4 ms·

> it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD This is incorrect. As Ryan Shrout from PcPer notes,[1] >

by throwaway209402 9y ago

> it should be painfully obvious that "i9" is just a reaction to the threat of ThreadRipper from AMD This is incorrect. As Ryan Shrout from PcPer notes,[1] > In some circles of the Internet, the Core i9 release and the parts that were announced last month from Intel seem as obvious a reaction to AMD’s Ryzen processor and Threadripper as could be shown. In truth, it’s hard to see the likes of the Core i9-7900X as reactionary in its current state; Intel has clearly been planning the Skylake-X release for many months. What Ryzen did for the consumer market was bring higher 4-count core processors to prevalence, and the HEDT line from Intel has very little overlap in that regard. Threadripper having just been announced in the last 60 days (even when you take into account the rumors that have circulated), seems unable to have been the progenitor of the Core i9 line, isn't its entirety. That being said, it is absolutely true that Intel has reacted to the Ryzen and Threadripper lines with pricing and timing adjustments. [1] : https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review/Power-Perf-Dollar-Conclusi https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X...

cyphar 9y ago
I was not referring to the R&D, rather the way it was announced and is being marketed. I would be surprised if they didn't rush development and went straight to marketing as a reaction to AMD. Intel have been resting on their lorels due to the lack of serious competition, ARM is struggling from what I've seen. I probably should've been clearer, but I assumed it was obvious you can't do R&D on new silicon in 60 days and already have an announcement for it.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  > I would be surprised if they didn't rush development I thought the development cycle for a new CPU was between 2-3 years (hence the 2 teams, and tick tock thing). It's like adding new features late in the game for a webapp. Some things would be very easy (we need a new page for X). Some things would be very hard (I want you to rewrite the entire app from angular to react). My guess is something like changing core count is very very hard to do late in the game. Changing price, maybe changing overclock settings, those would be fairly easy. So I suspect if Intel didn't see threadripper coming (which I doubt) the thread counts were set years ago. However threadripper is making Intel drop the prices a bit.
  - paulmd 9y ago
    Intel already makes these high-core-count CPUs for the Xeon market. What's different here is their presence in the HEDT lineup - but that is basically just blowing different feature-fuses in the chip and slapping them in a different box. There is no actual R&D required. Intel is afraid of these HCC chips cannibalizing their sales of more expensive Xeons, so they're holding back as long as possible and crippling key features. If you want ECC, for example, you have to buy a Xeon - or more realistically for many people, a Threadripper.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
The ≤10-core stuff was planned already, yes, aside from perhaps the pricing. But it's the new, very-high-core-count CPUs Intel hastily announced with no real details and without even warning their partners first that look like a reaction to Ryzen, specifically Threadripper. Those CPUs might be a problem for Intel. They can only make so many high-core-count Xeons and now some of the best chips will be headed to the HEDT market rather than servers. Also, thrusting chips with almost twice as many cores as originally planned onto motherboards which aren't designed for them and which already have seen overheating problems might not end well.

cyphar 9y ago

I was not referring to the R&D, rather the way it was announced and is being marketed. I would be surprised if they didn't rush development and went straight to marketing as a reaction to AMD. Intel have been resting on their lorels due to the lack of serious competition, ARM is struggling from what I've seen. I probably should've been clearer, but I assumed it was obvious you can't do R&D on new silicon in 60 days and already have an announcement for it.

brianwawok 9y ago
> I would be surprised if they didn't rush development I thought the development cycle for a new CPU was between 2-3 years (hence the 2 teams, and tick tock thing). It's like adding new features late in the game for a webapp. Some things would be very easy (we need a new page for X). Some things would be very hard (I want you to rewrite the entire app from angular to react). My guess is something like changing core count is very very hard to do late in the game. Changing price, maybe changing overclock settings, those would be fairly easy. So I suspect if Intel didn't see threadripper coming (which I doubt) the thread counts were set years ago. However threadripper is making Intel drop the prices a bit.
- paulmd 9y ago
  Intel already makes these high-core-count CPUs for the Xeon market. What's different here is their presence in the HEDT lineup - but that is basically just blowing different feature-fuses in the chip and slapping them in a different box. There is no actual R&D required. Intel is afraid of these HCC chips cannibalizing their sales of more expensive Xeons, so they're holding back as long as possible and crippling key features. If you want ECC, for example, you have to buy a Xeon - or more realistically for many people, a Threadripper.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

The ≤10-core stuff was planned already, yes, aside from perhaps the pricing. But it's the new, very-high-core-count CPUs Intel hastily announced with no real details and without even warning their partners first that look like a reaction to Ryzen, specifically Threadripper. Those CPUs might be a problem for Intel. They can only make so many high-core-count Xeons and now some of the best chips will be headed to the HEDT market rather than servers. Also, thrusting chips with almost twice as many cores as originally planned onto motherboards which aren't designed for them and which already have seen overheating problems might not end well.