Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Launches New Core i9-9980XE 18-Core CPU With 4.5GHz Boost Clock (hothardware.com)

Posted by msmash on from the meanwhile-in-Intel-world dept.

MojoKid writes: When Intel officially announced its 9th Generation Core processors, it used the opportunity to also unveil a refreshed line-up of 9th Gen-branded Core-X series processors. Unlike other 9th Gen Core i products, however, which leverage an updated Coffee Lake microarchitecture, new processors in Intel's Core-X series remain based on Skylake-X architecture but employ notable tweaks in manufacturing and packaging of the chips, specifically with a solder TIM (Thermal Interface Material) under their heat spreaders for better cooling and more overclocking headroom. The Core i9-9980XE is the new top-end CPU that supplants the Core i9-7980XE at the top of Intel's stack. The chip features 18 Skylake-X cores (36 threads) with a base clock of 3.0GHz that's 400MHz higher than the previous gen. The Core i9-9980XE has max Turbo Boost 2.0 and Turbo Boost Max 3.0 frequencies of 4.4GHz and 4.5GHz, which are 200MHz and 100MHz higher than Intel's previous gen Core i9-7980XE, respectively.

In the benchmarks, the new Core i9-9980XE is easily the fastest many-core desktop processor Intel has released to date, out-pacing all previous-gen Intel processors and AMD Threadripper X series processors in heavily threaded applications. However, the 18-core Core i9-9980XE typically trailed AMD's 24 and 32-core Threadripper WX series processors. Intel's Core i9-9980XE also offered relatively strong single-threaded performance, with an IPC advantage that's superior to any AMD Ryzen processor currently.

126 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Pricing by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The pricing though... AMD still edges out in my book.

    1. Re:Pricing by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      If that's the price of bragging rights then I'll skip this one.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Pricing by omnichad · · Score: 2

      SMP should be perma-off I'd say

      So you want a single core computer? It has nothing to do with hyperthreading (which itself is related to SMT). Speculative execution is only one of the optimizations involved, and the one that has all the security issues.

    3. Re:Pricing by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      It's not quite that simple. Both companies do all of their packaging (final assembly) in Asia, so no one gets bragging rights on that part and everyone's CPUs read "Made in China" or "Made in Malaysia".

      You would need to look at where the chip is diffused. I believe that the current AMD Zen chips are being produced at Global Foundaries Fab 8 which is located in New York. The next batch are being done at TSMC, so you would have a point there.

      I believe that the design teams for both CPUs are largely in the U.S. as well, but both AMD and Intel have some smaller teams throughout the world.

    4. Re:Pricing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If that's the price of bragging rights then I'll skip this one.

      The price of bragging rights is always more than what most can afford. Otherwise, what's there to brag about?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually you are both wrong. Intel's major fabs are in the US and AMD uses Global Foundries whose main CPU fabs are in Germany and the US. They both have plants elsewhere but they handle other products. Most other products including Apple's SoCs are made in Taiwan though under contract with TSMC who are aside from Global Foundries probably the largest gun for hire fab around. Samsung has their own fabs as well. There are a lot of fabs in the PRC and many chinese chips are made there but Intel and AMD chips aren't

    6. Re:Pricing by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As soon as you look at prices and availability, Intel is utterly naked.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Pricing by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      For bragging rights it's tough to beat a 32 core 2990WX Threadripper, now going $1730, that is, $150 less than the Intel part with 14 more cores. For that matter, a 16 core 1950X for $650 probably still makes you the best desktop on the block.

      Of course, what we all really want is a 7nm 32 core Castle Peak Threadripper, possibly going to be announced about eight weeks from now. The ultimate desktop hotrod. Still TR4, so can do the build now with a 1950X as a placeholder, or a 1900X for $353, still a highly respectable part.

      AMD currently owns the enthusiast sector with good reason.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Pricing by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      My Ryzen says "diffused in USA", which translates as "made in USA, packaged in China". Wherever it's made, the lion's share of the profits are from selling the chip, not making it, and that all comes back to USA.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re: Pricing by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In other words, the Israeli guys knew what they were doing.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Pricing by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Go watch the Linus Tech Tips review released yesterday. That is how I wish all reviewers of products were. Whether getting the parts free or paying for them from their own pocket.

    11. Re:Pricing by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Afaik AMD chips are assembled in the USA. Some in New York and some in Florida. My R7-1700 was assembled in Florida. Both AMD and Intel are US companies. Meaning they were all designed here.

    12. Re: Pricing by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      From reading, well atleast attempting to... You have 0 room to speak.

    13. Re: Pricing by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Those smart guys who were busy elongating the pipeline?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. Solder TIM? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    So Intel finally adopt something that the modding community have been doing for years? Seriously late to the game guys. There's a reason Intel de-lidding is frequently done while there's borderline no point in doing it on AMD's high end offerings.

  3. Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    For almost all desktop use.

    Unless your desktop is doing something that parallelizes really well you probably will never notice the benefits of this.
    Even things that benefit from parallel processing are far better served by running them on truly parallel architectures. You have an application that can support fine grained parallelism, why run it on 18 cores of X86 when you run it on 1500 cores off a graphics card ?
     

    1. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One last hurrah. It has a TDP of 185 and averages at 196 TDP. This Reminds me of Pentium 4 getting to 4ghz at any cost. The failure if the 10nm node isn't killing Intel... yet.

    2. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by GregMmm · · Score: 2

      What someone could use this for is virtualization on your desktop. But at that price you might as well get a Xeon proc and call it a day.

    3. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right. I am sure it would be the cat's pajamas at simulating a small network of processors and testing your program on them.

    4. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by macklin01 · · Score: 2

      Shared memory parallel codes (OpenMP) could benefit, though. Many (originally single-threaded) or homemade scientific applications run in this space: get some parallelism for relatively little work (insert pragmas, be careful to be thread safe, and test test test), without all the extra work of redesigning those simulations for efficient message passing.

      You certainly find problems where it is much better bang for the buck to throw an expensive processor and OpenMP ( O($10^2 to $10^3) ) at a problem than to throw specialized MPI development effort ( O($10^4 to $10^6) ) at that problem. Especially when the first step to any hybrid OpenMP-MPI code is to work on single compute node performance with OpenMP, before connecting nodes with MPI.

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    5. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your blanket generalization, ending in an unresolved comparison. Better for what?

      The processor is made and optimized for running parallel tasks. Chores like raytracing, video transcoding and export, photo editing filters, science applications, and web-servers generally like this kind of processor.

      I am in no way an Intel fan, but a 4.5GHz boost clock is quite respectable. I should think that it can handle single-core and low-core tasks well.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    6. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Unless your desktop is doing something that parallelizes really well

      I thought I was pretty clear saying that. Just how much of a performance boost is your web browser going to get from extra cores when it should just stop running scripts/vidoes in windows/tabs that don't have focus ? or for that matter your word processor or video game ?

      Chores like raytracing, video transcoding and export, photo editing filters, science applications, and web-servers generally like this kind of processor

      Well ray tracing is almost certainly better handled by a GPU these days, same for video transcoding. Web Server that needs parallelism is a server application not a desktop application. Some science applications certainly but if they parallelize easily and well then it's back to the GPU architectures once again.

    7. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You have an application that can support fine grained parallelism, why run it on 18 cores of X86 when you run it on 1500 cores off a graphics card ?

      Because a graphics card is not just 375 traditional CPUs jammed into a single package and just because something can scale to 18 cores doesn't mean it would run better on 1500 GPU cores.

    8. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You have an application that can support fine grained parallelism , why run it on 18 cores of X86 when you run it on 1500 cores off a graphics card ?

      Because a graphics card is not just 375 traditional CPUs jammed into a single package and just because something can scale to 18 cores doesn't mean it would run better on 1500 GPU cores.

      You really have a desperate need to learn how to read or at least learn what the relevant terminology actually means.

    9. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Your desktop is almost always doing something that parallelizes really well. For example, browsing - each tab runs in a separate thread. And with Vulkan/DX12 games now will use as many cores as you have, to feed a big GPU. The classic one is gaming and streaming, that used to be an issue before Ryzen.

      If you are compiling or doing anything with video there is no such thing as too many cores.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Browsing separate tabs really shouldn't be taking cpu at all. Haven't looked at Firefox's source but I will typically have a hundred plus tabs open and notice very little draw on my cpu resource. Right now it's pulling 5.1% on a quad core cpu with a guess at around a 100 tabs open and and at least 5 that are interactive. Streaming once again suspect the optimum use of the dollars is buying a higher end graphics card.

    11. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Play videos in multiple tabs. Access multiple crappy javascript sites. There are any number of ways to consume cpu in multiple tabs. I can only presume that you never looked at CPU consumption while browsing. In theory, browsing should be efficient. In practice, it isn't.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      And you don't seem to be clear on the distribution of work between CPU and GPU. It takes more cores to feed a bigger GPU. You go tell the streamers that they don't need multiple cores. They know otherwise.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Actually I just did that's where my numbers came from. Can't say I am ever playing more than 2 videos at a time

    14. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      And you don't seem to be clear on the distribution of work between CPU and GPU. It takes more cores to feed a bigger GPU. You go tell the streamers that they don't need multiple cores. They know otherwise.

      Yeah that's a function of memory bandwidth more than anything else. You can throw all the cores you want at it, it doesn't matter if you don't have the bandwidth. You may have noticed that GPUs generally have much much wider memory ?

      Anyway just for reference. You're taking data from the frame buffer, ideally encoding on the card using the card, then moving it out and maybe formatting with the CPU.

      You might want to look up how the architecture is actually laid out and how this works.

    15. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Informative

      You are still confused. GPUs have high on-board memory bandwidth because they use it internally for texel and vertex fetching etc. Graphics features like filtering are highly memory intensive with typically multiple accesses per texel per raster op in on board memory. The bandwidth the CPU uses to upload primary data to the GPU is comparatively much less. Unless you made a major mistake, like not populating both controller channels, your streaming setup is unlikely to bottleneck on memory, including reading the framebuffer per frame.

      You don't encode video on the GPU while rendering unless you are OK with dropping the frame rate. Another practical reason: your streaming software probably doesn't support it. This is typically done on CPU cores using the SIMD unit.

      "You may have noticed that GPUs generally have much much wider memory"... I feel that you are just burping out random factoids you picked up somewhere in the hope that you can bluster your way through trying to make a point about not needing cores. Explain it to the streamers, who won't have a lot of patience for your theories because they know otherwise.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You are still confused. GPUs have high on-board memory bandwidth because they use it internally for texel and vertex fetching etc.

      Says the guy who can't separate outcome from cause. Why they were initially designed that way is irrelevant.

      You don't encode video on the GPU while rendering unless you are OK with dropping the frame rate.

      Well seeing as encoding on a GPU is 4 to 5 times faster than on a CPU and it saves the time time of fetching unencoded video from the frame buffer to system memory. I'll be glad to trade the overhead. That is trade.

      I feel that you are just burping out random factoids

      Projection seems to be strong with you, so is feeling over actual understanding

    17. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So, crashing the party to showcase your awe inspiring intellect then.

      You don't encode video on the GPU while rendering unless you are OK with dropping the frame rate.

      seeing as encoding on a GPU is 4 to 5 times faster than on a CPU and it saves the time time of fetching unencoded video from the frame buffer to system memory. I'll be glad to trade the overhead.

      Why is it necessary to explain it to you in words of one syllable? Lose frame rate.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Thanks for showing me wrong.

      I should have gone with my first impression that you were an idiotic troll when you said this

      Play videos in multiple tabs. Access multiple crappy javascript sites. There are any number of ways to consume cpu in multiple tabs
      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      But I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My bad.

      Now you are coming up with this

      Why is it necessary to explain it to you in words of one syllable? Lose frame rate.

      And you have removed all doubt.

      You turn on streaming you are going to lose frame rate no matter what you do. The questions are, how are you are going to lose more and what is the best use of resources to build the system.

    19. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      the questions are, how are you are going to lose more and what is the best use of resources to build the system.

      Tying up GPU compute units isn't it. You obviously are no gamer. But you are a loudmouth.

      Geez can't you even get the terms you're talking about right ? It isn't the set of gamers but subset of gamers that stream.

      Instead of being an asshole, try actually learning about what you are talking about. Then you wont wind up saying stupid things and cherry picking horrifically bad examples like "Trying to watch videos in closed tabs", to show you're not an idiot.

    20. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ryzen and Threadripper have more than just extra cores. More PCIe lanes, for example. Stuff that matters for workstations.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Ryzen and Threadripper have more than just extra cores. More PCIe lanes, for example. Stuff that matters for workstations.

      Absolutely true. Without looking I would also bet the supporting chipsets are higher end as well

    22. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Did you really just type "watch videos in closed tabs"? You're losing it, go take your meds.

      No you did

      Play videos in multiple tabs. Access multiple crappy javascript sites. There are any number of ways to consume cpu in multiple tabs
      https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

      So you are lecturing others on not being an asshole, got it.

      I expect you get lectured about being an asshole a hell of a lot.

    23. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Just curious, how did "multiple tabs" become "closed tabs" in your mind?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    24. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Still don't comprehend how little you know do you ?

    25. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And you desperately need to understand the differences between a CPU and a GPU in the way that their processing actually works. Or you need to go home and spin up 1500 VMs using only a single core on your graphics card. Good luck getting that to boot before Christmas.

      "I have cores" != "I can do anything you can do" and regardless of how parallel your application gets they will not necessarily run faster or better on a GPU, a specific device designed to run a very VERY specific subset of instructions compared to a GPU.

    26. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      And you desperately need to understand the differences between a CPU and a GPU in the way that their processing actually works. Or you need to go home and spin up 1500 VMs using only a single core on your graphics card. Good luck getting that to boot before Christmas.

      You can't seriously be that stupid ?

      I have cores" != "I can do anything you can do" and regardless of how parallel your application gets they will not necessarily run faster or better on a GPU, a specific device designed to run a very VERY specific subset of instructions compared to a GPU.

      I guess you can be that stupid. But at least you looked up the meaning of Fine Grained Parallelism. Unfortunately you failed to comprehend.

      You have heard of this new thing that was invented called math maybe ? Why don't you just do the numbers and work out just how much of a performance advantage would be needed for 18 processors to outperform 1500 or say 3000 if you run 2 or well you get the idea.

      Oh and this part ""I have cores" != "I can do anything you can do" that is just fundamentally wrong. Unless the processor in question isn't Turing complete and you only need 1 instruction to be turing complete, I have core do indeed absolutely mean I can do anything your cpu can do.

    27. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      The main reason to have more cores is to be able to do more things at once. Remember when you used to be limited by your cpu how many things you could do at once without bogging everything down? You no longer have to worry about closing chrome when you go to play your game for a few hours. Providing you have the ram overhead to make up for chromes memory leaks(seriously they have had memory leaks for a decade, literally since day 1 what gives Google??)

    28. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Fine grained parallelism does not have anything to do with if something is better or worse to do on a CPU than a GPU. But since you're all insults and no substance I'm sure you realised that a while back too. But whatever I'll go down to your level.

      Oh and this part ""I have cores" != "I can do anything you can do" that is just fundamentally wrong.

      Oh wow. I can't believe you called me stupid and then wrote a line like that when we were discussing performance. Tell you what, go dig out the old Turing machine (which as I think I may need to point out to you anyway is actually Turing complete), have it process your Slashdot reply and then report back on the stupidity of your comment.

    29. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh wow. I can't believe you called me stupid

      Why is that difficult to believe with your attitude I am sure lots of people call you stupid.

    30. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's true.
      It's just that for most people the number of things they want to do at the same time is less than what their rigs can currently handle

    31. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Interesting given who it was that started with the name calling. I think everyone has learnt a bit about you today. Your other post just now was equally retarded.

    32. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      But we're nerds... Do we really care about those people?? :)

    33. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I comprehend than you have a screw loose.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      And I comprehend you don't anything about how a browser works.

    35. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your brain fever leads you to imagine that videos stop decoding when you switch tabs.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Mine no. People who make the browser could be.

    37. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So you understand that a browser can consume CPU per tab by decoding a video per tab.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    38. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      So you understand that a browser can consume CPU per tab by decoding a video per tab.

      HAHAHA

      You still are so fucking stupid.

      Try doing a little research on how this actually works and how CPU video decoding actually works.

    39. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Just in case, I verified using appropriate tools. I doubt you are capable of that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    40. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Unh hunh

      Somehow I doubt you even knew what to check

    41. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You've made it abundantly clear your technical skill rounds to zero. And you're delusional, that's heady stuff. Must be confusing to be inside you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    42. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You've made it abundantly clear your technical skill rounds to zero. And you're delusional, that's heady stuff. Must be confusing to be inside you.

      Unh hunh. Just for the fun of it, I am going to suggest you bounce your position off someone else.

      I am going to guess they will do exactly what I did, which is first try to explain why you are wrong and then write you off as the moron you are.

      Ciao

    43. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Your attempt at explanation was exactly what confirmed you have no technical skill. You're the old fart shouting at the cloud.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    44. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know

      I am not the guy who thinks playing videos you can't see is a good reason to have more cores.

    45. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So the straw you're hanging onto is, exactly one use case doesn't apply to you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    46. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      So the straw you're hanging onto is, exactly one use case doesn't apply to you.

      If that's what you want to think. it's pretty hard to get as many things wrong as you managed to.

      Just consider this tough love from me to you

    47. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm considering you to be obsessed, with a screw loose.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    48. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'll just chalk that up to you being wrong about one more thing in this conversation.

      And you're still to stupid to figure out how you're wrong except when I tell you.

      That's really kind of sad for you.

    49. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Delusional.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    50. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah you are proof truly crazy people think everyone else is.

    51. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If you are not delusional then tell me how I'm wrong. Be specific and concise, but do provide enough detail to prove your case. I bet you can't even remember what you were arguing about, much less why, or what you hope to get out of it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    52. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      If you are not delusional then tell me how I'm wrong. Be specific and concise, but do provide enough detail to prove your case. I bet you can't even remember what you were arguing about, much less why, or what you hope to get out of it.

      Nah I'm comfortable with the situation here. Why don't you use your "tools" to figure out where you were wrong ?

      As to what I got out that I will give you, it's amusing as hell watching you twist in the wind.

      Feel free to prattle on that's my last word here.

    53. Re:Fewer Cores and Hypertrheading is likely better by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So you've got no point, that's what I thought.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  4. Vulnerabilites by cyberchondriac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't see any mention of addressing Meltdown, Spectre, L1TF.. so I assume those general architecture issues are not yet addressed, this is still Skylake.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And no one running these processors will care. In fact most of the people affected by Spectre and Meltdown are likely running Xeons.

    2. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Fact is, people do care. Whether it is a perception of sloppy Intel engineering, or security, people do care.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nope. A couple of angry nerds care, and a couple of system administrators of large virtual servers care. If there is one thing that has been made 100% clear by people, their reaction to this, Intel's shareprice, Intel's marketshare, it's that people in the general case to mean the vast majority of computers users, most definitely do NOT care.

    4. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You are out of touch. Take a quick run around the comments section on any Intel vs AMD article and you will find Meltdown frequently cited. And Meltdown has gone mainstream. Even the business pages talk about it because it is affecting Intel's stock price.

      See, it's like GMO, it may or may not affect you directly but it is always a concern and a source of endless debate, such as this. The only way out of this for Intel is to fix it definitively in hardware as opposed to papering over by minor circuit tweaks, costly microcode workarounds and disgusting OS hacks. That isn't going to happen until Cannon Lake.

      The Meltdown deniers are just angry nerds like you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Frequently cited means nothing ultimately. Bitcoin and blockchain technology is frequently cited too, and ultimately it was a management discussion fad that went no where. While we frequently cite things it means nothing when ultimately business practices haven't changed.

      Now that isn't universal. There has definitely been work in the cloud space, which makes perfect sense too since they actually have direct exposure to the issue as their business model relies on having people run their code on machines you own.

      The Meltdown deniers are just angry nerds like you.

      It's interesting you call us deniers. Unlike say climate deniers who actively ignore the science I have yet to see the Meltdown proponents (is that the opposite of a denier) actually demonstrate a problem.

      I said it in another post: Meltdown, Spectre, and this entire speculative execution issue is among the most high profile series of bugs that are widely unpatched / unpatchable for a great deal of people. Yet actual working exploits outside of carefully controlled lab experiments, or balls out just prove I can copy some random bits which I can't identify as belonging to something have yet to be seen or developed... a full year later.

      So yes, I guess I am a "denier". I probably will continue to be a "denier" since it's this is the most sensibile state to be in after risk assessing my exposure to these alegedly horrible security risks.

      Sidenote: I bought a Ryzen recently, you may have seen me reference it in other posts. But fear not Speculative Execution didn't factor into the purchasing decision in the slightest.

    6. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      actual working exploits outside of carefully controlled lab experiments, or balls out just prove I can copy some random bits which I can't identify as belonging to something have yet to be seen or developed... a full year later.

      Wow, where have you been?

      Q: Has Meltdown or Spectre been abused in the wild?
      A: We don't know.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for proving my point. You just linked me to a whole series of lab experiements which require up front knowledge of the computer in question.

      If someone is in a position to gain enough knowledge about your machine to use any of the examples you just linked to, to pardon my French, you're already properly fucked, ... or your a cloud / VM provider which as I pointed out earlier are exactly the kind of people who are actively at risk here.

      In terms of security risk for the 99.9% of people out there, this ranks lower than simply owning a modem or daring to connect to a public WiFi hotspot.

    8. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In terms of security risk for the 99.9% of people out there, this ranks lower than...

      Says random internet guy, knowing better than the security researchers.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Except security researches have said nothing other than: "Look what I can do in the lab" Followed by "We don't know if there's anything else out there"

      But hey, we're all random internet guys. Maybe I should make a fancy website with a scary looking logo and then people will listen to me.

    10. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You are particularly random, and full of shit. See "we don't know" re exploits in the wild. You just go right ahead and respell that as "there are none" and go back to your crack pipe. I will go with the Linux devs, who know just a bit more about it than you and released yet another costly mitigation today.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      See "we don't know" re exploits in the wild. You just go right ahead and respell that as "there are none" and go back to your crack pipe.

      We don't know a lot of things. But generally we don't use a complete unknown combined with a low risk profile and then burn everything to the ground in the name of security. You don't know what zero days are present in the firmware of your router right now, why are you still on the internet?

      I will go with the Linux devs, who know just a bit more about it than you and released yet another costly mitigation today.

      Again what has that got to do with the risk assessment? The devs have to do this because there are some scenarios where the mitigation is most definitely required. I've said that up front. In fact Linux more than anything is the OS most likely used by those 0.1% that actually need to worry about Speculative Execution vulnerabilities.

      I trust those devs too. They are clever. They understand that every vulnerability comes with a risk associated with it, and that this risk varies, and just like every other specter and meltdown based mitigation they made it optional for a reason, because they know what they are talking about.

    12. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      generally we don't use a complete unknown combined with a low risk profile and then burn everything to the ground in the name of security

      Hyperbole. Nobody is burning things to the ground, and we are not dealing with a complete unknown. Take your intellectually false argument at face value gives us Windows and the mess that Windows users find themselves in today.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hyperbole. Nobody is burning things to the ground

      Indeed it was. Doesn't change the fact that here we are talking about product launches that are being dismissed for irrelevant reasons while at the same time you happily expose yourself to incredible risks in other ways.

      and we are not dealing with a complete unknown

      Indeed we're not dealing with a complete unknown. We're dealing with a complete unknown as to if this is being exploited in the public, but on the rest of the topic what we *actually know* is that for a normal user the risk is incredibly frigging small.

      Take your intellectually false argument at face value gives us Windows and the mess that Windows users find themselves in today.

      Wow. Just wow. Talk about intellectually false arguments. Speaking of the mess of Windows users why not look at how much malware actually affects the core OS. Let me guess, you also think that running Windows is a major risk due to malware despite the fact that the vast majority of malware spreads not through exploits of the OS, but rather though exploits of the software that users use, and the general stupidity of those users.

      You sound like a typical Linux user, smug in the superiority of the fact that there are less commoners on your platform but completely oblivious to the fact that if your OS had the Windows market share we'd be talking about how insecure Linux is because users are running "sudo chmod 777 britneyspears.jpg & ./britneyspears.jpg" like the instructions told them to.

      If you think doing a risk assessment is intellectually false please don't ever end up working in security. ... Or safety. ... Or investment where you're in charge of someone else's money.

    14. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Indignant Windows hack reacts indignantly to suggestion that Windows remains a rotten swiss cheese of vulnerabilities after all these years, news at 11.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Just another comment of yours showing that you have no understanding of risk mittigation.

    16. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You a risk denier, unlike everybody else in the picture, Including Intel.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You a risk denier, unlike everybody else in the picture, Including Intel.

      "Risk denier". Okay I take it back. It's not that you don't understand risk mitigation, you don't understand risk or the risk assessment process at all.

      But for future reference: Someone who has done a risk assessment and deems there to be no problem with the current practices is not a "denier" they are deemed to have "accepted" risk.

      But hey, enjoy your Linux comfort blanket. I hope for your sake that you never get the year of Linux on Desktop, or you may just find out how very wrong you are about the role OSes play in vulnerabilities. Right now I'll leave you to your blissful ignorance.

    18. Re:Vulnerabilites by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Whoever you are assessing risks for is in danger.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Whoever you are assessing risks for is in danger.

      Another great statement without any backup, context or knowledge.

      Hey guess what is in the news today, it would appear those Linux developers you held such a high opinion of have changed their tune even further not only allowing the Spectre mitigations to be disabled, but actively disabling them by default in stable branches of 4.20 making the fixes opt-in.

      It would seem that marginal increases in security do not trump a few percent performance gains as decided by experts. Maybe we're all putting the world at risk. Oh Noes!

      But keep fighting the good fight buddy. More power to you.

    20. Re:Vulnerabilites by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should re-read the very first thing you wrote...

  5. branch prediction vulnerability? by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    Does i9 cure, or even address, Spectre or Meltdown?

    1. Re:branch prediction vulnerability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope.

    2. Re:branch prediction vulnerability? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      If they did, they could not fake benchmarks like this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:branch prediction vulnerability? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Is sure addresses them! They're even faster than before!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  6. Just in time for Winter.. by supercell · · Score: 1

    I needed a new space heater. Now I can just pick up a 9980XE and warm my home and play Crysis.

    1. Re:Just in time for Winter.. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      warm my home and play Crysis.

      On medium settings

    2. Re:Just in time for Winter.. by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      If you wanted a heater, the 2nd gen Threadripper 2950X uses more power (TDP) for a lot less money . . .

  7. Of Course A Thread Ripper Outperforms It by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    The question is, does a Thread Ripper outperform a dual or quad core Xeon system, and can you justify the price of the Xeon system for the amount of extra performance you get. If my code doesn't support distributing processing out to the network, having a huge machine with 4 xeons and a mind-boggling amount of RAM on it might be the only way to accomplish what I need to accomplish. You just have to expect you're going to spend a LOT of money for that machine.

    I have a system encoding 8 1080p video streams to webm in real time. It's currently running on a dual 10 core (40 threads) Xeon system and has enough processing left over to do some analysis of those video streams (OCR, Image Recognition et al.) I want to test it with a Thread Ripper, which would halve the cost of my processors, to see if it can do at least as well a job as the Xeons do. I'm one of the guys Intel is trying to hang onto.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Of Course A Thread Ripper Outperforms It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The bigger question is - why the hell are you still writing software that depends on CPU for speed? Why have you not deployed synergistic cloud blockchain technology? Why are you still using technology of the past rather than distributed blockchain technology, in the cloud? Hmmm? Luddite much?

      Synergistic cloud-layered distributed blockchain techology computing is where it's at.

  8. Hello again Mr.7980XE by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see you got a fancy new power curve, soldered TIM and nothing else!

  9. As Linus said: by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- LinusTorvalds

    Now it can do it in under 2 seconds!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Re:Or maybe not by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, and you demonstrate that wonderfully. The AMD Threadripper is better for some things, the Intel chip is better for some things, and *depending on your needs and budget* each could be "better".

    Intel wins the IPCs, but is crushingly expensive. Many people would take the half price of the AMD part and be quite happy with it. Others for whom money isn't that much of an object will go with the 9980XE. Still others who need Blender, Cinebench or POVRay workloads done would be fools to buy anything but the Threadripper.

    All in all, everyone has a different need and will cherrypick based on that need.

  11. It's not the fastest desktop processor by aliquis · · Score: 2

    It's not the fastest desktop processor when it trails 24 and 32 core ThreadRippers.

    That's not how it works. Fastest doesn't mean slower.

    1. Re:It's not the fastest desktop processor by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      It's not the fastest desktop processor when it trails 24 and 32 core ThreadRippers.

      That's not how it works. Fastest doesn't mean slower.

      In the benchmarks, the new Core i9-9980XE is easily the fastest many-core desktop processor Intel has released to date

      I didn't realize Intel was releasing ThreadRipper CPUs.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:It's not the fastest desktop processor by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Guess I shouldn't be "almost reading" and answering stories early in the morning on the phone while walking the cat.

  12. 95-core Pantyripper by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'm holding out for all the cores.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Hardware vs Software by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Why will people shell out an extra $300 for a processor that is 10% faster, but they won't pay $10 for a new software program that runs twice as fast as the one they are using?

    1. Re:Hardware vs Software by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, I did. But what does that have to do with my question?

    2. Re:Hardware vs Software by friedmud · · Score: 1

      This also kills me with cell-phones. People will pay ~$1000 for a phone... but refuse to buy $1 apps to use on it. They will go WAY out of their way to find a "free" app that does something similar...

      I absolutely cannot understand this phenomenon.

    3. Re:Hardware vs Software by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather pay nothing for a pirate version that removes drm code and thus runs faster than the paid version...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Hardware vs Software by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Many do the opposite, they will buy (or pirate) expensive software because "its the thing to have" but then skimp out on the hardware to run it on.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  14. Re:Awesome! by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well, you will get fu**** by Intel. No idea whether that counts for you.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  15. Re:No Point in Single Thread Tests by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Aaaaaaand fail. There are tasks that are inherently single-thread and these are not exotic ones.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. All you fanboys need to chill by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    The "best" CPU is always the best one for *your* workload. If that's max single-threaded performance and money doesn't matter, then that means Intel, and it likely will for awhile. If we're talking about a workload that can be processed massively in parallel, then AMD has earned a seat at the table. I like the "High End CPUs - Intel vs AMD" benchmarks at PassMark -- should enable plenty of dick-waving no matter who you are. Take the time to understand your workload in detail, set your budget, and choose. Whatever you buy will be obsolete in a few years anyway. ;-)

    1. Re:All you fanboys need to chill by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      AMD is claiming Zen 2 29% IPC lift. If it's anything like what they said before release of zen 1 we may see 35-40% IPC lift. Even the former outs Intel in 2nd place. Hopefully they can get 10nm working sooner than later to keep innovation flowing.

  17. Re:Or maybe not by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Intel wins the IPCs

    Not for very much longer. And for me, like most of us, value is the decider. I'm also finding AMD's thermal performance excellent these days, and I just love how long the sockets last. AM4 really delivered on its future-proof promise.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  18. Re:Or maybe not by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    I like the TR parts but they really need to cut down the idle power, 100W+ at idle (!)

    Tom's Hardware says 35 watts for the 2990WX at idle.

    For my trusty Ryzen 1700 box, the entire system power measured at the wall is 38 watts at idle.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  19. YAY more Hz... by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    SteveJobs R&D proved cores greater than 2X exhibit diminishing throughput on Intel for Darwin. A lot has changed; Darwin included as well as MacOS X with GPU onboard processing et. al. with cores doing look ahead, graphics, memory, etc...

    Could a generous anonymous type Avie Tevenian kernel nerd step in to raise all knowledge; level to the state of art on silicon? Are Hz marketing ' Intel' real world throughputs 'Inside'.

  20. Gets hot by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Fantastic, but will it be able to run on full capacity without catching fire.

  21. Re:As do older Intel CPUs by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to assume atleast one more once consumer zen 2 hits middle of next year since they won't have 10nm ready until end of year(maybe).

  22. Re:Progress! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Define "Linux can now complete infinite loops in 2 seconds, instead of 5!" please. I have never had such problem. I have seen the infinate boot loops due to bad motherboard firmware or windows updates. I have not had either of those two issues on Linux what wasn't on an embedded device.

  23. Re:Or maybe not by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Zen 2 should fix that IPC offset. Putting Intel in 2nd place for he first time in a decade! The next few cpu cycles should should be great for us consumers! I love when the competition is razer sharp on both sides! Consumers always win in these situations. But as of today you're 100% correct and you need to always use the right tool for the job.

  24. Re:Or maybe not by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    That's one of the leading reasons AMD is considered the budget conscious chip maker. Sure you may not be able to use all of the latest and greatest features of the new chip but you can buy it and use it until you can afford the newer chipset that supports all of the new features. And it will still be faster than the old generation chip you replaced it with. If you're not like me and keep all old hardware, you could even sell it used to offset the price of the new motherboard with no downtime waiting to buy a new motherboard.

  25. Re:Or maybe not by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    That 64 core processor is going to have a hearty price tag at launch though. Not to mention the board and cooler for it.

  26. Re:LTT by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    It's Intel, did you expect anything less? Let's be fortunate we have reviewers like Linus that care more about informing the viewer/consumer than appeasing the company for giving him free hardware.

  27. Re:Nonsensical comparison. What about quad TR? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    No you can not build a quad TR system. One cpu per machine until you get to epyc. The 2 becomes maximum currently.