HoodWhen 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.

First of all: it's not hitting a wall. Intel could offer way more performance in their lineup, but they decided to stay on low TDP. Theoretically you could pump 140W through a LGA1151 CPU and get a huge boost in performance. We're not seeing that because, frankly, most of people buying consumer stuff doesn't care about more power. They want small, cool PCs, not huge OC rigs.
Second: Intel released so many CPU generations since AMD Bulldozer, that the mere +5% gains add up to almost the same AMD managed (+52% IPC from Ryzen marketing).
The end result is that AMD single-core performance is still behind Intel (but it's a smaller gap compared to 2011).

HoodMore 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.

And what about applications that don't benefit from multi-core performance? Should we sacrifice performance in those?
IMO the best thing about Ryzen is that it almost matched Intel in single-core tasks. It makes these CPUs so much more usable in general usage - not just games or encoding or whatever.
Yes, we should expect more cores in the future, but a single core just must not become slower than it is now.

Also, I think you greatly overestimate the importance of HEDT systems. No one optimizes stuff for them - that's why most apps use 2-4 cores, while you could have bought almost double that for years. Everything is optimized for laptops.
This is also the reason why many apps are not looking well on 4K monitors - because the standard in laptops is 1080p. Even if you run something that should benefit from high resolution (e.g. Photoshop or AutoCAD), you'll notice that icons are tiny and it's often hard to hit a button...

Im not sure im gonna get skylake e. I have an i7 980X that does its job just fine so far.

And if intel keeps there prices as they are now, i am deffently not gonna upgrade this time.

Let's be honest.

Intel have hands full. And they're scrambling to save what they can. I'm firmly in Intel camp since forever, but if AMD delivers 16/32 core/thread chip for 1000$, a lot of folks will jump into it (me included). And if there is option for a dual CPU boards designed for consumer (I just cringe thinking about Xeons prices) market based on Ryzen/Naples/whatever then it will be absolute no-brainer to forget about Intel.

Intel does good stuff, but for past 15 years they've milked every ounce of $$$ they could. Now its a bit of time for payback and running around scared with pants/underpants* (full) on fire.

X299 will offer marginal improvement over X99 so there is not much to expect (and they supposedly cut connectivity by 2 SATA ports which is just great if you need those). X390/399 shapes, on the other hand, to be something really new which is not Intel. Just don't screw connectivity or PCIe slots/lanes like baby-Ryzen did with its utterly laughable 24 lanes.

* - take your pick on English english you prefer. :D

Any intelligent being knows Intel is not scrambling around to put together a CPU with more cores. Skylake-X has been in the works for over two years, it's not anything Intel has made up after the launch of Ryzen.

efikkanAny intelligent being knows Intel is not scrambling around to put together a CPU with more cores. Skylake-X has been in the works for over two years, it's not anything Intel has made up after the launch of Ryzen.

The platform as a whole, no, of course not, that's part of their long term business plan, but the 12 core part is most likely a bit of a last minute addition. It's not as if it would be hard for Intel to do so, as it's simply a modified Xeon. That said, Intel is clearly concerned and trying to make sure that they have something new and appealing to the limited market that is willing to pay stupid money for an overclockable 12-core part.

I think somehow people think Intel was caught with there pants down because they didnt have consumer end chips with AMDs core count. The issue with this is that Intel DOES make and produce chips with large core counts in the HEDT and server markets using the consumer friendly architecture.

This isnt bad for intel at all. They just make consumer grade CPUs with more cores too appease people looking at the cor count on newegg.

If anything I think this might be bad for AMD because they will pump themselves up with core counts and parade it for 6 months and then intel will just drop a chip that also has 16 cores and the performance numbers will speak for themselves.

Solaris17If anything I think this might be bad for AMD because they will pump themselves up with core counts and parade it for 6 months and then intel will just drop a chip that also has 16 cores and the performance numbers will speak for themselves.

And so will the price difference...

TheLostSwedeAnd so will the price difference...

$999.99 will be the new limit for Intel HEDT no matter how many cores it has..

Hood$999.99 will be the new limit for Intel HEDT no matter how many cores it has..

Yeah right...

As if they designed this cpu in 3-5 months time lol.

Anything launching this summer was taped out long before the launch of Ryzen.

efikkanAnything launching this summer was taped out long before the launch of Ryzen.

I figure they already had the product "ready for manufacture" but didn't disclose it because there was no need @ the time. AMD wasn't a threat so there was no point in launching as soon as possible.

Ryzen changed all that and now Intel's feeling pressure, so they went ahead and "deployed" their "hidden" processors. But this doesn't happen overnight so time is needed for both board makers as well as CPU fabs to have the production ready.

Personally, i would have preferred Intel went with the "lower current prices" approach but just the fact that Intel's under pressure is good news, IMO.

HTCI figure they already had the product "ready for manufacture" but didn't disclose it because there was no need @ the time. AMD wasn't a threat so there was no point in launching as soon as possible.

Ryzen changed all that and now Intel's feeling pressure, so they went ahead and "deployed" their "hidden" processors. But this doesn't happen overnight so time is needed for both board makers as well as CPU fabs to have the production ready.

Personally, i would have preferred Intel went with the "lower current prices" approach but just the fact that Intel's under pressure is good news, IMO.

You clearly don't know how microprocessors are developed.
Skylake-X has been on the roadmap for two years, and would have been "deployed" regardless of Ryzen. Intel don't spend billions of dollars developing a chip and not use it, that's preposterous. Intel might not have much competition in the consumer space, but the server and workstation market simply can't get enough performance. You are giving AMD "credit" for things that have nothing to do with them. These products would have been the same without Ryzen. The only impact Ryzen can have in the short term is pricing, and the jury is still out on that one…

efikkanYou clearly don't know how microprocessors are developed.
Skylake-X has been on the roadmap for two years, and would have been "deployed" regardless of Ryzen. Intel don't spend billions of dollars developing a chip and not use it, that's preposterous. Intel might not have much competition in the consumer space, but the server and workstation market simply can't get enough performance. You are giving AMD "credit" for things that have nothing to do with them. These products would have been the same without Ryzen. The only impact Ryzen can have in the short term is pricing, and the jury is still out on that one…

That's not what i meant: i meant they had already developed it but were waiting for an appropriate time to launch it. Ryzen's performance was not expected and has forced Intel to introduce these new processors faster then expected.

But it's not that easy to suddenly speed up release date because there's a whole logistical process involved, so it takes several months.

Intel is not desperate or scared like some reasonless posts try to indicate. They have milked the market for years with high prices and very little advancements from gen to gen because of no competition from AMD and they were doing that intentionally, knowing that AMD will have to catch up at some point. There is no way for such company to be surprised by or to be scared because AMD has released something. This was expected and they have all resources to answer and they can price things even lower than AMD if they feel the need, and price is the only reason to go for AMD because Intel has much more stable and universal performance. With comparable pricing by both companies, AMD stops to exist again. I don't know how naive you have to be to believe that Intel is scared. All of those people talking about some last nails to Intel's coffin and things like that... So ridiculous. AMD fans are always speaking about AMD coming and saving the world, brining Intel and Nvidia to their doom, but it always ends the same. Although this time the made some significant impact on the market and I am thankful for that, prices will drop significantly and I will gladly benefit from that, but they are just doing their job now, thats all, the situation on the market in last few years is the fault of AMD not being competitive.

KrzychIntel is not desperate or scared like some reasonless posts try to indicate. They have milked the market for years with high prices and very little advancements from gen to gen because of no competition from AMD and they were doing that intentionally, knowing that AMD will have to catch up at some point. There is no way for such company to be surprised by or to be scared because AMD has released something. This was expected and they have all resources to answer and they can price things even lower than AMD if they feel the need, and price is the only reason to go for AMD because Intel has much more stable and universal performance. With comparable pricing by both companies, AMD stops to exist again. I don't know how naive you have to be to believe that Intel is scared. All of those people talking about some last nails to Intel's coffin and things like that... So ridiculous. AMD fans are always speaking about AMD coming and saving the world, brining Intel and Nvidia to their doom, but it always ends the same. Although this time the made some significant impact on the market and I am thankful for that, prices will drop significantly and I will gladly benefit from that, but they are just doing their job now, thats all, the situation on the market in last few years is the fault of AMD not being competitive.

That's just it: they should be @ least wary of the server class versions of AMD's Zen based processors because it appears AMD's multi-thread implementation is working better then Intel's: @ least according to CineBench 15. If so, and barring any unforseen last minute problems, AMD will pose a very serious threat: cheaper (supposedly) and faster processors (in multi-threaded) ...

HTC@ least according to CineBench 15

I love the way AMD fans always point to Cinebench scores, as if it means anything in real world performance. Cinebench is even less relevant to server platforms - unless your server is running video rendering benchmarks all day for some reason...

Intel price tag = peasant is not welcome.

Intel prices in Europe for CPU with HT has became like this recently
1 Core = 100€

HTCThat's just it: they should be @ least wary of the server class versions of AMD's Zen based processors because it appears AMD's multi-thread implementation is working better then Intel's: @ least according to CineBench 15. If so, and barring any unforseen last minute problems, AMD will pose a very serious threat: cheaper (supposedly) and faster processors (in multi-threaded) ...

I don't get this really. Where have you seen these CineBench scores for Naples?
And even with Ryzen I don't really see any advantage. The multi-thread and single-thread performances scale equally well in both cases.

We generally don't know much about Naples yet - even though it's expected to launch in a matter of weeks.
For example I am really interested in the memory latencies. We've already seen that the design modularity of Infinity Fabric brings some disadvantages in a dual CCX Ryzen CPU. What will happen in a Naples that's basically 4 Ryzen dies in a single package?

notbI don't get this really. Where have you seen these CineBench scores for Naples?
And even with Ryzen I don't really see any advantage. The multi-thread and single-thread performances scale equally well in both cases.

We generally don't know much about Naples yet - even though it's expected to launch in a matter of weeks.
For example I am really interested in the memory latencies. We've already seen that the design modularity of Infinity Fabric brings some disadvantages in a dual CCX Ryzen CPU. What will happen in a Naples that's basically 4 Ryzen dies in a single package?

I would agree with this... however it is nice that core count is coming to the masses - which means that software will start taking advantage of core counts - that's fantastic news for the scaling and performance of PCs - which just has stopped on the processor side altogether.

HoodI love the way AMD fans always point to Cinebench scores, as if it means anything in real world performance. Cinebench is even less relevant to server platforms - unless your server is running video rendering benchmarks all day for some reason...

If you compare Ryzen 1800X to 6900K in single and multi-threaded CB15, you'll notice that the 1800X gains distance to the 6900K in multi-threaded:





A better comparison may actually be with the 1700X instead of the 1800X because it comes from behind in single to be ahead in multi.

notbI don't get this really. Where have you seen these CineBench scores for Naples?
And even with Ryzen I don't really see any advantage. The multi-thread and single-thread performances scale equally well in both cases.

We generally don't know much about Naples yet - even though it's expected to launch in a matter of weeks.
For example I am really interested in the memory latencies. We've already seen that the design modularity of Infinity Fabric brings some disadvantages in a dual CCX Ryzen CPU. What will happen in a Naples that's basically 4 Ryzen dies in a single package?

Obviously we haven't seen Naples CB15 as of yet but, depending on how it scales, it's quite possible AMD will be ahead of Intel in this.

You are ofc correct: the latency between CCXs will be a key factor and we have yet to see how 4 dies in a single package affect latencies. This will "make or break" the success of AMD's server line of CPUs, IMO.

DimiAs if they designed this cpu in 3-5 months time lol.

There's nothing to "design". Intel's HEDT processors are binned Xeon CPUs that are gimped to only work with their corresponding chipset (X99, X299 etc.). Intel could make new models over night if they wanted to, but there's no reason for them to do so.

TheLostSwedeThere's nothing to "design". Intel's HEDT processors are binned Xeon CPUs that are gimped to only work with their corresponding chipset (X99, X299 etc.). Intel could make new models over night if they wanted to, but there's no reason for them to do so.

HEDT runs different chipsets, so no.
Skylake-X would have been released without Ryzen, it's launch window was even public last year. CPUs are not made over night.

TheLostSwedeThere's nothing to "design". Intel's HEDT processors are binned Xeon CPUs that are gimped to only work with their corresponding chipset (X99, X299 etc.). Intel could make new models over night if they wanted to, but there's no reason for them to do so.

I agree with you, based on what I have previously read about XEON chips being used and partially disabled for consumer use.