Intel pulling all the stops? 18-core X-series CPU coming?

[Tatty_Two]

If you artificially hold it at that for a decade, of course it is. Reality is, IPC doesn't seem to go anywhere, but we sure can stick tons of cores on one die. So, why not go that route?

Well hold it or not its a fact, 4 core, 4core 8 threads is the mainstream, that's the direction AMD went too, it's just that they didn't do so well with their offerings, Intel have been providing multicores well beyond 4 for an age, just overpriced on overpriced platforms, I just feel the irony that they had the multicore monopoly and it was their fault because the competition didn't step up to the plate, AMD now have some solid multicore offerings and that's great, especially as they are priced competitively, but whichever way you care to see it, they were a few years late...... at least they are here now which today is the important thing.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yes but since they've already got Xeons that do all the heavy lifting, in the prosumer space, why would they want to cannibalize their own high margin product. Also with the 18c, shouldn't this have been planned a full two or so years back? AFAIK the Xeon & HEDT dies are separate & what happens to their cash cow i7 now?

Xeons, core i7 hedts are from the same batch, just xeons are higher binned chips to meet those requirements, same with the mainstream parts.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Xeons, core i7 hedts are from the same batch, just xeons are higher binned chips to meet those requirements, same with the mainstream parts.

The only difference is fused off or disabled funtioality(functionality) to mitigate cross use ie business functionality parts are likely to be missing here.

Funtioality shit is that a word ,my phone thinks so

 

[Vayra86]

Thats fair to say. Scared??? Lol... no.

When Intel starts marketing around 'more cores' you know they're at least getting a little bit nervous. Remember that this was the AMD cure for all problems before not too long ago. No longer can Intel rely on superior single thread, this is definitely a tangible shift in competition. The i9 marketing lines didn't fall out of the sky because Intel can make do with i7...

Scared, definitely not. But nervous? Oh yes. This is competition on their high end parts which is/was a *monopolized* cash cow. At the same time, Intel is barely a player in any of the emerging and growth markets where they could make use of their products, they can't get GPU off the ground proper, ARM won't fly, the fabs are losing their advantage rapidly, etc. You can have deep pockets, but if there's nothing to really put that money to good effect, it becomes a very unattractive proposition.

These battles are not decided over one or two generations of chip releases, but the movement is there and Core is running at its end.

 

[FilipM]

@Tomgang X58 FTW

 

[Tomgang]

@Tomgang X58 FTW

You are dam right. Just because some new fancy multi core cpu's comes out. X58 is not gonna leave my side. Even when i bay a new pc, my plan is to keep my x58 setup for the nostalgic perpose but also because i think even then its a great second dary system to have.

 

[Grings]

I just want to know how high this platform can oc ddr4, you can pretty much guess the rest looking at skylake and kaby lake ipc, and assuming 4.4(likely)-5(unlikely) overclocks

if these can hit sky/kabylake level 4000+mhz on quad channel they could be interesting

 

[Bill_Bright]

That's fuzzy math man. Other peripherals do not mitigate the cost of the processor. If the processor is expensive, then it is expensive no matter what you put it with. You're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I sure hope you are not suggesting AMDs are not expensive?

I am not fooling myself and it is not fuzzy math. It is "strategic" planning, or even "strategic math", if you wish. You look only at the cost today. I look at the cost over the life of the computer.

You also put the cost as your top priority - or at least right up there near the top. Believe it or not, I totally respect that. Many of my clients feel the same way which makes it difficult when I try to talk them into a quality power supply and case instead of looking to cut corners in the budget with an inexpensive supply and case.

With you putting a top priority on the cost the CPU, then it seems only logical you would pick the Intel when looking at the i7-7700K vs Ryzen 7 1700X or the MUCH more expensive 1800X. Right?

At the same time, Intel is barely a player in any of the emerging and growth markets where they could make use of their products

That's crazy. They are HUGE in cloud and IoT, memory, communications (including 5G) technologies, robotics/automation and autonomous driving/automotive safety and much more. Intel is looking way beyond the CPU for personal computers.

 

[trparky]

So just how does Hyperthreading work? What happens when two threads are scheduled on a core and its matching hyperthreaded core and it just so happens that both threads would use the same amount of computing power? There's got to be some kind of resource contention that will result in both threads being bogged down since both threads are fighting for the same computing hardware resources. Right? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

 

[Mr.Scott]

I sure hope you are not suggesting AMDs are not expensive?

.

I am not suggesting anything that I didn't put in print.

With you putting a top priority on the cost the CPU, then it seems only logical you would pick the Intel when looking at the i7-7700K vs Ryzen 7 1700X or the MUCH more expensive 1800X. Right?

Based on my computer needs, I would choose none of those for myself.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

So just how does Hyperthreading work? What happens when two threads are scheduled on a core and its matching hyperthreaded core and it just so happens that both threads would use the same amount of computing power? There's got to be some kind of resource contention that will result in both threads being bogged down since both threads are fighting for the same computing hardware resources. Right? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

That's where thread scheduling becomes important ,to stop that happening, its supposed to be a main thread and a waited or time insensitive thread along side.
Intel have this sussed for the most part.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

That's where thread scheduling becomes important ,to stop that happening, its supposed to be a main thread and a waited or time insensitive thread along side.
Intel have this sussed for the most part.

Am thinking AMD's first foray into SMT/HT has pretty much got it as well looking at the scaling in optimised benches and apps, not too shabby!

 

[R-T-B]

Am thinking AMD's first foray into SMT/HT has pretty much got it as well looking at the scaling in optimised benches and apps, not too shabby!

Well done HT should have the thread scheduler figure it out automatically, and not require "optimization"

Not trying to pick on AMD as I actaully think for a first go at HT, Ryzen is pretty dang good. Just stating the facts of the matter: It isn't "Intel good..." yet.

 

[R4E3960FURYX]

My target to archived 7980XE for me.

 

[Vya Domus]

Intel's HT and AMD's SMT are recognized by the OS in exactly the same way. The scheduling is done primarily by the OS , if anything AMD has an advantage in the way they implemented SMT simply because of more execution resources and larger cache since that's the only thing that dictates how useful multiple hardware threads are. That explains why they are ahead in anything other than gaming. Just like a server CPU would be.

Naples is going to be a tough thing to combat for Intel , large companies do not give a crap if it has an Intel badge and do not use the logic "I will pay as much money as they charge because it's Intel" like some of the consumers do. They buy whatever fits their needs for the least amount of money. And 32C/64T CPU at the right price would be a no brainier for them.

This and AMD's Threadripper are not big money makers to begin with so I don't see this as them being scared , not in this market.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Well done HT should have the thread scheduler figure it out automatically, and not require "optimization"

Not trying to pick on AMD as I actaully think for a first go at HT, Ryzen is pretty dang good. Just stating the facts of the matter: It isn't "Intel good..." yet.

I'm talking about apps that are optimised for multicore not that have been optimised for amd....

 

[biffzinker]

Intel announced their tray prices for Skylake-X.

Core i9-xxxxX (Gold/HCC Silicon) with eighteen cores, and 44? PCIe lanes priced at $1999
Core i9-7920X (LCC Silicon) with twelve cores, and 44 PCIe lanes priced at $1199
Core i9-7900X with ten cores, and 44 PCIe lanes priced at $999
Core i7-7820X with eight cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $599
Core i7-7800X with six cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $389

 

[Naito]

More info here. Press release product information here: [URL='http://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/Intel-Core-X-Series-Processor-Family_Product-Information.pdf']Intel Core X-series processor family.[/URL]

 

[P4-630]

Intel announced their tray prices for Skylake-X.

Core i9-xxxxX (Gold/HCC Silicon) with eighteen cores, and 44? PCIe lanes priced at $1999
Core i9-7920X (LCC Silicon) with twelve cores, and 44 PCIe lanes priced at $1199
Core i9-7900X with ten cores, and 44 PCIe lanes priced at $999
Core i7-7820X with eight cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $599
Core i7-7800X with six cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $389

As @Knoxx29 would say:

 

[FireFox]

Core i7-7820X with eight cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $599
Core i7-7800X with six cores, and 28 PCIe lanes priced at $389

I'm still undecided if buy the 6 cores or 8 cores, but it will depend more on clock speed.

More info here. Press release product information here: Intel Core X-series processor family.

Thanks for the link.

Now i know which one i will buy.

Intel® Core™ i7 - 7820X

As @Knoxx29 would say:

As soon as they release the CPU i will be giving them my money

 

[biffzinker]

Now i know which one i will buy.

Intel® Core™ i7 - 7820X

But it only has 28 PCIe lanes, don't you want the 44?

 

[FireFox]

But it only has 28 PCIe lanes, don't you want the 44?

I don't need 10 Cores

 

[trparky]

Whoa. The more cores the new Intel chips have the slower the base clock speed is.

 

[64K]

It will be interesting to see how much market share they lose to Ryzen. I won't be surprised if they don't lose too much though. Sheer momentum will probably help Intel and they can probably lower their prices a bit too if necessary.

 

[FireFox]

Whoa. The more cores the new Intel chips have the slower the base clock speed is.

Always have been so, the more cores and the less clock speed you get.

Ryzen 1800X 3.6GHz Turbo Speed 4.0GHz

i7 - 7820X 3.6GHz Turbo Speed 4.3GHz/4.5GHz

lets see if that's true