Slashdot Mirror
Intel: We 'Forgot' To Mention 28-Core, 5GHz CPU Demo Was Overclocked (tomshardware.com)
At Computex earlier this week, Intel showed off a 28-core processor running at 5GHz, implying that it would be a shipping chip with a 5.0GHz stock speed. Unfortunately, as Tom's Hardware reports, "it turns out that Intel overclocked the 28-core processor to such an extreme that it required a one-horsepower industrial water chiller." From the report: We met with the company last night, and while Intel didn't provide many details, a company representative explained to us that "in the excitement of the moment," the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn't targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip. The presentation did take place in front of a crowd of roughly a hundred journalists and a few thousand others, not to mention a global livestream with untold numbers watching live, so perhaps nerves came into play. In the end, Intel claims the whole fiasco is merely the result of a flubbed recitation of pre-scripted lines, with the accidental omission of a single word: "Overclocked." Maybe that's the truth, but there's a lot of room for debate considering how convenient an omission this is.
I was pretty sure it was way overclocked. Kind of thought it was obvious. They aren't working on anything in the 4GHz range so why would they suddenly jump to 5 for release?
/sarcasm Chipzilla would never resort to benchmarking shenanigans ... Oh wait.
No need to cite anything - one of Intel's engineers involved with the demo admitted as much already.
I've updated this from a comment I made before. To me, it seems like a more in-depth understanding of Intel's management in the past 15 years.
Intel's insufficient management: Intel has had many years of insufficient management, in my opinion. (Jan. 22, 2018)
Here is a comment of mine posted exactly 12 years ago: Lower prices are not the answer. Proposal. (June 9, 2006)
Intel's poor marketing: It is not difficult to find other evidence of insufficient management at Intel. Since the beginning of this year I've gotten 40 poorly considered, poorly written marketing emails from Intel. Whoever writes those ads seems to have almost no technical knowledge and no ability with sophisticated communication. This is an amazingly foolish sentence from emails I got from Intel on March 6 and March 8, 2018: "Up your marketing game with segment-focused campaigns..."
Recent background: Meltdown and Spectre: 'worst ever' CPU bugs affect virtually all computers (Jan 4, 2018) "Meltdown is currently thought to primarily affect Intel processors manufactured since 1995, excluding the company's Itanium server chips and Atom processors before 2013."
Linus Torvalds Calls Intel Patches 'Complete and Utter Garbage'. (Jan. 22, 2018)
Two previous errors in design of Intel processors: Pentium FDIV bug (1994) and the Pentium F00F bug (1997)
More EXTREME evidence of insufficient management at Intel: Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock. (Jan. 3, 2018)
Will Intel be allowed to PROFIT from many years of producing processors with vulnerabilities? Will Intel be treated like U.S. banks in 2008, when many banks profited and many finance system managers got bonuses after the financial crash?
If vulnerabilities are profitable, would Intel deliberately allow vulnerabilities in its products? Were the previous vulnerabilities deliberate? Did the CEO know about the vulnerabilities previously? Do others at Intel profit from the vulnerabilities?
So, Intel demos a halfassed SPARC chip.
Even freakinâ(TM) Oracle can ship a 32-core, 5GHz monster of a chip ...
Intel needs a gigantic cooler for a one-shot demo of a chip with less cores and no DAX accelerators.
My how the mighty have fallen.