Intel download page reveals Broadwell-E Core i7-6950X

Rumors surfaced last year that Intel was preparing new Extreme desktop processors built on Broadwell-E silicon. Now that Intel has released its Broadwell-EP Xeon lineup,  it appears those desktop chips may not be far behind. An Intel documentation leak more or less confirms that a Core i7-6950X will top the Broadwell-E desktop lineup. According to the leaked page, that part will have 25MB of cache and Turbo clock speeds up to 3.5GHz.

While no other new information about the Core i7-6950X emerged today, past rumors have suggested it'll be a 10-core, 20-thread chip. Gigabyte previously confirmed that it'll be supporting desktop Broadwell-E with a BIOS update, and MSI has also announced firmware support for the new chips in a press release. We'll report more specifications when desktop Broadwell-E parts get an official launch and the Core i7-6950X's product page is live.

Comments closed
    • Ninjitsu
    • 4 years ago

    I wonder if we’ll see a bump in core count with the Kaby Lake generation, too? Not holding my breath, to be honest, but could be an interesting way to justify a third generation on the same socket (if it is the same socket).

    • vargis14
    • 4 years ago

    I would take this platform and CPU over my 2600k but since I cannot afford it now and the 2600k still has enough power in another year might have a Core i7-7950X… the years just keep going buy on my 2600k…I thank my lucky stars to this day.

    I still want one:) along with the baddest 14/16nm GPU’s once they arrive.
    But want and need are 2 different things.

    This Intel Core i7-6950X might last 5+ years like my 2600k.

      • biffzinker
      • 4 years ago

      But are you running any software that would utilize 10 cores let alone 8 cores or even 6 cores? Isn’t single thread IPC still the metric everyone should be paying attention to over core quantity?

        • Deanjo
        • 4 years ago

        [quote<]Isn't single thread IPC still the metric everyone should be paying attention to over core quantity?[/quote<] No. Not at all. Pretty much all of my uses on the PC for example benefit from core count more than single thread IPC. Everyone isn't using their PC for just word processors, web browsers and games.

          • biffzinker
          • 4 years ago

          Yes I acknowledge not everyone is using their PC for only programs centered on single threaded tasks such word processing etc. I should of included in my first response, outside of a Enterprise/High Performance Computing/Data Center/Render Farm setting.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            There are plenty of uses for high multicore count outside of Enterprise/High Performance Computing/Data Center/Render Farm.

            Video encoding, multi-media creation (anything adobe, 3dmax, maya, blender, CAD/CAM etc), analytics, compiling for programming, running VM’s, even items like media streaming benefit from more core count.

            Hell my father slams 8 cores to max just running his lotto analysis programs for hours on hand.

        • Krogoth
        • 4 years ago

        This is true for mainstream users and gamer that make up the majority of the users out there. It is a different story for prosumers and enterprise types. They may need a balance of the two or just many cores as possible depending on the workload in question.

        • Solean
        • 4 years ago

        I’m rocking an Intel i7 980X (first i7 HEDT processors) overclocked from 3.3 Ghz to 3.7Ghz.

        Only in newer games like Dragon Age: Inquisition I can see all my cores (6 cores, 12 HT, 12MB cache) used, but all in the range of 50-70% utilisation. So I’m not CPU bottle-necked.

        I could do with a newer i7 I suppose, if I’d won the lottery I guess, only for newer chipset stuff: USB 3.0, SATA 3 and SATA express, those M2 PCI SSD stuff, and probably for some faster BlueRay ripping to MKV format.

        I’m also rocking a GTX 980ti, 24GB 1600Mhz DDR3 RAM and various SSDs (one being a Kingston PCIex HyperX, this thing is fast I just don’t miss the SATA 3 connections).

        Honestly, I believe my system can take on newer games on High/Ultra settings on 60FPS.

        I see no reason to upgrade this year.

        —-
        I’m new to this forum, be gentle with me.

          • trek205
          • 4 years ago

          If you are thinking you are not cpu limited due to the amount of cpu usage then you are doing it wrong. You are not even close to getting all of what a 980 ti can do in some games with that old cpu as MOST games need a very fast 4 cores or less. In games like Fallout 4 you cant even maintain 45 fps in the cpu heavy parts with what you have and a 6700k would murder that cpu. Heck even the first Crysis game you would be dropping into the 40s in the cpu limited areas as that game only effectively uses 2 cores.

      • gmskking
      • 4 years ago

      My 2600k is doing just fine by me. I do not plan to upgrade for a few years at least.

    • Neutronbeam
    • 4 years ago

    So this should be announced at the end of next month?

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      I would put the earliest date at around May 31, which is the first day of Computex 2016.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 4 years ago

        6950x….

        -exposed

        Sup?

    • chuckula
    • 4 years ago

    So these chips are effectively the same silicon as the smallest chip-size that Intel just debuted with Broadwell EP. The “small” chip in the Broadwell EP line is about 246 mm^2* with up to 10 cores and 25 MB of L3 cache.

    For perspective, that die area is just a hair larger [about 1mm^2] than a Kaveri APU part, and only about 13.9% larger than the desktop Sandy Bridge parts from 2011.

    Obviously the per square-millimeter price of silicon on 14nm is higher than these older chips, but remember that Intel has wiggle room on pricing these parts should it become necessary next year.. just in case Zen turns out to be what AMD is hoping for.

    * [url<]http://hothardware.com/reviews/intel-xeon-processor-e5-v4-family-debut-dual-e5-2697-v4-with-72-threads-tested?page=6[/url<]

      • Spunjji
      • 4 years ago

      Sounds like a mighty fine reason for enthusiasts to wait for Zen before dropping cash on this platform. For businesses the case is probably a little different, though.

    • Bauxite
    • 4 years ago

    I know they are unlocked, but the stock clocks are a joke. The 22 core turbos to 3.6 ffs! Also wtb 16xx xeons, like say 1699 😉

      • Chrispy_
      • 4 years ago

      The vast difference between stock and turbo clocks on a Xeon is due to a different set of criteria that a rackmount 1U server has over a gaming desktop that the i7-6950X is intended for.

      Realistacally, whenever the E-series get repurposed into extreme i7 variants, they always up the TDP and base clocks to cater to the target audience, who care far more about performance than power efficiency.

      For a Xeon, the best power efficiency is at the base clocks, spread across all threads.
      For an i7 running overclocked alongside multiple high-end GPUs, nobody cares about power efficiency, ever.

      • Krogoth
      • 4 years ago

      It is because there isn’t enough thermal headroom to go around with a fully enabled 22-core die. You are going have to resort to exotic cooling if want high-clock speed with those 22 cores and I’m willing to beat that will gulp power down like candy. It is similar to the 6-core Gulftowns back in their heyday.

    • Firestarter
    • 4 years ago

    These numbers have apparently been sorta confirmed by MSI, according to computerbase.de

    Core i7-6950X 10 / 20 3,0 / 3,5 GHz 25 MB DDR4-2400 140 W
    Core i7-6900K 8 / 16 3,2 / 3,7 GHz 20 MB DDR4-2400 140 W
    Core i7-6850K 6 / 12 3,6 / 3,8 GHz 15 MB DDR4-2400 140 W
    Core i7-6800K 6 / 12 3,4 / 3,6 GHz 15 MB DDR4-2400 140 W

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This