• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Pricing for Intel’s entire Kaby Lake X and Skylake X Core i9, i7 & i5 CPU leak

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
I have a Intel Pentium G4400 Skylake Dual-Core 3.3 GHz it does just fine with streaming everything.
 
Have a cookie. :)

Mine was 4 gens old and also was trying to webgame as well. You can run *most* games on it with a fps penalty, some with none, and a few wont even play games with a two threads.
 
Most computer users are on Intel "U" laptops that are all dual core regardless of whether they are identified as i3, i5 or i7. Most Hyperthread out to 4 threads just like a standard i3. And that's all 90% of PC users need.
 
Most computer users are on Intel "U" laptops that are all dual core regardless of whether they are identified as i3, i5 or i7. Most Hyperthread out to 4 threads just like a standard i3. And that's all 90% of PC users need.
Hell... That's all electrical engineering students need. Source: See sig currently going into my senior year for a BAS in EE.... [emoji14]

I could see needing something with more cores for VMs... But not for software... Dual boot if you need Linux for development. Works well on most laptops.

Also, my poor little i7-7500u handles Netflix just fine, as well as some light gaming (beyond earth, low settings, 1080p, very playable). It's not the slouch people make it out to be.
 
Hell... That's all electrical engineering students need. Source: See sig currently going into my senior year for a BAS in EE.... [emoji14]

I could see needing something with more cores for VMs... But not for software... Dual boot if you need Linux for development. Works well on most laptops.

Also, my poor little i7-7500u handles Netflix just fine, as well as some light gaming (beyond earth, low settings, 1080p, very playable). It's not the slouch people make it out to be.

Hah you must not be running simulations on your laptop.
 
Hah you must not be running simulations on your laptop.
Not cad, but ltspice stuff I am. In fairness, my laptop was not happy with a probability and statistics project I did, but 36MB CSV files aren't liked in MATLAB regardless of hardware. MATLAB doesn't like large CSV files... Even the Ryzen wasn't happy with em [emoji14]

EE at my school doesn't use CAD 3d rendering really. Mostly LTSpice and a smattering of programming languages to perform other simulations (RF modulation, etc). The 7500u handles transistor amplifier frequency response simulations and such just fine. Next semester should be interesting though. Software licenses are gonna force me to use the schools computing resources for one of my classes.
 
Not cad, but ltspice stuff I am. In fairness, my laptop was not happy with a probability and statistics project I did, but 36MB CSV files aren't liked in MATLAB regardless of hardware. MATLAB doesn't like large CSV files... Even the Ryzen wasn't happy with em [emoji14]

EE at my school doesn't use CAD 3d rendering really. Mostly LTSpice and a smattering of programming languages to perform other simulations (RF modulation, etc). The 7500u handles transistor amplifier frequency response simulations and such just fine. Next semester should be interesting though. Software licenses are gonna force me to use the schools computing resources for one of my classes.

I hated MATLAB as much as it hated me. I was just thinking of running circuit design analysis and such. I was a ME so I only did fluid/mechanical sims, but my father in law is a EE and they use some serious horsepower for circuit/RF sims.
 
Most computer users are on Intel "U" laptops that are all dual core regardless of whether they are identified as i3, i5 or i7. Most Hyperthread out to 4 threads just like a standard i3. And that's all 90% of PC users need.

Have a cookie. :)

Mine was 4 gens old and also was trying to webgame as well. You can run *most* games on it with a fps penalty, some with none, and a few wont even play games with a two threads.

]
 
Aint noway AMD's Threadripper will come in under 1k. If it does, then intel better come out swinging.

Really? The 8c/16t 1700 is just over 300 bucks, and Threadripper could be as simple as two of those glued together on a giant new socket. I'm predicting 800ish.
 
Really? The 8c/16t 1700 is just over 300 bucks, and Threadripper could be as simple as two of those glued together on a giant new socket. I'm predicting 800ish.
That 12c part will be 800+... the 16c part 1000+...

Really. :)
 
There's quite a price gap between 1700 and 1800X, so the question is if TR is going to be double either of those? Given it is supposed to be high end, I'm not sure there'll be a 1700 equivalent, and it'll be more like the 1800X. To provide the range, you have fewer core options, not less clock.
 
That 12c part will be 800+... the 16c part 1000+...

Really. :)

Bearing in mind this is all just speculation, I say there's no way they'd be charging $450 (Amazon price for 1800X right now) for 8c/16t and jump up to $800 for 12/24. I think it's gonna be more like $650 for 12/24 and something well under $900 for 16/32.

Personally I just wish Intel had kept the TDP much lower. That's the biggest let-down of the upcoming generations IMHO.
 
Personally I just wish Intel had kept the TDP much lower. That's the biggest let-down of the upcoming generations IMHO.

If you don't use AVX, the actual power consumption will be comparable against Ryzen in similar configuration. If you do use AVX, Intel might use more power, but it will also be much faster.
 
8 cores for 600bucks is not too bad.

It will overclock better than its Ryzen counterpart, with a 10% higher IPC per clock.

If the new platform mobos don't cost an arm and a leg (and a kidney!), that will be my choice for xMas rig (yeah, guilty pleasure...)
 
Personally I just wish Intel had kept the TDP much lower. That's the biggest let-down of the upcoming generations IMHO.

TDP doesn't mean real wattage. All processors are marked as 65, 95, 125, 140W,... but under full load some are showing higher or lower wattage. Intels were usually showing a bit lower wattage than TDP, AMD were usually showing higher wattage ( not a rule ). It's just hard to believe that +/-4 cores give the same wattage. When you check Intel offer then often i3 have the same TDP as i5 and i5 have the same TDP as i7. The same 6, 8 and 10 cores have sometimes the same TDP ( check Xeons ).
1700X under load is passing 110W while it's 95W TDP CPU. At 1.25V it's still passing 95W TDP ( hwinfo64 is showing up to 105W ) while it supposed to be Ryzen 1700 voltage which is 65W TDP CPU. So in real how far is real wattage from TDP on R7 1700 ?

8 cores for 600bucks is not too bad.

It will overclock better than its Ryzen counterpart, with a 10% higher IPC per clock.

If the new platform mobos don't cost an arm and a leg (and a kidney!), that will be my choice for xMas rig (yeah, guilty pleasure...)

I'm not expecting to see motherboards cheaper than X99 so they will be really expensive as usual.
I have no idea what about threadripper but if it won't overclock better than current ryzen then it's not interesting at all for me. Intel chips have 4.5GHz turbo so will make at least 4.5GHz on better cooling and all cores. This is what I need but 12c+ chips will be too expensive. I was counting on 12-16c ryzen while we got 8c max what's totally disappointing, especially they're almost not overclocking.

The only thing which is annoying in every single Intel X series chipsets are problems with memory slots and "missing" memory. Every single X58, X79 and X99 which I was using had problems with that and forums are flooded by issues regarding memory problems. I hope it won't happen on X299 boards but I guess if I decide to buy it then I will look for 4 slot board as with these are less problems and are overclocking better.
 
Last edited:
AMD uses all the overclocking head room for stock clocks. I'm glad Intel leaves ~500Mhz overclocking head room. Intel just makes me feel better with overclocking also stock performance.:D
 
TDP doesn't mean real wattage. All processors are marked as 65, 95, 125, 140W,... but under full load some are showing higher or lower wattage. Intels were usually showing a bit lower wattage than TDP, AMD were usually showing higher wattage ( not a rule ). It's just hard to believe that +/-4 cores give the same wattage. When you check Intel offer then often i3 have the same TDP as i5 and i5 have the same TDP as i7. The same 6, 8 and 10 cores have sometimes the same TDP ( check Xeons ).
1700X under load is passing 110W while it's 95W TDP CPU. At 1.25V it's still passing 95W TDP ( hwinfo64 is showing up to 105W ) while it supposed to be Ryzen 1700 voltage which is 65W TDP CPU. So in real how far is real wattage from TDP on R7 1700 ?



I'm not expecting to see motherboards cheaper than X99 so they will be really expensive as usual.
I have no idea what about threadripper but if it won't overclock better than current ryzen then it's not interesting at all for me. Intel chips have 4.5GHz turbo so will make at least 4.5GHz on better cooling and all cores. This is what I need but 12c+ chips will be too expensive. I was counting on 12-16c ryzen while we got 8c max what's totally disappointing, especially they're almost not overclocking.

The only thing which is annoying in every single Intel X series chipsets are problems with memory slots and "missing" memory. Every single X58, X79 and X99 which I was using had problems with that and forums are flooded by issues regarding memory problems. I hope it won't happen on X299 boards but I guess if I decide to buy it then I will look for 4 slot board as with these are less problems and are overclocking better.

See this is exactly what I was concerned about. Pricing and mem issues. Here's to hoping the X299 boards don't yank my wallet clean. I'm still on the fence about my upgrade.
 
First post :D

Pretty excited about this release myself!

I see a lot of comments about pricing being way off base for intel. For the last year the only 10 core option was $1600-$1700 for consumer cpus. Now for that price you can get a 14 or 16 core with better ipc and likely high overclock headroom so what is the problem with pricing? I am personally not going to invest in a $3000 hedt because I only game but I don't think it is a bad deal..

The performance gap between intel and amd has narrowed and the pricing seems to have followed suite as well.

I have 2 small children so my pc often gets pushed pretty far south on the priorities list so I'm pretty excited to see how this release from both teams affects the used parts market. My mobo is begging for an unlocked CPU!
 
Back