Read more.Quote:
Including the 18C/36T Intel Core i9 Extreme Edition processor with teraflop performance.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Including the 18C/36T Intel Core i9 Extreme Edition processor with teraflop performance.
I do so love how Intel can't help themselves artificially segmenting their processors.
While AMD has no problem supporting ECC in their mainstream Ryzen processors Intel fuses off this functionality in their desktop offerings. And of course that must equally be so for their rebranded Xeon processors.
Heaven forbid that anyone get Xeon features when not paying Xeon prices...
I can't help but think that none of this would have happened if AMD didn't have a strong product.
Apparently they won't be soldering the die to the IHS again, which could be a bit of a nightmare with so many cores able to boost to very high clocks: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu..._be_soldered/1
Also of note is how they're moving away from an inclusive L3 cache, which is interesting given the similar design choices made by AMD for Ryzen. It seems Intel's isn't quite a victim cache as it still has prefetchers, but I also wonder how the ring-bus is implemented in these HEDT Skylake parts.
It's great that intel actually tries hard now. I'd love to see AMD crush them so they try even harder
For withholding stuff Intel is not getting my money again. My next build will be AMD.
Hahaha, can you *imagine* the pricing of these if it wasn't for Ryzen ?
Also, I hear the 18c/36t is going to be $2000. Why not just buy a Xeon.
I wonder if the higher core count parts would have even made it to the HEDT space were it not for Ryzen. I mean the silicon would have existed regardless, just in the form of Xeons though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Maybe the HEDT parts will come with higher clock speeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Not a chance in hell. The Xeon mark-up is a gold mine for them, and it pushes people into that segment where hopefully they get used to the features, and in future when they might not need a Xeon, they still buy one. They would have done the 10c/20t part as a natural step up from the 8c/16t of last gen parts, but they would have stopped there. Intel are all about giving you just a slither more, or one boost more, they have absolutely no reason to do otherwise, until now.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
It's despicable, but understandable, they're out to make money, and had no competition. It won't change my opinion of them, I'm still going to buy Intel parts because they're the best part for my needs (high IPC, my system is strictly a gaming rig, more cores does me no good), but I'm glad they had this kick in the pants. If anything it'll mean cheaper parts going forward and I definitely need to upgrade, not my CPU but the underlying system. DDR3 is showing its age.
Aye that'll be how they differentiate em, with the ol' go-faster-stripes policyQuote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
That and ECC support. I also wonder if AVX-512 support will be segmented somehow? I've read it will be supported on this platform, but will be it all of them I wonder? Obviously not KBL-X which is a pretty strange product IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
you're fooling yourself - at any sensible resolution, there's no significant difference between intel and AMD processors (and a very large cost difference).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2017...2a17a26bce.png
It isn't just ECC though. It's also the speed of the memory supported. Add in the differences in PCI-E lanes available as well and it just starts getting worse the more you look at them. Absolutely fine with them having differences for the cache / core count / speeds, no issues with that. The other parts though make zero sense to me personally, why intentionally make your product offerings WORSE?Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
$999 - dead cheap that
You gotta love how they priced it though, they match Ryzen parts equally up to what's available, with all the chips being close in price and then being "only" $100 more, for the 8c/16t parts, but above that they're like "lol no competition let's be Intel!" and jacking the price $400 more for the 10c/20tQuote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
You know before you go throwing insults around maybe check what I was referring to first ? For one, you're showing stock benchmarks, when it is the OC potential I care about; it's not unusual (TO BE LOVED BY ANYONE..BADABADABADUUUUM...sorry couldn't resist) for Intel chips to hit 4.8-5ghz, while AMD will struggle for even a moderate overclock. For 2, pulling out a single benchmark means exactly diddly-bum-squat. Pull a game like Just Cause 3, or Civilization VI, 2 games that are not only incredibly CPU dependant, but ones I've personally benchmarked when moving from a non-K part running at 3.5ghz to a K part at 4.8ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
The most important thing to me is steady performance - in the case of Just Cause 3 I went from drops to 20fps to keeping a stable 60fps in the explosive scenes, and in Civ I cut my loading times by literally 400%, and turn times were reduced by a factor of 3, at least.
I can't see the X299 motherboards being <£100 like AM4, but it will be interesting to see how they price the threadripper (I really can't take the branding seriously, same for EPYC) motherboards.
The X299 being Intel and X399 being AMD is just going to confuse people though - maybe AMD were just being petty but I don't think it does them any favours.
But it's quite funny how they've only just pulled out the i9 branding! I was expecting that way back with Gulftown.
Except that all Ryzen are unlocked and fully featured, so R7 1700 @ $300 is the big value part not the R7 1800X @ $500, and against that the Intel 8C/16T part is twice the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Intel's 18-core die-shot via WikiChip:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEtIZfXYAAVKLX.jpg