Intel Announces Basin Falls Refresh Processors, Up to 18 Cores

[PaulAlcorn]

Intel announced its Basin Falls Refresh here at its Fall Desktop Launch Event in New York.

Intel Announces Basin Falls Refresh Processors, Up to 18 Cores : Read more

 

[jimmysmitty]

Few corrections:

1. First paragraph states they will slot into existing X399 motherboards. You mean X299. X399 is not out yet but might be launched today as well. I am a bit annoyed at AMD for their chipset naming as they knew Intel was using a similar naming scheme.

2. Third paragraph starts with "Te"". I am sure you meant "The"

One other thing is I wish the PCIe counts would be clarified. AMD has 64 on the CPU however 4 are used for communication with the PCH leaving 60 for slots and M.2 ports. Then there is 8 on the PCH which are PCIe 2.0 for other expansions like Ethernet etc.

Intels X series has 44 on the CPU but also has 24 on the PCH and all are PCIe 3.0.

 

[KD_Gaming]

those new processors actually state 68 pcie lanes right in the photo

 

[jimmysmitty]

those new processors actually state 68 pcie lanes right in the photo

I know that but its never stated on sites. There is a difference though. The CPU lanes are the ones typically used for PCIe graphics while the PCH get relegated to PCIe x1/x4 slots, NVMe, Ethernet etc.

 

[hockenstein]

In the chart the TR 2970WX has the boost clock typo'd at 3.2 instead of 4.2.

 

[Blas]

"Intel also replaced its thermal grease with Solder TIM to improve the thermal transfer efficiency between the heatspreader and the die. This important step forward..."
Or step backwards, depends on how our memory works... I seem to remember a time when that was the usual!

 

[WyomingKnott]

People have been clamoring for solder TIM for so long, this is good to see. Will this abate the rash of delidding accidents? I hope so.

 

[cryoburner]

Solder is good and all, but why does Intel's 18-core processor still cost significantly more than a 32-core Threadripper? It might offer slightly more performance per core, but in many of the heavily-multithreaded tasks that these CPUs are intended for, that massive core deficit is going to place it behind the competition.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Solder is good and all, but why does Intel's 18-core processor still cost significantly more than a 32-core Threadripper? It might offer slightly more performance per core, but in many of the heavily-multithreaded tasks that these CPUs are intended for, that massive core deficit is going to place it behind the competition.

The market that that CPU is geared towards allows Intels clock speed and IPC advantage to shine. The area where it would benefit AMD the most is servers more than anything. Most consumer software and tasks wont take advantage of that many cores.

The other side is the Basin Falls refresh. The 7820X will become the 9800X with 8/16 but also more L3 cache (16.5MB) 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes and a 200MHz base clock boost. As well the 9980XE will get a 500MHz base clock boost and a 100MHz turbo boost so it will widen the gap until AMDs next Threadripper.

What AMD did is because they coudn't match the per core performance and clock speed is they added value by throwing more cores at it. I mean I would love to have a 32 core system but there just isn't an advantage to it. If I went with the LGA 2011 platform I would stick to the 9800X. I just don't see an advantage to anything minus servers or high end workstations for more cores.

 

[cryoburner]

The market that that CPU is geared towards allows Intels clock speed and IPC advantage to shine. The area where it would benefit AMD the most is servers more than anything. Most consumer software and tasks wont take advantage of that many cores.

If someone cares so much about lightly-threaded performance, they would likely be better off spending a fraction of the amount on a processor with fewer, higher-clocked cores, not a $2,000 18-core processor with limited boost clocks. The only reason someone should have a CPU with that many cores is if heavily multithreaded performance is most important to them, and if that's the case, the Threadrippers should offer better performance per dollar.

 

[jimmysmitty]

The market that that CPU is geared towards allows Intels clock speed and IPC advantage to shine. The area where it would benefit AMD the most is servers more than anything. Most consumer software and tasks wont take advantage of that many cores.

If someone cares so much about lightly-threaded performance, they would likely be better off spending a fraction of the amount on a processor with fewer, higher-clocked cores, not a $2,000 18-core processor with limited boost clocks. The only reason someone should have a CPU with that many cores is if heavily multithreaded performance is most important to them, and if that's the case, the Threadrippers should offer better performance per dollar.

Per dollar? Maybe. However there is also software optimizations which for years professional programs have been optimizing for Intel as AMD didn't offer viable competition. There is also platform benefits.

I am not justifying it over AMD. AMD does offer more cores per dollar. However when a program benefits from higher clock speeds and its a professional environment they are not worrying about $2000 for a CPU when that extra time could amount to more.