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.

30 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    By just fixing Meltdown and Spectre :)

    1. Re:Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      The hardware fixes for those flaws apparently won’t be included until Ice Lake. Intel is saying Ice Lake won’t be available in volume until 2H 2019, but it was originally scheduled for 2016, so I’ll believe that when I see it. Realistically, don’t expect those fixes in Intel chips until 2020 or later.

  2. This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD seems to have really shaken up Intel's complacent little world over the last 18 months with the Ryzen.

    1. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A blow to the ego, certainly, but real damage? I doubt it. ARM bites Intel a whole lot harder.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:This is why competition is good... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      I don't think GP was thinking about AMD damaging Intel.
      Rather that AMD is now a serious, and much needed competitor, just like in the Athlon days.

      As for ARM biting Intel, I don't think that's really the case. Compared to Intel/AMD, ARM plays in the cutthroat market of mobile devices, with low power, low performance, low price chips. In fact, Intel has an ARM license, and they used it to make the XScale line. It is not the only halfassed attempt from Intel at the mobile market, but I guess the margins are too low for them. Luckily for Intel (and AMD now), all these mobile devices connect to big, fat servers, where there is a lot of money to be made.
      ARM for servers don't seem too take off, which is unsurprising considering that most ARM manufacturers don't have much experience in high performance computing.

    3. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For Intel, ARM is the invisible bite that doesn't show up directly because it is related to the PC market decline, which is entirely explained by people doing without PCs in favor of mobile ARM devices. If it wasn't for ARM, Intel would be sellilng a billion more processors a year than it now does, think about it. Intel badly wanted that mobile market and were utterly defeated. They could easily start peddling ARMs themselves, but not for the margin they got used to and are now dependent on.

      Meanwhile. AMD is nice enough to not undercut too much. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford it. The last thing Intel should do now is go kill AMD with antitrust thuggery again, that would be extremely unwise, it would just push AMD into the arms of somebody much richer, and much more of a threat. A curious kind of detent we have going on now, with AMD enthusiasts the big winners.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      4.5 years ago, Intel announced it was cutting $350 million from it's R&D budget and putting $350 million into diversity programs. Just a coincidence of course.

      Also a coincidence that 4+ years later, Intel has stumbled badly and been overtaken by the likes of Samsung.

      Lesson: when that idiot from HR comes to you with a proposal for super-duper diversity that will absolutely improve your decision making and lead to higher profits as it's latest fad among all the useful fucking college intake born of Gender Studies and Marxism courses... shitcan them.

      Right there.

      You'll save yourself billions in the long run.

    5. Re:This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 4.5 years ago, Intel announced it was cutting $350 million from it's R&D budget and putting $350 million into diversity programs. Just a coincidence of course.

      You know, if you're gonna lie about things, you should pick something that a quick Google search or two won't show to be a porker:

      First of all, it's $300 M for diversity programs, to be spent from 2015 to 2020, so they have not spent $350M on it, and the 300 M hasn't had more than 70% spent.

      Secondly on the R&D, they've been ADDING to the R&D budget year over year:

      https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/17/heres-how-intel-corp-cut-its-marketing-spending-by.aspx

      "During the year, Intel's research and development (R&D) spending grew by just $358 million, a slowdown from the $612 million increase that it saw there during 2016."

      I get it, you think diversity programs are a waste of time because Western society is 100% perfect and we totally didn't have racists and Nazis parading this weekend, but don't blame a company going into the toilet on them spending $60m a year on a program when their income for that same year was almost 70 Billion with a B. That's like saying you weren't able to make your $1000 rent this month because you spent a buck on coffee.

  3. Re:What is the reasoning by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

    How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

  4. Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      These 8 core chips coming soon from intel better be very very competitive priced too

      Let's speculate... I can't see the 8 core i9 selling for $329, which is where AMD has the 2700X right now. Mind you, the i9 does have a (lame but functional) graphics core, while you must install a GPU for the 8-core Ryzen, so that's a slight point on Intel's side. Very slight. It would be great to see AMD will respond with some minimal GPU on their 8 core Zen 2 parts next year, but AMD called it right anyway: everybody who plugs in that 16 thread beast also happily plugs in a GPU. On the lighter side, I do recall my moment of shock horror when my shiny new 1700 bench build came up with no video. Thought it was dead until I noticed the fan speed changing. Then duh.

      There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen. Even the 2400G looks better than the new I7, at least it has a credible GPU. Is Intel banking purely on brand loyalty this cycle?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by lordlod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      The Intel core i9 line has the same architecture and features as the i7 processors.

      This has always been true. Intel does not design different cores for i3 vs i5 vs i7 vs i9. If there is any difference in features it is because those features failed testing, whether for speed or functionality, and were fused off. If there is any difference in last level cache size it is a chop.

  6. Up from the current... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  7. But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Fencepost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Grog6 · · Score: 2

      1. Yes.

      2. Yes, but No, they Didn't.

      3. Possibly, but this is Intel, they can release as many bad versions as they want, and call it 'Fake News".

      Writing this on a 2011 intel processor, soon to be an AMD processor.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    2. Re:But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Word is that these ones don’t have the fixes. The fixes aren’t coming until Ice Lake, sometime in 2H 2019 according to Intel (or, more realistically, 2020, given that it was originally scheduled to launch two years ago).

  8. My E5-1680 V2 has 8 cores, and HT... by Grog6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  9. More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:More cores by gTsiros · · Score: 2

      what's the perf/price compared to an amd64 or gpgpu solution?

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  10. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    i9 is just a marketing gimmick, replace the current naming convention with the following and you'll know what you're really getting

    i9 = i7
    i7 = i5
    i5 = i3
    i3 = Celeron

  11. Re:What is the reasoning by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Have you forgotten about Spectre and Meltdown already? That's why they're not hyper-threaded.

    Brilliant, so that's why i9 is not hyper-threaded? Oh wait.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. Re: Ryzen by JohnNemesh · · Score: 2

    I just built a similar system. Ryzen 2700x, 32GB 3200mhz ram, 1tb Samsung pro 970 nvme drive, vega64...all water cooled. The system SCREAMS! Intel might have a few points of single threaded performance up on my system, but I doubt anyone sitting down at my system could even tell the difference!

  13. Re:What is the reasoning by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

    The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. In essence by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel launches SkyLake for the fourth time. Wow.

    1. Re:In essence by sinij · · Score: 2

      Insofar as marketing goes, these are all different CPUs. Insofar as performance goes, all these are about the same since Haswell.

  15. Most software sucks a parallel processing. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The big problem is most applications suck at parallel processing.

      Literally the only applications which require a lot of CPU time which the average user is likely to encounter which fit this description are games. While games are now usually multithreaded, they are typically not sufficiently multithreaded to highly utilize many cores. One exception might be ports from modern consoles, which seem to have six or so cores available to the application. Console games which fully utilize the hardware ought to benefit from having multiple cores available on the PC as well.

      The only other thing that the average user might actually do on their PC is work with graphics, and most graphics applications people actually use for processing large graphics files are aggressively multithreaded. They scale to many cores very well. Another possible example, though probably used by many less people nowadays, is data compression. File compressors are also highly multithreaded now. But most people don't deal with compressing large data unless it's image or video data, and most people don't use raw images or video so the compression is built into the file format, and its CODEC.

      As nerds, we may also be compiling software, which is a highly parallelizable process.

      So, what is it that you imagine that users are doing that doesn't scale highly linearly as you add cores, unless it is I/O limited?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:What is the reasoning by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

    How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

    With current web browsers, at least 8. </obligatory>

  17. Re:What is the reasoning by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

    "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

    The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

    You mean the ability to disable Microsoft.

    That I already have: Linux works fine for most things.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.