Intel announces its first i7 8-core Extreme Edition processor

Intel is placing some bets that the desktop PC isn't dead yet by announcing plans to release new processors made for those products; they include the company's first Core i7 chip that will have eight cores and 16 threads.

Intel's press release reveals that the new Core chip will be the latest in the company's Extreme Edition family and should be out by the second half of 2014. The chip will support the new DDR4 memory standard. Aside from that, Intel didn't offer any more information on the processor, including its clock speed and price.

Intel's upcoming "Devil's Canyon" processor.

The company also revealed it will launch an unlocked fourth generation Core processor with the code name "Devil's Canyon" in mid-2014. Intel stated, " ... it includes improved thermal interface and CPU packaging materials that are expected to enable significant enhancements to performance and overclocking capabilities." Again, no clock speed or prices were revealed.

For folks who love nostalgia, Intel revealed plans to release an Anniversary Edition of its Pentium processor, designed to celebrate the well know brand that launched nearly 21 years ago. Intel says this new Pentium chip will offer users " ... unlocked multipliers that allow the ability to increase the core and memory frequencies independently from the rest of the system." It's due out in mid-2014 as well.

Finally, Intel confirmed that the upcoming fifth generation Core "Broadwell" processors, with its Iris Pro Graphics, will be available in unlocked versions; no release date for the Broadwell chips was announced.

Source: Intel | Image via Intel

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Was 'Canouna' the unnamed blogger involved in the Windows 8 leak probe?

Next Story

Microsoft revamps Windows Phone Blink photo app with new look and features

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

sony and microsofts mission was not to have the strongest console with the xbox one and ps4. their mission was to have more energy efficient consoles. so any non a8 processor could almost out perform both systems. yet find a pc that uses as little power as both systems.

had AMD processors since 2003 here, someday when I can afford it will come back to Intel Processor side, and Nvidia Graphics or use the Intel Graphics for a while. Choose my latest AMD APU System since couldn't afford anything else at the time

It is a remarked Xeon.

How cute.

I wonder if I could get a 6 core cheaper? I have a 6 core now but it is old as it is a 2.6 ghz phenom II. The new AMD's are less cores, less performance, and more graphics. I have a gpu for that so I do not care and the performance boast isn't impressive. I feel the 2009 phenom II architecturally is a better cpu anyway.

So I hope the non extreme edition goes 6 core next year when I upgrade to Windows 9 ... I hope I have the dough for this.

Awesome... Desktop will never be dead so Intel should keep releasing faster processor and more GHz. This looks promising to use it for my web surfing and you tube video watching. Will buy this when price come down and then get back to my hobby of video editing.

For too long developers have been limited by the number of CPU cores available, while CPU frequencies have stagnated. While 8-core processors won't necessarily lead to significant gains in the short-term they are essential for long term performance gains, as they'll provide CPU power that can be used for AI, physics and other areas that have typically been CPU constrained.

theyarecomingforyou said,
.... 8-core processors won't necessarily lead to significant gains in the short-term they ....

With the work MS have been doing with Async in the .NET framework (and Windows Runtime) I'm thinking that we will see improvements in the short term.

Cpu only matter in multiplayer, or if you have a lot of cpu based physic. But console have mobile parts, so yeah they sucks compared to desktop but you have to cut down if you want to sell it at a lower price

My i7 920 is still going strong, don't see me upgrading my CPU/MOBO anytime soon really. I might do it 2 years from now.

...so the anniversary Pentium... Will that be an actual Pentium 1 with unlocked multipliers so we can all run Windows 3.1 at lightening speeds, or a newer chip?

well they have the Pentium Processor brand re launched as the low end and Celeron mid and the Core series high so possibly a low end Pentium that you can make awesome lol

JustAnotherTechie said,
...so the anniversary Pentium... Will that be an actual Pentium 1 with unlocked multipliers so we can all run Windows 3.1 at lightening speeds, or a newer chip?

Running Windows 3.1 on a Pentium is a waste of the processor. Windows 3.1 is 80268 optimized and 80386 optimized for the newer 32bit HD/Caching options. ;)

Still using a good old first-gen i7 processor (Xeon W3520 2.66@4.5GHz). This little as*hole is still rocking! Still super fast, very stable, doesn't run very hot (watercooled), etc.

Can't complain. The i7/i5 generation is VERY solid.

That it is. I have a 2600k @4.5ghz that is over 3 years old and I have no reason to upgrade it other than Battlefield 4 64 player matches sometimes getting upwards of 80% CPU usage. Nothing else really makes it sweat. The console CPUs not pushing any boundaries this gen is good for i5/i7 users as they can wait until consomer 6/8 core CPUs are affordable to upgrade again.

NeoandGeo said,
That it is. I have a 2600k @4.5ghz that is over 3 years old and I have no reason to upgrade it other than Battlefield 4 64 player matches sometimes getting upwards of 80% CPU usage. Nothing else really makes it sweat. The console CPUs not pushing any boundaries this gen is good for i5/i7 users as they can wait until consomer 6/8 core CPUs are affordable to upgrade again.

My i7 2600K Sandybridge box is purely a VM host, and with at least 12 of them running all the time, the bottlenecks are disk first, RAM second (my MB can only take 32GB). The CPU never struggles with whatever I throw at it.

It will absolutely decimate what is in the PS4/XBone. A quad-core 2500k at stock speeds is faster than what is in the PS4/XBone.

While it's good that Intel is now offering 8-core options, they need to offer at least 6-core for the consumer market, not just for the extreme enthusiast market. A $300 6-core solution and $500 8-core solution is sorely needed, but the lack of competition from consoles and AMD is causing the CPU market to stagnate with high prices.

True, the consoles have a more efficient way to code to the CPU, but in pure raw power a 2500k is much faster. These new Intel offerings are orders of magnitude faster than the consoles.

the ps4 and xb1 are based up jaguar, amd's ATOM competitor. they're slow as f, and garbage CPU's. they were stupid to use them, and since they're only competitive with a desktop cpu from 2009, the PC will continue to pull ahead. anyone buying either of those systems is high.

sweatshopking said,
the ps4 and xb1 are based up jaguar, amd's ATOM competitor. they're slow as f, and garbage CPU's. they were stupid to use them, and since they're only competitive with a desktop cpu from 2009, the PC will continue to pull ahead. anyone buying either of those systems is high.

You should apply for a job at Sony or Microsoft.

sweatshopking said,
the ps4 and xb1 are based up jaguar, amd's ATOM competitor. they're slow as f, and garbage CPU's. they were stupid to use them, and since they're only competitive with a desktop cpu from 2009, the PC will continue to pull ahead. anyone buying either of those systems is high.

You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?
Even on a PC, an i3 vs an i7 will give similar benchmarks for games.

You just need to get over the Android mindset. More isn't always better.

Astra.Xtreme said,
You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?

It's only pointless because Sony and Microsoft opted for relatively weak GPUs.

Astra.Xtreme said,

You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?
Even on a PC, an i3 vs an i7 will give similar benchmarks for games.

You just need to get over the Android mindset. More isn't always better.


I have the LGA 2011 i7 and i get 330FPS in World of Warcraft. Does your i3 give that?
I don't expect you to answer yes.

NeoandGeo said,
It will absolutely decimate what is in the PS4/XBone. A quad-core 2500k at stock speeds is faster than what is in the PS4/XBone.

While it's good that Intel is now offering 8-core options, they need to offer at least 6-core for the consumer market, not just for the extreme enthusiast market. A $300 6-core solution and $500 8-core solution is sorely needed, but the lack of competition from consoles and AMD is causing the CPU market to stagnate with high prices.

The more applications that make use of Opencl/HSA/Cuda the less important cpu speed will become. AMD will be able to much better compete when these technologies are commonly used in software.

Astra.Xtreme said,

You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?
Even on a PC, an i3 vs an i7 will give similar benchmarks for games.

You just need to get over the Android mindset. More isn't always better.

You are partially correct...

However, the reason the i3 and i5 and i7 can perform 'similar' for gaming is the lack of efficient multi-core/threading usage in game engines.

So when a game is using one or two 'cores' of the CPU, it comes down to single core execution speed.

The latest i3, i5, i7 have very similar and very FAST single core performance. This is why they also are significantly faster than essentially ANY AMD processor, as the single thread/core execution speed of the AMD CPU cores are quite slow in comparison.


However with the consoles, they apply different development strategies to get more work out of the additional cores. With the Xbox One specifically, they implement more advanced controllers and the OS also plays a role in execution management between the FPU/CPU and GPU cores, with the ability to shove execution to more cores and to different types of cores depending on what the systems needs in that instant. (If it was using an off the shelf variation of the AMD CPU, it would be significantly slower and not suitable for gaming.)

Riva said,

I have the LGA 2011 i7 and i get 330FPS in World of Warcraft. Does your i3 give that?
I don't expect you to answer yes.

I don't have an i3, so ummm I guess no. Regardless, it's not your i7 that's giving you those fps. That was the whole point of my comment, which you clearly missed....

World of Warcraft is a very CPU intensive game in crowded areas, FPS in that game have more to do with your CPU than GPU as there can be thousands of characters at any one time. The difference between an i3 and an i7, especially in city areas is night and day. The difference between nearly unplayable and almost perfectly smooth.

Astra.Xtreme said,

I don't have an i3, so ummm I guess no. Regardless, it's not your i7 that's giving you those fps. That was the whole point of my comment, which you clearly missed....

The faster a CPU the higher the frame rate, as the CPU needs to feed the GPU. If you was to have the fastest GPU around but only had a i3 or lower, it will severly limit the frame rate, and in many games you will not get close to half the frame rate you'd get from a i7. This is fact. Countless benchimarks show this. Anyone who knows anythings about hardware will know this.

This is why AMD made Mantle in the first place, as CPU's are a problem, they can't keep up with the latest GPU's to get the most out of them, and the CPU overhead in DirectX/OpenGL adds to this problem.

The consoles don't even have a CPU that are close to a midrange PC CPU, let alone a high-end one. Even a i3 is faster than AMD's Jaguar used in the consoles.

Yes everyone has the impression that games talk to the GPU directly. Everything goes to the CPU, the CPU does the shifting of data to RAM, GPU, Storage Bus etc.
WoW might be more CPU intensive and yes it looks pretty much the same on a £80 card and on a £600 card but the FPS is massively affected by CPU. Your GPU driver is also executed in the CPU and main RAM.

Shadowzz said,
Depends for the 2500k, PS4 and XBO offload a lot of CPU load to dedicated hardware. Unlike the average PC where these chips go in.
That doesn't make their CPUs any more powerful though, i.e. on an actual CPU-bound computation the difference in raw numbers will be there.

Half the tasks can be offloaded but you're still stuck with a game barely achieving 30fps or a hideous juddering image due to having an unlocked framerate that hovers from the 20's to the 40's. The CPUs are grossly weak and no amount of optimization will turn netbook CPUs into anything close to an i5/i7. Raw performance would be meaningless if the CPUs were close to being equal, that is not the case.

Astra.Xtreme said,

You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?
Even on a PC, an i3 vs an i7 will give similar benchmarks for games...

You obviously don't realise there is a difference between CPU intensive games and GPU intensive ones. Your i3 will not give similar FPS in many RTS games and MMORPG games.

Wam7 said,
You obviously don't realise there is a difference between CPU intensive games and GPU intensive ones. Your i3 will not give similar FPS in many RTS games and MMORPG games.

Why do you and other people think I have an i3?
Reading comprehension...

sweatshopking said,
the ps4 and xb1 are based up jaguar, amd's ATOM competitor. they're slow as f, and garbage CPU's. they were stupid to use them, and since they're only competitive with a desktop cpu from 2009, the PC will continue to pull ahead. anyone buying either of those systems is high.

But, we saw what happens if you try to sell a $600 console (Sony) or one that runs too hot (360). Raw power isn't everything. Allegedly neither console is subsidized this go around, either. Add ~$200 to the launch prices of the 360 and PS3 for their estimated true cost! I wouldn't pay $600-800 for a console!

Shadowzz said,
Yeah but raw performance is meaningless if on one machine half the tasks can be offloaded to other dedicated chips.
Not in general. The co-processors in Xbox One and PS4 are special purpose processors that do specific tasks like audio processing, video encoding, moving commands around, etc. This makes up for a slower CPU only to the extent that a significant portion of your time would actually be spent on these particular tasks. You couldn't, for instance, increase the precision or breadth of your simulation. A CPU that's four times faster allows you to do anything you want with the available processing power.

Astra.Xtreme said,

You do realize that an overly powerful CPU is pointless in a gaming console, right?
Even on a PC, an i3 vs an i7 will give similar benchmarks for games.

You just need to get over the Android mindset. More isn't always better.

LOl, what would've you used before there was android for that example ? :laugh:

acido00 said,
Is it more powerful than the one used for PS4 and XBOX One?

As said before, yes. But chances are very few programs or games for PC will ever be as well optimized as ones made for consoles, where they're trying to eek out the last bit of power from the hardware. Arguably, you don't have to be as worried about efficiency on PCs, which means power/resources go to waste IMO. I mean, really, an Atom grade CPU and a good GPU running PC games? What sort of joke would that be? Yet a console is fine like that since they can and have to optimize :)

Wam7 said,
You obviously don't realise there is a difference between CPU intensive games and GPU intensive ones. Your i3 will not give similar FPS in many RTS games and MMORPG games.

People are being a little harsh here...

A well configured i3 can perform fairly well, and depending on the game, fairly close to an i7. The difference in performance of an i3 and an i7 is going to be significantly closer than almost any AMD CPU to an i7.


Of course an dual core i3 is not going to compete with a quad core i7 with more cache, etc.


However...

The single execution speed of an i3 can actually be faster than an i7 depending on the generation. For example, look up the i3-4340 or even the i3-4570 (This can make an i3 perform faster than some i7s, again depending on the use of threading in the game/application.)

Here:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html


When you start mixing in performance with an i5, it gets even more complex, as there are i5s that will OUTPERFORM a lot of i7s 99% of the time. The Intel Core i5-4670K for example. The design of the i5s are very close to the i7s with the exception of HT and cache sizes.

Blasting someone because they generalize doesn't help provide information to people. Especially when compared to the 'range' of CPUs available, and comparing AMD CPU speeds, their generalizations are fairly accurate.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Why do you and other people think I have an i3?
Reading comprehension...

I could be using the collective 'your' as in 'the i3 that you spoke of'. Is that better English? Whether you agree or not, the main point, that you failed to acknowledge is that your assertion was plainly and simply wrong. Man up instead of infantile down.

I can see what you are saying though I really don't think I'm being harsh. The corollary here I suggest is that one can not generalise when it comes to CPU/Game performance. If you do then you can make some specious deductions as have already been made.

There is no getting around it; CPU intensive games will show a substantial difference between i3 and the newest i7, whereas GPU intensive ones will not. You really should not generalise. Some people will play mainly GPU intensive games while others CPU.

The distinction has to be made so that a subset of people are not mislead.

Wam7 said,
I can see what you are saying though I really don't think I'm being harsh. The corollary here I suggest is that one can not generalise when it comes to CPU/Game performance. If you do then you can make some specious deductions as have already been made.

There is no getting around it; CPU intensive games will show a substantial difference between i3 and the newest i7, whereas GPU intensive ones will not. You really should not generalise. Some people will play mainly GPU intensive games while others CPU.

The distinction has to be made so that a subset of people are not mislead.

I agree, but you are talking about 6-12fps of difference in a majority of modern games between an i3 and an i7. This isn't a wild generalization that needed to be smacked down. (The difference is small enough that better RAM in the slower system can offset the difference.)

For the majority of readers here, what the person said about the i3/i7 was not far enough off base to even warrant a response, let alone some of the darker comments others made.

I replied to your specifically because you were being less condescending and also addressing that there is a major difference between games that are easily CPU bound contrasted to GPU bound games, which I agree.

I don't want to create a divide, and will defer to your point, as I wasn't trying to countermand your post specifically.

Take care.

theyarecomingforyou said,

It's only pointless because Sony and Microsoft opted for relatively weak GPUs.

Do you always just take the opposite non-logical opinion and run with it?

The current chips in the one and four are plenty powerful for consoles. The are several levels above what the old generation had, and yadda yadda for reasons like price, demographics, etc. The price points and performance are all in line with what BOTH companies wanted.

Unless you are smarter than all of the engineering and development teams in both companies.

Skin said,
Unless you are smarter than all of the engineering and development teams in both companies.

It's not about being smarter, it's about economics. Both Microsoft and Sony opted for cheaper consoles this generation and that has resulted in consoles struggling to hit the resolution and framerate expected of them (1080p @ 60fps) - Microsoft cut more corners in order to make up for the increased price of the Kinect. This generation of consoles is much further behind PC performance than the last generation.

The next-gen consoles are already dated and they're meant to last another 6-7 years.

Last generation suposed to be 720. And looking at the PS3/360 launch titles... They where struggling for 720 too.
Generation just started. Give it some time.

Both sides already did quite some enhancements in firmware updates. And there's a lot more to come. Plus the developers getting familiar with the system.

theyarecomingforyou said,

It's not about being smarter, it's about economics. Both Microsoft and Sony opted for cheaper consoles this generation and that has resulted in consoles struggling to hit the resolution and framerate expected of them (1080p @ 60fps) - Microsoft cut more corners in order to make up for the increased price of the Kinect. This generation of consoles is much further behind PC performance than the last generation.

The next-gen consoles are already dated and they're meant to last another 6-7 years.

It wasn't about making a 'cheaper' console. At least for Microsoft, it was about going back to x64 and doing so in a way that they could retain 'ownership' of the CPU, just as they did on the Xbox 360.

Microsoft 'owns' the CPU in the Xbox One, with a clean 'licensing' of the AMD CPU core technologies. This wasn't possible with Intel, which would have been the faster option.

(Look up the original Xbox and the falling out with NVidia, and then reference the development of the Xbox 360 where the MS team talked about the importance of owning the hardware technologies that they could produce themselves.)

PS It is inaccurate to blame the Kinect. The Kinect processing on the Xbox One is minimal and semi-dedicated. Even on the Xbox 360 that solely relies on the main CPU, it only uses 2-4% of processing power.

Mobius Enigma said,

I agree, but you are talking about 6-12fps of difference in a majority of modern games between an i3 and an i7. This isn't a wild generalization that needed to be smacked down. (The difference is small enough that better RAM in the slower system can offset the difference.)

For the majority of readers here, what the person said about the i3/i7 was not far enough off base to even warrant a response, let alone some of the darker comments others made.

I replied to your specifically because you were being less condescending and also addressing that there is a major difference between games that are easily CPU bound contrasted to GPU bound games, which I agree.

I don't want to create a divide, and will defer to your point, as I wasn't trying to countermand your post specifically.

Take care.

Thanks for the reasoned response. It is not correct to throw up a figure of 6-12fps as it will depend on resolution played at and detail settings, as these increase it puts more work on the GPU, It would be better to give a percentage increase. Also 12fps increase from a total of 25fps is nearly 50% whereas if the original is 80fps then it is 15%. Hence the need for percentages to better assess the benefits.

If when you say modern games you are referring to Battlefield 4, CoD 'X', Crysis 3, et al then yes, you are generally correct. Though there are modern games in the RTS and MMORPG genre where this would not hold true. I myself play the former but have friends who play the latter and for them CPU is every bit as important as GPU.

Also you will find once you go dual GPU and more that you will need a better CPU to drive the GPU's properly. I see time and again guys selling off their 4.5Ghz 2500k's to get a 2600k/3770k/4770k just for the HT as this gives them a boost in minimum FPS when running SLI/Crossfire. In these systems an i3 would be exposed and bottleneck the GPU.

So to conclude; the error here is the generalisation. The distinction has to made in the type of game played and how many GPU's one plans to use. One simply can not generalise with the statement 'modern games' without misleading a significant subset of gamers.

Regards