New Details On Intel's Upcoming 10-core Skylake-X i9 7900X Surface

[thatoneguy1980s]

175W TDP?!

Wow.. AMD used to be the dirty power hog to pull out more from their CPUs... lmao.

Definitely caught intel with their pants down with Ryzen

 

[biffzinker]

175W TDP?!

Wow.. AMD used to be the dirty power hog to pull out more from their CPUs... lmao.

Definitely caught intel with their pants down with Ryzen

I wouldn't say Ryzen caught Intel with their pants down. Just that bumping the CPU base clock plus the required voltage to make a ten cores stable at 4.0 GHz results in the power consumption increase. It's no different than overclocking the CPU over the OEM spec, so not a huge surprise really.

 

[cdawall]

175W TDP?!

Wow.. AMD used to be the dirty power hog to pull out more from their CPUs... lmao.

Definitely caught intel with their pants down with Ryzen

You haven't been watching the actual consumption graphs have you?

 

[efikkan]

175W TDP?!

Wow.. AMD used to be the dirty power hog to pull out more from their CPUs... lmao.

Definitely caught intel with their pants down with Ryzen

TDP represents the maximum power draw, which for CPUs are more and more load specific.
Since the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel's CPUs have really changed very little, the largest change for generic purposes is the large improvements of the prefetcher, which is responsible for most of the little IPC improvements since Sandy Bridge. But most of the new transistors have been used to implement new features, like AES acceleration and AVX-2 and soon AVX-512. These features take up a lot of die space, and are only used by a few relevant applications. If AMD implemented a comparable prefetcher and comparable AVX support, you could be pretty sure the TDP would be quite a bit higher (on current production nodes).

 

[johnspack]

Yep, unlocked multi-core xeons with desktop names. Bout time! Was worried how I was going to upgrade. Could use the 22 core one at 4ghz though....

 

[happy medium]

Name me just one title that uses 10 cores at 4.5GHz?

Ashes of the Singularity can used up to 16 Threads with 1 Thread per Core!
https://steamcommunity.com/app/228880/discussions/1/412448158151767714/#c412448158154366508

https://hardforum.com/threads/ashes...to-16-threads-with-1-thread-per-core.1892735/

 

[Bill_Bright]

These cpu's have been years in the make and people saying this is all because of Ryzen need to get their heads checked.

And no doubt Intel (and AMD) are already doing R&D 2 & 3 generations ahead.

Did Intel sit on this i9 until after the Ryzen was released? Probably - but so what? That's just good marketing and business sense! 2018 car models are just now trickling out but no doubt 2019s are in the wings. Next year's TV models are ready to go. And for sure, Samsung and Apple are already readying their next smart phones for release. Samsung sure didn't start from scratch designing and building the Note 8 when they had to prematurely ditch the exploding Note 7s.

It makes no business sense to release next generation models now when the market is still buying current models. That's not milking the customers. There is no defrauding or exploitation going on. No one is forcing CPU buyers to dump what they have to buy the latest and greatest.

The "hate" mentioned earlier is often from the fanatics of the opposite side - not really out of hate or a dislike, but as a defense mechanism - that is, a rationalization to defend their own choice. If one can't extol the virtues of their choice, they criticize the competition.

And often there is just simple blind and misplaced biases. A person doesn't like the company so they criticize their products - even though the products may be top notch. We see this disdain all the time against Intel, and pretty much anything with the Microsoft brand on it.

And for the record, these companies would not be spending $billions developing these products if there was not a demand for them.

I currently prefer Intel's but I love AMD. We (consumers) need Intel constantly looking over their shoulder just as much as we need AMD to keep nipping at Intel's heels. This is what drives development and competition, and more choices for us consumers. Choice is good!

 

[mockylock]

I agree except for the undelined bit about "milking the costumers" ,that doesn't sound like intels at all.

Exactly.

This trend has gone on for decades. If you don't have much competition, why would you keep pushing out new tech as soon as you develop it? Intel will hold on to current architecture unless they have a reason to hit the next step. It's not to say that both don't have pros and cons, but "Milking" is what they've always done... especially when nobody is even close during stagnant tech times.

This whole conversation reminds me a lot of the old "Bulldozer" architecture arguments.

"It's going to blow away everything out there"

Intel: "hold my beer".

 

[*zSnowz*]

There seems to be a consensus on this and other sites that intel would hold technology back from the market. I don't understand why this would be true. It makes perfect sense that intel, as the clear leader these past few years, might slow r&d *spending* to improve free cash flow. But once they have already spent the money to develop new superior tech, why not put that new tech on the market at a higher price? They can keep selling older tech at current prices so long as they price the new tech at a high enough price so as not to cannibalize the older tech. Revenue is maximized when you can segment the market more ways so that you can get more users to spend up to their marginal willingness to pay. Now, i can understand introduction delays on the order of one or two month to clear old inventory or to better to respond to a competitors offerings or for some other reason - but longer? Maybe there is some conspiracy/group-think going on here?

I'd be very interested in someone pointing out how intel can maximize their long term revenue while sitting on tech. Remember, intel does not make any money off investments in new tech while that new tech is sitting on the shelf.

 

[64K]

There seems to be a consensus on this and other sites that intel would hold technology back from the market. I don't understand why this would be true. It makes perfect sense that intel, as the clear leader these past few years, might slow r&d *spending* to improve free cash flow. But once they have already spent the money to develop new superior tech, why not put that new tech on the market at a higher price? They can keep selling older tech at current prices so long as they price the new tech at a high enough price so as not to cannibalize the older tech. Revenue is maximized when you can segment the market more ways so that you can get more users to spend up to their marginal willingness to pay. Now, i can understand introduction delays on the order of one or two month to clear old inventory or to better to respond to a competitors offerings or for some other reason - but longer? Maybe there is some conspiracy/group-think going on here?

I'd be very interested in someone pointing out how intel can maximize their long term revenue while sitting on tech. Remember, intel does not make any money off investments in new tech while that new tech is sitting on the shelf.

This is just my opinion and I can't prove it but I do think Intel sits on their tech because they pretty much have to. If they get too far ahead of AMD to such a state that it makes no sense to buy AMD CPUs then AMD could bankrupt. That would leave Intel as a monopoly in the CPU area.

 

[Bill_Bright]

There seems to be a consensus on this and other sites that intel would hold technology back from the market. I don't understand why this would be true.

It just makes good business sense. You don't go through the major expense of retooling your manufacturing factories and foundries to release your new products when there is still a solid market for the products still in production.

 

[*zSnowz*]

64k and Bill - you have brought up two reasons that do make sense. Intel does want to keep AMD alive to allay monopoly concerns. Intel also incurs much more than R&D costs to introduce new tech - they also incur the costs of ramping up production of the new tech. I can imagine intel reasoning that there is no reason to immediately spend the money putting new tech into production when they are killing it in the marketplace.

Thanks.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Exactly.

This trend has gone on for decades. If you don't have much competition, why would you keep pushing out new tech as soon as you develop it? Intel will hold on to current architecture unless they have a reason to hit the next step. It's not to say that both don't have pros and cons, but "Milking" is what they've always done... especially when nobody is even close during stagnant tech times.

This whole conversation reminds me a lot of the old "Bulldozer" architecture arguments.

"It's going to blow away everything out there"

Intel: "hold my beer".

In some terms Amd delivered ,i am sure it essentially had the performance it just wasn't used then plus intels marketing and pr are soo much better than amd as are there sales staff or were.
Everything is looking much better for me the customer for the next five years now though , good times.
When intel actually really redoes a new architecture then we'll see intel regain some impetus or they actually leverage a decent fpga in consumer cores, that could be a deal breaker.

 

[mockylock]

In some terms Amd delivered ,i am sure it essentially had the performance it just wasn't used then plus intels marketing and pr are soo much better than amd as are there sales staff or were.
Everything is looking much better for me the customer for the next five years now though , good times.
When intel actually really redoes a new architecture then we'll see intel regain some impetus or they actually leverage a decent fpga in consumer cores, that could be a deal breaker.

There's no doubt in my mind that this kind of competition is the best thing that can happen for consumers. Without it, the jump in tech just doesn't seem to occur as quickly (at least in consumer cores). I guess the tech in the server market is what's constantly being pushed, and that fact in itself goes against the "milking" theory, if that tech gets handed down. Regardless, I'm just a guy who buys stuff and waits for better stuff to come out. When someone else brings competition to the table, stuff gets faster and cheaper, and I drink beer and smile.

 

[HTC]

And no doubt Intel (and AMD) are already doing R&D 2 & 3 generations ahead.

Did Intel sit on this i9 until after the Ryzen was released? Probably - but so what? That's just good marketing and business sense! 2018 car models are just now trickling out but no doubt 2019s are in the wings. Next year's TV models are ready to go. And for sure, Samsung and Apple are already readying their next smart phones for release. Samsung sure didn't start from scratch designing and building the Note 8 when they had to prematurely ditch the exploding Note 7s.

It makes no business sense to release next generation models now when the market is still buying current models. That's not milking the customers. There is no defrauding or exploitation going on. No one is forcing CPU buyers to dump what they have to buy the latest and greatest.

The "hate" mentioned earlier is often from the fanatics of the opposite side - not really out of hate or a dislike, but as a defense mechanism - that is, a rationalization to defend their own choice. If one can't extol the virtues of their choice, they criticize the competition.

And often there is just simple blind and misplaced biases. A person doesn't like the company so they criticize their products - even though the products may be top notch. We see this disdain all the time against Intel, and pretty much anything with the Microsoft brand on it.

And for the record, these companies would not be spending $billions developing these products if there was not a demand for them.

I currently prefer Intel's but I love AMD. We (consumers) need Intel constantly looking over their shoulder just as much as we need AMD to keep nipping at Intel's heels. This is what drives development and competition, and more choices for us consumers. Choice is good!

It does make sense if Intel have the completed silicon and can have it sent to manufacturers as well board makers @ any time but choose not to because they want to sell as much as possible of the current architecture: that's milking the customers, IMO.

That's what Ryzen ended shaking up: the ability of Intel to follow their laid out plan. This is evidenced by the fact that "suddenly" next gen CPUs have their release schedule sped up.

You are right when you say that it's a poor business tactic to release next gen models when current gen is still being bought, which is why Intel can't release next gen architecture right away, even if they had inventory for it. Plus, they'll have to wait for board makers to have supply as well (assuming it's a different socket).

 

[Bill_Bright]

It does make sense if Intel have the completed silicon and can have it sent to manufacturers as well board makers @ any time but choose not to because they want to sell as much as possible of the current architecture: that's milking the customers, IMO.

No, it is milking as many sells out of the current production run, not the customers. It costs $millions to retool factories and foundries. Why would any company producing any product stop producing that product if it is still making money? That would simply be bad business. Bad business puts people out of work, hurts economies, and loses investor's money. When investors lose money, they pull out then the company can't invest in R&D and retooling.

If the customers today didn't have choices, that would be different. If the CPU makers were forcing users to upgrade, that would be different. But neither is true.

And for sure, neither Intel nor AMD have an inventory of next generation processors they are just sitting on. That too would be foolish business. No doubt they have prototypes and engineering models, but they have not retooled an entire factory line to make processors they then have to put in expensive, secured storage somewhere.

That's what Ryzen ended shaking up: the ability of Intel to follow their laid out plan.

Not really. Not sure if you are singling out Intel, or if it just because it is their turn, but that's my point. They take turns and both companies not only want their products to sell, but they want to take sales away from the competition. So taking away the thunder of one is simply a genius marketing triumph.

And how do you know what their "laid out plan" is? You don't. Their plan may have been all along to wait until AMD put out their next gen processor.

AMD and NVIDIA do the exact same thing. Samsung/Android and Apple do the exact same thing. Boeing and Airbus do the exact same thing. It is not milking the customer.

ISPs milk their customers because they often have a monopoly in their regions, they keep raising prices, they force you into a contract and you have pay and pay and pay again.

Fancy security suites milk their customers because they charge you up front, then force you to pay recurring fees - often with intimidating scare tactics if you threaten to switch.

This trashing (subtle or flagrant) of Intel in this thread makes no sense at all. You (speaking to the crowd) make it sound like the Ryzen is suddenly defeated and will never be heard from again. Nonsense. More choices is good.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

No, it is milking as many sells out of the current production run, not the customers. It costs $millions to retool factories and foundries. Why would any company producing any product stop producing that product if it is still making money? That would simply be bad business. Bad business puts people out of work, hurts economies, and loses investor's money. When investors lose money, they pull out then the company can't invest in R&D and retooling.

If the customers today didn't have choices, that would be different. If the CPU makers were forcing users to upgrade, that would be different. But neither is true.

And for sure, neither Intel nor AMD have an inventory of next generation processors they are just sitting on. That too would be foolish business. No doubt they have prototypes and engineering models, but they have not retooled an entire factory line to make processors they then have to put in expensive, secured storage somewhere.
Not really. Not sure if you are singling out Intel, or if it just because it is their turn, but that's my point. They take turns and both companies not only want their products to sell, but they want to take sales away from the competition. So taking away the thunder of one is simply a genius marketing triumph.

And how do you know what their "laid out plan" is? You don't. Their plan may have been all along to wait until AMD put out their next gen processor.

AMD and NVIDIA do the exact same thing. Samsung/Android and Apple do the exact same thing. Boeing and Airbus do the exact same thing. It is not milking the customer.

ISPs milk their customers because they often have a monopoly in their regions, they keep raising prices, they force you into a contract and you have pay and pay and pay again.

Fancy security suites milk their customers because they charge you up front, then force you to pay recurring fees - often with intimidating scare tactics if you threaten to switch.

This trashing (subtle or flagrant) of Intel in this thread makes no sense at all. You (speaking to the crowd) make it sound like the Ryzen is suddenly defeated and will never be heard from again. Nonsense. More choices is good.

No mate companies sit on their laurels , selling as much as they can with as much efficiency as possible and invest in other directions in good times , not create a new arch, this isn't new either , evolution not revolution.
Amd got slated for running chips hot and fast to compete but now we will see intel do the same.
They in reality did dit on a marginal performance budget , marginal.

 

[Bill_Bright]

No mate companies sit on their laurels , selling as much as they can with as much efficiency as possible and invest in other directions in good times , not create a new arch, this isn't new either , evolution not revolution.

And they get in trouble (or even die) when they sit on their laurels too. That's exactly what allowed AMD to leapfrog over Intel many years ago and it took Intel 8 or 9 years to catch up, then finally, leapfroging back over AMD with the Core 2 Duo. Intel took a huge beating during that time (I know, I've owned Intel stock over 20 years) and promised never to get smacked down like that again. That's exactly why Intel keeps looking over their shoulder to see where AMD is. They really got embarrassed, and paid for it too.

Intel is not sitting on their laurels. They learned their lesson - the hard way. If they were sitting on their laurels, they sure would not be pumping out new processors. No good business manager allows it.

Amd got slated for running chips hot and fast to compete but now we will see intel do the same.

That is irrelevant to this topic.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

And they get in trouble (or even die) when they sit on their laurels too. That's exactly what allowed AMD to leapfrog over Intel many years ago and it took Intel 8 or 9 years to catch up, then finally, leapfroging back over AMD with the Core 2 Duo. Intel took a huge beating during that time (I know, I've owned Intel stock over 20 years) and promised never to get smacked down like that again. That's exactly why Intel keeps looking over their shoulder to see where AMD is. They really got embarrassed, and paid for it too.

Intel is not sitting on their laurels. They learned their lesson - the hard way. If they were sitting on their laurels, they sure would not be pumping out new processors. No good business manager allows it.
That is irrelevant to this topic.

Read what i said, look at what intel have done then have a think, they sat on x86 laurels adding only the essential stuff BUSINESS WANTED ,not you the gamer and invested heavily on mobile and auto and other stuff Iot but not high end x86.
And it was nehalem not core 2 duo that put amd off pace, upto that the jumps were small

Hot and fast is highly relevant for this thread or topic because it's assured.
So will Threadripper be, hot and fast thats the new multi core way thanks to Amd well them and physics

 

[HTC]

No, it is milking as many sells out of the current production run, not the customers. It costs $millions to retool factories and foundries. Why would any company producing any product stop producing that product if it is still making money? That would simply be bad business. Bad business puts people out of work, hurts economies, and loses investor's money. When investors lose money, they pull out then the company can't invest in R&D and retooling.

If the customers today didn't have choices, that would be different. If the CPU makers were forcing users to upgrade, that would be different. But neither is true.

And for sure, neither Intel nor AMD have an inventory of next generation processors they are just sitting on. That too would be foolish business. No doubt they have prototypes and engineering models, but they have not retooled an entire factory line to make processors they then have to put in expensive, secured storage somewhere.

Ofc it cost's millions of $ to prepare factories and foundries but that's not the point i was trying to make: i'm saying i'm pretty sure they already had the product's prototypes ready and "all that was left" was to "go ahead and change the factories and foundries". However, they chose not to because they thought they had too big of a lead and doing so was unnecessary right away, so they kept the current architecture and were planning to release next gen @ a later date (according to their own roadmap pre-Ryzen) while they sold a heck of allot of processors of the current architecture.

When Intel became aware of the "threat" Ryzen poses to their business, they went ahead and sped their roadmap, but this doesn't happen overnight and 1st it's required to sell the current existent inventory. Since Intel doesn't like to drop their prices often, it takes a while for the inventory do drop substantially and Ryzen sales gain traction while that happens.

Not really. Not sure if you are singling out Intel, or if it just because it is their turn, but that's my point. They take turns and both companies not only want their products to sell, but they want to take sales away from the competition. So taking away the thunder of one is simply a genius marketing triumph.

And how do you know what their "laid out plan" is? You don't. Their plan may have been all along to wait until AMD put out their next gen processor.

AMD and NVIDIA do the exact same thing. Samsung/Android and Apple do the exact same thing. Boeing and Airbus do the exact same thing. It is not milking the customer.

ISPs milk their customers because they often have a monopoly in their regions, they keep raising prices, they force you into a contract and you have pay and pay and pay again.

Fancy security suites milk their customers because they charge you up front, then force you to pay recurring fees - often with intimidating scare tactics if you threaten to switch.

This trashing (subtle or flagrant) of Intel in this thread makes no sense at all. You (speaking to the crowd) make it sound like the Ryzen is suddenly defeated and will never be heard from again. Nonsense. More choices is good.

Intel's own roadmaps a few months before Ryzen and current roadmaps? Do they not show that next gen will be launched much earlier then predicted?

 

[Bill_Bright]

Read what i said, look at what intel have done then have a think, they sat on x86 laurels adding only the essential stuff BUSINESS WANTED

That's ancient history. Not today. Sitting on a product waiting for the optimal time release it is not sitting on your laurels. The mere fact they were ready to launch a new lines shows that they were ready, not being lackadaisical.

i'm saying i'm pretty sure they already had the product's prototypes ready and "all that was left" was to "go ahead and change the factories and foundries".

Sure they did. As I said, both AMD and Intel likely have prototypes going 2 or 3 generations out.

However, they chose not to because they thought they had too big of a lead

"Too big" a lead? Bullfeathers! They knew they were in the lead and releasing the i9 just maintains it.

You guys sure are ready to slam Intel. I think that is too bad, and misguided.

Do they not show that next gen will be launched much earlier then predicted?

I don't know. Show us link telling us the date they had originally planned to release the i9, then and only then will I concede you are on to something. Without that, I say this is just business as usual. That is, Intel was ready to launch when the market dictated it. That seems like brilliant marketing strategy to me.

 

[cdawall]

don't know. Show us link telling us the date they had originally planned to release the i9, then and only then will I concede you are on to something. Without that, I say this is just business as usual. That is, Intel was ready to launch when the market dictated it. That seems like brilliant marketing strategy to me.

I don't normally agree with Bill, but I am on the same page with him today. Prove this is an early release and not just Intel sitting pretty.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

That's ancient history. Not today. Sitting on a product waiting for the optimal time release it is not sitting on your laurels. The mere fact they were ready to launch a new lines shows that they were ready, not being lackadaisical.
Sure they did. As I said, both AMD and Intel likely have prototypes going 2 or 3 generations out.

"Too big" a lead? Bullfeathers! They knew they were in the lead and releasing the i9 just maintains it.

You guys sure are ready to slam Intel. I think that is too bad, and misguided.
I don't know. Show us link telling us the date they had originally planned to release the i9, then and only then will I concede you are on to something. Without that, I say this is just business as usual. That is, Intel was ready to launch when the market dictated it. That seems like brilliant marketing strategy to me.

Its not new its just clocked higher imho.

 

[HTC]

Show us link telling us the date they had originally planned to release the i9, then and only then will I concede you are on to something. Without that, I say this is just business as usual. That is, Intel was ready to launch when the market dictated it. That seems like brilliant marketing strategy to me.

Can't seem to find images of the roadmaps but i did find this.

To quote a bit:

According to DigiTimes, sources among Taiwan-based PC vendors have indicated that Intel's upcoming Basin Falls platform, which includes Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X processors on a new X299 chipset, will be unveiled at Computex 2017 (May 30th, June 3rd), in Taipei - two months earlier than expected. This move comes accompanied by an accelerated launch of the Coffee Lake microarchitecture, which still uses the 14 nm process, to August 2017 from an initial January 2018 launch. If true, this is big in a number of ways - that Intel would bring forward a product launch 4 months has some interesting implications - or at least, confirmations.

 

[Bill_Bright]

That's nice but that's just DigiTimes speculation based on what they claim they heard from sources from PC "vendors". That's hardly an official Intel produced timeline/roadmap. Why and how would computer "vendors" (not even manufacturers, but vendors) in Taiwan know Intel's official timeline, or that it was changed?

My cousin's ex-girlfriend's brother-in-law has a friend who heard from his friend who has an "unnamed source" who claims... .