It's not going to matter anyway, unless one's running W10, Linux or Macs.
Loyal Windows 7 users will be out of luck with this one, Intel posted months back that they'd stop support for 6th gen CPU's with any OS less than W10, so with that OS still carrying over 50% of the market share, this will be no big deal.
95W TDP max? Does this mean the 130W 6 & 8 core CPU's won't be included with this release, or will Intel skip 7th gen upgrades for these? Or will desktop quads be watered down further, and it'll be 95W TDP for the 6 & 8 core models? Moore's Law is most certainly dead at Intel, fortunately it's just getting hot with the GPU industry. The problem will become CPU's being the bottleneck for these ultra high powered GPU's come another 2-3 release cycles.
Which will make the cost of new sealed, 3rd & 4th gen CPU's higher than when first sold. Got to have some die space to have serious power, 5GHz CPU's should be standard equipment by now (w/out OC). Things took a turn for the worst first in 2004 when Intel hit 3.8GHz on H/T chips, then backed off due to cooling issues, when they should had worked around the clock to get the cooling right, screwed up priorities. Then we had a few stagnant years, and AMD forced Intel to rize with the best of the Core 2 & Quad series, along with 1st through 4th gen i series, and for a glimpse in 2012, it was looking like 4.5-5Ghz was on it's way, then dropped once again. Even notebooks were running up to 3.4-3.6GHz in Turbo Mode, just didn't make it to 4.0GHz (except enthusiast editions in limited numbers).
I have spent a lot of cash the last 10 years in trying to keep up, only to have less power & performance with the latest, so maybe it's time to start looking as others, for the most 'bang for the buck', it's certainly not at Intel anymore, though once was. I have only one AMD PC in my arsenal, and the 2012 model FX-6300 runs at 3.5GHz (native) for only $89.99 shipped for a 6 core CPU. An Intel 'budget' 6 core CPU that runs at 3.3Ghz costs $300 more. This is what things are boiling down to, what is Intel giving us for our money? We throw cash their way year after year & they in turn look to water down performance, for the sake of profit alone (overseas labor in sweatshops) & who's proving they're using conflict free materials? Intel could care less about us & the world we live in. They can do better, and Intel has the tech to release 5GHz quads with the 7th gen if they wished, yet it's not going to happen until consumers (mainly enthusiasts & system builders) boycotts a release or two, then Intel will give us the power & quality we crave (& pay for) again.
Plus Intel boxed CPU's should come with a certificate that these are built with 100% conflict free materials, in the form of a legal document. We should force Intel to get out of the slave business completely, I'd gladly drop $350 for a 100% US produced CPU, as long as the other conditions are also met (more power for our cash).
My hard earned cash from here on out is going to who's giving me the most for my money, even if that means purchasing earlier & more powerful Intel CPU's, or AMD CPU's for half the price or less that's not quite as powerful as a whole, yet more powerful for the dollar spent. Who's going to notice $1 per month on the electric bill? Maybe those running a 24/7 folding@home client will, yet they also want more power to produce more PPD.
BTW, few seems to have issues with paying less per GB for more SSD performance (& Intel keeps their prices higher than most for less performance), so that's an alternate way of looking at the issue. It's time to cut the cord & stop throwing cash into an empty pit expecting more & it's not there, exactly what many said about Microsoft & Windows 8.1 (which won't be compatible with these CPU's, nor will W7).
CatEdited by cat1092 - 6/14/16 at 2:32am