Upcoming Hardware, Desktop Coming Later Appendix: Kaby Lake Fact Sheets
POST A COMMENT

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • doggface - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Only problem with your theory is these chips are priced at well above the cost of a Chromebook processor. We are talking $2-400 for these chips. Arm processors can be less than $50. Not even the same league.

    Intel has ceded the low end of the market to Arm with the discontinuation of atom.
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Intel charges more for the chip than most chromebooks cost. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    None of this stuff (KBL) competes with ARM, it's aimed squarely at Apple. Broxton is the ARM competitor. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    D'oh, Apollo Lake, not Broxton. Reply
  • ianmills - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    It is interesting that the desktop cpu will be released at the same time as zen. Maybe they think zen might be competitive and are waiting to set the final clocks once zen performance is known? Reply
  • CaedenV - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    More likely Intel has been afraid to release anything that would put AMD out of business entirely... but at the same time they are not about to let them have a foothold on the market ever again. Reply
  • witeken - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Here is a more up to date graph of Intel's 14nm yield than the one shown on page 1: http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2016/Januar...

    As you can see, Intel didn't meet its forecast of the AnandTech graph. They were quite close in H2'14, but then the yield learning slowed down considerably. In the image of AT, they forecasted parity in H1'15, but in their latest graph (mine is from november '15), they forecasted mid-2016 for yield parity compared to 22nm. My guess from what I've heard from them is that this is fairly accurate. Yields should be pretty healthy by now.
    Reply
  • lilmoe - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Ridiculous MSRPs as usual. Reply
  • rahvin - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    As always, but I would consider the lack of built-in USB 3.1 a stunning failure. KL was under design when the 3.1 standard was finalized. Mark my words, but this time next year every single phone tablet is going to be using Type-C. Though you can use the port without the 3.1 spec it's a stunning failure on Intel's part to not integrate it when they are a key member of the USB forum.

    Personally I think they are doing it because they try to push people to thunderbird but it makes their default product a failure that needs another chip to provide what will be default functionality in 12 months.
    Reply
  • beginner99 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    USB-C and USB 3.1 are not the same thing. You can use C-connector with USB 3.0 or old connector with USB 3.1 Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now