SFF.Network [SFF Network] Kaby Lake 300 Series Chipsets to Feature WLAN Controllers and USB 3.1

The 7th generation Core "Kaby Lake" CPUs, and the companion 200-series chipsets are expected to launch at the 2017 International CES show, early January next year. Even then, it seems that the 300 series is already in the works, with a few major changes lined up, according to motherboard manufacturer sources.

Read more here.

 

[Phuncz]

I guess now that M.2 has enough traction, Intel can stop making M.2 WiFi cards and start integrating them. Finally no more AzureWave cards that are so problematic. But I'm also hoping the successor to Kaby Lake has even more PCIe lanes available from the CPU, I'd like mITX boards to come equipped with both an M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 and U.2 connector, both usable at the same time. And while we're at it, I hope we'll see a U.2 connector to 4x SATA-600 adapter someday. More board space for useful stuff, still support for multiple SATA.

 

[jtd871]

John, I hate to call you out like this, but your article seems to be nothing more than speculation, propaganda and/or hearsay without a link to a source.

 

[Phuncz]

Why would you say those harsh words ? It's all over the net, it seems plausible and it's not written as fact. Sources aren't hard to find:
https://benchlife.info/intel-skylake-x-cpu-start-sampling-11072016/
https://benchlife.info/skylake-x-and-kaby-lake-x-confirm-with-lga-2066-and-2017-q3-07172016/
https://benchlife.info/skylake-x-and-kaby-lake-x-confirm-with-lga-2066-and-2017-q3-07172016/

 

[confusis]

John, I hate to call you out like this, but your article seems to be nothing more than speculation, propaganda and/or hearsay without a link to a source.

Those are indeed very harsh accusations for something that amounts to a 'oh look, Intel may be adding features to a chipset' article. I'd much prefer a comment like "Interesting, but could I please have a link to your source". Keeping in mind that some information that we recieve in the future may come from people who may request that we do not publish who they are.

My source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20161110PD210.html

 

[jtd871]

Perhaps I should have worded it this way:
"John, I hate to call you out like this, but without a link to a source, your article reads like speculation, propaganda and/or hearsay."

I did find the information interesting (else I wouldn't have left a comment), but without a link to a source or an explicit indication that your source is confidential in the main article, it seemed unprofessionally reported. Please take the criticism constructively.

 

[confusis]

Professionalism, here? Bah!

In all honesty, thanks for the comments, I forgot to post the source in my rush to get the news out the door