Intel's Massive 18-core Core i9 Chip Starts a Bloody Battle For Enthusiast PCs (pcworld.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel's Massive 18-core Core i9 Chip Starts a Bloody Battle For Enthusiast PCs (pcworld.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday May 30, 2017 @02:40AM from the need-for-speed dept.

With Core i9, the Intel vs. AMD battle rages anew. Announced Tuesday at Computex in Taipei, Intel's answer to AMD's 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper is an 18-core, 36-thread monster microprocessor of its own, tailor-made for elite PC enthusiasts. From a report: The Core i9 Extreme Edition i9-7980XE, what Intel calls the first teraflop desktop PC processor ever, will be priced at (gulp!) $1,999 when it ships later this year. In a slightly lower tier will be the meat of the Core i9 family: Core i9 X-series chips in 16-core, 14-core, 12-core, and 10-core versions, with prices climbing from $999 to $1,699. All of these new Skylake-based parts will offer improvements over their older Broadwell-E counterparts: 15 percent faster in single-threaded apps and 10 percent faster in multithreaded tasks, Intel says. If these Core i9 X-series chips -- code-named "Basin Falls" -- are too rich for your blood, Intel also introduced three new Core i7 X-series chips, priced from $339 to $599, and a $242 quad-core Core i5. All of the new chips are due "in the coming weeks," Intel said. Most of the Core i9 chips will incorporate what Intel calls an updated Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, a feature where the chip identifies not just one, but two cores as the "best" cores, and makes them available to be dynamically overclocked to higher speeds when needed. Detailed story at AnandTech and HotHardware.

324 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

PC market could return to growth in 2017 by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 02:45 · Score: 1

FTFY

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:PC market could return to growth in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Just in time for Linux on the desktop.
How nice on them to remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 02:46 · Score: 0

What a somewhat reasonable price is.
Screw them, AMD it is.
1. Re:How nice on them to remember by jellomizer · 2017-05-30 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Is $2,000 unreasonable for the Newest and Fastest CPU?
  Being that the top of the line Video Cards cost 5k.
  A high end PC back in 1997 costed about 5k. Adjusted for inflation a High End PC today will be about 9-10k that 2k CPU would be about the same.
  Now most of us doesn't need the newest and fastest. So We will buy the higher end chips that will make our PCs in the normal 2-3k range for a really good gaming system.
  The real issue is still after nearly 10 years, most applications really are not coded to handle the multiple CPU's
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:How nice on them to remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:41 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Is $2,000 unreasonable for the Newest and Fastest CPU?
  Yes.
  Next question?
3. Re:How nice on them to remember by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-30 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Is $2,000 unreasonable for the Newest and Fastest CPU?
  You don't even know how fast it's going to be given how low-clocked the corresponding Xeons are and given that the competing AMD chip is going to clock at 3.5 GHz. And even if it were somewhat faster, it's still going to suck when it comes to price. Time for a dual socket AMD board? Or maybe you'll even get desktop Naples...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:How nice on them to remember by OrangeTide · 2017-05-30 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  If your CPU isn't thousands of dollars, it's not really top of the line. It might be fantastic for what it is, but 4 GHz IBM POWER9 is going to be somewhat faster than a budget high performance cpu (let's say your budget is $600). Disadvantage is a POWER9 system is many times more expensive fully built. (100x? 1000x?) It's obviously a terrible deal, but it is an example of what is really "newest and fastest". Performance-wise Intel's top of the line is probably faster than IBM's, of course there are a bunch of other metrics I'm ignoring. But we're really talking about a $2k-$10k CPU market here. If you don't want to play in that market, fine, take a step down.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
5. Re: How nice on them to remember by Carewolf · 2017-05-30 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  No a top performing processor cost 500$ or less. The products above that are premium not performance. For people with more money than common sense.
6. Re:How nice on them to remember by jellomizer · 2017-05-31 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference of the chip being a good buy vs. the price being unreasonable.
  The $2k price covers the R&D and the changes needed to the chip processing facilities. It is affordable enough for the people who need the new power and now. But it will be a few years before it become common component.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
7. Re:How nice on them to remember by Cederic · 2017-05-31 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Is $2,000 unreasonable for the Newest and Fastest CPU?
  For consumer use? Yes.
  
  Being that the top of the line Video Cards cost 5k.
  For consumer use? No.
  
  A high end PC back in 1997 costed about 5k. Adjusted for inflation a High End PC today will be about 9-10k that 2k CPU would be about the same.
  The dual-CPU PC with near top-end gaming video card and RAID storage that I bought in '97 cost under 2k. Just how fucking high-end are you talking here?
  In 2008 (so approx. mid-point between then and now) I was speccing gaming laptops, so more expensive than a standard PC. A full spec 1920x1200 screen laptop with SLI graphics was coming in at 2.4k and would outperform 95% of PCs sold as 'gaming' PCs. Sure, you could spend twice that if you're utterly fucking insane but it's still a high-end PC for that money.
  These days I can buy a high-end PC for well under 3k. I'm not going to blow two thirds of that budget on a single CPU.
  If you want to talk professional workstations where you have mixed workloads requiring multi-core grunt and/or multiple GPUs to support highly parallel processing then sure, the performance boost may be worth the expense. Probably not though - just buy two PCs for 1k each and spread your workload between them (or delegate to the cloud for the three hours a week you actually need that capacity).
8. Re:How nice on them to remember by peawormsworth · 2017-05-31 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  The $2k price covers the R&D and the changes needed to the chip processing facilities
  Who even thinks that way? Do you rationalize all your overprice purchased based on an unknown costs such as a perception of what might have been done by people you don't know in the years preceding? Are you even a consumer? Or do you make your own chips in the basement?
  Normal consumers think in terms of value that they will get out of the things they buy.
9. Re:How nice on them to remember by halltk1983 · 2017-06-01 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  AMD made a completely new processor pretty close on on par with this, from scratch, and is charging a quarter of that price. If Intel has to charge $2k just to cover R&D, they really need to cut back on the cocaine budget for their engineers.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
10. Re:How nice on them to remember by toddestan · 2017-06-02 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  People don't get it. It's a "halo" CPU. It's the silicon equivalent to the Shelby Mustang. I'm sure Intel expects they'll only sell a handful. A $2000 CPU is only going to be bought by the few who must have the best, no matter the cost. Intel knows this.
  The real purpose is to generate buzz, bring attention to their other CPUs launched at the same time, and get articles like this posted on sites like slashdot. As you can tell, it's working.
Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 02:46 · Score: 0

What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
1. Re:Compensating? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 02:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What game needs 18 cores?
  Probably Star Citizen, one month from now.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 02:57 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Who cares about games?
3. Re:Compensating? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Video editors with 4K, 8K and 16K video files to view in real time and render in the background at the same time.
4. Re:Compensating? by beelsebob · 2017-05-30 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  None - this is for people who want to compile code, or edit videos, or ... you know, useful stuff.
5. Re:Compensating? by Opportunist · 2017-05-30 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  Virtualization.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re: Compensating? by HornWumpus · 2017-05-30 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  More than half the market for high end CPUs and almost all of the market for high end GPUs.
  In other words: Intel and AMD care about games.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
7. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Is that some form of masochistic fun?
  People encode videos probably because games suck.
8. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Editing someone's stupid wedding video, or a jihaddist video - that kind of real?
9. Re:Compensating? by bobbied · 2017-05-30 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  With 18 cores??? All the things you sight here are really I/O bound processes which don't need (or really cannot use) a lot of threads, but could benefit from having huge ram sizes...
  I'd point to running network based services and Virtualized machines as the primary application that would benefit from extra cores on a machine.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:Compensating? by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
  Games, none. However this would be good (if overly expensive) for people who use a single PC setup to stream PC games to sites like Twitch or YouTube. That live encoding takes a bit of CPU on top of the game and everything else going on.
  
  And before the inevitable "who wants to watch people play video games" the answer is: Plenty of people. Millions per day. I have a friend who makes about $30K a year as a streamer. It's a nice side income for him.
  
  Still for the price the new AMD CPUs seem like a better deal.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
11. Re:Compensating? by ravenshrike · 2017-05-30 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean 7 months from now. No way do we see the 18 cores before December at the earliest.
12. Re:Compensating? by Archangel+Michael · 2017-05-30 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Crysis
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
13. Re:Compensating? by drinkypoo · 2017-05-30 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  However this would be good (if overly expensive) for people who use a single PC setup to stream PC games to sites like Twitch or YouTube. That live encoding takes a bit of CPU on top of the game and everything else going on.
  [...]
  Still for the price the new AMD CPUs seem like a better deal.
  That's the problem here. For the price of one of these CPUs, you can buy plenty of CPU to game with and build a whole other system to do your streaming... especially if you go AMD :)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re: Compensating? by peragrin · 2017-05-30 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  The real question is if they make an 18 core chip why don't they go cellpower on them and start mixing up styles of chips. 12 CPU cores and 6 gpu cores maybe a coupe of fpga cores.
  Let the CPU do all the processing based on which core is best suited for a given operation.
  Yes the cell itself had some design issues that ibm never pushed through but it is a great concept. It just needed to be refined more for better performance. Also it was way early in the multi threaded world.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
15. Re:Compensating? by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  However this would be good (if overly expensive) for people who use a single PC setup to stream PC games to sites like Twitch or YouTube. That live encoding takes a bit of CPU on top of the game and everything else going on. [...] Still for the price the new AMD CPUs seem like a better deal.
  That's the problem here. For the price of one of these CPUs, you can buy plenty of CPU to game with and build a whole other system to do your streaming... especially if you go AMD :)
  2PC streaming is a headache if you are not gaming at 1080p/60 due to the need to use a capture card for the PC games. With single PC you can stream at whatever resolution you want and still game at 1440p or 4K without any headaches.
  
  But yes, the price is bonkers. However the new AMD CPUs make it much more reasonable. Also you don't have to go for this monster. There are 10 core i9's at $999, which I think is going to be the more popular option for the HEDT market from the i9 line up. It may have fewer cores than some of the AMD options but Intel still holds the high ground on single-core performance.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
16. Re:Compensating? by Higaran · 2017-05-30 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'll wait a few months and maybe get one that *cough* fell off a truck, or is slightly used for a bit cheaper. The heat off this thing must be insane.
17. Re:Compensating? by serviscope_minor · 2017-05-30 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The code I'm working on today takes a hair under 30 seconds to compile using all cores. Merely dumping the data to disk takes 0.1 seconds. IOW compiling is compute bound by I/O bound.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:Compensating? by beelsebob · 2017-05-30 04:10 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  1) cite, not sight
  2) neither of these is even close to I/O bound with basically any SSD.
19. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  > More than half the market for high end CPUs and almost all of the market for high end GPUs.
  The "enthusiast" type chips have never been about games. They aren't "gaming enthusiast" or "gamer" chips, though some work acceptably for that purpose (at very high cost). They are COMPUTING enthusiast chips. Got some workload that needs a good number of cores without sacrificing clock speed? That's the market for these chips. The "gaming enthusiast" market is very much "who cares" when regarding 18 core chips. Eventually, yes, some games will correctly make use of multicore. Right now, only a fraction of the games that could use multicore even do it correctly, and many are totally halfassed about it.
  So, given that this is a thread about 18 core chips- who cares about games?
  And the answer, since it needs to be spelled out, is no one.
20. Re:Compensating? by courteaudotbiz · 2017-05-30 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Doom and King Quest V. They need Turbo.
21. Re: Compensating? by toonces33 · 2017-05-30 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I kind of notice it when I go into Microcenter and look at the stuff they have, and while there is some overlap in the market, it seems like more of the focus is on gamers and far less of what they have is intended for people trying to actually do work. You especially notice it when you go to look at video cards. Lots of GeForce, not much in Quadro.
22. Re: Compensating? by sexconker · 2017-05-30 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  a good number of cores without sacrificing clock speed
  Clock speed will be sacrificed. Severely.
  I mean, they're too ashamed to even provide them for the chips with more cores: http://images.idgesg.net/image...
  And don't forget to add $85-$100 for a cooler that can handle 140W (and more for the chips with more cores) - Intel recommends water cooling because of the density we're dealing with: http://images.idgesg.net/image...
23. Re:Compensating? by sexconker · 2017-05-30 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Video editors with 4K, 8K and 16K video files to view in real time and render in the background at the same time.
  That's what GPUs are for.
24. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  I code each day on a PC with 20 cores (40 counting hyperthreading) with 384gigs of RAM. I run 12 copies of Windows Server 2016 and multiple sessions of Visual Studio and a handful of Linux VMs and Docker stuff.
  I use about 10% of that machine at peak.
25. Re:Compensating? by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-05-30 04:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
  Pong.
  Really, Really, fast pong.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
26. Re:Compensating? by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-05-30 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  How about Oracle? 18 cores... I bet Larry had an orgasm when he heard about this.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
27. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  My current machine uses I believe 1024 GPU cores. Also, all of the GPU cores are programmable. You may not have a solid understanding of how GPUs work.
28. Re:Compensating? by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  The heat off this thing must be insane.
  Yea there was a leaked benchmark run that showed the i9 range clocking in at 140 watts TDP.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
29. Re:Compensating? by zlives · 2017-05-30 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  ok, even star citizen isn't probably designed to scale like that... i say probably because i don't know. also lets say it is... what do you need on GPU side to match that performance.
30. Re: Compensating? by helsinki92 · 2017-05-30 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Intel recommends water cooling because those damned things are expensive and probably have a great margin.
31. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Gotta love how the gamers think the world revolves around them and that every company is in meeting after meeting poring over their 'ideas' and tailoring everything to their whims.
32. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  > Really, Really, fast pong.
  Each core can have a paddle. With hyperthreading, you could have 36 PLAYER REALLY REALLY FAST PONG
33. Re: Compensating? by EndlessNameless · 2017-05-30 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  It takes a long time to work all the kinks out of a system like that.
  AMD has been working on their heterogeneous system architecture for at least five years, and very few applications really use it so far.
  Maybe there would be more uptake if Intel did something similar, so it would essentially become a standard part of x86. But Intel is taking a somewhat different approach, offering FPGAs on some Xeon and Atom models. Their paths seem to diverge.
  At the consumer level, there is little apparent benefit until it is widely used and available---thus, no demand exists. Most consumer workloads are perfectly fine on big hyperthreaded cores.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
34. Re:Compensating? by bobbied · 2017-05-30 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  1. All Hail the Grammar Nazis of the world, I promise to do better next time...
  2. You will still be I/O bound for compilation, video editing and even trans coding, none of which are easily logically parallel tasks. You will find the process limited by your I/O bandwidth, which, even for SSD's will be fairly limited compared to how fast 18 cores could do their thing. Remember my comment is about how much you can speed up the afore mentioned tasks by adding cores and for any of them I seriously doubt there will be much improvement going from 8 to 18 cores. Why? You will still have to get all that data off and back on the disk and I'd imagine that 8 cores were not fully utilized to start with, already being I/O bound even on the best of I/O systems you can buy.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
35. Re:Compensating? by MachineShedFred · 2017-05-30 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because nobody runs virtualization on their workstations. Definitely not any kind of cross-platform app developer.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
36. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  If I get one of these, I'm going to install DOS and play King's Quest V and Doom just to see how ridiculous it is!
37. Re: Compensating? by sexconker · 2017-05-30 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, the X/E enthusiast (expensive) Intel CPUs are almost always used with a third party cooler. Intel provides a reference design for posterity and the handful of retarded "boutique" OEMs that build systems with these CPUs.
38. Re:Compensating? by butchersong · 2017-05-30 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to have the ability to spin up a Windows VM on my Linux PC and use vt-d without headache for direct IO to the hardware. Allocation 8 cores to the VM and still have plenty left over for another VM or the host box.
39. Re:Compensating? by MachineShedFred · 2017-05-30 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Xeon with 24 cores, and you can put 8 of them into a single server.
  And that's not even including the Xeon Phi 7290 that can be slapped in using PCI-e, adding 72 more cores.
  264 cores per server would get Oracle / Microsoft frothing at the mouth for per-core licensing. 18? Not so much.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
40. Re:Compensating? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  what do you need on GPU side to match that performance
  Probably eighteen GTX 1080 duct-taped together.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
41. Re:Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  Somebody should invent the -j option to make .
  
  I'm not going to address any of your points but compilation, but I can assure you more cores means much faster compilation. I have compiled a complete Linux kernel in under 20 minutes on an 8 core machine with a traditional rotating platter drive. I don't know how fast it would be with an SSD and 30+ cores, but really fscking fast is a pretty fair estimate.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
42. Re:Compensating? by StreamingEagle · 2017-05-30 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who does a lot of photo or video editing, processing or encoding, CAD, software development with long compile times, machine learning, etc. These are workstation class chips. Gaming is an important segment of the PC market, but it isn't the only compute-intensive workload.
43. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know? In 2017? No ssd yet? Don't you work at an office? Wtf? Lol. You need to drop 50 bucks and get a ssd. This is a joke. You are a joke.
44. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was 10 years ago. They didn't have SSDs then, but thanks for playing.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
45. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you don't write software for a living. You don't seem to understand what 'and' means.
46. Re:Compensating? by bobbied · 2017-05-30 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  You seriously need to understand how Make works.... I'm fully aware of the -j option and it's meaning. I am also intimately aware of how make works and why it works the way it does after 25 years of using it. "-j" only limits the number of parallel process Make can use, but it doesn't force Make to use all those "jobs". Make is a system that allows you to process dependencies (like building all the object files before linking a library, or building al the libraries before you compile and link the executable). This means that all the allowed jobs will NOT be usable at all times.
  But that begs the issue here. I'm contending that building the Linux Kernel (to use your example) is going to be IO bound, not CPU bound, even on a modest number of cores (say 8). You won't see great improvement when you add cores if you are I/O bound. I suggest you grab your best I/O capable system with 4 cores and see for yourself. Set the -j option to whatever you want as long as it's above 2x # cores and I will be VERY surprised if building the Linux Kernel maxes out your CPUs but your IO bandwidth will be swamped. Trust me, I do this every day on some fairly reasonable hardware..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
47. Re:Compensating? by ImdatS · 2017-05-30 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Word2Vec generation: I do a lot of this stuff and other similar stuff. For example, creating an TfIdf/LSI-Index, WordMoverDistance-Analysis, and more.
  Currently, I'm training a system for NLP and similarity analysis. Just the training takes about 15 minutes with 12 cores/24 threads - without any I/O. The I/O part is just a few seconds, but pre-computing all weights and distributions takes 15 minutes. And this using only a subset of the data that I want to use in final training.
  The system is an Xeon/12-core. If I had 18 cores, higher clock-frequency and maybe faster RAM access, I could do it in 5 minutes. Every minute I save will make me more productive.
  If you do a lot text processing in the NLP area, believe me, your least problem is loading/saving the stuff. Loading the German Wikipedia into RAM takes about 45-60 seconds on my machine, but processing it (converting, word2vec-generation, and more) can take literally hours (once I did it with German Wiktionary only and it took 8 hours). So, the more cores, the better.
  Yes, yes, I could get faster Xeons, but they are equally expensive and use a lot more power...
48. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not going to read your drivel. I cited empirical evidence. If you do further research you will see that there will be an instance of gcc for each value passed to -j. IOW it is you that has no idea what is going on. HAND and FOAD now!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
49. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  You are preaching to the choir my friend. The people arguing that more cores are useless are the people who would have no idea how to tell if they were or not because they are incompetent theorists with no real world experience.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
50. Re: Compensating? by Phydeaux314 · 2017-05-30 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  They do. They're called APUs, at least in AMD lingo, and they power low-end media center PCs as well as both the PS4 and the XBox One.
  The problem is that it's not cost effective to put 200+ watts of GPU on a package that already has 100+ watts of CPU. So the high end market remains one of "dedicated CPU, dedicated GPU" and that isn't likely to change for a while.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
51. Re:Compensating? by Phydeaux314 · 2017-05-30 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  No consumer x86 part is going to come close to the SPARC hardware in terms of core count. It's just not designed that way. The M7 series run 256 threads per socket (8 threads per core, 32 cores per socket), and I believe they cap out at 16 socket boxes. Core counts that high require some different approaches to I/O and task management to avoid wasting tons of CPU time, anyway, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have x86 boxes that large most of the time.
  Personally, I just miss the days of high-end Sun x86 development boxes from the Opteron days. Those were nice systems. Would love to see Oracle put out some on the upcoming AMD HEDT parts.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
52. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  yes with 18 cores. there is no such thing as being IO bound these days. SSD speed approaches DRAM speed. C++ is a particularly slow language to compile, try compiling QT and get back to me on whether 18 cores would be useful.
53. Re:Compensating? by DarthVain · 2017-05-30 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  There is a joke here somewhere where you can buy the concept of an 18 core cpu and Intel will send you a picture of it...
  or..
  That it will be released 1 core at a time over the next 18 months...
  Personally the best thing I've seen out of Star Citizen are the "commercials" for some of the ships lol!
54. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Do any monitors support 60 million FPS?
  Only ones I can find are crappy 30 million FPS. Console plebs need not apply.
55. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta love how the gamers think the world revolves around them and that every company is in meeting after meeting poring over their 'ideas' and tailoring everything to their whims.
  You should love gamers because ever demanding game requirements are what have, historically, driven the hardware market.
  Watching Premiere Pro take a few hours to chew on 1/2 hour of video encoding certainly has my interest in high core processors.
  It will also extend the life of your next system as it will be a while before typical software outgrows it.
56. Re:Compensating? by OrangeTide · 2017-05-30 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Real mode exceptions are broken on AMD's new chips. You can't reliably run DOS on them anymore. I wonder if Intel i9 will have the same problem.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
57. Re: Compensating? by OrangeTide · 2017-05-30 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  maybe he is really busy editing jihaddist videos?
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
58. Re:Compensating? by AaronW · 2017-05-30 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Right now I'm playing with a 96 core system (two 48 core CPUs) (1 thread per core). Needless to say, Intel is trying to catch up in the core count but they have a way to go. There are numerous ARM64 chips out there with more cores than Intel.
  
  --
  This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
59. Re: Compensating? by bobbied · 2017-05-30 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  OK you young head full of mush who doesn't have much reading comprehension ability... Given you don't want to accept my input and think you can make confident contrary assertions about things I've been doing for 25 years, I'm done with you. I tried to enlighten you, you refused to listen. You are on your own.
  Now get off my lawn!
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
60. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  You are a douche. I've been writing software longer than you have, first used Linux in 1993, and cited actual empirical evidence that proves you wrong, as well as showing how you can prove it to yourself.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
61. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Do most businesses do their computer shopping at MicroCenter?
62. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
  Pong.
  Really, Really, fast pong.
  PONG, VR PONG
  Really, Really, fast VR pong.
63. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  > Real mode exceptions
  You mean interrupts?
64. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  You're going to consumer retail locations and are surprised they are marketing to consumers?
65. Re: Compensating? by dirtyhippie · 2017-05-30 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Fwiw, I hate both of you ðY
66. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  I need a new computer for a little web browsing and email. This ought to do the trick.
67. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  AMD's heterogeneous systems are great for laptops. The problem is gamers need at least 65W CPUs and like 150-250W GPUs. Can't put that much hardware on one die, let alone cool it.
68. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it's IO bound at 8 cores. Three years ago we built a dedicated build machine, 8 cores SSD with 64 gb RAM, compiling DLL projects in parallel with msbuild . Got build down from 45 minutes to 12 minutes. Then mapped entire working partition into a RAMdisk partition, but no improvement in build time (maybe 30, but fluctuated). This strongly suggests it wasn't IO bound.
69. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  OK. I just took a moment to read what you wrote. Here is where you went wrong. You do not want to use more than 2 * core_count. This will mean you will have multiple gcc instances sharing each core and introduce unnecessary process swapping. The number you want is core_count + 1. In either case the built will not be I/O bound, and I have no idea why you think it will (C files are typically one or a few sector counts max), but you will certainly get worse performance making j too large by a factor of 2+. Good luck learning to use computers!!!!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
70. Re:Compensating? by thegarbz · 2017-05-30 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Except video rendering doesn't lend itself to being optimised by a GPU as much as it does dedicated hardware CODECs. And then it is hard to optimise these CODECs for visual quality as well.
71. Re:Compensating? by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Crysis always causes Cryses at Intel and AMD
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
72. Re:Compensating? by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  That Huge RAM size is the main sticking point for me. I like having 128 MB RAM around and would go up to 256 if I could. Very useful for virtualisation and all kinds of stuff. But the only CPU that support that are Xeons! None of Intel's old generation of eXtreme Monster CPUs could go beyond 64GB. 64GB is a joke.
  A 3 GHz 14-core Haswell Xeon with 128GB of RAM is more useful to me than a 4.5 GHz monster Skylake with 32GB.
  It is also waaay better for those same content creation tasks
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
73. Re:Compensating? by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Dual CPU 10-16 core Xeons with 128GB or 256GB RAM is better for that. The average VM is not that heavily loaded, and RAM is much more of a limiter.
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
74. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Your clamour was find, ewe just used completely the wring wad
75. Re:Compensating? by dddux · 2017-05-31 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, absolutely. Pong written in HTML5.
  
  --
  "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
76. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, this is just in readiness for the next Windows 10 anniversary update so that there are still some cores left to run other programs
77. Re:Compensating? by K10W · 2017-05-31 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is a joke here somewhere where you can buy the concept of an 18 core cpu and Intel will send you a picture of it...
  or..
  That it will be released 1 core at a time over the next 18 months...
  Personally the best thing I've seen out of Star Citizen are the "commercials" for some of the ships lol!
  I KNEW I should have saved my last mod point, trouble is that is both funny and insightful.
78. Re: Compensating? by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-05-31 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Businesses mostly buy their computers assembled rather than buying components. So there isn't much of a retail market for Quadro boards.
79. Re:Compensating? by sexconker · 2017-05-31 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Are you retarded? I haven't seen or heard of anyone using a discrete hardware encoder since the late 90s. Hardware encoding is done by GPUs (or the GPU portions of SoCs). Video rendering absolutely does work very well on GPUs. GPUs are kind of designed to render lots of effects and push lots of pixels around in a highly parallel fashion for high (realtime or better) performance. Every major video effects and editing application will make use of GPUs to do the rendering, the live previewing, and yes, the final encoding.
  Software encoders still tend to output a better final result for a given bitrate compared to the built-in video encoding functions on an AMD or Nvidia GPU (at the cost of 10-100 x longer encoding times). But the big boys like Adobe have their own encoders for CUDA/OpenCL/Whatever, and don't have to rely on the shit AMD and Nvidia provide, so quality isn't an issue for them.
80. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  This is where apple got it right. Video editing and encoding is very fast and easy. No bullshit. But ....
81. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  It didn't say 10 years ago. So no playing. And ...
  you should still know by now. This is nonesense. Retard.
82. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  You are the douche. Something is wrong with your mind. Retaded thinking. Brain damage? Do you have the good upfront parking a handicapped sticker provided. I'm jealous.
83. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  I hate you but you do know one thing.
  Core and threads are different. Threads are just a second npl? Some 3 letter acronym. Lpu? Cores have many processing units. All work comes in from the main thread and second thread. All directed to the same code LPUs. Like two input wires feeding one thing. Whatever. This shit needs to be read.
  You are correct on this one. But everything else you suck balls.
84. Re:Compensating? by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-05-31 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  One reason that consumer motherboards currently top out at 64GB is that there is an engineering tradeoff between the speed of RAM and the amount supported. Unless the CPU and chip set implement additional RAM channels, once you go beyond four DIMMs you have to use registered RAM rather than unbuffered RAM. (In this context, registered has nothing to do with signing up the RAM with some sort of authority; it means that the memory sticks have buffer registers on them.) Registered RAM is slower because of the additional delay caused by the buffers - at this level of speed every nanosecond counts. RAM module density increases over time, so eventually somebody will release 32GB unbuffered DIMMs and the RAM ceiling will increase to 128GB. (There is also the question of whether existing chip sets will support them when they arrive, so it may or may not lead to more RAM capacity for older systems. I'd expect Ryzen to be ready, and probably Skylake and Kaby Lake as well.)
  At the present time, registered RAM is also quite a bit more expensive new. (Used it's sometimes cheaper because of low demand.) But that's because of limited volume, because it's sold to a less price sensitive market, and because most registered RAM is also ECC RAM which means that more memory chips are needed. But ECC aside, it's not inherently much more expensive to make; the register chips are cheap. If registered RAM were widely used in consumer PCs the price delta would be negligible.
85. Re:Compensating? by Cederic · 2017-05-31 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wait? You mean that _isn't_ true?
  Tell me who and we'll have words. They need to get back onto making our sweet sweet games fast AND pretty.
86. Re:Compensating? by thegarbz · 2017-05-31 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hardware encoding is done by GPUs
  Yes, and you should correlate the GPUs that are supported with the hardware encoders they have on die to realise just how stupid you are calling someone retarded when you are completely and utterly WRONG.
  
  Every major video effects and editing application will make use of GPUs to do the rendering
  Yep. Interesting how it only works on Keppler and higher cards though isn't it.
  
  I haven't seen or heard of anyone using a discrete hardware encoder since the late 90s.
  
  I'm sure this complete lack of any interest is the reason why GPU vendors and CPU vendors have fallen over themselves to improve hardware codecs. I guess that's why all applications have put a lot of effort into putting native support for those hardware codecs in their software.
  
  But the big boys like Adobe have their own encoders for CUDA/OpenCL/Whatever
  Yep, most of them were interfaces to NVCUDENC including the big boys like Adobe, Leadstudios, FFMPEG, etc. By the way NVCUDENC was depreciated 4 years ago because CUDA is generally slow at this task due to video encoding not being an embarrassingly parallel problem and by paralleling it you lose a metric fuckton of quality improving features encoders provide.
  Get a clue man.
87. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-31 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  You truly are an idiot. I said I don't know how fast, exactly, a build would be with 30+ cores.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
88. Re: Compensating? by Brockmire · 2017-05-31 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Approaches" is a very big stretch. Ram is roughly 10X faster.
89. Re: Compensating? by Brockmire · 2017-05-31 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're doing it wrong.
90. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  Adobe Premiere CC, at least, does NOT use GPUs for encoding, so get the fastest CPU you can.
  https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2122549
91. Re:Compensating? by zlives · 2017-05-31 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  yeah i see that, just glad i invested in that portable cold fusion reactor.
92. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  NLP??
  This?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
93. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  try running your build on the supercomputer you use to watch porn 3 times a day fuggo and report back to us.
94. Re: Compensating? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-31 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  You are so fucking stupid that you post as creimer to one of my posts and then as AC in this thread within minutes multiple times and don't think I know it's you. You truly are the most stupid idiot on Slashdot.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
95. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you know, I (the AC) posted because creamer pinged me the conversation on skype. I showed it to the people I was sitting with at the restaurant, and then wrote a response.
  The conspiracy theories that come up with twisted plots instead of the obvious simple explanation. Very basic highschool-level one-liner insults filled with teenage anger but lacking any actual supporting content. You were a very unattractive kid shunned and rejected in school. You've now grown up to be an angry annoying adult who is one of society's rejects. And quite funny for us.
96. Re: Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  or, you know, it's a group of people who are physically located together at the moment, who are making fun of you as a group. strange you didn't figure this out - you should be used to that from... from living your life.
97. Re:Compensating? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-02 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it the VM86 mode that's broken? i.e. real mode in a virtual machine like in Windows 3.0 Enhanced 386 mode or NTVDM in NT/2000/XP and later.
  Heard a memory manager included with FreeDOS is broken as well, but this is bypassed by launching it with a particular flag.
  In fact I remember it's an advanced/enhanced version of VM86 thats broken, so DOS boxes in Windows 3.x should still work (assuming Windows 3.x works at all)
  If you run a VM (the Virtualbox kind of VM) you can use some flag or feature mask to disable the advanced VM86 feature, losing negligible performance in the process.
Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 02:46 · Score: 2

When the new processors are available in the $50 to $100 range.
1. Re:Call me... by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 02:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here's a list of quad-core-or-better desktop processors priced under USD$100. Notice how it's all AMD because Intel only has dual-core processors in that price range.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how it's all AMD because Intel only has dual-core processors in that price range.
  I already own an AMD eight-core processor (8300 @ $99). Neither AMD nor Intel have new processors in this price range yet.
3. Re:Call me... by Opportunist · 2017-05-30 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  What do you think will happen to the i7s now that i9s hit the market?
  Every time a new processor generation hit the market, the former generations got cheaper. Who cares about i9s, cheap i5s is what I want. Hell, even i7s might become a financially interesting option.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Call me... by AmiMoJo · 2017-05-30 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  AMD's Threadripper is likely to be much more attractive I think. Ryzen seems to have the edge at the moment, especially in efficiency terms. How hot are these Intel chips going to run? Plus AMD's parts will be much, much cheaper.
  AMD really are on a roll at the moment. At the low end they have the cheapest CPUs with the best built-in GPUs, in the workstation/enthusiast range they have the best price/performance ratio and can compete with the best Intel has to offer, and in the discrete GPU market they are very competitive with nVidia.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Every time a new processor generation hit the market, the former generations got cheaper.
  The tinkle down on the Intel side is a bit slower than the AMD side. As someone else pointed out, Intel only has dual-cores at my price point (some do have hyper threading for four threads).
6. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  No one is going to call you at all. You're likely not the target consumer for this. It's odd that you actually understand who this is meant from from another comment you made here but need to mouth off in this manner in another post. I really don't get it. Are you that desperate to hear yourself talk or something?
  When you're doing pro level video production you'll have a voice in this conversation. If you are doing this kind of work today on a 100 dollar processor feel free to call them out with some benchmarks that bring this all into perspective. Otherwise you're just flapping your lips.
7. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  When the new processors are available in the $50 to $100 range.
  Somebody who made more than 50k per year in Silicon Valley could afford them when they're still expensive.
  Just sayin', creimer - you've been talking about how your salary allows you to live the lifestyle you want, but it sounds like you've got a little bit of sour grapes here - upset because you can't afford one yet?
8. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The tinkle down
  TRICKLE. The word you're looking for is TRICKLE.
9. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  No one is going to call you at all. You're likely not the target consumer for this.
  As a gamer, I look at processors in the $50 to $100 range. I typically spend no more than $300 on a motherboard/processor/memory combo. Yes, I'm a cheap bastard.
  
  When you're doing pro level video production you'll have a voice in this conversation.
  I didn't quite get the bang for the buck when I switched out an AMD quad-core for an AMD eight-core for encoding 1080 @ 60 FPS video. Probably because the software was optimized for Intel processor. Building an Intel system or buying a Mac might be on my to do list for later this year.
10. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen the size of creimer? NOTHING about him tinkles or trickles! Neither going in or out!
11. Re:Call me... by thegarbz · 2017-05-30 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how the best performing processor in that list was released in 2013?
12. Re:Call me... by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I put a reminder in my calendar for 2024
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
13. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 03:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  TRICKLE. The word you're looking for is TRICKLE.
  Nope. Tinkle. Trickle would imply a faster pace.
14. Re:Call me... by monkeyporn · 2017-05-30 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  https://www.cpubenchmark.net/c...
  A chart comparing price vs performance. Note that it's mostly AMD on the "good" side of the graph.
15. Re:Call me... by Kjella · 2017-05-30 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  AMD's Threadripper is likely to be much more attractive I think. Ryzen seems to have the edge at the moment, especially in efficiency terms. How hot are these Intel chips going to run? Plus AMD's parts will be much, much cheaper.
  I doubt it, Intel saw where Ryzen was going after the first launch and extrapolated, they went from 10 to 18 cores on the high end. It's $500 for the 1800x with 8 cores, bigger chips = lower yields so double+ for 16 cores that'll still have two less cores, probably slightly lower max clock and IPC than Intel too. I'm guessing threadripper will be a $1200 chip that'll compete with Intel's $1400/1700 chips. They won't let AMD get another PR win like the first Ryzen launch.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
16. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody who made more than 50k per year in Silicon Valley could afford them when they're still expensive.
  My side job could drop $10K on a new system. I'm not convinced that the ROI is justified.
17. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Or are you wrong, and arguing for your incorrect usage in a vain effort to save face and not look like a complete buffoon?
  Do you think I give tinkle of what any asshat on Slashdot thinks about me?
18. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox's mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.
  The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.
  Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.
  "What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for."
  And off he walked very, very scornfully.
  And of course, the moral of the story:
  There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach
  Keep telling yourself that the "ROI isn't justified," creimer. Maybe then you won't have to admit that it's beyond your reach.
19. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Keep telling yourself that the "ROI isn't justified," creimer. Maybe then you won't have to admit that it's beyond your reach.
  I'll stick to the numbers. You stick to the fairy tales.
20. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:33 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  So that's a "Yes, I'm wrong, but I'm too proud to admit it, and will instead make a lot of idiotic noises about asshats, in the hope that nobody else will notice I just got schooled in how stupid I really am?"
  Here's a better usage of "tinkle": I don't give two squirts of lukewarm piss about you, creimer. But I find you ENDLESSLY amusing when you get all huffy and try to defend your indefensible positions. You're like Slashdot's own Trump figure.
21. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'll give one thing to creimer, he's much more handsome than you'd think, and more so than Trump.
22. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  I don't give two squirts of lukewarm piss about you, creimer.
  Except you keep replying to my comments, as if you have no self-control whatsoever. A friend of mine read all the comments that I got over the weekend. He told me, "These people need to get a life."
23. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  If your side job numbers are so good, why haven't you retired yet? It's not like you have to build that much of a revenue stream to replace a 50k salary, after all.
  Or is it that you're still struggling to break the tens of dollars revenue mark?
24. Re:Call me... by sexconker · 2017-05-30 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  AMD's Threadripper is likely to be much more attractive I think. Ryzen seems to have the edge at the moment, especially in efficiency terms. How hot are these Intel chips going to run? Plus AMD's parts will be much, much cheaper.
  I doubt it, Intel saw where Ryzen was going after the first launch and extrapolated, they went from 10 to 18 cores on the high end. It's $500 for the 1800x with 8 cores, bigger chips = lower yields so double+ for 16 cores that'll still have two less cores, probably slightly lower max clock and IPC than Intel too. I'm guessing threadripper will be a $1200 chip that'll compete with Intel's $1400/1700 chips. They won't let AMD get another PR win like the first Ryzen launch.
  You haven't been paying attention, have you?
  Ryzen is designed in "CCX" modules that are linked together to allow for better scaling. A larger die size doesn't bring about yield problems to the same degree as it does in traditional designs. Threadripper is also huge to allow for cooling. Look at this surface area: https://i.redd.it/fb8obad77e0z...
  Yes, clock speeds will go down as core count goes up. Yes, Intel will still have higher IPC, and possibly even higher clocks.
  No, Intel will not win on performance/$. Not by a long shot. I'd be shocked if the 16-core Threadripper comes out at anything more than $999.
25. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  If your side job numbers are so good, why haven't you retired yet?
  I'm not planning to retire for another 30 years. One job to pay the bills and one job to buy cash flow assets for the long term provides a comfortable living.
26. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  as if you have no self-control whatsoever.
  Says the 350-pounder who can't lose weight, despite all of his claims of exercising and eating sensibly. Not only are you unable to control yourself, you're a compulsive liar.
  
  A friend of mine read all the comments that I got over the weekend. He told me, "These people need to get a life."
  That's funny, a friend of mine read all of the comments that you made over the weekend. He told me, "This person needs to get a life."
  What's your point? You're still guilty of writing incomprehensible, nonsensical idiocy, like "tinkle down" as if it's a real phrase. You're not William Shakespeare - he could coin phrases. You can't.
27. Re:Call me... by MrL0G1C · 2017-05-30 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  ". I typically spend no more than $300 on a motherboard/processor/memory combo"
  CPU is what matters most, motherboard doesn't effect speed much at all, I tend to go for the cheapest mobo for the chip I choose... and I've been lucky with buying memory when the market price has bottomed, to the point I actually sold a 8gb stick one time for more than I paid for the 8GB x2. And the i7 3770k I bought is holding it's ground very nicely.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
28. Re: Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Did you let him borrow your black MacBook to read the comments?
29. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  I literally cannot retire for another 30 years, because I make such poor salary that I won't have anything saved..
  FTFY.
  On the bright side, creimer, at the rate you're going, you'll probably suffer a massive coronary well before 60, so you've really only got like 10 more years to go before work and retirement simply doesn't matter.
30. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  ...wait. You have a friend? Did you have to inflate him first?
  And he thinks that you, who filed a frivolous DMCA notice over a copyright claim for a _name_ (which doesn't apply), *have* a life?
31. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Call me when it's free in a cracker jack box. Or CPU want to be free, FREE! Sounds equally as absurd as some random amount one wishes to pay far below the MSRP of a brand new product.
32. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  Why did they feel the need to throw in a >$400 Intel CPU in that list?
33. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  And he thinks that you, who filed a frivolous DMCA notice over a copyright claim for a _name_ (which doesn't apply), *have* a life?
  The _name_ that I registered as my own this morning?
34. Re:Call me... by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  An old Core 2 Duo, too? No idea.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
35. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you calling other people asshats?
  Its you that threatened to shoot me when I called out your lies. Has anyone threatened to shoot you yet? Looks like they called you fat is all, that still makes you the top asshat, as you say.
  Has anyone threatened to sue you in court for saying stuff they don't like? Again you win for top asshat.
  What a stupid insult name to use. What are you, 3?
36. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  What's this ghettotalk anyway? Anyone with a brain sees this just as creimer telling fuck off to some crazy stalker who keeps reaching for really low hanging fruits. Obviously you don't have a reputation to ruin, but I still keep wondering what's the point of making a fool of yourself even anonymously.
37. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  You really should consider the position you find yourself in chasing cremer around just to berate him. You sound just as screw loose as he does.
38. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  The _name_ that I registered as my own this morning?
  You registered it as a copyright? So you're claiming that nobody in the world, for any purpose, can use the name "C. D. Reimer", without infringing on your copyrights? Good luck with that - nicknames and diminutive forms of a legal name are not protectable via copyright - and since your legal initials are C. D. Reimer, that means it's a derivative form of your legal name, and thus not a pseudonym, and thus cannot be protected by copyrights.
  Or are you suggesting you registered it as a trademark? If so, when can we expect to start seeing the ® or (TM) symbols next to your name everywhere? Also, what goods/services are you registering it for? Is "shit-posting on Slashdot" really a good or service for which you could register an enforceable trademark? I'd love to see the USPTO's response to your filing for a trademark.
  Really, creimer. You shouldn't make such laughably fraudulent claims.
39. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  So? It's not COPYRIGHTABLE. What is it you don't understand?
  https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/08/5-things-that-cant-be-copyrighted/
  Get it through your cetacean blowhole.
40. Re:Call me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  You registered it as a copyright?
  I registered "cdreimer" as a Slashdot user name this morning. I haven't checked my side business email yet. I suspect it was a TOS violation and not a DMCA violation.
41. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Go get yourself a new account, this time don't talk about yourself quite so much.
42. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, yesterday you said you didn't care. And you never had a DMCA notice rejected. Now you suddenly care, and admit your laughable DMCA notice was frivolous.
  For such an obscenely large person, you do 180s real quick!
  And if you "registered" cdreimer, post under it right now. You didn't register shit, cdreimer has simply been disabled following your little tantrum. 47 years old, huh?
  You don't "register" names here, Chubs, you "sign up". And you can't because cdreimer has already been used.
  So where did you "register" cdreimer?
  Liar. Fraud.
  And don't forget criemer, you laughably obese whale impersonator.
43. Re: Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me, sir, that really should be "MacBook of Color".
44. Re:Call me... by cdreimer · 2017-05-30 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, yesterday you said you didn't care. And you never had a DMCA notice rejected. Now you suddenly care, and admit your laughable DMCA notice was frivolous.
  This account got deleted. No reason specified. So I'm going to assume that my DMCA record is still intact.
  
  And you can't because cdreimer has already been used.
  This account is under new management.
45. Re:Call me... by sl3xd · 2017-05-30 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Using the number of "cores" as a metric is misleading with 2013-era technology.
  AMD didn't have multiple threads per core, while Intel did.
  Both have the same number of executable threads, and /proc/cpuinfo would show the same number of CPU's.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
46. Re:Call me... by Phydeaux314 · 2017-05-30 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  They're honestly pretty close on IPC, too - I think Intel has something on the order of a 3-5% lead with Kaby Lake? It's definitely not like it was with the previous AMD architecture.
  I just put together a 6800k system, which I was hoping would last me for a good five years, but if applications start coming out that can actually leverage sixteen cores I'll be putting together a threadripper 2.0 box sometime down the line. Ideally one with ECC memory support, which AMD hasn't seen fit to remove from their desktop parts.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
47. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  You must, otherwise why go through all this trouble?
48. Re: Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Be thankful, it's keeps cockdreamer lost down here in the weeds instead of shitposting higher.
49. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  How many 350 pound 77 year olds have you seen?
50. Re:Call me... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-05-30 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yields are identical with 1800X because it's two chips combined, the clocks are going to be similar to the 1800X (3.5 GHz base clocks), and the IPC hasn't improved for Intel. So you're very likely wrong on all three points.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
51. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's very unlikely you will even live to 77, much less that you will still be capable of working two paying jobs.
52. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair the AMD "bulldozer" derived processors only have 1 pipeline and FPU per 2 integer units. In a lot of ways it would be more accurate to call those 2 or 3 core processors. The sad thing to me is that even these aren't really good prices, and it seems that the cost of production have gone up rather than down over the years with improvements to fabrication seemingly more important all the time.
  Intel has a 4 core processor under $100, but it's a BGA platform and they've had some problems as well.
  Here's a complete system with one. https://www.amazon.com/Edal-Windows-x5-Z8350-Processor-Graphics/dp/B06XDM69ZQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496181734&sr=8-1&keywords=atom+c
  Unfortunately the Cinebench multicore results still put it behind a Core2Duo @2.6GHZ; showing that the lack of cache and clock speed hit it really hard.
53. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  The DMCA has nothing to do with Slashdot's TOS. You clown.
54. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  If you are poor, Intel is not for you.
55. Re: Call me... by corychristison · 2017-05-30 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, AMD's FX series is not "true" cores, but "logical" cores, or "threads".
  Their new line of Ryzen 8-core chips are true 8-core chips, with 16 logical cores (threads).
  I just ordered an AMD Ryzen 1800X for a custom build for a friend. The CPU was $629 (Canadian Dollars). The entire build with Windows License was $3,350 (Canadian Dollars).
  I'm glad there is some actual competition happing in this space. The market was stagnant for a number of years. I'm still using my AMD FX-8320 I purchased in 2012. It does everything I need for now.
  With that said, my next build will most likely also be AMD, because multithreaded performance is more important to me.
56. Re:Call me... by thegarbz · 2017-05-30 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Using the number of "cores" as a metric
  I didn't. I looked up every single option on CPU mark and based my quote on the one which had the highest overall number.
57. Re:Call me... by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-05-31 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  The x5-Z8350 is an Atom processor, not a Core processor. Very different architecture, so the clock speeds are not directly comparable; at any given speed and core count the Atom is a lot slower and not just because of the modest amount of cache. A quad core Atom can't reach the level of performance of a dual core CPU based on the Core architecture, even a lowly Celeron with a tiny cache. Atom was Intel's play for the ultra-low-power and low cost CPU market: tablets, phones, and embedded systems. It also shows up in Chromebooks and very low end laptops.
58. Re:Call me... by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-05-31 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  i9 will have no effect on i7. i9 is just new branding for the Extreme Edition CPUs that Intel has been selling for a while. But Intel will lower the prices of the i3, i5, and i7 CPUs in response to the new threat from AMD.
59. Re:Call me... by sl3xd · 2017-05-31 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  The parent to your original comment, however did use "cores" as a metric.
  I agree with you - entirely different designs from 2013 is no way to gauge the state of the art.
  It seemed most logical to add it after your comment pointing out the age of the chips in the list.
  Sorry for any confusion.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
60. Re: Call me... by Brockmire · 2017-05-31 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wtf? Tinkle is faster than trickle. You should have just copped to a typo.
61. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  Do you know a thing about opportunity cost?
  About anyone might afford a $400 CPU instead of a $100 CPU if they so choose. But a better choice might be to buy a $100 CPU and three hard drives : one for storage, one for back up and one for back up.
  So, have video encoding be 3x faster on your bigger CPU, but have fun losing your stuff.
62. Re:Call me... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  "Tinkle down" is still accurate as in : the rich get all the wealth and tinkle down on us.
A born loser by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 02:47 · Score: 1

Even if enthusiasts are dumb enough to buy the hype they must know in the back of their minds that nothing they use will support this, just like nothing supports the multi-core i5 and i7.
1. Re:A born loser by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  I can't afford it but this chip would be nice because I can run more parallel molecular simulations. When simulating polymer interaction it's important to run the simulation with multiple initial conditions (e.g. temperature). More cores mean that more parameter sets can run simultaneously.
  Yeah, I could run this on multiple machines but the data sets are large and my code can share lots of data between threads to make better use of RAM.
2. Re:A born loser by serviscope_minor · 2017-05-30 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. I his checked the man page for gnu make and the j argument tops out at 35, so there's no way of using 36 threads.
  Yes that is sarcasm.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:A born loser by guacamole · 2017-05-30 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  There is plenty of games and other high performance apps that do scale well to the quad core Core i5. The Core i5 is basically the golden standard in the enthusiast community right now. Buy an eight-core or eight thread core i7, and you're probably wasting some money. On the other hand, the dual core i3 is clearly inferior.
  But selling 18-core CPU to enthusiasts is just insane. Those people who will buy it are not "enthusiasts". They're just rich idiots.
4. Re:A born loser by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  How far has Slashdot fallen? You have a UID below 25,000 even.
  People want these for bragging rights and other people want them for build systems. I currently have a system with 8 logical cores and I run into issues with needing more while I build things in the background (or I suppose I could just use that as break time).
  It's not just for games, which generally only do use 4 cores.
5. Re:A born loser by radish · 2017-05-30 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Core i5 is good for games, sure. But most CPU intensive apps work just great on as many threads as you can throw at them. I spend a lot of time in the Adobe apps, as well as things like Handbrake - my (old) i7 gets plenty of exercise and I'm certainly interested in 8 cores or maybe more. We'll see what happens to the pricing...
  
  --
  ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
6. Re:A born loser by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  (or I suppose I could just use that as break time)
  Like hone your sword skills :)
7. Re:A born loser by CanadianMacFan · 2017-05-30 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Even if a program can't run on more than one core it can benefit from running on a multi-core chip because those other cores can handle processes that would cause the program running time. Now an 18 core costing almost $2k is an extreme but that doesn't mean that the technology isn't useless just because your favourite game doesn't make use of it directly.
8. Re:A born loser by sl3xd · 2017-05-30 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  But selling 18-core CPU to enthusiasts is just insane. Those people who will buy it are not "enthusiasts". They're just rich idiots.
  There are enthusiasts which have setups with four and six screens, and run multiple instances of a multi-core game simultaneously.
  Eve Online comes to mind, where it's pretty normal to run two (or more) accounts simultaneously. They even have multi-account subscription specials.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
9. Re:A born loser by sl3xd · 2017-05-30 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Or users who do FRAPS, a video encode, play a game, and streaming it all to twitch...
  Apparently, you're not an "enthusiast" anymore if you're just playing the game.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
10. Re:A born loser by cas2000 · 2017-05-30 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  There are more uses for multiple cores than just multi-threaded apps.
  I have very few **applications** that can or will use multiple cores - chromium is one of them, firefox will be too soon. some games. make and gcc. a few others.
  But I do run multiple things at the same time on my main machine - mail server, web servers, nfs & samba for other machines on my network, rsync and zfs snapshot backups, dhcp, dns, squid proxy, as well as several kvm VMs and docker containers for various tasks, and more i can't remember right now.
  And that's only the background/server stuff, there's also a full desktop environment (xfce) running multiple terminal windows with multiple tabs each (and tmux running inside those tabs), chromium and firefox (and other browsers for specific sites), compiling software, and more.
  all of this is running on an ancient AMD 1090T with 32GB RAM. 6 cores, 6 threads. It would run much better with 8 cores and 16 threads. or 16 cores and 32 threads. and 64GB RAM, chromium especially is a bloated pig, and firefox is too to a much lesser degree (chromium typically uses 8-12GB on my system, firefox around 4-7GB. i have to restart both apps every few weeks to reclaim RAM)
  In other words, a typical home server+desktop box that has grown over the years to do more than it should. I'd prefer to separate server functions and desktop functions into two separate machines, but it's not cost-effective to do so for a home network. or, at least, it hasn't been until now.
  I'll probably build a Ryzen 7 machine as a desktop box soon...just waiting to see what prices are like for AMD's threadripper range and motherboards - more PCI-e lanes and more cores and more DIMM sockets. If there's a reasonable entry-price for a 10-core CPU & MB, i may upgrade to that instead and gradually upgrade it as future CPUs & RAM get cheaper.
  BTW, one of the reasons i want to upgrade is for DDR4 RAM...not because it's better or faster (it isn't, not to any real-world noticeable degree) but because it's cheaper. Single 16GB DDR4 sticks are around $160-$180 each right now in AU. Even if you manage to find 16GB DDR3 singles here, they cost about double that.
  I've been waiting for years for AMD or Intel to release a CPU that's worth the price of upgrading.
  The AMD FX-8xxx series chips were/are nice (i have some in other machines on my home network that I've built in the last few years), but didn't provide enough improvement to be worth the upgrade price for existing machines.
  (now that ryzen has been released, FX-8320/8350 prices have dropped rapidly. it may be worth getting a few now as cheap upgrades for some of the 1090T boxes)
  And for Intel chips I'd have to spend over $1200 (new MB + RAM + CPU) just to get similar, perhaps slightly better, performance to what I already have (and the affordable Intel chips are always crippled in some way - usually pci-e lanes, and/or virtualisation support and almost always a complete lack of any upgrade capability, every new cpu model seems to need a new and incompatible socket variant).
  Now with Ryzen 7 I can spend that and get about 2.4x the performance, and double the RAM. Upgrading is finally worth the price again....and with the competition, it'll even be worthwhile looking into some Intel options again (but I'm likely to go with AMD unless Intel has something significantly better for significantly less....it's worth paying a little more as a long-term investment to help keep the competition viable)
11. Re: A born loser by Brockmire · 2017-05-31 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, it isn't.
12. Re:A born loser by cfalcon · 2017-06-01 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  > Those people who will buy it are not "enthusiasts". They're just rich idiots.
  "Enthusiast" isn't "Gamer". A computing enthusiast is often interested in nontrivial multicore processing. The prices have gotten a bit odd, however: you are often better off buying the Xeon and going through the hoops of finding a mobo that has enough of the features you want. AMD's server solutions will also compete in that market.
Does the i9 come with a power station? by QuietLagoon · 2017-05-30 02:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Or do I have to pay a ransom to the electric company in order to get the darn thing to boot? :)
1. Re:Does the i9 come with a power station? by QuietLagoon · 2017-05-30 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Geesh... off-topic? I had thought it would at least be funny. :)
2. Re: Does the i9 come with a power station? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  I chuckled a bit.
  I don't see how it's off topic. 140 watts is a lot.
i9 by aglider · 2017-05-30 02:48 · Score: 1

Finally!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:i9 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Does it goes up to i11?
Intel, what have you done? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 02:50 · Score: 1

In a few months, Star Citizen will require one of these overpriced monster!

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:Intel, what have you done? by GrBear · 2017-05-30 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Who are you kidding, when Star Citizen finally comes out the i900 will have one million cores, and you'll need them just to undock from the spaceport.
People could forget Snowden and AMT in 2017 too by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-05-30 02:51 · Score: 0

Fixed it further.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:People could forget Snowden and AMT in 2017 too by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Westerners will start appreciating their Western institutions in 2017. Holy fucking SHIT.
To bad the lowend cpu on that socket are cut down by Joe_Dragon · 2017-05-30 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative

To bad the lowed cpu on that socket are cut down big time. Like to 2 channels and 16 PCI-E lanes with quad core cpu and HT on a board with quad channel ram and 44 pci-e. For a lower price you can get an high end cpu for the socket on broad build for 16 pci-e and dual channel ram.
Mid range is 22 pci-e lanes.
On amd the lower end socket has 20 pci-e + USB 3.1 on die.
All of these processors are said to support 44 PCIe lanes for the mid range socket. The higher range socket is 128 pci-e lanes with 1 or 2 cpus.
Responses from the 90’s by plague911 · 2017-05-30 02:54 · Score: 2

OMG Intel's extreme chips are expensive they said
OMG who needs those speeds they said
OMG AMD is a better bang for the buck they said
Honestly this made me happy/nostalgic but slightly sad that no one ever says anything new. Hell this response could have been canned from the same time period
1. Re:Responses from the 90’s by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2017-05-30 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think the thing to buy swung back and forth between AMD and Intel a few times since then though.
2. Re:Responses from the 90’s by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  I remember those days. I bought a 450Mhz Pentium PC back then - it was "high-end" at the time. Upgraded the graphics to an Nvida TI-4600. Everyone asks, "What do you need a PC that fast for?"
3. Re:Responses from the 90’s by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-05-30 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  I remember those days. I bought a 450Mhz Pentium PC back then - it was "high-end" at the time. Upgraded the graphics to an Nvida TI-4600. Everyone asks, "What do you need a PC that fast for?"
  Yeah, but I have a 5 year old "premium-budget" system that is still very comparable to the mid range PCs being sold today and still running strong. 1990 to 2000... you got a few extra years out of a PC by buying premium. 2000 to 2010 you maybe got a few extra years out of premium but wasn't much difference. 2010 to today. Even budget PCs from 2010 are still pretty relevant today. A premium PC from 2010 would still be a mid range or better PC today.
  Nowadays less reason to get premium because it's not like the technology becomes obsolete very fast.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:OK, I'll bite by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 02:56 · Score: 1

The target market is enthusiast PC users who like to have bragging rights about their computers.
Me? My gaming rig is a simple quad-core i5 with 8GB RAM, a 128GB SSD and an old 2GB GTX 650. Games run fine.

--
#DeleteFacebook
$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 in by Joe_Dragon · 2017-05-30 02:57 · Score: 1

$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 in past.
Amd will smoke Intel there.
Now 16 is ok for video 1 card or 2 mid range cards. But to stack storage / network / usb / sound / etc all over the DMI bus??
With pci-e storage and fast USB more pci-e is really needed Even more so with 2.5G / 5G / 10G networking.
Intel Formula by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 02:58 · Score: 1

1. Add small performance gain, 10%
2. Increase clock, but add more pipelining at a cost of performance, such that IPC somewhat decreases ]
3. Add more cores
4. Add more cache
5. Add another cache level
6. Add inconsequential limited turbo-boost
Honestly, for what most people do with their PC's, a quad core atom is more than enough.
1. Re:Intel Formula by jfdavis668 · 2017-05-30 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  7. ???
  8. Profit!!!
2. Re: Intel Formula by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Do you honestly want them to discontinue mid to high range CPUs? Is your job one of those dumb monkey coding somewhere in stupid indian jungle?
3. Re:Intel Formula by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  7. ???
  8. Profit!!!
  In this case it seems to be:
  7. Crank up the price ridiculously high
how fast by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:00 · Score: 0

can it scroll text or show a bouncing ball screensaver?
1. Re:how fast by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on how many layers of virtualized javascript there are between the bouncy-ball code and the hardware.
Re:OK, I'll bite by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-05-30 03:02 · Score: 1

What is the target market for a high end PC tricked out with these new CPUs? Don't give me university researchers crunching physics data, they don't have enough money.
If I were willing to spend the money to do 4K home video of my kids, maybe I'd want one of these for doing the rendering.
But since these aren't price-competitive with Xeon, I don't know why people would want them. Maybe there's a huge L2 cache and good cache-contention logic to utilize it efficiently across all these cores, but I haven't read the spec sheet searching for an excuse to spend that much money on a CPU.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What's the point? by eth1 · 2017-05-30 03:03 · Score: 1

I find it strange that these are targeted towards gamers.
Most games still only seem to support one thread (or at most two or three, if you're lucky), so that many cores is a disadvantage because your per-core speed is usually lower.
1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  The AI in many modern games has become so advanced that often a multiple cores will be dedicated to controlling multiple individual NPCs in game. Obviously more cores will result in better AI in games where there are multiple NPCs present in the scene at a single time. Also, games where NPC's play each other games of Go require massive computational resources and will benefit from a processor like this.
2. Re:What's the point? by drinkypoo · 2017-05-30 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Most games still only seem to support one thread (or at most two or three, if you're lucky), so that many cores is a disadvantage because your per-core speed is usually lower.
  The most thread-hungry games seem to stop gaining benefits around eight physical cores, so it seems like it's basically impossible to justify more than that for a pure gaming rig. But it seems like if you're going to be streaming from the same box, or doing basically anything else on the system at the same time, you might be able to use more cores. But then, do the people who spend the big bucks on CPUs do that? Or do they just build a separate box? Hell, I'm running budget PCs and even I've got two of them connected at all times, not counting stuff like the NAS. And they both have AMD processors, one octocore and one septacore... With hand-me-down parts the cost of building the second machine tends to be minimal.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:What's the point? by Moof123 · 2017-05-30 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Some of this is build-it-and-they-will-come. Why would a studio go to the effort to architect their game for 6+ cores if that is 1% of your customer base? It likely makes the most sense to make sure your game is usable on 2 cores, and scaleable to 4 to satisfy the vast majority of your paying customers. But if 6-8 cores become the norm, you would be a fool not to make use of that capability if you can do so.
  So while I agree that existing games will not see any improvement, I can see patches and new titles quickly making use of the rising median core count in the near future.
4. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  > The most thread-hungry games seem to stop gaining benefits around eight physical cores
  He said in 2017.
  > four physical cores
  He could have said in 2013
  > two physical cores
  He could have said in 2010
  > single core only threads are for nerds
  He could have said any time before 2008
  It's true that these chips aren't for gamers, and selling them as such is hyperbole. But its equally true that as chips become better at multicore processing, games will expand to fill that niche wherever appropriate, and that an 18 core chip will be more future-proof, in some manner, than a 16-core chip. No, these aren't gaming chips, but it is equally valid to point out that games will be designed for the powerful hardware available to them, once it is common enough. If you make a game that works best at 12 cores today, you might have a hard time selling it to a base that owns mostly four core chips, but in eight years that could easily not be the case.
5. Re:What's the point? by MrL0G1C · 2017-05-30 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think they need to expand upon different cores having different clock speeds a lot. A chip with 2 cores at 5ghz and 6 more cores at 3ghz would be awesome for both games and coding, encoding, video editing ect.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
6. Re:What's the point? by Rockoon · 2017-05-30 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Most games still only seem to support one thread
  2007 called and wants it argument back.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
7. Re:What's the point? by OrangeTide · 2017-05-30 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  The point is profit. The model for cloud computing is having people pay $N/month to use cloud applications through some cheap to disposable hardware.
  The Apple tax is not so bad if you aren't throwing piece of crap hardware away every year. Even if you manage to squeeze a single year more of life out of Mac versus a PC then you're money ahead.
  What really bugs me is some of the PC brands that used to be good are crap now. I've been very disappointed with Lenovo/Thinkpad and Alienware/Dell lately.
  PS - my main system is a nine year old Mac Pro dual booting Linux and Windows, but you can do a lot with two dual core Xeons at 3.1 GHz, 32GB of RAM and a decent graphics card (gtx970ti). I don't even remember if I have an OSX partition on it anymore, I don't really care for Apple's software that much, I'd rather devel on Linux or play games on Windows.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
8. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure what's more surprising, that OEMs are still selling desktops with only 4GB ram, or that those systems are still less expensive and more powerful than the per-user cost of running a virtual desktop. The tired "resell the same thing at a different process size" nonsense on the desktop front is still murdering the new hotness in cost efficiency.
9. Re:What's the point? by TheOuterLinux · 2017-05-30 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  My MacBook isn't even a pro version. The latest OS X version on it was Snow Leopard because that is as high as it could go. So, a couple of years ago, I wiped it out and it is completely Linux. No point in keeping an OS that doesn't get updates if you're going to need internet. I can probably get another year or two out of it, but only because most Linux distros have decided that this November is when they are dropping 32-bit. For games, I have a PlayStation. I haven't owned a system that wasn't Linux-based since 2008 and have been much better off for it. There is no situation in which I'd ever need that much RAM on a Linux machine or have ever needed Window$. If I check htop for RAM usage right after logging in, I'm only using 300 MB and now I'm working on something that is 64-bit for a newer computer that uses half that (XFCE), where as most Window$ 10 and MacOS Sierra systems use 3-4 GB. If you ever thought about making your own Linux distro, you should look into SuseStudio. I'll never go back to Debian or Ubuntu.
10. Re:What's the point? by AHuxley · 2017-05-30 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Computer games are been listed as i7, 16 gigs of RAM as recommended.
  Add in a good GPU thats needs to be supported for a low cost 4K or 8K display and or VR support.
  People who play games, make video clips, do photography work will be happy with all the software and hardware support with new CPU, RAM and GPU options they can get.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
11. Re:What's the point? by TheOuterLinux · 2017-05-30 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, but Window$ desktop gaming market versus Xbox is very skewed; you can guess which is more profitable. Hardware like this will never be average-consumer-friendly enough to be feasible as opposed to a gaming console or cloud computing on proprietary systems. As far as graphics editing goes, running Blender on a machine with only 128 MB of video RAM and 4 GB of regular RAM, I can get 150K faces without the viewport being too glitchy. Cycles rendering takes a little longer, but definitely not impossible. To give you an idea what that means, most of GTA V's main characters aren't even that high; some of the cars are. Us Linux users don't really play games other than emulators. I would argue that most of our open source alternatives, regardless of learning curve, are just as feature rich as most proprietary applications but use about half the resources. Micro$oft knows this so they trick people into using their GNU/NT Linux emulator as if it's the same thing.
  The idea of having a computer with with 18 cores and i9 sounds great, but will it ever be profitable enough as an option for the common consumer without having to rebel against M$ and Google's cloud push because it makes more sense for a company to sell an idiot a dinky 4 GB RAM, 1.2 GHz, touchscreen laptop for $600 that has to be connected to their servers all the time than it does to try to sell a 30 lbs desktop that people would rather not pay $5000 for and still have all the headaches of Window$ coming with it. You're better off getting a good Systems76 laptop with Linux and a PlayStation and just wait this whole mess out. M$ is more likely to use this tech themselves to make money off of you than they are actually allowing personal desktops run on it.
  Is Intel's new thing 64-bit? Any plans for when new architectures come out in the next decade? If you got the money now, good for you but to me, they're just doing the equivalent of the concept car. They know most people can't afford this but will go to their website and consider buying something anyway. I've been using nothing but Linux/Unix-based systems since 2008 and I've come to the conclusion that PC gamers are morons with money management issues that use dollars spent as qualitative/quantitative proof of the software's efficacy. The Steve Jobs weirdos are one thing but PC gamers are something else; sadomasochists spiraling into debt. Us FOSS users just shake our heads and stick to our forums most of the time because feelings get hurt pretty quick when you tell the truth, even when you got articles popping out everyday about how screwed-up Window$ and Hemorrhoid (Android) are.
what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Joe_Dragon · 2017-05-30 03:03 · Score: 1

what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
1. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Khyber · 2017-05-30 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  DOS.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
2. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-30 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
  Not the newest games. I heard one took up 78GB of space. Nuts.
3. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  All the ones I have. The last one I bought on Steam was 300MB.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Osgeld · 2017-05-30 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  GTA5 off the disk is 65 gig then updates a few more on the first run
5. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by drinkypoo · 2017-05-30 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Not the newest games. I heard one took up 78GB of space. Nuts.
  You can easily get even a Skyrim install up there just by installing popular fan-made content and visual overhauls for 4k etc. I'm only doing 1920x1200 so my install is a mere 30GB.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, my DOSBox folder is 141GB ...
7. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  you're a cunt.
8. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 03:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
  Pretty much any PC game you want. As long as you only want to install one at a time!
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
9. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by bgrahambo · 2017-05-30 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Oh hey, you're just the guy I was looking for to ask some questions; it's so hard to find qualified people around here. When composing a comment such as yours, how do you choose between "cunt", "dick", and "asshole"? Some people just throw them around interchangeably, but I know that it just makes you look stupid if you use the wrong one for a situation. Also, is it ever appropriate to improvise with other orifices? "You're a nostril" sometimes seems like the best insult for certain circumstances, but I'm afraid the subtleties will fly over people's heads. Please help
10. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Factorio doesn't count.
11. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose only the system disk is SSD, I think it's common practice these days to buy large capacity spinning disks to install games.
12. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
13. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-05-30 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Axiom Verge
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
14. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Khyber · 2017-05-30 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  About 1/8 of those games probably have an engine port that you could use instead of running them through DOSBox (Like Doom, Descent, Quake, etc) so your folder wouldn't be that large. I mean, yea, I've got one, and I've been playing PC games since Jill of the Jungle, but even my DOSBox folder isn't any larger than 40GB.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
15. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Brockmire · 2017-05-31 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Math fail.
16. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Agripa · 2017-05-31 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
  Pretty much any PC game you want. As long as you only want to install one at a time!
  With my ISPs download caps, I can only download one per month anyway.
17. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Math fail.
  In what way?
18. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  78GB fits into 128GB of space... Really creimer, you wonder why people laugh at you and mock you at every occasion?
19. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  78GB fits into 128GB of space...
  That's fine if you don't have the OS and frequently used programs on the SSD. On my gaming rig, I have an 120GB SSD that is 50% full and a 1TB hard drive that is 25% full.
  
  Really creimer, you wonder why people laugh at you and mock you at every occasion?
  Nope. The people who laugh and mock me are stupid. Nothing mysterious about that.
20. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  "That's fine if you don't have the OS and frequently used programs on the SSD."
  There was no mention of that anywhere in your original post. It's hard to have a discussion with someone when they are constantly yanking the floor out from under you.
  We are not mind readers. State what you mean clearly using "out loud" words. Don't change your premises five timesduring one subject...
  " The people who laugh and mock me are stupid."
  People who change their names and don't sign it up for ten years are what? Geniuses? Only because of Slashdot's TOS were you able to get it back...
21. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  There was no mention of that anywhere in your original post.
  A standard PC configuration is for the SSD to be the boot drive. The alternative configuration is an SSD as the boot drive and a hard drive to store programs. Using low-capacity SSDs to store programs seems like a waste of space.
  
  Only because of Slashdot's TOS were you able to get it back.
  I didn't want it in the first place. Because someone decided to be cute and attack me with my own pen name, I had no choice but to take legal action to protect my pen name and copyrights.
  If you want entertainment, "criemer" is having a pissing match with Zero_Kelvin.
22. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  "A standard PC configuration is for the SSD to be the boot drive."
  A standard PC configuration? How are we supposed to know what you consider "standard"? According to this
  https://superuser.com/question...
  Windows 10 would use 20GB by itself. Being generous and doubling it, well, that leaves 88GB on that 128GB drive, still plenty of space for that game.
  How are my assumptions wrong and yours right?
  "legal action"? You simply sent a notice to slashdot... This isn't "legal action" you twat. At least you stopped calling it a DMCA notice... yeesh...
  As a matter of fact, I think I'll sign up c.d.reimer right now...
23. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  GOOD BOY! Looks like you signed it up already. My whole point with the cdreimer account was to show how utterly clueless you are for someone who likes to pontificate about IT and security and god knows what.
  It's mind-boggling that you chose to sign up here with a different name you use for your precious ebooks that no one reads. It's even more mind-boggling that it took little old me to sign up cdreimer and poke some fun at you. If anything, I'm an even bigger failure in life than you!
  Slashdot's TOS somehow let you take cdreimer back, it had nothing to do with any copyrights, real or imaginary. No one knows who you are or what you write. You have JK Rowling ego on a hobo budget.
  But I have to admit, you are more handsome than I expected. I have developed a man-crush on you, and would like to father all your children.
24. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  How are we supposed to know what you consider "standard"?
  I have 20+ years in building and working with PC hardware.
  
  How are my assumptions wrong and yours right?
  A 128GB SSD has 128GB in unformatted space. Formatted space is ~120GB. While you could put Win10 and a 78GB game on the SSD, Windows would become unstable over time. A less than optimal configuration.
  
  As a matter of fact, I think I'll sign up c.d.reimer right now...
  You have nothing to gain by annoying me.
25. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  "I have 20+ years in building and working with PC hardware."
  Again, how is anyone supposed to know that, and how does it affect your argument? It doesn't. It's noise, designed to distract from the fact that you often change your arguments mid-discussion. Worse than Trump.
  "While you could put Win10 and a 78GB game on the SSD, "
  Thank you. That's all anyone ever said. Why do you feel the need to continue after admitting you were wrong?
  "You have nothing to gain by annoying me."
  Most coherent thing you've said so far. Fair enough, I'll stop now.
26. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-05-31 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  My whole point with the cdreimer account was to show how utterly clueless you are for someone who likes to pontificate about IT and security and god knows what.
  If you have something to say to me, reply to my comments.
  
  If anything, I'm an even bigger failure in life than you!
  All asshats are failures. Get used to it.
  
  Slashdot's TOS somehow let you take cdreimer back, it had nothing to do with any copyrights, real or imaginary.
  The "cdreimer" account got deleted at 9:30AM Pacific on the first business day after I filed the DMCA takedown notice. Slashdot management didn't have to think twice about that one.
27. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by EvilSS · 2017-05-31 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
  Pretty much any PC game you want. As long as you only want to install one at a time!
  With my ISPs download caps, I can only download one per month anyway.
  yea I moved from a 100mb/s down no-cap connection to a 18mb/s capped connection. Before I moved I downloaded my entire steam library. 2.6TB total. Took an entire week but so worth it.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
28. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  The "cdreimer" account got deleted at 9:30AM Pacific on the first business day after I filed the DMCA takedown notice. Slashdot management didn't have to think twice about that one.
  I think it's more likely that they informally just didn't want to humor an obvious troll account.
29. Re:what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  If he runs linux as the desktop OS, ports aren't that easy to get running. And I'm amazed how much software doesn't come with a description of the build dependencies (or a good enough one), like the dev could spend thousands of hours making the software but telling us it needs libfoo and libsux is too much work (or better, libfoo 0.4 and libsux 1.2), or it would take too much bytes in the README or whatever.
  Even doom was rather easy to get running compared with everything else, but not very enjoyable. You get something made for QWERTY (but unlike Windows or DOS, games don't scan the keyboard for themselves so good luck strafing or changing weapons with the default config) and the music doesn't work. I set up a software synth (more sysadmin-ing) and could read midi files from command line - even that is tricky since you need to configure the synth to interface on ALSA, then use the right command flag - it was something something :128.
  But then the source port (prboom) was unable to interface with the synth. I think Dosbox couldn't either but you can always fall back to adlib. (Perhaps Dosbox interfaced with the synthesizer and was slow with skipped music bits, I don't remember well)
  So, what a shit sandwich it was!
  I wish I could have an i3 7350K or i7 6700K, and a lowest end Ryzen upped to 3.9GHz would be decent as well. This would allow to spend a ton CPU cycles on dosbox, or emulators, or perhaps a Win 9x or XP VM intended for full screen gaming.
  With a 16-core or 18-core, running a VM with a powerful software GPU is realistic (I never got any 3D acceleration working in Virtualbox yet) only kvm or virtualbox or whoever need to include some such software GPU or emulation of an existing one.
  PCem does have Voodoo2 emulation! I can't run it though, because it doesn't describe the build dependencies in its README file. Can emulate around a Pentium 200 (one thread) and Voodoo2 (two threads) on an overclocked 6700K or similar. (I would like to afford "just" a 4.8GHz 2500K, just to run a subset of games I could run 15 years ago on Windows 98)
30. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  WHAT?
  so let's do this more like a slashdotter would, not like the fat retard. The win10 on my corp laptop is 43GB. Regular crap is about 10.
  128GB=119GiB
  -12.5% (if I remember right) for NTFS =104
  -10 for windows =94
  -78 for game = 16
  clean your temp often, don't use a lot of restore points, and don't install a lot of shit like office, and that's enough. But yeah, who's going to do all that so a 128GB SSD is too small. Fucking retard. Windows does not "magically become unstable over time" because because because the space it's not using is too small.
  And it's very funny that when someone does something the point of which is to be annoying to you, like you annoy slashdotters, you say he has nothing to gain. You have nothing to gain by annoying us, yet you keep at it.
31. Re: what games fit on a 128GB SSD? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  The people who laugh at you and mock you are experts in their field - who this site is for. You are an IT janitor who posts uneducated garbage, so they get annoyed and make fun of you.
  They're stupid for being highly paid skilled people, being in honors classes, and having CS degrees? Or are you stupid for having no experience in real IT - what this site is for, for being a short bus kid that couldn't make it through college, and being convinced your diet and exercise are effective despite eating bowls of fat and not being able to lose any weight after years of that. Yeah, clearly to you they are stupid - because thinking like that makes you feel better. This site is not for making you feel better - it's for nerds to have nerd discussions. You are not a nerd - you are the definition of what a nerd is not. Get it now, stupid?
Re:To bad the lowend cpu on that socket are cut do by Opportunist · 2017-05-30 03:06 · Score: 1

And me without modpoints...
That's exactly what I was going to ask. Screw cores, what periphery will it support? And, as you point out, more importantly, what will the castrated versions be like?
Time and again we've found that it's actually better to buy a once-been flagship of an older generation rather than one of the cut-back variants of the latest and greatest.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Junta · 2017-05-30 03:06 · Score: 1

For storage/network/usb/sound, going over the DMI to the chipset, which itself offers PCIe lanes is more than sufficient for most imaginable scenarios.
Video card and certain supercomputer fabrics have real benefit going straight to the processor PCIe controller, the latter having zero relevance for any home computing use.
So in the home scenario, if you *really* think you want more than one graphics card (there's a lot of downsides for multi-gpu gaming, so you probably don't), there's not much reason to freak out about having *only* 16 direct-to-cpu lanes.
Now if all other things are equal, nice to have them, and go AMD, but regardless of vendor, the above $300 choices are beyond the point of diminishing returns for CPU performance in the context of home use.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This is what will keep me on 8-16 core max... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:08 · Score: 0

This is what will keep me on 8-16 core max...
AMT, PSP, TrustZone.
All passive blackboxed threats to the long term security of my systems. Not including device serial numbers, which combined with the uptick on online purchases, or purchases with personal information attached, result in a dangerous lack of anonymity any time un-vetted software is allowed to nose around your hardware/operating system.
1. Re: This is what will keep me on 8-16 core max... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-31 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  So that is software. This is hardware? Another beauty here on slashdot.
  And CPU 'software', along with most you never 'vetted' it. Lol. 99% of us do lot hVe the time to read millions of lines of code, have access to it all, or possess the specialized expertise to review it.
  So vetting = rumor and you are a liar.
Re:OK, I'll bite by TheRaven64 · 2017-05-30 03:08 · Score: 1

We have a bunch of build servers with 16 cores (32 threads), in two sockets. These are currently Xeons, but we don't actually need any of the Xeon features for most of them. A 18-core single-socket machine would probably be faster for most of our workloads and the cache design of these looks better suited to our jobs (more L2, less L3). And these are at a price where they'd go in workstations with 64GB of RAM and a decent SSD, rather than in shared machines.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re: Apple could disappear into oblivion in 2017 to by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:10 · Score: 0

thanks to their new designs.
Re:OK, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:10 · Score: 0

I remember when math coprocessors used to cost this much money and people bought them.
Re:OK, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:14 · Score: 0

These things have enough PCIe lanes and support enough RAM that you could build a single system that could conceivably run a bunch of guest systems with RemoteFX (or whatever UnRAID calls the same thing) so that you could get away with screencasting a small LAN party to whatever thin clients you have sitting around.
High End Virtual Reality by cirby · 2017-05-30 03:16 · Score: 1

VR takes a lot of horsepower, and the expanded bandwidth and I/O channels with these chips (and the new chipset that comes with them) will help a lot, especially when VR makers expand past current resolutions.
The big expansion in PCIe lanes is a big plus: going from 16 with the current "mainstream" 7700K to 28 or 44 lanes will have a big impact in some applications. Being able to shoehorn in more than one or two M.2 drives will be fun, too.
1. Re:High End Virtual Reality by Phydeaux314 · 2017-05-30 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Game developer here.
  VR isn't really CPU bound, at least not in terms of raw computation power. You need modestly fast single-threaded performance to ensure that you can meet the 8.33 ms/frame render time, but that doesn't need a ton of cores to pull off. Maybe when DX12/Vulcan and their vastly improved multi-core utilization becomes commonplace we'll see higher core counts, but for the time being there just isn't a whole lot of difference between a $700 HEDT part and a $300 consumer piece in terms of game performance.
  VR is far more GPU intense than CPU, at least at this point. If 16+ physical CPU cores and >1 teraflop CPU performance become the norm for high-end desktops, however, I know some graphics folks that will start playing around with general purpose raytracing again.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
None more cores by PopeRatzo · 2017-05-30 03:21 · Score: 1

It's actually a 21-core processor, but three of them are disabled.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Woldscum · 2017-05-30 03:21 · Score: 1

AND all the AMD processors support ECC RAM. You need to go Xenon to get ECC from Intel.I don't think X299 changes that.
Way to price yourselves out of the market by WaffleMonster · 2017-05-30 03:23 · Score: 2

CPUs @ $999 - $1,999 = DOA, way too expensive.
Even for enthusiasts... Enough people are just not this stupid. For same money you can buy another NVidia Titan X, more SSDs or RAM and have something that actually stands to provide a somewhat noticeable improvement. Cost way out of line with benefit.
1. Re:Way to price yourselves out of the market by radarskiy · 2017-05-30 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  You price an SKU at $1999 to make the $999 SKUs look attractive.
2. Re:Way to price yourselves out of the market by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  In that segment of the CPU market price is not a driver. Dick length of the buyer is the main driver.
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
3. Re:Way to price yourselves out of the market by TechnoJoe · 2017-05-31 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you're building VM servers, like Amazon, Azure, etc, those 18 cores will be a huge boost. It means you can fit 18 one core, or 9 two core, etc, VM's in one physical machine (assuming you don't oversell CPU from the idle VM's). Compared with the cost & power consumption of creating an additional physical server, there's some real savings there. Yes, it's a bit of a niche market, but for that market, there's real savings.
4. Re:Way to price yourselves out of the market by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 19:24 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't you oversell the CPUs? :)
  Let's push this to the absurd : we'll reserve one CPU hardware thread and 4GB RAM for each and every process. Then a 64 core machine with 512 GB RAM will be adequate for web browsing and email.
Re:To bad the lowend cpu on that socket are cut do by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:31 · Score: 0

I still have no issues with my 2600K. I've had issues with the attached motherboard, RAM, and video card, but not the 2600K.
Maybe I'll consider an i9 eventually, when a real model is in the $400s.
Re:OK, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:32 · Score: 0

"There's a sucker born every minute."
-- Donald J. Trump
Re:OK, I'll bite by EvilSS · 2017-05-30 03:32 · Score: 1

One reason is that you won't need a server or workstation motherboard, which usually are not geared towards the high end enthusiast PC market.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Why Skylake and not Kaby Lake? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 03:38 · Score: 0

Why are these not Kaby Lake CPU's? A further "fuck you" to us to bought Kaby's? (At least, for me, it was new and not an upgrade.)
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by HornWumpus · 2017-05-30 03:44 · Score: 1

You will buy ECC RAM for your workstation once.
When you are 'done' with that PC, you will go into bios and check the ECC fix log, then never waste the money again.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Call me when enthusiast PC actually needs this by guacamole · 2017-05-30 04:00 · Score: 1

18 cores? Please. It has already established that not even eight cores buy you a whole lot over decent four core CPU, such as the desktop Core i5. But 18 cores? please. Call me when you figure out the Amdahl's law.
1. Re:Call me when enthusiast PC actually needs this by avandesande · 2017-05-30 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Enthusiasts don't 'need' anything they buy. That's why we call them enthusiasts.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
2. Re:Call me when enthusiast PC actually needs this by Jerry+Atrick · 2017-05-30 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're right that 'enthusiasts' aren't going to get much from this.
  For gamers even XB1/PS4 ports aren't going to use more than 6 cores and last time we tested, running single threaded an FX8370 usually beat well threaded XB1 code.
  There are workloads it makes a difference on. Moving to 8 core/16 thread Ryzen scales really well on large compile jobs on insanely badly designed codebases like Unreal. Those 'coding enthusiasts' along with video encoding fans are well able to use more cores.
  I'm enjoying being able to play CPU intensive games with those huge compile or encoding jobs running almost full speed in the background and I could easily use 16 cores to shave worthwhile chunks off my build times :)
Why? Why not? by Charcharodon · 2017-05-30 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why because I have a job and a extra few grand laying around, that's why.
Literally every time there has been any kind of advancement people have just moaned about how useless or unneeded the new tech was.
People were bitching about games being monochrome saying that 16 color monitors were pointless back in the day.
16 core CPUs just means anything less will eventually become the bargain basement processors. Once the average machine is an 8 core CPU, software companies will figure out how to take advantage of them, but they are most certainly not going to bother until market share large enough.
I'm looking forward to the next upgrade. This machine is getting very long in the tooth. I'm glad to see the hardware companies have not been resting on their ass so that I have goodies to pick out when it comes time to do so.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Joe_Dragon · 2017-05-30 04:14 · Score: 1

DMI is only pci-e x4 and when you have storage cards that use X4 on there own. you have little left for usb / 2th storage card / sound / network etc.
AMD desktop cups added USB 3.1 and 4 more for storage to the cpu die.
"Starts a Bloody Battle" by davidwr · 2017-05-30 04:18 · Score: 1

This may be an apt description once the biological computing gets up to speed.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It has Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0!?!?! by Pascoea · 2017-05-30 04:31 · Score: 1

Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0
Not only does it have Turbo Boost Max Technology, but it has the third version of it! Some marketing dickhead must have had one hell of an orgasm when that name got approved. Sounds way too similar to "Blast Processing" for me.
1. Re:It has Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0!?!?! by squiggleslash · 2017-05-30 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 is old hat, they'll be rolling out Turbo Boost Max Technology Extreme next year, and that's way better because it's Extreme.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
2. Re:It has Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0!?!?! by DarthVain · 2017-05-30 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Until they come up with Ultra Turbo Boost Max next year and then Ultra Turbo Boost Max Extreme the year after that... :)
3. Re:It has Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0!?!?! by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Intel's marketroids calls it "Extreme Megatasking". I kid you not:
  http://images.anandtech.com/do...
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
4. Re:It has Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0!?!?! by Pascoea · 2017-05-31 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  In related news, this photo of Intel's marketing team was just leaked. (SFW)
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:02 · Score: 0

2th? you mean 2nd?
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by bored · 2017-05-30 05:04 · Score: 1

Then two years in with the new one, you will run a RAM test and discover that all the random crashes/garbage you see with your XMP profile memory was caused by it being just a tiny bit out of spec.
ECC ram tends to be the most conservative stuff out there. Just because you don't see any errors with your ECC setup doesn't mean your non ECC setup doesn't have any errors.
I've seen enough machines with one or two soft ECC errors per year to be wary of machines without.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:10 · Score: 1

Says you... I get ECC errors every few weeks. Always single bit errors so the system stays up.
Also, the ECC-log in the BIOS is not necessarily persistant, I wouldn't trust it, trust your OS logs.
It's nice if the system becomes unstable and you can just look at the logs and see which DIMM is the problem instead of having to run memtest86 for (somtimes) days before you know.
There is no reason NOT to use ECC-RAM. Silent bit rot is real.
An 18-Blade Shaver? Sounds familiar. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:25 · Score: 1

Gone are the days of single-blade shavers. First there were the twin-blade shavers. Then the 3-blade shavers. Then 4-blade. BOOM! Quantum leap to ****18-BLADE SHAVERS ***** along with a cooling gel dispenser for a smooth, comfortable shave. And be sure to use our specially formulated shaving gel to get the maximum closeness and comfort for your shave.
"lying around", not "laying around", you pleb by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:38 · Score: 0

Please, learn you some English.
1. Re:"lying around", not "laying around", you pleb by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  Uhhh, you misspelled Engrish.
Re:Why? Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:39 · Score: 1

Why because I have a job and a extra few grand laying around, that's why.
Good for you. I don't, so I'm having to make do with whatever I can get given free. Which is typically at best socket 775-based, and not the fastest chips either.

Once the average machine is an 8 core CPU, software companies will figure out how to take advantage of them, but they are most certainly not going to bother until market share large enough.
Why bother only when core count hits 8, not 4, or 2?
Me, I'm thinking that most software in everyday use simply doesn't benefit from adding more cores. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that the only reason we need more than a gigahertz is because of fantastically bad software, like the notoriously inefficient and leaky browsers and the resource-hogging websites full of completely spurious javascript that have become the norm.
For note well, most functionality, say here on slashdot, could work just as well with basic HTML, some forms, and so on, to the point that all you'd need would be lynx. And that in turn means that something like the old Z80 I cut my programming teeth on ought to be sufficient to read and comment here. But it isn't, because stupid software, and by extension lazy developers and idiot webmonkeys encouraging each other on to waste as much resources as they can.
And why? The old chestnut that developer time is the most expensive of all. This isn't actually true if you factor in the total costs, like productivity lost because have to wait for the browser to get off its arse, times every single user. And since there are many millions more users than developers working on the software... yeah. But that's a hidden cost so it stays out of sight and doesn't get counted. But it's still there.
Anyhow. Nothing wrong with being able to afford a shiny! new! bit of kit. Plenty wrong with the kit being available quickly turning into a requirement for everyone to have to "upgrade" to it, whether you can afford it or not. And that last bit is one reason why people complain and in fact have a legitimate reason to complain.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 05:48 · Score: 1

Rubbish.
When you go into the ECC fix log and see nothing there then instantly you ***KNOW*** that everything was OK over how ever many years since you last checked. That feeling, right there, that's what you've paid for.
With non-ECC RAM you don't even have the ability to know that everything is OK...
What's the point? by TheOuterLinux · 2017-05-30 05:59 · Score: 2

Micro$oft and Google aren't going to ever have anything like this out of the box for their desktop environments, which means this only benefits the other end of the cloud computing nazis. They'd much rather you buy a cloud computing dependent tablet and call it a laptop. Affordable RAM has only doubled in the last ten years. Anyone else find that weird? Yay! Multiple cores! Ok, but what's the point if you either can't upgrade them or each core is 2GB or lower of RAM, making full advantage expensive anyway? This tech is for future servers because Micro$oft is murdering the desktop. Intel hardly does anything anymore without checking with them first. Meanwhile Apple, one of the very few proprietary companies with a desktop I can comfortably fall asleep connected to the Internet with, is still charging an arm and a leg for i5 computers. Good for for you Intel, but will we actually see this as a desktop standard between now and ten years? I'm a Linux user; it makes more sense to me to make what you have already more affordable and a standard rather than create another want for enthusiasts to make it possible for the rest of us. Even to this day, I've barely grazed 3 GB of RAM, and that was me trying to see what would happen if I opened Firefox, LivreOffice, Kodi, GIMP, and PCSXR (Bushido Blade ;) ) at the same time. Not a whole lot; it all worked just fine. That was my nine year old, 32-bit MacBook running OpenSUSE 13.2 with 4.10 kernel, which just proves to me that people get geeky but don't have the brains to back most of their reasons why anymore. The smart have become suckers like everyone else.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Junta · 2017-05-30 06:19 · Score: 1

Of course, particularly in a home setup, what is the likelihood that you'll need more than 32 Gbit of throughput at any given moment. An H270 chipset would hive you 24 lanes to install. Sure you don't have the bandwidth to drive them all at once and there is a latency penalty to pay, but for devices like USB/storage/network/etc, it's not going to be a big deal.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:To bad the lowend cpu on that socket are cut do by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:19 · Score: 0

Same for cars too.... Mitsubishi made 400+ horsepower from a little 2.0 liter 4 cylinder nearly 15 years ago now. A few years back they released a special edition with 470hp and 415ft/lbs of torque from the same 2.0 engine. Ford is now bragging recently about getting 350 out of a larger 2.3 engine in their Focus RS....
Not to mention they bragged about how FWD was better and how AWD was extra pointless weight..... Then years later eat their words and released an AWD Focus RS since no one was buying the FWD crap.
One of my first cars (after my Escort) was a 97 Mustang Cobra. For the same 13K I paid for it back then I couldn't even have got a new base model Focus. Nowadays you can get a used Viper or 911 Turbo for under $40K. I see no point in buying new until the old cars are outlawed or rust away.
Re:OK, I'll bite by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 06:22 · Score: 1

$2000 is not a lot of money. People were paying close to that much for their Apple IIs in the 1980s. As a point of reference, single core 8 bit 6502 CPU clocked at 1.023 Megaherz with 4 kilobytes of RAM.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:To bad the lowend cpu on that socket are cut do by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:54 · Score: 0

I'm interested in a XEON version for virtualization
Re: OK, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 06:57 · Score: 0

It is. It can be 1 months rent or 3 months rent depending upon where you live. Its a car payment.
You don't have a concept of value. People with money know every dollar counts. Its not the same as being cheap.
You sound like a poor person that maybe has no money. Maybe you have a good job that pays 12k a month. Maybe you drop 2k often. Then you have no money and extreme credit card debt.
2k is a lot of money. 500 is a lot of money. It may not be a large investment but it is a lot of money.
You should rethink your 'act' of being rich. Only poor people talk like this.
Nice try.
Re: OK, I'll bite by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-05-30 07:12 · Score: 1

Poor people don't need 30+ cores and you can't possibly be as phenomenally stupid as you are pretending to be.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I can't wait... by DidgetMaster · 2017-05-30 07:40 · Score: 2

...for ThreadRipper and i9 products to hit the market. I am building a new multi-threaded data management system that gets a lot faster as you add cores/threads so I want to benchmark it against the best CPUs from both Intel and AMD. It is not simply a system where you can run a bunch of different queries simultaneously (every server does that), but one that can also break a single query into pieces and run them in parallel. For the database functionality (just a small part of the system), if you have a query that says "SELECT name, address, zipcode FROM table WHERE name ILIKE '%Smith'" and the table has 50 million rows in it, it will run about 50% faster on a hex core than a quad core CPU with the same clock speed. Not every query can be broken into 36 pieces that are independent of each other so you will not see ever-increasing performance as you approach 36 threads, but most queries against big data will utilize as much horsepower as the hardware can throw at you.
1. Re:I can't wait... by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-05-30 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can't wait for ThreadRipper and i9 products to hit the market. I am building a new multi-threaded data management system that gets a lot faster as you add cores/threads...
  Then you are wanting Epyc or Xeon chips, not Threadripper or i9. Epyc especially is reaching for 48 cores, while being considerably cheaper than Intel's competitor. The damn thing is the size of a credit card. Huge chip. Reminds me of the old Pentium II cartridge days, though of course the heat sinks are a helluva lot bigger. Anyway, get yourself a dual socket Epyc system. If you're too impatient to wait for 48 cores, the first ones are 32 cores, servicing 64 threads per socket, with a whopping 64 PCIe lanes per socket and 16 DIMM slots per socket driving DDR4 memory in 8 channels. With 16GB DIMMs, that's 256GB of RAM per socket. Available sometime in June, they say, though they don't say if that's OEMs only or if they'll be sold at retail too. So one machine, 128 threads, 128 PCIe lanes, and half a terabyte of RAM, probably for less than $10,000 fully populated. It's a bargain. And your estimate of 36 threads is significantly under par.
2. Re:I can't wait... by TechnoJoe · 2017-05-31 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  if you have a query that says "SELECT name, address, zipcode FROM table WHERE name ILIKE '%Smith'" and the table has 50 million rows in it, it will run about 50% faster on a hex core than a quad core CPU with the same clock speed
  If you get a 50% performance improvement on a query like that just by throwing more hardware at it, then I would argue that there is something wrong with the design. For example, you could create a column "name_reverse" which equals REVERSE(name), and put an index on it. Change your where clause to WHERE name ILIKE REVERSE('Smith') + '%', and the server will use the index. If you need to do '%Smith%', PostgreSQL has some great functions for indexing and handling that too.
  Not to mention basic deduplication and normalization of row values.
3. Re:I can't wait... by DidgetMaster · 2017-05-31 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think you missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with indexes, deduplication, or normalization. It has everything to do with the ability for the software to break up steps within an algorithm and run parts of it in parallel. If you have an algorithm that lets you do task X in 100 seconds on a given core, then if you run that same task on a CPU with 4 cores (each core being approximately identical to the core in the single core CPU) and it completes in 30 seconds, then THAT is the point. PostgreSQL and other databases have been able to run lots of separate queries simultaneously for a long time. What they have not been able to do is have a single query run much faster just because more cores are available. Postgres 9.6 has added some parallel support in a few areas (if I read the news right), but plenty of tasks are still run as a single thread.
Who Needs More Than 640 KB RAM? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 09:34 · Score: 0

I read the parent and all I can think of is, "Who needs more than 640 KB RAM?"
Your lack of vision is of no interest to me. Your needs are not my needs. Your post is littered with dubious opinions, niche assessments, and a parochial viewpoint.
The other relevant quote from history is, "Why does the world need more than 3 computers?" All of which proved to be laughably short-sighted, just like your comments will prove to be.
Re:OK, I'll bite by avandesande · 2017-05-30 11:09 · Score: 1

One of the guys I follow live streams 4k video this will easily swamp a quad core machine.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Why? Why not? by UnknownSoldier · 2017-05-30 11:15 · Score: 1

> People were bitching about games being monochrome saying that 16 color monitors were pointless back in the day.
I'll calling shenanigans on this.
Everyone hooked their (8-bit) computers (Apple ][, C64, Atari 400/800) up to the our CRT TV's so we could play our games in COLOR. i.e. Try playing the Apple 2 game Gumball on a monochrome screen.
* Monochrome provided for **higher** resolution output, usually in with a vector monitor, like Asteroids.
* No one was complaining that 1-bit color (monochrome) was "good enough" compared to 4-bit color. Everyone wanted **more** color not less. VGA with its 18-bit palette and 8-bit pixels was finally "good" enough, albeit at a low resolution of 320x200.
What people **were** complaining about was that color had "blurry" / "fuzzy" text. The Hercules Graphics Card had a resolution of 720 x 348 and natively supported MDA's 9x14 font -- compared to CGA's crappy 8x8 glyphs.
In 2017, guess what, color monitors STILL suck. I want a monitor that can do:
* 120 Hz
* support 4K resolution
* support 12-bit/channel
And costs less then $500.
Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 11:56 · Score: 0

WTF are we talking about TFLOP performance? Might as well talk about disk hit.
Re:Why? Why not? Probably not. by hottoh · 2017-05-30 12:02 · Score: 1

"People were bitching about games being monochrome saying that 16 color monitors were pointless back in the day."
Did not happen in my neighborhood, still own the nostalgic original monochrome PC. Less than 256 colors sucked, and 16bit color was a breath of fresh air.
"16 core CPUs just means anything less will eventually become the bargain basement processors."
Quads available Aug 2008 from intel. Dual core is there bargain basement processors today. Extrapolating on your statment (there is a lot of wiggle room in 'once software companies...'). So 9 years from now the Quad core will be the low end and 18 to 36 years from now the 16 core will be the bargain basement CPU.
Crazy... by XSportSeeker · 2017-05-30 13:10 · Score: 1

I somewhat feel that the term "enthusiast" is starting to encompass entirely different markets nowadays... I mean, dang, this is more like rich, crazy and/or with extremely specific needs.
Re: People could forget Snowden and AMT in 2017 to by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 13:45 · Score: 0

Only things that aren't western are authentic. Here, try some of this foreign religion. I have filtered out all of the things you would find offensive, and left them only in a language you will never learn. Down with the man, and his parochialness!
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-30 19:57 · Score: 0

You will pay for fire insurance once.
When a year has passed, you will see that it hasn't burnt down, then never waste the money again.
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by tigersha · 2017-05-30 22:31 · Score: 1

Last year I bought 128GB of DDR4 ECC RAM for $400. Sure it is a bit slower, but having twice the RAM more than compensates for having 10% less speed.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
A processor for signal processing, special effects by Doug+Jensen · 2017-05-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Big AESA radars already have huge supercomputers embedded for control and signal processing. Obviously movie studios et al. need all the processing and GPU processing they can get. Lots more examples ....

--
Doug Jensen
Re:$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 by laffer1 · 2017-05-31 10:47 · Score: 1

AMD processors support ECC RAM. AMD motherboards often do not. If you're running Ryzen, you're lucky if it boots up let alone at full speed.

--
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Re:OK, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-01 23:03 · Score: 0

The huge L2 cache is not very good for anything actually : quite obviously, it's bigger and slower. It's a re-balancing act to put more data in L2 and less in L3 as the L3 traffic gets bigger with more cores (esp. on Xeon chips with a lot more than a "mere" 18 cores!). Or the bigger L2 is a bit better with data hungry AVX2. But it works. Rumors say it's about the same performance as the older arrangement or perhaps 2% better so perhaps it did a good job at not being actually slower.
In older times Intel had the Celeron with 128K fast L2 and Pentium II with 512K slower L2, with identical performance. You were a sucker if you bought a Pentium II when the Celeron with L2 was out lol!
first? guess again by Gallomimia · 2017-06-02 03:02 · Score: 1

My 17 year old dual CPU single core sub GHz desktop Mac can crank teraflops. Glad you made it to the party Intel

--
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.