Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches Its First 10-Core Desktop CPU With Broadwell-E
Two years since the release of Intel's Haswell-E platform, which popularized 8-core processor to users. On Tuesday, the chipmaker unveiled Broadwell-E family, which consists of an "Extreme Edition" of Core i7 chipset that has 10 cores and 20 threads. (Do note that Intel is intentionally not calling it deca-core.) Intel says the Extreme Edition is designed for games, content creators, and overclockers. From an NDTV report: The 7th generation Intel Core processors are built on the 14nm fabrication process, and are part of the 'semi-Tock' release -- neither in the Intel Tick or Tock cycle. and come with Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 for more efficient core allocation for single-threaded processes, giving up to 15 percent better performance compared to the previous Haswell-E generation. All four new Intel Core i7 Enthusiast processors, codenamed Broadwell-E, support 40 PCIe lanes, quad-channel memory, and bear a TDP of 140W. Give Intel $1,723 and the Extreme Edition pack is yours.
"Intel says the Extreme Edition is designed for games, content creators, and overclockers."
Also known as people too dumb to realize they're paying a thousand percent markup for commodity hardware.
but does it go to 11?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
"Do note that Intel is intentionally not calling it deca-core."
Perhaps somebody could elaborate on this?
The price of that CPU alone is enough to buy a high end gaming desktop and an IPS monitor.
I think they misspelled hipster e-dick-measuring machine.
You don't understand why people buy CPUs like this. They don't do it because they want to spend a lot of money. They buy them because e-penis length is really important to some people. The only way to really increase the size of your e-penis is to have top-notch cutting-edge hardware in your computer, especially if you're a gamer.
I'm considering buying one of these CPUs. I don't want to drag my gaming system down to the local LAN parties only to have one of the smallest e-penises there. I want to be among the longest, even if that costs a bit of cash.
This is just a consumer version of one of the new Xeon E5 v4 family.
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/91287/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v4-Family#@All
The LGA2011 (Tn this case the newish LGA2011-3)platform is consumerized Xeon, and the Xeons lag one generation behind the mainline consumer (Which is currently at skylake)
Expensive, but not bad if you want consumer-oriented desktop features and lots of memory bandwith, cores. They usually are clocked high because thats what desktop users usually need.
Sometimes, though, if you shop around you can catch a deal on some of the real Xeons. (There are some odd skus that end up being resold bare) Finding a motherboard that makes a suitable desktop system can be more troublesome though. Workstation boards that accept Xeons are less common and server-oriented motherboards are often not great for desktop systems. (Slow boot with lots of management features you wont need, odd slot configurations, nonstandard form factors, non-typical power connectors, lack of sound, lack of drivers or official support for non-server OSs)
Then again, server oriented Xeons usually lean lower clock and higher core count - Not what you want for a desktop most of the time.
I don't buy Intel anymore.
What is the largest # of cores offered by AMD for a desktop computer? If you can suggest some reputable places to obtain one, (preferably not on-line) it would make me moist. Thanks.
People who might actually need something like this are those who are running a lot of different applications simultaneously or have individual apps that were programmed to do lots of processing in parallel. I am currently building a data management system that uses lots of threads to greatly speed up processing. The more cores are available, the faster I can process large data sets. With column based relational tables, I can assign a different thread to process each column separately. If there are 100 columns in a table, lots of threads are needed. The more threads that can run at the same time in the CPU, the faster the query will complete. These processors are not just for gaming.
With AMD Zen right around the corner (October-ish) I believe Intel is milking their performance monopoly as much as they can with their $1700 CPUs.
The Zen should give us roughly Skylake IPC (Some predict a little better, some predict a little worse.) Being it's AMD, they'll have to undercut Intel's price if they want marketshare. If the arch is good, this will lead to a price war, which should drive down Intel to AMD price levels.
With any luck, high end Zen launch will be a 16-core with Skylake level single thread performance for $999. Sign me up for one of those!
Do the coils also whine 10 times more, it has been a nightmare with this new Skylake.
I suspect that they avoided the "dec" prefix because it is too close to "decimate". This was the old roman practice military discipline in which soldiers were divided into groups of 10. Each group of 10 would draw lots, and the soldier who drew the unlucky lot was killed by his 9 fellow soldiers. Probably not so great an idea from the marketing perspective. Sort of like an early form of stacked ranking.
Besides maybe Ashes of the Singularity does any game use more than 2 cores ( not counting crap like Far Cry 3 where it binds to core 3 for some inexplicable reason)?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While a few companies are re-writing code to multi-thread, many are not. Intel's single-thread champ is still the venerable two year-old i7-4790K, which will smoke any "enthusiast" chip out there for most things that enthusiasts care about, like gaming, rendering, etc.
But the server / workstation -oriented motherboards due have dual cpu / lot's of pci-e slots (Some broads have all X16 with slots at 8 or 16 3.0)
Come on, Intel, we all know this was actually designed and fabricated to support 16 cores, but 6 of them are disabled so you can announce an exciting new advancement every few months while you work on your 32-core design. Can we please just dispense with the silly games?
AMD ZEN more pci-e then skylake. With all the pci-e based storage around Intel's skylake can't even power 2 M2 pci-e cards + 1 video card at full speed.
with amd zen it seems like 2 videos cards at full speed + lot's left over for storage / network / usb / TB 3.0 and more.
...in bases of two, four or eight.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
AMD has x86 processors with 16 cores. As I recall you can have up to 4 CPUs per motherboard, so 64 cores total. Whether that's appropriate for your "desktop" is your decision. Their APUs have 4 CPU and 8 GPU cores.
Fry's and Microcenter are reasonable choices for brick-and-mortar retailers.
That's interesting that your software takes 100 times as long as the Linux kernel does. My first thought was "I bet that could be reduced by 90%", but you said you already did that, reducing it from 10 hours on 20 build servers. I'm curious why it takes so much longer, what the difference is. Does this project have a lot more tightly coupled dependencies than the kernel does?
In this day and age, it is still amazing to me that people say of cutting edge technology "Yeah, but whey do we need it? We'll never use it."
We will find a way to use it. We always do. "640K of memory..." and all that. Sheesh.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Value Isn't in the Chips, but in the fact that you are less likely to need a less cantankerous dual-CPU motherboard for doing workstation chores such as CAD, Design, Photoshop, Video editing, and moderate raytracing.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
More parallelism please!
This is meant for those million government contractors that have a new PC a year in their hardware budget. The price will fall after they all get theirs..
Few average people will be running these LGA2011 boards/processors. The important news is that the mainstream i7 now has 6 cores. It really isn't affecting much else, as workstations have been built with Xeon processors for many years now, which have all had more than 4 cores for quite a few years now.
Only gamers and people with an OC fetish buy "Extreme" processors; everyone else just buys Xeons.
Will it run Quake?
Each AMD module has two cores. Each core has a control unit (scheduler) 4 execution units (2ALU 2AGU) and an I/O unit to get data in and out. Each core is therefore capable of eight independent single-precision operation or four independent double-precision operations per cycle. With two each of ALU and AGU, arguably that's TWO cores and AMD should call it a 16-core CPU rather than an 8-core.
Several years ago, Intel's CPU cores were what most would call 75% of a core, sharing more parts between "cores" than AMDs' did, so Intel tried to redefine "core" to mean just those parts. Now the situation has reversed a bit - AMD cores can either have separate, dedicated DP FPUs, or two can share it as a DP FPU. Intel's are separate FPUs, so now Intel changed their mind and wants to redefine "core" again.
What can be objectively said is that at the moment, Intel's cores share fewer resources. It used to be the other way around, and it probably will be again.
> If your standard for production software quality is "the Linux kernel", then you must really look down on almost every software project!
Yes, I do. I'm with Sturgeon when he said "90% of everything is crap." :)
Actually it isn't so much that I expect everything to be that level of quality, but the kernel about 20 million lines of code (up from 5 million about three years ago). I was thinking few projects should be far LARGER than that. Others pointed out that C++ takes much, much longer to compile.