Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,645
- Location
- London
Its not likely that we will see 6 core Intel cpu's at affordable prices during 2012 is it?
Why?
Why?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
When is intel going to produce 6 core cpu's for the masses?
- Thread starter opethdisciple
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
They have no reason to.
Ivy won't introduce hex cores for the mainstream to my understanding, the soonest it will be, is Haswell, if Haswell does introduce 6 cores to the masses.
Although, it's fairly irrelevant right now, AMD's 6 core for the masses is the FX6, would you opt for that over an Intel quad? I doubt it.
Ivy won't introduce hex cores for the mainstream to my understanding, the soonest it will be, is Haswell, if Haswell does introduce 6 cores to the masses.
Although, it's fairly irrelevant right now, AMD's 6 core for the masses is the FX6, would you opt for that over an Intel quad? I doubt it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
After they've finished fleecing us for all they can with their 4 cores mate
Wasn't your last upgrade from a hexcore to a 4 core
?Well there is, video encoding and animation rendering need as many cores as possible. There is a huge market in the professional and business sectors.
In which case go and buy a hexacore Xeon. There's no need for more than Quad core in the consumer market. The Pro and Business sectors can afford to cough up a bit more for a 6-core machine if they can justify the productivity gains.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
SEriously, the lack of logic on this forum does my head in.
When dual cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when quad cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when faster quad cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when quad cores with IGP's on die launched there was absolutely no need for them.
But now, all of a sudden Intel won't offer more cores because there is no need for them? So explain all the previous increases in performance at the time they were made.
The argument is 100% false, they might not bring 6 cores out anytime soon, maybe not even with Haswell, that doesn't make the patently stupid argument of because its not needed, utterly false.
The troubling thing is, Sandybridge is already small, on a mature high yielding process, yet people are paying more for a 2500k than a Q6600 was towards the end of its life, years ago and quite a lot bigger.
Ultimately die size, yields and wafer cost dictate actual price per core to Intel, and the difference between that price and the price they sell at is the margin.
Personally the idea of a Ivybridge quad cores, at the same or higher pricing than current Sandybridges, despite minimal performance difference but being noticeably smaller, and most of the reason for not being massively smaller is a IGP that is both, still crap, and needlessly large(for how crap it is) and completely unused by many users, is all laughable.
A Sandybridge quad core, without the IGP, should be cheaper and smaller, a Ivybridge version should be not far off half the size, but people are already talking about upgrading at a similar cost to a chip that should drop costs dramatically. Oh well. Intel, AMD and Nvidia seem to rely on people ignoring the real costs and just paying whatever they are asked to these days more than ever.
As for bringing up the FX6 well, Martini can't help try and dig his claws into AMD can he.
He's obviously completely missed the point that AMD ALREADY had a hex core for the masses, and that hex core was significantly faster than the previous quad core. So a hex core obviously made a HUGE difference there, just because one hex core to the next in a totally different architecture aren't the equivalents too each other is neither here nor there.
When dual cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when quad cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when faster quad cores launched there was absolutely no need for them, when quad cores with IGP's on die launched there was absolutely no need for them.
But now, all of a sudden Intel won't offer more cores because there is no need for them? So explain all the previous increases in performance at the time they were made.
The argument is 100% false, they might not bring 6 cores out anytime soon, maybe not even with Haswell, that doesn't make the patently stupid argument of because its not needed, utterly false.
The troubling thing is, Sandybridge is already small, on a mature high yielding process, yet people are paying more for a 2500k than a Q6600 was towards the end of its life, years ago and quite a lot bigger.
Ultimately die size, yields and wafer cost dictate actual price per core to Intel, and the difference between that price and the price they sell at is the margin.
Personally the idea of a Ivybridge quad cores, at the same or higher pricing than current Sandybridges, despite minimal performance difference but being noticeably smaller, and most of the reason for not being massively smaller is a IGP that is both, still crap, and needlessly large(for how crap it is) and completely unused by many users, is all laughable.
A Sandybridge quad core, without the IGP, should be cheaper and smaller, a Ivybridge version should be not far off half the size, but people are already talking about upgrading at a similar cost to a chip that should drop costs dramatically. Oh well. Intel, AMD and Nvidia seem to rely on people ignoring the real costs and just paying whatever they are asked to these days more than ever.
As for bringing up the FX6 well, Martini can't help try and dig his claws into AMD can he.
He's obviously completely missed the point that AMD ALREADY had a hex core for the masses, and that hex core was significantly faster than the previous quad core. So a hex core obviously made a HUGE difference there, just because one hex core to the next in a totally different architecture aren't the equivalents too each other is neither here nor there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,710
Sure there is need for them but it does not make business sense for Intel to release such a product at the moment while AMD is not that competative.
I half agree with DM, there may be no need for them but that's never stopped Intel before.
Maybe we will see them sometime later this year but I agree with there definitely being no need for the average joe or gamer as most games still won't use a quadcore to it's full potential.
Maybe we will see them sometime later this year but I agree with there definitely being no need for the average joe or gamer as most games still won't use a quadcore to it's full potential.
My old quadcore was fairly good for its day, but the i7 I got for Christmas is blowing it out of the water, why would Intel need to make anything better than the i7 at the moment, a 6 or 8 core i7 (or whatever they'll call it) would just require extreme cooling. If you want top spec, just look at the £800's worth of Intel Xeon you can buy
Just bought a 980 for a small amount over £400 that the top end of my 'affordable' level for a CPU. Makes me laugh when people assume that tech companies should be run as some sought of altruistic venture with regard to their customers. Whether its CPU's GPU's (likely 79XX pricing anyone) or any thing else companies charge at a price point that they assess with net them the greatest profit as its their shareholders that they care about! Currently Intel hex cores occupy the very high end of the consumer market (remember that the people on here do not represent the average consumer and are far more likely to be running higher end stuff that the average) there is no decent competition performance wise at this level so Intel can continue to charge a large premium. Like a lot of people on here for many years I only had AMD chips as they outperformed and outpriced Intel (who only made the money at the time based on their brand power and corporate sales) I really hope AMD can return to some of their past glory CPU wise or else we will all suffer
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Just saw DM's mention of me, as I had private browsing on, ripping into AMD and forgetting about their previous hexcore? I was a thuban launch day owner.
Yes, AMD had the Thuban, wait a minute, aren't the 45nm Phenom II range pretty EOL these days? So, AMD's current hexcore for the masses is the FX6 isn't it? And that FX6, how does it perform in comparison to the Intel quads?
The Thubans were decent chips, and their core advantage leveled the playing field in many instances with the Intel chips, however in games and programs that couldn't utilise the threads? No better than a Deneb.
AMD still can't offer the same performance consistently that Intel can, if AMD had released a hexcore that had the IPC of a i7 920 and didn't hamper itself when both threads on a module are being used, and clocked as well as the old i7's, then I bet Intel would have hurried up with a hex core for the masses.
Yes, AMD had the Thuban, wait a minute, aren't the 45nm Phenom II range pretty EOL these days? So, AMD's current hexcore for the masses is the FX6 isn't it? And that FX6, how does it perform in comparison to the Intel quads?
The Thubans were decent chips, and their core advantage leveled the playing field in many instances with the Intel chips, however in games and programs that couldn't utilise the threads? No better than a Deneb.
AMD still can't offer the same performance consistently that Intel can, if AMD had released a hexcore that had the IPC of a i7 920 and didn't hamper itself when both threads on a module are being used, and clocked as well as the old i7's, then I bet Intel would have hurried up with a hex core for the masses.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
Thats the issue isnt it? Lack of competition is why Intel is sitting. Perhaps if they sit too long AMD may finally cook something that might be able to compete.
But even if they do, Intel can simply clock the chips higher or create bigger versions of its own chips.
Both Core 2, Nehalem, Sandy and Ivy have extremely huge headroom for overclocking. Especially Sandy and Ivy can be clocked much higher without breaking the TDP that consumers are used to (125w or 140w).
As others said, Sandy is small, and includes IGP, had intel wanted to we could have had octa cores right now for a cost to them similar to Q6600 back in the day.
But even if they do, Intel can simply clock the chips higher or create bigger versions of its own chips.
Both Core 2, Nehalem, Sandy and Ivy have extremely huge headroom for overclocking. Especially Sandy and Ivy can be clocked much higher without breaking the TDP that consumers are used to (125w or 140w).
As others said, Sandy is small, and includes IGP, had intel wanted to we could have had octa cores right now for a cost to them similar to Q6600 back in the day.
I know nobody cares, but the only reason the 6100 isn't competitive is because it is clocked at a far lower frequency than it was intended to be. realistically the architecture is designed to be clocked some 30% higher than K10.5 ever was, so taking that into consideration the 6100 would be quite competitive with the 2500K, both at stock when one remembers the 6100 should be clocked at something more like 4.0 rather than 3.3 stock without taking turbo into account.
Don't for a second think I am making excuses, because the fact the frequency targets were missed makes Bulldozer for the most part, at the moment entirely pointless since frequency, like Prescott (which wasn't terrible) was one of the important factors in the overall performance expectations. People rant about 'instructions per clock' far too readily but forget that the who statement is based entirely on two factors, how many instructions performed and the amount of times the said processor cycles in a second, one without the other is utterly meaningless.
In the not too distant future the 6200 is going to be hitting the scene with a stock clock speed of 3.8 which is much closer to the original targets, when comparing a 6200 to a 2500K, keeping in mind the 6200 should and likely will be bit less expensive the performance starts to look not at all too bad. To be honest its just a shame they never hit their frequency targets first time out, though one would expect revision B3 to do something for clock speeds and power consumption as all in all, Bulldozer isn't half bad and from a purely architectural stand-point it all makes a great deal of sense and I can fully see why Mike Butler and co. went the direction they did rather than single mindedly pursue instructions per clock, would expect Bulldozer to bring some market gains for Advanced Micro Devices to be fair.
Also before anyone gets going, you cannot compare Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer on a clock for clock basis, in the same way you couldn't compare Prescott and Winchester (example) on a clock for clock basis, they aren't the same at a design point of view, unlike Sandy Bridge and Nehalem (another example) which are designed using the same methodology and concept. The biggest problem Bulldozer has is its not quite like anything before it, its not a fully fledged speed demon design, but its not an instruction per clock orientated design either, its a middle ground between the two since it isn't anywhere close to as aggressive as Prescott was in the pursuit of clock speed (Prescott had an insane number of stages, whereas Bulldozer has 25% more than K10.5) which makes Bulldozer a tricky customer to understand where it stands in the world and how it should be judged.
Don't for a second think I am making excuses, because the fact the frequency targets were missed makes Bulldozer for the most part, at the moment entirely pointless since frequency, like Prescott (which wasn't terrible) was one of the important factors in the overall performance expectations. People rant about 'instructions per clock' far too readily but forget that the who statement is based entirely on two factors, how many instructions performed and the amount of times the said processor cycles in a second, one without the other is utterly meaningless.
In the not too distant future the 6200 is going to be hitting the scene with a stock clock speed of 3.8 which is much closer to the original targets, when comparing a 6200 to a 2500K, keeping in mind the 6200 should and likely will be bit less expensive the performance starts to look not at all too bad. To be honest its just a shame they never hit their frequency targets first time out, though one would expect revision B3 to do something for clock speeds and power consumption as all in all, Bulldozer isn't half bad and from a purely architectural stand-point it all makes a great deal of sense and I can fully see why Mike Butler and co. went the direction they did rather than single mindedly pursue instructions per clock, would expect Bulldozer to bring some market gains for Advanced Micro Devices to be fair.
Also before anyone gets going, you cannot compare Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer on a clock for clock basis, in the same way you couldn't compare Prescott and Winchester (example) on a clock for clock basis, they aren't the same at a design point of view, unlike Sandy Bridge and Nehalem (another example) which are designed using the same methodology and concept. The biggest problem Bulldozer has is its not quite like anything before it, its not a fully fledged speed demon design, but its not an instruction per clock orientated design either, its a middle ground between the two since it isn't anywhere close to as aggressive as Prescott was in the pursuit of clock speed (Prescott had an insane number of stages, whereas Bulldozer has 25% more than K10.5) which makes Bulldozer a tricky customer to understand where it stands in the world and how it should be judged.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
3.8GHZ FX6, so we're at what now, just above 1100T performance?
And why can't you compare SB and BD clock for clock? They clock pretty much the same at the moment..
And why can't you compare SB and BD clock for clock? They clock pretty much the same at the moment..
Last edited:
It would take a Bulldozer FX8 at 5.5-6ghz to match your averagely overclocked 4.5-4.6ghz 2500K in the majority of applications, by majority I mean most normal situations and not just a few encoding applications which fully max out all of the cores.
When Ivy Bridge appears in April they will probably clock 300-400mhz (conservative estimate) higher than Sandy Bridge so that would mean AMD need a 6ghz+ FX8 just to be competitive, I think it'll be a while before AMD get anywhere near that clockspeed even when overclocking.
That's not even taking Intel's 6 core CPU's into account, if someone had told me 6 mths ago that AMD's 8 core Bulldozer would struggle to beat a 2500K I'd have laughed in disbelief.
I have no doubt that AMD will eventually reach the higher clocks that they originally intended for Bulldozer but by then Intel will have progressed themselves, Intel seem to be progressing at a much faster pace than AMD who are falling further and further behind as time goes on.
When Ivy Bridge appears in April they will probably clock 300-400mhz (conservative estimate) higher than Sandy Bridge so that would mean AMD need a 6ghz+ FX8 just to be competitive, I think it'll be a while before AMD get anywhere near that clockspeed even when overclocking.
That's not even taking Intel's 6 core CPU's into account, if someone had told me 6 mths ago that AMD's 8 core Bulldozer would struggle to beat a 2500K I'd have laughed in disbelief.
I have no doubt that AMD will eventually reach the higher clocks that they originally intended for Bulldozer but by then Intel will have progressed themselves, Intel seem to be progressing at a much faster pace than AMD who are falling further and further behind as time goes on.
Last edited:
They are so expensive as to not justfy the gains, and unaffordable for many professionals. Why would I buy a 6 core xeon for £1,300 when I can run 4 2500k's pc's in parallel for the same cost? There's no serious market for the xeon. Even for me, being able to render and encode video 50% faster would be hugely desirable. The market for 6 cores is just as strong as it was for 4 cores.
Last edited: