Intel Unwraps The Rest Of Its Core X-series CPU Family

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Invaliderror

There certainly isn't a miracle cure, but there are steps they could take to mitigate the issue, like using solder between the core and heat spreader, or like AMD did, split the cores across dies.

Heck the 18 core Xenon E7-8860V4 processor runs 2.2 on their base clock with a 3.2 turbo and have a significantly lower TDP, only 140W (you could still air cool that). I have a feeling that Intel went for the 18 core simply because they could not match the thermal performance of the Ryzen chips. I expect pretty close to equal performance between the two top chips, and nothing is stopping AMD from popping another active die or two on there and hitting 18, 20, 24, or even 32 threads on a future release (yeah, if they stick in the 3.4 GHz range those thermals will be crazy). Right now the Xenon offerings max at 24 cores. Although one with 28 cores @ 2.5 w 3.8 turbo and 205W TDP is planned in Q3 this year. To contrast the Epyc 32 core 7601 will run at 2.2 with a 3.2 boost and a TDP of 160W. That sounds mighty impressive.

So, maybe Intel should take a closer look at what AMD is doing, because there seems to be at least a few fixes out there.
 
If you are gaming only 7900x is better than 16/32 Thread Ripper, simply better and AMD counterpart will never be faster in the gaming there. Overall 7900x is better balanced CPU because it gives you the best gaming experience ever with very little to sacrifice at content creation (professional) work. If i was to buy a new platform it would be x299 + 7900x. Intel 12/14/16/18 cores are amazing when you look at clock speed. In Turbo 3.0 they reach 4.4 Ghz which is insane. Don't get fooled by base clock because all cores can run much higher frequency.
 
As far as thermal issues with Intel CPUs, that's the biggest ****** ever. I tested 6, 8, and 10 core variants and they do not run any hotter than the current Ryzen with a proper air flow and AIO cooling. As I said the biggest ***** ever someone started and entire community took up on it without f. testing yourself.

Watch your language. This is a family friendly site.
 

The decisions behind Skylake-X were made long before ThreadRipper and EPYC were so much as rumors: there is a 4-6 months delay from tape-out to first silicon to setup the fab process and get it up to speed, several months of regression testing prior to tape-out, well over a year of engineering prior to getting to this point. In other words, Skylake-X's architecture was mostly set in stone about two years ago, possibly even sooner.

The only effect Ryzen could possibly have had on the Skylake-X is pricing and perhaps how aggressively Intel might push speed bins. By the time Ryzen came out, it was far too late for Intel to change anything about Skylake-X.
 
@Invaliderror

You're forgetting that Intel has been working on Skylake based Xenons for quite a while. All they had to do was fuse off a few features to get more Skylake X models. So, in a way you are correct, but in a fundamental way you are wrong. There is a reason the higher core count chips didn't launch at Skylake X launch. Up to the 7900X was already good to go. It would have been another incremental improvement to the HEDT platform, until the Threadripper rumors, then announcement. Intel went into overdrive and hammered out what they needed. That was announced in May. So, there is your 4-6 month delay as these high core count chips won't ship until September. High core count i9 chips were a reaction, not a plan. Intel got caught with their pants down. They were lucky that they had a product they could adapt relatively quickly.
 


Apparently you forgot about Tom's Hardware's own testing:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117.html

That was testing on the i9-7900X (10C/20T) Skylake-X CPU just released 2 months ago, BTW, not some "old" CPU...

 


I don't care what they tested, i learned from my own findings.
 
Back when no one was getting fired for buying IBM they had 68% of the Mainframe market. Today they probably have 90+% yet the overwhelming bulk of the computer market, both commercial, military and what is new to the equation consumer is overwhelmingly not based on IBM mainframe tech. In fact, my watch is more powerful than many of the IBM mainframes I worked on and your typical 4 Core home computer today is a Super Computer compared to what was considered one back in the 1980s when IBM was King.

Neither Intel or AMD keep the lights on with these high margin CPU models. They do fund their R&D with such. Same goes for these high end CPU models aimed at the very top end of the Gamer market. If $300 plus quad Cores were the norm in the overall scheme of things both would be out of business over night. The ASP of CPUs today in the mass consumer market is what? The real fight is not with these top end models but what gains these top models bring to the lower end price points where the real volume and revenue is to keep the lights on.

No one got fired for buying IBM back when they controlled 68% of what was the mainframe market but no one is buying IBM today in the scheme of things either. IBM like Intel has a high fixed cost to cover. That's why they laid off 30% of their employees years ago in response to AMD while still producing the bulk of the CPU models and not being able to cover their fixed cost. Things change over time. The New IBM can find itself in the same place IBM finds itself today.

If you doubt this explain the mass move to VM which equates to buying less Intel CPUs in the commercial markets in mass? Less CPUs are being bought to save "money" in IT land. Two ways cost half what Four ways cost and those half what 8 ways cost in Server-land for the same increment of computing power thus AMD is focused on providing more computing power under VM in two way (two socket) configurations. Don't be surprised that no one gets fired for buying Intel but that their high margin end of the business still shrinks because it has been for some time and it is their prices that dominate there as everyone is being reminded.
 
It is going to be funny to watch Coffee Lake i3 8350K <$170 CPU to tear down entire Ryzen lineup including Thread Ripper in about every game.
 
Sure thing Freak777power... sure thing. Intel is going to release an i3 that is going to best its current i7 in games, make every i5 obsolete, and do it for dirt cheap. So, in your infinite foresight what is it going to be? A triple core with hyperthreading? A quad core? Even more cores? Will it hit 7 GHz? Will it have DDR5 memory support? Will it have 40 PCI-E lanes? Will it only work on games or will people be able to uberp0wn productivity tasks too? What are we looking at, CPU Mark scores around 25,000? Will it be made of unobtanium?

Be realistic kid. If Intel does it right Coffee Lake i3s will have roughly 10-15% more performance and roughly equal overclocking to what the unlocked one does now. It will give the i5 a run for its money, just like it does now, but at just over that price you could get an R5 that games well enough and crushes productivity tasks.

Intel isn't going to make an i3 that kills almost it's entire previous generation. You might get an i5 that does that if you are really lucky.

You know what? I actually hope that you are right. It would be amazing for consumers, but everything I know about everything says you are wrong.
 
i3 8350k is quad core with based clock speed of 4.0Ghz with no HT and that thing will for sure overclock 4.7Ghz which will wipe out entire Ryzen line in gaming.
 

The fact that the i9 were derived from Xeon is a given and doesn't affect in any way, shape or form the fact that all of the significant design decisions behind current chips were made years ago. Arbitrary things like crippling chips to only work with specific chipsets and disable specific features on a market segment basis can be done at the last minute assuming they weren't planned as such in the first place. Since most extra features on Xeons can be disabled from BIOS, I'd wager that all of those with foreseeable market segmentation were pre-wired as such.
 
So it is a cache gimped Kaby Lake i5. Judging by the new TDP of it, they aren't making much for process improvements, just piling on cores for this generation. I don't think AMD really has anything to worry about unless Intel fixes their TIM problem. Coffee Lake isn't going to shake things up too badly. AMD will simply adjust prices and still have superior price for performance numbers. Either way it is good for consumers. I'm glad Intel has finally decided to "innovate".
 


A bit optimistic here but that should be a nice budget CPU. I was wondering if Intel would bump some non-hyper threaded quad cores into the i3 lineup once 6 core i7's landed.
 
The state the platform/bios when it was released in is very telling how much heat intel is feeling and that rushed release is not helping their trust in stability that they clearly price their cpu's toward.

Not only does the competition have good performance but they also have a very clever design allowing to add cores easily compared to intel's monolithic design philosophy. I think the interconnected blocks is the future as it allows easy scalability while also friendlier to cool as it won't create a meltdown in the middle due to spacing between the blocks.

Pricewise the TR's looks very awesome too, cant wait for the reviews.
 


@freak777power, you don't buy a $1,000 processor if all you do is gaming. That's stupid. And an i3 doesn't out perform superior 8, 12, and 16 core processors in anything other than gaming. That's stupid too. Your comment is two stupid.

Keep it civil guys....
 
"We are Intel. We have kidnapped your PCI-E lanes. If you want them back you will have to pay $1,000 ransom. If not, we will begin cutting PCI-E lanes off. If you don't pay $390 we will not stop until there are only 28 left. Should you fail to meet our demands, good luck expecting full x16 full bandwidth for your video card with any other system resources! Bwahahahaha..."

"Do not test us... we are willing to do anything to hurt you."
 


@drajitsh, you may be interested in this historical insight on the subject...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k
 

We'll have to wait and see what ends up priced how much after Coffee Lake launches. On one hand, Intel's mid-range prices are getting out of hands. On the other hand, most of the lineup is getting two extra cores and Intel has Ryzen to worry about across the board.

As much as I'd like to say that AMD will force Intel's prices down, I get a feeling that Intel's ASPs will be going up overall.
 


Yeah that's kind of my feeling at the moment. AMD wasn't doing much better with Faildozer BUT they weren't aimed at the market that typically uses some much IO because of their poor performance. Nvidia chips sets got me using so much PCIe bandwidth when Intel forced them out of the market it really hurt a lot of users. Intel just had to steal back their bottom line because a small group of prosumer/power user/etc had jumped ship due to their needs/wants. I really wish Nvidia could of got there hands on a full x86 license but oh wait who owns that, Intel. I get the business side of it but I get very tired of it as a consumer regardless.
 


Plus 24 3.0 lanes from the chipset. Skylake X has a minimum of 28 through the CPU. 16 go to the video card. What kind of insane storage/networking setup are running that requires more than the 12 left from the CPU plus 24 through the chipset? For home users, this a complete non-issue.
 
Are we so sure about TR thermals yet? The only review with Benchmarks I watched threw a 90degree mark with load work and no OC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom