btarunrZ399 is a step up from X299, X599 is a step up from both. With X599+LGA3647 around, Z399/X299+LGA2066 won't qualify as "extreme" (because there's a more powerful platform above it) and hence Z399 doesn't have an "X" in the name.

AnarchoPrimitivIntel is using every finger to plug the holes in the dam, and they're going to run out of fingers soon...

efikkanThese are exciting times, finally there will be some rivalry in the HEDT space.

I would prefer if Intel made one HEDT platform, not two. The X/SP dies are the same, there is no technical reason why they couldn't stick with one socket like AMD did with Threadripper and Epyc.

Still, Cascade Lake-X will bring hardware fixes for Spectre/Meltdown and will be moved to the 14nm++ node.

GoldenXDie size, Intel's monolithic design is bigger.

jabbadap+1. I doubt XCC chips would fit on lga2066 socket. Maybe if they would have been using lga3647 for HEDT from the beginning, then it would have been quite trivial to just add XCC processors in HEDT. But they were surprised by AMD TRs and had already segmented for different sockets for server and HEDT.

FouquinI'm glad Intel has a sturdy plan in place to target an audience of a dozen or so people. AMD was so silly and decided to target the thousands of others with their products. They really missed out on that niche of a niche's niche.

CammIf so, this is another case of Intel being silly.

The ultra core count market can still easily be serviced by Xeon and workstation boards, and focus on high speed + consumer features up to 16 cores to match threadripper. Splitting this into three consumer platforms is absolutely silly.

efikkan
Skylake-X/-SP exists in three die sizes; 10, 18 and 28 cores. If it's true Intel can fit >18 cores on LGA 2066, then they can fit the full 28. If not, 18 will be the maximum.

Currently Intel have these high-end platforms:
Consumer HEDT: (X299): 10 and 18 core dies
Xeon W (C422): 10 and 18 core dies
Xeon Scalable (C621): 10, 18 and 28 core dies

The dies themselves are the same, they are compatible with all of these. Rumors claim Intel will end up with the consumer HEDT spread across two sockets, which is completely unnecessary.

yeeeemanX599 platform will be monstrously expensive given Intel's track record. But the real wallet breaker will be the CPUs. Intel currently has its 28 core Xeon CPU priced at 8700$ (this is the cheapest one). How much you think they are willing to subtract from that? Before answering, think about this: a 28 core xeon 8180 which has 2.5 base and 3.8 boost is somewhat slower compared to AMD 2990WX which has 3Ghz base and 4.2 boost, all at 1800$. So Intel needs to sell you a 28 core Xeon which runs at least 4.0 Ghz boost to give you equal performance to AMD product and costing in the range of 1800$. I don't this becoming a reality.
They will push the CPU as far as it can get with 250W tdp (I expect 4.5Ghz turbo), so it will be marginally faster than what AMD has, but they will ask top dollars for it - I am guessing 3000$, maybe 2500$ if they have a very good day.

lemans24Why does it have to be completely necessary?? Intel seems to think that their are TWO high end markets: overclocking gamers and workstations.

lemans24The list price for the 28-core Xeon includes the ability to be put in compuer with up to 8 sockets which would of course be a very high end computer and therefore Intel can charge a sky-high price.
Since the consumer 28 core is targeted at a different customer, they can price it at whatever price level they want. The 8180 does not cost $8700 but if you want a SINGLE one, you will pay $8700!!!

yeeeemanWith this I don't agree - partially. The Xeon 8180 might have some features like the 8 sockets and many memory channels, but the matter of the fact is that it has a HUGE die, with very low probability of yield (meaning 100% functional), so they cannot sell it under a specific price, even if they would want, cause they would lose money. Given that it has 8 billion transistors and this is not a GPU (so, transistors are not that tightly packed together), I would suppose it is quite close to the biggest size the 14nm process supports.

yeeeemanYou have to keep in mind that when comparing a CPU die with a GPU die, you compare apples to oranges. The logic inside a GPU usually consists of a standard block which is multiplied over and over. In a CPU, the logic is much more complex, so the design, verification, layout and testing is much more complex, requires more man hours, more money and usually is more prone to yield issues, since you don't have any room for mistakes.

yeeeemanSure, the real cost of making a Skylake-SP 28-core might not be more than a few hundred bucks for Intel, but given all the other costs that I have mentioned, plus the capacity issue and the risk of production, it might very well cost somewhere in the thousands of dollars to actually fab a CPU like this. They also won't ramp up the production volume for these high count cores, because there won't be so many people who will buy them, so still, cost will be high.