8 core SB anyone?

bhavv · 21 Nov 2011 at 03:46

Wow, how much have you drunk today?

Im saying that prices on Intel hex cores wont come down because AMD have nothing that can compete with them. The bulldozer was a fail, thats why Intel are keeping their hex core prices so high.

Octo cores wont be released by Intel yet because they still want to cash in on their overpriced hex cores. If octo cores were released now by Intel, they would be priced at £1000 to keep the etreme edition hex core selling. But Intel would prefer if people pay loads for their hex cores now, and then pay loads again for their octo cores in a years time.

_Paul · 21 Nov 2011 at 09:56

drunkenmaster said:
Yet plenty of people buy 6970's, instead of 6870's, or 5770's, loads of people use software that uses 8 threads, a crapload, in fact I'd say the vast majority of home users who current own quad cores.......... do not need a quad core in the slightest. This is life, people buy things they don't need, they buy the fastest thing they can buy, because they want it. They get something faster than they need, because its good or maybe better value, or they just don't know what they are buying.

By your logic, Intel and AMD would never have released quad cores, and wouldn't be releasing 6-8 core chips? Clearly that isn't the case.

That isn't my logic at all. In fact, it is sort of the point I'm making. Home users, even 'extreme enthusiasts', buy the 6970 to take your example because it is one of the best cards AVAILABLE. If the 6970 was not released in the same way as 8 core i7s have not been released then people would still be buying 6870s/6950s or whatever. By releasing the best graphics card possible AMD are not hurting their higher end, higher margin sales because they have no other significant markets. With CPUs the situation is entirely different as we have the workstation market and low end server market to consider.

Sure, there will be some enthusiasts that won't upgrade until 8 cores are mainstream but those people are worth a lot less to Intel and Intel's biggest customers than people who buy dual xeon systems because they need 8+ threads to make more money.

Intel released C2Q to drive people to refresh some older C2D and P4, SB-E has been released to update 1366 and 1155. It is an improvement so people are buying it, the increase in sales from having an 8 core part at launch is not worth it when they can make more money from dual xeon platforms for another 12-18 months and then make even more money from people going SB-E 6 core to 8 core. In all Intel releases since C2D they haven't been responding to AMD, they've been responding to their own previous generation products. I don't think either of us said just because Intel are ahead they will stop innovating, we simply make the point that for commercial reasons Intel will make the upgrades more incremental.

If AMD had a credible alternative then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, Intel do not NEED to release an 8 core desktop SKU even if we as customers feel we NEED/WANT it (delete as appropriate)

Wucked · 21 Nov 2011 at 12:11

We don't need 8 core cpu's at competitive prices because of XBox. And it must be true because PS3 agrees. I hope to have one eventually, but only when XBox says that its ok.

Mario · 21 Nov 2011 at 12:13

bhavv - did you even see point to argue with that cpu "master"? LOL
i though all his "knowledge" ended with his failldozzer 2 page praise-rants.
seems NOT

i stopped reading "master's" rants long time ago,as its purely pro amd BS

pmc25 · 21 Nov 2011 at 12:23

SB-E with another 2 cores would be horrendously power hungry.

I guess it's a possibility for IB-E, though I very much doubt it.

Unless mobo makers have been fully briefed on the possibility, I suspect that even the high-end boards might have inadequate power arrangements for heavily overclocked 8 core SB-E, if it ever existed.

Also ... the price.

I reckon they'd charge $2000 / £1500.

Freddie1980 · 21 Nov 2011 at 13:37

Some of you are completely oblivious to the fact that consumer SB-E chips are in fact 8 core chips with 2 cores disabled. It's got nothing to do with power consumption but rather marketing and market position, if Intel want to enable 8 cores for SB-E all they have do if turn of one of the processes in the manufacturing line and hey presto!

_Paul · 21 Nov 2011 at 14:03

I agree it is most likely a case of marketing here but the arguement could be made that 2 cores are disabled to keep the TDP in check. Unlikely but possible.

debs3759 · 21 Nov 2011 at 14:04

Freddie1980 said:
Some of you are completely oblivious to the fact that consumer SB-E chips are in fact 8 core chips with 2 cores disabled. It's got nothing to do with power consumption but rather marketing and market position, if Intel want to enable 8 cores for SB-E all they have do if turn of one of the processes in the manufacturing line and hey presto!

I think itt's the people who expet 8 cores on the desktop SB-E who are oblivious, not the other way round. Why would Intel sell an 8-core chip to the desktop market when they can make a lot more money by reserving them for the Xeon market?

Information from Intel that has been either released or leaked so far only shows the 8-core versions being available to the workstation/server market (ie Xeons, or SB-EP), and at a much higher price for similar clock speeds. Why would they sell an identically performing chip cheaper just to get it into desktop system?

pmc25 · 21 Nov 2011 at 15:45

Freddie1980 said:
Some of you are completely oblivious to the fact that consumer SB-E chips are in fact 8 core chips with 2 cores disabled. It's got nothing to do with power consumption but rather marketing and market position, if Intel want to enable 8 cores for SB-E all they have do if turn of one of the processes in the manufacturing line and hey presto!

You've seen the power consumption figures for the 6 core. It has everything to do with power consumption.

If the X78 platform mobos were designed with this in mind, they probably wouldn't be ATX or even ATX-E, but whatever the name of the larger one is.

They may well be 8 core chips with 2 cores disabled, but they're clocked a lot higher than the Xeon chips.

IB-E 8 core - whether it happens - will indeed be a question of market positioning, but with the current stepping at least, an 8 core SB-E isn't remotely plausible.

Freddie1980 · 21 Nov 2011 at 20:12

debs3759 said:
Why would they sell an identically performing chip cheaper just to get it into desktop system?

For the same reason they sell dual and quad core chips.

pmc25 said:
You've seen the power consumption figures for the 6 core. It has everything to do with power consumption.

That's not an issue, look at the relationship between cores and clockrates, the general pattern is the more cores a chip has the lower the default clock is set. If Intel wanted a 8 core 130 watt TDP SB-E they would simply lower the clocks to meet that TDP threshold.

FreeStream · 21 Nov 2011 at 22:03

Look at the E5-2687W, Sandy Bridge-E, 150W TDP, 8 cores, 3.1GHz. $1885!!!

Thats the fastest octo they have scheduled for release.
Bring it down to 2.7 and it's 130W TDP.

Why they haven't announced a 2.7Ghz 8 core is anyones guess.

debs3759 · 22 Nov 2011 at 00:24

Concorde Rules said:
Look at the E5-2687W, Sandy Bridge-E, 150W TDP, 8 cores, 3.1GHz. $1885!!!

Thats the fastest octo they have scheduled for release.
Bring it down to 2.7 and it's 130W TDP.

Why they haven't announced a 2.7Ghz 8 core is anyones guess.

I'm gonna mortgage my neighbours council house to pay for a dual-processor system with a couple of them

It's a shame it's coming out in the spring and not autumn! It'll make a great supplementary room heater

lay-z-boy · 22 Nov 2011 at 13:12

Freddie1980 said:
That's not an issue, look at the relationship between cores and clockrates, the general pattern is the more cores a chip has the lower the default clock is set. If Intel wanted a 8 core 130 watt TDP SB-E they would simply lower the clocks to meet that TDP threshold.

It's one part of the issue. Intel won't release a desktop cpu any higher than 130w, it's the limit they set themselves.
They've also set a 150w limit for server use but those are far more rare than the 130w and under that the oem's are used to using. Heck, even the 10 core use 130w tdp's.

If we take a look at the 32nm xeon, 8 cores the fastest is a 2.6ghz with 1 turbo bin, 10 cores are 2.4 with either 1 or 3 turbo bins depending on activity. Simply, the clocks are not high enough for anything other than a very heavily threaded load. At least the 3960 and 3930 can keep up with the 2600 when not having a highly threaded workload which is going to be encountered far more often on a desktop than on a server but you pay for it with tdp. (and money

)

Profit margins are pretty much the rest. Once they've got the cost of the 8/10 core dies down to a certain level, they will do a desktop model for a grand or just under as usual but until then they will lather up the massive margins they make on the xeon line.
Go take a look at the current 8/10 core costs and prepare to laugh if you think otherise.

Purgatory · 22 Nov 2011 at 14:25

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2650L.html

Check under the info for the E5-2650L which is a 70W 8 core SB core Xeon

where it says "CPUs, related to Intel Xeon E5-2687W"

The Xeons with SB 8 cores start from 70w to 150w

ToxicTBag · 23 Nov 2011 at 14:16

Excuse my ignorance but i am getting confused and hope you peeps can put me right.
I know the 2011 mobos are out and that they support the Sandy Bridge Enthusiast hex core cpu's, so if an octo core comes along i am assuming that will be 2011 compatable but what about the next chipset i think someone said "Haswell" will that be compatable or will it require a mobo change?
I guess what i am asking in short is, how long a "shelf life " has the 20011 got?

Thanks in advance

debs3759 · 23 Nov 2011 at 15:39

The only octo-core chips that have been announced so far are in the Sandy Bridge-EP (Xeon) range, due for release in Q1 2012. I'm unsure yet whether these will work in a desktop SB-E board, although I would guess they will. Ivy Bridge Extreme will use the same socket and be compatible, and they are currently expected to be available in Q4 2012.

Haswell on the desktop will use socket H3 (socket 1150).
See http://vr-zone.com/articles/detailed-intel-haswell-specs-revealed/13908.html
Or the article I wrote, which summarises it in a single page: http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/..._Intel_Haswell_microarchitecture_surface.html

ToxicTBag · 23 Nov 2011 at 15:48

Thanks very much for that explanation debs3759 much appreciated

Magic Man · 23 Nov 2011 at 23:33

Desktop SB-E needed to stay at 130W max TDP, hence the fusing off of the two cores and supportive cache. Dies aimed at the Xeon badge and server market don't have such a restriction and so can be fully enabled.
IB-E should hopefully allow a full 8 cores in the desktop parts because of lower TDP.

debs3759 · 24 Nov 2011 at 01:17

I just found an article over at vr-zone that says the single-socket octo-core xeon E5 are expected to work with X79. They'll cost more than the 3960X, but hey if ya want the power you gotta pay the price

I still haven't seen any single-socket octo-core details, all the octo-core part numbers I know so far are dual-socket capable. The above article doesn't mention them when it talks about compatability, but if the single single socket chips are compatible I see no reason why the duals won't be.

lay-z-boy · 24 Nov 2011 at 15:51

They won't be unlocked like the k or x, so outside of gearing the bclock and/or the limited multi change if it has any option to, you're stuffed for overclocking.