how are you going to dissipate that heat?

soldered IHS to die and 3GHz frequently should do the trick, also no need for 4xHD530

 

[Andy7]

Maybe it should be like that but it never will as Intel have no competition

 

[Caracus2k]

You're not supposed to launch April fools jokes past midday on April 1st... Good luck dissipating 500 odd watts of potential heat output!

 

[alex_123_fra]

I'd love that but your rig will need a PSU like this:

 

[kylew_is_back]

You're not supposed to launch April fools jokes past midday on April 1st... Good luck dissipating 500 odd watts of potential heat output!

A 6700 at 3.4GHz have a TDP of 65W, if we turn it down to just 3GHz and also remove the HD530 the TDP will drop to 50W or less, so we are looking at 200W TDP max.

 

[Telecaster]

For an example my 4790T runs at 3.3ghz across all 8 threads with a single core boost of 3.9ghz, it does that at 0.885v and a max power draw of 32W, and I passively cool it with just a heat sink.

 

[Dave2150]

soldered IHS to die and 3GHz frequently should do the trick, also no need for 4xHD530

Performance at 3Ghz would have been worse than Nehalam in the vast majority of games. Get a clue.

if you want all those cores for encoding, rendering etc, get a Xeon. Intel isn't a charity case!

 

[Martini1991]

You're the fool.

 

[mmj_uk]

Intel mainstream are mobile processors being flogged on the desktop for a quick cash in, their enthusiast line which share silicon with their server processors are where the high end performance is at, the fact that people actually buy into mainstream even when they don't need onboard graphics which they are paying for is testament to Intel's success.

 

[Mei]

i guess some of it is cashing in but some of it is software too?
AMD are rumored to have 8core 16thread chips coming end of the year while not splitting their platform so if amd can, intel surely can

but we yet to see windows games and apps take advantage of the extra cores so can argue for mainstream its not needed, microsoft being serious about pushing a mobile OS i think they will need to get apps running on as many cores as possible - there was that headline of new cpu's only working on windows10 coming up, if thats just scare tactics to get people to upgrade or technical reasons we have to see

if all apps and games took advantage of more cores i think you would see intel include them, they might be pricey but they would be included

 

[Caracus2k]

A 6700 at 3.4GHz have a TDP of 65W, if we turn it down to just 3GHz and also remove the HD530 the TDP will drop to 50W or less, so we are looking at 200W TDP max.

Lucky for you intel already sell a sixteen core CPU the E5-2698-v3 with a stock clock of 2.3Ghz and a turbo frequency of 3.6Ghz (but not using most of the cores!) a bargain at about £2,500!

Pretty useless for gaming however!

 

[kylew_is_back]

Performance at 3Ghz would have been worse than Nehalam in the vast majority of games. Get a clue.

if you want all those cores for encoding, rendering etc, get a Xeon. Intel isn't a charity case!

true, but intel could also release cpu that is more suited to gaming (or application that can benefit from high IPC) with 4 cores 8 threads like the 6700, BUT every core will have 4 times as many transistors than the original 6700, sure this will not increase the IPC anywhere near 4 times but it should increase it a lot.

 

[Mei]

bcos that would be a huge waste of money?
id be suprised if the future of cpu's isnt more cores at lower power and software needs to take advantage of that

 

[jigger]

The biggest disappointment for the 6700k was the core count. For the cost of the chip it really should have 6 cores 12 thread minimum.

 

[Telecaster]

Intel mainstream are mobile processors being flogged on the desktop for a quick cash in, their enthusiast line which share silicon with their server processors are where the high end performance is at, the fact that people actually buy into mainstream even when they don't need onboard graphics which they are paying for is testament to Intel's success.

Likewise, why would I pay even more money for performance that isn't needed?

Surely the issue here is not that Intel sell mobile processors as desktop chips, but it's the fact we don't need anything more powerful than a re-badged mobile chip that is the issue.

Why would I buy a X99 chip when I barely use the performance of a 4c/8t "mobile" CPU?

Until more uses are found for 6/8/10 cores why the hell would I spend mega bucks on buying one and wasting it's performance?

 

[BluesFanUK]

Likewise, why would I pay even more money for performance that isn't needed?

Surely the issue here is not that Intel sell mobile processors as desktop chips, but it's the fact we don't need anything more powerful than a re-badged mobile chip that is the issue.

Why would I buy a X99 chip when I barely use the performance of a 4c/8t "mobile" CPU?

Until more uses are found for 6/8/10 cores why the hell would I spend mega bucks on buying one and wasting it's performance?

X99 was largely expensive because of DDR4 at the time, now it's on par with Skylake. So you get two more cores with much better overclocking capabilities and infinitely more ports.

It's a no-brainer really. I'd also question why anyone would want to go from a quad-core to quad-core, particularly if you have a CPU post Nehalem.

 

[jigger]

Not because you also need a minimum of a £350 processor, £200-£250 motherboard and four sticks of RAM rather than two