Review Index:

Intel Core i7-6950X 10-core Broadwell-E Review

Author: Ryan Shrout
Subject: Processors
Manufacturer: Intel

Testing Setup and SiSoft Sandra

For our review of the Intel Core i7-6700K, we updated our entire suite of CPU benchmarks and thus we have a new set of results to present. We are continuing that with the Core i7-6950X. 

Test System Setup
CPU Intel Core i7-6950X
Intel Core i7-6700K
Intel Core i7-5960X
Intel Core i7-4790K
Intel Core i7-4960X
Intel Core i7-4770K
Intel Core i7-3970X
Intel Core i7-3820
Intel Core i7-3770K
Intel Core i7-2600K
AMD FX-8350
Motherboard ASUS X99-Deluxe II (Broadwell-E)
ASUS X99-Deluxe (Haswell-E)
ASUS Z170-Deluxe (Skylake)
Intel DZ87KLT-75K (Haswell)
Intel DX79SR (Sandy Bridge-E)
ASUS 990FX (Vishera)
Memory 16GB DDR4-2133
8GB DDR3-1600
Storage Corsair Force GT 120 SSD
Sound Card On-board
Graphics Card AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB
Intel HD 530
Intel Iris Pro 6200
Intel HD 4600
Intel HD 4000
Intel HD 3500
AMD 7660G
Graphics Drivers Catalyst 15.12 (AMD)
Power Supply Corsair RM1000x 1000 watt
Operating System Windows 8.1 Pro x64


SiSoft Sandra 2013 SP3a

The latest version of SiSoft Sandra offers up a lot of new features including GPU performance, OpenCL, etc. 

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

Our synthetic performance tests start off very well for the Core i7-6950X, resulting in scores that are 29% faster than the 8-core 5960X and nearly 50% faster than the Core i7-6700K Skylake processor. Memory performance doesn't increase much as we are still dealing with a very similar quad-channel DDR4 configuration on the same X99 motherboards. 

Video News

May 31, 2016 | 02:22 AM - Posted by Chaitanya (not verified)

Too expensive compared to xeons of same price range.

May 31, 2016 | 10:08 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

At soviet Intel, chip buys you!

May 31, 2016 | 03:03 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Precisely, comrade!

May 31, 2016 | 02:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

the top frequency bin 10c xeon from last gen went for over $2000...

June 4, 2016 | 07:37 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

yeah but it is a xeon, has xeon features.

I would get the xeon counterpart over this i7, because of price.

would love to see a direct comparison between the xeon mentioned in this review and the i7 even overclocking!

June 6, 2016 | 08:29 PM - Posted by jihadjoe (not verified)

The workstation-y E5-2687W V4 is only around ~$420 more and has 12 cores, ECC and dual socket support. Clocked decently high too. 3GHz base, 3.5GHz turbo.

May 31, 2016 | 02:40 AM - Posted by Carl (not verified)

Huge disappointment, now I know why intel laid off so many people, the profit per performance metrics just dried up on it. I would not be surprised if the next tic or toc was under 15% improvement on performance. Sure most people just are not buying new pc's all the time now but this will not even get people who need xeons to be tempted to try it.

May 31, 2016 | 02:52 AM - Posted by biohazard918

That price is just depressing.

May 31, 2016 | 02:54 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Whinning at at 1700$ CPU after playing with yourselves on a 700$ mid range graphic card.

I guess intel saw that every nvidia price hike was welcomed by the "objective tech sites" and decided to apply the same multiplier to its own prices.

560Ti (250€) --> 680 (450€) --> 980 (550€) --> 1080 (790€)
All Hail nvidia ! They're so good I'm happy to give them money !

990X (1000€) --> 3970X (1000€) --> 4960X (1000€) --> 5960X (1000€) --> 6950X (1800€)
Greedy Intel !

May 31, 2016 | 06:15 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

lol comparing $700 to $1700 for a component

May 31, 2016 | 06:57 AM - Posted by Prodeous13 (not verified)

Why are you comparing a 560Ti to a 680. where is the 580? and 780?

This is more a curiosity as I generally agree with what you have said.

Still, performance per Watt, Nivida had AMD beat. Intel simply due to is near monopoly (and hole P4 fiasco forcing companies to either get only Intel or loose major discounts - then settling with AMD out of court for 1.4billion) is doing every one a disservice.

I'm hoping Zen will bring AMD on par with current Intel desktop offerings (6700), then intel will finally have to adjust it "fair" prices.

on GPU front, AMD is simply aiming low for the mid range to get more market share. Hope they succed.

My 290x seems to by dying, which is kind of good. Would gladly upgrade to 480x when it comes out. Though the 1070 does look delicious...

May 31, 2016 | 11:36 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It's completely reasonable to compare a 560 Ti to a 680 and 980 when it's in the succession of upper-mid-range chips: Gx104. The 580 and 780 are larger chips in the Gx100 class. The Gx104 chips are around 300-400 mm^2 in size and the Gx100 chips are 500-600 mm^2. Since the smaller chips yield better and more fit on a wafer, they ought to be cheaper.

Here's the midrange chip succession of the past few generations:

GF114 -- GTX 560 Ti -- 360 mm^2 -- 40nm process
GK104 -- GTX 680 -- 294 mm^2 -- 28nm
GM104 -- GTX 980 -- 398 mm^2 -- 28nm
GP104 -- GTX 1080 -- 314 mm^2 -- 16nm

May 31, 2016 | 09:12 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Except you're completely ignoring the cost of moving to a new fabrication size... The jump from 40>28nm required an initial price increase, and AMD did the same. 20nm never matured so we stayed on 28nm and prices only increase a bit as the chip sizes grew massive.
14/16nm is still not great yields for GPUs, even small ones, so the price is needed. You also don't seem to understand that price is based on PERFORMANCE, not based on physical aspects, if AMD and Nvidia only sold their chips based on physical costs, their previous line of chips would instantly become obsolete and no longer sell.

The 1080 gives you twice the performance of a 980 for a small bump in price. If you think that's a rip off, you're pretty crazy.

May 31, 2016 | 09:15 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The 1080 is 580€, why are you intentionally lying about the price?
And the 980 launched at 493€.

May 31, 2016 | 02:56 AM - Posted by Jann5s

I think the vishera perf/dollar really highlights the difficulties of current gen Intel. Money is required to push barriers which is incredibly difficult to find on a shrinking market.

May 31, 2016 | 03:07 AM - Posted by Irishgamer01

Crasy at the moment!

Now you see what AMD's failure has done.
God knows what intel will do when AMD finely goes.
(Polaris failure may be what sends AMD over the edge.)

It seems Intel is intent on biting the hand that feeds it too.
What next?

May 31, 2016 | 09:29 AM - Posted by patrickjp93 (not verified)

prices are dictated by market demand. Even monopolies are susceptible to microeconomics. There is an optimal price to selling every product imaginable based on the cost of production and the demand of that product which produces the most total profit for the producer and seller. The truth is those in need of a 10-core processor are very few and have money in the first place. The 6-core options are still good with a very solid price relative to the 4-core I7s.

Intel's prices for other products won't be going anywhere even if AMD does fully die out. Otherwise they'd have moved significantly by now.

May 31, 2016 | 03:56 AM - Posted by Hakuren

Typical corporate thinking. As a de facto monopoly Intel can do whatever they like. 'Don't like it - GTFO!' I bet that this particular credo is somewhere on the wall inside one of many Intel buildings.

At this moment in time I think even most intelish fanboiz crossing fingers for AMD to deliver something worthwhile with Zen.

Give me a break. 1700$ for a consumer CPU which is just binned Xeon with raised clock? You have to be daft to infinity. To be honest I considered 1400-1500$ a reasonably decent value for 20 threads, but this. LOL Intel outdid themselves, making something far more expensive that infamous Skulltrail Fail.

Comparing Intel prices and nVidia is not even apples to oranges. 980 is trounced by 1080. 6950K does not offer twice and a bit performance boost over previous CPU king.

May 31, 2016 | 09:31 AM - Posted by patrickjp93 (not verified)

Nope, that's just niche supply and niche demand from a very wealthy market segment. Intel builds the products best suited to target markets. That's the main reason it is such a successful business. Intel is not a charity and nor is it being ludicrous with pricing. Extreme processors aren't meant to be at mainstream prices. They are meant to be sold to the very wealthy ultra enthusiasts. Get the 6850K or the 6800K if you want to be cheap.

May 31, 2016 | 04:11 AM - Posted by Penteract (not verified)

Sure makes that $1000 8-core version look reasonable!

Well, maybe not. :D

May 31, 2016 | 02:24 PM - Posted by Shambles (not verified)

So basically it's the cpu equivalent of the Titan.

May 31, 2016 | 04:41 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You could replace every reference to this CPU with the GTX 1080, and the conclusion would still be true.

At least this pricing gives AMD's Zen some room to breathe. 8 core Zen won't need to worry about competing with this chip; as long as it's vaguely competitive with Intel's 8 cores, AMD can make some money.

May 31, 2016 | 08:23 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Since oil kings lost their dollars, AMD lacks cash to develop good products... so for now AMD cheerleaders should better invest in vaseline to be prepared to the Zen attitude. :o)

May 31, 2016 | 09:17 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The 1080 is $600, it's twice the performance of a 980, which is around $550 right now and has HALF THE RAM, and not even GDDR5X. People really need to start understanding math better.

May 31, 2016 | 05:14 AM - Posted by BGrizzle (not verified)

Remember when, 2600k?

May 31, 2016 | 11:08 AM - Posted by funandjam

The 2600k is what I'm still rocking!

May 31, 2016 | 05:50 AM - Posted by LEDLEDLEDLEDLED (not verified)

Lol i couldn't believe when it was rumored to be $1500 but lol 1700 that is $700 for 2 cores peoples :P

May 31, 2016 | 05:56 AM - Posted by Prodeous13 (not verified)

I'm surprised that Blender was not tested for rendering.

Still looking at the general rendering performance, especially Cinebench on this and other sides, makes me drool.

A dual socket E5-2670 with 8core with HT each. So in total 16 core/32 thread system performs on par with overclocked 6950x with 10 core/20 thread.

Though for the price of one 6950 you can get 2 of the e5-2670 systems..

Still hoping to see more rendering benchmarks (hoping for blender, but that is selfish a bit :))

May 31, 2016 | 08:44 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Let's hope that more of the Blender workloads have shifted to being done on the GPU, what with AMD's GCN GPUs getting cycles rendering support along with Nvidia(had Cycles support for a long time), the GPU has way more cores than any CPU, including the Xeon Phi! I'll bet that future GPUs will be getting more CPU types of functionality so the need for any powerful/budget busting CPUs like the 6590X will not be needed for any rendering workloads. Just look at AMD's FireRender/FireRays 2.0 open sourcing of the software/SDK libraries for ray tracing accelerated on the GPU, so maybe there will be some Blender Plug-ins for FireRays 2.0! All this fuss about some paltry 10 cores on a CPU when the GPU has hundreds/thousands of cores.

Wait for Polaris/Vega and see just how much more async-compute features that “GCN 4/GCN 1.3” is going to have. The software/driver stacks are going to need some time to catch up to all the hardware and graphics API changes for GPUs, and how the Vulkan API is going to figure into the Blender workflow pipeline in the future is still very much an unanswered question. OpenGL is still getting support for the graphics software API to utilize, but that may all change with some OpenGL to Vulkan wrapper code and software tool chains/conversion layers to allow for developers of packages like Blender/others to seamlessly port their software over to the Vulkan API over time. Both Vulkan and OpenCL use SPIR-V, so more acceleration of the ray tracing workloads will be done on the GPU and not dependent on any costly CPU SKUs as much for ray tracing workloads.

May 31, 2016 | 10:08 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

What you really want to see is some of AMD's HPC/Workstation APUs on an Interposer and the HBM2 memory getting the JEDEC standard 1024 bit wide traces/channels per HBM2 stack to maybe even 6 stacks of HBM2 Memory! And that includes a big fat Vega GPU on the interposer package, wired up to the 16/32 Zen cores with some very wide CPU/cores die to GPU die interposer etched interconnect fabric that will put any PCI/NvLink technology into the dark ages by comparison! That is before the Zen/Navi based APUs on an interposer arrive and raise the bar even higher for rendering workloads. Those standard Quad channel DIMMS are still nowhere compared to the amount of raw effective bandwidth of HBM, and when HBM2 arrives that raw effective bandwidth will double, and the HBM2 stacks will get up to 8GBs of memory per stack.

Intel will never be able to offer the GPU power of AMD, or Nvidia, for those workstation rendering workloads done on a big fat GPU. And with AMD putting a Vega GPU on the interposer module with some Zen cores and HBM2, well that's going to be a rendering beast that no old fashioned CPU to GPU over narrow PCIe connection will match.

May 31, 2016 | 09:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Because Blender isn't an industry standard, very few CG professionals will touch Blender because of how much it tries to be different for the sake of being different instead of for the sake of good workflow. It also doesn't have as proper and large of a development team behind it and lacks a lot of fine tuned capability the industry likes.

Redshift is becoming king of the hill when it comes to GPU rendering right now, would have been good to see a bench for that.

May 31, 2016 | 06:59 AM - Posted by Master Chen (not verified)

It's...not very good (for that money, that is).

May 31, 2016 | 01:17 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Like missiles it cost a lot but can destroy your enemies!

That's too much to achieve a man on the floor (AMD).

May 31, 2016 | 07:33 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Its who fault that they aint making profit when they try to milk the market for the past 5 years. And now they want to try even more. You probably need to laid even more staff.

Well done. I hope u laid more ppl and lay waste to yourself Intel.

May 31, 2016 | 09:33 AM - Posted by patrickjp93 (not verified)

Intel's profits are higher than ever, and this isn't milking the market. It's segmenting the upper crust of enthusiasts. The extreme processors have always gone to the wealthiest enthusiasts who will try to set records on anything.

When AMD was competitive, it sold $1000, $1200, and even $1500 extreme processors too.

May 31, 2016 | 06:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Intel makes way more money gimping down the core i7s to some UltraBook UltraCrap U/M series SKUs and selling the i7 name. And Intel gets more of those dual core i7 U/M castrated SKUs per wafer than any of its quad core variants, but still charges more for the dual core i7 variants to all the UltraBook fools out there that have bought into that Apple influenced thin and light laptop cult mantra.

What an Intel scam of scams is that Intel financed Ultrabook initiative, and the fools that will pay even more per CPU core than on any other consumer market segment of Intel SKUs. Intel has made billions selling those dual core i7s U/M series SKUs, and the supply chains are choked with those Ultrabook SKUs shoved into poorly ventilated and crappy laptop cases and sold at the highest margins possible for such a crappy and underpowered class of Laptop SKUs. On top of that Intel serves up its dog food brand of integrated graphics, and only reserves its top pedigree dog food graphics for its most costly SKUs, netting Intel even more billions from the fools that think they are getting something other than a load of overpriced SOC dog food.

The only metric Intel has going for is its single CPU core IPC metric, and the only reason gamers want some of Intel's CPU only SKUs is that they can get the CPU cores without eating any of that Intel Graphics dog food. So Intel will continue to stick it to its CPU cores only Gaming/enthusiast customers, much the same way that Nvidia can to its GPU customers.

With the newer gaming APIs able to do more multicore load sharing across the CPU's cores, and even more so, move a lot more of the Gaming compute/gaming graphics fully onto the GPU, Intel will still be trying to push the single core IPC metric in order to get the fool's money. Zen is coming, and if Zen can even approach the Haswell level of single core IPC performance at AMD's more affordable price point then those high margin Intel CPU days are coming to an end. Any Zen based APUs will not be coming with any overpriced dog food integrated graphics, they will be coming with AMD's latest GCN graphics and be a much better price/performance choice with way more asynchronous compute ability in their GPU ACE units.

$1700.00+ dollars for 10 cores, LOL the fools that will fall for that are going to be very angry in the very short time up until Zen is on the market and that $1700.00+ investment looks so bad in comparison to what the market will be charging, once those 8 core ZENs start to show up on NewEgg/other outlets' supply chains.

June 12, 2016 | 01:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That, my friend, was a high-quality rant. Nice!

But, seriously, tell us how you REALLY feel...

Heh heh.

May 31, 2016 | 08:13 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It is time for nVidia to make an offer on AMD processor business...

May 31, 2016 | 09:41 AM - Posted by zgradt

Face it. It's time to upgrade your version of Handbrake. Those results are totally irrelevant.

May 31, 2016 | 09:48 AM - Posted by G.Onen (not verified)

These Broadwell-E prices are ridiculous. Even Nvidia only reaches this level of rapacity with their Titan cards. Intel is displaying increasingly monopolistic behaviour with both high-end consumer CPUs and datacentre parts. But they have failed to provide a viable answer to the approaching all-out assault from ARM based products. That's where Intel's real competition will come from in the future, and they seem unlikely to be able to meet it.

May 31, 2016 | 09:52 AM - Posted by cyberwire

typo/copypasta error on the OC results page?

Stock: 2551.23
4.3 GHz: 338.89 FPS
14% increase

May 31, 2016 | 10:11 AM - Posted by Jet Fusion

It's like those medicine that really cost $30 being sold for $850. It has nothing to do with supply and demand or expertise. The price is the result of corporate bozo's just trying to see how far they can go till it hits the barrier of negativity.
When people and corporations massively stop paying these prices and publicly give them the finger things might change.

May 31, 2016 | 01:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Nobody forces you to buy overpriced products...

So deal with it, it is a free market!

Currently with the slowing world economy Intel prefers to rise their margins instead volumes. It is a wise strategy since AMD is near from bankruptcy.

May 31, 2016 | 10:21 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have to say the amount of info and content out there for the other new Broadwell-E CPUs is pathetic. How long have reviewers had these CPUs to test? Or did they not all get the full line up to test?

Or are reviewers as bored as most people with this new launch?

It seems like Haswell-E clocks better and has better temps overall.

May 31, 2016 | 11:50 AM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Intel only sampled the flagship.

May 31, 2016 | 10:58 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Price cut when they realize they gave out more review samples than people actually bought?

May 31, 2016 | 12:15 PM - Posted by sixstringrick

If the 10 core was only $1200-1300, it might be a viable option, but not over $1700

May 31, 2016 | 01:09 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Clearly Intel don't aim the average Joe market...

May 31, 2016 | 01:10 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

edit: doesn't

May 31, 2016 | 04:31 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Its worth $1000 just like every other extreme CPU

May 31, 2016 | 12:31 PM - Posted by remc86007

At $1700, isn't it cheaper to buy a dual socket board with two 6 core parts?

I miss the CPU wars of a decade ago. I hope zen is something worth replacing my 4770k with.

May 31, 2016 | 09:10 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If it isn't worth it to upgrade your 4770k to SkyLake, then it probably isn't going to be worth it to upgrade to Zen either. I was still using a core 2 duo laptop up until recently, and it did everything I wanted it to fine. Most general use applications just do not need that much processing power.

May 31, 2016 | 01:01 PM - Posted by GPeterson (not verified)

So with overclocking, Broadwell-E on average basically offers around the same per core performance, and no better?

I guess the "sweet spot" is probably still a the 6 core model. Something we've had around for several generations now. If you can call a $617 CPU a sweet spot.

May 31, 2016 | 01:53 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

As a mere mortal and gamer, I'm much more interested in how the Broadwell-E 6850k and 6800k compare to the Skylake 6700k than I am about the 10 core/20 thread behemoth.

I'm hoping to see PCPer do some gaming benchmarks that compare these platforms in the near future, especially for slightly older titles that aren't necessarily written with much multi-threading in mind.

May 31, 2016 | 02:26 PM - Posted by Mutation666 (not verified)

They only had the 1 sample, I am sure more reviews are to come. I love how TTL was pushing the 6850k over 6800k,not worth it IMO considering its only more pcie lanes.

May 31, 2016 | 02:26 PM - Posted by Mutation666 (not verified)

They only had the 1 sample, I am sure more reviews are to come. I love how TTL was pushing the 6850k over 6800k,not worth it IMO considering its only more pcie lanes.

May 31, 2016 | 03:59 PM - Posted by docace911

Anyone see benchmarks in modern games with a 1080?

I am considering upgrading from a 970 -> 1070/1080. However I am still on an i7 3770k @ 4.1. Wondering if that and the 1600mhz ram is limiting me.

So skylake would be easy upgrade - or the 6 core would not be that muchi more here with the 28lanes of PCIe..

May 31, 2016 | 03:37 PM - Posted by Butthurt Beluga

I remember seeing people talk about the 1499 MSRP rumor for the 10c/20t CPU and saying, "It's not going to be that high. It's going to be $999 just like the previous gen."
Lo' and behold, it's more than anyone could have anticipated.

Nothing short of a scam, please Zen don't be Bulldozer2.0

May 31, 2016 | 06:21 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Do you know the Murphy's law?

By some vaseline while you can afford it. :o)

May 31, 2016 | 06:22 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

edit: buy

May 31, 2016 | 04:30 PM - Posted by Terje Presthus (not verified)

DO you need an older CPU to update the bios or can you update the bios with this new CPU installed?

June 3, 2016 | 12:48 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Contact you motherboard manufacturer.

May 31, 2016 | 05:59 PM - Posted by Lucas O (not verified)

Holding pattern for Zen... The lack of competition in this market is really showing.. Or what we're seeing is the real devaluation of the USD.. You guys are printing money like nVidia and Intel make new chips..

really make you think doesn't it...

May 31, 2016 | 06:18 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Even with EUR or GBP it won't be significantly cheaper...

May 31, 2016 | 06:27 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

$1700? You could get a *cough**cough* dream gaming PC for that, with cash left over for some Steam credit. I guess this part is not intended for me.

May 31, 2016 | 06:28 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Alright, maybe only 'high end', but still - better than my trusty old Thuban rig..

May 31, 2016 | 09:36 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

This illustrates why Intel doesn't want to be in the GPU market. The 1080 is actually a big chip for 16 nm, but Nvidia has to sell the GPU, plus 8 GB of new, super high speed memory on a PCB with an expensive cooler for $700. Intel gets $1700 just for a bare CPU. I would of guess that the die size for this CPU is similar to the 1080 GPU. The problem with not wanting to be in the GPU market is that the consumer market is quickly merging with the GPU market. Mobile will probably be going mostly APUs. There is quite a bit of power savings to have everything on one die. I don't know how acceptable APUs will be in the desktop market, but an HBM based APU could be a very powerful device. Intel does not have a competitive GPU at all. The stuff with on-package didn't fair too bad, but that was comparing an Intel 14 nm device with an AMD 28 nm device. Intel GPUs will not be able to compete with AMD or Nvidia 14 or 16 nm devices. Intel may have a lot of competition in the enterprise market also. Power processors and Nvidia GPU compute are going to be very competitive for HPC. There is also possible AMD HPC APUs and possibly ARM server processors. The new ARM core is only about 0.65 mm2 die area on 10 nm. They could put a large number of cores like that on a die with a huge L3 cache and have a very high throughput server device.

June 1, 2016 | 01:40 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have $156,000 in the business bank account ready to purchase 100 of the through the channel. We'll be selling them for $1750+ and using them in my company's Pro Workstation 3 Desktops. They will pair well with the $4000 Quadro's that we will using.

Fuck yeah, America. And keep crying, all your low energy, aids Skrillex and Bernie Bot Cuck tears taste so yummy. So salty. MMMMMMM

#PoorPeopleSuck #Trump2016 #PeasantsOnPCPer

June 1, 2016 | 02:06 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Here's your reply

June 1, 2016 | 11:46 AM - Posted by Thedarklord

Anyone else feel like Intel is milking this CPU generation as much as possible until AMD releases Zen?

I think the pricing should have been;
10 Core = $1000
8 Core = $750
6 Core = $450
6 Core = $250

I hope that the prices change when Zen is released...

June 1, 2016 | 05:49 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'll wait for zen and go for it, whatever it is. Boycott whoever play the monopolistic game proudly as Intel is clearly doing.

June 2, 2016 | 08:36 AM - Posted by robert kisielewski (not verified)

well, greed has no limits.
and lack of actual competition as well :)
i agree with above, until AMD has some competing products ...
intel can drag their feet, milk the cows, and act basically
like comcast in that onion video spoof ....

"we don't give a f....", what are you gonna do ? ...etc. etc. etc.

sorry Intel, love your products butz ...something doesnt add up
I can get three i7-6700k and still be under $1000.
so don't bullshit that its a cost ble ble ble ...3 freaking skylakes ....still cheaper than one 10-core CPU ...
at least CEO, COO, CFxxxO will get the bonuses :)

June 2, 2016 | 02:04 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For the price of one private jet you can get many compact cars without being able to reach half of the sound speed...

What are you trying to demonstrate?

June 3, 2016 | 03:50 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Except the right analogy is between a Ferrari and whatever muscle or sports car is in the same price ratio, your private jet example is stupid like you.

June 3, 2016 | 10:27 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Does it change anything (the best performance for the worst price) in the logic? No.

Insulting people doesn't make you right either.

June 10, 2016 | 03:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If Intel could lower the price of the I7 6950X from 1700 to 1000 then the entire line is approx 47% overpriced......

Just saying.................

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.