Monday, June 11th 2018
Intel's 28-core HEDT Processor a Panic Reaction to 32-core Threadripper
At Computex 2018, we witnessed two major HEDT (high-end desktop) processor announcements. Intel unveiled a client-segment implementation of its "Skylake XCC" (extreme core count) silicon, which requires a new motherboard, while AMD announced a doubling in core-counts of its Ryzen Threadripper family, with the introduction of new 24-core and 32-core models, which are multi-chip modules of its new 12 nm "Zen+" die, and compatible with existing X399 chipset motherboards. With frantic increases in core counts, the practicality of these chips to even the most hardcore enthusiast or productivity professional diminishes. The Computex 2018 demos reek of a pissing-contest between the x86 processor giants, with AMD having an upper hand.
The HEDT segment is intended to occupy the space between client desktops and serious scalar workstations. Intel is frantically putting together a new HEDT platform positioned above its current LGA2066 (X299) platform, built around its Purley enterprise platform, and a variant of the LGA3647 socket (this chip + your X299 motherboard is no bueno). This socket is needed to wire out the 28-core Skylake XCC (extreme core count) silicon, which has a six-channel DDR4 memory interface. The company put up a live demo at the teaser of this unnamed processor, where it was running at 5.00 GHz, which led many to believe that the processor runs at that speed out of the box, at least at its maximum Turbo Boost state, if not nominal clock. Intel admitted to "Tom's Hardware," that it "forgot" to mention to the crowds that the chip was overclocked.
Overclocking the 28-core chip was no small effort. It took an extreme cooling method, specifically a refrigerated heat-exchanger, coupled with a custom motherboard (we suspect GIGABYTE-sourced), to keep the processor bench-stable at 5.00 GHz. Intel's defense to Tom's Hardware was that "in the excitement of the moment," its on-stage presenter "forgot" to use the word "overclocked." Gregory Bryant, SVP client-computing at Intel not only omitted "overclocked" from his presentation, but made sure to stress on "5 GHz," as if it were part of the chip's specifications.
"What's amazing is that trade-off, this actually being a 5 GHz in single-threaded performance frequency and not...having to sacrifice that for this kind of multi-threaded performance, so you've got kind of the best of both worlds. So, you guys want to see us productize that thing? Tell you what, we'll bring that product to market in Q4 this year, and you'll be able to get it," he said.
Rival AMD, meanwhile, showed off its 24-core and 32-core Ryzen Threadripper II processors, with its 24-core part beating Intel's i9-7980XE 18-core chip under ordinary air cooling.
Intel used a multiplier-unlocked derivative of the Xeon Platinum 8180 "Skylake-SP" processor in this demo. The Xeon Platinum 8180 "Skylake-SP" is a $10,000 processor with a 205W rated TDP at its nominal clock speed of 2.50 GHz, with a Turbo Boost frequency of 3.80 GHz. The company achieved a 100% overclock to 5.00 GHz, using extreme cooling, and considering that TDP is calculated taking into account a processor's nominal clock (a clock speed that all cores are guaranteed to run at simultaneously), the company could have easily crossed 350W to 400W TDP stabilizing the 5.00 GHz overclock. If a 205W TDP figures in the same sentence as 2.50 GHz nominal clocks, it doesn't bode well for the final product. It will either have a very high TDP (higher still taking into account its unlocked multiplier), or clock speeds that aren't much higher than the Xeon Platinum 8180.
Consider the AMD EPYC 7601 for a moment, which is the fastest 32-core 1P EPYC SKU. It ticks at 2.20 GHz, with a boost frequency of 3.20 GHz, but has its TDP rated lower, at 180W. Now consider the fact that AMD is building the 32-core Threadripper II with more advanced 12 nm "Zen+" dies, and it becomes clear that the 24-core and 32-core Threadrippers are the stuff of nightmares for Gregory Bryant, not because AMD will make more money out of them than Intel makes out of its 28-core G-man in a football jersey, but because AMD's offering could be cheaper and more efficient, besides being fast. An overall superior halo product almost always has a spillover PR to cheaper client-segment products across platforms; and the client GPU industry has demonstrated that for the past two decades.
AMD is already selling 16 cores at $999, and beating Intel's $999 10-core i9-7900X in a variety of HEDT-relevant tasks. The company has already demonstrated that its 24-core Threadripper II is faster than Intel's $1,999 18-core i9-7980XE. It would surprise us if AMD prices this 24-core part double that of its 16-core part, and so it's more likely to end up cheaper than the i9-7980XE.
Intel cannot beat the 32-core Threadripper II on the X299/LGA2066 platform, because it has maxed out the number of cores the platform can pull. The Skylake HCC (high core count) silicon, deployed on 12-core, 14-core, 16-core, and 18-core LGA2066 processors, is already motherboard designers' nightmare, many of whom have launched special "XE" variants of their top motherboard models that offer acceptable overclocking headroom on these chips, thanks to beefed up VRM.
Coming up with a newer platform, namely revising the Purley 1P enterprise platform for the client-segment, with its large LGA3647 socket and 6-channel memory interface, is the only direction in which Intel could have gone to take on the new wave of Threadrippers. AMD, on the other hand, has confirmed that its 24-core and 32-core Threadripper II chips are compatible with current socket TR4 motherboards based on the AMD X399 chipset. It's possible that the next wave of TR4 motherboards could have 8-channel memory interface, wider than that of Intel's Skylake XCC silicon, and both forwards and backwards compatibility with current-generation Threadripper SKUs (at half the memory bus width) and future Threadripper chips.
PC enthusiasts nurse an expensive hobby, but the commercial success of NVIDIA TITAN V graphics card (or lack thereof) shows that there are limits to how many enthusiasts have $3,000 to spend on a single component.
The HEDT segment is intended to occupy the space between client desktops and serious scalar workstations. Intel is frantically putting together a new HEDT platform positioned above its current LGA2066 (X299) platform, built around its Purley enterprise platform, and a variant of the LGA3647 socket (this chip + your X299 motherboard is no bueno). This socket is needed to wire out the 28-core Skylake XCC (extreme core count) silicon, which has a six-channel DDR4 memory interface. The company put up a live demo at the teaser of this unnamed processor, where it was running at 5.00 GHz, which led many to believe that the processor runs at that speed out of the box, at least at its maximum Turbo Boost state, if not nominal clock. Intel admitted to "Tom's Hardware," that it "forgot" to mention to the crowds that the chip was overclocked.
"What's amazing is that trade-off, this actually being a 5 GHz in single-threaded performance frequency and not...having to sacrifice that for this kind of multi-threaded performance, so you've got kind of the best of both worlds. So, you guys want to see us productize that thing? Tell you what, we'll bring that product to market in Q4 this year, and you'll be able to get it," he said.
Rival AMD, meanwhile, showed off its 24-core and 32-core Ryzen Threadripper II processors, with its 24-core part beating Intel's i9-7980XE 18-core chip under ordinary air cooling.
Intel used a multiplier-unlocked derivative of the Xeon Platinum 8180 "Skylake-SP" processor in this demo. The Xeon Platinum 8180 "Skylake-SP" is a $10,000 processor with a 205W rated TDP at its nominal clock speed of 2.50 GHz, with a Turbo Boost frequency of 3.80 GHz. The company achieved a 100% overclock to 5.00 GHz, using extreme cooling, and considering that TDP is calculated taking into account a processor's nominal clock (a clock speed that all cores are guaranteed to run at simultaneously), the company could have easily crossed 350W to 400W TDP stabilizing the 5.00 GHz overclock. If a 205W TDP figures in the same sentence as 2.50 GHz nominal clocks, it doesn't bode well for the final product. It will either have a very high TDP (higher still taking into account its unlocked multiplier), or clock speeds that aren't much higher than the Xeon Platinum 8180.
Consider the AMD EPYC 7601 for a moment, which is the fastest 32-core 1P EPYC SKU. It ticks at 2.20 GHz, with a boost frequency of 3.20 GHz, but has its TDP rated lower, at 180W. Now consider the fact that AMD is building the 32-core Threadripper II with more advanced 12 nm "Zen+" dies, and it becomes clear that the 24-core and 32-core Threadrippers are the stuff of nightmares for Gregory Bryant, not because AMD will make more money out of them than Intel makes out of its 28-core G-man in a football jersey, but because AMD's offering could be cheaper and more efficient, besides being fast. An overall superior halo product almost always has a spillover PR to cheaper client-segment products across platforms; and the client GPU industry has demonstrated that for the past two decades.
AMD is already selling 16 cores at $999, and beating Intel's $999 10-core i9-7900X in a variety of HEDT-relevant tasks. The company has already demonstrated that its 24-core Threadripper II is faster than Intel's $1,999 18-core i9-7980XE. It would surprise us if AMD prices this 24-core part double that of its 16-core part, and so it's more likely to end up cheaper than the i9-7980XE.
Intel cannot beat the 32-core Threadripper II on the X299/LGA2066 platform, because it has maxed out the number of cores the platform can pull. The Skylake HCC (high core count) silicon, deployed on 12-core, 14-core, 16-core, and 18-core LGA2066 processors, is already motherboard designers' nightmare, many of whom have launched special "XE" variants of their top motherboard models that offer acceptable overclocking headroom on these chips, thanks to beefed up VRM.
Coming up with a newer platform, namely revising the Purley 1P enterprise platform for the client-segment, with its large LGA3647 socket and 6-channel memory interface, is the only direction in which Intel could have gone to take on the new wave of Threadrippers. AMD, on the other hand, has confirmed that its 24-core and 32-core Threadripper II chips are compatible with current socket TR4 motherboards based on the AMD X399 chipset. It's possible that the next wave of TR4 motherboards could have 8-channel memory interface, wider than that of Intel's Skylake XCC silicon, and both forwards and backwards compatibility with current-generation Threadripper SKUs (at half the memory bus width) and future Threadripper chips.
PC enthusiasts nurse an expensive hobby, but the commercial success of NVIDIA TITAN V graphics card (or lack thereof) shows that there are limits to how many enthusiasts have $3,000 to spend on a single component.
160 Comments on Intel's 28-core HEDT Processor a Panic Reaction to 32-core Threadripper
Why someone believe this wasnt overclocked?
Was very clear 2.7ghz in the cinebench
Also 5912 is probably some WC overclock.
It would also make a bit of sense to doubt *that* number, given that the 8180 has a 2.5GHz base clock, which makes the base clock reported there, only 200MHz more than the server part, and also 800MHz *lower* than the 8180's boost clock of 3.5GHz.
Take a look in the mirror, and imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Where were all of you when AMD obviously lied to us by claiming Polaris would improve efficiency by 2.5× and be twice as efficient as Maxwell… I could have dug up another couple dozen examples, but everyone should get the point; It's time to get some perspective and stop complaining about everything AMD's competition does.
They include:
1 - Q: Why use a chiller instead of LN2 for an overclocking demo? A: Because it can be hidden under the desk and the system can be made to look close to an open loop, whereas LN2 would instantly give the game away.
2 - Q: Is it reasonable for someone stood on stage, next to a chilled system with a noisy compressor running, to "Forget" to mention to the public that the system was overclocked, while at the same time repeatedly trumpeting the figure "5GHz!" A: No.
3 - Q: Is it reasonable for the custom Gigabyte board in question to have a VRM capable of handling over 2KW, unless this was very much planned from the beginning to be an overclocked demo? A: No.
4 - Q: Given the answer to question 3, is it reasonable that literally no part of the demo, in terms of scripted or promotional material, mentioned the word "overclocked" at all, given the overclocking was clearly planned months in advance in order to give Gigabyte time to design and fabricate that motherboard? A: No.
5 - Is it reasonable that for the launch of a new Halo product for the entire Intel consumer segment, there was no Q&A session? A: Maybe, but it's not usual, and it clearly works to their advantage in terms of plausible deniability for the omission - If a journo were to ask "Is this demo representative of clockspeeds at launch" for example, then Intel's entire ruse is scuppered, they can no longer hope to profit from the turn of events we're seeing right now.
6 - Given the clear confusion this has caused, is it reasonable for Intel to be providing piecemeal, individual answers to individual tech publications, regarding the "forgetting" to mention the overclock? A: No. If Intel weren't intending to profit from the confusion they've created, they would have made a much more visible public statement about this. Instead, what they're doing is *only addressing this concern, via the individual sites that have reported on the issue.* Sites that have made no mention of this demo being "misleading", do not seem to have been contacted by Intel to help them clarify their articles.
Amazing.
So the demo used a C19, and the 3300w psu would be a firecracker on a c13. I forget some places use 250v... that said because power supplies can take a variance on input voltages... most ATX 1600w and up PSUs use C19.
If I'm building a gaming box, this is what matters ...
tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/images/perfrel_1280_720.png
If Im building a video editing box, this is what matters (well in 2017... have not seen 2018 test yet)
www.pugetsystems.com/pic_disp.php?id=42852&width=800&height=800
Any time a presenter gives you a demo of new hardware, but doesn't actually let you see the actual new hardware that is running the demo, you should be very suspicious.
I've said all along - Intel did not have to fool everyone forever here. They only needed to generate a single days headlines, safe in the knowledge that later clarification would not reach NEARLY the same number of eyes and ears as the original, misleading information. For that, a chiller sufficed as subtle "enough", an LN2 pot would have given the game away immediately.
AMD's 32C/64T must have been much slower since AMD pulled the CB result. Would be fun to see stock vs stock tho, and oc vs oc.
"Knowing full well that AMD would be showing a 32-core Threadripper CPU during Computex 2018, Intel created a diversion to steal some of AMD’s thunder a day early, showing unreal Cinebench numbers from a suspecting 28-core 5GHz CPU that is not a real product."
@techspot.com
In any 240V system a C13 is sufficient for pretty anything you can throw at it unless you daisy chain through it.