Intel 13th Gen CPU thread

[acroig]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/13...ter-benchmarks

[pax]

Funny thing is it looks like Zen4 is a bit faster ST than RL but RL is faster MT. They reversed their usual position...

https://twitter.com/TUM_APISAK/statu...35720285736961

[Nunz]

Maybe they are skimping because they are losing money?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/in...0-8bf892b943de



Blows my mind I dont ever remember intel losing money ever...

They've been spending extreme $$ the past few years to redesign the fabs. The CEO announced a while back that this was his goal - to spend money so that the company could re-establish it's dominance, rather than hoarding money and falling behind.

[the_sextein]

They have to lose before they can start to gain again. New designs take time and money. I think Intel did the correct thing by bringing Pat back. I would like to see them move faster but that's not how these things work. They have to balance the shareholder fears and triple check the lotto algorithm.

Still, I think they are on the right track and will be very strong and dominant again in 5 years. Part of it, is bringing in new talent and making tough calls on who is right for Intel and who is not. They had alot of dead weight and were set up for quick profit with no care for the future. The typical modern balancing of gender and skin color instead of skill based work force. So it's going to take some effort to reverse that. You can't be capitalist if you are following sexist and racist stat guidelines setup by corrupt media groups to control business.

The other thing was the previous CEO's were brought in by money men to make Intel do well on the stock market for the short term and they didn't understand the manufacturing side of things.

[Riptide]

They're stock has definitely been tanking. I bought in at $48 thinking I was getting a deal. Bad call on my part. It got a lot worse than that.

I read somewhere that they have many times more employees than AMD does and yet look at AMD and how successful they've become. I hate to even look at angles like layoffs but it seems they need to have a hard look at their employee base and make some decisions there.

They've been beat down pretty good but all is not lost yet. There is still time to turn the ship around.

[Nunz]

They're doing very well. Intel has more employees because they are a larger business; AMD does not deal in fabrication.. Intel does, for example.

Intel is spending heavily to get themselves back in a leadership position. I don't see their plan failing. The US Gov is about to approve a ton of incentive and tax credit for Intel and TSMC to keep pushing new/upgraded fab facilities.

Intel is going to do just fine. I'd buy the dips and keep riding.. they aren't going anywhere. Way too many IPs and government contracts that will keep them around for a long, long time to come.

[the_sextein]

AMD tapped out of the fab business long ago. Intel is a larger company and should have more people working for them. All I was saying is it was a trend to replace the head of every department with a female and then invite the media over to come interview them about Intel's latest. Intel was being run by a talentless moron that was way to worried about balancing gender and race percentages to win points with the media and improve the public face of the company. He saved every dime because his predecessors were so good he could win without doing anything for a while. It works when all you have to do is fake everything to keep winning but when you actually need to produce product that competes and push things forward, you need a competent workforce and you need to spend money and innovate. That's why you need someone in charge that understands how to produce competitive products which starts with bringing in people based on education, work history and how well they do on a aptitude test.

If you a have stock in Intel, hold onto it. It will go through the roof after this dip. The USA fabs are going to destroy the competition.

[bill dennison]

AMD tapped out of the fab business long ago. Intel is a larger company and should have more people working for them. All I was saying is it was a trend to replace the head of every department with a female and then invite the media over to come interview them about Intel's latest. Intel was being run by a talentless moron that was way to worried about balancing gender and race percentages to win points with the media and improve the public face of the company. He saved every dime because his predecessors were so good he could win without doing anything for a while. It works when all you have to do is fake everything to keep winning but when you actually need to produce product that competes and push things forward, you need a competent workforce and you need to spend money and innovate. That's why you need someone in charge that understands how to produce competitive products which starts with bringing in people based on education, work history and how well they do on a aptitude test.

If you a have stock in Intel, hold onto it. It will go through the roof after this dip. The USA fabs are going to destroy the competition.

Interactive chart of historical net worth (market cap) for Intel (INTC) over the last 10 years. How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalization, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. Intel net worth as of August 05, 2022 is $145.31B.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...s%20%24149.95B.

Interactive chart of historical net worth (market cap) for AMD (AMD) over the last 10 years. How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalization, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. AMD net worth as of August 05, 2022 is $165.16B.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...s%20%24165.16B.

doesn't seem to have hurt them

and isn't Intel planning to use TSMC also for some CPU's ?

[the_sextein]

It hurt them greatly in the past when Intel's greater availability and more advanced node allowed them to flood the market and smash prices at a moment's notice while bringing much more powerful chip designs to market. Compare how much money Intel has and how big it is vs AMD and yes it clearly made a big difference for Intel in the past. AMD was obliterated for more than a decade while nobody was even at the helm over at Intel. These days it doesn't matter as Intel neglected it's manufacturing for so long that it is no longer competitive and provides no benefit for them at the moment. In fact, their obsession with using it even though it could not compete with TSMC is why they fell behind and needed to work with TSMC to make new, more advanced chip designs to combat AMD's latest TSMC manufactured chips.

That will change in about 5 years. Look at the money trail and you can see what is about to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia went to Intel since they are clearly tired of fighting AMD's console toys at TSMC. American chip giants go to TSMC because they are the designated manufacturing force at the moment. If a viable alternative becomes available in their homeland, they will jump ship in a hurry. It all comes down to how successful Intel will be with its new planned expenditure and how much space they will have for companies other than their own. Given the amount of money being spent by Intel and the U.S government, I would say they are very confident.

[bill dennison]

It hurt them greatly in the past when Intel's greater availability and more advanced node allowed them to flood the market and smash prices at a moment's notice while bringing much more powerful chip designs to market. Compare how much money Intel has and how big it is vs AMD and yes it clearly made a big difference for Intel in the past. AMD was obliterated for more than a decade while nobody was even at the helm over at Intel. These days it doesn't matter as Intel neglected it's manufacturing for so long that it is no longer competitive and provides no benefit for them at the moment. In fact, their obsession with using it even though it could not compete with TSMC is why they fell behind and needed to work with TSMC to make new, more advanced chip designs to combat AMD's latest TSMC manufactured chips.

That will change in about 5 years. Look at the money trail and you can see what is about to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia went to Intel since they are clearly tired of fighting AMD's console toys at TSMC. American chip giants go to TSMC because they are the designated manufacturing force at the moment. If a viable alternative becomes available in their homeland, they will jump ship in a hurry. It all comes down to how successful Intel will be with its new planned expenditure and how much space they will have for companies other than their own. Given the amount of money being spent by Intel and the U.S government, I would say they are very confident.

already here

TSMC completes the construction of its Phoenix-based fab which will produce 5nm chips in 2024

On LinkedIn, TSMC announced "We recently celebrated placing the last beam – also known in the construction industry as a 'topping' milestone - in FAB 21’s fab building with our local partners. Over 4,000 attendees were on hand to enjoy this important moment including our own employees and partners. #TSMCArizona i

https://www.phonearena.com/news/tsmc...s-fab_id141608

....

China War Risk Sees Taiwan’s TSMC Moving Fabs to US, Japan

https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-...-fabs-overseas

i bet by the time TSMC fab 21 goes on line in 2024 here in Phoenix there will be one or two or more being built in the US


and the amount of money being spent by Intel down their Arc GPU money pit
NV will never go to them TSMC will have 3nm this year 2 years before Intel has their 5nm

[the_sextein]

TSMC has been trying to keep America out of the chip war because they know what's going to happen. That plant in Arizona was TSMC doing it's best to calm the U.S fears that Taiwan will be taken over or eaten alive and controlled by China. It didn't work and the chip shortage was just a reminder that all of these mega corporations from America want more chips than TSMC can provide. American companies have the ability to make and supply their own chips and supply them to other chipmakers including their own competition which will eat TSMC's profits. Once that happens the price of manufacturing will drop and CPU/GPU prices will drop as well. No more playing games for the latest node. Once we hit 2nm you are not going to see much difference between manufacturers. Samsung will skyrocket and everyone invested in the industry will take home big gains just like in the past. Trust fund kids don't understand the importance of manufacturing or the realities of actually creating something. They are the first to ship overseas and throw American manufacturing to the wind. Those lazy people are the ones who gave rise to China as a super power in the first place. They are too dumb to be in control of business or government in my opinion and should keep their greedy little stock market paws off real world anything. If Nvidia using a 10nm process from Samsung could beat AMD using a 7nm process from TSMC imagine how little of a difference it's really going to make in the future when we hit 2nm or smaller. Nvidia did it to show TSMC that they are not in control and I bet you Nvidia will be the first to jump ship as soon as an alternative to TSMC becomes available.

American tech expanding it's own manufacturing ability will be much more stable economically and good thing for the entire industry. There is no reason why America's tech industry should be held hostage by a Chinese company that could fall under control of the Chinese government, not to mention that it's Americans that are buying this tech and paying through the nose for it. American tech companies will go with Chinese manufacturing if it saves them money but Chinese manufacturing in the high tech sector is a liability and it's no longer cheaper now that supply/demand has caused the cost of manufacturing to rise. Consumers like me and you are the ones who have been paying the price for that and I will be glad to see the problem delt with. I'm glad to see the U.S government step in because Intel should not have to compete against China's government and it's tech funding by itself.

[KAC]

Do we have AIOs to handle 450 watts of CPU temps?

[the_sextein]

I'm hearing 350watts without power limitations but I bet prime 95 really will break 400 on intel's latest. Nothing is going to cool that if you run something that intense without power limitations.

[bill dennison]

Do we have AIOs to handle 450 watts of CPU temps?

full water
https://www.toolots.com/cooling-towe...or+230V%2F460V


AIO will turn into a tea kettle at 450 watts

[andino]

Any AIO will cool. My guess is that most 2 fan AIO's will be able to work with the new chips. They'll just run hotter under those coolers and the fan noise will be more as they cool. It's not like the CPU won't just thermally throttle if it gets too hot.

Plus, most people don't run their CPU's at 100% all day, every day. So a 2 fan rad AIO should do the trick.

EDIT: A 9900k runs 200W stock and 250w OCed. I personally know a number of people that had a 120 AIO on theirs and were fine.

[the_sextein]

Yeah I own one that I run at 5Ghz all core all the time. I use a 320mm cooler on mine and it runs nice and cool all the time unless you use an AVX512 enabled program that pushes the cores to 100%. When something like Prime 95 hits 250 watts nothing will help it. I used to have a $2000 EK custom water loop on the same chip and it didn't matter.

Intel will make these chips work on standard AIO's but they will have power limitations that keep them at 250 watts and even then it will be recommended that you go high end 320mm AIO for the high end 13900K. Pushing the chip beyond it's default values could be pretty insane as it seems that Intel is pushing it's silicon to the breaking point.

[KAC]

I mean my AMD hits 85-90 C easy on a 360 mm AIO. This Intel gonna rape a 360 mm if specs are remotely true.

[the_sextein]

I've noticed that there is a point where the heat is so concentrated that it doesn't matter what cooler you have. I had dual D5 pumps with a 460mm and a 320mm radiator and it simply didn't matter after a point. The design of the chip will have to alleviate it. AMD is pushing the frequency up to match Intel this time so they are going to have more power and heat as well. Intel's 8 large P cores have been insane ever since they broke 5Ghz with the 10900k but both Intel and AMD have to do something about it. AMD has a completely new design and dropped down to 5nm. Intel....they are still using the same 8 large core design from the 9900K days and they are still on 10nm like last time. Intel has improved 10nm results from TSMC but it doesn't look like it will be enough to keep it in check. 350 watts in PC mark is crazy. They could have reduced it nearly 100 watts but they had to push it up to 5.5Ghz all core to stay up with AMD so now they are pushing 12900K levels of crazy from the leaks that have been posted and it will be worse with the power restrictions lifted.

Intel has done a wonderful job with the E cores and they may end up taking the multithread crown this time but the 8 performance cores need to be redesigned for better power efficiency and Intel needs to drop down to 7nm or lower.

[Nunz]

Intel "10nm" is not an apples:apples comparison with TSMC "7nm". There is no standard to gauge the node sizes, so you have companies marketing things to look better than they are. There's a reason Intel has renamed their enhanced "10nm" node to *Intel 7*. Their current node is very close to TSMC 7nm in terms of density and size.

But yeah, temperatures are high on these new chips not so much due to the power/heat being generated, but because of the lack of surface area to dissipate and transfer the heat. This is why GPUs can consume 500watts and be cooled effectively, but a 5950X pushing 250watts is an absolute nightmare. Intel has been doing research apparently on a new IHS design from what I've heard that is trying to alleviate this issue.

AMDs design for AM4.. I have no idea. They sacrificed a lot of surface area with the *notches* on the IHS. I understand that's because they went LGA this round and needed to have capacitors on the front of the PCB, but it's still surface area lost.

The thicker the IHS and/or die, the worse it'll transfer heat. That's why Intel made so many adjustments to the IHS, and also thinning the substrates down on the die. We want to be as close as possible to the heat source as we can in order to transfer heat as efficiently as possible. I wish we could just go back to the days of chips coming with no lids, and we direct-to-die cooled as a standard. Unfortunately with the lack of braincells the average user has.. it'll never happen.

[the_sextein]

Intel's 10nm may be close to TSMC 7nm but it's still not the same density and AMD has dropped down to 5nm. They are both dealing with 8 large cores engaged at the same frequencies and similar IPC and cache holes seem to be filled on both sides. It seems to me that Intel needs to realize they aren't the ones manufacturing these things and they don't have an advantage in that area anymore. If they want to keep up then they need to actually keep up in this area.

I agree about AMD, it will be interesting to see how the new design handles the heat. It has been one of the largest limiting factors of AMD's design in the past. It would be nice if they came up with a solution but I'm not going to count on it. That's why I won't impulse buy anything from either one of them. I'll be waiting on reviews that cover temps properly before considering either one of them.

My GPU sucks 400 watts and never breaks 65C. I really don't care about the power but if Intel is going to suck down an extra 100 watts then they better cool it properly. I'm tired of 90-100C temps. I have to let my PC run all day sometimes under full load while it renders and if the GPU kicks out it would fry a chip that runs that hot. I'm sure the CPU would back off to avoid burning up but it would be stuck like that all day and severely reduce the life of the chip. It doesn't look like Intel has done anything to fix the problem yet and I have not heard anything to curb my fears that this is going to be just as bad, if not worse than the last chip. That's why I have been more optimistic with AMD this time. They at least have a new design and improved silicon since the last chip series and the more modern core design has been much more power efficient the last few releases vs intels P cores.

[Nunz]

Well that's simply it.. there's no way to cool it properly. The limitations of thermal transfer is the main issue with these reduced die sizes, and until there's a new method of transfer, or a new die design that includes the cooler with liquid flowing through the substrates.. there's not much they can do. If you don't want the chip to burn up in the case of GPU failure, then you can easily set the throttle temperature to 70, 80, or whatever you'd like so that it will downvolt/downclock to avoid exceeding your set TJMAX.

[the_sextein]

Yeah I get you.

It's not really a GPU failure I'm worried about. The software will sometimes kick the GPU out if you are rendering an image series. If it doesn't properly clear the VRAM then when the scene updates to the next frame it can overflow the VRAM and kick the GPU from the program. Then it will switch to the CPU and run all cores at max load for hours until I can get to it. The CPU will throttle all day and it will damage it's lifespan.

I could lower the throttle temp but then I'm paying for performance that I can't actually get so it seems like a waste of cash at the high end.

I think AMD has been doing better with each new release in this regard as well as having less power draw in general. I think they can both do better and have been too focused on pushing an extra 100Mhz on a design that is pushed way past it's power efficiency sweet spot. Faster designs that don't need to be overclocked beyond the intended power level to compete would be nice for a change. Maybe the cost of modern chips is just getting too out of control?

I feel like AMD has been more professional in this regard. They are more likely to make a new design and stick to it. Intel has been very reluctant to let go of it's P cores or it's manufacturing and they have consistently overclocked their chips beyond the point of no return for the last 3 years.

I like Intel but I want them to do better and hope that they improve their product lines in the near future.

[Nunz]

I don't know what you mean by "letting go of it's P cores". They're the ones ahead of the curve with the Big-Little design that is the way of the future. If anything, AMD hasn't let go of the "P core" old way of doing things.

Why would Intel let go of it's manufacturing? Makes no sense.. they may have fallen behind over the years but with the new factories and government incentives, every single American should be rooting for Intel to succeed in this aspect. I don't know about you, but we have seen the issues that come with TSMC having sole capability of manufacturing high-end nodes..

Things take time to correct the errors of past ownership. Rome wasn't built in a day. They're on the right track.

[the_sextein]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm just hoping Intel improves it's current problematic situation as soon as possible. I understand it takes time and I'm certainly rooting for them to return to the top when it comes to manufacturing.

I'm just saying that right now they are relying on TSMC and don't have that advantage, in fact AMD is spending the money for a smaller, more advanced 5nm node and are less reluctant to make a new design which has swayed things in their favor.

Intel's E cores were a good idea and I think it's a winning design but Intel's larger P cores at the same frequency as AMD's large cores will consume more power and produce more heat because they are inefficient and need to be modernized. They need to do more to keep them out of the red so to speak.

I do agree they are on the correct path but I'm not confident in the 13900K like I was the 9900K. I'm not counting them out but I have severe doubts that the 13900K is going to be a chip that I want to own. It just doesn't look like it will be as efficient and it's performance looks to be similar to AMD. If AMD had a large performance disadvantage then the extra power and heat from Intel may be a consideration but if AMD can offer similar performance at better temps then I'm jumping ship until Intel either jumps down to the same silicon that AMD is on or they get their own manufacturing in top form again which will be a few years yet.

[Nunz]

Intel has made chips that, despite being on worse/larger nodes, have performed equally or better.

Just like NV, Intel hasn't had to rely on a node advantage to perform up to par. If AMD didn't pay TSMC for the node advantage, I'd imagine they would be behind. Regardless.. the larger node helps Intel with thermal dissipation. I'm super curious how this 5nm node is going to work. AMD already struggled with 7nm.

Heat being produced isn't really the issue anymore at these node sizes, if you ask me. It's being able to dissipate it, and the smaller we go, the harder that is.

Alder Lake cores are "modernized". Raptor Lake should be a stepping stone, but the bigger leap will be Meteor Lake.

[the_sextein]

I agree with that as well. Better designs always pay off regardless of what node they are on but Intel's IPC, cache, frequency are all being matched and the power and heat has been worse for these last few CPU series. The E cores could give Intel a multithread advantage but based on the 12900K I would say that advantage will not be a large one.

In terms of heat vs silicon size. It depends, sometimes it can be beneficial because you can power more transistors for less energy when they are packed closer together. On the other hand, you can get crosstalk or energy bleed and the heat that is produced is compact on a smaller surface and harder to dissipate. Still, as you will see with Nvidia's new 5nm node, they are going to make large gains without the temps changing much. More power comes from more cuda cores, higher frequencies but the node drop to 5nm is actually saving them power and heat and they are still capable of cooling it properly. People complain about power rise but it's still a very efficient design if you have doubled the throughput with a 50 watt increase in the power. If they improve the cooling design to keep the temps stable or even lower them like Nvidia did last time, then everything is good to go. I have seen a slick E core intro that has allowed Intel to keep pace or even surpass AMD in multicore workloads but frequency and IPC have not gone very far and considering the power and temps are already worse... They just seem locked up right now.

[metroidfox]

AMD's Ryzen 5xxx series are significantly more power efficient than either the 11th, 12th or 13th gen parts. Intel simply had poor processor design. Just like AMD did pre-Ryzen. (See below for example.)



Processors are also basically designed to take up as much cooling as you can throw at them. The 12th gen parts in particular scale all the way to 360mm water cooling solutions.


This isn't the mid-2000s any more. These parts are designed to stay at 90C.


The alternative is to do what Apple does with the M1 and M2, and throw a lot of processor area at the problem instead of scaling clock speeds. Personally I prefer this solution, but Intel and AMD clearly do not.


Hopefully competition changes things.

[the_sextein]

AMD's core design is more modern in that is can do more with less frequency(IPC) for a variety of reasons. The more complex the core, the more you reap from node drops. Intel probably knows that improvements from the silicon are about to hit a brick wall so they didn't bother to update it. They have always had the headroom to push more frequency but that has clearly hit a wall now that cores have passed beyond 8 which forced them to make E cores but the big cores remain behind AMD. It will be interesting to see how AMD's new cores will perform vs intel now that they have reached parity with Intel in frequency.

Regardless of performance I think Intel needs to do something about it's power problems. AMD isn't out of the forest yet either, we have yet to see how the 7000 series will fare when it comes to heat now that they are pushing 5.5Ghz+. It looks to me that the socket max is lower than Intel's power restrictions which tell me that AMD still has a power advantage and probably a decent size one.

[acroig]

This isn't the mid-2000s any more. These parts are designed to stay at 90C.

Is that really the case? I see throttling on a laptop AMD 5800 CPU at 75C.

[the_sextein]

Modern electronics are designed and capable of running at higher temps then they were in the 1990's. 90C should NOT be ok with anyone for extended periods of time. I don't care what they say it is not sustainable.

I remember when it was ok if the CPU went into the upper 60's under full load. Then it was ok if it hit upper 70's as long as it was not sustained. Then it hit 80's and people just started b!tching and then it hit 90's and it would seam that the industry has gone off the rails. Intel hit 100C on the last one and since I use my CPU for more than just gaming or running a benchmark a couple of times when I build the system, I've drawn a line that I won't cross and that is 90C. If these chips peak into the 90's then I'm not buying them. They run all day long and that is a fire hazard.

[the_sextein]

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-1...ots-benchmark/
Can't complain about those gains. Intel is pushing forward hard and giving much more than they have in a long time.

[Megaman]

This is why competition is important. The only time us consumers can benefit, instead of shareholders getting all the love.

[acroig]

https://wccftech.com/full-intel-13th...es-32-threads/

[acroig]

Intel Core i7-13700K 16 Core Raptor Lake CPU Specs

The Intel Core i7-13700K CPU will be the fastest 13th Gen Core i7 chip on offer within the Raptor Lake CPU lineup. The chip features a total of 16 cores and 24 threads. This configuration is made possible with 8 P-Cores based on the Raptor Cove architecture and 8 E-Cores based on the Grace Mont core architecture. The CPU comes with 30 MB of L3 cache and 24 MB of L2 cache for a total combined 54 MB cache. The chip was running at a base clock of 3.4 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The all-core boost is rated at 5.3 GHz for the P-Cores while the E-Cores feature a base clock of 3.4 GHz and a boost clock of 4.3 GHz.

This is the chip that AMD has to best for me.

[KAC]

8 P cores. Intel should stay in 2012…

[Android1]

Boost Frequencies of the All-important Core i5-13400 and i5-13500 Revealed

The new Intel processors have maximum turbo frequencies of 4.10 GHz and 4.5 GHz, respectively.

Maximum boost frequencies of the Core i5-13400 and i5-13500 surfaced on the web thanks to Passmark screenshots scored by TUM_APISAK. Boost frequencies of 13th Gen Core processors weren't part of the recent lineup leak. The i5-13400 has a maximum boost frequency of 4.10 GHz, while the i5-13500 comes with 4.50 GHz. Both SKUs have an identical base frequency of 2.50 GHz. The maximum turbo frequency of 4.10 GHz for the i5-13400 is significantly lower than the 5.80 GHz of the flagship i9-13900K, and the 5.10 GHz of the i5-13600K. It's also quite spaced apart from the i5-13500, with its 4.50 GHz. Perhaps Intel really wants some consumer interest in the Core i5 SKUs positioned between the i5-13400 and the i5-13600K.

Source: techPowerUp!

[Android1]

Intel Core i9-13900 (non-K) Spotted with 5.60 GHz Max Boost, Benchmarked

In contrast to the Core i9-13900K, the non-K version has a locked multiplier and a lower maximum turbo frequency.

Tested in Geekbench 5.4.5, the i9-13900 scores 2130 points in the single-threaded test, and 20131 points in the multi-threaded one. Wccftech tabulated these scores in comparison to the current-gen flagship i9-12900K. The i9-13900 ends up 10 percent faster than the i9-12900K in the single-threaded test, and 17 percent faster in the multi-threaded. The single-threaded uplift is thanks to the higher IPC of the "Raptor Cove" P-core, and slightly higher boost clock; while the multi-threaded score is helped not just by the higher IPC, but also the addition of 8 more E-cores.

Source: techPowerUp!

[acroig]

Wow!

[acroig]

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-13...0k-for-726-usd

[andino]

They'll sell like crazy for a month and then sales will drop like a rock. Prices will follow.