Writing this after seeing
Menthol's Kaby Lake @ 5.0GHZ and above, Yes it does thread and googling up everything I could find about future Intel processor/chipset roadmaps.
Menthol's Kaby Lake i7-7700K appears to spec 4C, 4.2GHz, 8MB L3, dual-channel DDR4, 14nm, 91W ... overclocked to 5.0GHz on an "ASUS Z-170 board". He also comments that "supposedly the IMC has been improved and runs memory at high speeds".
Skylake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Cannon Lake, Skylake-X, Kaby Lake-X ... none of these codenames looks like they're gonna support LGA2011-3 HEDT.
And none of them looks (to me) like a "proper" upgrade to Broadwell-E - fewer cores and threads, fewer (yet slightly faster) iMCs, smaller caches, latest-and-greatest iGPUs wasting big space on die, more iPCIE lanes (on their limited-PCIE chipsets), more thermal/power efficiency, fancier extensions and features, etc. A whole mixed bag fulla tradeoffs and choices when compared vs the mighty i7-6950X.
Indeed, Broadwell-E/-EP itself doesn't really compare spectacularly vs Haswell-E/-EP. More of this but less of that. Or more of that, but not enough more to justify a $$$$ processor "upgrade" cost. Not Intel "tick", not Intel "tock", just Intel passing time with half-assed minor incremental tweaks and refinements. New mid-binned die on new process, not proven high-binned die on new process.
Is a newer and faster and bigger and mightier LGA2011-3 anticipated? Perhaps a sort of 10nm "Broadwell-X" or "Broadwell Refresh"? An LGA2011-3 CPU with
specs equal or better in every measurable capacity, a true manly upgrade, not yet-another-non-linear retrograde/upgrade path filled with general and specific tradeoffs, diced up and sorted on some "intended application" marketing model?
Same cores. I could say "more cores, not fewer", but 8C/16T or 10C/20T (alongside multiple GPU cards) is already overkill crunch power.
More cache, not less. Intel generally does well on this, but sometimes they pretend that 8MB > 25MB.
Faster clocks, not slower. Broadwell-E vs Haswell-E has a poor showing. Why can't Intel just make existing Haswell-E parts run faster and cooler (and overclock better?) with a fab shrink and some Uncore tweaks?
Uncore iMCs. Faster iMCs to natively support "real world" DDR4 performance. DDR4-2400 is good, but DDR4-3000 (or faster) is better.
Uncore iPCIe controllers. How about 48 (or more?) PCIe lanes to fully support 3-way SLI and/or more fast storage? 40 (even 44) just ain't enough.
Upgraded FIVR. Yes you heard it here first, the FIVR is somewhat circumvented by some motherboards (with "overclock-grade" variant LGA2011-3 sockets and VRMs) and much maligned for package space and package heat ... but for those of us unwilling to drown our CPUs in LN2 it's a superior tool for processor control and overclocking. Why make fully unlocked fully overclockable "-X" parts without FIVRs?
Completely ditch the iGPU. Don't even think about it. Even a lump of thermal interface goop would be better than wasting space on unpowered silicon. X99 ain't for laptops and HTPCs.
I bought X99 with the expectation that over the next few years the platform would mature and offer useful upgrade options. I didn't buy (much) Z170 because it's less suitable for my particular needs. I don't intend to rush out and buy "X299" just to start another costly hardware
beta tester early-adopter cycle - especially not if I see "lesser" specs on the processors designed to run on it.
The big selling points of X99 vs Z170 (currently the best Skylake chipset) are massive processor power, massive memory bandwidth, and massive (up to 40) PCIe lanes. Great for "workstation" use because of the raw information crunching power, great for gaming because of the possible multi-GPU configurations. The X99 crowd don't want Intel's fanciest new HDMI iGPU garbage, they do want to bridge 2 to 4 high-end GPU cards for maximum GPGPU and fps. The X99 crowd don't want boring JEDEC DDR4-2400, they do want to run extreme DDR4 at full spec alongside a processor overclock. The X99 crowd is willing to pay premium price for premium performance, their systems are built around every context of "high power". So while increased power efficiency is always good, the mindset is that a 98W processor is NOT better than a 138W processor when runs at a lesser spec, especially since coolers can be fitted onto either part.
So my little letter to Intel:
I don't want to buy X299 or Skylake or Kaby Lake or any other lake. I do want to buy a better CPU for my X99. A CPU which supports at least the same cores/threads, at least the same cache, faster clock, faster quad-channel DDR4, and every PCIe lane the X99 chipset can support (without PLX). I'm not talking about selling future-binned 'Lake CPUs in LGA2011-3 packages just because they fall outside a mainstream spec or have bad iGPU circuitry or not enough working cores to Xeon or whatever. I am talking about actual LGA2011-3 CPUs made from actual LGA2011-3 CPU dies, without any "bad", "dark", "deactivated" or other "failed" silicon wasting space and warping power/thermal output efficiencies, I want 8C/10C parts made from 8C/10C dies. Quit trying to sell lower-power, higher-efficiency, leaner, lighter, smaller CPUs - quit trying to sell recycled, rebadged, and repackaged castoffs from other bins - such parts have their place, but that place is not in high-powered X99 platforms. I know I'm just one (not very loud) voice you can ignore, but hey I don't have to keep buying your stuff if I feel it's always "dead-end" tech doomed to obsolescence every time a new model rolls out your door.
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams
[/Korth]