ASRock reveals Intel Broadwell-E desktop CPU lineup

ASRock appears to have blown the cover on Intel's entire Broadwell-E CPU lineup today. In a press release we received today, the company touted its readiness for the new chips and confirmed that the Core i7-6950X will be a 10-core, 20-thread part. It also advised owners of its X99 motherboards to apply firmware updates in preparation for the as-yet-unnanounced Core i7-6900K, Core i7-6850K, and Core i7-6800K.

Those model names all comport with a leaked Broadwell-E CPU lineup obtained last year by Chinese hardware site Xfastest. If that site's info is correct, the Core i7-6800K and Core i7-6850K will both be six-core, 12-thread chips, while the Core i7-6900K will be an eight-core, 16-thread part. Details of these chips remain scarce, but when they launch, they may be among the worst-kept secrets in recent memory.

Owners of ASRock X99 mobos can prepare for the impending launch of these parts by heading over to the company's X99 lineup page and navigating to the download page for their particular motherboard model.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 4 years ago

    I like to think ASRock leaking Intel’s lineup ahead of launch is their (minor) revenge for Intel killing non-K overclocking on Skylake.

    • flip-mode
    • 4 years ago

    Comport? Cool word, bro.

    Edit: I am sad to see not enough love for m-ATX in Asrock’s X99 lineup.

    • Chrispy_
    • 4 years ago

    As always, the benefits of the latest generation outweigh the increased cores and reduced clocks of the previous generation.

    For 99% of gamers and enthusiasts (and even a high percentage of workstation users) four fast efficient Skylake cores are going to provide a better experience than 6-10 slower, lower-IPC cores from the previous generation.

    Literally the only case for more, lower-IPC cores these days is software rendering and simulation, both of which are markets being eaten from the inside out by GPU compute that is vastly faster and more power-efficient. One could argue that you need more cores if you’re hosting multiple VMs but if your VM hosting requirements are high enough that a Xeon or X99 processor is faster than a Skylake i7, you are probably also in need of a Xeon server with more RAM support than X99 can provide, as well as a SAN fabric or storage subsystem that surpasses what is commonly available/affordable for an X99 platform.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 4 years ago

      Meh Intel is monopoly and evil and don’t give muh twenty coar 6 GHz even though they could 20 years ago!

      • blastdoor
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]Literally the only case for more, lower-IPC cores these days is software rendering and simulation, both of which are markets being eaten from the inside out by GPU compute that is vastly faster and more power-efficient.[/quote<] I run a lot of Monte Carlo simulations and GPU compute doesn't help me one bit. The GPU is just too limited in what it can do, and programming it is too burdensome, at least for my work. But maybe I'm a niche within a niche within a niche....

        • Chrispy_
        • 4 years ago

        No, that’s [b<]exactly[/b<] the sort of niche I was talking about - simulations. GPU compute is definitely starting to be the preferred choice for many simulations - weather, fluid, mechanical prediction sims for example, but I can't ever imagine all the pure math or theoretical science simulations to be well suited to GPU compute. Sure - as the simulation market matures and more applications for GPU-based simulations increase the market size, the [i<]relative size[/i<] of the math/science sim demographic decreases, but you'll still need CPU compute because a GPU (at least the way today's GPU architectures exist) is the wrong tool for the job.

          • blastdoor
          • 4 years ago

          Well, for my work 8 Nehalem cores running at about 2.2 GHz isn’t too much slower than 4 Haswell cores running at 4 GHz. I bet 8 Sandy Bridge cores running at 2.6 GHz would be faster for me than the fastest 4 core CPU on the market today. Of course, power consumption can’t be ignored…

            • Chrispy_
            • 4 years ago

            This is part of the problem unfurtunately. Whenever Intel adds more cores they also have to dial back the clockspeed.

            I’ve been faced with the few-core/high-clock or many-core/low-clock dilemma even for simulation and rendering workloads, simply because even in some of these multi-threaded applications there’s still an IPC bottleneck somewhere. There’s definitely a place for more cores AND higher clocks which is why we’re getting plenty of mileage out of the X99 workstations.

            For our rendering (not simulation workloads), testing with Haswell-E samples led me to buy 3.5GHz 6C/12T instead of the 3.0GHz 8C/16T, and that was down to performance not cost.

      • WelshJester
      • 4 years ago

      As usual people talk as if Skylake is much faster than HW-E/BW-E when it’s not, some games benefit a bit from the extra IPC yes but more than 50% of games don’t. Overall there isn’t a lot between them in IPC, and in video editing the x99 will stomp on a z170 setup and other multitasking.

      There’s also a good chance with rumor that cannonlake will go 6 cores for mainstream next year, what with Zen catching up close to Intel’s latest they might well do. Besides, IPC gains have slowed a lot lately.. Between BW-E & Skylake there might only be a 5% IPC difference. Hell it’s below 10% between Skylake and Haswell overall.

      How exactly does 4 “fast cores” benefit people over 6 slightly slower cores? multitask with running a game and the 4 core will choke, under normal circumstances of running things i bet nobody would notice the difference if you let them use an x99 setup and then a z170 for gaming.

    • seekmore
    • 4 years ago

    More of the leaked data could be also found on these, for Intel i7 6950x: [url<]http://www.comparecpus.com/en/intel-i7-6950x-processor/model-353-0[/url<] , for Core i7-6800K: [url<]http://www.comparecpus.com/en/intel-i7-6800k-processor/model-408-0[/url<]

    • bfar
    • 4 years ago

    Isn’t there an 8 core Zen touted for mainstream? Wouldn’t that pull the floor out from beneath the entire HEDT lineup?

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      only if it performs as well as a 8/10 core intel and was cheaper
      in which case ill buy it

      but i doubt it

      going by the past every time AMD makes something as fast or faster than intel they price it similar as the same performance of an intel cpu, so if its as fast as an 8 core intel it will be priced like one too

        • kmm
        • 4 years ago

        Doesn’t seem like a stretch now to predict “not as fast but cheaper”, so yes taking some market share but not pulling the floor out from the whole market.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]Isn't there an 8 core Zen touted for mainstream?[/quote<] I'm not seeing it on sale anywhere. [quote<]Wouldn't that pull the floor out from beneath the entire HEDT lineup?[/quote<] Sure. If its price and performance make the HEDT line unattractive. We'll know once TR and other reliable sites post the reviews.

      • maxxcool
      • 4 years ago

      Only if it were 20% cheaper than the non-extreme i7…

      • smilingcrow
      • 4 years ago

      AMD have had an 8 core mainstream CPU for ages so that in itself is not a big deal.
      This time though I think it will be a grown up 8 core and won’t be running around the school playground wetting it’s shorts whenever someone mentions gaming and i3; at least I hope so.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 4 years ago

      Yes, but by the time it’s out, Intel’s “-E” parts will surely be up to at least 12 cores, which is at least 50% higher than 8 cores. When that line debuted with Sandy Bridge-E, it only sported six cores, which was 50% more than the status quo quads. Throw in the IPC advantage that Intel will almost surely have and Zen might be competitive, but it won’t “pull the floor out”.

      Also, there are rumors that we’ll get 8-core parts for 10nm Cannonlake (which is the perfect time since it’s only a tick). That’ll be shortly after Zen drops (assuming no Zen delays), so Intel will probably be in good shape.

    • tsk
    • 4 years ago

    That 6950x sure is tempting!
    *Throws money at the screen*

      • tsk
      • 4 years ago

      Everytime I realize all I use my X99 system for is rocket League and browsing the web, I die a little on the inside.

    • mtruchado
    • 4 years ago

    They use also this occasion to present their new lineup of Braswell MoBo’s with the latest stepping:

    [url<]http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp?s=Intel%20CPU[/url<] Good to see that now Biostar is not the only provider to offer these new refreshed Braswell cpu's I can't wait to check the new Pentium Processor J3710 capabilities

    • Bensam123
    • 4 years ago

    Six core i7 for $300… please?

    • Kougar
    • 4 years ago

    Really hoping what happened with the Q6600 happens again with the 8-core Intel parts. The Q6600 originally launched at $851, was cut to $530 later on, then dropped again to under $300.

    If the 6900K is another ~$850 part, there are good odds the 7000 generation could have a ~$550 8-core chip in it.

      • Krogoth
      • 4 years ago

      Not likely going to happen.

      There’s no mainstream demand for 6+-core CPUs and AMD isn’t trying beat Intel to the punch. The 8-core and 10-core SKUs are going to be cream-of-cream, halo products just like the previous 6-core i7 chips.

        • Kougar
        • 4 years ago

        These are not mainstream or consumer chips though, these are prosumer chips that a lot of professionals would gladly buy for the additional cores. Just because prosumers aren’t vocal in enthusiast circles doesn’t mean the demand isn’t there.

          • Krogoth
          • 4 years ago

          Prosumers are willing to pay current price levels for those chips so Intel has no incentive to drop prices.

          The real reason why Q6600 prices drop like a rock back in the day was because Intel was trying to steal AMD’s thunder with original Phenom chips a.k.a their first customer-tier quad-core chips.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 4 years ago

            Yeah, the competitive landscape is different from that time.

            Intel no longer needs to be so aggressive with intergenerational discounts/refreshes.

            We probably won’t ever see something like the famous G0 Q6600.

    • hansmuff
    • 4 years ago

    Was any of this actually new?

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      it was all rumor before now

    • f0d
    • 4 years ago

    i think i have found the replacement for my 3930k…………….

    • bthylafh
    • 4 years ago

    ASRock’s business model seems to include hacking off Intel, these days.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, I bet they are massively in the dog house with Intel.

        • Flatland_Spider
        • 4 years ago

        Money makes a lot of things better. As long as they are sending lots of it Intel’s way, I doubt they would be too mad.

      • anotherengineer
      • 4 years ago

      I thought Intel made the decision not to make motherboards anymore?

      That’s what happens when you have to rely on 3rd parties 😉

      • DrCR
      • 4 years ago

      I’ve never been inclined towards ASRock’s offerings, but their chutzpah is starting to make me appreciate them more.

        • Waco
        • 4 years ago

        Their workstation / low end server boards are actually quite nice.

        • ChicagoDave
        • 4 years ago

        I built three z97/haswell systems using ASRock mobos and none have had any issues. Certainly not a definitive statement on their quality, but I’ll likely buy from them again once Kaby Lake/z270? arrives

      • lukart
      • 4 years ago

      I think just trying to be more user friendly ahaha 🙂

    • Tristan
    • 4 years ago

    Let ASrock reveal something about Zen, if they know it.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      AMD’s Q1 earnings call is April 21st after the markets close. If they can’t give a more concrete launch schedule for Zen then I would be worried. Keep in mind that nobody at AMD has ever made the specific statement that Zen has taped out, but they did make that statement for the Polaris GPU chips…. last year (and Polaris is still likely a June launch).

        • faramir
        • 4 years ago

        Which is perfectly in line with the anticipated release schedule (paper launch in late 2016 for desktop CPUs, actual product in stores in 2017, APUs to follow later).

        Zen will be ready right before Vega.

    • Taxythingy
    • 4 years ago

    That’d be a Core i7-[b<]6900K[/b<] with the eight cores, btw. Otherwise, cool! Too bad the asking price on them will rule me out.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 4 years ago

      Oops, fixed.

      • CampinCarl
      • 4 years ago

      Hopefully they’ll bump the eight core part down, and leave the 10-core as the ‘halo’ at $1,000.

      I can only hope!

        • chuckula
        • 4 years ago

        It’s an interesting portent for what Intel thinks of Zen.
        No price cuts and the new 10 core part is well north of $1,000? No fear.
        Highest end part is $1K with lower prices at the low-end? Maybe Intel thinks Zen is serious…. maybe.

          • Takeshi7
          • 4 years ago

          Whether Intel takes Zen seriously or not, they don’t have to change their pricing structure until Zen is actually available on the market.

          • Sahrin
          • 4 years ago

          This is the same company that responded to the K8 with the $1000 Pentium 4 Emergency Edition CPU.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            AMD also had their $1000 FX cpu

            [url<]https://techreport.com/review/10073/amd-socket-am2-processors/2[/url<] Athlon 64 FX-62 2.8 GHz 2 x 1024 KB 125 W $1,031

            • Kougar
            • 4 years ago

            There was the $1k FX-62 as f0d says.

            After that don’t forget AMD is the same company that responded to Intel’s Conroe by trying to push its dual-socket “4×4” platform. Buy two FX-74 chips for $1k and a dual-socket motherboard just to sometimes beat the QX6700, and the power consumption be damned.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This