Monday, October 7th 2019

Intel Marketing Tries to Link Stability to Turbo Boost

There is no correlation between CPU frequency boosting behavior and system stability. Intel today launched its "10th generation" Core X HEDT processors, with core-counts ranging between 10 to 18, priced between $590 and $978. Based on the 14 nm "Cascade Lake-X" silicon, these chips have the same exact IPC as "Skylake" circa 2015, but offer nearly double the number of cores to the Dollar compared to the 9th generation Core X series; and add a couple of useful instruction sets such as DLBoost, which accelerates DNN training/building; a few more AVX-512 instructions, and an updated Turbo Boost Max 3.0 algorithm. The chips offer clock-speed bumps over the previous generation.

Intel's main trade-call for these processors? Taking another stab at AMD for falling short on boost frequency in the hands of consumers. "The chip that hits frequency benchmarks as promised, our new #CoreX -series processor, provides a stable, high-performance platform for visual creators everywhere," reads the Intel tweet, as if to suggest that reaching the "promised" clock speed results in stability. AMD was confronted with alarming statistics of consumers whose 3rd generation Ryzen processors wouldn't reach their advertised boost frequencies. The company released an updated AGESA microcode that fixed this.
Source: Intel (Twitter)
Add your own comment

28 Comments on Intel Marketing Tries to Link Stability to Turbo Boost

#1
Vya Domus
Is that ... ice ?

Funny and ironic, for several reasons.
Posted on Reply
#2
wiyosaya
It must be tough being the underdog. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#3
xkm1948
Wait for W1zzard's benchmark and OC test.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mark Little
So we are suppose to ignore the fact that AMD will have more than 3x the number of cores in the HEDT market space when they release TR3 and be happy with a few hundred MHz higher clocks?
Posted on Reply
#6
MKRonin
"Based on the 14 nm "Cascade Lake-X" silicon, these chips have the same exact IPC as "Skylake" circa 2015 "

Are you sure this is true?
Posted on Reply
#7
kings
Mark Little, post: 4128966, member: 168714"
So we are suppose to ignore the fact that AMD will have more than 3x the number of cores in the HEDT market space when they release TR3 and be happy with a few hundred MHz higher clocks?
Not everyone needs the CPU with the most cores on the market! Or there is simply no budget for it. I doubt very much that the best selling CPUs will be the 32 cores part.

What you're saying is the same as saying that because Nvidia has the fastest card on the market, we shouldn´t be happy with AMD GPUs! Sounds right to you?

People buy by necessities and budgets.
Posted on Reply
#8
GorbazTheDragon
Ok it hits the frequencies, but does it hit the TDPs?
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLostSwede
ShurikN, post: 4128981, member: 140585"
Huh, these parts haven't been out for that long, have they?
Well, they only discounted them by $25 per SKU, i.e. seemingly what Intel thinks its own GPUs are worth.
Posted on Reply
#12
jeffj7
kings, post: 4128970, member: 180022"
Not everyone needs the CPU with the most cores on the market! Or there is simply no budget for it. I doubt very much that the best selling CPUs will be the 32 cores part.

What you're saying is the same as saying that because Nvidia has the fastest card on the market, we shouldn´t be happy with AMD GPUs! Sounds right to you?

People buy by necessities and budgets.
Ya know a lot of people do say that amd gpu's are good becuase they dont have a top end card to compete with nvida. seen it on enought forums so size does matter even if ya dont need it
Posted on Reply
#13
Mark Little
kings, post: 4128970, member: 180022"
Not everyone needs the CPU with the most cores on the market! Or there is simply no budget for it. I doubt very much that the best selling CPUs will be the 32 cores part.

What you're saying is the same as saying that because Nvidia has the fastest card on the market, we shouldn´t be happy with AMD GPUs! Sounds right to you?

People buy by necessities and budgets.
We are talking about the HEDT market. I'm not aware of an application that needs between 8 (intel desktop) and 18 cores (intel HEDT) exactly at highest possible clocks. Typically HEDT wants the most cores as they have always been the highest desktop core counts in the past or are we redefining it because Intel can't compete.
Posted on Reply
#14
kings
Mark Little, post: 4128994, member: 168714"
Typically HEDT wants the most cores as they have always been the highest desktop core counts in the past or are we redefining it because Intel can't compete.
More cores = more performance (as a rule, there may be exceptions) and I agree with you!

But, as I said before, not everyone needs or has the budget to buy the CPU with most cores. That's why AMD will offer other CPUs with less cores, not only the 32 core part.

Will AMD have more cores in the HEDT market? Yes. Does this invalidate that other CPUs, such as Intel's, can serve someone's purpose? No.

That's why I talked about GPUs, just because Nvidia has a performance advantage in some segment, doesn't mean that AMD's GPUs aren´t good for nobody. The same is true here.
Posted on Reply
#15
Mark Little
kings, post: 4129004, member: 180022"
More cores = more performance (as a rule, there may be exceptions) and I agree with you!

But, as I said before, not everyone needs or has the budget to buy the CPU with most cores. That's why AMD will offer other CPUs with less cores, not only the 32 core part.

Will AMD have more cores in the HEDT market? Yes. Does this invalidate that other CPUs, such as Intel's, can serve someone's purpose? No.

That's why I talked about GPUs, just because Nvidia has a performance advantage in some segment, doesn't mean that AMD's GPUs aren´t good for nobody. The same is true here.
I'm not so sure about the GPU analogy or the market purpose but I did forget about budget like you mentioned. If your budget is under $1000, then both companies are competitive and you can buy from either one for all applications. I keep forgetting that Intel drastically dropped their prices on 18 core or less CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#16
john_
Intel is really on a marketing war.

I was looking at today's Anandtech article about the "new" Xeon W 2200 series. I was reading it and it was like I was reading an article at Intel.com.
Posted on Reply
#17
AMX85
john_, post: 4129044, member: 137560"
Intel is really on a marketing war.

I was looking at today's Anandtech article about the "new" Xeon W 2200 series. I was reading it and it was like I was reading an article at Intel.com.
because of these things i don't read Anandtech articles, too biased

greetings!
Posted on Reply
#18
john_
kings, post: 4128970, member: 180022"
What you're saying is the same as saying that because Nvidia has the fastest card on the market, we shouldn´t be happy with AMD GPUs! Sounds right to you?
Would you buy an Vega 64 for $600 TODAY? Because that's what Intel is offering. Old tech, with a new name, for prices that are still higher than those from the competition.
AMD GPUs are an option because of their pricing and their superior performance in some cases. Intel is offering HEDT CPUs that don't justify their prices, except if we have to look at the HEDT market as another gaming market where programs prefer 4-8 fast cores than more cores that are somewhat slower at also lower prices.
Posted on Reply
#19
evernessince
kings, post: 4128970, member: 180022"
Not everyone needs the CPU with the most cores on the market! Or there is simply no budget for it. I doubt very much that the best selling CPUs will be the 32 cores part.

What you're saying is the same as saying that because Nvidia has the fastest card on the market, we shouldn´t be happy with AMD GPUs! Sounds right to you?

People buy by necessities and budgets.
This is HEDT.

Let me answer those questions for you:

1. Yes HEDT customers need the extra cores. Intel and AMD include their high core products here for a reason.
2. Budget is a lot bigger for this market. It doesn't operate like the consumer market where price is king. Often times professionals have a performance target in mind and will spend to achieve that. GIven that AMD is going to be offering more performance here for less money, the demand is going to be good.
Posted on Reply
#20
brian111
I wonder if this is more Ryan Shrout "marketing."
Posted on Reply
#21
EarthDog
bt
.....as if to suggest that reaching the "promised" clock speed results in stability.
Weight wut?

How does this try to tie in boost with stability? Am I the only one that doesn't see this (or better doesn't read it like the OP did)? If I had to bet money, there was a typo? That whole tweet is full of them... the comma use (leave mine alone, lol)?

It should read........

The chip that hits frequency clocks as promised. Our new Core X processor provides a stable, high-performance platform for visual creators everywhere.

Instead its a blitzkreig of commas forking it up. I'm not sure what is worse, the fact that this news exists in this form, or that they botched up that bad on the grammerz in d tweetz.

Even said as is (and my grammar is off), I don't see how they are trying to tie the two points together with those words...



EDIT: Anyone else with me on that assessment??????[/quote]EDIT2: Does any other outlet have a similar take to the OP or is this a 'just buy it' article?

EDIT3: Is this whole news article is based off of not understanding the tweet (for whatever reason)?
Posted on Reply
#22
danbert2000
Intel is playing some PR games with their statement, but there is a difference between system stability and performance stability. For the latter, if the processor doesn't boost in predictable ways, it could lead to the same task taking different amounts of time depending on the boost behavior. Now, what they don't mention is that their own processors do plenty of throttling when set to stay in the TDP, so I think their point is wrong but they are right that stability could mean different things.
Posted on Reply
#23
cucker tarlson
well,totally bland release,but funny to see people get touchy with the usual marketing bs.
they might still sell a few of those given how 3900x costs +50% premium now and x570 is a price disaster (x299's are cheaper here) but meh.
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
jeffj7, post: 4128989, member: 189108"
Ya know a lot of people do say that amd gpu's are good becuase they dont have a top end card to compete with nvida. seen it on enought forums so size does matter even if ya dont need it
Your rhetoric is nonsense
Posted on Reply
#25
evernessince
cucker tarlson, post: 4129097, member: 173472"
well,totally bland release,but funny to see people get touchy with the usual marketing bs.
they might still sell a few of those given how 3900x costs +50% premium now and x570 is a price disaster (x299's are cheaper here) but meh.
You do realize people can use X370, X470, B450, and B550 motherboards with Ryzen 3000 series CPUs right? Apparently not or else you would not have made this comment.

X570 is for those that need PCIe 4.0. Last I checked, Intel doesn't even have a competing product. It's funny, are we now resorting to apples to oranges comparisons when Intel can't win in performance, price, power consumption, or features?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment