[News] Intel 18-Core i9-7980XE Release Date Pushed To October

[StyM]

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/int...o-october.html

The more-core processor battle makes Intel release an up-to 18-cores processor. The specs all have been shown in a number of leaks up-to the 14, 16 and 18-core parts.

Detailed specs from the entire range up-to the Core i9 7980 XE.The guys from wccftech now report they know the release date for the 18-cores part, and that would be 18th October, that is unconfirmed information though.

It will be interesting to see how real-world energy consumption and heat levels will hold with the upcoming procs. Intel will be competing with AMDs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and 1950X. As you can see, intel will offer 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes opposed to 64 on Threadripper. Configurations break down into this:

[vario]

Huh. Would be funny if intel beancounters pushed these things to be also sold with thermal paste.While AMD at least tries with ryzen, intel seems like deciding in which foot to shoot themselves, then shooting both.Coffe lake being limited to 3xx chipsets as the first shot.

[Sparky]

I would call it more Intel being caught with their pants down again. They were riding the ship just flat-out assuming AMD could never compete with them.

I thought maybe they'd have learned the first time, but no, they were getting complacent. Not the same level as the P4 days, but still...

[zanzabar]

Huh. Would be funny if intel beancounters pushed these things to be also sold with thermal paste.While AMD at least tries with ryzen, intel seems like deciding in which foot to shoot themselves, then shooting both.Coffe lake being limited to 3xx chipsets as the first shot.

you have to sell those xeons so the i9 need to have TIM instead of solder so they wont get sold to 1p servers.

[StAndrew]

Pushing up the release date isn't going to help. They need to push down the price.

[JAWS]

They were riding the ship just flat-out assuming AMD could never compete with them.

I assumed right along with Intel. I couldn't be happier, just wish the prices were a little lower. Threadripper prices are ridiculous. but so are Intel's.

Pushing up the release date isn't going to help. They need to push down the price.

Agree 100%

[AliG]

I assumed right along with Intel. I couldn't be happier, just wish the prices were a little lower. Threadripper prices are ridiculous. but so are Intel's.

How do you figure the threadripper prices are rediculous? $1000 for the 1950X isn't cheap - but name me the last time you saw a 16 core CPU available for anything reasonable. I do think they're gouging on the 8 core varient though. Seems like all that chip will do is cannibalize sales with the 1800X.

[StAndrew]

How do you figure the threadripper prices are rediculous? $1000 for the 1950X isn't cheap - but name me the last time you saw a 16 core CPU available for anything reasonable. I do think they're gouging on the 8 core varient though. Seems like all that chip will do is cannibalize sales with the 1800X.

I read it as him saying AMD's prices are ridiculously good and Intel's are ridiculously bad. Otherwise, I'll agree with you. 16 cores and 64 PCI lanes for $1000 is a huge leap for the current market.

That said, I wonder what the market would look like if AMD stayed competitive. Intel has been milking the 4 core i7 for years. 6, 8, and 10 core chips have been selling for way high premiums. 16 core, 64 thread for $1000 is about where the market should be at this point. I don't see AMD as a ground breaker so much as a stabilizer to the absurdity that Intel has been spinning.

[kromosto]

I read it as him saying AMD's prices are ridiculously good and Intel's are ridiculously bad. Otherwise, I'll agree with you. 16 cores and 64 PCI lanes for $1000 is a huge leap for the current market.

That said, I wonder what the market would look like if AMD stayed competitive. Intel has been milking the 4 core i7 for years. 6, 8, and 10 core chips have been selling for way high premiums. 16 core, 64 thread for $1000 is about where the market should be at this point. I don't see AMD as a ground breaker so much as a stabilizer to the absurdity that Intel has been spinning.

I read it like the opposite But he is right we are customers we always want more for less money

[AliG]

I read it as him saying AMD's prices are ridiculously good and Intel's are ridiculously bad. Otherwise, I'll agree with you. 16 cores and 64 PCI lanes for $1000 is a huge leap for the current market.

That said, I wonder what the market would look like if AMD stayed competitive. Intel has been milking the 4 core i7 for years. 6, 8, and 10 core chips have been selling for way high premiums. 16 core, 64 thread for $1000 is about where the market should be at this point. I don't see AMD as a ground breaker so much as a stabilizer to the absurdity that Intel has been spinning.

I like to think of it this way:
The FX-57 was the best gaming CPU on earth for a good while. It launched with an MSRP of $1031 2005. Taking into account the US inflation rate, that would be $1,291 in 2017.

So when you really think about it, $1000 for a top of the line CPU isn't just in line with historical pricing - it's actually fairly reasonable. Intel charging $1700 for 6950X, however, was utterly ridiculous.