Slashdot Mirror
Intel Announced 8-Core CPUs And Iris Pro Graphics for Desktop Chips
MojoKid (1002251) writes "Intel used the backdrop of the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco to make a handful of interesting announcements that run the gamut from low-power technologies to ultra-high-end desktop chips. In addition to outing a number of upcoming processors—from an Anniversary Edition Pentium to a monster 8-core Haswell-E — Intel also announced a new technology dubbed Ready Mode. Intel's Ready Mode essentially allows a 4th Gen Core processor to enter a low C7 power state, while the OS and other system components remain connected and ready for action. Intel demoed the technology, and along with compatible third party applications and utilities, showed how Ready Mode can allow a mobile device to automatically sync to a PC to download and store photos. The PC could also remain in a low power state and stream media, server up files remotely, or receive VOIP calls. Also, in a move that's sure to get enthusiasts excited, Intel revealed details regarding Haswell-E. Similar to Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E, Haswell-E is the 'extreme' variant of the company's Haswell microarchitecture. Haswell-E Core i7-based processors will be outfitted with up to eight processor cores, which will remain largely unchanged from current Haswell-based chips. However, the new CPU will connect to high-speed DDR4 memory and will be paired to the upcoming Intel X99 chipset. Other details were scarce, but you can bet that Haswell-E will be Intel's fastest desktop processor to date when it arrives sometime in the second half of 2014. Intel also gave a quick nod to their upcoming 14nm Broadwell CPU architecture, a follow-on to Haswell. Broadwell will be the first Intel desktop processor to feature integrated Iris Pro Graphics and will also be compatible with Intel Series 9 chipsets."
So they finally caught up to AMD.
Is Apple waiting for these new CPUs to release an updated Mac mini? It's been quite 513 days since the last update.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The non extreme / severs ones are very limited on PCI-e and even in systems like the MAC pro the pci-e limits / DMI hold it back.
The mac pro should of had 2 SSD's but due to limits it only has one.
... with thick wallets.
AMD's 8 "core" CPUs are actually 4 core CPUs that can process 2 integer instructions at the same time on one core.
Intel calls EMT64 64 bits when it is just 32 bits on each 1/2 of the clock cycle.
The CPU is dead in the long run. Long live the GPU/APU. Now if we could only code for parallel.
Does anyone else find it kind of weird that Intel seems to have gotten into a pattern where their supposed top of the line CPUs are perpetually a generation behind their supposed commodity CPUs in terms of technology?
Finally! I have been waiting for next gen Iris graphics since like forever!
8 Cores wont magically make the code threaded.
We still live in this era of Single threaded applications and games, drives me up the wall.
64bit applications are still mostly 32bit. It took 10 years, but at least the 4gb memory limit turned some heads.
We've been limping along with ~10% performance increases per chip generation since forever.
Not true at all. The current generations is excellent, to the point that only nVidia's highest end 750m and above mobile graphics chips are actually faster than it. Each successive iteration of the last 3 has got them step by step closer. It's entirely reasonable to expect that broad well will basically be on a par with the current best mobile chips of AMD and nVidia.
I've been using 8 core chips since 2006... so have most people who use Parallax microcontroller. I still wonder why the Arduino made such a splash since it came out a couple years after the Prop.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Intel Announced 8-Core CPUs And Iris Pro Graphics for Desktop Chips
Okay, I know that strictly speaking it did happen in the past, but that's not how headlines are usually written.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
News for the newly-hatched nerd: E = M x server x server. Ergo, must be short on addendium. I suggest you use http://beta.slashdot.com/.
Am I is the only one concerned about amount of RAM?
I mean, everybody is so excited about DDR4... But do people understand that instead of 8 dimm slots we'll get only 4 (1 dimm per channel instead of 2-3)? So while keeping costs on this side of reasonable, we're getting only half the amount of memory?
WTF?!!
Heard those claims for years.
Then every time I end up with a system with intel gfx they have never delivered.
The eDRAM simply makes the chip way too expensive.
If you look at the price of i7 core 4770R: $358. It's an i7 but has only has 6 MB of cache (compared to the 8mb of the regular i7 4770). So basically, it's about the same value as a i5-4670K which cost $243. With the price difference you could buy a Radeon R7 260X, which will trash Iris Pro in performance.
Look up Iris Pro on Youtube. There's a few demo videos of systems with an Iris Pro gfx chip. I think it would work very well for most modern games. There's potential for a Steambox and it is running full HD video.
This definitely isn't the Intel on-board graphics of old. Hopefully Iris Pro will get good 'Nix drivers.
The desktop/laptop processors are easy...single socket, relatively small number of cores.
It takes effort to add the bits to allow the processors to scale to 10/12 cores, huge caches, and multiple sockets. They also use more complicated memory modules, different motherboards, etc.
Also, large companies are able to get their hands on limited quantities of these cpus well before they're generally available for large-scale ordering to allow their engineers to build products on them and test how they'll behave.
The first quad core desktop CPU from Intel was the 65nm Core 2 Q6600 released more than seven years ago. Now that it is possible to fit more than eight times the number of transistors into the same area, Intel throws enthusiasts an astronomically priced bone? How generous.
AMD's Bulldozer cores have Clustered Integer Core which has two true ALU "cores" and one shared FPU. For integer instructions this is two true cores and not "hyper-threading". For FP instructions this is "hyper-threading" and why Intel has been regularly handing AMD it's arse in all benchmarks that aren't strictly ALU dependent (gaming, rendering, etc). AMD's FPU implementation, clock for clock, is a bit weaker on most instructions as well. And yes, the FPU _is_ shared on AMD processors.
EMT64 is not "32 bits on each 1/2 of the clock cycle". That doesn't even make any sense. EMT64 is true 64 bit. x86-64 does have 32 bit addressing modes when running on non-64bit operating systems. This is part of the x86-64 standard and hits AMD, Intel and VIA.
Hardware Queuing Support is part of the Heterogeneous System Architecture open standard and won't even be supported in hardware until the Carizzo APU in 2015. Since this is an open standard, Intel can chose to use it.
Both architectures have shared caches.
WTF does nVidia's IEE-754 compliance have to do with Intel vs AMD?
I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy, I try to use the right one for the job. I prefer AMD for certain work loads like web servers, file servers, etc because they have the most integer-bang for the buck. If I'm doing anything that involves FP, I'm going to use an Intel Chip. Best graphics solution?... yeah, I'm not even going to go down that hole.
At the time I posted this comment the three links in the article all go to one page, http://hothardware.com/News/In.... Oops. Could /. or the author correct the links assuming two are missing or remove two of them, we really don't need three links all going to the same page. Thanks a bunch.
a single core INTEL is more powerful than 2 AMD cores.
So in other words, they were already ahead, and now they are literally over Twice as fast.
Really.
Unless they have a refresh of the Pro when the chip launches or soon after the Pro is back to being too expensive for the performance.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Integrated Intel graphics are the worst in the industry in terms of performance. This has been the case for many, many years. I simply don't trust Intel on this score after being repeatedly promised "game changing" designs and the result is cr*p, quite frankly.
If you must have an integrated graphics solution, go with AMD. Their implementation is much superior. If you want the best CPU and the best graphics (again, performance-wise), then get an Intel CPU and pair it with a separate graphics card.
The Intel graphics solution is adequate for many business PC's, media PC setups, servers and otherwise relatively undemanding graphics computation loads. But I don't believe the Iris hype because, well, 50 times burnt, 51 times shy. Or something like that.
Look up Iris Pro on Youtube.
Look up the price difference between a chip with Iris Pro and a similarly spec'd chip without. How does the Iris Pro compare with a $200+ stand alone GPU?
.. now you get it .. the Iris Pro is crap, not because it doesnt perform, but because it costs many times what its actually worth.
ding ding ding
"His name was James Damore."
Actually I run an AMD processor. So what if it had half the FP power. Most FP intensive applications I use have GPU acceleration. Oh and yeah it was cheaper than an Intel processor with the same integer performance. Heck it was cheaper than an Intel processor with the same FP performance. That's how expensive Intel processors are these days.
If you got a yourself a PS4 or a Xbox One you are using an AMD processor.
Modern boxes are so damn fast already, the software is already 20-30 years behind!
First we need a new, inherently multithreaded parallel language, then we need to get the programming community up to speed with it. Another 8-10 years to get an OS that supports it.............
Lol, 2001 called, it wants its information back.
Really.
Heh, not even a week after building myself a new system....
But with AMD you have a higher power bill, need to buy a bigger heatsink, stay clear from lowest end motherboards. It ain't exactly cheaper.
No, they're well ahead of AMD in this regard. AMD's 8 "core" CPUs are actually 4 core CPUs that can process 2 integer instructions at the same time on one core. Much like Intel's current i7s are 4 core CPUs that can process an integer and a floating point instruction at the same time on one core. Basically, AMD is marketing hyper threading as being more cores.
What you describe is superscalar execution, and was the point of the original Pentium. That's Instruction-Level Parallelism not Thread-Level Parallelism. Also the Pentium Pro/Pentium 2 had three FPUs.
It's lame that this comment is modded insightful, you're making shit up.
How long has it been since Intel produced a desktop CPU with a process above 22nm? Meanwhile, AMD only managed to get down to 28nm.. pretty soon it will be Intel @ 14nm Vs AMD at 28nm. And just in case you need someone to do the math for you, that means Intel will be able to fit twice as many transistors in half as much space.. It's not like Intel can't put more cores in, their E5 V2 series Xeons have 12 cores + hyperthreading. AMD chips need all 8 cores just to keep up with 4 in a Haswell i7.
When it comes to CPU advancement, the only race that has ever really mattered is shrinking transistors. In that race Intel isn't just winning, given how far ahead they are, they've already won. Personally I think Intel are holding back, how would AMD respond if Intel suddenly started dumping 10 and 12 core Haswells onto the market at $300-400 each. AMD would be gone within months, and Intel would have no competition in the desktop/laptop market. Of course they wouldn't do that, even though they could, being seen as a bully isn't good PR.
You always have to buy a bigger heatsink/fan than the stock piece of shit they give you, no matter if it's Intel or AMD. Unless you mind the sound of a turbine kicking in when you load the CPU down.
Power usage is insignificant unless you're talking about battery life on mobile.
Not sure what you're hinting at with low end boards. I haven't had a board related problem on Intel or AMD, ever. That includes the old ECS K7S5A I had.
so now the nsa has a new marketing partner
It was approximately 2010. I asked about EM64T while participating in a build event at an Intel convention in Chicago. They called corporate and confirmed. The machine that I walked away with used a Mini-ITX board, had an I5 and HD4000 graphics. Perhaps things have changed since then. I have bought both AMD and Intel since.
Not true at all. The current generations is excellent, to the point that only nVidia's highest end 750m and above mobile graphics chips are actually faster than it. Each successive iteration of the last 3 has got them step by step closer. It's entirely reasonable to expect that broad well will basically be on a par with the current best mobile chips of AMD and nVidia.
Every generation idiots spout off "Intel graphics are good now!" and every generation it's a complete joke.
This shit has been going on for 2 fucking decades.
The opterons are real 16 cores that can do 4 way (4 sockets for 64 cores). However Intel have real 10 core Xeons that may as well be 20 for floating point tasks, and there are 4 socket machines that can take them (and an IBM thing that is effectively 8 sockets). The price difference between those two top ends is utterly enormous but the Intel machines are supposed to perform significantly better - whether it's worth getting one of those or four of the AMD ones for the same price depends on what you want it for, and other costs (eg. per machine licences may make a stupidly expensive machine with a bucketload of cores pay for itself in the first year verses several much cheaper ones).
To sum up, if you are using a vast number of cores at 100% CPU it's probably not going to be a task doing much with the integer units so you can double the number of full Xeon cores to get the number of threads you can run - thus treat 8 cores as 16 and 10 as 20.
Don't pretend that it's about AMD and Intel's chip designs. Intel has more advanced fabs than TSMC or GlobalFoundries.
AMD was doing better a decade ago for two reasons. IBM had some nice patents on semiconductor technology, and Intel made a huge blunder with Netburst and focusing so much resources on Itanium.
For the past decade, however, Intel's process advantage has meant AMD is only competitive in laptops and tablets. Behind GlobalFoundries and TSMC are Samsung and a bunch of other companies with a few fabs, that make cell phone chips.
Does anyone else think that Intel should introduce power states like you get in embedded systems where you have 'rules' like "reprogram the SDRAM controller and bus interface controller. Oh and make sure there's no AHB bus activity (e.g. access to SDRAM or Flash memory) at all when you do it, otherwise the whole system will lock up hard". Traditionally these rules are discovered empirically and are documented by sweary comments in check ins.
The reason is
1) It'll keep those bastards at the OEMs on their toes.
2) More work for consultants working on Bioses, the ACPI standard etc.
Actually support for ARM systems means this sort of thing will probably happen
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/26...
Supporting Device Tree would require Microsoft to rewrite large parts of Windows, whereas mandating UEFI and ACPI allowed them to reuse most of their existing Windows boot and driver code. As a result, largely at Microsoft's behest, ACPI 5 has grown a range of additional features for describing things like GPIO pinouts and I2C connections. Whatever your weird device layout, you can probably express it via ACPI.
Obviously doing this sort of thing via ACPI methods adds and additional - and from a consultancy point of view entirely welcome - level of fuck to "reprogram the SDRAM controller and bus interface controller. Oh and make sure there's no AHB bus activity (e.g. access to SDRAM or Flash memory) at all when you do it, otherwise the whole system will lock up hard".
I.e. if you didn't have ACPI but rather just had a hard coded chipset specific hacks file, you could just have a few lines of assembler to poke the hardware in the right order and stick in in TCM (or if you're in a bad mode cunningly aligned to a cache line). Now with ACPI you're supposed to use AML bytecode which is run by - I shit you not - an interpreter in the OS.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I was thinking a 15 euro heatsink will do on an Intel, and a 30 euro one on AMD.
Cheapest motherboards are those around 45 euros or less. Putting a 125 watt FX on that is a very bad idea. The electric load is too big and the CPU may be throttled down. In contrast an Intel mobo will run i5/i7 fine. I agree that low end mobos have great stability otherwise, they have high volume and production is reliable.
Power use is insignificant if you don't pay for it or shut down/stand by the PC often. Else over the course of three years the AMD system may well cost more.
Make that 798Ghz
"When we tested the IHP 800 GHz transistor at room temperature during our evaluation, it operated at 417 GHz,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I don't think the poster knows what hardware "enthusiasts" really mean. No one is looking forward to the "e" EXTREME series CPU. Perhaps some people with more money than brains. Enthusiasts want CHEAP hardware that they can then fiddle with to gain big results. Haswell while a decent CPU only really offered better power efficiency and a few more instruction sets that might be potentially useful in a few years. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
This sort of thing costs $1000+ dollars, so unless you are a rich enthusiast and money is no object, then quite pointless.
To use the Slashdot car analogy, it is comparing a car enthusiast, and Honda creating a race car. The race car costs 5$ million, and unless you are obscenely rich, you aren't going to buy one to run to the grocery store. You might however buy that generation of retail car that uses some of the technology being shown off in the race car, It is that, a showcase of technology, not a reasonable thing, just like the $1000+ dollar video cards, they want to be able to say "see, there we are the best, check this out, now buy our other more reasonably priced chips...". Which if you think about it, means you should probably release the extreme version first dummies.
I have one of those "Optimum" laptops with combined Intel graphics and discrete Nvidia graphics. Unfortunately Dell implemented it with all the external monitor ports hooked up to the Nvidia chip, which means that if I want to drive external monitors I need to fire up the power-hungry Nvidia chip even though the integrated graphics could do it perfectly well.
Also, the Nvidia chip supposedly supports three external monitors, but it actually doesn't work, and the added performance over the integrated graphics is pointless if you're not gaming.
Finally, throw in the fact that the Intel drivers are open source and actively supported by Intel.