Intel Purley Xeon platform offers biggest advance since Nehalem

[HEXUS]

In 2017 the Intel Purley Skylake CPUs will offer up to 28 physical cores.

Read more.

[shaithis]

This does make me a bit miffed.

24 cores in a single package, yet desktop products are kept to 4

[sykobee]

That's what you get when a single player rules the roost in a particular market. There's no incentive for them to improve their offerings. The server market is more competitive, so they actually have to try there.

Hopefully AMD Zen is competitive and comes in 8 and 16 core versions for the desktop. Because I don't see any other way for Intel to become incentivised to up their core count.

[3dcandy]

To be fair most desktop cpu's don't really need more than 4 cores (8 with hyperthreading)

[kingpotnoodle]

This does make me a bit miffed.

24 cores in a single package, yet desktop products are kept to 4

Except the 6 and 8 core i7 5xxx series.

Also you do realise how much the >8 core Xeons cost right? Double the priciest i7 + an expensive motherboard, but if you really did have thousands to spend on your CPU then surely you've got no problem buying the board to go with it. You can easily have the current 18 core Haswells in a desktop form factor if you're rich enough. Also even under turbo the maximum any of those 18 cores will get to is 2.8GHz, so don't expect the high single/low thread performance that you'd really want in the average desktop or even most workstations.

[shaithis]

To be fair most desktop cpu's don't really need more than 4 cores (8 with hyperthreading)

HT doesn't count. It only adds about half a core to a quad-core in the most optimal of conditions.....which you hardly ever meet.

And most != all To be fair, I only want a 6 core for the most CPU-demanding games (hense I refuse to buy an X99 system) and DX12/Vulkan may negate that need but I do feel we are reaching a point where 4 cores for desktop is getting long in the tooth.

[3dcandy]

Possibly but like I said *most* don't need more than 4 cores. I feel that is the issue rather than AMD not pushing the envelope

[shaithis]

Except the 6 and 8 core i7 5xxx series.

That's a workstation/server platform.

Also you do realise how much the >8 core Xeons cost right? Double the priciest i7 + an expensive motherboard, but if you really did have thousands to spend on your CPU then surely you've got no problem buying the board to go with it. You can easily have the current 18 core Haswells in a desktop form factor if you're rich enough. Also even under turbo the maximum any of those 18 cores will get to is 2.8GHz, so don't expect the high single/low thread performance that you'd really want in the average desktop or even most workstations.

I am well aware of the options and prices....the point is that they keep increasing one platform by large steps each generation, yet the other platform is being kept the same from generation to generation.

We are starting to see games that show increases on > 4 core systems, ergo, 4 cores is not really enough for the desktop range any more. You shouldn't have to buy into a workstation/server platform for that.

[kalniel]

HT doesn't count. It only adds about half a core to a quad-core in the most optimal of conditions.....which you hardly ever meet.

And most != all To be fair, I only want a 6 core for the most CPU-demanding games (hense I refuse to buy an X99 system) and DX12/Vulkan may negate that need but I do feel we are reaching a point where 4 cores for desktop is getting long in the tooth.

AMD will sell you more

[kingpotnoodle]

Possibly but like I said *most* don't need more than 4 cores. I feel that is the issue rather than AMD not pushing the envelope

The >4 cores CPUs are quite expensive (both CPU and platform) and the >8 cores are super expensive, both have lower clock speeds to still fit within an already higher power envelope. So I think >4 cores just offers sub-optimal performance for typical consumer workloads, is too power hungry (especially at higher clocks) and far too expensive for the market. The tiny few who want one can just buy a Xeon anyway.

[azrael-]

This does make me a bit miffed.

24 cores in a single package, yet desktop products are kept to 4

Wait for the respective E5-26xx model and whatever the follow-up to the X99 will be, and you should be set. Not going to be cheap, though

EDIT: Late to the party, I see.

[shaithis]

The >4 cores CPUs are quite expensive (both CPU and platform) and the >8 cores are super expensive, both have lower clock speeds to still fit within an already higher power envelope. So I think >4 cores just offers sub-optimal performance for typical consumer workloads, is too power hungry (especially at higher clocks) and far too expensive for the market. The tiny few who want one can just buy a Xeon anyway.

I wouldn't mind if they made a workstation xeon with 6 cores.

TDP is irrelevant as the iGPU must be the most power-hungry part of the desktop package by now.

[kingpotnoodle]

I wouldn't mind if they made a workstation xeon with 6 cores.

I thought you said the i7 5xxx was a workstation platform ;-)

Intel aren't currently releasing >8 core Xeon CPUs which are in the same power envelopes (unless you lose half the clock speed so not comparable), frequency optimised or anywhere near the same price as consumer i3/i5/i7, so it's not like they are withholding from the consumer segment - they are releasing products above and beyond the consumer segment. If you want a machine above and beyond the consumer segment Xeon which can be fitted in a desktop chassis just fine, lack of built-in graphics is surely no problem in a huge tower costing thousands, a £50 graphics card isn't going to make much difference.

Intel aren't suddenly going to be able to magically make a 12 core CPU, with a 65-80W TDP and >3.0GHz base clock speed that can be fabbed cheap enough to sell at anywhere near consumer prices.

[shaithis]

I meant desktop, but I'm sure you figured that out by reading the second line

No one is asking for a 12 core 5GHz cpu for £50. A 6 core-at-normal-desktop-i5/i7-clocks would be fine at around £200-£250. TDP covered by removing the IGP.

I know they do not want to step on their workstation segment and lose sales of their overpriced chipsets and processors (hello 3 grand for an 18 core chip!) but when some GAMES are pushing DESKTOP cpus to their limits, you have to start questioning intels decision to keep desktop cpus to 4 physical cores, they had better re-think that and/or hope that AMD cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat next year.

[3dcandy]

I meant desktop, but I'm sure you figured that out by reading the second line

No one is asking for a 12 core 5GHz cpu for £50. A 6 core-at-normal-desktop-i5/i7-clocks would be fine at around £200-£250. TDP covered by removing the IGP.

I know they do not want to step on their workstation segment and lose sales of their overpriced chipsets and processors (hello 3 grand for an 18 core chip!) but when some GAMES are pushing DESKTOP cpus to their limits, you have to start questioning intels decision to keep desktop cpus to 4 physical cores, they had better re-think that and/or hope that AMD cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat next year.

Like I said though the majority have no wish, need or desire to buy more cores in their chips. Gamers perhaps so

[DanceswithUnix]

I wouldn't mind if they made a workstation xeon with 6 cores.

TDP is irrelevant as the iGPU must be the most power-hungry part of the desktop package by now.

I think the 140W TDP of the 6 core chips says otherwise, the iGPU is a wide slow clocked thing, the CPU cores seem to be more of a hot spot.

That may well change at 14nm, perhaps 6 cores will become the sweet spot for consumer products rather than 4? I think software is starting to make use of it, but if the clock speeds come down then benchmarks in games will tumble.

A 28 core chip is just a different beast, in the same way that an articulated lorry is different from a Ducati.