Intel to Bring 8-core/16-thread CPUs to the Mainstream Desktop Platform in 2018

[john_]

There's no indication that Z370 won't support the 8 core CPUs. There are indications of people already assuming it

There is an indication. When Eurocom decides to postpone their plan of upgrading their F5 laptop for more than 6 months, thats a real indication that 370 wouldn't be compatible with the eight core model, or at least Intel can not yet guaranty them, that it will be compatible. If 370 was compatible with the eight core, Eurocom would probably update now their F5 laptop, enjoy 6+ months of sales and then offer the eight core as a simple upgrade option.

 

[dj-electric]

Alright, i get it than.

Now, i suspect that H2 of 2018 might turn into october-december. That's quite a long wait. A year actually.

I refuse to believe that intel will make a new series obsolete after less than 12 months (please exclude the i7 7800X, its a miserable excuse of a CPU)

 

[Ebo]

AS I see it, Intel slept in the hour and regarded AMD as the underdog, then came Ryzen and after TR CPU's. Now they need to do something, and so far it hasent changed anything, AMD still has the momentum and the upperhand in the server market which is where the money really is.

Right now its like a panic selution opon another without a clear way of moving forward and give people new tech, it feels like giving "grandpaar" a viagra, get hard and move on.

This is from an Intel owner.

 

[dwade]

Intel panicking. LOL just stop. A panicking Intel would be selling their 18 cores for $999. All I see is AMD selling their half-baked 16 cores for $999 because it can't compete with their best.

 

[R0H1T]

Most people only want AMD to be on Intel and Nvidia's radar so they can buy their stuff for cheaper.

Yeah I hate them, then there are those who pretend that without AMD Intel (or Nvidia) would shower with mainstream hexa, octa ,deca, dodeca cores without charging both kidneys & a full grown liver

Intel panicking. LOL just stop. A panicking Intel would be selling their 18 cores for $999. All I see is AMD selling their half-baked 16 cores for $999 because it can't compete with their best.

OR release an 18 core with TIM slightly better than toothpaste so it's either being rushed (by the competition) or being greedy as f*** to not care about your top end customers, I'd say both

 

[Vya Domus]

All I see is AMD selling their half-baked 16 cores for $999 because it can't compete with their best.

You might want to check upon that once more , that "half-baked 16 core CPU" is currently the most powerful consumer level CPU money can buy.

 

[dwade]

You might want to check upon that once more , that "half-baked 16 core CPU" is currently the most powerful consumer level CPU money can buy.

1950x sacrifices client PC performance in order to cater to a niche audience, where a 1600x is faster than a 1950x in gaming. You'll see why they force you to use Game Mode (lol) just to somewhat close the gap between their weaker parts. A 7920x is also better all around so calling the 1950x the "most powerful consumer level CPU" is a fallacy. It's a half-dead server chip with compromising client PC performance.

 

[Vya Domus]

You're being a tad ignorant to say the least.

TR and Skylake-X are both "half dead server chips" and also they aren't made for gaming. A 1600X is faster than a 1950X in games the same way a 7700K is faster than a 7900X.

These are workstation class CPUs for HEDT platforms , that IS a niche market.

To me the fact that you brought up the matter of gaming performance tells me how out of context you are. In my opinion the only things that are fallacies are your points.

Also , what the hell is client PC performance in this context?

 

[Parn]

The need to change motherboard for a new CPU is getting more and more frequent. This is a new strategy of milking the consumers by Intel.

During the Core 2 era we had 3 and 4 series chipsets capable of supporting all existing LGA775 CPUs. Then moving onto the Core ix generations the chipsets supported at least two generations of CPUs with some nice new features added every update such as USB3, PCIe 3.0, DMI 3.0 and M.2/U.2 NVMe. Now what do we have? A rebadged Z270 as Z370 that would only work for less than a year...

 

[dwade]

You're being a tad ignorant to say the least.

TR and Skylake-X are both "half dead server chips" and also they aren't made for gaming. A 1600X is faster than a 1950X in games the same way a 7700K is faster than a 7900X.

These are workstation class CPUs for HEDT platforms , that IS a niche market.

To me the fact that you brought up the matter of gaming performance tells me how out of context you are. In my opinion the only things that are fallacies are your points.

Also , what the hell is client PC performance in this context?

Seems u dont even know what ur talking about. You said best consumer CPU money can buy. That's already a lie because 1950x isn't anywhere close to that.

 

[Vya Domus]

Seems u dont even know what ur talking about. You said best consumer CPU money can buy. That's already a lie because 1950x isn't anywhere close to that.

Show me some benchmarks so you can back up your claim that it "isn't anywhere close".

You are telling me a 7920X with just 2 extra cores not only catches up to the 1950X but out performs it by far , "all around" ? Oh boy

Also , you haven't answered me , what is "client PC performance" ? I am really curious to have someone that clearly knows a lot to explain to me what that is. I mean you just made that metric up. Maybe you have some experimental testing methodology which we don't know about.

I have a hunch you are a massive troll with no knowledge on the subject. But go ahead , surprise me.

 

[evernessince]

This is right around when Zen 2 will release so it's no wonder Intel will have to up their core count.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_2

AMD will likely match or exceed Intel's IPC and with the transition to 7nm it will also increase it's lead in power efficiency. Don't know what AMD will do with the extra die space though, perhaps increase the spacing or robustness of the logic on the chip so they can get higher frequencies. That would really be the trifecta, as they could match Intel's frequencies with better power consumption and better IPC.

The question then becomes, is Intel going to introduce IPC improvements? Can they even squeeze more out of their current architecture? How does Intel propose cooling these higher core count CPUs? Their current stock coolers are not enough. Are they finally going to move back to using solder?

 

[HisDivineOrder]

This is right around when Zen 2 will release so it's no wonder Intel will have to up their core count.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_2

AMD will likely match or exceed Intel's IPC and with the transition to 7nm it will also increase it's lead in power efficiency. Don't know what AMD will do with the extra die space though, perhaps increase the spacing or robustness of the logic on the chip so they can get higher frequencies. That would really be the trifecta, as they could match Intel's frequencies with better power consumption and better IPC.

The question then becomes, is Intel going to introduce IPC improvements? Can they even squeeze more out of their current architecture? How does Intel propose cooling these higher core count CPUs? Their current stock coolers are not enough. Are they finally going to move back to using solder?

I think you're dreaming if you think AMD is going to increase the IPC again in a significant way just after releasing a new architecture. I expect minor gains, improved memory compatibility, and enhanced clockspeed possibly. Possibly.

All of which would be awesome, by the by. I welcome that happening. Thing is, I don't believe that last one (clockspeed) is as likely as you think because I know that most of it relies upon the fab doing it and AMD has a known history of being screwed by new processes and fab's in general.

 

[Dave65]

Thank you AMD.

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

[Scrizz]

Show me some benchmarks so you can back up your claim that it "isn't anywhere close".

You are telling me a 7920X with just 2 extra cores not only catches up to the 1950X but out performs it by far , "all around" ? Oh boy

Also , you haven't answered me , what is "client PC performance" ? I am really curious to have someone that clearly knows a lot to explain to me what that is. I mean you just made that metric up. Maybe you have some experimental testing methodology which we don't know about.

I have a hunch you are a massive troll with no knowledge on the subject. But go ahead , surprise me.

If we're going to start throwing in Over-clocked results,

 

[Vya Domus]

Take a better look at that chart , you can find stock results too.

 

[btarunr]

If we're going to start throwing in Over-clocked results,

Those are very good numbers for the 1950X TBH.

 

[evernessince]

I think you're dreaming if you think AMD is going to increase the IPC again in a significant way just after releasing a new architecture. I expect minor gains, improved memory compatibility, and enhanced clockspeed possibly. Possibly.

All of which would be awesome, by the by. I welcome that happening. Thing is, I don't believe that last one (clockspeed) is as likely as you think because I know that most of it relies upon the fab doing it and AMD has a known history of being screwed by new processes and fab's in general.

AMD in 8% behind in IPC. Lisa sue already said they expect a 15% increase in IPC with Zen 2. I can put 2 and 2 together thank you very much.

"I think you're dreaming if you think AMD is going to increase the IPC again in a significant way just after releasing a new architecture."

Um, that's exactly when you'll see the biggest gain. AMD themselves have already stated that it will be easy to fix the low hanging fruit in Zen. Remember Intel's first i7? then remember the 2000 series? Yeah, that was a huge release.

 

[R0H1T]

I think you're dreaming if you think AMD is going to increase the IPC again in a significant way just after releasing a new architecture. I expect minor gains, improved memory compatibility, and enhanced clockspeed possibly. Possibly.

All of which would be awesome, by the by. I welcome that happening. Thing is, I don't believe that last one (clockspeed) is as likely as you think because I know that most of it relies upon the fab doing it and AMD has a known history of being screwed by new processes and fab's in general.

And what would you define as "significant way" btw? AMD exceeded their IPC target for Zen, they also exceeded the initial clock speed targets that many were expecting, although the OC headroom is pretty low.
The next iteration should be much better, there's very little reason to be so pessimistic.

AMD in 8% behind in IPC. Lisa sue already said they expect a 15% increase in IPC with Zen 2. I can put 2 and 2 together thank you very much.

"I think you're dreaming if you think AMD is going to increase the IPC again in a significant way just after releasing a new architecture."

Um, that's exactly when you'll see the biggest gain. AMD themselves have already stated that it will be easy to fix the low hanging fruit in Zen. Remember Intel's first i7? then remember the 2000 series? Yeah, that was a huge release.

The second (major) iteration was Nehalem not SB, both of them derived from the same conroe. The large gains in Nehalem were due to HT & imc(?) while SB was also iteratively better due to clocks & further tweaking of the design.
Agree with the rest though, Zen 2 or even Zen+ (RR for desktop & laptops) should be better than the initial Zen chips.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

If we're going to start throwing in Over-clocked results,

where is this chart from? some trashcan?

 

[dj-electric]

This is actually from the official results of the overclocking world league, HWbot.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

This is actually from the official results of the overclocking world league, HWbot.

Yea no way I could tell that without a link.

 

[GAR]

Thank you AMD.

Yup, lazy Intel.....Milking the stupid 4 core 8 thread cpu for 6 years now......All my systems as of now are RyZen, no more intel for me.

 

[TheGuruStud]

The stock results must be with some slow ass ram. I've already seen the 3k+ scores with decent ram. 2,700. ha.

 

[Scrizz]

where is this chart from? some trashcan?

The same place Anadtech pulled the 4122 TR score.....
http://hwbot.org/