This was posted 6 years 8 months 26 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Intel Core i7-6850K Six-Core Processor USD $365.78 (~AUD $460) Delivered from Amazon (Prime Required)

430
Intel Core i7-6850K Six-Core Processor USD $365.78 (~AUD $460) Delivered from Amazon (Prime Required)Affiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
scotty on 21/07/2017 - 08:18 amazon.com (407 clicks)
Last edited 21/07/2017 - 08:49
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Missed out the deal on this CPU that's perfect for Minesweeper? Amazon is running an instant special on this item at USD $359.89 (to price match B&H I believe, which I just received a price drop email). Delivery to Australia is USD $5.89 making the whole deal for ~AUD $460 delivered.

NOTE: Amazon Prime membership required. Free 30 days trial. Otherwise B&H is also selling the same CPU at the same price but a bit more expensive on shipping.

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

  • 6 Cores & 12 Threads
  • 3.6 GHz Clock Speed
  • 4.0 GHz Maximum Turbo Frequency
  • LGA 2011-v3 Socket
  • 15MB Intel Smart Cache
  • No Integrated Graphics
  • DDR4-2400/2133 Memory
  • Supports up to 128GB of Memory
  • AES New Instructions
  • 6th Generation (Skylake)

Core i7-6800k is also on special at USD $335.73 (~AUD $422) delivered.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Computing Computer Component CPU Intel

Related Stores

Amazon US
Amazon US

closed Comments

  • Scab on 21/07/2017 - 08:25
    +1

    Cheap as chips.

    • FlyingKanga on 21/07/2017 - 14:20
      +1

      You eat pretty expensive chips…

    • gimli on 21/07/2017 - 18:42

      This is a chip!

  • donkeydoc on 21/07/2017 - 08:27
    +14

    Good work AMD!

    • AlexF on 21/07/2017 - 08:39

      It don't help AMD to have market flooded by rival's last gen chip.

      • kudoz on 21/07/2017 - 08:50
        +6

        It helps the consumer though, Intel is being forced to lower their prices on their old chips to be competitive…

        • TheContact on 21/07/2017 - 09:07
          +1

          And thanks Intel for the Ryzen 7 being ~20% lower than launch at Amazon? Retailers dropping the prices is nothing new, especially for a superseded part.

          Not to mention all NVidia 1070/1080/1080ti deals when AMD had no competing products.

        • AlexF on 21/07/2017 - 10:17
          -1

          It helps the consumer though …

          that's not why anyone is in business; and, if it can't find a way to be either outperform or underprice, it will be out of business, otherwise, incumbent usually wins (even if slightly inferior).

    • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 09:02

      Still should be less, seen 1700 for ~$380… A 1700 competes with this at 65w rather than 140.

      6850k is slightly better for gaming though as its 6 cores compete with the 8 core 1700 - better single threaded performance.

      • Diji1 on 21/07/2017 - 09:54

        Basically that's the story of Ryzen vs. InteL: Ryzen wins everywhere but gaming.

        • GossipGoat on 21/07/2017 - 10:16

          Yeah but thats where it gets stupid.

          In all benchmarks the GPU bottlenecks before the processor.

          They had to reduce the resolution to 720p to actually show the difference.

          So unless you plan on gaming at that resolution, might aswell just go with Ryzen

        • Diji1 on 21/07/2017 - 12:43
          +1

          @GossipGoat: >They had to reduce the resolution to 720p to actually show the difference.

          That's just incorrect:

          http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-vs-intel-kaby-…

        • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 14:20

          @GossipGoat:

          What?

          AMD admits the difference in gaming (they claim around 8%), and it makes sense considering the ~10% difference in single threaded benchmarks. The win is in the insane increase in rendering, encryption, encoding, etc.

      • selphie on 21/07/2017 - 12:32

        That was only true when Ryzen was first released due to RAM incompatibility issues forcing most ppl to run their RAM at 2133.
        With latest AGESA updates gaming fps has narrowed a lot closer between Ryzen and Intel if Ryzen is paired with fast RAM.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZS2XHcQdqA&t=266s

      • FickleRick on 21/07/2017 - 12:35
        +1

        Not to mention the equivalent ASUS X99 to AM4 Motherboard is $100 dearer!

        • Diji1 on 21/07/2017 - 12:44
          -2

          Why would you buy an X99 chipset when B and H are so much cheaper?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 14:22
          +1

          @Diji1:
          I think his point is x370 is ~$100 cheaper than X99. Comparable as they're both enthusiast grade chipsets.

  • Mister Plod on 21/07/2017 - 08:44
    +1

    pretty good. although it seems to require prime membership/trial

  • dono2 on 21/07/2017 - 09:01
    +1

    I just did some VS my Intel Core i7 3770 (2012) and still my old cpu holds up well against it. you would think after 5 years you would have double if not triple the performance………….

    • Scab on 21/07/2017 - 09:12
      +1

      My 4770 still performs great and it's never cpu bound (except for game bugs).

      Really see no benefit changing at this stage.

    • jaypick on 21/07/2017 - 09:34
      +3

      if you bought a high end chip (ie. i5 3570k, 4770, etc), you won't need to worry about updating anytime soon. Sure, things have gotten better and you may see a boost to certain tasks - as well as chipset and motherboard improvements over older stuff. But in reality it's not really worth getting a new CPU, motherboard, RAM and probably SSD just to beef up the backend.

      Better to just upgrade GPU if necessary and/or SSD to something nice

      • Scab on 21/07/2017 - 09:44
        +1

        Agreed, only real reason to upgrade for me is for motherboard features/improvements.

        I already have an SSD and 8GB RAM, only change the GPU every few years.

        • AMLagonda on 21/07/2017 - 22:46
          +1

          I still have a 2600K and it still has tons of power for gaming :)

    • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 10:09
      +1

      Usually the rule of thumb is performance doubles around every 10 years. Around 50% performance boost in 4 years isn't the worst thing ever… Pretty on par with the general rule.

      • Thrawn on 21/07/2017 - 10:23
        +4

        haha.. rule of thumb is performance doubles every two years (correlates to Moore's Law)

        Its been terrible in the past decade though

        • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 14:12
          +1

          Depends what you're looking at - performance alone I'd say it's more around every ~5 years it doubles.

          Ten years is more half/double everything - double the cores, double the performance per core, half the price, half the power consumption.

          Take Intel's X9650 in 2008…
          ~1200 single threaded CPUbenchmark, 4 cores, 130W, $1000USD. The prediction would be around next year we'll see 8 cores, ~2400 single threaded score, 65w and around 500USD price tag.

          Currently we see 8 cores commonly, around 2000 single threaded performance, 65W and ~$300USD. If we compare the 1800x, it's closer to the 2400 single threaded and $500USD price, but at a 95w TDP. Either way, give a year or two and we should be seeing this met.

          Note technically raw performance wise it's 4x the amount, due to doubling single threaded and cores…

          Also note there's always trade offs - Intel went into a stage of insanely higher performance at the cost of no TDP reduction on some CPUs, etc etc.

          tl;Dr: 10 years is double/half everything - half TDP/price, double core count, double single threaded performance.

        • billy77 on 21/07/2017 - 15:33
          +1

          TheRealMooresLaw is bit complicated than that. It wasn't about performance, rather number of transistors that can be fit in a given area at a price that is economical. More numbers don't automatically scale to more performance as it comes with its own overhead.

        • Thrawn on 21/07/2017 - 15:48

          @dyl:

          You'd have to go way, way back. In the 486 era for example, DX/33, DX2/66, DX4/100. In the Pentium/II/III/IV era we had fairly rapid clock increases as well. In the move to dual core, quad cores.. we had number of cores ramping up pretty quickly instead of clock increases. The last of the fairly dramatic performance increases was probably Q6600 era. Been rather crap since then… especially last 5 years.

          Yes Moore's law is strictly about transistors count.. but historically that correlates well with performance. Not so much anymore

          Once upon a time, you upgrade your computer every 2 years or so and see a huge difference.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 16:28

          @Thrawn:

          Q6600 is the era I used in my calculations, except I went high end with the X9650 for the calculation. Using Q6600 you'd want something that uses ~55w, cost around US$250, has 8 cores and benchmarks around 1800 single threaded. A Ryzen 5 1600 isn't 8 cores, but it's around US$200 so around about fits. Also makes up for the core difference through better multi threading (so it's still 4x overall performance). It's slightly over half TDP (65w) and doubles single threaded performance (1832).

          All that will change in this theory is the balance - you may see a 4x core count but no TDP difference (ie thread ripper), or a 4x decrease in price but no core count increase. For example, a US$50 Pentium anniversary may not have 2x the cores (infact, it has /2) but it makes up for it in the fact it's around an 8th of the price. Rest is the same - TDP halved, single threaded doubled. Mathematically the trade offs are about right still.

          Tl;Dr: all that has changed is the strings companies pull and the trade offs made. The overall change is still similar.

    • DrunkTechSupport on 21/07/2017 - 10:25
      +1

      Hey you should see my 2600k oc

    • Skids andy on 21/07/2017 - 10:54
      +2

      I7 920 ftw !

  • cdaddy on 21/07/2017 - 09:02
    +3

    Can I browse ozbargain on high with this?

    • Scab on 21/07/2017 - 09:10
      +1

      No chance, this will only help Clippy to be more animated.

    • Diji1 on 21/07/2017 - 09:57
      +1

      No, Ozbargain has to be set to permanent real time priority because of the incredibly fast rate that deals are posted. But ideally you want at least 2 of these CPUs or you aren't really using Ozbargain properly.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/07/2017 - 10:09
      +1

      Can't recommend high detail, JVs comments become comic sans.

  • mousie on 21/07/2017 - 09:29
    -3

    Perfect investment to go with an 80K car

  • leoshleo on 21/07/2017 - 12:11

    Don't think this is worthwhile to buy. If your planning to build an intel system, 6 core and 12 threads is coming to the mainstream in September 2017. Which will be on a 14nm++ node. Will also be on a mainstream z370 platform which will mean cheaper motherboards, compared to x99 platforms. A lower tdp of 95w vs the 140w 6850k sku as well.

    https://videocardz.com/70978/intel-preparing-multiple-6-core…

  • Hornpub on 21/07/2017 - 12:58
    +3

    lol ill take 1700 anyday

    • Slippery Otter on 21/07/2017 - 14:07

      Happy with mine :) i recently brought 32gb (2x16) corsair Vengence 2400mhz for $313.65 (thanks Ebay 15% off) and overclocked to 2933mhz 17-16-16-16 timings and bliss with the latest AGESA bios updates. Rocking on Nvidia 8400 GS until the GPU market calms down… VEGA HERE I COME!!

      • Hornpub on 21/07/2017 - 16:47
        +2

        good to hear, as an intel user forever, it is time to switch it up and try new things for me !!! excited

  • KenDiaMoi on 21/07/2017 - 13:01

    How does this compare to 6700k

    • vid_ghost on 21/07/2017 - 13:44
      +1

      worse for gaming better for most other things.. not worth it .. this CPU is overpriced for what you get.. AMD gives you better value products

      • kehuehue on 21/07/2017 - 15:33
        +1

        Not to mention it needs a new and more expensive motherboard.

  • jeefbeef on 21/07/2017 - 16:38

    Isn't this Broadwell-E (based on 5th gen broadwell) rather than Skylake?

    Skylake X was just released (7800, 7820 etc.)

    • GameBunny on 21/07/2017 - 17:44

      Yes but Skylake-X is expensive. And yes this is last gen Broadwell E. If you are after sheer performance and don't mind paying extra cash, yes Skylake X is the way to go as it is the fastest. But if you are looking for a chip that performs quite as well as last gen Intel chips but costs quite a bit less, then Ryzen is the way to go. This price for 6850k is very good though by Intel standards for a hexa-core chip with all 40 PCI lanes enabled.

      • jeefbeef on 24/07/2017 - 15:56

        My comment is a response to OP's assertion that it's "6th Generation (Skylake)".

        Just wanted to clear it up.

  • siresteelhell on 21/07/2017 - 19:40

    i7-7700k is only 20 bucks more (not on special)
    https://www.centrecom.com.au/intel-core-i7-7700k-unlocked-lg…

  • dhleoz on 22/07/2017 - 08:29

    Why not go Ryzen 7 and save $100.

    • fishychair on 25/07/2017 - 21:42

      I was actually considering Ryzen 7 over this for my upgrade but it seems that Ryzen does extremely poorly in terms of Adobe Lightroom performance, which unfortunately is the dealbreaker for me :(

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join