8 ms·

Finally it looks like the desktop CPU market could become interesting and competitive again. Intel being pushed to release a new top of the line core i9 process

by ricw 9y ago

Finally it looks like the desktop CPU market could become interesting and competitive again. Intel being pushed to release a new top of the line core i9 processor?! I cannot remember anything like this since the amd64 days more than 10 years ago. Would love to play with one of these setups..

FluffyTheWalrus 9y ago
Don't lie you don't want to play with one of these setups you want to take it home own and make love to it. xD 16 cores is absolutely insane my first computer was a commodore 64 VIC-20 it was 1 MHz with 32kb of ram... Hopefully this will bring some life back into AMD..
dogma1138 9y ago
No, Intel's i9 if it exists is a rename of the old HEDT platform. This is also likely unrelated to AMD, with Coffee Lake coming which brings 6-core/6-thread and 6-core/12-thread CPUs to the mainstream (150-300$) Intel likely wants a new tier to relay performance segmentation when even a core i5 will come with 6 cores from Q3 2017 onwards.
- robhu 9y ago
  Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    The Ryzen CPUs just came out, no OEMs yet, and the sales are not a blimp or Intel's radar yet. Coffee Lake is honestly a more interesting part, it's a 6 core with an IGP, AMD's APU will be 4 core maximum atm. I know it hurts but AMD needs to have ship an almost unreasonable number of units for several consecutive to be considered mainstream. If Ryzen will be anything like the Athlon 64, AMD would fail to capitalize on it and just be behind Intel when it comes to iterations.
  - 013a 9y ago
    Ever heard of the i7 5820k? It was released Q3'14. 6 cores. 12 threads. i7 name. Around $400. [1] AMD's great revolution was getting the TDP on that core count below 100W, and getting them onto a consumer chipset/socket instead of the enthusiast/server platform. That's it. We keep saying they forced some revolution in price/performance that Intel has had to respond to. Its 80% hype, 20% truth. Intel was complacent on the desktop, yes. But Ryzen's perf gains over Skylake aren't significantly more than Intel's tick/tock perf gains they push each year; the main difference is that Ryzen focused on the enthusiast, which is something Intel had de-prioritized. [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Proc...
    - paulmd 9y ago
      Intel did a really shitty job marketing these (maybe the i9 name will help). They are hardly known even amount enthusiasts but they are really good processors for the exact same reasons that people like Ryzen. A moderate tradeoff in gaming for a big gain in productivity tasks. They are even priced essentially the same as the 4C8T i7s. I basically had Ryzen performance at Ryzen prices a year ago when I built my 5820K system. Motherboard, processor, and 32 GB of DDR4-3000 CAS15 cost me $600 all together. I hit 4.13 GHz all-core on stock voltage and still run well under the rated TDP. Ryzen was an incremental improvement at best. 8 core Ryzen is slightly faster (being that it has 33% more cores) but I'm still winning vs the 6-cores. The real change Intel needs to make is dropping the cost of the 8-core and higher chips, because they're just past any reasonable budget.
      - 013a 9y ago
        The 5820K was an amazing processor. I have one as well. Its coming up on two years old, yet for $390 (at release) its only ~10-20% slower than a brand new $490 Ryzen 1800x, and much of that drop can be attributed to two fewer cores. You're right on all counts. Ryzen was vastly overhyped. Its highly likely Cannonlake and KabyLake-X will destroy it when they are released in a couple months. The world needed Ryzen to push Intel to lower prices on their high end chips. But, like most of the times when AMD "pushes ahead", Intel will beat them within a year, and hold that position for another 4 years. And then the cycle repeats. I don't know how much longer AMD can keep this up. It seems like they're being propped up by their dominance in console tech.
  - Keyframe 9y ago
    I bought 3930K 6C/12HT in 2012 and still rockin' it. AMD was not even on radar back then.
    - trueSlav 9y ago
      My old 1090t from 2010 says hi.
      - Keyframe 9y ago
        I remember that one, the one that said hi to already-on-the-market i7 980x! :)
013a 9y ago
The i9 isn't new. Its a rebranded Skylake-X/KabyLake-X chip. This has been on their roadmap for over a year [1]; they just changed the name to trick consumers into thinking its something new. The hype between here and reddit about i9 is astounding to me. You've been able to get an i7 in a 10 core variant for a year now [2]. Need 6 cores? Take a time machine back to Q3'11 and pick up an i7 3930k [3]. And if you needed twelve cores, you could buy Xeon [4]! Heck, go crazy, get 22 [5]! The only difference is likely price; hopefully the i9 is cheaper. Fundamentally, why you should not be excited about these things: They'll use the enthusiast motherboard socket/chipset, not the consumer socket. And they'll have a 140W TDP, whereas Ryzen has 95W max. These two things are what makes Ryzen so amazing. If you ignore these two things, then you might as well by Xeon; Intel has lead in that category for years and continues to. [1] http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-q2-2017-roadmap-leak/ http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-q2-2017-road... [2] http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-25M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Proc... [3] http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-Proc... [4] http://ark.intel.com/products/91767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2650-v4-30M-Cache-2_20-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... [5] http://ark.intel.com/products/93805/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-4669-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/93805/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-...
- yohui 9y ago
  Mostly agree, but AMD's TDP estimates are slightly optimistic and in reality Ryzen's power usage is much closer to its Intel counterparts.
  - loeg 9y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
    - paulmd 9y ago
      https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R... https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review/6 https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-7-170... http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review-intel-battle-ready/index12.html http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-... http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=10 http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-... (bear in mind the 5820K/6800K/6850K are 6C, the 5960X/6900K are 8C, and the 6950X is 10C) Essentially AMD is rating their TDP under a very light load - like a single thread at full boost clocks. Under an all-core load they are running roughly 30% over TDP. Intel's TDP rating is much more generous - they aren't quite rating at full, nonstop AVX load (eg Prime95) but typical full-load consumption is 15% under their TDPs which leaves some headroom for intermittent AVX usage. Anecdotal evidence: my 10C20T Haswell-E Xeon pulls ~60% of its rated TDP during a Handbrake x264 encoding run. My 6C12T 5820K Haswell-E gaming chip (overclocked to 4.13 GHz all-core at stock voltages) pulls 75% of its rated TDP during a similar Handbrake x264 run. And supposedly x264 is smart enough to use AVX, so that should be a realistic-but-high figure. My OC'd 5820K pulls 90% of its rated TDP during a Prime95 SmallFFT run. It's still a huge gain compared to Bulldozer - but not quite as rosy a picture as AMD is trying to paint. They are equal with Haswell-E/Broadwell-E in most respects, not 40% ahead like AMD is rating them. AMD is playing the same game in the GPU market too. AMD's RX 480/580 are rated for "GPU only" TDP (which they define to exclude memory/etc) but NVIDIA rates the whole card. In practice, AMD is ~30% above their official TDPs while NVIDIA is pretty much spot on. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/28.html https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Pl... (RX 580 is rated at 185W TDP, GTX 1060 is rated at 120W TDP)

by ricw 9y ago

FluffyTheWalrus 9y ago

Don't lie you don't want to play with one of these setups you want to take it home own and make love to it. xD 16 cores is absolutely insane my first computer was a commodore 64 VIC-20 it was 1 MHz with 32kb of ram... Hopefully this will bring some life back into AMD..

dogma1138 9y ago

No, Intel's i9 if it exists is a rename of the old HEDT platform. This is also likely unrelated to AMD, with Coffee Lake coming which brings 6-core/6-thread and 6-core/12-thread CPUs to the mainstream (150-300$) Intel likely wants a new tier to relay performance segmentation when even a core i5 will come with 6 cores from Q3 2017 onwards.

robhu 9y ago
Nope. 6 core 12 thread CPUs came to the mainstream a while ago, AMD brought them. The Ryzen 5 1400 is $160. Intel is playing catchup.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  The Ryzen CPUs just came out, no OEMs yet, and the sales are not a blimp or Intel's radar yet. Coffee Lake is honestly a more interesting part, it's a 6 core with an IGP, AMD's APU will be 4 core maximum atm. I know it hurts but AMD needs to have ship an almost unreasonable number of units for several consecutive to be considered mainstream. If Ryzen will be anything like the Athlon 64, AMD would fail to capitalize on it and just be behind Intel when it comes to iterations.
- 013a 9y ago
  Ever heard of the i7 5820k? It was released Q3'14. 6 cores. 12 threads. i7 name. Around $400. [1] AMD's great revolution was getting the TDP on that core count below 100W, and getting them onto a consumer chipset/socket instead of the enthusiast/server platform. That's it. We keep saying they forced some revolution in price/performance that Intel has had to respond to. Its 80% hype, 20% truth. Intel was complacent on the desktop, yes. But Ryzen's perf gains over Skylake aren't significantly more than Intel's tick/tock perf gains they push each year; the main difference is that Ryzen focused on the enthusiast, which is something Intel had de-prioritized. [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Processor-15M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Proc...
  - paulmd 9y ago
    Intel did a really shitty job marketing these (maybe the i9 name will help). They are hardly known even amount enthusiasts but they are really good processors for the exact same reasons that people like Ryzen. A moderate tradeoff in gaming for a big gain in productivity tasks. They are even priced essentially the same as the 4C8T i7s. I basically had Ryzen performance at Ryzen prices a year ago when I built my 5820K system. Motherboard, processor, and 32 GB of DDR4-3000 CAS15 cost me $600 all together. I hit 4.13 GHz all-core on stock voltage and still run well under the rated TDP. Ryzen was an incremental improvement at best. 8 core Ryzen is slightly faster (being that it has 33% more cores) but I'm still winning vs the 6-cores. The real change Intel needs to make is dropping the cost of the 8-core and higher chips, because they're just past any reasonable budget.
    - 013a 9y ago
      The 5820K was an amazing processor. I have one as well. Its coming up on two years old, yet for $390 (at release) its only ~10-20% slower than a brand new $490 Ryzen 1800x, and much of that drop can be attributed to two fewer cores. You're right on all counts. Ryzen was vastly overhyped. Its highly likely Cannonlake and KabyLake-X will destroy it when they are released in a couple months. The world needed Ryzen to push Intel to lower prices on their high end chips. But, like most of the times when AMD "pushes ahead", Intel will beat them within a year, and hold that position for another 4 years. And then the cycle repeats. I don't know how much longer AMD can keep this up. It seems like they're being propped up by their dominance in console tech.
- Keyframe 9y ago
  I bought 3930K 6C/12HT in 2012 and still rockin' it. AMD was not even on radar back then.
  - trueSlav 9y ago
    My old 1090t from 2010 says hi.
    - Keyframe 9y ago
      I remember that one, the one that said hi to already-on-the-market i7 980x! :)

013a 9y ago

The i9 isn't new. Its a rebranded Skylake-X/KabyLake-X chip. This has been on their roadmap for over a year [1]; they just changed the name to trick consumers into thinking its something new. The hype between here and reddit about i9 is astounding to me. You've been able to get an i7 in a 10 core variant for a year now [2]. Need 6 cores? Take a time machine back to Q3'11 and pick up an i7 3930k [3]. And if you needed twelve cores, you could buy Xeon [4]! Heck, go crazy, get 22 [5]! The only difference is likely price; hopefully the i9 is cheaper. Fundamentally, why you should not be excited about these things: They'll use the enthusiast motherboard socket/chipset, not the consumer socket. And they'll have a 140W TDP, whereas Ryzen has 95W max. These two things are what makes Ryzen so amazing. If you ignore these two things, then you might as well by Xeon; Intel has lead in that category for years and continues to. [1] http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-q2-2017-roadmap-leak/ http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-q2-2017-road... [2] http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Processor-Extreme-Edition-25M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/94456/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-Proc... [3] http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-Proc... [4] http://ark.intel.com/products/91767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2650-v4-30M-Cache-2_20-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91767/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... [5] http://ark.intel.com/products/93805/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-4669-v4-55M-Cache-2_20-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/93805/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-...

yohui 9y ago
Mostly agree, but AMD's TDP estimates are slightly optimistic and in reality Ryzen's power usage is much closer to its Intel counterparts.
- loeg 9y ago
  Do you have a source for that?
  - paulmd 9y ago
    https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Power-Consumption-and-Conclusions https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R... https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review/6 https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/04/06/amd-ryzen-7-170... http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review-intel-battle-ready/index12.html http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8072/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-... http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-and-review?page=10 http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-... (bear in mind the 5820K/6800K/6850K are 6C, the 5960X/6900K are 8C, and the 6950X is 10C) Essentially AMD is rating their TDP under a very light load - like a single thread at full boost clocks. Under an all-core load they are running roughly 30% over TDP. Intel's TDP rating is much more generous - they aren't quite rating at full, nonstop AVX load (eg Prime95) but typical full-load consumption is 15% under their TDPs which leaves some headroom for intermittent AVX usage. Anecdotal evidence: my 10C20T Haswell-E Xeon pulls ~60% of its rated TDP during a Handbrake x264 encoding run. My 6C12T 5820K Haswell-E gaming chip (overclocked to 4.13 GHz all-core at stock voltages) pulls 75% of its rated TDP during a similar Handbrake x264 run. And supposedly x264 is smart enough to use AVX, so that should be a realistic-but-high figure. My OC'd 5820K pulls 90% of its rated TDP during a Prime95 SmallFFT run. It's still a huge gain compared to Bulldozer - but not quite as rosy a picture as AMD is trying to paint. They are equal with Haswell-E/Broadwell-E in most respects, not 40% ahead like AMD is rating them. AMD is playing the same game in the GPU market too. AMD's RX 480/580 are rated for "GPU only" TDP (which they define to exclude memory/etc) but NVIDIA rates the whole card. In practice, AMD is ~30% above their official TDPs while NVIDIA is pretty much spot on. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/28.html https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Pl... (RX 580 is rated at 185W TDP, GTX 1060 is rated at 120W TDP)