Intel i9 18 core announced

Some interesting price drops too by the looks of things.

Source:
https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/Intel-Core-X-series-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Pricing table:
http://www.rappler.com/technology/news/171423-intel-core-x-i9-processor-x-series-computex

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ging-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999

 

Interesting indeed. i9 CPUs come mostly about 100-300$ on top of Ryzen 7 and the upcoming Ryzen 9 (except the 18-core, that one is overpriced as ****). If performance is similar or slightly better, competition will be really intense. Though I still find 600$ for an 8-core absurd due to the existence of the Ryzen 7 1700 at 310-320$, which is also unlocked and OC-able to 4GHz.

 

Add the hundred bucks or two that the HEDT platform motherboards usually cost over the other sockets...

 

True - B350 boards are less than half the price of X99 boards. I expect no less from X299. Overall - pure performance, probably i9. Much better value - Ryzen or Threadripper.

 

i wish i could stuff one of these in my M18x

 

Time to upgrade to the GL702ZQ?
8-core Ryzen inside.

 

Intel cut the prices on the Chips vs BWE but the Quality deliverance also drastically dropped. They saved a ton of dollars on that IHS metal solder & offering the gimped 23 lane 8C HEDT i7 which is worst over than Ivy E+ i7 which had 40 lanes now pay more for the i9 and more lanes with this ^ do your own TIM job too which adds more cash into your budget and warranty gone on top of that.

Intels greed needs to be stopped and choked, for that we need the AMDs 64 lane Threadripper..
https://puu.sh/w5jID/f2992c6dc2.png

 

Ashtrix, Intel doesn't build something it can't sell... the market determines what it can charge in the end, after all. The 'greed' is just as much on the buyer as it is on the seller...

Threadripper may or may not be a threat or wakeup call to AMD. When it is finally delivered, it will speak for itself then (as well as it can).

 

Isn't it obvious that every company does this analysis ? But paying more for consumer doesn't play well since it's the mass crowd that decides the worthiness of the product, The greed and wanting no downgrade are different for consumers and the longevity when you are buying something, not just computers. Corporate greed is something different, Look at the MFi program. Max Q, Various cost cuttings, Intel's Socket lineup Z170-Z270-X299-Z370-Z390 in which 4 are the same mainstream, just now because of the competition we will be seeing hexacore mainstream, Still doesn't justify it.

Intel is very happy to let people void their warranties on a 1 grand and up CPUs. Which is absurd and a nasty practice.

 

Nah, you have a very twisted view of things. Intel can't control who voids their warranty and who doesn't. No company does.

The other (very confusing to read, I may add...) point(s) you're trying to make don't negate what I said above.

What will sell will be a benefit for the buyers (else; they'll return it...). What is charged is also a two way street...

Intel may be the goliath most here want to knock down - but it is Intel that has provided the world what they needed for the last decade or so. Even if we all wished that they did so at much lower prices.

 

Hey, both Intel and AMD are the same about overclocking. We will let you but you void the warranty. This is nothing new and it has been this way for a very long time.

 

I meant the CPU IHS solder. Any sensible person knows Z170 & 270 chips need delid for OCing and with HEDT it wasn't needed due to the solder. But now with the "traditional" paste same audience will delid their HEDT CPUs.

 

Intel has previously said people shouldn't de-lidde their 7700K chips, as well you shouldn't overclock unlocked chips. And now start pushing out $1-2K chips with no more solder under IHS. And same time advertising how you can overclock them. Intel's double moral!!

 

Agreed, they stumbled on the thermal media. This is a separate issue of O/C and warranty as that has always been the case. But agreed too they should not taught a capability they obviously designed it not to have. I mean would you buy a car where it came off the lot with only water in the radiator system?

 

Double moral? Maybe not...

See:
http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

 

From the article. Of course I have seen it before .... Depends on the Die size.


And the Intel Skylake-X CPU Die is HUGE. But as yooo probably know... Der8auer design and sell own Delidde tools See also www.gamersnexus.net talk about solder vs. paste. We ain't finish with this discussion. Will be a long live topic on the web For the records... AMD use solder. Maybe they have-use the wrong Engineers?

 

To somewhat distinguish that test methodology, the operating range of CPUs is not -55C to 125C though. With reference to absolute zero at -273C, that represents an increase in temperature, 220K to 400K, of about 90%

I wonder how restricting the variation to normal operating CPU temp of 40C - 90C (310K-360K or ~15%) changes those microfracture results I would think they'd be much much less.

Regardless, the proof will partly come only when we look in hindsight at the failure rate of Ryzen

 

This video has some good thoughts on Intel's confusing X299 i9 rollout - it gets interesting after Linus walks out of the vendor suite to talk about the controversial stuff, at about 3:39.

I have some things to say - Core i9 & X299

 

All due AMD. And I loved this rambling

 

The X299 rollout isn't confusing for any enthusiast with grade school education. This video was a waste of 15 minutes.

He sums it up himself when he says he's not frustrated by what Intel is doing - he's frustrated for his own (imagined) reasons for why Intel is doing it. If he had stated this at the beginning of the video; there would be no point to see/hear anything more. Opinions are great - but his bias is showing...

Everyone else will just pick and choose the processor, M/B and other components as they see fit. No frustration needed - all the info to decide is out there already (contrary to what info AMD has so far). Will it be pricey? Sure. But if anyone is seeking higher/peak performance - then hopefully they're smart enough to know it will come at a cost.

 

Intel’s 18 Core Skylake-X Won’t Be Available Until Next Year – 14 & 16 Core Parts To See Delayed Availability-Wccftech.com

Intel Was Clearly Blindsided By AMD’s Threadripper
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that Intel had always intended to continue its incrementalism had it got the chance. To date and for the past decade we had only seen Intel leverage its LCC dies for its high-end desktop platform. The fact that the company is going to be leveraging an HCC Xeon die for its high-end desktop platform for the first time, nearly doubling the core count of its flagship CPU after years of incrementalism, speaks volumes. And the fact that these parts will see delayed availability tells us Intel was caught off guard and was clearly not ready for AMD’s Threadripper surprise.

 

The point of the video is the knee jerk reaction from Intel, not so much what does or does not make sense. You comments ear deleted because you insist on taking the other post out of context and bringing the platform or parts of it to bear. Stick to the context and on topic.

 

Uhm, again; no.

Even today; there are very few workstation (i.e. single user) workloads that benefit significantly from more than 4C/8T when 'value', 'budget' and 'efficiency' are just as important as the performance gained.

AMD's TR and Intel's 18C36T 'surprises' are both equal right now. No shows.

When can we say Intel was caught by surprise? When AMD delivers and Intel's 'answer' is too little too late.

Right now? I'm still voting Intel all the way - mostly because of their whole platform, long term approach - not just the theoretical superiority or inferiority of their processors (which is just a part of a whole).

 

I understand the entire video was over several points. Please discuss those points over various threads where the context of those points belong. Your point here is six of one a half dozen of another. I agree here 4C/8T as compared to TR and 18C/36T are a no show in either case. By that Blender demo though it does appear TR is allot closer to real life silicon, just sayin'.

Edit;
My other point is they will take current Xeon tech and port it to a consumer chip. I do not know how they will take a current E5-2699 at 2.3 GHz with turbo at 3.6 GHz and 145w TDP and make a 4.0+ GHz chip at 180w.

http://ark.intel.com/products/81061/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2699-v3-45M-Cache-2_30-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_70-GHz

 

TANWare, assuming they're basing it on your guess of the E5-2699; I don't know either, except to say that it would just be based on current Xeon tech with additional tweaks applied (with those additional changes making all the difference).

Just bolting on more cylinders to an engine block isn't usually a satisfying or worthwhile experience. The same can be said of cores in a processor too.

 

These are the current Xeon's. While I am sure there is tweaking to do and features to cut I don't see where the headroom will be to make a chip with the TPD's they are looking at and keep the GHz up to current levels. This is why I chose 18C/36T Xeon's to use as a Base. They have given themselves 9-12 months to get this but I do not see it. Then again in that same time processes can change and maybe we even will see 10nm as an example. Allot can happen in that time and my guess is this is what they are banking on.

 

Intel’s Core-X Series Will Be Seeing Staggered Launch: Core i9-7900X and Below Ready To Launch, Core i9-7920X Through i9-7980XE Delayed-Wccftech.com

"Intel’s public documentation about the Core-X series confirms this. Firstly, the Core-X specifications document clearly states that only the Core i9-7900X (10-Core) and below are available right now with the Core i9-7920X and above coming ‘soon’. Secondly, Intel’s official ARK portal only lists processors up to the Core i9-7900X in the Core-X series. This has troubling implications because it means Intel did not even have enough configuration details to do a paper launch. This is something that is confirmed by the fact that all but the most broad specifications of the Core i9-7920X and above are TBD."

"So just what is going on? Intel has apparently announced 12 core to 18 core parts that don’t even have finalized specifications right now. This isn’t their usual style and is in stark contrast with their CEO’s confidence that they could tackle AMD’s Zen based platforms. In fact, there is every reason to believe that Core-X processors above the 10 Core mark were thrown in as a last minute decision to counter AMD’s ThreadRipper announcement last month. So if you are to look at only the processors that Intel actually announced a week ago, it would be only the Core i7-7640X, Core i7-7740X, Core i7-7800X, Core i7-7820X and the Core i9 7900X."

Call it what it is.... Panic!! Bad workmanship!!

 

More speculation and wild guesses.

I'll add mine here...

With TR announced with no further details; Intel is doing the same thing back to AMD. I like where this is going. If both can work overtime and produce something the other side doesn't have (or, at least announce, for now...) - and in the end one or both of them actually deliver it - win for all.

A cat and mouse game has started with Intel playing the cat (imo) because I would find it hard to believe it can't deliver what it is promising for now...

My predication is that as more details become available for TR, Intel will be more forthcoming with their plans too.

Honestly, this seems to have backfired for AMD... they shocked the world with TR but without delivering specs or systems - Intel is open to play the same game until they do.

I just hope that anyone considering these high core count monsters actually test them in their own workflow first - nothing has changed on the O/S and/or Programs side of the equation. Will the mass availability of high core count processors (HCCP) nudge programmers and O/S makers to push on that front? No doubt. But when that time comes when current HCCP become worthwhile for the masses - the future versions of today's platforms will be infinitely more desirable, overall.

Most anyone today with an i7 QC of current gen platform with 32GB/64GB RAM or more and an SSD and/or Optane setup should just ignore all the current hype for workstation workloads (i.e. single user workflows).

Some (actually; a very few) will benefit from a HCCP today. But they already know who they are.

Intel does have the configuration details to publish a paper launch, but with AMD in the position they've set themselves in; why should they?

When AMD offers something more concrete than the theatrically named Threadripper for people to buy and test, Intel will be in the favorable position to offer something with just that much more.

Just over a decade ago Intel, a young teenager, took a beating from an elementary school kid.

I believe the lesson(s) they've learned since have sunk in.

Could I be wrong. Yeah.

But Intel is nothing if not stronger, better and faster today than back then. It still offers the best performance of any available consumer platform (period).

No, this isn't their usual style at all. They are confident that they can have some fun with the competition - and still come out ahead at the end too.

Panic? Bad workmanship? Nah...

More like a game of big boys bluffing, I think.

I just hope behind the bluffs there is substance on both sides - then no matter who the 'winner' is in the end; the grand prize winner is all of us.

Take care and enjoy the show.

 

I do not think it bluffing but calculated one ups man ship. Intel knows where the 1800x is now. Without 14nm+ or Zen+ the TR will bench and be no better than twice as fast as that. I am sure since they already make up to 22 core Xeon's that they know where they need to go to beat that. Now it is a matter of them getting there. My only worry again is can they strip the Xeon's as needed to squeeze the 4.0+ GHz they most likely will need and stay in TDP. Of course the other concern is what feature sets will be available to each iteration of CPU.

Edit; you have to see they are claiming 4.5 GHz on Turbo boost 3.0, so yes this is a major task in front of them. The other side of the fence is if it is so easy to get that extra speed how many Xeon consumers will be upset that Intel has been holding out with their top tier CPU's and speed offerings.

 

Exactly But one thing has to be said... Intel would not have come out with the so-called big boys if it had not been for AMD

Sorry that I repeat my self, but also for this... Exactly

 

@tilleroftheearth
You are missing allot here with these high core count systems. Intel is even taking steps to prevent x299 from cutting into its own Xeon market. AMD though does not have these hindrances.

With TR many people will have access to systems that can act as servers at performance levels previously in the unaffordable range. This will be true for small businesses as well. Even Ryzen 7 systems will most likely replace some of those older quad core systems out there being used now.

Not every one out there needs an Epyc. That kind of performance is more reserved for higher end servers. TR should suit many of those tasks and we may find at some point starts cutting into that Xeon market Intel is so keen to protect with Raid keys and the like.

 

Tech preview: Intel Core i9 Skylake-X processors - Intel Core-X processors announced-Guru3.com

"It has been a bit of a mess with Intel, I can honestly say that. Here in the EU Intel has killed all marketing, press and PR activities. Hence media all over Europe is not receiving any information from Intel anymore, that’s the same samples wise, Intel does not seed samples for review anymore."

"IPC has been improved meaning the number of instructions per clock-cycle have been improved. According to Intel, Skylake-X will see an up-to 8% perfofmance increase in IPC. It’s always hard to tell how correct that number is, as Intel in the past simply increase clock frequencies and called that an IPC increase."

 

Thanks TANWare, but within the limitations of my remarks; I'm not missing much of anything of significance.

We all have 'access' to high powered, low cost performance vehicles too - not too many take up the manufacturers up on them though...

Just because something is an option/available doesn't means it is a good choice (automatically).

The RAID keys and the like will go away eventually (I certainly won't be paying for a single one (ever); even if the performance and/or other aspects prove beneficial for me), but they'll charge for them while they can.

This is posturing and posing from both sides now. I'm not acting on anything, yet.

When actual hardware is available from both sides - and I'm at a point where I want/need to upgrade from where I'm at then - then I'll make a real decision and put more than a few seconds thought into these 'future' developments.

You're correct that not everyone needs Epyc.

My point is that right now, not everyone needs or will benefit (even slightly for the large increase in $$$$) with anything above an i7 QC with an appropriate amount of RAM (32GB or more).


Besides, there are other forces in the market that will change everything we know today (or think we do) in a very short time (possibly circa 2021).

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-alliance-5nm-gaafet-chip,34661.html

A lot of people here may not think that the 2021 timeframe is worth considering today. The future will prove who was right about that or not.

With a 75% reduction in power consumption and a 30B transistor chip - the promise of TR and the like will be a reality not just for servers, but for notebooks too (i.e. efficient and cool too).

Is a HCCP important to me? Yeah; maybe in a NAS right now.

See:


But in a workstation (mobile or desktop)? I don't see too much use for one even with my workflows.

 

This!!! Is not yoo bruh J/K


Btw. More mess from the Intel camp... Not what I wanted!! Now will Intel also let AMD rule the power with Ryzen 8 cores in notebooks also. But I can wait. No hurry
Intel Coffee Lake CPUs Delayed to 2018, 8th Gen Gets Kaby Lake Refresh This Year-Wccftech.com

 

Intel thought with all the delays on Ryzen that when it dropped it would be nothing. Now they are freaked and acting erratic. They need to sit down, regroup, and form a strategy forward. Cannonlake is already in the books, as is coffee lake. The high core count SL-X is taped out. Cannonlake-X is about to tape out, if it hasn't done so recently. They need to just take the hit. That's all. Don't freak out, don't screw up scheduling by massaging fab time or rushing. Just take the hit (and the hit WILL HURT). It's OK. Do what you can on coffee tweaks and cannonlake. It's fine. But, this is where they have to focus on Icelake, 10nm+ design. They already saw AMD can hit. They know that will be going against 7nm Zen2 and maybe partly 7nm+ Zen3. No one knows how good AMDs refinements on process will be.

What they do know is they need a grand slam, not just gimmicks. Gimmicks are short term razmatazz. That cannot float them forever. If they screw up too much in the short term, whether by the me too core count, the proprietary raid lock, the announce but mislead as it won't be here for a year, etc., they will turn off some consumers. So, taking the fight to AMD on non-taped out products, which are positioned for an even harder fight, is where they should focus, not marketing. With FIVR integration, they already are redesigning a fair amount. They may need to go less power efficient to take the boost in performance.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I wonder how much the Intel contracted Fab's will be concerned with Intel's quantity projections (delivery contract promises) not meeting projections - which means losses for the Fab's as well as Intel.

Intel may find they are put behind other more likely profitable production items in the schedules, further exacerbating the losses.

You gotta believe there's gonna be a lot of collateral damage from Intel going down, there will be a lot of fallout as partners abandon Intel's ship, and pay more attention either to Ryzen or other mobile CPU work.

 

imo since i was originally planning to go desktop this time around, i believe x299 mobo already supports raid0 via cpu lanes without having to go through chipset. you only have to pay for the raid key if its raid 1/10/5 i believe.

two intel optane SSDs in raid 0, all problem solved.

 

We need a i9 vs ThreadRipper, or Intel vs. AMD thread as 1/2 of the discussion is OT in either thread.

This one starts with i9, so here it is...

Core i9 vs Threadripper, Expensive RAID, Nvidia Max-Q, and the Radeon shortage | The Full Nerd Ep 24

 

If the "new" Optane releases are supported on x299...

 

I bet they will be, I mean it's Intel technology.

 

By new "Optane" release's I meant beyond the M.2 PCIE x4 storage, which will even work in AMD builds.

There's supposed to be a new connection between Intel RAM and CPU not CPU and storage, which may appear to be a fine distinction, but PCIE x4 M.2 just isn't fast enough to take Optane as far as it's promised speeds.

 

Intel Core i7-7800X and Core i7-7820X CPU Benchmarks Leaked, Compared To Ryzen – End Up Much Faster in Single and Multi-Threading, Core i9-7900X Performance Detailed Too.wccftech.com

"While the overclock speeds of both chips are different, it shows that Intel does provide higher overclock headroom compared to Ryzen parts which top out at 4.1 GHz on air and just a couple 100 MHz over 5 GHz using LN2."

I'm not interested in chips who top out at 4.1 GHz. Not my cup of tea Sorry AMD

 

the m.2 optane cache drive isnt intel's first optane device though, their first is P4800X HHHL pcie card, so yes it'll work on x299. also what asus stated with their card was that, you can use SSDs other than intel's SSD its just that they won't be bootable, only intel's SSDs are bootable and raid capable via cpu lanes.

btw you were at computex right? anything new for flagship from clevo and MSI?

PCIE 4, upcoming m.2 pcie 4 x 4 lanes SSD http://www.tomshardware.com/news/silicon-motion-pcie-4.0-2018,34660.html#sthash.l2sOVsIx.gbpl

 

Thanks, but again, I am not talking about M.2 PCIE x4 or boards that are PCI-E x4.

I'm talking about most likely x8 / x16 speeds, perhaps a new protocol and physical interface which probably needs a new motherboard chipset + new motherboard (of course).

Which is why I don't think an X299 is a good long term solution.

 

Yes, correct. That is how I understand it too.

 

I think it's going to be more for enterprise users with parallel processing needs while Intel still dominates with people who need single core performance.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...99-vs-x399-vega-vs-volta-xeon-vs-epyc.805695/
This solves the issue. We can fully explore all of what we want to compare here without any complaints and it not going off topic. Just don't thread crap or troll!

 

Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-11.html
So, tom's could not do above 4.6 on the 10-core, so went with a water chiller.

Edit 2: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_7900x_processor_review,22.html

"Issues - Hardware P states
I won't lie, the past two weeks with the Core i7 7900X and the X299 boards I have tested have been an absolute challenge. Memory XMP profiles would not stick, power consumption with one BIOS was OK, the other through the roof. But most of all the processor performance was all over the place. We've seen perf differences of up-to 20% in-between merely different motherboards. MSI however with it's latest BIOS seems to have found equilibrium. Now the biggest fight the two weeks was ironically game performance, it was severely lacking. Example a platform like this should run Rise of the Tomb Raider at 140 FPS at 1080p on a GeForce GTX 1080. We'd end up at 90~100 FPS. And that problem occurred with pretty much all games. I have been discussing this with the motherboard partners (as yes it is widespread) and we all agreed, it has everything to do with 'hardware P states' that Intel recommends to leave enabled for the new platform. Intel recommends certain power states to keep the TDP in line, as otherwise they simply cannot achieve that 140W TDP. For most overall tests that worked out okay enough, but specifically the toll on game performance was abysmal. Days before this launch MSI however released and provided a new BIOS, this restored the performance to what it needs to be. But as you have been able to see, the power consumption is certainly on that high-side. In the end though, the performance is there, but we do expect several BIOS updates that will have an effect in performance overall, in gaming and on power-consumption. "

"Two things I find to be significantly bothersome, this launch is clouded by too many architectures and processors that really haven't been released. You can choose from 4 to 10 cores, which is fine. However Intel went big with announcement on 12, 14, 16 and even a 2000 USD 18-core part. The 12-core version should see the light next month, however the last three are nowhere to be found and I am starting to doubt that you'll see them anytime soon. The latest indication is October. Sure perhaps a review here and there to show off that Intel can do it. But retail availability? I don't know man. So this all is cloudy and confusing really."

 

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review

Those that complained about the CCX latency!

 

Here is the review roundup (just collection of all review links) from WCCFTech:
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-x-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-cpu-review-roundup-x299-platform/

Edit:

Anandtech Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i7-7820X
Intel Core i7-7800X Skylake-X ASRock X299 Taichi
MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon
GIGABYTE X299 Gaming 9
Hothardware Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i7-7740X Skylake-X
Kaby Lake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
Coolaler Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i7-7740X Skylake-X
Kaby Lake-X AORUS X299 Gaming 7
Techbang Intel Core i9-7900X
Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
Overclock3D Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X ASUS X299-A Prime
PCOnline Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
PCPer Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
Tomshardware Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Tech Report Intel Core i9-7900X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
TweakTown Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X AORUS X299 Gaming 9
Guru3D Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X MSI X299 GAMING Pro Carbon
PCWorld Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
Hardware.info Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
4Gamer Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X ASUS ROG STRIX X299-E GAMING
Mobile01 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X ASUS Prime-X299 Deluxe
HardwareCanucks Intel Core i7-7740X Kaby Lake-X ASUS ROG STRIX X299-E GAMING
Vortez Intel Core i7-7740X Kaby Lake-X AORUS X299 Gaming 3
Expreview Intel Core i7-7740X Kaby Lake-X AORUS X299 Gaming 7
Bit-Tech Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Not Mentioned
Hexus Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X Not Mentioned