CPU Wars; Intel's new 18 core monster and X-series chips

General Forums Latest News
#1

18 cores (though it will cost you a major premium). For the more budget-conscious buyer, the i-series chips are getting a new ‘X’ edition that contains improvements such as new turbo boost max technology for single-threaded tasks. There’s also rumors that the chip can potentially overclock to a staggering 5.7 Ghz, but no word on whether this is practical or even stable for the chip.

In another instance on just how badly they’re trying to leave AMD in their dust, they announced that Coffee Lake will have a 30 percent performance boost as opposed to the 10-12 percent boost in previous generations.

Exciting times for the advancement of computing power, can’t wait to see what the constant one-upping between Intel and AMD will lead to in a year.

#2

IMHO they don´t get it, it´s not just about power, wich will be welcome always, it´s also about power/money ratio… the most powerful CPU in their new line has a price os 2000$ so they are still in the same price line, if you compare that to RYZEN… well they are still reallly behind, and I´m an Intel fanboy, I´m just not blind… let´s see what happens with the multi-CPU Ryzen processors, what will be the price for the 12 cores cpu (24 threads) maybe we can have a 48 cores machine for half the price of a new Intel cpu machine so… let´s see.

Cheers!

#3

re-title
CPU WARS; CPU Wars; Intel’s new 18 core monster and X-series chips, 32 core EPYC counter-move?


http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-naples-server-cpu-vega-gpu-platform/
amd epyc socket = amd threadripper socket?

#4

Vega, Frontier Edition has been revealed

Keep in mind though, it seems like this initial card is mainly for development and scientific/rendering purposes (it can run games but not at Nvidia speeds). If you are a gamer, then you will want to wait until their official lineup is released in a couple of months (which reportedly will have more power in that area).

#5

Agreed on the price/performance rating. Also power consumption seems to go off kilter for these chips (both sides of the fence)

When it comes to Blender, how much is still done on CPU where GPU’s technically can’t? And how much of that GPU limitation is software issue?

Only thing that comes to mind is simulations for particles and all due to memory constraints. But at the same time both GPU companies are working to provide work arounds on that.

Now going back to the CPU - Intel/AMD side of things (excluding IBM and… anyone else??)

Intel’s response is what everyone was waiting for, for which I’m greatful to AMD for :slight_smile: Been AMD fan for ages, excluding FX (though I have one) but now on dual Xeon with total 32 threads…

Now depending on performance/price, AMD might win my wallet this time. On that note, when Intel announced their platform, did they state availability? And didn’t they state that 10 cores for now with more to come later, or will all of them be out?

Wonder how AMD will respond for the high performance desktop. EPYC probably is out of question for most of money conscious individuals.

So many questions…

#6

Availabilty for Skylake-X is only known for the 6-8-10-12 cores, mid summer… for other ( 14-16-18 ) … no date.

More infos.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464/intel-announces-skylakex-bringing-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999

#7

I don’t even. Didn’t you feel utterly and hopelessly embarrassed while typing this? I mean… seriously.

#8

you don’t even what?

#9

32 cores, 64 threads AMD EPYC cpu will be available from June 20, 2017. Now the epic question is, can AMD’s 32 cores fit in x399 board and probably make intel’s x299 and 18 cores moot?

#10

Intel 18 Core is currently just on paper. AMD can come out tomorrow and say the desktop class 32 core will be coming in the future with not date and spec.

#11

While the pin count is the same between threadripper and EPYC. It been mentioned (potentially at computex) that EYPC won’t work in x399 motherboards. Guessing its because EYPC supports 128 PCIE lanes while threadripper supports 64 and each pin probably does something different.

#12

Potentially bad news for Intel fans, Intel is not going to solder their new chips to lower costs.

This means that if you want to overclock them, you will have to de-lid them and do the thermal treatment yourself (voiding the warranty in the process). It looks like Intel is no longer caring if their chips run hot (either that or by making them difficult to overclock, you will spend more money on their latest and greatest processors).

They’re pretty much giving a huge opportunity to AMD here to take major marketshare (and this on top of their Radeons selling like hotcakes because of a hot new crypto-currency to mine).

#13

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-exhibits-pc-2017may30.aspx
AMD hasn’t deny nor confirm EPYC’s incompatibility with x399 motherboards. Somebody have to build EPYC + x399 pc to solve this mystery.

#14

This. Intel announced the 18 core when rumors of Threadripper having 16 on the highend was released Right now they have nothing to show for it. Even Linus Tech Tips seems confused about the whole thing and they never rip on Intel. On top of that it is rumored that Threaripper one of the 16/32 skus will be coming in at $849. Considering that the chip only costs them a fraction of that to make, they can definitely do that and still lower the price if they have to and still make revenue on the chip due to the way the chips are made and their high yields. Intel unfortunately is not in the same situation right now. They are huge in scale so their manufacturing arm gives them some room to move around but AMD basically made a super scalable chip by using the Infinity Fabric as an interconnect between the cores. They can pretty much scale the chip’s core count up fairly easily compared to Intel at the the cost of performance but not by much.

Intel’s offering will probably outperform Threadripper in single threaded tasks but the performance per cost will favor AMD imo.

Like the Athlon days Intel got caught with their pants down and are now trying to rectify the issue by throwing whatever sticks out there They never planned to encroach on their lucrative Xeon market with an 18 core chip and AMD just forced them to.

#15

I thought the 128 PCI-e thing was when using dual sockets?

#16

So based on latest information 18 cores delayed to early next year… LOL… So a very horrible paper launch for anything over the 10 core, while INtel figures out how not to shoot them selves in a foot and negatively impact the Xeon line at the same time.

I’m just happy that the overall CPU competition is on its way. Well done AMD, well done.

#17

The Core i9 has been reviewed.

In short, stunning performance (30 percent faster than Ryzen while maintaining Kaby Lake single core speeds). However, it is double the price (significantly more dollars per flop) and the lower tiers are purposely handicapped in terms of PCI lanes, dual-channel memory only, and RAID capability. This is not to mention that it is likely to be upended by threadripper in terms of multi-threaded application speed, price, and lane availability anyway (leaving single core speed as literally its only advantage).

So for a couple of months at least, Intel will hold the crown firmly (Threadripper appears delayed, but it was the same with Ryzen which only turned out to be a good thing).

#18

Still one rule is best, if software is optimized and lightweight it will work fast on older CPU-s and even faster on new CPU-s depending of extensions. Swelled up software is always slow as hell. As example Blender is so good with basic modelling even on laptop then after that move more intensive tasks to desktop pc.

#19

It is great to finally see competition again, and highly amusing to see intel have to cannibalize it’s own lucrative xeon market. Intel canno’t win against AMD unless they have some new architecture up their sleeves and ready to go now.
Like others have said. AMD has its near linear scaling and its multi module chip design(EPYC) on it’s side :evilgrin: Cost/ performance Intel is in huge trouble.

#20

At this point just based on price alone Intel is looking bad and even enthusiasts are starting to feel gouged or milked by Intel. Intel is refusing to lower prices to compete and that only makes AMD look better in the long run. Intel is fighting two battles right now, bad PR and AMD. Unfortunately one feeds into the other. Their stop gap measures to stop the AMD hype train have only made them look worse. Now they have a paper launch for the 14-18 core chips and rumor has it that these chips won;t even work on the current HEDT socket since they are already having quite a lot of issues with just the 10 core chip in-terms of power draw when overclocking. We may see a 2066v2 sooner rather than later. That’s going to hurt them more in PR imo.

It’s just a mess right now. I think they should have just stuck with their original plans, lowered prices a bit instead of panicking and they would have come out on top anyway since their chips outperform Ryzen. Even with Threadripper on the horizon Intel could have just lowered prices and ridden on brand name alone until they had something more viable in a year or two.

My guess is that they have an idea of where AMD is going with Zen+ and once AMD starts to focus on clock speeds it could look pretty bad for Intel all around if AMD keeps the same pricing. Intel right now is refusing to lower prices or get rid of some of the segmentation because they know once they do their server chips will be next. They don’t want to lower or cannibalize Xeon sales and don’t want to lose margins on the consumer sales on the low end either.