I don't like the use of the i9 moniker for only a 6 core hyper threaded CPU, it's a 'con' to use that moniker. Could do with being some consistency in terms of core count at least between desktop & mobile when it comes to i5/i7/i9 etc - I can deal with the core frequencies being different (lower) on the mobile CPUs but I think core count should retain some equality in terms of the series numbering between desktop & mobile. What makes it worse is that on the mobile front there's even inconsistency with the series numbering within it's own mobile sphere (when not even comparing to desktop). They have here 6 core hyperthreaded CPUs described as both i7 & i9 - there's not even any logical consistency here either. On a positive note: good to have 6 core CPUs arriving in laptops!

Strange how there are no 4c/8t models. When it comes to x86-based laptops, I'd much rather have a 4c/8t over a 6c/6t. If this were ARM, I'd gladly take the extra cores, since ARM is a more efficient with idle cores. I know I won't be getting any of these CL laptops if the CPUs are all going to be 45W.

Robbo9999:

I don't like the use of the i9 moniker for only a 6 core hyper threaded CPU, it's a 'con' to use that moniker. Could do with being some consistency in terms of core count at least between desktop & mobile when it comes to i5/i7/i9 etc - I can deal with the core frequencies being different (lower) on the mobile CPUs but I think core count should retain some equality in terms of the series numbering between desktop & mobile.

Intel has been doing stuff like this for years. Dual core i7s with HT were pretty common. It boggled my mind why anyone bothered to buy one of those over an i5.

schmidtbag:

Strange how there are no 4c/8t models. When it comes to x86-based laptops, I'd much rather have a 4c/8t over a 6c/6t. If this were ARM, I'd gladly take the extra cores, since ARM is a more efficient with idle cores. I know I won't be getting any of these CL laptops if the CPUs are all going to be 45W. Intel has been doing stuff like this for years. Dual core i7s with HT were pretty common. It boggled my mind why anyone bothered to buy one of those over an i5.

Just like when people bought i5 6XX which were dual cores with HT on 1156. I had a buddy that didnt know much about computers. One of his idiot friends told him to buy an i7 laptop which had a dual core with HT. He said it would be better then an i5 because its an i7. I made him take it back the next day and get the i5 they had that actually was $85 less and actually had a better dedicated gpu. Personally, Intel has always been shady with that crap.

Agonist:

Just like when people bought i5 6XX which were dual cores with HT on 1156.

Very true, though to my recollection there were no i7s when that series came out, so it didn't look like such a stupid product at the time.

I had a buddy that didnt know much about computers. One of his idiot friends told him to buy an i7 laptop which had a dual core with HT. He said it would be better then an i5 because its an i7. I made him take it back the next day and get the i5 they had that actually was $85 less and actually had a better dedicated gpu. Personally, Intel has always been shady with that crap.

Well, your buddy is a solid example of why Intel's marketing works. They're going to continue pulling this crap until they're put under the spotlight. Sadly, I've even seen IT professionals shoot for these i7 dual cores. Personally, I'm fine with my i3-based laptop. Sure, there's no turbo speeds, but ever since Turbo Boost 3.0, turbo speeds are unappealing to me anyway. I'd rather have consistent and good battery life and lower fan speeds. Still has 2c/4t, but costs much less for a negligible performance loss in everyday tasks.

schmidtbag:

Very true, though to my recollection there were no i7s when that series came out, so it didn't look like such a stupid product at the time. Well, your buddy is a solid example of why Intel's marketing works. They're going to continue pulling this crap until they're put under the spotlight. Sadly, I've even seen IT professionals shoot for these i7 dual cores. Personally, I'm fine with my i3-based laptop. Sure, there's no turbo speeds, but ever since Turbo Boost 3.0, turbo speeds are unappealing to me anyway. I'd rather have consistent and good battery life and lower fan speeds. Still has 2c/4t, but costs much less for a negligible performance loss in everyday tasks.

1156 had i7s like i7 860, full i7 just like the i7 920 etc. It was rather confusing to me considering, i7 were supposed to be top of the line, i5s were on smaller lower sockets. My laptop/netbook/tablet thing is a celeron dual core with boost to 2.5ghz from 2 ghz. The battery life on it amazing. 3-4 hours avg of heavy internet usuage. But what sucks, its only a 2GB DDR3 1333 single channel and 32GB EMC and cant upgrade anything. All I can do is use a large SD card for secondary storage. Sadly doesnt matter what Intel does, the sheople will ignore it, the majority of people will ignore, and nothing changes. Even with the success of Ryzen, Intels smear campaign on TV is sadly just marketing brillance. AMD sucks, I repeat, sucks at marketing. Intel, even behind in 2006, killed AMD on that front which helped them locked AMD once again in the OEM segment. Even with DELL,HP, Gateway, Compaq even back then selling almost 100% exclusive intel parts, AMD actually outsold Intel before the Core series dropped a bomb. Personally, I have always hated Intel, hated I had to use their cpus for the last 9 years almost. And I am starting to hate Nvidia the same way I hate intel. And Im not even a fanboy. Im so for competition, and those 2 are not for it. Intel needs to be knocked back down like Microsoft got knocked back down. Nvidia will follow suite one day too I hope.

Agonist:

1156 had i7s like i7 860, full i7 just like the i7 920 etc. It was rather confusing to me considering, i7 were supposed to be top of the line, i5s were on smaller lower sockets.

Right, but weren't those i7s released after the 2c/4t i5s? I know they're of the same generation, but I think they were still released later.

Sadly doesnt matter what Intel does, the sheople will ignore it, the majority of people will ignore, and nothing changes. Even with the success of Ryzen, Intels smear campaign on TV is sadly just marketing brillance. AMD sucks, I repeat, sucks at marketing. Intel, even behind in 2006, killed AMD on that front which helped them locked AMD once again in the OEM segment. Even with DELL,HP, Gateway, Compaq even back then selling almost 100% exclusive intel parts, AMD actually outsold Intel before the Core series dropped a bomb.

Actually, this is probably the first year AMD's marketing wasn't embarrassingly bad. This may have been the first time I've actually seen AMD advertise on TV, and honestly I'd say they've done a pretty good job. But, their marketing still pales in comparison to Intel's. Regardless of Intel's hypocrisy and childish remarks, they're still diverting people's attention to them.

Personally, I have always hated Intel, hated I had to use their cpus for the last 9 years almost. And I am starting to hate Nvidia the same way I hate intel. And Im not even a fanboy. Im so for competition, and those 2 are not for it. Intel needs to be knocked back down like Microsoft got knocked back down. Nvidia will follow suite one day too I hope.

I too have always hated Intel, but aside from laptops, I never felt I needed them. Nvidia is not going to be knocked down any time soon. Though I hate them due to their ridiculous ego problem, they're very often right about what they say and unlike Intel, they actually earned their position at the top, [mostly] fairly. Though I find them expensive, I don't find their prices unreasonable. If Nvidia just stopped acting like a spoiled egotistical brat and instead had good sportsmanship, I'd be much more supportive of them.

Loophole35:

I’d take a true 6c over a 4/8 CPU. Though my 4/8 laptop is not starving for more CPU power honestly.

Depends on what your needs are. For me (at home), I use a laptop 99% of the time where I'm not gaming, using VMs, or doing heavy computations. That being said, my laptop very rarely does anything that involves more than 4 threads. So, a 6c/6t CPU would not only slow me down (because it needs to be clocked lower to reduce wattage) but the unused cores would waste more power than a 4c/8t CPU, due to how leaky the x86 architecture is. To my knowledge, neither Intel or AMD ever fully fixed that problem. This is why I brought up ARM, because when a core is idle, it is off - little to no power runs through unused ARM cores. With ARM, you get the multi-threaded performance when you need it. This is why ARM devices tend to have better everyday battery life despite having a similar (or sometimes worse) performance-per-watt vs x86. If a laptop were my only PC then sure, a 6-core would be my preference. But since I already own 3 desktops that I use regularly (technically 4 if you count my BOINC rig), having a 6-core laptop would be an unwise decision vs a 4c/8t. Anyway, my 2c/4t i3 has still been holding up just fine. I almost never encounter performance issues of any kind. The only reason I want to replace my laptop is because everything that doesn't have to do with its performance is horrible. But, it's hard to justify replacing it when it hasn't let me down.

Nice I was waiting for this. This would be good for those who do gaming as well as video editing on their laptops. Or for those who are on the go all the time and need a laptop for video editing on the go. But there might be limitations like battery life and clock speeds as well as previously mentioned. If I hadn't gotten my gaming laptop I would have waited and pulled the trigger on a coffee lake hex core gaming laptop but I needed an upgrade badly not so much in the CPU department but in Graphics horsepower. Since I was using a workstation laptop for gaming while it worked great for a while but the lack of gaming horsepower from the GPU since it was a workstation card caught up with the times. I couldn't even play Wii Emulated games beyond the native resolution and Diablo 3 was starting to become laggy so I had to turn down the graphics.

schmidtbag:

Strange how there are no 4c/8t models. When it comes to x86-based laptops, I'd much rather have a 4c/8t over a 6c/6t. If this were ARM, I'd gladly take the extra cores, since ARM is a more efficient with idle cores. I know I won't be getting any of these CL laptops if the CPUs are all going to be 45W. Intel has been doing stuff like this for years. Dual core i7s with HT were pretty common. It boggled my mind why anyone bothered to buy one of those over an i5.

Yeah, good points. I hadn't noticed they didn't have 4c/8t models listed, and I too would prefer 4c/8t over 6c/6t - I can imagine 4c/8t consuming less power (less heat) while being able to hit higher clocks which is good for gaming, while at the same time having more threads going on than a 6c/6t CPU - 4c/8t seems like a better balance to me. But, of course, the 6c/12t variety is very cool! (Well not cool running, but cool to have - the ultimate!)