Intel: We 'Forgot' to Mention 28-Core, 5-GHz CPU Demo Was Overclocked

[shrapnel_indie]

Wow so many AMD shills here. WTF is wrong with the AMD community?

And so many AMD haters (we could call them Intel Shills) downvoting those "AMD Shills"


Intel deserves the negativity of this, just as AMD, NVidia, or anyone else would deserve it if they pulled the same stunt.

Intel got caught and I doubt the omission was one of "nerves." I do believe it was intentionally misleading... as suggested in another article on said CPU... to steal as much thunder, or limelight, from the AMD 32-core CPU announcement. A lie of omission with plausible deniability prepared for when they got called n the carpet. Did they know it would be found out? I suspect they had a good idea it would, but was counting on it would at least hold out long enough to disrupt the AMD announcement.

a company representative explained to us that "in the excitement of the moment," the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn’t targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip.

Intel claims the whole fiasco is merely the result of a flubbed recitation of pre-scripted lines, with the accidental omission of a single word: "Overclocked." Maybe that's the truth, but there's a lot of room for debate considering how convenient an omission this is.

so it's certainly a stretch to market it to gamers and enthusiasts. However, Intel's graphic showed a young person wearing a gaming headset, which implies the processor is for gamers.

As Tom's points out, they're not alone in pulling stunts like that.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Intel: "What’s amazing is that trade-off, this actually being a 5GHz in single-threaded performance frequency and not...having to sacrifice that for this kind of multi-threaded performance, so you've got kind of the best of both worlds. So, you guys want to see us productize that thing? Tell you what, we'll bring that product to market in Q4 this year, and you'll be able to get it."

I think claiming that's a flat out "lie" is a little overreacting. Did that imply that this chip can run at 5GHz reference stock speed on a single core? Yes it does because they did not mention it was supercooled overclocked. However, he did say "this chip" and not "this 5GHz single core speed" chip. Let's also keep in mind here this chip is not even released yet. If they make that claim on the box and in ads at release time and it is not true, then it is a flat out lie to the consumer. Besides, who would buy this and run it on a single core anyway? Those days died out long ago.

In any event, I think the correct word here is "misleading" or "deceptive" and not a flat out lie because as stated you can't buy it yet. And as this article mentions, all companies do that in future promises (then they change the specs at release time). It's up to you, the consumer, to do your complete homework in whatever product or service you buy. Most people never even read the fine print on their auto insurance or credit card documents.

Anyway the parsing of words here is really not the most important issue for Intel on something we can't even buy one way or the other. I'm most disappointed in Intel's more recent fails at thermal management designs and going cheap on adhesive/paste applications. Especially as Tom's proved here with their excellent i9 de-lidding and overclocking article. The fact that's a near-$1,000 chip and it has to be de-lidded to get better overclocking performance is just pathetic. Especially when looking back at Intel's history of being excellent overclockers. No matter what however, history will show that AMD put Intel in a scramble when they released Ryzen and severely caught them off guard.

lie
[lahy]
noun

1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2) something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3) an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4) the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


verb (used without object), lied, ly·ing.

1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
2) to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Source: Dictionary.com

 

[motocros1]

i call bs. they mentioned 5Ghz several times explaining the test results and didn't mention the extreme amount of power or cooling to get those results. what customer would be interested in those exact results with that setup even if they did need that much processing power. they intentionally misled the audience with the context of the test results

 

[10tacle]

lie
[lahy]
noun

1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2) something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3) an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4) the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


verb (used without object), lied, ly·ing.

1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
2) to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Source: Dictionary.com

Nowhere did they say "This 5GHz chip will be available." And again, since it's not even available to the public for sale, from a trade perspective there is no "lie" to a consumer who can't even buy it yet (unlike say Nvidia who gave false information on their GTX 970). Then you have actual "intent" which is hard to prove in court.

For example, the lawyers suing Nvidia could never prove beyond reasonable doubt against Nvidia intentionally mislead the consumer on wrong GTX 970 information. On the other hand, the defense could not prove that the error was purely a disconnect between engineering and marketing on product specs. So they bit it and paid out to the consumers of them (I was one who had two in SLI and got two $30 checks).

The belly aching over this is meaningless UNTIL we see the actual product for sale as marketed. VW promised low emissions diesel cars at the Frankfurt Auto Show. When released for production, it was discovered that they lied about their emission outputs. <--- Save all the rage for when/if things like that happens folks. Until then, you are doing nothing but shaking your fist at the sky not changing anything.

And another thought nobody has apparently thought about: CES is the biggest expo in the world for consumer technology. Did Intel really think nobody would pick up on their claims and look deeper? This sounds to me like a publicity stunt.

 

[mlee 2500]

Ah, what better way to generate Buzz and Free Press then to convienently "forget" to mention that the speed and frequency was, for all practical purposes, unrealistic to obtain by anyone in real life...and then make another announcement later that you "forgot" to mention this.

Must be nice having a monopoly in the data-center, and very little real competition on the desktop.

 

[10tacle]

Must be nice having a monopoly in the data-center, and very little real competition on the desktop.

Intel has no real competition at the desktop level? What? The first generation of Ryzen was released that got Intel running for cover. Have you not been keeping up with current events the past 15 months? Regarding server level CPUs, AMD does not have the R&D funds to get there to match competition. Yet.

Ryzen's success long term may change that long term. Also keep in mind AMD is the only microprocessor company that is split three ways developing and producing a CPU, GPU, and APU (specifically PS4/XB1 console APUs). Neither Intel nor Nvidia do all three at the desktop/laptop/console level.

BTW for all you lurkers out there who rarely post on Tom's, why don't you actually debate opinions you downvote instead of downvote hit and running everyone? Not that downvoting comments you disagree with matters to anyone's rank as a forum member or anything. You guys know who you are.

 

[King_V]

And Threadripper 2 is not an old product? Lol.

Wow, so, how many accounts do you have on Tom's Hardware?

I only ask because, apparently, my post was downvoted by, among others:

seangayton5 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:11:11 AM
...
seangayton3 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:06:35 AM
...
seangayton voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:02:49 AM

 

[TJ Hooker]

Nowhere did they say "This 5GHz chip will be available." And again, since it's not even available to the public for sale, from a trade perspective there is no "lie" to a consumer who can't even buy it yet (unlike say Nvidia who gave false information on their GTX 970). Then you have actual "intent" which is hard to prove in court.

Nobody is talking is talking about sueing Intel. People aren't annoyed because they think what Intel did was illegal, they're annoyed because it's kind of scummy. I won't get into an argument of semantics and mental acrobatics regarding whether what they did was a "lie" or not, the fact is what they did was misleading and their excuse for it is eye roll worthy.

I know Intel isn't the first or last to pull something like this, and people should continue to call out other instances of BS like this regardless who did it.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@King_V jeez, I was wondering how so many comments racked up so many votes so fast...

 

[SavageFist]

Thanks for calling out this BS. So many unanswered questions and I was initially fooled into also thinking this would be a shipping at 5GHz product, not that I have any intention of purchasing an HEDT product.

 

[King_V]

@King_V jeez, I was wondering how so many comments racked up so many votes so fast...

Must be Sean's clone army. I am also suspicious of (most of) the other downvotes because they're interestingly all extremely close to 2 minutes apart, though SOME of that might be a coincidence.

Removing the upvotes from the list:

cownotme voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:14:46 AM
(3:30 gap)
seangayton5 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:11:11 AM
(2:13 gap)
darealist voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:08:58 AM
(2:25 gap)
seangayton3 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:06:35 AM
(1:52 gap)
Jensen_3 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:04:43 AM
(1:54 gap)
seangayton voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:02:49 AM
(1:57 gap)
cma4 voted down for this answer June 8, 2018 8:00:52 AM

 

[10tacle]

Nobody is talking is talking about sueing Intel. People aren't annoyed because they think what Intel did was illegal, they're annoyed because it's kind of scummy.

And my point is that everyone is wasting energy screaming at the sky over this stunt, which again, I have strong suspicion it was done on purpose to get people to start talking about it in the first place. You can't honestly expect Intel to think their tech attendees are that stupid anymore than you can legitimately complain about something someone may insinuate may work to a spec if it's not for sale yet. "Snake oil" type medicine was sold in the 1800s based on false promises. Keyword: SOLD as such. This chip is NOT for sale yet.

The real fight is if Intel doesn't make do on what's officially labeled on the specs of their released chips. Wise people know when to pick their battles, whether "scummy" or entirely illegal. All I'll say is this: this story caused a firestorm here and maybe that's what Intel had as a motive all the time... to put their story on the map of discussion. This is all irrespective of the fact a lot of commenters here are trying to tie Intel's history of unfair business practices that did wind them up in legal courts in the first place.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

" the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn’t targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip."

What a load of bull. Who the hell would overclock their CPUs besides gamers and benchmark enthusiasts? The workstation/business crowd would never overclock their CPUs because they care more about stability...that is why most workstation Xeons aren't overclockable.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

I'll do some more work for THG. What intel demo'ed was simply a rebranded Intel Xeon Platinum 8176. It even used the exact same motherboard as the Xeon Platinum 8176. All they did was unlock the multiplier on the chip, probably did some wizardry on the bios for the motherboard and attached an industrial water cooler to the setup.

This is not a "new" product, this was a tech demo using an existing product to create the impression of a new product.

We covered that in our previous article, though we're more convinced its an 8180.

 

[techac]

Even more, Intel forgot to say that the 28 core chip is an Intel 8180 overclocked server chip, a server socket chip, and a 1000 watt alone huge cooler box.

Intel openly mislead all its Intel investors in the most shameful way..

 

[techac]

Even more, Intel forgot to say that the 28 core chip is an Intel 8180 overclocked server chip, a server socket chip, and a 1000 watt alone huge cooler box.

Intel openly mislead all its Intel investors in the most shameful way..

 

[BaRoMeTrIc]

I love how the non competent media jumped all over this one. Any true enthusiast who saw this demo could clearly tell that was a xeon 8180 on a server mobo with a chiller. Then they went crazy "Intel has a new 28 core monster" when the 8180 launched what 10 months ago? It does boost to 3.8 GHz so it's feasible they could hit 5 on ln2 or with a chiller. Why would Intel release a desktop 28 core when the xeon 8180 sells for over 10k?they would cannibalize their own enterprise stock.

 

[TJ Hooker]

And my point is that everyone is wasting energy screaming at the sky over this stunt, which again, I have strong suspicion it was done on purpose to get people to start talking about it in the first place. You can't honestly expect Intel to think their tech attendees are that stupid anymore than you can legitimately complain about something someone may insinuate may work to a spec if it's not for sale yet.

You'd think tech attendees and reporters would know better, and yet numerous publications reported on the chip to the effect of 'Intel to bring 28 core, 5GHz HEDT CPU to market', with no mention that is was likely overclocked or the fact that it won't be available on a consumer platform.

But it's not just "something someone may insinuate may work to a spec if it's not for sale yet". It's the senior VP and GM of Intel officially unveiling a CPU billed as 28 core, 5 GHz and pointing to it and saying "So, you guys want to see us productize that thing? Tell you what, we'll bring that product to market in Q4 this year, and you'll be able to get it." This isn't a case of people running wild based on rumours or treating preliminary info leaks as fact. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone hearing/seeing/reading about that to walk away thinking that the final product is going to be a 28 core CPU running at 5 GHz (at least for lightly threaded loads).

And yes, it may very well have been a deliberate move by Intel to "forget" these details, knowing full well that people would likely call them out on it later. Doesn't really change anything IMO.

 

[Thom457]

One of the reasons I don't overclock my CPUs is that it ultimately leads to this kind of obsession with that as a marketing vehicle for the sake of what is here just "vapor wear". No matter what level of measurable performance gain you get from this kind of extreme measures, next year's model will exceed that and the cost of getting there will often times come close to our exceed the cost of the original CPU which you void the warranty on every time. If money is not object here none of what I just said will matter.

In the "space" where I make a living voiding a warranty of something like this is a criminal offense more or less. I'm far more interested in getting the best overall performance from the "system" and longevity vs. burning out some component a year to two down the road then having to build a completely new system because said component is no longer made, available at anything called reasonable. That tends to be the nature of the Consumer side of equation. You can still find SBs and Ivy Bridge CPUs at prices twice the originals some days.

As I said in an earlier post, for 28 current 14 NM Intel Cores operating at 5 GHZ what was shown wasn't impressive at all. 16 Cores at just over 4 GHZ delivers half the score reported. Obviously something in the "system" is holding back that 5 GHZ potential performance. I suspect something along the lines of what held back the first two generations of "extreme" 6 Core CPUs Intel put out. Early benchmarks showed 6 Core scalable performance only inside the CPU caches. 5 Core performance is what showed up when you went out over the memory bus.

Overclocked or not, mentioned or not, what Intel did here is resort to feeding that obsession many fall prey to for marketing purposes. Whatever is under the covers here, it isn't targeted for the real world use anything remotely like it was demoed here. What Intel did here is one thing. What people reporting on this "vapor wear" is another. I would expect better given the obvious shortfall in the performance reported.

 

[Apple Troll Master]

Plain and simple Intel is a bit scared. Intel currently has the Chandler, Az location under heavy construction...they currently have 7x 20 story cranes out there as we speak...Too bad it will take at the least 2 years to complete. My last Intel dollars where spent on the 7700k, should've got an 8core Ryzen. Regret is real.

 

[none12345]

I don't believe that intel 'forgot' to mention it.

Lets put that aside tho.

What i find the most interesting about this whole thing is the fact that this is the best intel had to offer. I frankly find this quite shocking.

Ive long believed that they were sitting on chip designs ready to release whenever AMD go back into the game. I never thought they would be finished designs sitting in a warehouse, more like paper designs that could be brought online in the 6-9 month range. But it appears that they did not do this. They don't seem to have any contingency plans.

Threadripper 1 forced intel to release their HCC server chip into HEDT for the first time. In the past they just used their LCC server chip. And really that's an ok contingency plan. It kept them competitive in HEDT(on performance, not on price).

But, now its a year later. What has intel done to stay competitive over the last year?

It appears that the only response they can muster is to take a XCC server chip, and overclock the ever living hell out of it with a sub-ambient vapor chiller(or for the tech impaired....basically a refrigerator).

And then just 'forget' to mention the 'refrigerator' under the table. And 'forget' to mention the fact that the system(including chiller) is probably using 2000 watts.

Intel, i realize your plans revolved around 10nm being online....a long....long time ago. I know you are having problems with 10nm, and that has messed up your plans for 2017/2018/2019. .....but seriously did you have no backup plans?

 

[tokeylokey66]

You guys are goofs lol. I'm having a laugh at these comments. Oh boo hoo they didn't say it was over clocked....probably to add more excitement to the crowd. Anyone who is gonna spend 10 stacks or more on a cpu is gonna know every spec of it before they buy it. If they don't, then they deserve to get got.
What is up with all the side taking? Buy the best processor all around for you and be done with it.
All this ohh intel is dead after this 'fiasco'
Needs to end. It is next level cringe. They are trying to sell you something, quit taking sides like you are their buddies and on their team lol.

Go ahead, point to me being wrong anywhere. I am the argument and rebuttle king

 

[57rescraft]

We're not screaming at the sky, just having a discussion. Also, it's at Computek, not CES. Whole different crowd.

 

[cerealkeller]

What I want to know is, was anybody dumb enough to not immediately realize this chip was overclocked with exotic cooling? Need it even had been said? Why is everyone bitching about Intel leaving that fact out? It's obvious. If it's not obvious to you, then that means you must be a noob.

 

[DGurney]

Wow, what jagoffs. I hope AMD eats their lunch.