Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
yogibbear wrote:Maybe they are dedicated to pushing this for a future console? :/
yogibbear wrote:Maybe they are dedicated to pushing this for a future console? :/
The Egg wrote:I'm not sure what market they're aiming for either. For starters, these chips are notably more expensive for Intel to produce. By making them BGA/embedded-only, they're cutting out most of the desktop market, yet 65W is way too high for a mobile chip. They'll almost certainly be used in iMacs and similar-type all-in-one's (as Mr Funk mentioned on the front page), but I'm not sure the market is big enough to justify the investment. Maybe they're also destined for NUCs, or some other new type of desktop segment?yogibbear wrote:Maybe they are dedicated to pushing this for a future console? :/
No way. The margins on console CPUs are razor-thin, plus current consoles are using weak Atom-class CPUs and large separate GPUs. The complete opposite of these.
whm1974 wrote:NUC Steam Machine?
The Egg wrote:whm1974 wrote:NUC Steam Machine?
Um.....integrated graphics and no PCIe slot = perfect dedicated gaming box?
Maybe in 5 years if external GPUs take off, but that has no bearing on what they're doing now.
NTMBK wrote:They're made for the iMac. Any other sales are a nice bonus.
The die is too long to fit in an LGA1151 socket.
The Egg wrote:yogibbear wrote:Maybe they are dedicated to pushing this for a future console? :/
No way. The margins on console CPUs are razor-thin, plus current consoles are using weak Atom-class CPUs and large separate GPUs. The complete opposite of these.
whm1974 wrote:No thoughts?
The Egg wrote:Maybe they're also destined for NUCs, or some other new type of desktop segment?
NTMBK wrote:They're made for the iMac.
just brew it! wrote:Gotta be aimed at high-end mobile workstations. Big-a** laptops for doing CAD work and such.
Flatland_Spider wrote:whm1974 wrote:No thoughts?
I think you're being rather desperate by bumping the thread.
whm1974 wrote:From reading this off the Front Page:
http://techreport.com/blog/30075/intel- ... o-graphics
Socketed versions of these CPUs will make a good fit for the Mini-STX(5x5) form factor Intel has been promoting. Since they don't have a PCIe x16 slot for a graphics card. So why did they released 65W TDP CPUs in BGA format? This doesn't make any sense.
What do you guys think?
BurntMyBacon wrote:whm1974 wrote:From reading this off the Front Page:
http://techreport.com/blog/30075/intel- ... o-graphics
Socketed versions of these CPUs will make a good fit for the Mini-STX(5x5) form factor Intel has been promoting. Since they don't have a PCIe x16 slot for a graphics card. So why did they released 65W TDP CPUs in BGA format? This doesn't make any sense.
What do you guys think?
You'll have to wait for the "C" version. Though, Intel may hold off on those until just before Kaby Lake launches.
whm1974 wrote:BurntMyBacon wrote:whm1974 wrote:From reading this off the Front Page:
http://techreport.com/blog/30075/intel- ... o-graphics
Socketed versions of these CPUs will make a good fit for the Mini-STX(5x5) form factor Intel has been promoting. Since they don't have a PCIe x16 slot for a graphics card. So why did they released 65W TDP CPUs in BGA format? This doesn't make any sense.
What do you guys think?
You'll have to wait for the "C" version. Though, Intel may hold off on those until just before Kaby Lake launches.
And like Broadwell, it will be too late and hard to find.
the wrote:I don't think there will be a SkyLake 'C' part.
Rather I'd expect Kaby Lake-C or Cannon Lake-C parts to be released to consumers on socket 1151.
Kougar wrote:the wrote:I don't think there will be a SkyLake 'C' part.
Rather I'd expect Kaby Lake-C or Cannon Lake-C parts to be released to consumers on socket 1151.
Hmm, after seeing your post I think I agree. It gives Intel something to do for Kaby lake as well as make for a way to distinguish as an upgrade over Skylake. Intel basically made Kaby-lake up out of thin air so they have to justify it as a successor over Skylake somehow, particularly since it won't have a process node shrink to rely on. Another 0-5% perf improvement alone won't cut it.