Slashdot Mirror
Intel Broadwell-E, Apollo Lake, and Kaby Lake Details Emerge In Leaked Roadmap
bigwophh writes: In Q4 2016, Intel will release a follow up to its Skylake processors named Kaby Lake, which will mark yet another 14nm release that's a bit odd, for a couple of reasons. The big one is the fact that this chip may not have appeared had Intel's schedule kept on track. Originally, Cannonlake was set to succeed Skylake, but Cannonlake will instead launch in 2017. That makes Kaby Lake neither a tick nor tock in Intel's release cadence. When released, Kaby Lake will add native USB 3.1 and HDCP 2.2 support. It's uncertain whether these chips will fit into current Z170-based motherboards, but considering the fact that there's also a brand-new chipset on the way, we're not too confident of it. However, the so-called Intel 200 series chipsets will be backwards-compatible with Skylake. It also appears that Intel will be releasing Apollo Lake as early as the late spring, which will replace Braswell, the lowest-powered chips Intel's lineup destined for smartphones.
One of the issues that I've been running into for a long while, and expect to be running into even more with the expansion of the M.2 and related slots, has been the serious lack of PCI-E lanes that Intel supports. It's very easy, running SLI and one of two other things that use PCI-E, to run out of PCI-E lanes on today's boards, especially if you're a power user. And with new expansion slots for SSDs and other applications starting to enter the market, using multiple PCI-E lanes (up to 4 for a single M.2 slot), it's going to be even easier to suck all those lanes up and still need more. Honestly, for some power users, Intel could probably double the number of PCI-E lanes natively supported, and still not provide enough.
HDCP "anti consumer?" You do realize that consumers WANT to play protected media, right?
This kind of reality-disconnect is exactly why Linux has 1% of the consumer desktop. Failure to understand what people want to do with their machines.
No. People want to play media. They have no desire whatsoever to have it "protected" against them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No. People want to play media. They have no desire whatsoever to have it "protected" against them.
People also would rather not pay for their media, so if they have to choose between protected content and no content at all (because the content providers think that it is not economically viable enough for them to release it DRM-free) then the consumer will choose the former option. And if the protection is implemented well so that it doesn't adversely affect the consumer then they probably wouldn't give a damn.
No. People want to play media. They have no desire whatsoever to have it "protected" against them.
People also would rather not pay for their media, so if they have to choose between protected content and no content at all (because the content providers think that it is not economically viable enough for them to release it DRM-free) then the consumer will choose the former option. And if the protection is implemented well so that it doesn't adversely affect the consumer then they probably wouldn't give a damn.
I think you confused "not economically viable" with "profit maximizing". You think that famous artists, movie stars and authors that make tens of millions of dollars would say "Nah, I'd rather go work at McDonald's" if you cut their wage in half? And I'm sure you noticed how the music industry imploded after iTunes gave up the DRM. Oh wait, it didn't. And there's a whole lot of countries I'd live in if North Korea was the other option, we don't have to allow unreasonable terms if we don't want to. Just because it would be economically profitable to weld shut the hood of the car and control how you drive it after you've sold it, doesn't make it right. The doomsday scenarios are false. We could easily drop the DRM-protection, ban DRM and go back to plain old copyright infringement without the world coming to an end.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2 video cards will take 32 of them, a high end SSD will take up 4, if you've got a wireless card, a sound card, or some other shit you're eating a couple more. And then you've got all the legacy SATA ports and whatnot that may eat up some of those lanes opportunistically.
40 is by no means future-proof. I'd like to see 48 or 64 for a pro/enthusiast rig,