OCN1
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Intel's massive 18-core Core i9 chip

  1. #1
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    566

    Intel's massive 18-core Core i9 chip

    Didn't see this posted but delete if it is. Was considering AMD but will look hard at this chip!
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/31984...siast-pcs.html

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hungary, Budapest
    Posts
    31
    Well, considering that this chip is rumored to be 2000$ I think the Threadripper 1998 for 1000$ is still a nice option for 90% of the performance. Since ASUS teased the Zenith Extreme mobo this time around that (the mobo side) won't be a limiting factor for the AMD platform either. Besides nobody knows how many CCX-es are under the hood in Threadripper, so we might see AMD doing a hattrick and coming up with a 24 core chip just to have the absolute performance crown in the desktop segment (BTW the Sklyale-X HCC die appears to be holding 20 cores) .
    2 x ES Intel Xeon E5 2680v2 @8cores/16threads/25MB L3 cache @ 3,4 Ghz | Asus Z9PE-D8 WS | 6x4GB Kingston HyperX Predator | EVGA Geforce 980Ti HydroCopper @1350Mhz | HyperX 240GB PCi SSD boot + Samsung 840 SSD 2 x 256GB | 25 TB RAID5 (WD+Seagate) Dell T630 server | Corsair AXi1500 | CaseLabs SMA8 gunmetal - watercooling: 2 x EK Supreme LTX CPU + Nickel-Acetal full cover VGA | LG38UC99+Dell U3014 + 2 X Dell U2715

  3. #3
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,769
    Quote Originally Posted by csatahajos View Post
    Well, considering that this chip is rumored to be 2000$ I think the Threadripper 1998 for 1000$ is still a nice option for 90% of the performance. Since ASUS teased the Zenith Extreme mobo this time around that (the mobo side) won't be a limiting factor for the AMD platform either. Besides nobody knows how many CCX-es are under the hood in Threadripper, so we might see AMD doing a hattrick and coming up with a 24 core chip just to have the absolute performance crown in the desktop segment (BTW the Sklyale-X HCC die appears to be holding 20 cores) .
    i think the performance difference will be more than that. they have 18 cores and should be one proper cpu per socket instead of 4 cpus dies per socket (or maybe 2 pairs of dies on 2 sockets on one super socket,) and assuming cooling and pwm should clock much higher. thread ripper should have more bang for the buck but i dont see it being 90% of or even 75% or 66% of the top intel.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  4. #4
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    HD0
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by csatahajos View Post
    Well, considering that this chip is rumored to be 2000$ I think the Threadripper 1998 for 1000$ is still a nice option for 90% of the performance. Since ASUS teased the Zenith Extreme mobo this time around that (the mobo side) won't be a limiting factor for the AMD platform either. Besides nobody knows how many CCX-es are under the hood in Threadripper, so we might see AMD doing a hattrick and coming up with a 24 core chip just to have the absolute performance crown in the desktop segment (BTW the Sklyale-X HCC die appears to be holding 20 cores) .
    multithreaded difference

    12.5% more cores,
    15% higher performance per clock


    We're looking at a ~30% difference there assuming identical clocks. I suspect HT is a bit weaker than AMD's SMT but being a monolithic chip with a ringbus architecture will likely give the i9 an edge that nullifies HT being slightly weaker so that's a wash.


    For lightly threaded applications it's clocked around 10% higher and has around 15-25% more performance per clock so it's in the order of 30-40% faster for single threaded applications as well.

    Yes, it's priced 2x as high for a reason.

  5. #5
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by xlink View Post
    multithreaded difference

    12.5% more cores,
    15% higher performance per clock


    We're looking at a ~30% difference there assuming identical clocks. I suspect HT is a bit weaker than AMD's SMT but being a monolithic chip with a ringbus architecture will likely give the i9 an edge that nullifies HT being slightly weaker so that's a wash.


    For lightly threaded applications it's clocked around 10% higher and has around 15-25% more performance per clock so it's in the order of 30-40% faster for single threaded applications as well.

    Yes, it's priced 2x as high for a reason.
    I don't expect the new Skylake-X can do the same clock as Threadripper 1998. Otherwise Intel would disclose those clock already.

  6. #6
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,048
    I don't think you're buying a 16+ core CPU for its single threaded applications...
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  7. #7
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    HD0
    Posts
    2,646
    Quote Originally Posted by qcmadness View Post
    I don't expect the new Skylake-X can do the same clock as Threadripper 1998. Otherwise Intel would disclose those clock already.
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-u...sumer-pc-chip/

    The rumor mill says turbo 3.0 to 4.5GHz for the 10 core version. This is around 10% higher than the 8 core Ryzen.

    I think it's a reasonable guess to say that the 18 core version of i9 will clock ~10% higher than the 16 core threadripper. I could be wrong, maybe the extended turbo won't end up very different and both will be around 4.1ish GHz.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by xlink View Post
    multithreaded difference

    12.5% more cores,
    15% higher performance per clock


    We're looking at a ~30% difference there assuming identical clocks. I suspect HT is a bit weaker than AMD's SMT but being a monolithic chip with a ringbus architecture will likely give the i9 an edge that nullifies HT being slightly weaker so that's a wash.


    For lightly threaded applications it's clocked around 10% higher and has around 15-25% more performance per clock so it's in the order of 30-40% faster for single threaded applications as well.

    Yes, it's priced 2x as high for a reason.

    15% higher IPC? Where do you get that number from? Ryzen is nearly on par per clock if you take gaming out of the equation. 5% IPC average would be my guess.
    Main: Windows 10 Core i7 5820K @ 4500Mhz, Corsair H100i, 32GB DDR4-2800, eVGA GTX980 Ti, Kingston SSDNow 240GB, Crucial C300 64GB Cache + WD 1.5TB Green, Asus X99-A/USB3.1
    ESXi Server 6.5 Xeon E5 2670, 64GB DDR3-1600, 1TB, Intel DX79SR, 4xIntel 1Gbps
    ESXi Server 6.0 Xeon E5 2650L v3, 64GB DDR4-2400, 1TB, Asrock X99 Xtreme4, 4xIntel 1Gbps
    FreeNAS 9.10 x64 Xeon X3430 , 32GB DDR3-1600, 3x(3x1TB) WD Blue, Intel S3420GPRX, 4xIntel 1Gbps

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by xlink View Post
    http://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-u...sumer-pc-chip/

    The rumor mill says turbo 3.0 to 4.5GHz for the 10 core version. This is around 10% higher than the 8 core Ryzen.

    I think it's a reasonable guess to say that the 18 core version of i9 will clock ~10% higher than the 16 core threadripper. I could be wrong, maybe the extended turbo won't end up very different and both will be around 4.1ish GHz.
    Turbo 3.0 (4.5GHz) on Skylake-X just on 2 cores.
    Base core for 10c/20t is 3.3GHz - Turbo 4.3 GHz.
    I think that 12-14-16 will have a lesser base clock, 3.0-3.2GHz.

    For Threadripper (rumors):
    https://www.techpowerup.com/233945/a...dripper-models

    1998X 3.50/3.9GHz + XFR 16/32
    1977X 3.50/4.0GHz + XFR 14/28
    1976X 3.60/4.1GHz + XFR 12/24
    1955X 3.60/4.0GHz + XFX 10/20
    Coolermaster 690 II Advanced + Corsair AX850
    Cooler master Masterliquid 240
    Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3 + Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9GHz
    F4-3200C15D-16GTZ @ 3200 14-14-14-34-1T
    Sapphire HD6950 2GB @6970 - 900/1400
    Sandisk Extreme Pro 480GB + Samsung HD204UI 2TB

  10. #10
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    Because I needed more cores for my virtual machines I was looking for a proc with more cores for a year. I am glad that I haven't upgraded my 3770k until now. 7900x or 7820x will be my new proc. And I am thanking AMD for making available these processors this cheap... while they can't gain anything from this (on my side of course).


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  11. #11
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,482
    Quote Originally Posted by xlink View Post
    multithreaded difference

    12.5% more cores,
    15% higher performance per clock


    We're looking at a ~30% difference there assuming identical clocks. I suspect HT is a bit weaker than AMD's SMT but being a monolithic chip with a ringbus architecture will likely give the i9 an edge that nullifies HT being slightly weaker so that's a wash.


    For lightly threaded applications it's clocked around 10% higher and has around 15-25% more performance per clock so it's in the order of 30-40% faster for single threaded applications as well.

    Yes, it's priced 2x as high for a reason.
    Performance per clock will depend on application - 5-15% most likely.
    Forget the Turbo Max 3.0 speeds for multithreading performance, though 4.2-4.5 GHz boost on high core parts will set AMD back a good 20-30% in single thread performance, I think they will be competitive in highly threaded workloads.

    Do not forget that AMD has better scaling with Ryzen's SMT than Intel's Broadwell-E HT, though Intel has claimed to improve this on Skylake-X with the new cache structure.

    3.5 base clock on 16C ThreadRipper will probably be a great match for Intel's 18C. Why? The 7900X already drops to a 3.3 GHz base clock, and Zeppelin seems to scale better perf/watt than intel - ie. The 7900X is already at 140w TDP @ 3.3 GHz, Intel will hit a TDP limit with more cores and need to lower clocks further.


    3.5 16C would go up against 3.0 18C just fine, with the 18C CPU probably just barely edging it out.

    If intel keeps clocks up, they win performance no doubt, but at what perf/watt?

    Also - if users need high single thread performance, then KBL-X is the right CPU to buy. Users buying high core counts are probably doing high core count things.

    PS- You claim 15% higher performance per clock, then up to 25%, then claimed 10%+15-25% = 30-40% single thread...not quite buying the math.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 06-01-2017 at 08:47 AM.
    Smile

  12. #12
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    Performance per clock will depend on application - 5-15% most likely.
    Forget the Turbo Max 3.0 speeds for multithreading performance, though 4.2-4.5 GHz boost on high core parts will set AMD back a good 20-30% in single thread performance, I think they will be competitive in highly threaded workloads.

    Do not forget that AMD has better scaling with Ryzen's SMT than Intel's Broadwell-E HT, though Intel has claimed to improve this on Skylake-X with the new cache structure.

    3.5 base clock on 16C ThreadRipper will probably be a great match for Intel's 18C. Why? The 7900X already drops to a 3.3 GHz base clock, and Zeppelin seems to scale better perf/watt than intel - ie. The 7900X is already at 140w TDP @ 3.3 GHz, Intel will hit a TDP limit with more cores and need to lower clocks further.


    3.5 16C would go up against 3.0 18C just fine, with the 18C CPU probably just barely edging it out.

    If intel keeps clocks up, they win performance no doubt, but at what perf/watt?

    Also - if users need high single thread performance, then KBL-X is the right CPU to buy. Users buying high core counts are probably doing high core count things.

    PS- You claim 15% higher performance per clock, then up to 25%, then claimed 10%+15-25% = 30-40% single thread...not quite buying the math.
    IPC difference could actually be much larger for AVX applications - though AMD does tend to win a few brute int and float compute tests.

    I think in the end it'll boil down to application needs. There are some where Skylake/Kabylake absolutely crush Ryzen, but for the rest AMD offers tremendous value.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    578
    Will the 18c part be available from day 1 with the rest of the Skylake-X chips? It seems like it won't . . .

  14. #14
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    18c part seems like just a counter for amd's 16c cpu just to say we have to most core cpu for desktops


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  15. #15
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,769
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    18c part seems like just a counter for amd's 16c cpu just to say we have to most core cpu for desktops
    they do have 22 core parts just sitting there in the xeon line that could have some switches flipped to be an i7/9. their 22 core part is even a 24 core part that they dont want to sell the 24 version to the mass market since you cannot cool it with air in a 2u.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5
    My doubt is what will be the stock core clocks for this 7980XE cpu and it's overclocking potential, especially under extreme

  17. #17
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Vcc View Post
    My doubt is what will be the stock core clocks for this 7980XE cpu and it's overclocking potential, especially under extreme
    they did unlink the avx engine from the base, core, and IO multipliers. that should really help with extreme overclocking.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  18. #18
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    OZtralia
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    18c part seems like just a counter for amd's 16c cpu just to say we have to most core cpu for desktops
    Exactly..................mines bigger than yours
    lots and lots of cores and lots and lots of tuners,HTPC's boards,cases,HDD's,vga's,DDR1&2&3 etc etc all powered by Corsair PSU's

  19. #19
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,796
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  20. #20
    Xtreme Monster
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,182
    This is a healthy competition and it benefits us all. I wish AMD countered Intel in 2009 or so. Anyway, better late than never.

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    So they just teased us... ;(
    Still good to see that they are going to unleash these "hidden monsters" from Intel's cage

  22. #22
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    889
    The 299 platform is a big mess. AMD changed the rules and Intel xeon domination has been challenged. They need to get over this and get over the fact that their i9's will have to overlap xeon functionality in order to compete.
    Intel 8700k
    16GB
    Asus z370 Prime
    1080 Ti
    x2 Samsung 850Evo 500GB
    x 1 500 Samsung 860Evo NVME


    Swiftech Apogee XL2
    Swiftech MCP35X x2
    Full Cover GPU blocks
    360 x1, 280 x1, 240 x1, 120 x1 Radiators

  23. #23
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by alpha0ne View Post
    Exactly..................mines bigger than yours
    Intel: "Yeah, we can't deliver it any time soon, but since you're announcing it here is some rain for your parade."

    It's just how business goes.
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  24. #24
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,048
    So Intel got caught slumbering again. Not near as bad as back in the P4 days, but they did get a bit complacent, figuring on AMD never competing again, and got lazy. Now they're like "oh wait we can do that too.. um, hang on a sec..."

    At least this does look a heck of a lot better than their first dual core attempt, Pentium D LOL
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  25. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5
    Tbh i'm considering to get a threadripper instead of i9 to play on extreme.
    My last Amd cpu was an 2006 Athlon 64 X2, loved that cpu

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •