Slashdot Mirror
Intel's 9th Gen Processors Rumored To Launch In October With 8 Cores (theverge.com)
According to a new report from Wccftech, Intel will introduce new Core i9, i7, and i5 chips on October 1st that will be branded as 9th generation processors. The Verge reports: The mainstream flagship processor, Intel's Core i9-9900K, is expected to ship with 8 cores and 16 threads. Leaked documents show that this will be the first mainstream Core i9 desktop processor, and will include 16 MB of L3 cache and Intel's UHD 620 graphics chip. Even Intel's 9th gen Core i7 processor is expected to ship with 8 cores and 8 threads (up from the current 6 cores), with the Core i5 shipping with 6 cores and 6 threads. Intel is reportedly launching its unlocked overclockable processors first, followed by more 9th generation processors early next year.
For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?
By just fixing Meltdown and Spectre :)
AMD seems to have really shaken up Intel's complacent little world over the last 18 months with the Ryzen.
Thank the old gods and the new that we have a competitive AMD again. How long has intel sat on quad core cpus for for the consumer market? And now suddenly when AMD has competitive 8 core chips on the market, Intel thinks thats what the market is ready for... only now?? 8 cores should have came out a long long time ago so screw you intel holding back the computer industry.
These 8 core chips coming soon from intel better be very very competitive priced too because they still have the problems with spectre and meltdown which wont be fixed until intel makes a major redesign to their chips.
The Intel core i9 line has the same architecture and features as the i7 processors.
This is a move to show the market than Intel has something new and innovative to offer. Unfortunately the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Even Intel’s 9th gen Core i7 processor is expected to ship with 8 cores and 8 threads (up from the current 6 cores)
Current i7s are hyperthreaded 6 cores. Be interesting to see if non-hyperthreaded 8 cores outperforms hyperthreaded 6 cores.
Are these new chips going to have all the same predictive execution and related issues? Did they have enough time to do any revamping? Or is this going to be the final generation that gets a big chunk of performance improvements crippled?
fencepost
just a little off
It was launched in 2011; it overclocks to 5GHz, if I put a refrigerator on it, lol.
I've ran it at 4.7GHz on all cores since 2016.
Before that, the 3930k I had ran the same OC; they're the same chip, just without cores disabled.
They even show the same multiplier range on my board's bios, although I only run 34x. :)
WTF intel; did you blow ALL the money on hookers and blow?
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
It's not like these have ANY hardware changes; Intel has chips to sell, don't harsh their buzz when they're dancing as fast as they can.
That won't be fixed for a few more Mark Leaching cycles.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Because of the discovery of HT based cross-domain security issues perhaps?
Q2 only uses one core, pretty much, so it will run faster on a 4.7G single thread core than a 2.7G 8 core.
But who plays games on those? Or a single threaded game?
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
They need to lower the prices significantly and stop being so greedy!
They're slapping much needed cores in it, unfortunately they price it accordingly, which is a mistake. They should keep the price to the floor at this point, and keep hitting on performance.
I do some serious number crunching on a dipole model, its done on a cluster of Android TV boxes, each 8 core 64 bit, 30 of them to give 240 cores. Each has its own storage and networking, and RAM making it totally scalable. It's the performance of a supercomputer from 15 years ago. And in total it costs around $2000. Sure each box is half the performance per core that Intel delivers, but so what. Each box costs $55.
Having processors twice as fast as ARM cores isn't any good if they're more than twice the price.
Well they needed to do something to prevent a holiday quarter disaster... I imagine the i7s have had their thread count halved because steep discounting will be Intel’s only play against AMD at this moment.
i mean normally those chip takes years to engineer, so if they were already pre-producing when spectre/metldown came up... There was probably no chance to change them ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why would you buy this over a Ryzen chip? I just built up a new system, Ryzen 2700X with 32GiB RAM. The CPU is reasonably priced and pretty power efficient for the number of cores/threads.
You're thinking of that 28 core 5GHz Intel demo, with the 1kW industrial chiller under the table. If Ryzen used that much power, the packages with multiple Ryzen chips would catch fire.
Intel launches SkyLake for the fourth time. Wow.
The big problem is most applications suck at parallel processing. 4 Cores
1 for the OS
3 for the applications
Is what seems to suit home usage rather well. Having an 8th gen i7 with 6 cores with a total of 12 threads is underutilized by most applications, and will in general not run at its full potential. So you have an application that you want to work faster moving from 1 core to in essence 12 threads or 16 threads will not have mores law speed improvements, because the program is often stuck on a single core, which hasn't been increasing in speed.
The problem is multi-fold
1. Little Education in Parallel processing programming. Still this is mostly regulated to 300-400 CS classes for undergrad, and mostly designed to aid CS students as an area of study in their Masters Degree.
2. Most programming language have poor implementation of parallel processing. Threading is one way to do parallel processing their are other methods as well. I have seen languages such as MPL (for an early parallel processing system) that actually had an elegant structure of plural variables where you can code parallel processing without threads but using standard lanagues
This is psuto-code as I hadn't used MPL in over 20 years.
plural int x;
plural int holder;
int didchange = 1;
x = randint(maxcpu);
while (didchange) {
didchange = 0;
if (cpu % 2 = 0) {
if (x > x[cpu+1]) {
holder = x;
x = x[cpu+1];
x[cpu+1] = holder;
didchange = 1;
}
if (cpu % 2 = 1) {
if (x[cpu-1] > x) {
holder = x[cpu-1];
x[cpu-1] = x;
x= holder;
didchange = 1;
}
}
Locking conditions and timing all handled easily without a lot of thought of the details. Yet using all the processors.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I got my R7-1700 clocked at 3.9ghz at 1.3v solid. Under extreme 16 thread load I hit 65c with a cheap aio. He has never even seen a ryzen benchmark. Obviously.
Typically when I purchase equipment, it is on a need basis hardware wise. Whether you're entrusted to Intel or AMD as your "Go-to" it shouldn't really matter. As far as heat is concerned, if you are "air-cooling" either brand whether it's i7,i9,Ryzen 7,Threadripper 1/2, the ambient temperatures will always be through the roof even with water cooling. With that being said if someone is having that kind of issue then it would be time to open up ventilation in a "inadequately cooled" room.
On the note of decisions for buying a CPU, you have to ask yourself, do I need a work horse, a middle of the road computer, or a browsing machine. This is where "cost-per-core" will matter if you need a work horse. No matter how you slice it with IPC's, cores will always remain key for handling heavier workloads.
The reality is now with AMD being more competitive in the CPU space both AMD and Intel "enthusiasts" tend to feud over which one is best. In all honesty the "more intelligent" decision at least for me is choosing which one I can get more for less for higher-end work horses.
In essence, the real question regardless of anything else is, what do want, and how much do you want to spend. That is keeping it "real".
Jesus Intel shill much? If you actually ever used a ryzen you would t be spreading your fud.
with 5th generation bugs.
Handhelds have 8 cores because those ARM cores are slow as shit. For most workloads, you're actually better much better off with fewer, faster cores, than a more slower cores. I'd much rather have a dual 4 GHz than a quad 2 GHz, all other things equal.