2 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIntel 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.