# Intel 10th Gen Core X "Cascade Lake-X" Pricing and Specs Detailed



## btarunr (Oct 4, 2019)

Ahead of their October 7th product launch and November availability, we have confirmation of the specifications and pricing of Intel's 10th generation Core X "Cascade Lake-X" HEDT processors in the LGA2066 package. These chips feature compatibility with existing socket LGA2066 motherboards with a UEFI BIOS update, although several motherboard manufacturers are launching new products with some of the latest connectivity options, such as 2.5 GbE wired Ethernet, and 802.11ax Wi-Fi 6 WLAN.

The 10th generation Core X HEDT processor family is based on the new 14 nm++ "Cascade Lake" silicon, which comes with hardware fixes against several classes side-channel vulnerabilities, and introduces an updated instruction-set that includes more AVX-512 instructions, and the new DLBoost instruction. DLBoost leverages new fixed-function hardware on silicon to accelerate AI deep-learning neural-set building and training by up to 5 times. Intel's first wave of 10th gen Core X lineup is rather slim, with just four processor models. The company did away with the Core i7 brand extension, as core-counts in the mainstream desktop segment have already reached 8-core. The lineup now begins at 10-core/20-thread, with the chip's full 48-lane PCI-Express and 4-channel DDR4 interfaces enabled across the board. All models feature the "XE" brand extension, and feature unlocked base-clock multipliers. 



 




The Core i9-10900XE is your gateway to the series. This 10-core/20-thread chip comes with a fascinating price-tag of just USD $590, a significant drop from the $999 price for the previous-generation 10-core chip, the i9-9900X. It's clocked higher, with 3.70 GHz nominal, 4.50 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.70 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and 4.30 GHz all-core Turbo. The chip is endowed with 1 MB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. 

The Core i9-10920XE is a $689 12-core/24-thread chip priced under AMD's upcoming flagship AM4 model, the Ryzen 9 3950X. It's marginally faster than its predecessor, the i9-9920X, with 3.50 GHz base clocks (same), 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 4.30 GHz all-core turbo. Interestingly, the increase in core-count doesn't bring additional L3 cache, you get the same 19.25 MB. 

The next step in this series is the $784 Core i9-10940XE, a 14-core/28-thread processor clocked at 3.30 GHz, with 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 4.10 GHz all-core turbo. Yet again, you get just 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. Interestingly, Intel did not plan a 16-core/32-thread model in this series, you jump straight to the flagship.

Leading the pack is the Core i9-10980XE, an 18-core/36-thread processor priced at a mouth-watering $979, which is less than half that of the previous-generation Core i9-9980XE. It ticks at 3.00 GHz, with 4.60 GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, 4.80 GHz Turbo Boost Max 3.0, and 3.80 GHz all-core turbo. You get a larger 24.75 MB of shared L3 cache. All four chips have their TDP rated at 165 W.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

very impressive Intel. Price tags are pretty low considering how it looked over the passed few years. Anyway the boost clocks for all cores are lower a bit.


----------



## 1d10t (Oct 4, 2019)

1d10t said:


> I recall earlier these year there's some leaks, or sort of , a 4Ghz based with fewer core and whooping TDP. Unless Intel managed to refined that, I'm highly doubt they can pull even 3.8Ghz based on 10 core
> While I partially agree on that "mainstream market needs more than 8 cores for now", is it nice to have an option? I mean in dark ages you need 2 rigs for same task, now it can be done faster in just 1 rig. 12 core on mainstream is a god send for us "budget professional"
> On core part, I believe we already reaching peak single core MIPS, don't see any big leap since Athlon64 FX-53, thus adding more core or another threads is more feasible.



Don't think I have a good hunch


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> very impressive Intel. Price tags are pretty low considering how it looked over the passed few years. Anyway the boost clocks for all cores are lower a bit.



what impresses you about this?


----------



## Gungar (Oct 4, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> what impresses you about this?



784 dollars for 14 cores that's nearly AMD pricing. That's very impressive.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> what impresses you about this?


Basically low price. You don't see that from Intel very often. Well, that's about it.


----------



## ncrs (Oct 4, 2019)

Gungar said:


> 784 dollars for 14 cores that's nearly AMD pricing. That's very impressive.



Too bad it doesn't have the features that AMD does... No ECC support is just pathetic at this point.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 4, 2019)

Ryzen 3rd gen has them beat across the board: lower price ($189 less for 12-core, but there seems to be some retailer gouging on the AMD side so realistically ~$100 less), more total cache (Ryzen has 64 MB L3), higher base clock speeds, lower wattage (105 versus 165).


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

XE Turbo Boost Max ultra super duper.... still same shit different name.

Well done. So Intel now learns how to apply discounts. Let's see if they can un-miss the boat with that... lol


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 4, 2019)

Gungar said:


> 784 dollars for 14 cores that's nearly AMD pricing. That's very impressive.



I mean, better pricing then the price gauging going on before (like Nvidia is doing atm) is good yes... but its odd to use the word "impressive" for it imo.
I mean, they are still making a lot of profit on these so why would you be impressed by them asking less money then they were before?
I guess you could be impressed by AMD to actually force Intel to start cutting down their prices?

Not trying to make it a whole debate though, but  for example imo it would be impressive if they could do those 14 cores while consuming less power then a 9700k or something, that would be a technological leap, that would be impressive.

anywho, moving on


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> I mean, better pricing then the price gauging going on before (like Nvidia is doing atm) is good yes... but its odd to use the word "impressive" for it imo.
> I mean, they are still making a lot of profit on these so why would you be impressed by them asking less money then they were before?
> I guess you could be impressed by AMD to actually force Intel to start cutting down their prices?
> 
> ...


In comparison to previous Intel gen (10 core) it is impressive price drop. $400 is quite a lot and for me that is impressive no matter how much cash Intel will be making on the sales of these processors.


----------



## ChosenName (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> very impressive Intel. Price tags are pretty low considering how it looked over the passed few years. Anyway the boost clocks for all cores are lower a bit.


.... don't forget to add on the price of the required new motherboard....


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> In comparison to previous Intel gen (10 core) it is impressive price drop. $400 is quite a lot and for me that is impressive no matter how much cash Intel will be making on the sales of these processors.



Its a bit like calling the next Apple Iphone 'impressive' for costing 600 bucks this year instead of 1000 

I guess now we know how high the Intel tax has been all these years  They've lost the brand image that allowed them to charge these obscene numbers, and this is what's left. Mind you, its still not competitive


----------



## chaosmassive (Oct 4, 2019)

Intel slash their price tag on the CPU this significant means that Intel afford to lose that margin 
in order to stay relevant in the game.
make no mistake, Intel still gaining profit even after cutting the price by almost half.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> very impressive Intel. Price tags are pretty low considering how it looked over the passed few years. Anyway the boost clocks for all cores are lower a bit.


"Impressive" is the wrong word. If someone you know has been kneeing you in the guts every time you meet for the past decade, but suddenly stops, that isn't impressive but rather that person finally not being an utter asshole. We should all be very thankful to AMD for making Intel price their products within the realms of reality rather than some fantasy land where $2000 CPUs are somehow okay.


ChosenName said:


> .... don't forget to add on the price of the required new motherboard....


Actually these work on existing X299 motherboards(!!!!!). If only Intel would do that for MSDT CPUs - after all they're on their third incompatible platform for the same damn architecture by now, on the same socket, with only firmware locks enforcing incompatibility. Intel isn't a nice company.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 4, 2019)

Well done AMD well done!


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

ChosenName said:


> .... don't forget to add on the price of the required new motherboard....


I'm talking about the CPU in comparison to previous generation not the motherboard.


Valantar said:


> "Impressive" is the wrong word. If someone you know has been kneeing you in the guts every time you meet for the past decade, but suddenly stops, that isn't impressive but rather that person finally not being an utter asshole. We should all be very thankful to AMD for making Intel price their products within the realms of reality rather than some fantasy land where $2000 CPUs are somehow okay.





Vayra86 said:


> Its a bit like calling the next Apple Iphone 'impressive' for costing 600 bucks this year instead of 1000


I think you don't understand. The price cut is impressive not the price itself or the product. I still wouldn't buy it anyway. 40% off is impressive but the price itself not really.

And yeah. Intel's prices for the CPUs where off the charts for a long time. This one is a great example.


----------



## bonehead123 (Oct 4, 2019)

Say what you will, but any time the prices for new pc hardware goes down, even a little, even with minimal improvements in the overall/underlying tech or specs, it IS a win-win for the end users,  yes ?

I do feel like most others here though, that Intel has been been taking full advantage of the lack of competition for a l..o..n..g time now, and I like it that they are now being forced to face the music


----------



## john_ (Oct 4, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Don't think I have a good hunch


 Maybe you have. We don't know the REAL TDP of that 10 core CPU.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I think you don't understand. The price cut is impressive not the price itself or the product. I still wouldn't buy it anyway. 40% off is impressive but the price itself not really.


That's the thing - "impressive" implies that the person/entity doing the action in question (in this case: launching a new lineup of HEDT CPUs at around 50% off) is doing something laudable and positive. Returning to the status quo from insanity is not _positive_, it is simply no longer negative. Hence my analogy. No longer doing a shitty thing is not the same as doing a nice thing. Intel does in no way deserve credit for no longer fleecing their customers - at best they deserve the very minor recognition that they seem to understand just how weak their competitive positioning currently is. Which is in no way impressive, just a demonstration of the barest minimum of self-awareness and basic common sense. You don't congratulate people or call them "impressive" for getting out of a burning house.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

Valantar said:


> That's the thing - "impressive" implies that the person/entity doing the action in question (in this case: launching a new lineup of HEDT CPUs at around 50% off) is doing something laudable and positive. Returning to the status quo from insanity is not _positive_, it is simply no longer negative. Hence my analogy. No longer doing a shitty thing is not the same as doing a nice thing. Intel does in no way deserve credit for no longer fleecing their customers - at best they deserve the very minor recognition that they seem to understand just how weak their competitive positioning currently is. Which is in no way impressive, just a demonstration of the barest minimum of self-awareness and basic common sense. You don't congratulate people or call them "impressive" for getting out of a burning house.


You sound like you are humanizing Intel and thus go your analogy. More like positive or negative behavior towards other people coming back from being insane. Sure it is bad to jack up the price and sell it when there is not other choice. The thing is there is a choice.
From my standpoint, price cuts are positive and this one over 40% off is impressive. Intel is doing something positive because the prices are cut so that is good. Isn't it? You don't call people impressive for getting into a burning house either. 
Impressive as an adjective can refer, to objects or an event, situation not just people like you describe it thus impressive price cut. Acknowledgment of the impressive actions taking place not giving a credit or seeing Intel as a credible one due to price cut because I don't care about the product.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> You sound like you are humanizing Intel and thus go your analogy. More like positive or negative behavior towards other people coming back from being insane. Sure it is bad to jack up the price and sell it when there is not other choice. The thing is there is a choice.
> From my standpoint, price cuts are positive and this one over 40% off is impressive. Intel is doing something positive because the prices are cut so that is good. Isn't it? You don't call people impressive for getting into a burning house either.
> Impressive as an adjective can refer, to objects or an event, situation not just people like you describe it thus impressive price cut. Acknowledgment of the impressive actions taking place not giving a credit or seeing Intel as a credible one due to price cut because I don't care about the product.


Humanizing? No. Intel as a corporation is just as capable of acting - and thus acting in certain ways, with certain intentions - as any person. The ability to act is not something limited to only people. The issue with your logic is that your point of reference for whether the action is positive/impressive is _defined by Intel_ rather than a separate and more neutral-like point of reference (such as a general idea of sensible CPU price and price/perf development over time), which also has the side effect of being ahistorical and lacking in perspective. Subsequent actions are not separate, so lowering prices after first jacking them up is not _good_, it is simply a correction of previous wrongdoing. You calling this "impressive" serves to erase the previous wrongdoing (as current actions are generally seen as more relevant and defining of character) which is a degree of slack I see no reason to cut Intel at this point. Hence my original analogy. _Stopping_ a bad practice _that you yourself have instigated and maintained_ is not _good_, it is simply _no longer bad_. There is a (big!) difference. The only context in which these price cuts are impressive is an utter lack of context. The _only_ reason Intel did this is _because they set their own damn house on fire_ and are now seeing that it might be sensible to leave. You say there is a choice - yes, Intel made the choice to jack up HEDT CPU prices to entirely ridiculous levels for no reason beyond padding their own margins. They are thus responsible for those actions, and should be regarded as though those actions were intentional and thought-through. What you are arguing for is ignoring this entirely, and instead rewarding and praising them for no longer being complete assholes. The thing is: they still are - they have done _nothing_ to earn the favor of consumers beyond _no longer price gouging_. To earn consumer favor they need to go significantly beyond this - by undercutting AMD or otherwise delivering something _more_ than what can be reasonably expected.


----------



## amit_talkin (Oct 4, 2019)

Those Cache numbers are joke.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2019)

Valantar said:


> The issue with your logic is that your point of reference for whether the action is positive/impressive is _defined by Intel_ rather than a separate and more neutral-like point of reference (


There is not issue with my logic. The price drop is impressive and that's a positive thing. For the record if something/someone deserves a credit for this price drop is not Intel but AMD. So your statement positive/impressive defined by Intel rather than a separate and more neutral-like makes no sense.
It was not a wrongdoing. I didn't buy Intel because I knew the price is too high. It's that simple.


Valantar said:


> Intel made the choice to jack up HEDT CPU prices to entirely ridiculous levels for no reason beyond padding their own margins.


Stop seeing Intel as charity. It is a company and do not humanize the company again. This is business it has nothing to do with good feelings, right-doing or wrongdoing. The problem is not Intel jacking up the price but people still buying it and calling it worth the money. You don't need to look far for those people.


Valantar said:


> You say there is a choice - yes, Intel made the choice to jack up HEDT CPU prices to entirely ridiculous levels for no reason beyond padding their own margin


The choice I mentioned refers to people. They have a choice not to go with Intel with it's ridiculous prices but AMD as an alternative not choice for Intel to lower the price.

Are you kidding me? Saying the price drop is impressive means I'm praising INTEL ? What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Oct 4, 2019)

It’s a good move, but what is the total cost of entry if you are starting from scratch? Aren’t x299 boards really expensive? Cheapest I found at Microcenter is $309. The cheapest x570 at the same store is about half that price. The other concern is that I suspect TDP will be really high on these versus Ryzen.


----------



## Ashtr1x (Oct 4, 2019)

Honestly seeing this extreme Whiteknighting AMD is so funny. Addressing a corporate by thanking LOL.

Guys AMD / Intel all and any company will raise prices and stagnate in innovation if there is no competition.

How about the AMD X570 board Premium ? $700+ for a Mainstream Mobo where each and every Processor behaves differently and just because they added PCIE gen 4. Its not automatically worth. They did it because DMI link on Intel was saturated and Gen 4 will give them huge up in Server area - NVMe SSDs are the reason and their EPYCs 128Lane advantage goes in hand when considering 2 socket Racks.

Again same for Nvidia, they ruined XX70 SKU silicon at first by relegating it to XX60 and disabling SLI/ NVlink. With Super you see the pricing ans SLI back. AMD 5700 stop gap until premium Navi hits in 2020. Its good but do not forget they all work for profits and not good Samaritan charity lmao.

I myself want to buy a new PC because BIOS EOL in 2020 but $700 for top end X570 sucks esp when Gen 4 lanes cant be split into Gen3 which makes the total x4 chipset lanes multiple and giving us huge advantage since Gen 4 SSDs are only currently used (see Der8aur on that on how useful they are) and Gen 3 X16 itself only maxed by 2080Ti at 4K high bandwidth. and no matter gen 3 or gen 2 the lanes will be eaten up once you plug it in the gen4 slot.

This is where the cheap X299 Mobo kicks in, EVGA X299 dark is very cheap now. I hope TRX40 is good platform.


----------



## kinjx11 (Oct 4, 2019)

are those max clocks on all cores or just 2 cores like the previous gen ?!


----------



## Turmania (Oct 4, 2019)

I don't know what performance gains we will receive even for consumer chips next Gen for both cpu companies but I do know that even 360mm radiator solutions will be pushing to their limits to cool the cpu.


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 4, 2019)

The 14 core from Intel is priced close to AMD's 3950X 16 core. Although 2 less cores and worse IPC, it does have quad channel memory support, AVX512 and more PCI-E lanes.

I really want to see AMD's $1000 level Threadripper offering this year. Maybe it will be the 24 core version? The battle of 24 Zen2 cores versus 18 CKL cores at $1000. Man what a nice time. DRAM is cheap, SSD is cheap, CPU are great. Nice.



Ashtr1x said:


> Honestly seeing this extreme Whiteknighting AMD is so funny. Addressing a corporate by thanking LOL.
> 
> Guys AMD / Intel all and any company will raise prices and stagnate in innovation if there is no competition.
> 
> ...



You will get used to it. Anyone who does not worship AMD is considered an Intel shill in the eyes of AMD fanatics.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

Pretty crazy Intel cutting pricing by this much.  Speaks volumes about what AMD has coming down the pipe with 7nm Threadripper.  Intel shareholders won't be happy.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

ratirt said:


> There is not issue with my logic. The price drop is impressive and that's a positive thing. For the record if something/someone deserves a credit for this price drop is not Intel but AMD. So your statement positive/impressive defined by Intel rather than a separate and more neutral-like makes no sense.
> It was not a wrongdoing. I didn't buy Intel because I knew the price is too high. It's that simple.
> 
> Stop seeing Intel as charity. It is a company and do not humanize the company again. This is business it has nothing to do with good feelings, right-doing or wrongdoing. The problem is not Intel jacking up the price but people still buying it and calling it worth the money. You don't need to look far for those people.
> ...


Saying something Intel did is impressive without explicitly explaining how or why it reflects on someone else is praising Intel, yes. If you don't see that, you should consider wording yourself more clearly.

And please don't come dragging the worn-out "[Company X] isn't a charity" nonsense. Businesses have no obligation whatsoever to fleece customers just because they can. Sure, the Milton Friedman school of predatory capitalism believes this, sure, but that's an economic theory so full of holes it's caused more and bigger financial crashes than any other. And claiming that any perceived right- or wrongdoing by a business is "humanizing" it is just plain _weird_. By that logic, companies can never be held accountable for their actions, as they are incapable of action in the first place. Of course companies can - and often do - both right and wrong things. Companies exist in the world just like everything else, and arguably have _more_ responsibility towards shaping the world in a way gainful to humanity as they have more resources and influence to do so. This isn't "humanizing" a company, it is seeing it as an entity that exists within society.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> The 14 core from Intel is priced close to AMD's 3950X 16 core. Although 2 less cores and worse IPC, it does have quad channel memory support, AVX512 and more PCI-E lanes.
> 
> I really want to see AMD's $1000 level Threadripper offering this year. Maybe it will be the 24 core version? The battle of 24 Zen2 cores versus 18 CKL cores at $1000. Man what a nice time. DRAM is cheap, SSD is cheap, CPU are great. Nice.
> 
> ...


If only power supplies weren't hammered by tariffs it would be the perfect storm to build a PC


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 4, 2019)

kinjx11 said:


> are those max clocks on all cores or just 2 cores like the previous gen ?!


At least they don’t trick people with only single core boost at 1.5v.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> At least they don’t trick people with only single core boost at 1.5v.


Are you referring to Ryzen 3xxx?  Isn't it all but fixed with ABBA microcode updates?


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 4, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> If only power supplies weren't hammered by tariffs it would be the perfect storm to build a PC




Only if there are better GPU prices


----------



## kings (Oct 4, 2019)

Intel is expensive - people complain
Intel reduce prices - people complain

Welcome to today's internet forums.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

Who's complaining about Intel cutting HEDT prices in half to compete with TR??


----------



## kings (Oct 4, 2019)

Some people on this thread have already complained.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Its a bit like calling the next Apple Iphone 'impressive' for costing 600 bucks this year instead of 1000
> 
> I guess now we know how high the Intel tax has been all these years  They've lost the brand image that allowed them to charge these obscene numbers, and this is what's left. Mind you, its still not competitive



I wont pay more than 200 for any phone and 460 is my cap on GPUs.



jayjr1105 said:


> Are you referring to Ryzen 3xxx?  Isn't it all but fixed with ABBA microcode updates?



Just ignore him his name implies him since he has to use a comic/movie character name, he certainly ain't a richard but a ""


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 4, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Are you referring to Ryzen 3xxx?  Isn't it all but fixed with ABBA microcode updates?


You can’t fix what’s inherently a limitation of 7nm. And AMD has no fabs... there’s nothing they can do but reduce the clocks.


----------



## Slizzo (Oct 4, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> You can’t fix what’s inherently a limitation of 7nm. And AMD has no fabs... there’s nothing they can do but reduce the clocks.



That's... not true at all. Whether you own the fab or not does not change how you design and validate a processor.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> You can’t fix what’s inherently a limitation of 7nm. And AMD has no fabs... there’s nothing they can do but reduce the clocks.



Its not a limitation of 7nm. Its a choice in balance and architecture.

If you want to troll... you gotta try harder.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 4, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Its not a limitation of 7nm. Its a choice in balance and architecture.
> 
> If you want to troll... you gotta try harder.


Not a limitation of 7nm ? Only trolls I see are from the AMD side. Period. In almost every Intel and Nvidia articles.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 4, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ryzen 3rd gen has them beat across the board: lower price ($189 less for 12-core, but there seems to be some retailer gouging on the AMD side so realistically ~$100 less), more total cache (Ryzen has 64 MB L3), higher base clock speeds, lower wattage (105 versus 165).



To be fair, L3 is not an apples-to-apples comparison. We do enjoy 32/64MB on Matisse, but AMD's L3 is divided and confined in access amongst CCXs, while Intel's has always been unified. Intel also has had the lead in speed and latency, as well as an even bigger lead in DRAM due to AMD's IF and regressive latencies in Matisse.

But considering HEDT still relies on the Skylake core, everything else is a hard sell against the 3900X even with price drops, so I'm not sure what people are rejoicing for.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 4, 2019)

Finally some normal pricing, now please do the same with the desktop line.


----------



## Xuper (Oct 4, 2019)

Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.


----------



## dicktracy (Oct 4, 2019)

Xuper said:


> Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.


because this is practically a 7980XE 3.0. Yawn.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Not a limitation of 7nm ? Only trolls I see are from the AMD side. Period. In almost every Intel and Nvidia articles.



Zen didnt clock high on 14nm either. Now, try to put two and two together... you can do it!


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

kings said:


> Intel is expensive - people complain
> Intel reduce prices - people complain
> 
> Welcome to today's internet forums.


Underscoring that Intel is doing the bare minimum required and doesn't deserve any credit for this isn't complaining, it's just stating the obvious. I would have no issue congratulating Intel on a good move if they actually presented users with a better deal than the competition, yet all they're doing is playing catch-up and rectifying the terrible position they've put themselves in over the past years.



Vayra86 said:


> Zen didnt clock high on 14nm either. Now, try to put two and two together... you can do it!


You're likely right that the Zen arch isn't optimized much for high clocks - efficiency seems to be more of a focus, particularly for scaling to crazy core counts. One can hope that Zen3 goes for better clock speeds as well as 4-way SMT, I suppose? After all, we've seen what a single generation can do with clock speeds, such as Nehalem to Sandy Bridge. That wasn't a small overhaul, but it was still within one generation, and the improvements were massive.


----------



## (*^^*) (Oct 4, 2019)

What was the price of the past Intel CPU?  Is this the price of a true Intel CPU?  Have you suddenly found a manufacturing cost reduction method that is different from the previous Intel CPU?  Is it only me that feels fooled?


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

I'm absolutely tickled with my 3600, 100MHz missing boost or not.  65 watts of 6 core 12 thread power that rips though anything I throw at it for $190???  YES PLEASE!  AMD products only get better with BIOS microcode updates.  Intel only gets worse from launch day with their BI-monthly security exploits.


----------



## danbert2000 (Oct 4, 2019)

Whether you like Intel or not, they are certainly bringing the fight to AMD to try to stop Threadripper and Ryzen 3 from taking away all of their high-margin enthusiast market. This is good for everyone. I suppose some would prefer that Intel would just roll over and let AMD soak up the entire market, but that's not how it works. I'll be interested to see single core and multicore benchmarks in a few months. I'm guessing that we'll see a similar situation where Intel still keeps the gaming crown (not that it means much on these workstation chips) and AMD takes the overall performance crown except maybe in AVX 512 situations.

Healthy competition is a good thing. Please, everyone, don't start foaming at the mouth because AMD is not the ONLY choice. That's how you make a new monopoly.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 4, 2019)

How Intel have fallen. Max of 18-cores when their competitor will offer 32 soon and 64 later...

Using old inefficient 14nm when their competitor is on 7nm and has higher IPC is also a bad look. Imagine how hot and power hungry Intel's hypothetical 14nm equivalent of the 24-core Threadripper would be. That's right it would literally catch fire!


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 4, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> 7980XE 3.0


Sadly this is what it is in reality.


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 4, 2019)

Gigabyte has released 3950X OC guide you can see it can OC to 4.3Ghz with AIO and also looks like that even at stock it's going to be faster then the new 10980XE in CB R15 since it's going to run at 3.8Ghz all core like 9980XE does.








						AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Hits 4.3 GHz On All 16 Cores With Water Cooling
					

Gigabyte manages to push a Ryzen 9 3950X to 4.3 GHz on all its cores using liquid cooling...at a mere 1.4 vCore.




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

How bad do you need extra PCIe lanes is the question.  That 3950x is nuts.  You won't even get PCIe gen 4 on the new Intel HEDT socket either I don't beleive.


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 4, 2019)

I think boards like ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE can give you the lanes you need, so you can go for 3950X.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 4, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> I think boards like ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE can give you the lanes you need, so you can go for 3950X.


That board is for ECC.... there's only 24 lanes...


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 4, 2019)

Thom'sHard said:
			
		

> At stock, the Ryzen 9 3950X scored 3,932 points in Cinebench R15, *which is 92.4% faster than a stock Core i9-9900K and 81% faster than the Core i9-9900K overclocked to 5 GHz* on all cores (which would be similar to a stock Core i9-9900KS)



The 3950X is indeed nuts! Would be set for about 6 years top perf with one of those.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

Is Intel HEDT still a single monolithic chip?  Cutting pricing that much, they have to be operating on razor thin margins now.


----------



## tabascosauz (Oct 4, 2019)

danbert2000 said:


> Whether you like Intel or not, they are certainly bringing the fight to AMD to try to stop Threadripper and Ryzen 3 from taking away all of their high-margin enthusiast market. This is good for everyone. I suppose some would prefer that Intel would just roll over and let AMD soak up the entire market, but that's not how it works. I'll be interested to see single core and multicore benchmarks in a few months. I'm guessing that we'll see a similar situation where Intel still keeps the gaming crown (not that it means much on these workstation chips) and AMD takes the overall performance crown except maybe in AVX 512 situations.
> 
> Healthy competition is a good thing. Please, everyone, don't start foaming at the mouth because AMD is not the ONLY choice. That's how you make a new monopoly.



Issue is, unless Intel whips out an unforeseeable shocker out of a hat, things are looking really grim. They have a couple of extra arches waiting for HEDT since it's so slow, but AMD is bringing their latest to their HEDT game and upping the core counts drastically too - that's one hell of a pinch for Intel.

As for MSDT, Intel is trying to push 14nm to tide them over to 10nm, but Coffee Lake is verging on joining the ranks of Prescott and Fermi from the amount of heat and power draw it suffers. As for 10nm, we all know of Intel's fab problems. It's one thing to hang by a 14nm thread until they can bring out a Conroe-level breakthrough, but do they have anything nearly that revolutionary?

Betting on Ryzen's weaknesses such as cache speeds and DRAM latency can only last so long. Yes, AMD will be saddled with it until they move on from Ryzen, but as the 3000's prefetchers' improvements have shown, they can do just fine without the theoretical DRAM performance. Look what Ryzen 3000 has done; they've already beat Coffee Lake on IPC.

I've always been an Intel guy, and would like to return to Intel someday because I believe they create the most solid firmware and platforms. I really hope I can see that day again.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

tabascosauz said:


> Issue is, unless Intel whips out an unforeseeable shocker out of a hat, things are looking really grim. They have a couple of extra arches waiting for HEDT since it's so slow, but AMD is bring their latest to their HEDT game and upping the core counts drastically too - that's one hell of a pinch for Intel.
> 
> As for MSDT, Intel is trying to push 14nm to tide them over to 10nm, but Coffee Lake is verging on joining the ranks of Prescott and Fermi from the amount of heat and power draw it suffers. As for 10nm, we all know of Intel's fab problems. It's one thing to hang by a 14nm thread until they can bring out a Conroe-level breakthrough, but do they have anything nearly that revolutionary?
> 
> ...



Intel's only path forward is to shamelessly copy AMD and go chiplet, find a great interconnect and glue the whole thing together. Its also their only way out of the 14nm problem while maintaining a performance per core lead - IF they keep their Core ideas intact. Sprinkle some minor improvements on top from the already announced architectures and voila.

But yeah, they have tons of work. Their turbo is inferior to AMD's XFR and other tech, power draw is only going up, chips are too complex... And they even had to adjust ring bus to mesh and now use both out of necessity on different product lines. Meanwhile, Zen is the same, top to bottom, completely scalable and even those CCX's help seed the entire product stack.



jayjr1105 said:


> I feel like we're not going to see desktop 10nm for some time if ever at all from Intel.  I think that semiaccurate article back in the spring about Intel cutting their losses with 10nm had some truth to it.  It will be interesting to see what they can do with 14nm for another year or so.  Meanwhile AMD might have a 7nm refresh out by then.



That's my take and prediction as well. Intel is trying to find a way to not lose face and skip as much of 10nm as possible. Roadmaps were already adjusted, but we'll see another round of that. If you see what their current crop of 10nm can do, its nothing earth shattering in any way shape or form. And their other announced architectures... when a CPU engineer no longer talks about raw performance but rather about IGPs and optimizing for 'Creators' and all, you know they haven't got a thing to offer.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

I feel like we're not going to see desktop 10nm for some time if ever at all from Intel.  I think that semiaccurate article back in the spring about Intel cutting their losses with 10nm had some truth to it.  It will be interesting to see what they can do with 14nm for another year or so.  Meanwhile AMD might have a 7nm refresh out by then.


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 4, 2019)

For HEDT use one really need quad channel DDR4. 2 memory pipes feeding data into 16 core CPU is a serious bottleneck for power users.

If you just enjoy having 16 cores without the need to use it for production, by all means go for it.

TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right.  24C48T for $999 would be nice.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 4, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> For HEDT use one really need quad channel DDR4. 2 memory pipes feeding data into 16 core CPU is a serious bottleneck for power users.
> 
> If you just enjoy having 16 cores without the need to use it for production, by all means go for it.
> 
> TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right.  24C48T for $999 would be nice.



Yup, quad channel is the only reason those ancient platforms still play ball to some degree as well. They can feed those cores and MSDT just stalls much more readily. I reckon even the 9700K and up can gain a lot of they had quad channel.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 4, 2019)

Xuper said:


> Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.


It has 1 MB of L2 (which is more important) and a non-inclusive L3 vs. normal Skylake family CPUs which waste a lot of L3 with duplication of L2.
But as you are saying, some applications may benefit from even more, but this would require much larger dies. If so, I think there are better uses for die space.



jayjr1105 said:


> Is Intel HEDT still a single monolithic chip?  Cutting pricing that much, they have to be operating on razor thin margins now.


For Skylake-SP/X, the HCC die was ~485 mm², I assume the Cascade Lake-SP/X die is comparable.
So this is smaller than the TU104 die used in RTX 2070 Super etc., but this is of course not an apple-to-apple comparison.

Skylake-SP/X was plagued with being produced on a lower volume 14nm+ production line, which has contributed to the high price and low availability. Cascade Lake-SP/X was according to roadmaps supposed to launch one year ago, but I assume it's the 10nm problems causing laptop and desktop parts to eat up much of the 14nm++ capacity that has caused the delay.



xkm1948 said:


> TR3 is the real competition to Intel's HEDT feature wise, which it will for sure slaughter Intel's lineup if AMD price them right.  24C48T for $999 would be nice.


That would sure make an attractive product.
But always keep in mind that workstations are built for a specific purpose in mind, so if the buyer are going to have a heavy AVX load or similar, the real world performance could just as easily tilt the other way.


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 4, 2019)

I agree that AVX512 is very useful.

Would be nice if Zen2 had AVX512 support


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I agree that AVX512 is very useful.
> 
> Would be nice if Zen2 had AVX512 support


Switching gears a bit, I swear I saw one of the new Rome EPYC chips come real close to a Xeon that cost twice as much in an AVX512 benchmark.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Switching gears a bit, I swear I saw one of the new Rome EPYC chips come real close to a Xeon that cost twice as much in an AVX512 benchmark.


You mean this?





Source: AnandTech


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 4, 2019)

Valantar said:


> You mean this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that's downright brutal being AMD has no native AVX512 support.


----------



## ncrs (Oct 4, 2019)

Valantar said:


> You mean this?



Or maybe this? 




Source: STH


----------



## Ashtr1x (Oct 4, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Intel's only path forward is to shamelessly copy AMD and go chiplet, find a great interconnect and glue the whole thing together. Its also their only way out of the 14nm problem while maintaining a performance per core lead - IF they keep their Core ideas intact. Sprinkle some minor improvements on top from the already announced architectures and voila.
> 
> But yeah, they have tons of work. Their turbo is inferior to AMD's XFR and other tech, power draw is only going up, chips are too complex... And they even had to adjust ring bus to mesh and now use both out of necessity on different product lines. Meanwhile, Zen is the same, top to bottom, completely scalable and even those CCX's help seed the entire product stack.
> 
> ...



Your comment makes me laugh.
Shamelessly copy ? Ever seen Intel Core 2 Exteme QX6850 from 2007, Kentsfield and even in 2010 with Clarksdae. Guess not lol, And hit Anandtech piece on this same processor and see what AMD called Intel as fake LOL during Phenom days.

AMD Ryzen CPUs use MCM because their WSA and R&D budget and how cheap it is (Intel also did the MCM due to same reason) vs Monolithic Nonpureplay Foundry like Intel. Foveros is coming and also EMIB came into KBL G CPU as well. This is not new thing lmao and how HBM failed hard and fell flat for Consumer (Ofc Vega/GCN needed it to scale and we know RVII EOL)

Intel stagnated due to no competition and they milked the whole world, Still do (CSL X Server a.k.a Cooper Lake glued server processor) and their 10nm went too aggressive and also BK as CEO failed. And their Knights Landing also failed but that socket lives !

Zen2 has DRAM latency but their high Cache and Intel IPC catchup helped them with their brilliant Ryzen 3000 series. And 14nm or not it beats 7nm still with what ? A 4 year old microarch, Zen+ was Haswell and what happened with 8C/16T 2700 vs a 7700K (Massacre happened). Turbo is inferior ? What ? XFR is completely pushing the edge of thay stupid Low power 7nm TSMC node (Made for Apple since they arr primary for CapEx funding and ARM) thank god Ngreedia went with HPP 7nm Samsung node and not suffer from same crap off inferior 7nm node. So yeah back to Turbo, Intel PL2 set to max. There you go Max clocks on all cores without any Junk of PPT, PBO, XFR2 marketing drama (Watch GN on this if you did not). 

Intel processors also are made to be scalabale if you are not under a rock LCC, HCC (HEDT), XCC (Xeon) until SKL X because they switched HEDT to XCC due to AMD closing in as their 10nm failures, since their uArch is coupled with node. So yeah the uArch scales here while Cores are not scaled like AMD. 

AMD recycles their cores off this MCM due to WSA as it helps keeping budget off CCD at 7nm and I/O chip of decoupling Northbridge at 14nm GoFlo (EPYC Rome, where as 12nm for Ryzen Matisse)

And finally Intel is still raking profits due to DC arena where adoption rate is slower when you bring in a new competetor esp given how NUMA Ryzen 2000 to non NUMA Ryzen 3000 uArchs came. While Monolithic Intel still didn't had to change the programming much.

Iris Plus IGP has advantage over existing AMD APUs consider it getting tougher only not simple when you count Intel's massive R&D. And finally Apple AirPods profit is higher than AMD at gross $5Billion.

To conclude consumer wins when competition arrives like this (9980XE ST and Gaming was good and comparable to 9900K, 10K CSL X will improve at the cost of power but if people buy what to lose, more lanes more options better pricing all win) and shakes up the incumbent. So stop frothing over corporates


----------



## notb (Oct 4, 2019)

Slizzo said:


> That's... not true at all. Whether you own the fab or not does not change how you design and validate a processor.


I wouldn't be so sure.
We can safely assume TSMC designed their 7nm for mobile SoCs (over 90% of TSMC's sales).
So who knows? If AMD could influence TSMC in any way (by capital or as a major client) maybe these CPUs would boost higher.



Xuper said:


> Why didn't Intel increase L3 Cache ? 25M is really low , compare to TR3. some workstation application favors the use of a large cache.


And some applications favor low latency (ideally: ringbus). CPUs have different architectures and they excel in different tasks. And every architectural choice has a cost.
Let's cherish the fact that CPUs differ in something other than core count and frequency. 
There's really no reason why Intel would make CPUs more like Zen (since work perfectly well). And there's no reason for AMD to make CPUs exactly like *Lake, because their only advantage would be price.


john_ said:


> Maybe you have. We don't know the REAL TDP of that 10 core CPU.


This TDP is as real as it gets. It's just a number. And Intel CPUs will behave accordingly by default.
Looking at Intel's earlier LGA2066 stuff, there's a good chance 10 and 12-core CPUs are within those 165W at full blast (sans AVX-512).


ncrs said:


> Too bad it doesn't have the features that AMD does... No ECC support is just pathetic at this point.


AMD and Intel plan their lineup differently.

In the AMD world EPYC is solely a server lineup. Ryzen lineup (including TR) spans both consumer and pro use.
So for an 8-core or 24-core workstation you're expected to buy a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen TR accordingly.

Intel is not marketing HEDT towards professional use (not for production systems anyway). There's no official ECC support. And they aren't put in big OEM workstations.
Intel has a large Xeon lineup that is meant to cover all production scenarios.
On the other hand, Intel doesn't have a separate "consumer" and "pro" variants - many CPUs are vPro-eligible. And they offer IGP in multiple CPUs - including Xeons.


----------



## PrEzi (Oct 4, 2019)

A new wave of speculative security holes in Intel incoming...


----------



## notb (Oct 4, 2019)

ncrs said:


> Or maybe this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, you drool over the fact that there's an EPYC bar on top, but you fail to notice it is a Dual 64-core system barely beating Dual 28-core (8280) and Dual 24-core (8260).
Hence, this is a very good example of how important AVX-512 is.


----------



## GoldenX (Oct 4, 2019)

(*^^*) said:


> What was the price of the past Intel CPU?  Is this the price of a true Intel CPU?  Have you suddenly found a manufacturing cost reduction method that is different from the previous Intel CPU?  Is it only me that feels fooled?


And you noticed this just now?


----------



## Pinktulips7 (Oct 5, 2019)

AMD Fanboys are scared and running!!! intel made CPU with quality and higher density[14nm=10nm] where AMD has been lacking forever!!!intel CPU price should be higher right? BMW price higher than Camry?


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 5, 2019)

It's damage control until Intel has a real solution that's ready to go. Until then, I would expect to see more of the same.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 5, 2019)

notb said:


> Well, you drool over the fact that there's an EPYC bar on top, but you fail to notice it is a Dual 64-core system barely beating Dual 28-core (8280) and Dual 24-core (8260).
> Hence, this is a very good example of how important AVX-512 is.


Did you know that those 64 core EPYC's cost LESS than the two 28 core Xeons???


----------



## ncrs (Oct 5, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Did you know that those 64 core EPYC's cost LESS than the two 28 core Xeons???



And take less power to produce those results as well.



notb said:


> This TDP is as real as it gets. It's just a number. And Intel CPUs will behave accordingly by default.
> Looking at Intel's earlier LGA2066 stuff, there's a good chance 10 and 12-core CPUs are within those 165W at full blast (sans AVX-512).



That's not "full blast" now, is it? Intel TDP is well defined by them - it's measured at base clocks. I'm expecting these processors to exceed it while boosting, by a lot...



notb said:


> Intel is not marketing HEDT towards professional use (not for production systems anyway). There's no official ECC support. And they aren't put in big OEM workstations.
> Intel has a large Xeon lineup that is meant to cover all production scenarios.
> On the other hand, Intel doesn't have a separate "consumer" and "pro" variants - many CPUs are vPro-eligible. And they offer IGP in multiple CPUs - including Xeons.



There is no reason to hold ECC support from the mainstream sector. All the parts are on the CPUs already since the dies are shared with the lowest Xeons. In the past they selectively enabled ECC on Pentiums, Celerons and i3s. It's pure anti-consumer market segmentation. It was exactly the same way with virtualization extensions in the past (VT-x, VT-d), but when AMD enabled it on everything Intel had to follow.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 5, 2019)

How anyone can defend Intel's current state is beyond me. They're screwed. But carry on.


----------



## 1d10t (Oct 5, 2019)

john_ said:


> Maybe you have. We don't know the REAL TDP of that 10 core CPU.



Intel will "committed" to their spec this time around, so nominal will be 165W and not more than 255W when it peaked. They still had more headroom than Threadripper for overcloking, so expect 600W++ TDP @ 4.3Ghz all core 
Another trick to "increase" their stalemate IPC, is with the help Microsoft for favored cores update , combine these with new algorithm longer boost Turbo Boost Max 3.0 plus higher T Junction, voila, you will have solid 5% increase over previous generation


----------



## notb (Oct 5, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Did you know that those 64 core EPYC's cost LESS than the two 28 core Xeons???


Yes. And do you know how datacenters work? 
Do you understand that once this 64 core CPU lands in a server (be it on-premise or cloud), it'll be "cut" into pieces - e.g. 8 cores each? 
You should not underestimate single-core performance in servers (maybe even more so than in PCs).

As for the ability to pack more cores in a socket and dominate scenarios where all of them can be used (e.g. on-premise rendering machines) - AMD's current domination is indisputable. But it's mostly down to node and that's a fragile lead.


ncrs said:


> There is no reason to hold ECC support from the mainstream sector. All the parts are on the CPUs already since the dies are shared with the lowest Xeons. In the past they selectively enabled ECC on Pentiums, Celerons and i3s. It's pure anti-consumer market segmentation. It was exactly the same way with virtualization extensions in the past (VT-x, VT-d), but when AMD enabled it on everything Intel had to follow.


Intel is enabling ECC in all CPUs that are meant for any kind of servers or production devices - hence it's available in some CPUs in Pentium and Atom families.

Consumers don't care what ECC is, so this functionality is not available in consumer platforms. They don't, really.
AMD fans are stressing this being a huge advantage of Ryzen lineup, but most of them don't know what ECC gives, let alone how it works.

Yes, maybe this move from AMD will force Intel to enable ECC in all CPUs. But that's very unlikely. Intel has separate processors for production systems. They support ECC and other things that are omitted in consumer stuff.



Shatun_Bear said:


> How anyone can defend Intel's current state is beyond me. They're screwed. But carry on.


But what do you mean by "screwed"? Is it the same "no one will buy Intel anymore" we've heard in 2017?


----------



## efikkan (Oct 5, 2019)

ncrs said:


> There is no reason to hold ECC support from the mainstream sector. All the parts are on the CPUs already since the dies are shared with the lowest Xeons. In the past they selectively enabled ECC on Pentiums, Celerons and i3s. It's pure anti-consumer market segmentation. It was exactly the same way with virtualization extensions in the past (VT-x, VT-d), but when AMD enabled it on everything Intel had to follow.


There are a few reasons; firstly it would require more testing of each sample to verify a memory controller with ECC enabled, and secondly it will lead to more chips failing verification, so it would make sense to at least have some chips without ECC.

For HEDT, I really dislike Intel's decision of having three different product lineups. I hope the competition from AMD will encourage Intel to enable ECC on all of their HEDT CPUs, as these are premium workstation hardware anyway.



Shatun_Bear said:


> How anyone can defend Intel's current state is beyond me. They're screwed. But carry on.


How anyone can believe Intel is screwed is beyond me.
Stop trolling, go play with someone your own age.


----------



## ncrs (Oct 5, 2019)

notb said:


> Intel is enabling ECC in all CPUs that are meant for any kind of servers or production devices - hence it's available in some CPUs in Pentium and Atom families.



You conveniently skipped the ECC enabled Core i3. How is that a "production device" and how does it differ from a Core i5 or i7 that don't have ECC in terms of being a "production device"?



notb said:


> Consumers don't care what ECC is, so this functionality is not available in consumer platforms. They don't, really.
> AMD fans are stressing this being a huge advantage of Ryzen lineup, but most of them don't know what ECC gives, let alone how it works.



I'm not sure about the "stressing" part, but it is a part of the larger argument about Intel platforms being more limiting than AMD's. Take overclocking for example - both CPU and RAM overclocking require a higher-end chipset on Intel platforms. This doesn't really have any technical reason because the IMC is in the CPU and the chipset has little impact on it. Nothing would stop motherboard manufactures from having good power systems for OC on cheap H-class chipsets it his was not an artificial limitation by Intel.



notb said:


> Yes, maybe this move from AMD will force Intel to enable ECC in all CPUs. But that's very unlikely. Intel has separate processors for production systems. They support ECC and other things that are omitted in consumer stuff.



You're probably thinking about the desktop-derived Xeons here? Let's take Coffee Lake for example, what is the difference between Core i3/i5/i7 and Xeon E beside the ECC support? I'm curious about the "other things" you mentioned.



notb said:


> But what do you mean by "screwed"? Is it the same "no one will buy Intel anymore" we've heard in 2017?



Well this time around we have "confirmation":






While it's just one retailer it paints a grim outlook for Intel's current generation. The problem for Intel is that for the desktop segment they don't have much planned. Only Rocket and Comet Lakes that are still on 14nm and still seem to be Skylake-derived. Ice Lake 10nm desktop parts have been cancelled and that uArch is instead only coming to servers and laptops.
On the other hand AMD is openly talking about Zen 3.


----------



## Mephis (Oct 5, 2019)

ncrs said:


> Well this time around we have "confirmation":
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know why this needs to be explained on every Intel thread, but the custom builder market is a tiny fraction of the entire x86 market. Yes, AMD is doing very well with enthusiasts and is even gaining market share in the server and workstation market, but to call Intel screwed is ridiculous. AMD is hoping for at best to get up to 10% to 20% of the lucrative server market, guess who has the other 80% to 90%. Intel can't make enough CPUs, they are production constrained for the last year or more. People really need to stop and realize that Intel has built such a huge beachhead it would take AMD years of total dominance to even begin to truly hurt Intel. Also don't forget what happened the last time AMD started making huge gains. Intel responded with Core. If anyone really believes Intel is done, they need to get their head checked.


----------



## 1d10t (Oct 5, 2019)

Mephis said:


> I don't know why this needs to be explained on every Intel thread, but the custom builder market is a tiny fraction of the entire x86 market.



Ah, so that also makes Steam hardware survey obsolete then


----------



## ncrs (Oct 5, 2019)

Mephis said:


> I don't know why this needs to be explained on every Intel thread, but the custom builder market is a tiny fraction of the entire x86 market. Yes, AMD is doing very well with enthusiasts and is even gaining market share in the server and workstation market, but to call Intel screwed is ridiculous. AMD is hoping for at best to get up to 10% to 20% of the lucrative server market, guess who has the other 80% to 90%. Intel can't make enough CPUs, they are production constrained for the last year or more. People really need to stop and realize that Intel has built such a huge beachhead it would take AMD years of total dominance to even begin to truly hurt Intel. Also don't forget what happened the last time AMD started making huge gains. Intel responded with Core. If anyone really believes Intel is done, they need to get their head checked.



I agree with your last statement, but at the same time unless Intel fixes their roadmaps they will be in trouble in the long term. This is not a black-and-white situation.


----------



## (*^^*) (Oct 5, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> And you noticed this just now?


No jealousy about that.  I was expecting a better AMD product than lowering Intel prices.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 5, 2019)

ncrs said:


> I agree with your last statement, but at the same time unless Intel fixes their roadmaps they will be in trouble in the long term. This is not a black-and-white situation.


For the most part, Intel's roadmaps looks very good. In the server space they have Ice Lake(Sunny Cove) for 2020, and then Sapphire Rapids(Golden Cove) for 2021, both with major performance improvements. For laptops and tiny computers they have Tiger Lake for 2020, a minor upgrade to Ice Lake.

The only part that looks uncertain (or even bad) is the mainstream desktop. Comet Lake-S arriving very late 2019 or early 2020 is only going to be a minor upgrade. There are rumors of a "Rocket Lake-S" later using a Ice Lake chipset, but that remains unconfirmed. But just the fact that Intel is nearly completely silent about this compared to other segments kind of tells us that they are weighing their options.


----------



## Mephis (Oct 5, 2019)

1d10t said:


> Ah, so that also makes Steam hardware survey obsolete then



Umm, no. The steam survey is definitely not a perfect indicator of the entire cpu or GPU market by any means, but it is definitely a better snapshot than a single web retailer. It encompasses both custom machines and major oem manufactures. Unfortunately, unless you want to pay thousands to get detailed breakdowns from someone like IDC, it is very hard to judge the entire market. Whether we like it or not, enthusiasts are a small percentage of the market. A vast majority of machines are store (or web) bought from major manufactures like HP, Dell, Lenovo and others.



efikkan said:


> For the most part, Intel's roadmaps looks very good. In the server space they have Ice Lake(Sunny Cove) for 2020, and then Sapphire Rapids(Golden Cove) for 2021, both with major performance improvements. For laptops and tiny computers they have Tiger Lake for 2020, a minor upgrade to Ice Lake.
> 
> The only part that looks uncertain (or even bad) is the mainstream desktop. Comet Lake-S arriving very late 2019 or early 2020 is only going to be a minor upgrade. There are rumors of a "Rocket Lake-S" later using a Ice Lake chipset, but that remains unconfirmed. But just the fact that Intel is nearly completely silent about this compared to other segments kind of tells us that they are weighing their options.



It's not surprising that the 2 markets Intel has been most vocal about are Servers and Mobile. Servers are the most profitable market and mobile is the largest consumer market. That is also how they were able to turn around after Netburst. They used a mobile design (Merom) and scaled it up to work on the desktop. Nehalem was then used to incorporate features that would benefit the server space and were brought down to the desktop and mobile.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 5, 2019)

efikkan said:


> *For the most part, Intel's roadmaps looks very good*. In the server space they have Ice Lake(Sunny Cove) for 2020, and then Sapphire Rapids(Golden Cove) for 2021, both with major performance improvements. For laptops and tiny computers they have Tiger Lake for 2020, a minor upgrade to Ice Lake.



No they do not. It seems that short of them announcing 'we won't be releasing any new CPUs for the next 2 years', there's room for people like you to say 'it's not too bad actually'.

The things you palm off as positive are actually really bad. All those products, even if they do make 2020 in volume, will have to contend with Zen on 7nm+ which is landing the same time. Unlike Intel's 10nm, which is gonna have major yield issues (still), bugs and flaws as it comes out the gate for the first time in volume, all AMD have to do is iterate and improve upon a proven process and architecture from Zen2.


----------



## chodaboy19 (Oct 5, 2019)

Intel increased the PCIe 3.0 lanes  by 4 or are they counting in a different way?


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 5, 2019)

We already know that Zen3 is socket compatible + it will be 8c ccx with over 32mb l3 cache, so the IPC and frequency will improve even more, IMO Intel will make the comeback only with all new 7nm part, not the current icelake.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 5, 2019)

Ashtr1x said:


> Your comment makes me laugh.
> Shamelessly copy ? Ever seen Intel Core 2 Exteme QX6850 from 2007, Kentsfield and even in 2010 with Clarksdae. Guess not lol, And hit Anandtech piece on this same processor and see what AMD called Intel as fake LOL during Phenom days.
> 
> AMD Ryzen CPUs use MCM because their WSA and R&D budget and how cheap it is (Intel also did the MCM due to same reason) vs Monolithic Nonpureplay Foundry like Intel. Foveros is coming and also EMIB came into KBL G CPU as well. This is not new thing lmao and how HBM failed hard and fell flat for Consumer (Ofc Vega/GCN needed it to scale and we know RVII EOL)
> ...



Yes shamelessly copy, because for some reason Intel didn't deem it necessary to continue with what they had and tried instead to make the ultimate monolithic CPU architecture (and sit on it...). This is now biting them in the ass. If you're saying they should just port their old design to 2019... yah. Good luck with that. 2007 is 12 years ago. You're right they have some designs already. But we cannot deny those only popped up after the Zen fact. Hence, copied. Having an idea is not the same as implementing it and actually developing it. Every halfwit can consider chiplet to be a good idea. What matters is what you do with that idea, and when.

The rest... irrelevant. Intel is not in a great position right now, and they need something new and it certainly has to go beyond good IGP and further optimization. Realistically, that is what we have. The recent hiring of Jim Keller is no coincidence - it underlines that they're still searching or that they need more input. But there is another problem much bigger than Intel. Physics. The big node shrinks are pretty much over, and it all comes down to architectural changes. Most of those will be tradeoffs - we already saw this with the 3 generations of Zen. Its going to get increasingly difficult to one-up the competition without doing something radical. AMD needed about a decade for that.

Wrt your comments about turbo... you're confusing it with overclocking there. Its not the same thing. Intel's turbo out of the box isn't that fantastic and it certainly is not dynamic the way XFR is today. I'm not talking about how to extract optimal clocks at the expense of power draw, because that's what you're saying here. Those all core turbo Intels you speak of royally exceed the stated TDP. And the kicker is, for the largest markets, consumer and enterprise, overclocking is not an option, but a dynamic boost/turbo certainly is. And about clocks... we've already seen Intel's latest don't quite clock as high on smaller nodes.

Note I'm not a big AMD fan, but as much as I can whine about how their GPU division stacks failure upon failure, its impossible to deny AMD's contribution to CPU design, and its clear they haven't been rewarded fairly for all those efforts. Hopefully they are, now, because its a valuable company for all of us.

Frothing no. These are interesting times 



efikkan said:


> How anyone can believe Intel is screwed is beyond me.



Screwed is a big word, but losing leadership is definitely one of the possibilities IF they cannot adjust radically, and fast. But still, time is on their side and AMD has to keep pushing competitive stuff to market year after year to make a dent. So far so good, but this is a long term game.



Shatun_Bear said:


> , all AMD have to do is iterate and improve upon a proven process and architecture from Zen2.



Given the rate of progress though, we have to wonder how long Zen can keep giving. The low hanging fruit will soon be gone, that is for sure. This will rapidly look very similar to the progress of Core.



1d10t said:


> Ah, so that also makes Steam hardware survey obsolete then



Yup, even for just gaming.


----------



## notb (Oct 5, 2019)

ncrs said:


> You conveniently skipped the ECC enabled Core i3. How is that a "production device" and how does it differ from a Core i5 or i7 that don't have ECC in terms of being a "production device"?


i3 chips are quite popular in single board computers and entry-level enterprise NAS (like surveillance).
Performance-wise i3s are above the Pentium family, so it made sense to give them ECC.
i5 and i7 have Xeon counterparts.
Intel usually makes enterprise CPUs because there is some demand from major partners - not because they *hope* they'll sell. You should not worry about their CPUs making sense or not. The certainly do for Intel's partners. 


> part of the larger argument about Intel platforms being more limiting than AMD's


I can 100% agree that Intel platforms are less tweaking-friendly. These CPUs work best for people who know what they want and prefer to use a computer - not play with it.
You have a particular need, you buy an Intel CPU that fits best, you leave it at default and don't care much. That's the idea.

If you like to tweak, OC, tune, test drivers and so on - AMD will give you more pleasure.

I'm not sure if the word "limiting" should be used, though. What is "limiting"?
Lets say I'm running a tiny architectural consultancy firm and I'm not a computer geek, but I need 14-18 cores for my work.
Which platform is more "limiting"? Intel - because I can't OC ("what is OC?"). Or AMD because I'll spend more time solving quirks? ("what is BIOS?")

We could safely say that Apple Mac is the most "limited" platform of them all. And yet, that's what makes it so popular among normal users and so hated on forums like this one. 


> Take overclocking for example - both CPU and RAM overclocking require a higher-end chipset on Intel platforms. This doesn't really have any technical reason because the IMC is in the CPU and the chipset has little impact on it. Nothing would stop motherboard manufactures from having good power systems for OC on cheap H-class chipsets it his was not an artificial limitation by Intel.


I don't care much about overclocking anymore and can't really give you any sensible answer to this.
I though we're talking about workstations, enterprise clients and ECC. 


> You're probably thinking about the desktop-derived Xeons here? Let's take Coffee Lake for example, what is the difference between Core i3/i5/i7 and Xeon E beside the ECC support? I'm curious about the "other things" you mentioned.


On pure specification? I can't name a single thing. Desktop LGA1151 CPUs are pretty much identical (other than ECC and name).


> Well this time around we have "confirmation":


Seriously... Mindfactory again...? :/



efikkan said:


> For the most part, Intel's roadmaps looks very good. In the server space they have Ice Lake(Sunny Cove) for 2020, and then Sapphire Rapids(Golden Cove) for 2021, both with major performance improvements. For laptops and tiny computers they have Tiger Lake for 2020, a minor upgrade to Ice Lake.
> 
> The only part that looks uncertain (or even bad) is the mainstream desktop. Comet Lake-S arriving very late 2019 or early 2020 is only going to be a minor upgrade. There are rumors of a "Rocket Lake-S" later using a Ice Lake chipset, but that remains unconfirmed. But just the fact that Intel is nearly completely silent about this compared to other segments kind of tells us that they are weighing their options.


Well... this is the part that's so difficult to explain on this forum, isn't it? That the segment AMD takes care of the most (high-end DIY desktops) is the least important for Intel.

AMD - thanks to tiny market share - is able to focus on AM4 platform. It gives them great press.
But as their market share grows, they'll have to think about their mobile lineup as well. And enterprise sector in general.
What they're doing today is just totally opposite of what Intel is (and has to be) doing.
"PRO" Ryzen variants come out few months after the consumer models. Mobile architecture is a year behind gaming desktops.

Their chip engineering team is pushing very modern tech, but their planning and strategy looks like its 2005 again.

IMO Intel's actions show they may be thinking about sacrificing this segment for the time being.
It costs them a lot of work and money. The whole idea was to sell expensive 4-core chips and make a decent profit from the small revenue. They can't compete on the margins that AMD is willing to accept.
The already small demand for gaming desktops will soon be hit by cloud gaming and next-gen consoles...


----------



## anachron (Oct 6, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Did you know that those 64 core EPYC's cost LESS than the two 28 core Xeons???



You have to take into account that depending on intended usage, Windows Server and some other applications have a core based license. So you may prefer more power per core than the other way around even if they are cheaper.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 6, 2019)

Priced competitively enough.
The 18c is still worse than the 16c ryzen unless you need more pcie 3.0 lanes.
Probably better for a DAW workload, eager to see benchmarks.
Still overpriced but a touch closer to reality.

Keep in mind, Intel is holding back announcing the cascade lake Xeon-W's on 3647 socket for Threadripper 3000.
Xeon-w on 3647 should be up to 28c again, with more pcie lanes unlocked due to reallocating omnipath lanes.
Threadripper is supposed to debut at 24cores and will top out potentially all the way at 64 cores and rumored to have 2 variants 4 channel and 8 channel ram.

It's nice to see price cuts vs previous gens, shows you that competition is finally happening, consumers can only win in this.

As for only AMD fans being trolls..... please look at any AMD article to find your Intel shills, lets keep it civil lads, competition is goooooood, don't emotionally attach yourself to a company they don't care about you.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

notb said:


> Well... this is the part that's so difficult to explain on this forum, isn't it? That the segment AMD takes care of the most (high-end DIY desktops) is the least important for Intel.
> 
> AMD - thanks to tiny market share - is able to focus on AM4 platform. It gives them great press.
> <snip>
> ...


You got the last part wrong there.
The problem with Intel's mainstream selection is that it's held back by OEM deals. The majority of volume on socket 1151 is low-margin CPUs for OEMs, while the media attention is on the "enthusiast" models of the segment(i7-9700K, i9-9900K), which are comparatively "low volume" but high margin products. Traditionally, Intel have sold these by making them different bins of the same dies, but since the OEM deals require such high volume, it requires them a certain production capacity before they can release a new lineup. As a side-note, this is why Broadwell-S had to be cancelled, because 14nm wasn't ready for that high volume and clock speed. I think Intel's "stupid" policies need to change here; make the chipsets support different microarchitectures if needed (it is possible after all), and release the top two-three SKUs on the latest most fancy production node and microarchitecture.
And for the record, it was known that Intel was working on a mainstream 6-core around the time Skylake launched, still long before the public knew details about Zen, but 14nm was still a challenge then.

As for the HEDT/workstation segment, it has luckily starting to improve, while it took some time, but I'm very happy to see both Intel and AMD focusing on this segment now. Since the Sandy Bridge days, the HEDT selection have gradually improved until Broadwell-E reaching 10 cores at a very steep price. But as evident with the Skylake-X engineering samples from late 2016 featuring up to 18 cores, they had bigger plans. It was after this AMD decided to re-purpose Epyc and make Threadripper to compete, and I'm glad they did, since we are now finally starting to see this competition working.

As we know, HEDT is a fairly low volume segment, but it is still very important;
- Content creators, developers, researchers needs more performance or specific features the mainstream don't offer.
- It serves as a premium platform where expensive features can be showcased and made available to those who want it, before it usually trickles down to the mainstream later on, so it accelerates progress in technology.
- Increased flexibility and upgradability.
- Software. As we all know, hardware is useless without software, and better hardware fuels development of better software, which increases the demand for better hardware, etc. etc. This is something most people forget.
- And for Intel/AMD; HEDT is a very high margin segment, which helps to offset/finance development costs.



Patriot said:


> Priced competitively enough.
> The 18c is still worse than the 16c ryzen unless you need more pcie 3.0 lanes.
> Probably better for a DAW workload, eager to see benchmarks.
> Still overpriced but a touch closer to reality.


You should wait for benchmarks of actual workloads, not synthetics like Geekbench etc. which has leaked this far.
The problem for high core count Cascade Lake will be heat. As long as they can stay within similar clocks, they will remain competitive.



Patriot said:


> Keep in mind, Intel is holding back announcing the cascade lake Xeon-W's on 3647 socket for Threadripper 3000.


Nope, they were released several months ago, but those prices, yuck.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 6, 2019)

It's funny, desktop CPUs and performance has ALWAYS been the metric which computer enthusiasts and nerds have judged either AMD or Intel by. Now that Intel can't compete there or are perceived to be on the back foot in this segment, suddenly all that matters is mobile and servers.

_Mobile!!  _If you told me 5 years ago that mobile CPU performance and sales would be the main argument for Intel fans defending the company I wouldnt believe you! That's how ridiculous that is. With these HEDT CPUs we're talking about high-end desktop, let's not pretend Intel weren't derided for years trying to improve efficiency and PPW over pure performance and more cores, because they were. Maybe some here only started following CPUs when Ryzen came out and hence weren't around for this.

Now that AMD, not Intel, has brought more cores and wins in pure performance, the people that were lambasting Intel for their mobile focus have changed tact and say it's this mobile performance (and servers!) which show the company is superior or in a great position. You couldn't make it up.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 6, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> It's funny, desktop CPUs and performance has ALWAYS been the metric which computer enthusiasts and nerds have judged either AMD or Intel by. Now that Intel can't compete there or are perceived to be on the back foot in this segment, suddenly all that matters is mobile and servers.
> 
> _Mobile!!  _If you told me 5 years ago that mobile CPU performance and sales would be the main argument for Intel fans defending the company I wouldnt believe you! That's how ridiculous that is. With these HEDT CPUs we're talking about high-end desktop, let's not pretend Intel weren't derided for years trying to improve efficiency and PPW over pure performance and more cores, because they were. Maybe some here only started following CPUs when Ryzen came out and hence weren't around for this.
> 
> Now that AMD, not Intel, has brought more cores and wins in pure performance, the people that were lambasting Intel for their mobile focus have changed tact and say it's this mobile performance (and servers!) which show the company is superior or in a great position. You couldn't make it up.



Eh... that is just your color of glasses being in the way I suppose.

When it comes to Intel's market share and leadership then yes, the money is, was and has been in server and mobile for quite some time now. The desktop PC market is dwindling year after year and this has never been a secret. So in the context of 'Intel is screwed'... this definitely applies and it did apply the last ten years. Those ten years, AMD couldn't make a dent in either of those markets OR the desktop.

Today, AMD makes a comeback on desktop and will make a killing on server sooner rather than later. Mobile however... they still don't have anything ground breaking and Intel is very competitive. But mobile is not the cutting edge. The cutting edge STILL is desktop and HEDT, because that is where the trickle down for mobile begins. For consumer, desktop is the point of reference, free of thermal and power constraints.

Even today Intel still has a separate design for HEDT and for MSDT, and while this makes them less flexible and efficient wrt yields, they do have a much better optimized mobile portfolio. AMD has work to do here (which they are doing).

Bottom line, judging the facts and numbers _is not choosing a camp_, its just trying to get a good picture of the market. There's nothing to win here by choosing sides, you only lose because you'll be oblivious to what really happens.

Regardless of how nice Zen is, the numbers don't lie and Intel has the market on lockdown, still, in every volume segment there is.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 6, 2019)

efikkan said:


> You should wait for benchmarks of actual workloads, not synthetics like Geekbench etc. which has leaked this far.
> The problem for high core count Cascade Lake will be heat. As long as they can stay within similar clocks, they will remain competitive.
> 
> 
> Nope, they were released several months ago, but those prices, yuck.



Cinebenchr15 is leaked as well, but yes it tends to not care about latency as much which is where DAW and like workloads will most likely fall in intel's favor.
I brain farted at 2am when I posted that... yes Xeon-w was released at Xeon prices in june but there have been more recent mentions of intel releasing i9 on the socket and there appears to be a 26 and 28c HEDT waiting in the wings to take on threadripper that is not the 3k chip.   Competition is good.


----------



## MazeFrame (Oct 6, 2019)

Will be interesting to see the i9-10920XE (what the hell is that naming scheme?) against the 3900X.
Intel has double the L2 cache, but 1/3rd the L3 cache.
48 PCIe lanes, again? Is the fear of cutting into their server segment so big?
24 PCIe lanes from the PCH -> Bottleneck all your storage.

Just noticed, the 10 core (10900xe) is price wise up against the 3900x. I think the winner from that is clear.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

Patriot said:


> Cinebenchr15 is leaked as well, but yes it tends to not care about latency as much which is where DAW and like workloads will most likely fall in intel's favor.


That kind of illustrates my point. Cinebench is a benchmark of Cinema4D, which is relevant for those running Cinema4D.
But the mistake that many do is to extrapolate "general performance" of various CPUs based on Cinebench, which is very misleading considering Cinebench scales very differently from the CPU's actual "general performance" across a variety of workloads.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 6, 2019)

Patriot said:


> Cinebenchr15 is leaked as well, but yes it tends to not care about latency as much which is where DAW and like workloads will most likely fall in intel's favor.
> I brain farted at 2am when I posted that... yes Xeon-w was released at Xeon prices in june but there have been more recent mentions of intel releasing i9 on the socket and there appears to be a 26 and 28c HEDT waiting in the wings to take on threadripper that is not the 3k chip.   Competition is good.


Intel can't go beyond 18 cores in socket 2011 - there isn't room for a bigger die in that package.

This is the 9980XE, which uses the 18-core HCC die. It is slightly below 500mm2 (around 21.6x22x4mm).





This is the Xeon W-3175X, which uses the 28-core XCC die. It is nearly 700mm2, at 21.6x32.3mm. There is no way that die can fit onto a Socket 2011 substrate - it's simply too large.




Which is why the 28-core is on socket LGA3647. Fitting that die onto a smaller substrate would not only require disabling a significant amount of I/O (due to loss of pins) but also redesigning the IHS and socket retention mechanism entirely. Not something Intel is likely to do.

They _might_ be able to squeeze more cores in on 10nm, but that isn't arriving for chips this size any time soon. Yields would be utter garbage.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Oct 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Eh... that is just your color of glasses being in the way I suppose.
> 
> *When it comes to Intel's market share and leadership then yes, the money is, was and has been in server and mobile for quite some time now.* The desktop PC market is dwindling year after year and this has never been a secret. So in the context of 'Intel is screwed'... this definitely applies and it did apply the last ten years. Those ten years, AMD couldn't make a dent in either of those markets OR the desktop.



Oh gee wow, really? Thanks for your great insight and this amazing revelation, I've never heard it before...

This topic is about Intel's HEDT. I've got a simple simon revelation for you now: HEDT means HIGH END DESKTOP, I couldn't care less how many dual-core mobile laptops Intel sells to insurance businesses, in the HEDT space, Intel is screwed so please try to come to terms with it.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

Valantar said:


> <snip>
> They might be able to squeeze more cores in on 10nm, but that isn't arriving for chips this size any time soon. Yields would be utter garbage.


The largest known die for Ice Lake-SP so far is 26 cores with 8 memory controllers.
I would not be surprised if larger core configurations would consist of two dies.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 6, 2019)

efikkan said:


> The largest known die for Ice Lake-SP so far is 26 cores with 8 memory controllers.
> I would not be surprised if larger core configurations would consist of two dies.


8 memory controllers sure doesn't sound like something suited to a 4-channel socket with just 2011 pins. Intel needs 3647 pins for 6 channels, AMD needs more than 4000 for eight, so that die definitely isn't destined for normal HEDT - unless they follow AMD's lead with Threadripper and use a trimmed-down version of their highest end socket for HEDT, of course.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

Valantar said:


> 8 memory controllers sure doesn't sound like something suited to a 4-channel socket with just 2011 pins. Intel needs 3647 pins for 6 channels, AMD needs more than 4000 for eight, so that die definitely isn't destined for normal HEDT - unless they follow AMD's lead with Threadripper and use a trimmed-down version of their highest end socket for HEDT, of course.


The socket for Ice Lake-*SP* has been known to be LGA-4198 for over a year now.
What this means for Ice Lake-X (and -W?) variants remain unknown.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 6, 2019)

efikkan said:


> The socket for Ice Lake-*SP* has been known to be LGA-4198 for over a year now.
> What this means for Ice Lake-X (and -W?) variants remain unknown.


That is true, but I don't think it's likely for Intel to make two separate XCC dice, so the only option then would be to use a version with at least half the memory controllers and a heap of PCIe disabled for HEDT. It is possible (that's what AMD has been doing, after all) but I think quite unlikely. That would entail quite the loss of profits compared to selling the same silicon as fully enabled LGA4198.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 6, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Oh gee wow, really? Thanks for your great insight and this amazing revelation, I've never heard it before...
> 
> This topic is about Intel's HEDT. I've got a simple simon revelation for you now: HEDT means HIGH END DESKTOP, I couldn't care less how many dual-core mobile laptops Intel sells to insurance businesses, in the HEDT space, Intel is screwed so please try to come to terms with it.



You're way overinflating things. Chill out. As much as Intel has a problem _today_ for a prospective buyer of an HEDT system, most people are still sitting on an Intel rig with little urge to upgrade. When they do, they will likely consider Ryzen or TR. Its a slow crawl to get more market share though. As much as Intel doesn't have the top offering, they still have the largest market share by far, and it will take many years for that to change. Many years in which 'Intel is NOT screwed', they can get by just fine. Many years in which they have time to find something to counter AMD.

Get it now?


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

Valantar said:


> That is true, but I don't think it's likely for Intel to make two separate XCC dice, so the only option then would be to use a version with at least half the memory controllers and a heap of PCIe disabled for HEDT. It is possible (that's what AMD has been doing, after all) but I think quite unlikely. That would entail quite the loss of profits compared to selling the same silicon as fully enabled LGA4198.


As you know, for Skylake-SP/X and Cascade Lake-SP/X intel makes three dies; LCC(10 core), HCC (18 core) and XCC(28 core), all of which have 6 memory controllers. From these they make the Xeon scalable platform(Skylake-SP and Cascade Lake-SP) called Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum, which support various multi-socket configurations. For the HEDT/workstation market they have three partially overlapping platforms; X299, C422(LGA2066) and C621(LGA3647), but only X299 have a decent motherboard selection.

There is no reason why a HEDT CPU with all memory controllers would compete with Xeon SP. HEDT is optimized for maximum performance and use "normal" ATX style motherboards, while Xeon SP is energy efficiency optimized and usually run on other motherboard form factors suitable for server racks.

I would prefer if Intel made one HEDT/workstation lineup like AMD does today, and enabled as many memory channels and PCIe lanes as possible. If they really have to sell some CPUs without all memory channels or ECC for yield issues, then they can sell these as cheaper CPUs on the same platform.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 6, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Intel can't go beyond 18 cores in socket 2011 - there isn't room for a bigger die in that package.
> 
> This is the 9980XE, which uses the 18-core HCC die. It is slightly below 500mm2 (around 21.6x22x4mm).
> This is the Xeon W-3175X, which uses the 28-core XCC die. It is nearly 700mm2, at 21.6x32.3mm. There is no way that die can fit onto a Socket 2011 substrate - it's simply too large.
> ...




I didn't say they were going to put more cores on 2066, btw 2011-3 had 22 cores...
I said Intel plans to replace the 3175X either bringing i9 to 3647 or making another high binned Xeon-W
Guessing they will be using some of the dies they binned for cooperlake to try and stave off Threadripper 3000 total domination at a more reasonable TDP.

But in the June cascade lake refresh they did not release a 3175x replacement.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 6, 2019)

This information about Tiger Lake have apparently been in circulation for a while but have completely escaped me. So at least they are preparing the graphics driver for potential desktop parts, without any guarantee of when or if they will actually release. Intel have stated that Ice Lake-SP will ship in Q2 2020, so hopefully we can see desktop and HEDT parts later in 2020 too.


----------



## notb (Oct 7, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> This topic is about Intel's HEDT. I've got a simple simon revelation for you now: HEDT means HIGH END DESKTOP, I couldn't care less how many dual-core mobile laptops Intel sells to insurance businesses, in the HEDT space, Intel is screwed so please try to come to terms with it.


Since we look at 2066 mostly to learn what features could at some point go into mainstream (e.g. AVX-512, DLBoost lately), this is also how we should perceive Intel's troubles here. Does this concern us? Does it have a meaningful impact on the stuff Intel really wants to sell?
And the answer is: not really. AMD's advantage here stems from a bigger socket (SP3 vs 2066) and a smaller node, so they're able to fit more cores. That's it.

Keep in mind LGA2066 is just "high-end consumer" in the Intel's current lineup. They're not selling Xeons on this socket anymore (they're either LGA1151 or LGA3647).

If you just want to discuss HEDT as a separate lineup... there isn't really much to talk about. It's tiny and irrelevant. Even if 2066 just stopped selling today, it wouldn't have any impact worth discussing.


----------



## Gungar (Oct 7, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> I mean, better pricing then the price gauging going on before (like Nvidia is doing atm) is good yes... but its odd to use the word "impressive" for it imo.
> I mean, they are still making a lot of profit on these so why would you be impressed by them asking less money then they were before?
> I guess you could be impressed by AMD to actually force Intel to start cutting down their prices?
> 
> ...



They forced Intel to go cheaper architecture, i am not impressed by that.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 7, 2019)

notb said:


> Keep in mind LGA2066 is just "high-end consumer" in the Intel's current lineup. They're not selling Xeons on this socket anymore (they're either LGA1151 or LGA3647).


Actuall, Intel just updated the lineup today.
Xeon W-32XX is LGA3647
Xeon W-22XX is LGA2066
and still Xeon E-22XX is LGA1151
So the confusion continues…


----------



## notb (Oct 8, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Actuall, Intel just updated the lineup today.
> Xeon W-32XX is LGA3647
> Xeon W-22XX is LGA2066
> and still Xeon E-22XX is LGA1151
> So the confusion continues…


Yes! I did not see that coming. :-D

Actually it takes some confusion away. The principle stands: Xeons are for production use (mission critical systems). Everything else does consumer + business (non-production).

Intel basically said: we can't put as many cores as we want on LGA1151 successor and OEMs told them LGA3647 is just too big.
I bet this wouldn't happen if Intel could put 16 cores on the small socket, but that's at least a year away.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Oct 9, 2019)

Curious to see the TDP on these, and if the TDP is reasonable, how long they can actually spend at boost clocks.

When you start talking about large chips like these, power consumption is the key bottleneck and 14nm just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore, no matter how many plus symbols you add after the 14.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Oct 9, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> Curious to see the TDP on these, and if the TDP is reasonable, how long they can actually spend at boost clocks.
> 
> When you start talking about large chips like these, power consumption is the key bottleneck and 14nm just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore, no matter how many plus symbols you add after the 14.


Doesn't matter.  Intel TDP is useless.  A 9900K is listed at 95w but will pull well over 200w on an AVX workload.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Oct 9, 2019)

jayjr1105 said:


> Doesn't matter.  Intel TDP is useless.  A 9900K is listed at 95w but will pull well over 200w on an AVX workload.


True, but this is AMD we're talking about. Their TDP is actually both accurate, real-world representative and user-configurable, especially when it comes to laptops with additional sensors and things like STAPM (skin-temperature aware power management).

TDP for laptops really matters, because thermal headroom and cooling is any laptop's biggest performance constraint.


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 18, 2019)

So if the latest leaks are correct then looks like AMD gonna Troll Intel and announce their new TR lineup just before those 10th gen x299 CPU's reviews go live, it will make them DOA ;-).

*AMD won't miss the one time opportunity to step on Intel and continue with their "New Leader-New Rules" ha?.*


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2019)

AMD's Threadripper HEDT platform should be launching just before or during this Intel 10th gen release time frame. 
AMD should easily steal the thunder with better products, pricing, speed & performance.


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 22, 2019)

I hope they will offer cTDP options so many S.I and custom workstation builders could use higher TDP option for better performance w/o voiding warranty.
So you you build a great workstation with great cooling you could bump the cTDP option for 300W~380W and get much higher clock.
This way it will be benched with this high performance and will be offered by System integrator's - same way they are OK with using Intel's MCE on since it's not voiding the warranty.


----------



## Slizzo (Oct 22, 2019)

chodaboy19 said:


> Intel increased the PCIe 3.0 lanes  by 4 or are they counting in a different way?



Nope, it does look that way.


----------

