Slashdot Mirror
Intel's Massive 18-core Core i9 Chip Starts a Bloody Battle For Enthusiast PCs (pcworld.com)
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.
FTFY
#DeleteFacebook
When the new processors are available in the $50 to $100 range.
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.
Or do I have to pay a ransom to the electric company in order to get the darn thing to boot? :)
Finally!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
In a few months, Star Citizen will require one of these overpriced monster!
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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
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
Probably Star Citizen, one month from now.
#DeleteFacebook
$1000 min cost for 44 pci-e lanes vs $300-$350 in past.
Amd will smoke Intel there.
Now 16 is ok for video 1 card or 2 mid range cards. But to stack storage / network / usb / sound / etc all over the DMI bus??
With pci-e storage and fast USB more pci-e is really needed Even more so with 2.5G / 5G / 10G networking.
Video editors with 4K, 8K and 16K video files to view in real time and render in the background at the same time.
1. Add small performance gain, 10%
2. Increase clock, but add more pipelining at a cost of performance, such that IPC somewhat decreases ]
3. Add more cores
4. Add more cache
5. Add another cache level
6. Add inconsequential limited turbo-boost
Honestly, for what most people do with their PC's, a quad core atom is more than enough.
None - this is for people who want to compile code, or edit videos, or ... you know, useful stuff.
Virtualization.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
More than half the market for high end CPUs and almost all of the market for high end GPUs.
In other words: Intel and AMD care about games.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What is the target market for a high end PC tricked out with these new CPUs? Don't give me university researchers crunching physics data, they don't have enough money.
If I were willing to spend the money to do 4K home video of my kids, maybe I'd want one of these for doing the rendering.
But since these aren't price-competitive with Xeon, I don't know why people would want them. Maybe there's a huge L2 cache and good cache-contention logic to utilize it efficiently across all these cores, but I haven't read the spec sheet searching for an excuse to spend that much money on a CPU.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
what games fit on a 128GB SSD?
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.
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.
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
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.
It's actually a 21-core processor, but three of them are disabled.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
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.
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.
I think you mean 7 months from now. No way do we see the 18 cores before December at the earliest.
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.
Crysis
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
1) cite, not sight
2) neither of these is even close to I/O bound with basically any SSD.
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.
> 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.
Doom and King Quest V. They need Turbo.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
Pong.
Really, Really, fast pong.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Intel recommends water cooling because those damned things are expensive and probably have a great margin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Probably eighteen GTX 1080 duct-taped together.
#DeleteFacebook
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
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.
$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
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.
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
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...
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
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
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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!
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
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
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
maybe he is really busy editing jihaddist videos?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
One of the guys I follow live streams 4k video this will easily swamp a quad core machine.
love is just extroverted narcissism
> 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 $500.
"People were bitching about games being monochrome saying that 16 color monitors were pointless back in the day."
Did not happen in my neighborhood, still own the nostalgic original monochrome PC. Less than 256 colors sucked, and 16bit color was a breath of fresh air.
"16 core CPUs just means anything less will eventually become the bargain basement processors."
Quads available Aug 2008 from intel. Dual core is there bargain basement processors today. Extrapolating on your statment (there is a lot of wiggle room in 'once software companies...'). So 9 years from now the Quad core will be the low end and 18 to 36 years from now the 16 core will be the bargain basement CPU.
I somewhat feel that the term "enthusiast" is starting to encompass entirely different markets nowadays... I mean, dang, this is more like rich, crazy and/or with extremely specific needs.
Fwiw, I hate both of you ðY
OK. I just took a moment to read what you wrote. Here is where you went wrong. You do not want to use more than 2 * core_count. This will mean you will have multiple gcc instances sharing each core and introduce unnecessary process swapping. The number you want is core_count + 1. In either case the built will not be I/O bound, and I have no idea why you think it will (C files are typically one or a few sector counts max), but you will certainly get worse performance making j too large by a factor of 2+. Good luck learning to use computers!!!!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
No a top performing processor cost 500$ or less. The products above that are premium not performance. For people with more money than common sense.
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.
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
Crysis always causes Cryses at Intel and AMD
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
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
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
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.
Yes, absolutely. Pong written in HTML5.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
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.
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).
Businesses mostly buy their computers assembled rather than buying components. So there isn't much of a retail market for Quadro boards.
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.
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
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.
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
"Approaches" is a very big stretch. Ram is roughly 10X faster.
You're doing it wrong.
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
yeah i see that, just glad i invested in that portable cold fusion reactor.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.