Several stores listing at $349 at intro. Also a quick Google, one was clocked at 6.7ghz on LN2 cooling, but not sure what voltage. Seems to have good overclocking potential, the 4.5 Turbo is good news too. Fun stuff.

Hopefully we'll be running comfortable OCs at over 5GHz with this new chip and finally see some decent fps in flight sims.

4.9 - 5.0 GHz maybe. I doubt much over though. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

No prices yet here in the UK, but no doubt, as usual, we'll be ripped off. 

 

$349 so should be £285 of my English quid... plus the UK ripoff factor of 20% so 340 quid. 

Any news or leak for release? Waiting is hard when you are on a 3570K

 

 

EDIT: Just saw that :

Intel To Launch Kaby Lake Desktop Platform on 5th January at CES 2017

For those wondering when Kaby Lake processors will be available in the market, GDM.OR.JP has confirmed that Intel will be launching them on 5th of January 2017. The site confirms that 200-series motherboards will be available for purchase on the same day.

http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-6700k

 

Most benchmarks are showing roughly a 10% single thread performance increase over an i7_6700k and that's factoring in that  the default and turbo clock speeds are 5 and 7% higher respectively for the i7-7700k. It's pretty clear to me that Intel is more focused on creating CPUs that have lower power usage so that they are more suitable for populating server farms. The Xeon design specs are just bleeding through to the consumer CPUs.

Its 10% more, so will perform better. The stock turbo frequency of the 6700K, is 4.2Ghz. By overclocking we add just 10% and makes a difference, going to 4.6Ghz. If the +10% was not important, overclocking wouldn't be so popular in flight sim...Accordingly, a +10% over stock turbo clock in the 7700K will yield 4.9 Ghz. I suppose it will make a difference. 

Recover $250 on Craigslist or eBay for the 6700k, $100 more gets me a 10% boost for a 7700k. Not too bad of a deal. Every little bit helps.

10% is certainly nothing to scoff at but I'm skeptical of the claims. Intel themselves seemed to have indicated they were merely optimizing the production processes and lowering the heat/power signature. If it was a die shrink or architecture changeover, I'd believe it but this just isn't adding up.

 

Regardless, if you find yourself in a CPU-bound scenario at around 15fps (a threshold I don't like dropping under) and you take half of the 10% improvement to FSX/P3D's Core 0, you've only gained three-quarters of a frame...

10% is certainly nothing to scoff at but I'm skeptical of the claims. Intel themselves seemed to have indicated they were merely optimizing the production processes and lowering the heat/power signature. If it was a die shrink or architecture changeover, I'd believe it but this just isn't adding up.

 

Regardless, if you find yourself in a CPU-bound scenario at around 15fps (a threshold I don't like dropping under) and you take half of the 10% improvement to FSX/P3D's Core 0, you've only gained three-quarters of a frame...

 

So, you say that even at 5Ghz the difference with a 4.6Ghz 6700K will be not noticable? Honest question..I would like to not buy the 7700K, cause I can't wait..but try to be reasonable

10% is certainly nothing to scoff at but I'm skeptical of the claims. Intel themselves seemed to have indicated they were merely optimizing the production processes and lowering the heat/power signature. If it was a die shrink or architecture changeover, I'd believe it but this just isn't adding up.

 

Regardless, if you find yourself in a CPU-bound scenario at around 15fps (a threshold I don't like dropping under) and you take half of the 10% improvement to FSX/P3D's Core 0, you've only gained three-quarters of a frame...

 

EDIT: didn't know what "scoff at" means, so we agree in theory. Of course I agree with you that a 1-2 fps increase is not worthy updating for sure for a 6700 user. What I don't know -as not a computer expert- is whether the improvement in fps is proportional to CPU frequency. I may try to test at 4.0 and 4.6Ghz and see the average fps increase.

In a well balanced system, no CPU or GPU botleneck, overclocking is linear. In other words if you overclock by 10% you get a 10% increase in frame rate.

In a well balanced system, no CPU or GPU botleneck, overclocking is linear. In other words if you overclock by 10% you get a 10% increase in frame rate.

 

But it shouldn't be just that. Otherwise my 3570K at 4.6Ghz would perform the same as an 6700K at 4.6Ghz.

 

What I'm saying is, are we sure that [email protected] and [email protected] will perform the same?

What you are doing there is comparing two different architectues. It's not just about frequency, it's also about IPC, Instructions Per Cycle. Newer architectures like Skylake have a superior IPC.

 

The question re Kaby Lake is when both are clocked the same, for example 7700k at its stock 4.5 Turbo and 6700K overclocked to 4.5... which is superior. In other words, what is the IPC gain.

 

There will be a gain in IPC, so the 7700K will be faster than the 6700K both clocked the same. In addition we speculate that the 7700K may well overclock to 5 GHz or hopefully a tad higher for the lucky few.

 

Most 6700K's overclock to 4.6 So I would hope 7700K would perhaps overclock to 4.9. Above that, we will have to wait and see.

 

You should expect a few percent IPC plus whatever it clocks to above Skylake.

And better chipsets are essential as well. Getting all the data to and from the CPU, GPU, HDs and RAM is key.

That's the other variable of course. What the new boards with the Z270 chipsets will bring to the table. Optane support of course.

 

At the end of the day, we can speculate but the leaked benchmarks are probably innacurate. Based on engineering samples rather than the chips we will get.

 

My guess is 2 or 3% IPC plus the higher frequency. Be lucky if we see 10% over Sky Lake.