Overclock.net banner

[VideoCardz] Intel preps dual-core i3-7360X for X299, but why?

7K views 108 replies 64 participants last post by  SpacemanSpliff 
#1 ·
Quote:
This is a really bizarre processor. A platform that is designed for high-performance computing might soon get a new CPU… with two cores.

The i3-7360X is a HEDT alternative to i3-7350K, which, by the way, will soon be succeeded by 8350K.

The specs of this new processor are not overwhelming. It's only 100 MHz faster than 7350K. The turbo clock is 4.3 GHz. The TDP though, skyrockets to 112W.

According to the leaker, the i3-7360X is 1.25% faster than 7350K. The price of 7360X is expected around 1699 Yuans (220 USD), so it's not cheap.
Source.

The i5-7640X is already bizarre; if this one is actually released we need a new word to describe it.
 
#4 ·
Or just buy a Ryzen 3 CPU and have basically the same features for a fraction of the cost. I really don't understand what Intel is doing with the "low-end" of X299. Why even have a mainstream lineup if they're doing this?
 
#5 ·
Intel is trolling and it's working
 
#6 ·
Okay, I still love dual cores, but this makes absolutely no sense at all, lol...

I totally see the point of the i7s as a stepping point or for those of us who prefer lower core counts and higher clock speeds with the ability to upgrade later, but this is definitely strange.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Okay, I still love dual cores, but this makes absolutely no sense at all, lol...

I totally see the point of the i7s as a stepping point or for those of us who prefer lower core counts and higher clock speeds with the ability to upgrade later, but this is definitely strange.
Yes, the i7-7740X is still defensible, it has a relevant number of threads for gaming, has the highest IPC, arguably overclocks better than SB (symbolism is important), and can be used to achieve world record overclocks more easily than on the mainstream Z270.

But the i5-7640X? Some games already need more than it can deliver. And overall, this represents Intel going backwards. Never has Intel had an i5 4C/4T CPU on the enthusiast platform before since they created it back in 2008 with the X58 platform. It's taking prestige away from the platform for no good reason.

It's already bad enough that the i7-7740X, unlike all the first gen quad core i7's, SB-E and IB-E quad cores, doesn't have support for the main platform features, such as triple and quad channel RAM and 36 / 40 lanes of PCIe connectivity, but then you go and have an unprecedented quad core i5, no HT and 6 MB of L2 cache? Why? Anybody wanting to reach a world record can surely afford the extra $100 for the i7, and that's if they are not sponsored anyway; besides, the i7 will most likely be better binned and if the absolute highest clockspeed is the goal, one can always disable HT and cores to get the equivalent of the i5 or the i3.

And then we have this i3.

Who are these things for? I could understand limited edition runs of the i5 and this eventual i3 for world record / LN2 events and such, but seeing the i5 on the shelves in stores around the world as if it was normal doesn't make sense. This doesn't even pass as Intel trying to provide more options after years of stalling because of lack of competition; it simply doesn't make logical sense. I can't find an angle where the i5 makes sense and of course the i3 is just bonkers.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

And then we have this i3.
That's literally the only thing I can justify as well, overclocking records possibly due to X299's better power delivery.

Otherwise, there's no point to this thing. It would be like Intel bringing back a Netburst Cedar Mill P4 "limited edition nostalgia" CPU for X299 so people can get ridiculous overclocks from it...
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

And then we have this i3.
That's literally the only thing I can justify as well, overclocking records possibly due to X299's better power delivery.

Otherwise, there's no point to this thing. It would be like Intel bringing back a Netburst Cedar Mill P4 "limited edition nostalgia" CPU for X299 so people can get ridiculous overclocks from it...
Yeah, they could put a meme on the box saying: "Now with over 9000 Mhz".

(The highest overclock if I'm not mistaken was achieved with a Prescott based Celeron, in the 8 Ghz region).
 
#18 ·
'This looks great, can't wait to pair it with a rampage extreme board, some trident RGB RAM and a titan xp along with some added RGB'- linustechtips
 
#19 ·
We will eventually get the entire Kaby Lake lineup on X299
rolleyes.gif
 
#20 ·
These i3's have to be exceptionally binned, such that suckers can be enticed to adopt X299 just for 5.5GHz on air. The other salvaged chips have no chance of sticking, so they will be demoted to Z370.
 
#21 ·
I wanted an overclocked i3 back in 2011. Not only are they extremely silly now, but they're big bucks lol.

Even the 7350k I can snag at MC for $130 and I won't touch it. IMO The G4560 steals the show for intel.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slomo4shO View Post

We will eventually get the entire Kaby Lake lineup on X299
rolleyes.gif
I think it would make more sense then to create an LGA-2066 to LGA-1151 adapter. It's got a 1151 socket on it and plugs in to a 2066 motherboard. That way Intel doesn't need nearly as many chips.

I've got one for LGA-775 to Socket 478 actually. I need to acquire a board at some point for it.
 
#23 ·
What's the problem here if true
Highend should have whole line up
Leaves room to eliminate mainstream platform because mobile devices are becoming the go to for quick and easy tasks
You can even do simple cad.drawings on your phone now

Be nice to actually just have 1 socket for everything eventually
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by pas008 View Post

What's the problem here if true
Highend should have whole line up
Leaves room to eliminate mainstream platform because mobile devices are becoming the go to for quick and easy tasks
You can even do simple cad.drawings on your phone now

Be nice to actually just have 1 socket for everything eventually
Problem: sockets are differentiated because it makes sense to do so. Intel's LGA-3647, designed for multi-socket systems and six memory channels per CPU, is distinct from the high-power LGA-2066 for (mostly) quad-channel HEDT processors, and very distinct from the mostly-sub-65W LGA-1151 platform which supports dual-channel memory in addition to integrated graphics. It would be incredibly silly to try to unify all of these, and small form factor options such as mini STX (5" x 5" socketed mobo) simply couldn't exist. Others such as mini ITX would be nearly impossible, and micro ATX would become more expensive and challenging. Above all you don't even benefit much. Because the CPUs' features are so distinct, a particular board would be oriented towards a particular platform. Alternatively a crapton of money would be spent to support all CPUs, but it'd be a jack of all trades/master of none situation.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by pas008 View Post

What's the problem here if true
Highend should have whole line up
Leaves room to eliminate mainstream platform because mobile devices are becoming the go to for quick and easy tasks
You can even do simple cad.drawings on your phone now

Be nice to actually just have 1 socket for everything eventually
The problem is that they're useless. They have NONE of the features of HEDT, they can't use quad channel RAM (stuck at dual channel), can't utilize 128GB RAM capacity (stuck at 64), doesn't have the 28 or 44 pci lanes of other chips (only 16), etc... and has ALL of the drawbacks like higher TDP, more expensive motherboards (which is why "eliminating the mainstream platform" is a TERRIBLE idea, as everyone would be forced into ~$200+ minimum board pricing since it's far higher cost to make X299 than Z270 etc.. not to mention how it'd cost more to produce tiny 2/4 core chips on a huge LGA 2066 package)

And while yes you can do VERY simple CAD work on a mobile chip there is still a need for much more powerful systems. Not everything is a "quick and easy task". These Kaby Lake-X chips are literally pointless, they have no advantages over regular Kaby Lake except slightly higher OC capacity since they can suck more power; and have every downside of both Z270 "AND" X299. That's not a good combination. If they had released a quad core chip that had quad channel memory, 28 pci lanes etc..etc.. then nobody would really be complaining.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkIdeals View Post

The problem is that they're useless. They have NONE of the features of HEDT, they can't use quad channel RAM (stuck at dual channel), can't utilize 128GB RAM capacity (stuck at 64), doesn't have the 28 or 44 pci lanes of other chips (only 16), etc... and has ALL of the drawbacks like higher TDP, more expensive motherboards (which is why "eliminating the mainstream platform" is a TERRIBLE idea, as everyone would be forced into ~$200+ minimum board pricing since it's far higher cost to make X299 than Z270 etc.. not to mention how it'd cost more to produce tiny 2/4 core chips on a huge LGA 2066 package)

And while yes you can do VERY simple CAD work on a mobile chip there is still a need for much more powerful systems. Not everything is a "quick and easy task". These Kaby Lake-X chips are literally pointless, they have no advantages over regular Kaby Lake except slightly higher OC capacity since they can suck more power; and have every downside of both Z270 "AND" X299. That's not a good combination. If they had released a quad core chip that had quad channel memory, 28 pci lanes etc..etc.. then nobody would really be complaining.
Do keep in mind that TDP is not power consumption but rather what the system is designed to dissipate. In some sense a high TDP is an advantage. There's no way a 4.3GHz dual-core is actually pulling 112W stock. Back in 2005 with the Pentium D, sure, but not in 2017.

But if you stick this under water...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top