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

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • doggface - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    They could have supported USB3.1, but it is a bandwidth hungry monster that takes up die space. Instead they support pcie3x4 and oems can get/pay for the extra USB3.1 chip out of their own moneys. USB-c on the other hand can be hung of pretty much anything because it is just a connector. Reply
  • someonesomewherelse - Thursday, September 01, 2016 - link

    The only way you can expect lower prices/better chips on desktop (i3 becoming 4c/8t, i5 8c/16t, i7 12c/24t and the no gpu chip with extra cores/cache desired by pc enthusiasts (lets name it i8 and give it 18c/36t and as much extra l3 cache you can fit on it with the space gained by the removal of the gpu... you could even have i6 (14c/28t) and i4 (6c/12t) chips using the same chips with defects on some of the cores/l3 and an i2 with 3c/6t or 4c/8t but with an extremely high clock rate (5GHz+ base)), no more random removal of some instructions (K class missing some of the virtualization for example), a turbo only limited by actual heat and power, mandatory ecc, 4 channel memory (which means that the high end now gets 8 channels), extra pcie lanes, unlocked multipliers and so on) is if Zen is actually faster than AMD marketing claims.

    So if you are a religious person start praying....
    Reply
  • someonesomewherelse - Thursday, September 01, 2016 - link

    Obviously at the same/lower price as current i3/i5/i7 chips. Reply
  • lilmoe - Saturday, September 03, 2016 - link

    I couldn't give a rat's bottom how cheap Intel's chips become. If AMD gets similar performance at reasonable prices, then good-bye Intel for me. Reply
  • BillBear - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Given the new 14nm+ process, is it safe to speculate that the original problem with 14nm that delayed the hell out of Broadwell and outright killed some of the desktop versions of Broadwell was a power leakage problem? Reply
  • saratoga4 - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    I don't think leakage was a huge problem. Yields appear to have been though. Intel has some slides explaining that they ramped slower than expected. Reply
  • Jumangi - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    So possibly no real IPC gains in the desktop version? No point in waiting if your looking to upgrade then. Reply
  • wumpus - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Not for this. I keep looking at that die photo and wondering how hard it would be to replace some of that silly graphics bit with 2-4 cores. Maybe they will do it once zen ships. Maybe it would generate too much heat and won't work (I suspect the big multicore jobs have more cache/core area than these chips have (GPU+cache)/core). Maybe Intel will someday include a pony. Reply
  • Molor - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    They kind of do that. They call it the extreme version and charge more for it. Graphics nodes tend to be more forgiving of flaws due to redundancy. AMD and NVidia usually disable a broken SM or two per chip for yields. It would be interesting to know if Intel does the same. Reply
  • shabby - Tuesday, August 30, 2016 - link

    Pretty much, the 12% benchmark increase came from a 13% clock bump, same wattage though apparently. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now