Friday, April 21st 2017

Intel's X299 Platform to Counter AMD's X399 with 12-core CPUs

Intel's X299 HEDT platform, whose launch we recently covered as having been pushed forward by the company so as to better compete against AMD's upcoming X399 HEDT platform, has some new, juicy rumors floating about it. Namely, Bench.Life has reported that Intel's upcoming Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X lines of high performance CPUs will also feature 12-core offerings on its Skylake-X materialization, instead of just the previously reported 6, 8, and 10-core designs.

This really looks like an Intel that's stretching its manufacturing and chip design prowess so as to prevent itself from being buried in higher-performing, higher core and thread count offerings from its rival AMD, which has turned Intel's line-up in the mainstream consumer market head-over-heels already. Latest reports peg the new series as being presented on Computex 2017 (specifically, on may 30th), with availability being expected on June 26th. Which platform are most interested in, and what do you think of this move from Intel?

Source: Bench.life, Videocardz
Add your own comment

68 Comments on Intel's X299 Platform to Counter AMD's X399 with 12-core CPUs

#1
Patriot
It is nice to see Intel driven to compete. :)
Posted on Reply
#2
atomicus
If this ends up being a battle centered around little more than how many cores a CPU has, that really isn't such a good thing. I would hope they're actually focusing on other factors, like, oh, you know... performance? Just a thought.
Posted on Reply
#3
Patriot
atomicus said:
If this ends up being a battle centered around little more than how many cores a CPU has, that really isn't such a good thing. I would hope they're actually focusing on other factors, like, oh, you know... performance? Just a thought.
This is a workstation focus challenge in the 12-16 core range.

The servers are for the core count fight 28-32core range.
Posted on Reply
#4
Dj-ElectriC
AMD deserve some credit here, now that i can get a juicy 12 core CPU earlier.
Thanks AMD :)
Posted on Reply
#5
Raevenlord
News Editor
Dj-ElectriC said:
AMD deserve some credit here, now that i can get a juicy 12 core CPU earlier.
Thanks AMD :)
Why not a juicier 16-core CPU from AMD? =)
Posted on Reply
#6
Capitan Harlock
I wanna see the pricetag XD , if they wanna compete they should lower that too.
Posted on Reply
#7
Solidstate89
I'm actually pretty excited to see some Skylake-X benchmarks. Also, here's hoping the MOBO manufacturers learned some lessons with their X99 MOBOs, because holy shit, looking at the reviews of basically every single one from every manufacturer shows a fetid wasteland of RMAs.
Posted on Reply
#8
ERazer
TY AMD!!!!:clap: can't wait for Ryzen II
Posted on Reply
#9
Ithanul
Raevenlord said:
Why not a juicier 16-core CPU from AMD? =)
If they price that thing just right (and if it is true)....I know what going into my F@H/BOINC rig.
Posted on Reply
#10
Bruno_O
atomicus said:
If this ends up being a battle centered around little more than how many cores a CPU has, that really isn't such a good thing. I would hope they're actually focusing on other factors, like, oh, you know... performance? Just a thought.
As others said, the real fight now should be core count. Silicon (and the ways of manufacturing chips) are close to their limits now (that's why AMD did catch up with Intel in just one leap), so apart from minimal IPC and power consumption gains, the way is to increase cores. IMHO, unless we have a breakthrough (price wise) with other materials, people should not expect >10% gains in IPC for the next generations.
Posted on Reply
#11
Solaris17
Creator Solaris Utility DVD
atomicus said:
If this ends up being a battle centered around little more than how many cores a CPU has, that really isn't such a good thing.
like the netburst ghz wars. a whole lot of wheel spinning.
Posted on Reply
#12
ERazer
Solaris17 said:
like the netburst ghz wars. a whole lot of wheel spinning.
at least something is spinning, i held on my 2600k for soo long cuz nothing is going on worth it. I used to upgrade every 2yrs :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#14
Hood
When you think about it, this was inevitable, and desirable. Everyone complains about the lousy 5% gains per generation, and even that is hitting a wall. More cores is now the way to increase performance, and the gains will be found by writing software that makes full use of all the cores/threads. Old hardware with "only" 4 cores will run, but slowly, like an old dual core runs compared to a modern 8 thread CPU. AMD's Ryzen deserves the credit for democratizing the trend, making high core counts available to more people, which provides incentive for software and game devs to optimize for 16 (or more) cores, and 4 or more memory channels. Yes, it will require lots of effort, and coders will have to get busy, the low hanging fruit is all gone, time to break out the ladders. Who knows, maybe one day soon the "Extreme", "Enthusiast", "High-End-Desk-Top" platform will actually live up to it's name!
Posted on Reply
#15
m1dg3t
Hey Intel! You're going to have to wash my balls and gag on my knob quite a bit to get me to even consider buying/reccomending your products.

Patriot said:
It is nice to see Intel driven to compete. :)
When direct competition does not exist between competitors, it is the duty of the consumer to create it through pricing. That is the free market.

Otherwise, you are a willing slave and a party to helping in create a monopoly.

TruStory.
Posted on Reply
#16
HisDivineOrder
Hood said:
When you think about it, this was inevitable, and desirable. Everyone complains about the lousy 5% gains per generation, and even that is hitting a wall. More cores is now the way to increase performance, and the gains will be found by writing software that makes full use of all the cores/threads. Old hardware with "only" 4 cores will run, but slowly, like an old dual core runs compared to a modern 8 thread CPU. AMD's Ryzen deserves the credit for democratizing the trend, making high core counts available to more people, which provides incentive for software and game devs to optimize for 16 (or more) cores, and 4 or more memory channels. Yes, it will require lots of effort, and coders will have to get busy, the low hanging fruit is all gone, time to break out the ladders. Who knows, maybe one day soon the "Extreme", "Enthusiast", "High-End-Desk-Top" platform will actually live up to it's name!
I just don't buy that they've actually hit a wall. I think they decided they didn't need to bust the wall because, hey, look at that. Their only competition for YEARS was themselves. Why would they bust down their own wall? Instead, they tried to focus on areas where there was actual competition: performance per watt, power utilization in general.

That's why there's little performance gain. The moments when performance should have been improving (as in years past) had Intel's focus been where it ought to have been for desktop computing was instead centered on making sure that Microsoft Surface could have an architecture that was the same (but with fewer cores).

Core improvements are focused on power, not performance. Heat, not speed or core counts. Intel hasn't hit a wall. They built the wall and painted it with a pretty, pretty brush and made it look super-spiffy.

If AMD makes Intel reconsider the wall they themselves built, then that's a great thing for all concerned.
Posted on Reply
#17
Matthew Linke
This appears to be shaping up to be how T-Mobile and Verizon are going at it right now. Intel being Verizon only upgrading their stuff slightly. T-mobile being AMD kicking INTEL's butt in performance. So intel is having to bring out chips and tech that seem to have been on ice for a bit. So Intel is having to give early parole to catch up to AMD now. like the movie Demolition Man.

I do like INTEL but they have been dogging it.
Posted on Reply
#18
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Matthew Linke said:
This appears to be shaping up to be how T-Mobile and Verizon are going at it right now. Intel being Verizon only upgrading their stuff slightly. T-mobile being AMD kicking INTEL's butt in performance. So intel is having to bring out chips and tech that seem to have been on ice for a bit. So Intel is having to give early parole to catch up to AMD now. like the movie Demolition Man.

I do like INTEL but they have been dogging it.
Tmobile doesn't kick verizons butt where it counts though. When I walk around in houston with all of my tmobil based buddies I laugh as the lose signal in places I have 4 bars and 4G LTE. Item for item in plans they also aren't much if any more expensive.

This batch AMD is playing the half price card to get their name moved up. However do not think for a second HEDT will be that way. There is more money in those sockets for a reason. Intel has just taken a step to ensure there is zero chance you can confuse mainstream for HEDT. AMD has done the opposite. Lack of PCI-e and other bandwidth related issues plague AM4, I hope that this is worked out for HEDT, because they WILL lose customers if they drop $1000-1700 on a CPU and it doesn't support 3200mhz ram like the box says out of the box.
Posted on Reply
#19
Melvis
There already countering a platform that hasnt even come out yet? wow intel is scared. Not that I care, its to much money to spend on ether camp for a PC.
Posted on Reply
#20
RejZoR
Who wants to bet the 12 core will cost $1200 ?
Posted on Reply
#21
Caring1
Raevenlord said:
Intel's X299 HEDT platform, whose launch we recently covered as having been pulled by the company so as to better compete against AMD's upcoming X399 HEDT platform...
I think you misused the term "pulled" as it generally means to withdraw, not push forward.
Posted on Reply
#22
Octopuss
Hood said:
and the gains will be found by writing software that makes full use of all the cores/threads.
Dx12 will be fully adopted by all games before anyone (programmers) even starts thinking about this by the looks of it. In other words: keep dreaming :(
Posted on Reply
#23
RejZoR
Caring1 said:
I think you misused the term "pulled" as it generally means to withdraw, not push forward.
"have been pushed forward" would make more sense.
Posted on Reply
#24
Melvis
RejZoR said:
Who wants to bet the 12 core will cost $1200 ?
Im a say $3000 here in AUS as the 10 core is around $2500
Posted on Reply
#25
RejZoR
Right, forgot 8 core 6900K is already that much, this is 12 cores. So yeah, probably that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment