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.
When the new processors are available in the $50 to $100 range.
Or do I have to pay a ransom to the electric company in order to get the darn thing to boot? :)
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
Probably Star Citizen, one month from now.
#DeleteFacebook
Video editors with 4K, 8K and 16K video files to view in real time and render in the background at the same time.
Virtualization.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just in time for Linux on the desktop.
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.
Crysis
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
Enthusiasts don't 'need' anything they buy. That's why we call them enthusiasts.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Is $2,000 unreasonable for the Newest and Fastest CPU?
Being that the top of the line Video Cards cost 5k.
A high end PC back in 1997 costed about 5k. Adjusted for inflation a High End PC today will be about 9-10k that 2k CPU would be about the same.
Now most of us doesn't need the newest and fastest. So We will buy the higher end chips that will make our PCs in the normal 2-3k range for a really good gaming system.
The real issue is still after nearly 10 years, most applications really are not coded to handle the multiple CPU's
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Video editors with 4K, 8K and 16K video files to view in real time and render in the background at the same time.
That's what GPUs are for.
What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
Pong.
Really, Really, fast pong.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Micro$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.
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
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
...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!