Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

[-Fran-]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

I've wasted enough time on your over critical critique of Leaked Benchmarks! I highlight pertinent information. If you don't like it comment and move on. Having a drawn out squabble competition over this is just too wasteful of my time. And again you just being argumentative and claiming there is an overwhelming amount of bias media sources out to get Intel! It's not funny anymore you can stop at any time. You have used these sources on numerous occasions when it benefited your points. There is not conspiracy! There is a lack of your reading things in it's entirety. There is a fanatical reaction by you whenever you read anything that goes against what you think is fair for Intel! Just stop it!

I don't only list the biased sites, but I also expose the technical tricks they use to favor AMD in reviews. It isn't a conspiracy, it is just AMD playing dirty again. You launch another ad hominen attack on me, but many people knows the same than me and posted similar thoughts:

Agreed. I'm happy to see AMD competing with Intel (and they are, no doubt) but to see reviewers obviously biasing reviews makes me die a little inside.

Basically what these reviewers have done is created an army of people who think AMD chips are the best at everything, skylake-x is garbage, 7700k is a stupid buy, etc. If you dare challenge their opinion you are a stupid Intel fanboy. This just frustrates me to no end.

All because of biased reviewers and a couple of benchmarks that were essentially rigged. I get it, you're sick of Intel. But your job is to review chips, and you shouldn't let your opinion of a company get in the way of an honest review.

Yes, AMD chips have their advantages, especially in tasks where throughout put on lots of cores is advantageous.
But reviewers have just glossed over Intel's higher clocks and better IPC, as well as better latency.

 

[juanrga]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

 

[goldstone77]

I've wasted enough time on your over critical critique of Leaked Benchmarks! I highlight pertinent information. If you don't like it comment and move on. Having a drawn out squabble competition over this is just too wasteful of my time. And again you just being argumentative and claiming there is an overwhelming amount of bias media sources out to get Intel! It's not funny anymore you can stop at any time. You have used these sources on numerous occasions when it benefited your points. There is not conspiracy! There is a lack of your reading things in it's entirety. There is a fanatical reaction by you whenever you read anything that goes against what you think is fair for Intel! Just stop it!

I don't only list the biased sites, but I also expose the technical tricks they use to favor AMD in reviews. It isn't a conspiracy, it is just AMD playing dirty again. You launch another ad hominen attack on me, but many people knows the same than me and posted similar thoughts:

Agreed. I'm happy to see AMD competing with Intel (and they are, no doubt) but to see reviewers obviously biasing reviews makes me die a little inside.

Basically what these reviewers have done is created an army of people who think AMD chips are the best at everything, skylake-x is garbage, 7700k is a stupid buy, etc. If you dare challenge their opinion you are a stupid Intel fanboy. This just frustrates me to no end.

All because of biased reviewers and a couple of benchmarks that were essentially rigged. I get it, you're sick of Intel. But your job is to review chips, and you shouldn't let your opinion of a company get in the way of an honest review.

Yes, AMD chips have their advantages, especially in tasks where throughout put on lots of cores is advantageous.
But reviewers have just glossed over Intel's higher clocks and better IPC, as well as better latency.

Bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view, that is often without considering evidence and other information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency people have to favor facts or arguments that confirm the beliefs and positions they already hold. The extreme form of this bias is referred to as “belief perseverance” when people hold onto their beliefs even after they've been proven false.

Just because someone shares your views that does not in itself eliminate bias. Multiple sources(you name 4) that you have previously used as points of reference share unfavorable reviews of Intel, so you now call them bias. That is the definition of bias. I'm done talking on the subject.

 

[juanrga]

Just because someone shares your views that does not in itself eliminate bias. Multiple sources(you name 4) that you have previously used as points of reference share unfavorable reviews of Intel, so you now call them bias. That is the definition of bias. I'm done talking on the subject.

My comment demonstrated that I am not alone, despite all your continuous pretension that I am the only can see the bias on the reviews that you bring to us. And of course you omit entirely that I am not only reporting the biased reviews, but I also explain the dirty tricks used to favor AMD hardware. A short list of the dirty tricks used directly by AMD in demos and marketing slides or by the biased review that favors AMD:

- Testing games at higher resolutions such as 4K, generating a GPU bottleneck and reducing the performance gap between Intel and AMD CPUs.

- Measure power consumption on a workload that supports 512bit to get the SIMD units on Skylake-X fully loaded, then measure performance on a workload with 128bit support for not giving Intel any performance advantage (SIMD units in Intel CPUs only one half or one fourth loaded). Evidently this dirty trick will favor performance/power ratio for AMD.

- Disable Turbo on Intel chips to reduce performance.

- Disable quad-channel on Intel boards to reduce performance.

- Run EPYC vs Broadwel Xeon workload with the memory crippled on the Xeon chip, and run a memory bound workload to maximize the effect of crippling.

- Run SPEC benchmarks for EPYC and Broadwell Skylake Xeons and magically the performance of Xeon is 40% slower than usual and Skylake Xeon is 60% slower than real.

- If AMD Zen shines on rendering then add three or four rendering applications to the testing suite, and also test the same application (e.g. Blender) twice to give more wins to AMD and move the average performance towards them.

- Use a motherboard explicitly incompatible with the SKL-X model used, ignoring AsRock warning, and when the CPU is damaged, make a photo of the burn and spread it on twitter, pretending that the CPU was defective or something.

- Use an engineering sample for Intel instead a retail CPU, and don't say it in the review.

- Use GPU-bound and frame-limit settings to reduce the performance gap between AMD and Intel. Then overclocks both chips to reduce the gap still more (Intel CPUs are bottlenecked), when someone mentions the obvious problem in the numbers given, the reviewer answers in tweeter that he doesn't know what is happening and invent a fake excuse to why Intel chips are slower than expected.

- Compare overclocked AMD vs stock Intel, but label both chips as stock in the graphs and in the text.

- Use the latest BIOS/AGESA for AMD, and repeat the review when new AGESA versions are available. Use beta BIOS for SKL-X, and don't repeat the review even when final BIOS with turbo 3.0 correctly working and p-states is available.

- Write a rant article when der8hauer has something bad to say about Intel. Remains silent when he has something good to say.

- And so on.

 

[goldstone77]

Just because someone shares your views that does not in itself eliminate bias. Multiple sources(you name 4) that you have previously used as points of reference share unfavorable reviews of Intel, so you now call them bias. That is the definition of bias. I'm done talking on the subject.

My comment demonstrated that I am not alone, despite all your continuous pretension that I am the only can see the bias on the reviews that you bring to us. And of course you omit entirely that I am not only reporting the biased reviews, but I also explain the dirty tricks used to favor AMD hardware. A short list of the dirty tricks used directly by AMD in demos and marketing slides or by the biased review that favors AMD:

- Testing games at higher resolutions such as 4K, generating a GPU bottleneck and reducing the performance gap between Intel and AMD CPUs.

- Measure power consumption on a workload that supports 512bit to get the SIMD units on Skylake-X fully loaded, then measure performance on a workload with 128bit support for not giving Intel any performance advantage (SIMD units in Intel CPUs only one half or one fourth loaded). Evidently this dirty trick will favor performance/power ratio for AMD.

- Disable Turbo on Intel chips to reduce performance.

- Disable quad-channel on Intel boards to reduce performance.

- Run EPYC vs Broadwel Xeon workload with the memory crippled on the Xeon chip, and run a memory bound workload to maximize the effect of crippling.

- Run SPEC benchmarks for EPYC and Broadwell Skylake Xeons and magically the performance of Xeon is 40% slower than usual and Skylake Xeon is 60% slower than real.

- If AMD Zen shines on rendering then add three or four rendering applications to the testing suite, and also test the same application (e.g. Blender) twice to give more wins to AMD and move the average performance towards them.

- Use a motherboard explicitly incompatible with the SKL-X model used, ignoring AsRock warning, and when the CPU is damaged, make a photo of the burn and spread it on twitter, pretending that the CPU was defective or something.

- Use an engineering sample for Intel instead a retail CPU, and don't say it in the review.

- Use GPU-bound and frame-limit settings to reduce the performance gap between AMD and Intel. Then overclocks both chips to reduce the gap still more (Intel CPUs are bottlenecked), when someone mentions the obvious problem in the numbers given, the reviewer answers in tweeter that he doesn't know what is happening and invent a fake excuse to why Intel chips are slower than expected.

- Compare overclocked AMD vs stock Intel, but label both chips as stock in the graphs and in the text.

- Use the latest BIOS/AGESA for AMD, and repeat the review when new AGESA versions are available. Use beta BIOS for SKL-X, and don't repeat the review even when final BIOS with turbo 3.0 correctly working and p-states is available.

- Write a rant article when der8hauer has something bad to say about Intel. Remains silent when he has something good to say.

- And so on.

I reiterate! You don't like what you see and complain they aren't favoring Intel in the reviews using benchmarks to reaffirm your bias. You look for other's who believe to the same thing to reaffirm your belief. But as I stated before these reviewers were good enough for you when they served your purpose. Now, they are not. And you call them bias.

Bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view, that is often without considering evidence and other information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency people have to favor facts or arguments that confirm the beliefs and positions they already hold. The extreme form of this bias is referred to as “belief perseverance” when people hold onto their beliefs even after they've been proven false.

 

[8350rocks]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.

Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.

Cheers!

Nowadays, I go big on motherboard/CPU when I build a system, ride that platform for years, then junk the build. I find this cheaper then going through four-five CPU upgrades over a six year period.

Seriously, how many people here went through a PII X3 -> Bulldozer -> Piledriver upgrade path to "save money", rather then simply purchasing a 2600k? Because a LOT of people here did, and guess what? This approach wasn't cheaper, let alone better performing.

Granted, this really doesn't apply to Ryzen, but there is a valid line of thought toward going big on the CPU so you can ignore CPU upgrades for multiple years.

I went FX9590 after it dropped to $350-ish and called it a day...

 

[-Fran-]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

 

[8350rocks]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

I love that he flat out ignored that the threadripper boards have more VRMs, and VRMs of higher quality...

 

[aldaia]

That is just the crux of this issue. Transistors have different size, therefore your attempt to compare Transistor/mm^2 is useless, even if we ignore that transistor counts are usually marketing lies. You insist because you have to prove at any costs that there is something terrible wrong with Intel 14nm.

As I expected you fail (or don't want) to understand the following facts:

• 
  ■ Intel has a denser process than GloFO
  ■ Intel SRAM is more dense that GloFo SRAM
  ■ SRAM is more dense than logic (and logic more dense than IO)
  ■ Broadwell (LCC, MCC and HCC) have aprox ~40% of its transistors devoted to SRAM vs ~20% for Ryzen
  ■ IO transistors are much bigger (less denser) than logic
  ■ AMD Ryzen has a higher percentage of IO than the Broadwell dies (in part due to the need of inter-die connection)

Absolutely everything is aligned for Intel to have a massive density advantage over Ryzen yet is the other way around. And no, I don't have the need to prove anything, I only know one person that has a real problem with that.

I'll move the topic somewhere else. Maybe SemiAccurate, is a better place since that person has not shown up for quite a while.

 

[goldstone77]

In other news I got a great price on a used i7-3770K for $165 on Ebay! $173.37 with tax and 6 month insurance. I can sell my 2500K for ~$80. ~$85 to give this old board a little boost. I've been looking for a good buy, they have been selling for ~$240, and wasn't worth it.

 

[KirbysHammer]

In other news I got a great price on a used i7-3770K for $165 on Ebay! $173.37 with tax and 6 month insurance. I can sell my 2500K for ~$80. ~$85 to give this old board a little boost. I've been looking for a good buy, they have been selling for ~$240, and wasn't worth it.

That's pretty good. The 3770k is only around 30% slower than a kaby lake chip, and OC can close that gap to 20%.

In games that will outperform Ryzen for a lower price.

Good buy!

 

[KirbysHammer]

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.

Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.

Cheers!

Nowadays, I go big on motherboard/CPU when I build a system, ride that platform for years, then junk the build. I find this cheaper then going through four-five CPU upgrades over a six year period.

Seriously, how many people here went through a PII X3 -> Bulldozer -> Piledriver upgrade path to "save money", rather then simply purchasing a 2600k? Because a LOT of people here did, and guess what? This approach wasn't cheaper, let alone better performing.

Granted, this really doesn't apply to Ryzen, but there is a valid line of thought toward going big on the CPU so you can ignore CPU upgrades for multiple years.

The alternative is being stuck in a platform when you know there is going to be 7nm around the corner and 5nm right around that corner. Performance is going to make massive increases and prices will fall, because node advantages that Intel has enjoyed forever and a day is disappearing. We are in a entirely different set of circumstances. Ryzen is really good even on an inferior node. When that disappears, and it's geared for high performance on 7nm we might have something really great!

I doubt we're going to get 7nm down solidly before 2020, and 5nm will likely be even longer, if it ever comes in the way we think.

 

[juanrga]

Just because someone shares your views that does not in itself eliminate bias. Multiple sources(you name 4) that you have previously used as points of reference share unfavorable reviews of Intel, so you now call them bias. That is the definition of bias. I'm done talking on the subject.

My comment demonstrated that I am not alone, despite all your continuous pretension that I am the only can see the bias on the reviews that you bring to us. And of course you omit entirely that I am not only reporting the biased reviews, but I also explain the dirty tricks used to favor AMD hardware. A short list of the dirty tricks used directly by AMD in demos and marketing slides or by the biased review that favors AMD:

- Testing games at higher resolutions such as 4K, generating a GPU bottleneck and reducing the performance gap between Intel and AMD CPUs.

- Measure power consumption on a workload that supports 512bit to get the SIMD units on Skylake-X fully loaded, then measure performance on a workload with 128bit support for not giving Intel any performance advantage (SIMD units in Intel CPUs only one half or one fourth loaded). Evidently this dirty trick will favor performance/power ratio for AMD.

- Disable Turbo on Intel chips to reduce performance.

- Disable quad-channel on Intel boards to reduce performance.

- Run EPYC vs Broadwel Xeon workload with the memory crippled on the Xeon chip, and run a memory bound workload to maximize the effect of crippling.

- Run SPEC benchmarks for EPYC and Broadwell Skylake Xeons and magically the performance of Xeon is 40% slower than usual and Skylake Xeon is 60% slower than real.

- If AMD Zen shines on rendering then add three or four rendering applications to the testing suite, and also test the same application (e.g. Blender) twice to give more wins to AMD and move the average performance towards them.

- Use a motherboard explicitly incompatible with the SKL-X model used, ignoring AsRock warning, and when the CPU is damaged, make a photo of the burn and spread it on twitter, pretending that the CPU was defective or something.

- Use an engineering sample for Intel instead a retail CPU, and don't say it in the review.

- Use GPU-bound and frame-limit settings to reduce the performance gap between AMD and Intel. Then overclocks both chips to reduce the gap still more (Intel CPUs are bottlenecked), when someone mentions the obvious problem in the numbers given, the reviewer answers in tweeter that he doesn't know what is happening and invent a fake excuse to why Intel chips are slower than expected.

- Compare overclocked AMD vs stock Intel, but label both chips as stock in the graphs and in the text.

- Use the latest BIOS/AGESA for AMD, and repeat the review when new AGESA versions are available. Use beta BIOS for SKL-X, and don't repeat the review even when final BIOS with turbo 3.0 correctly working and p-states is available.

- Write a rant article when der8hauer has something bad to say about Intel. Remains silent when he has something good to say.

- And so on.

I reiterate! You don't like what you see and complain they aren't favoring Intel in the reviews using benchmarks to reaffirm your bias. You look for other's who believe to the same thing to reaffirm your belief. But as I stated before these reviewers were good enough for you when they served your purpose. Now, they are not. And you call them bias.

Bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view, that is often without considering evidence and other information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency people have to favor facts or arguments that confirm the beliefs and positions they already hold. The extreme form of this bias is referred to as “belief perseverance” when people hold onto their beliefs even after they've been proven false.

Evidently I don't like reviews that mislead people. Is that so difficult to accept? But contrary to your claims. I don't want they to favor Intel. I want they to make fair and accurate reviews, not marketing pieces camouflaged as reviews.

 

[goldstone77]

Spoiler

Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.

I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.

Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.

Cheers!

Nowadays, I go big on motherboard/CPU when I build a system, ride that platform for years, then junk the build. I find this cheaper then going through four-five CPU upgrades over a six year period.

Seriously, how many people here went through a PII X3 -> Bulldozer -> Piledriver upgrade path to "save money", rather then simply purchasing a 2600k? Because a LOT of people here did, and guess what? This approach wasn't cheaper, let alone better performing.

Granted, this really doesn't apply to Ryzen, but there is a valid line of thought toward going big on the CPU so you can ignore CPU upgrades for multiple years.

The alternative is being stuck in a platform when you know there is going to be 7nm around the corner and 5nm right around that corner. Performance is going to make massive increases and prices will fall, because node advantages that Intel has enjoyed forever and a day is disappearing. We are in a entirely different set of circumstances. Ryzen is really good even on an inferior node. When that disappears, and it's geared for high performance on 7nm we might have something really great!

I doubt we're going to get 7nm down solidly before 2020, and 5nm will likely be even longer, if it ever comes in the way we think.

Samsung Plows Forward With 11nm FinFET, 7nm EUV On Track For 2018
by Paul Alcorn September 11, 2017 at 9:30 AM

The pace of Moore's Law is slowing, and the bulk of the blame lies with optical lithography. EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography) technology should fix that, but the development effort that began back in the late '90s has been plagued by reliability and power consumption hurdles. Now that EUV tools are ready for the major fabs, Samsung, TSMC, Global Foundries, and Intel are all racing to the EUV finish line.
Samsung plans to lead the EUV charge with 7nm products slated for the second half of 2018, while its competitors will deploy production-class EUV in the 2020 timeframe. Of course, lithography naming conventions have turned into more of a marketing exercise than an actual quantifiable metric, and many predict that Samsung's 7nm is more akin to Intel's pending 10nm node.
Samsung began EUV testing in 2014 and claims to have processed over 200,000 wafers with the new technology. It also claims to have achieved an 80% yield rate for 256Mb SRAM (Static Random-Access Memory) chips with EUV, but notably, doesn't indicate the process node.
Samsung's and Global Foundries share process technology, which is important for its partner AMD. Global Foundries announced last year that it isn't investing in the 10nm node, which it considers a "half node," and is instead plowing forward with 7nm. As such, Global Foundries will likely follow Samsung with its EUV process soon thereafter.
As an aside, Global Foundries has said it is going to replace SRAM with MRAM (magnetoresistive random access memory) in its future products, which is why it partners with Everspin, so it will be interesting to see if Global Foundries applies EUV to MRAM. Global Foundries is holding its Technical Conference next week in Santa Clara, so expect more updates in the coming week.
Samsung is also adding 11nm LPP (Low Power Plus) process technology to its war chest, with the new chips geared for mid- and high-end smartphones. Samsung already uses the 10nm node for its leading smartphones, such as the Galaxy Note 8, and it appears 10nm will soldier on for high-performance mobile applications. Samsung claims the 11nm LPP process boosts performance by 15% and reduces chip area by 10% (relative to 14nm LPP), which should equate to a nice power savings in tandem with the boosted performance. Samsung plans to begin 11nm LPP production in the first half of 2018.
Samsung is holding its Foundry Forum Japan event on September 15, 2017 in Tokyo. We expect more details to come to light at the event.

Samsung claims the 11nm LPP process boosts performance by 15% and reduces chip area by 10% (relative to 14nm LPP)

This is interesting, because Ryzen uses Samsungs 14nm LPP.

Next Wednesday we should learn more about GlobalFoundries, and where they are with their 7nm process node.
2017 GlobalFoundries Technical Conference
When: September 20th 2017
Where: Hyatt Regency Santa Clara


GlobalFoundries Details 7 nm Plans: Three Generations, 700 mm², HVM in 2018
by Anton Shilov on June 23, 2017 12:00 PM EST

Keeping an eye on the ever-evolving world of silicon lithography, GlobalFoundries has recently disclosed additional details about its 7 nm generation of process technologies. As announced last September, the company is going to have multiple generations of 7 nm FinFET fabrication processes, including those using EUV. GlobalFoundries now tells us that its 7LP (7 nm leading performance) technology will extend to three generations and will enable its customers to build chips that are up to 700 mm² in size. Manufacturing of the first chips using their 7LP fabrication process will ramp up in the second half of 2018.

First and foremost, GlobalFoundries reiterated their specs of their first-gen 7 nm process, which involves deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography with argon fluoride (ArF) excimer lasers operating on a 193 nm wavelength. The company’s 7 nm fabrication process is projected to bring over a 40% frequency potential over the 14LPP manufacturing technology that GlobalFoundries uses today, assuming the same transistor count and power. The tech will also reduce the power consumption of ICs by 60% at the same frequency and complexity.

For their newest node, the company is focusing on two ways to reduce power consumption of the chips: implementing superior gate control, and reducing voltages. To that end, chips made using GlobalFoundries' 7LP technology will support 0.65 – 1 V, which is lower than ICs produced using the company’s 14LPP fabrication process today. In addition, 7LP semiconductors will feature numerous work-functions for gate control.

When it comes to costs and scaling, the gains from 7LP are expected to be a bit atypical from the usual manufacturing process node advancement. On the one hand, the 7 nm DUV will enable over 50% scaling over 14LPP, which is not something surprising given the fact that the latter uses 20 nm BEOL interconnections. However, since 7 nm DUV involves more layers that require triple and quadruple patterning, according to the foundry the actual die cost reduction will be in the range between 30% and 45% depending on application.

The 7 nm platform of GlobalFoundries is called 7LP for a reason — the company is targeting primarily high-performance applications, not just SoCs for smartphones, which contrasts to TSMC’s approach to 7 nm. GlobalFoundries intends to produce a variety of chips using the tech, including CPUs for high-performance computing, GPUs, mobile SoCs, chips for aerospace and defense, as well as automotive applications. That said, in addition to improved transistor density (up to 17 million gates per mm2 for mainstream designs) and frequency potential, GlobalFoundries also expects to increase the maximum die size of 7LP chips to approximately 700 mm², up from the roughly 650 mm² limit for ICs the company is producing today. In fact, when it comes to the maximum die sizes of chips, there are certain tools-related limitations.

GlobalFoundries has been processing test wafers using 7 nm process technology for clients for several quarters now. The company’s customers are already working on chips that will be made using 7 nm DUV process technology, and the company intends to start risk production of such ICs early in 2018. Right now, the clients are using the 0.5 version of GlobalFoundries' 7 nm process design kit (PDK), and later this year the foundry will release PDK v. 0.9, which will be nearly final version of the kit. Keep in mind that large customers of GlobalFoundries (such as AMD) do not need the final version of the PDK to start development of their CPUs or GPUs for a given node, hence, when GF talks about plans to commercialize its 7LP manufacturing process, it means primarily early adopters — large fabless suppliers of semiconductors.
In addition to its PDKs, GlobalFoundries has a wide portfolio of licenses for ARM CPU IP, high-speed SerDes (including 112G), and 2.5D/3D packaging options for its 7LP platform. When it comes to large customers, GlobalFoundries is ready for commercial production of chips using its 7 nm DUV fabrication process in 2018.
Fab 8 Ready for 7LP, Getting Ready for EUV
Speaking of high volume manufacturing using their 7LP DUV process, it is necessary to note that earlier this year GlobalFoundries announced plans to increase the production capacity of their Fab 8. Right now, the output of Fab 8 is around 60,000 wafer starts per month (WSPM), and the company expects to increase it by 20% for 14LPP process technology after the enhancements are complete.

The expansion does not involve physical enhancement of the building, which may indicate that the company intends to install more advanced scanners with increased output capabilities. GlobalFoundries naturally does not disclose details about the equipment it uses, but newer scanners with higher output and better overlay and focus performance will also play their role in HVM using 7 nm DUV that relies on quadruple patterning for select layers.

In addition to more advanced ASML TWINSCAN NXT DUV equipment, GlobalFoundries plans to install two TWNSCAN NXE EUV scanners into the Fab 8 in the second half of this year. This is actually a big deal because current-generation fabs were not built with EUV tools in mind. Meanwhile, EUV equipment takes up more space than DUV equipment because of the light source and other aspects.

EUV: Many Problems Solved, But Concerns Remain
Usage of multi patterning for ultra-thin process technologies is one of the reason why the industry needs lithography that uses extreme ultraviolet wavelength of 13.5 nm. As avid readers know, the industry has been struggling to develop EUV tools suitable for HVM, and while significant progress has been made recently, EUV is still not quite up to scale. This is exactly why GlobalFoundries is taking a cautious approach to EUV that involves multiple generations. Keep in mind that GlobalFoundries does not seem to have official names for different iterations of its 7 nm process technologies. The only thing that the company is talking about now is its “7LP platform with EUV compatibility.” Therefore, all our generations-related musings here are just for a better understanding of what to expect.
Just like GlobalFoundries said before (like other foundries), the insertion of EUV equipment into their manufacturing flow would be gradual. The company plans to install two scanners this year to use them for mass production several quarters down the road, but GlobalFoundries has not made any further announcements beyond that. Ultimately while the future for EUV is looking brighter, the technology is still not ready for prime time, and for the moment no one knows quite when it'll finally meet all of the necessary metrics for volume production.

Finally, speaking of the 7LP platform in general, it is interesting that GlobalFoundries will be primarily targeting high-performance applications with the new technology, and not mobile SoCs like some other contract fabs. This despite the fact that the 7LP platform supports ultra-low voltages (0.65 V) and should be able to address mobile applications. So from a performance/power/area point of view, while the 7LP manufacturing process looks rather competitive, it remains to be seen just how GlobalFoundries’ partners will use the capabilities of the new process.

TSMC Teams Up with ARM and Cadence to Build 7nm Data Center Test Chips in Q1 2018
by Anton Shilov on September 14, 2017 11:45 AM EST

TSMC has announced plans to build its first test chips for data center applications using its 7 nm fabrication technology. The chip will use compute cores from ARM, a Cache Coherent Interconnect for Accelerators (CCIX), and IP from Cadence (a DDR4 memory controller, PCIe 3.0/4.0 links). Given the presence of the CCIX bus and PCIe 4.0 interconnects, the chip will be used to show the benefits of TSMC’s 7 nm process primarily for high-performance compute (HPC) applications. The IC will be taped out in early Q1 2018.

The 7 nm test chips from TSMC will be built mainly to demonstrate capabilities of the semiconductor manufacturing technology for performance-demanding applications and find out more about peculiarities of the process in general. The chip will be based on ARMv8.2 compute cores featuring DynamIQ, as well as a CMN-600 interconnect bus for heterogeneous multi-core CPUs. ARM and TSMC do not disclose which cores they are going to use for the device - the Cortex A55 and A75 are natural suspects, but that’s a speculation at this point. The new chip will also have a DDR4 memory controller as well as PCI Express 3.0/4.0 links, CCIX bus and peripheral IP buses developed by Cadence. The CCIX bus will be used to connect the chip to Xilinx’s Virtex UltraScale+ FPGAs (made using a 16 nm manufacturing technology), so in addition to implementation of its cores using TSMC’s 7 nm fabrication process, ARM will also be able to test Cadence’s physical implementation of the CCIX bus for accelerators, which is important for future data center products.
As reported multiple times, TSMC’s 7 nm manufacturing process will be a “long” node and the foundry expects the majority of its large customers to use it. By contrast, the current 10 nm technology is aimed primarily at developers of smartphone SoCs. TSMC projects that its first-generation CLN 7FF fabrication technology, compared to its CLN16FF+, will enable its customers to reduce power consumption of their chip by 60% (at the same frequency and complexity), increase their clock rate by 30% (at the same power and transistor count) and shrink their die sizes by 70% at the same complexity. Sometime in 2019, TSMC plans to start making chips using its CLN7FF+ process technology with EUV for critical layers. TSMC claims that the CLN7FF+ will enable the company’s customers to further increase transistor density while improving other areas, such as yields and power consumption.

TSMC does not disclose which of its 7 nm process technologies announced so far it is going to use for the test chip, but the use of EUV for test chips is something that cannot be excluded. For example, GlobalFoundries claims that they use EUV to accelerate production of test chips. On the other hand, since design rules for CLN7FF and CLN7FF+ are different, it is highly likely that TSMC conservatively uses the former for the test chip.

TSMC’s CLN7FF process tech passed qualification in April and was expected to enter risk production in Q2 2017, according to TSMC’s management. The foundry expected 13 CLN7FF tape outs this year and it is projected that the fabrication technology would be used commercially starting from Q2 2018. Therefore, taping out the test vehicle using the first-gen DUV-only 7 nm process in Q1 2018 seems a bit late for early adopters who intend to ship their 7 nm SoCs in the second half of next year. Meanwhile, early adopters (read: Apple, Qualcomm, and some others) get access to new process technologies long before their development is completed and final PDKs (process development kits) are ready. Keeping in mind that the test chips feature a CCIX and PCIe 4.0 buses, it is clearly designed to show advantages of TSMC’s 7 nm process technologies for HPC applications. In fact, this is what TSMC says itself:

“Artificial intelligence and deep learning will significantly impact industries including media, consumer electronics and healthcare,” said Dr. Cliff Hou, TSMC vice president, Research & Development/Design and Technology Platform. “TSMC’s most advanced 7nm FinFET process technology provides high performance and low power benefits that satisfy distinct product requirements for High-Performance Computing (HPC) applications targeting these markets.”

And that is what we know so far.

 

[juanrga]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

I love that he flat out ignored that the threadripper boards have more VRMs, and VRMs of higher quality...

That is the same than saying that the Toyota has tires of higher quality than the Ferrari. Ouch!

Certain people ignoring anything technical behind engineering likes to claim that Intel is an evil company that prices excessively its top products,¹ whereas AMD is some charitable organization, but now we are talking about motherboards.

So, according to you, Gigabyte is an evil company when charges $100 extra for the Intel board, but it is a charitable organization when gives us those 'cheaper' AMD mobos with lots of VRMs of higher quality VRMs. Right? It is a case of evil transfer for contact or something? Or maybe Gygabyte prices higher the Intel chip because the design is more solid because the mobo has to support higher loads from much faster chips as the 7980XE?

¹ I guess Ferrari is also an evil company because its supercars cost much more than Toyota Prius.

 

[juanrga]

Most powerful workstation ever!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11838/hp-updates-z8-workstation-up-to-56-cores-3-tb-ram-9-pcie-slots-1700w

Powered by Skylake Xeon of course.

 

[KirbysHammer]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

I love that he flat out ignored that the threadripper boards have more VRMs, and VRMs of higher quality...

That is the same than saying that the Toyota has tires of higher quality than the Ferrari. Ouch!

Certain people ignoring anything technical behind engineering likes to claim that Intel is an evil company that prices excessively its top products,¹ whereas AMD is some charitable organization, but now we are talking about motherboards.

So, according to you, Gigabyte is an evil company when charges $100 extra for the Intel board, but it is a charitable organization when gives us those 'cheaper' AMD mobos with lots of VRMs of higher quality VRMs. Right? It is a case of evil transfer for contact or something? Or maybe Gygabyte prices higher the Intel chip because the design is more solid because the mobo has to support higher loads from much faster chips as the 7980XE?

¹ I guess Ferrari is also an evil company because its supercars cost much more than Toyota Prius.

You're a bit off the mark, I don't consider Intel evil but their licensing fees are higher thus driving board prices up.

 

[Embra]

In other news I got a great price on a used i7-3770K for $165 on Ebay! $173.37 with tax and 6 month insurance. I can sell my 2500K for ~$80. ~$85 to give this old board a little boost. I've been looking for a good buy, they have been selling for ~$240, and wasn't worth it.

That's pretty good. The 3770k is only around 30% slower than a kaby lake chip, and OC can close that gap to 20%.

In games that will outperform Ryzen for a lower price.

Good buy!

Not a bad deal.

As for it being better than Ryzen, I would disagree. I have both a 4790k and 1700x. The 1700x is a better overall gamer in the comparisons I have made, both OCed.

 

[juanrga]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

I love that he flat out ignored that the threadripper boards have more VRMs, and VRMs of higher quality...

That is the same than saying that the Toyota has tires of higher quality than the Ferrari. Ouch!

Certain people ignoring anything technical behind engineering likes to claim that Intel is an evil company that prices excessively its top products,¹ whereas AMD is some charitable organization, but now we are talking about motherboards.

So, according to you, Gigabyte is an evil company when charges $100 extra for the Intel board, but it is a charitable organization when gives us those 'cheaper' AMD mobos with lots of VRMs of higher quality VRMs. Right? It is a case of evil transfer for contact or something? Or maybe Gygabyte prices higher the Intel chip because the design is more solid because the mobo has to support higher loads from much faster chips as the 7980XE?

¹ I guess Ferrari is also an evil company because its supercars cost much more than Toyota Prius.

You're a bit off the mark, I don't consider Intel evil but their licensing fees are higher thus driving board prices up.

It was $7 license fee per socket, without counting volume rebates.

The reason for part of the $100 higher price of the Intel mobo is the higher quality to support higher loads from faster CPUs like the 7980XE. I don't get why people is discussing this. It is the same engineering reason why a SKL board costs more than a KBL board. It is the same reason why a TR4 board costs more than a AM4 board.

 

[YoAndy]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

Intel X299 Gaming motherboards have better features, for example the X299 Aurus Gaming 9 have you even read the specs? before you argue non sense? 😉.That's why for Intel is called Gaming 9 and AMD is called Gaming 7. First look at the illuminated back plate, you don't think it looks better on the X299 and is helpful. The x299 has way better audio

-ESS SABRE reference DAC, True Hi-Fidelity Music Provide surround sound audio and enabled DSD music playback,L / R separation analog signal processing with internally balanced audio design For maximum stereo sound quality and high-quality signal transmission,
-Independent Analog Power Drives clean analog power for audio components to ensure minimal noise,
-TI Burr-Brown™ Audio
-Low stereo cross talk,
-High operational power output,
-4 op amps 127 DB,
-Savitech auto impedance sensing
-True Hi-Fidelity Music Provide surround sound audio and enabled DSD music playback,
-Hyperstream Dynamic Range (DNR 127dB), High-Res music (32bit, 384kHz PCM),
-World's best THD+N, Anti-pop Circuit Design Prevents popping noise when plugging in and removing the audio jack ,
- Power Purifier Supplies undisturbed power to the Digital-Analog Converters, Precision Audio Stream Provides precise time triggers to Digital-Analog Converters,
-Dual Smart Headphone AMPs Automatically detects impedance of your head-worn audio device, whether earbuds or high-end headphones to provide optimal audio dynamics—preventing issues such as low volume and distortion.
-Audiophile Grade Capacitors Deliver true acoustic sound

Now compare all those features to the X399 Gaming 7 ALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio with single Smart Headphone AmpALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio and High-End WIMA & Nichicon Audio Capacitors
There it goes your $100 difference just in audio and software alone.

 

[juanrga]

In other news I got a great price on a used i7-3770K for $165 on Ebay! $173.37 with tax and 6 month insurance. I can sell my 2500K for ~$80. ~$85 to give this old board a little boost. I've been looking for a good buy, they have been selling for ~$240, and wasn't worth it.

That's pretty good. The 3770k is only around 30% slower than a kaby lake chip, and OC can close that gap to 20%.

In games that will outperform Ryzen for a lower price.

Good buy!

Not a bad deal.

As for it being better than Ryzen, I would disagree. I have both a 4790k and 1700x. The 1700x is a better overall gamer in the comparisons I have made, both OCed.

4790k vs 1700x overall gaming

There is no OC comparison, but the R7 average OC on air is 16%: 3400MHz --> 3943MHz. And the i7 average OC on air is 16%: 4000MHz --> 4643MHz. The performance gap will remain when both are OC.

 

[goldstone77]

Spoiler

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Spoiler

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

The intel board has to cost more because is better, obviously.

Now that you mention it, it does have extra leds on the back panel. Absolutely justified. A $100 extra well invested in all that glorious bling.

One board has to support 8,12/16 cores threadRipper, build around weaker cores (lower IPC, 128bit,..) and very low overclocking potential.

The other board has to support 4,6,8,10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Cores KBL-X and SKL-X. build around stronger cores (higher IPC, 256bit and 512bit,..) and very high overclocking potential.

Powering 18 strong cores @4.5GHz requires electric components of a higher quality than powering 16 weaker cores @3.9GHz; therefore the X299 board has to cost more.

It is pure physics and engineering. It is the same reason why Ferrari F150 costs more than Toyota Prius.

Wow... I won't even dignify you with an elaborate answer.

Just... Wow...

I love that he flat out ignored that the threadripper boards have more VRMs, and VRMs of higher quality...

That is the same than saying that the Toyota has tires of higher quality than the Ferrari. Ouch!

Certain people ignoring anything technical behind engineering likes to claim that Intel is an evil company that prices excessively its top products,¹ whereas AMD is some charitable organization, but now we are talking about motherboards.

So, according to you, Gigabyte is an evil company when charges $100 extra for the Intel board, but it is a charitable organization when gives us those 'cheaper' AMD mobos with lots of VRMs of higher quality VRMs. Right? It is a case of evil transfer for contact or something? Or maybe Gygabyte prices higher the Intel chip because the design is more solid because the mobo has to support higher loads from much faster chips as the 7980XE?

¹ I guess Ferrari is also an evil company because its supercars cost much more than Toyota Prius.

You're a bit off the mark, I don't consider Intel evil but their licensing fees are higher thus driving board prices up.

It was $7 license fee per socket, without counting volume rebates.

The reason for the $100 higher price of the mobo is the higher quality to support higher loads from faster CPUs like the 7980XE. I don't get why people is discussing this. It is the same engineering reason why a SKL board costs more than a KBL board. It is the same reason why a TR4 board costs more than a AM4 board.

Juanrga the Intel board cost more, because it's an Intel board! Not because it has more expensive components on it! Every process node advancement Intel was maintained a process node advantage. Shrinking down the process farther than anyone else. This also drastically reduced the cost to make the processors. Over the years they never offered to pass that savings on to us! They just keep raising the prices even as their costs have gone down. All other consumer electronics have drastically reduced in price. I can go to Walmart and buy a 65" LED 4K TV for $549.99! That's because there are a multitude of manufacturers competing with each other. Intel has enjoyed a monopoly, and hasn't had to adjust their prices even though their manufacturing cost have drastically been reduced! We can easy tell this buy looking at the 10-16 billion they make a quarter. Lack of competition and desire to innovate allowed Intel to start selling rebranded CPU's, and save the cost on R&D. They never passed any savings on to us leaving us with quad cores for a decade. Any other consumer electronics market would have seen significant price reductions, and additional features.

 

[goldstone77]

In other news I got a great price on a used i7-3770K for $165 on Ebay! $173.37 with tax and 6 month insurance. I can sell my 2500K for ~$80. ~$85 to give this old board a little boost. I've been looking for a good buy, they have been selling for ~$240, and wasn't worth it.

That's pretty good. The 3770k is only around 30% slower than a kaby lake chip, and OC can close that gap to 20%.

In games that will outperform Ryzen for a lower price.

Good buy!

Not a bad deal.

As for it being better than Ryzen, I would disagree. I have both a 4790k and 1700x. The 1700x is a better overall gamer in the comparisons I have made, both OCed.

4790k vs 1700x overall gaming

There is no OC comparison, but the R7 average OC on air is 16%: 3400MHz --> 3943MHz. And the i7 average OC on air is 16%: 4000MHz --> 4643MHz. The performance gap will remain when both are OC.

I don't trust graphs who's data can't be verified by multiple sources. Especially, when they are in a foreign language. sorry.

 

[goldstone77]

I didn't notice it at first, but you are right the Intel units definitely have a rainbow warrior theme across the product line!

Edit: price tag Intel $499.99 AMD $389.99

Intel X299 Gaming motherboards have better features, for example the X299 Aurus Gaming 9 have you even read the specs? before you argue non sense? 😉.First look at the illuminated back plate, you don't think it looks better on the X299 and is helpful. The x299 has way better audio,ESS SABRE reference DAC, True Hi-Fidelity Music
Provide surround sound audio and enabled DSD music playback,L / R separation analog signal processing with internally balanced audio design For maximum stereo sound quality and high-quality signal transmission, Independent Analog Power Drives clean analog power for audio components to ensure minimal noise,TI Burr-Brown™ Audio
Low stereo cross talk, high operational power output, 4 op amps 127 DB and savitech auto impedance sensing True Hi-Fidelity Music Provide surround sound audio and enabled DSD music playback, Hyperstream Dynamic Range (DNR 127dB), High-Res music (32bit, 384kHz PCM), World's best THD+N, Anti-pop Circuit Design Prevents popping noise when plugging in and removing the audio jack , Power Purifier Supplies undisturbed power to the Digital-Analog Converters, Precision Audio Stream Provides precise time triggers to Digital-Analog Converters, Dual Smart Headphone AMPs Automatically detects impedance of your head-worn audio device, whether earbuds or high-end headphones to provide optimal audio dynamics—preventing issues such as low volume and distortion. Audiophile Grade Capacitors Deliver true acoustic sound

Now compare all those freatures to the X399 ALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio with single Smart Headphone AmpALC 1220 120dB SNR HD Audio
There it goes your $100 difference just in audio and software alone.

Dude you are too funny, there isn't $110 more worth of Gold on that motherboard to justify that extra cost!