Intel readies Core i7 2700K to spoil AMD's FX launch party

By on September 19, 2011, 6:00 PM

This one somehow slipped through our radar but it seems Intel will have a new high-performance socket LGA1155 processor out in a few weeks to try and spoil AMD's much anticipated FX Series launch. The upcoming chip was disclosed earlier this month in the latest material deceleration datasheet (MDS) document as BX80623I72700K, from which we can deduce the SKU as Core i7-2700K, and carrying the spec code SR0DG.

There's not much information available in the way of specs, but given the i5-2000 and i7-2000 series are spaced in steps of 100MHz, we expect the 2700K to carry a clock speed of 3.50 GHz with 3.90 GHz Turbo Boost. This would effectively make it the fastest non-extreme Sandy Bridge desktop processor Intel offers. Like other i7-2000 series processors, this one should also sport four cores, Hyper-Threading and 8MB L3 cache.

Anandtech speculates that the pricing for the i7-2700K will be roughly $317, displacing the Core i7-2600K from its current price point. The latter could then be priced down closer to the ~$265 launch price expected for the FX-8150, and we wouldn't be surprised to see it released just around the time AMD flips the switch for its FX range.

Last week, the first three AMD FX Series CPUs went up for pre-order at online retailer Shopblt.com. The lineup included the six-core FX-6100 and two eight-core models, the FX-8120 and FX-8150, priced at $189, $222, and $269 respectively.

By comparison, the Intel Core i7 products that they're supposed to go against with, include the Core i7-2600 and low-power 2600S, both priced at $294, while the unlocked Core i7-2600K for currently goes for $317. Intel Core i5 2500 chips are priced between $205 and $216, with speeds up to 3.3/3.7GHz and no Hyper-Threading support.




User Comments: 31

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

AMD spoils its own launch parties.

Muggs said:

Guest said:

AMD spoils its own launch parties.

I loled especially since I read it as Lunch parties.

EXCellR8 EXCellR8, The Conservative, said:

ha... lunch

i want some ivy bridge, soon anyways...

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Given the amount of Intel fanboyism around here, I'm also surprised it slipped under TechSpot's radar.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

lmao, amd getting trolled by intel.

venomblade said:

So this is just like AMD releasing a black addition exactly the same but 100mhz more? So I should just get a 2600k and OC it instead of get this?

Guest said:

I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?

Lionvibez said:

Guest said:

I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?

What the hell are you smoking?

SammyJames said:

Guest said:

I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?

I'm not arguing with you. I would like to hear more from you or from others who have knowledge of how these processors truly work.

I'm in the business of trying to get my PC to run DAW (digital-audio workstation) software properly. Sometimes it can be touch-and-go. As far as doing "one thing well," that is exactly what I need -- unless you interpret this as one TYPE of thing.

In my case, I need processors that can handle thousands of audio samples at once, while simultaneously running special effects (like reverb, delay, chorusing, et cetera) and synthesizer software. It needs to keep everything in lock-step sync, with no stutter, no distortion, no dropouts, et cetera.

Now, I can pretty much DO this using my Q8200 Intel. But I need a more powerful processor, because I want to be able to run the system at 64 buffers all the time. There ARE times when this is easy to do, and others when it becomes impossible. One song that I created caused crashing at 64 buffers, because I was using all kinds of crazy reverbs and intricately-sampled instruments.

Is AMD really better? Is Intel really better? Does the processor really matter THAT much, apart from how "fast" it is? And with today's non-FSB technology, aren't both companies offering similar goods?

Really. If anyone can explain this, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thank you.

soliozuz said:

Why do I feel like that Intel is more like Kanye West and AMD is kind of like Taylor Swift?

Yo AMD, I'm happy about the upcoming FX and I'mma let you finish, but Intel has had the best processors of ALL-TIME!

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Really. If anyone can explain this, I'd appreciate it a lot.

Thank you.

What has been surmised about AMD's new Bulldozer cpu's that are to be released in October sometime is that will be very good for multi-threaded applications.

As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing. And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.

RH00D RH00D said:

soliozuz said:

Why do I feel like that Intel is more like Kanye West and AMD is kind of like Taylor Swift?

Yo AMD, I'm happy about the upcoming FX and I'mma let you finish, but Intel has had the best processors of ALL-TIME!

I always love seeing this Kanye West reference in action.

SammyJames said:

Route44 said:

What has been surmised about AMD's new Bulldozer cpu's that are to be released in October sometime is that will be very good for multi-threaded applications.

As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing. And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.

Hey -- thanks. That helps a lot. I was so focussed on performance alone that I forgot about price/performance. I agree that AMD does seem like they are trying to make the world a better place -- at least, for electronic musicians.

The multi-threading thing is interesting to me. There was a time when hyper-threading on an Intel could have spelled disaster for guys like me -- because the software wasn't written with it in mind. But these days, most music production applications are written to take advantage of multi-core and multi-threading processing.

Later.

war59312 said:

Kanye West is an *****!

There, I said it!

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Guest said:

I don't see how, or why this matters. Intel are server chips, truncated.. meant to run bisness software.

Has nothing to do with home pc use, as the "speed" they are talking about in in single threaded BAPCo apps. Intel's $300 cpu are worthless to home owners, unless they need a business cpu that does 1 thing fast.

Otherwise why gimp ur rig with intel?

Because I want my solitaire game to boot up really fast. I mean REALLY fast.

Guest said:

I have never padded Intel's profits by paying their absurd premium markups and not about to start now

I will be scooping up AMD's FX flagship when it's released

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

As for the i7 2700K I do find it interesting that Intel now is trying to price point their latest offerings more akin to AMD's pricing.

That's pretty much how things stand now as far as mainstream price/performance stand. AMD were probably hoping to dovetail the FX series between Intel's SB offerings (price and performance) - they probably would have expected Intel to ratchet up heat also (bearing in mind that a bog-standard forum member surmised as much back in March) , but whereas Intel have wiggle room for pricing (smaller die, more mature process, closer to recouping ROI for Sandy Bridge), AMD have less margin for error.

The 2700K will be nothing more than a re-labelled 2600K ( + 1 bin ), and is obviously going to market specifically to top the highest SKU FX, with the 2600K duelling with the same FX part on a similar price point. From Intel's point of view this would make sense as it removes a degree of ambiguity in review conclusions if the pricing (CPU's and platform) is near identical.

What remains is what software is used in the reviews, and to a lesser degree, power usage and overclocking.

And before anyone accuses me of any fanboism I run both AMD and Intel.

Thats OK, they can accuse me of fanboyism instead (Intel and Intel)...no problem there. Performance gets my money, not performance with an asterisk. If BD brings a good game, I'll gladly ride the bandwagon too...if not, well there's always Piledriver I guess...

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

dividebyzero said:

Performance gets my money, not performance with an asterisk. If BD brings a good game, I'll gladly ride the bandwagon too...if not, well there's always Piledriver I guess...

+1

Arris Arris said:

Ok, so this is going to OC exactly the same as the 2600K. Sounds like AMDs Black Edition badging to me and not a new product. Given that I've had my 2600K running at 4.7Ghz before I feel there is plenty of headroom for intel to release new products for a while before having to release Ivy Bridge. At least another GHz worth of "new" chips in the from the 2600K yet.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Ok, so this is going to OC exactly the same as the 2600K.

Yup.

The 2700K isn't an upgrade for 2600K. Since CPU's get comparison reviewed at stock clocks, it effectively adds a small performance increase for the sake of reviews. For the potential customer the only difference being that 2600K's offer a reasonably wide variance in overclockability. Later batches, which would include 2700K, are better overclockers on average than early batch releases, which would increase your chances of having an OC friendly chip. The max multiplier is still 57.

Guest said:

Hmmmm, so judging by this and the leaked prices for FX 8150, maybe there was something to that rumour going around overclock.net that clock for clock Bulldozer barely beats Phenom 2 and loses in a lot of applications. Lets certainly hope so, otherwise competition is dead in the CPU market.

TekGun TekGun said:

If they drag it out any longer it will be Ivybridge spoiling the party.

godrilla said:

But can it oc to 8.4 ghz with 2 cores and helium cooling?

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

But can it oc to 8.4 ghz with 2 cores and helium cooling?

Proverbial silver lining !

Hopefully AMD package each FX CPU with a DICE/LN2 pot, some knead eraser, neoprene and a tub of dielectric grease.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

dividebyzero said:

Thats OK, they can accuse me of fanboyism instead (Intel and Intel)...no problem there. Performance gets my money, not performance with an asterisk. If BD brings a good game, I'll gladly ride the bandwagon too...if not, well there's always Piledriver I guess...

+2

Guest said:

SO if the HD3000 graphics are barley adequate for low end gaming, and the new part is, *at most* 60% better, then how the hell does it do 4k x4k.

And of course Intel is going to swat the AMD fly, its smaller shares of a smaller pie for both from now on. Unless they get in the mobile market, all growth has been sucked out of the mainstream Pc market. Beware ! The SUN rises in the East More power to your L-Bow.

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Proverbial silver lining !

Hopefully AMD package each FX CPU with a DICE/LN2 pot, some knead eraser, neoprene and a tub of dielectric grease.

Z! LOL! Seriously, though, I appreciate your straight forward opinion and information because even though you are an Intel guy you'll give it straight without any sugar coating. In other words, if Intel has weaknesses and issues you'll say so and if AMD has some virtues you'll say so.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

@Route44

Cheers for the thoughts.

I have owned AMD platforms in the past, but since Core 2 I've been exclusively Intel ( tho' I do build AMD rigs for customers).

I've worked in two of the three best kitchens in my country. Chefs stand or fall on their ability to deliver on the (menu) promise and to meet, or excel, the level of their last service. Prevarications, proviso's, excuses and extentuating circumstances have no place in a pro kitchen.....When I see them wheeled out in other businesses I tend to give them the same short shrift. I own no stock in any company, nor any have any personal allegiences to a brand. For me it's all about following through. As the saying goes; "Talk is cheap".

Guest said:

More than half of AMD fanboys are cheapskates that can't be bothered with buying a new motherboard when they buy a new CPU. Isn't that the opposite of an enthusiast? If so, why does anyone care about what they have to say about anything?

Fanboy = the ridiculous ability to ignore a better product.

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

More than half of AMD fanboys are cheapskates that can't be bothered with buying a new motherboard when they buy a new CPU. Isn't that the opposite of an enthusiast? If so, why does anyone care about what they have to say about anything?

Fanboy = the ridiculous ability to ignore a better product.

That's it. Hide behind "Guest" setting. Troll somewhere else as you let mommy and daddy buy your parts for you; you haven't a clue. And while we are at it I have heard from many Intel fanboys complain loud and long about Intel always releasing new sockets.

Using your formula: Fanboy = Buying whatever Intel tells me to because they are my god even if it means my newest socket isn't even a year old.

And as I said earlier I run both Intel and AMD so no fanboism here. In fact I have two brand new Intel systems in the house now.

Guest said:

I'm running AMD atm (fanboy alert!!!)

No really, I'm running AMD because when I built my pc, I had to pay it all by myself.

At an age of 16 it isn't easy to built a decent pc because of a tight budget and with the budget I had I couldn't get what I wanted (dam those things aren't cheap)

But now I'm 17 and working (weekend work) so my budget is a bit more higher so I'm waiting for the releases of the fx series and when those suck, I probably make the transition to Intel. If they don't suck (don't have to be the best of the best => why would I build a overkill pc?)

All what matters is price/Quality ratio => you pay for what you get, BUT sometimes you want to keep it as cheap as possible (without loosing to much performances)

and atm my amd rig is doing his job great (I'm a student applied informatics so it's being used for programming and sometimes for photoshop projects.

btw my laptop is Intel ;) => had some problems with sucky amd laptop cpu's so never again

If there are errors is this text => don't shoot me , english isn't my native language.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.