Intel Finally Unleashes Broadwell-E: Top End CPU Will Cost You $1723 USD

[starshipeleven]

Correct sentence could be something like this:

were locked on quadcores (with HT) for lack of amd competitive cpus compared with intel cpus

Correct correction would be something like this:

Lack of intel innovation is biting Intel ass too, and the future isn't shining either. Lack of competitive CPUs from AMD does not mean that there is no competition. OlderGen Intel CPUs are still technically competition. Competing with their past selves is common in monopolies (also Microsoft is doing it).

If I get a random quadcore PC from 2007-8 and it still works fine today, that's a major issue with or without AMD, Intel lost 1.5 billions or so due to lack of desktop sales in that segment and it isn't getting better in the future.

Intel is doing all they can to have people buy their newer stuff instead of keeping older Intel stuff, this PR stunt is another trick to show off.

Maybe with zen them change something of that but in this point intel can put higher prices (possible more higher in future if dont appear competition) like brodwell-e because them dont have any competition for now

This is bull, wank-grade hardware is always horribly overpriced, by how much is not relevant.

[efikkan]

If I wanted a lot of cores I would rather go for a couple of E5-2630 v4s or something.

[thelongdivider]

Let's wait and see before getting excited. Same IPC is completely unproven, as Intel has been the best Fab in the world for almost all its existence. 14 nm Intel is not equivalent to 14 nm Samsung, for example. Chip design is a little more complicated than a piece of paper with check marks... e.g. AMD running a chip at 5ghz and being single thread equivalent to a SB 3.5ghz part.

I would love AMD to even tie Intel at lower prices. I would instantly buy their 8 core not only to support competition, but my 3770k has been at work for 4 years now. The GPU market seems to be more revolutionary though.

ZEN has the same IPC per core than the modern intel cpus because nearly everything is the same i talk about features like: Hyper-Threading even the AVX units are now the same like the one on intel cpus.

also AMD's 14nm FinFET is on paar to intel's 14nm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_nanometer

So because of this they know they will lose the lead to AMD-ZEN they dropped a 10 core Desktop cpu in the Market.

But 25% more cores and 3-4 times higher price is the only difference to AMD-ZEN.

Edit: and intels 8core is only 22nm...

[pinguinpc]

Correct correction would be something like this:

Lack of intel innovation is biting Intel ass too, and the future isn't shining either.

Lack of competitive CPUs from AMD does not mean that there is no competition.

OlderGen Intel CPUs are still technically competition.

Competing with their past selves is common in monopolies (also Microsoft is doing it).

For why intel needs put innovation in actual situation if with actual products dont have competition especially of amd products and them still gain big sack of money

Respect older products who cares with old and new them still gain, more money for same destiny (intel big sack of money)

Intel is a huge monopoly with practically unlimited resources (this is caused because them stay in many technical areas without forget in pc market / laptop market them have practically all however main of this using non clean politics but them have it)

With before described situation is very difficult for amd change actual situation with very low resources compared with intel* (actual rumor of sell radeon** division to intel have sense because research and development need big quatities of resources and intel can offer this)

*Intel stay around 148.000 milliions of dolars meanwhile amd stay around 3.600 millions of dollars

**Possible division between raj koduri and lisa su about radeon division technology future, amd radeon back to ati radeon title rumor

[monraaf]

All: I had to use Bugmenot account since I am not registered here.

Qaridarium: Your arguments are horrible. First, there isn't any proven tests for IPC of AMD Zen. There are just speculations and rumors.

And Intel has 8 core CPUs that are manufactured with 14nm process. e.g. http://ark.intel.com/products/92990/...Cache-1_70-GHz and i7-6900K.

[grndzro]

F that. Zen will be able to compete with that monster for a few hundred dollars.

[starshipeleven]

Respect older products who cares with old and new them still gain, more money for same destiny (intel big sack of money)

People does not change their processor every year just because, and if new intel processors aren't more powerful than older ones, people don't go and shell 300$ for a new one just for lulz.

I know plenty of gamers that are fine with Sandy Bridge processors (they just upgraded the GPU), while I very rarely have to buy new low-end parts since I can just recycle pre-2010 stuff that can be had for near-nothing.

This means Intel sees less money, as less people buy new processors from them, it does not matter if they keep using an older Intel one, they buy a oldgen Intel CPU to save $$ on clearance sales or buy a (currently non-existing apart from the low and low-mid end) competitor's product.

THis is just one of many articles http://uk.businessinsider.com/intel-...op=1?r=US&IR=T

Intel is a huge monopoly with practically unlimited resources (this is caused because them stay in many technical areas without forget in pc market / laptop market them have practically all however main of this using non clean politics but them have it)

Intel is big but in a shrinking market (PC sales are declining since a long while, this is obvious), while they can't seem to get into the mobile market (heh, when even Qualcomm is more open...), and their presence in the embedded/IoT is ok but nothing game-changing.

[devius]

The notion that Intel doesn't release faster CPUs because they don't want to (because there's no "competition" theoretically) seems ridiculous to me. If I know it than I think anyone that runs a big company knows what happens to companies that stand still and give up on innovation and constant research and development, so I believe it's not that they don't want to release faster and better CPUs, it's just that they can't.

If I'm wrong that just means that Intel is completely doomed.

And yeah, the new top CPU sucks at that price. Zero advantage for gamers that would want to overclock it (just get a much cheaper and also overclockable i7-6700k) and zero advantages for workstation users that would not overclock it (just get a Xeon instead).

[bug77]

This means Intel sees less money, as less people buy new processors from them, it does not matter if they keep using an older Intel one, they buy a oldgen Intel CPU to save $$ on clearance sales or buy a (currently non-existing apart from the low and low-mid end) competitor's product.

The catch is Intel sees less money, but little to no investment in their CPUs (save for the manufacturing process), while AMD pays to such extent they have to hire bright minds on a project basis.

Fwiw, I agree that Intel kind of dug their own graves wrt desktops.

[speculatrix]

Am I the only person confused by Intel's numbering? There was a time when it seemed the part code was {i3,5,7}-Gnnn where G was the generation... so Haswell would stick with i{3,5,7}-4xxx, Broadwell i{3,5,7}-5xxx and Skylake i{3,5,7}-6xxx.
Now, I have no idea whether i7-6xxx is Skylake or Broadwell-E.