AMD going DDR4 any time soon?

[Dave2150]

I agree with pretty much all of that. X99 is not a step up from X79 it's more of a refresh with a few silly techs (like MSATA) bolted to it. If it had decent SATA ports there are usually 10-12 on a spec like X79/99 any way so adding a stupid port for a mini drive on a board of that spec is just stupid.

On the hex cored CPUs the speed advances are utterly minimal. Only reason people are getting all excited is because Intel finally released an 8 core CPU that's unlocked and they could have easily done that about three times on X79.

As a tech X99 offers nothing new. Which, if you really care about things like that is a massive disappointment. What's been more disappointing is reviewers not pointing out all of these caveats. Most have said wow, amazing, super duper ETC but hardly any (Anand at last check) have actually used X79 data to compare.

They wouldn't really, given they're all mostly glorified salesmen selling products for a big company. Who's going to say "Well actually X99 is a bit Tom Tit so just stick with your X79 rig or just buy an X79 rig as the memory is half price".

'As a tech X99 offers nothing new' - it offers an unlocked 8 core CPU. Granted, it's out of the budget of most people, though this is what the reviews were so happy/enthusiastic about. Finally a 8 core unlocked CPU to play with - just look at the recent world records using that 8 core.

X79 does not offer a 8 core CPU, so it can never compete in heavily threaded benchmarks/applications etc.

 

[ALXAndy]

'As a tech X99 offers nothing new' - it offers an unlocked 8 core CPU. Granted, it's out of the budget of most people, though this is what the reviews were so happy/enthusiastic about. Finally a 8 core unlocked CPU to play with - just look at the recent world records using that 8 core.

X79 does not offer a 8 core CPU, so it can never compete in heavily threaded benchmarks/applications etc.

There are locked 8 core SBE and IVBE chips around. Xeons. It wouldn't have taken Intel anything to unlock one and sell it as a Extreme Edition.

Why didn't they? obvious really, wanted people to dump their rigs and buy a whole new one.

That crap worked before this recession but I would hazard a guess and say it's why they ended up shutting down one of their plants. I know 8 cores work and run on X79 because I've got an 8 core rig.

X99 all hot air. At least with X79 Sandybridge was miles ahead of the I7 920 series.

 

[Dave2150]

There are locked 8 core SBE and IVBE chips around. Xeons. It wouldn't have taken Intel anything to unlock one and sell it as a Extreme Edition.

Why didn't they? obvious really, wanted people to dump their rigs and buy a whole new one.

That crap worked before this recession but I would hazard a guess and say it's why they ended up shutting down one of their plants. I know 8 cores work and run on X79 because I've got an 8 core rig.

X99 all hot air. At least with X79 Sandybridge was miles ahead of the I7 920 series.

The 8 core Xeons that work on X79 are locked and run at very low speeds, I remember reading your thread where you bought a cheap one and x99 annihilates in benchmarks etc, due to being unlocked and clocking much higher etc.

Seems rather a moot point, if you want the best, get x99 8 core, if you can afford it.

Can't blame Intel for operating this way, they have no competition after all.

 

[ALXAndy]

The 8 core Xeons that work on X79 are locked and run at very low speeds, I remember reading your thread where you bought a cheap one and x99 annihilates in benchmarks etc, due to being unlocked and clocking much higher etc.

Seems rather a moot point, if you want the best, get x99 8 core, if you can afford it.

Can't blame Intel for operating this way, they have no competition after all.

You're completely missing the point but well done for the rest

What you're saying in theory is that because Intel were nice enough to release an 8 core CPU that's unlocked X99 is actually good.

My point was it does nothing X79 can't do, and X79 does hardly anything X58 can do. It's all a big con.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Seems rather a moot point, if you want the best, get x99 8 core, if you can afford it.

Can't blame Intel for operating this way, they have no competition after all.

Equally moot all this intel trumpeting which I would hope all the members on here would acknowledge - its not rocket science. You pay your monies.. and all that, except I would feel violated having to part with £800 for a cpu.

If you are not going to push that tech to the limits on a regular basis then it would be hard to justify that against a clocking i5 saving you a ton of cash to burn on a great GPU.

 

[Dave2150]

You're completely missing the point but well done for the rest

What you're saying in theory is that because Intel were nice enough to release an 8 core CPU that's unlocked X99 is actually good.

My point was it does nothing X79 can't do, and X79 does hardly anything X58 can do. It's all a big con.

Your logic is very flawed.

X99 can do a lot that X79 can't do. For one, it has a retail, enthusiast grade 8 core unlocked CPU available. You cannot get an unlocked 8 core on X79. Do I need to list the benefits of having an unlocked 8 core, that can overclock to quite high clock speeds?

The 5960X (8 core, unlocked) is a monser of a CPU, it demolishes X79 performance, users on this forum are getting 1870+ in cinebench for example, really great performance, for multi-threaded applications.

I suspect your just angry Intel put it at this price range and on this new platform. Yes, they could have released a 8 core on X79, and it would have had very similar performance to X99 (in everything bar AVX apps), though remember Intel have no competition, so it's completely up to them at the rate they release products.

 

[Dave2150]

Equally moot all this intel trumpeting which I would hope all the members on here would acknowledge - its not rocket science. You pay your monies.. and all that, except I would feel violated having to part with £800 for a cpu.

If you are not going to push that tech to the limits on a regular basis then it would be hard to justify that against a clocking i5 saving you a ton of cash to burn on a great GPU.

I fully agree, woudn't pay any more than £500 for a CPU.

 

[Martini1991]

I'd rather cut my eyes out than spend over 300 on a CPU

 

[ALXAndy]

Your logic is very flawed.

X99 can do a lot that X79 can't do. For one, it has a retail, enthusiast grade 8 core unlocked CPU available. You cannot get an unlocked 8 core on X79. Do I need to list the benefits of having an unlocked 8 core, that can overclock to quite high clock speeds?

You're still missing the point. Intel could have very easily released an 8 core Xeon (IVBE V2) and unlocked it and put it in a black box and sold it as a Intel Extreme Edition (TM, (R), pull your pants down (TM) but decided not to.

That does not make X99 capable of doing anything X79 couldn't. My point, if you understood it, was other than DDR4 (waste waste salmon paste) and stupid frivolousness like MSATA X99 offers absolutely nothing that X79 does not.

Your logic is what is flawed. You think because Intel put a key in one of their padlocks that they've actually conjured up something new, something unique.

They haven't. I'd be willing to bet every rig I have (and I have many) that Haswell E could have very easily been doable in X79 but Intel need to keep hammering your batty crack so they released another new motherboard with another new socket.

Plastic and pins don't make things better.

The 5960X (8 core, unlocked) is a monser of a CPU, it demolishes X79 performance, users on this forum are getting 1870+ in cinebench for example, really great performance, for multi-threaded applications.

Another example of 'gullible person falls for it and buys anything they sell'.

I would bet that unlocked, a IVBE 8 core Xeon (and of course overclocked) would match that 5960x point for point in any benchmark. Once again, just because Intel decided to unlock a CPU does not mean X99 offers anything new. You just seem to be getting more and more confused as you post.

I suspect your just angry Intel put it at this price range and on this new platform. Yes, they could have released a 8 core on X79, and it would have had very similar performance to X99 (in everything bar AVX apps), though remember Intel have no competition, so it's completely up to them at the rate they release products.

I'm not angry at Intel. I couldn't care less, but, would like to thank them for smashing down the prices of X79 by releasing X99. I got my board and CPU at a complete song compared to the prices of X99 gear.

What you need to do now is stop making excuses for them and stop kissing their furry backside.

The more people understand their motives the less they will get away with ripping people off. But no, oh god no, they've released an unlocked 8 core CPU so I gotta sell my rig for peanuts and then spend £500 or more on a decent board and some ram before I even get to their new CPU.

PMSL.

 

[Dave2150]

You're still missing the point. Intel could have very easily released an 8 core Xeon (IVBE V2) and unlocked it and put it in a black box and sold it as a Intel Extreme Edition (TM, (R), pull your pants down (TM) but decided not to.

That does not make X99 capable of doing anything X79 couldn't. My point, if you understood it, was other than DDR4 (waste waste salmon paste) and stupid frivolousness like MSATA X99 offers absolutely nothing that X79 does not.

Your logic is what is flawed. You think because Intel put a key in one of their padlocks that they've actually conjured up something new, something unique.

They haven't. I'd be willing to bet every rig I have (and I have many) that Haswell E could have very easily been doable in X79 but Intel need to keep hammering your batty crack so they released another new motherboard with another new socket.

Plastic and pins don't make things better.




Another example of 'gullible person falls for it and buys anything they sell'.

I would bet that unlocked, a IVBE 8 core Xeon (and of course overclocked) would match that 5960x point for point in any benchmark. Once again, just because Intel decided to unlock a CPU does not mean X99 offers anything new. You just seem to be getting more and more confused as you post.




I'm not angry at Intel. I couldn't care less, but, would like to thank them for smashing down the prices of X79 by releasing X99. I got my board and CPU at a complete song compared to the prices of X99 gear.

What you need to do now is stop making excuses for them and stop kissing their furry backside.

The more people understand their motives the less they will get away with ripping people off. But no, oh god no, they've released an unlocked 8 core CPU so I gotta sell my rig for peanuts and then spend £500 or more on a decent board and some ram before I even get to their new CPU.

PMSL.

Your completely missing the point of my post. I guess you didn't understand it, I'll try again:

'X99 can do a lot that X79 can't do. For one, it has a retail, enthusiast grade 8 core unlocked CPU available. You cannot get an unlocked 8 core on X79. Do I need to list the benefits of having an unlocked 8 core, that can overclock to quite high clock speeds?'

That was from my post. The point is, Intel didn't release an 8 core on x79. Yes they could have, but they didn't.

That means X99 does offer a native 8 core, while X79 doesn't.

It's not very realistic to talk about fantasy products that never got released (even though intel could have released one if they wanted), you have to wakeup and see the reality of the situation. The reality is that X99 offers an unlocked 8 core and x79 does not.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Dave don't waste your time mate, he's another one. IIRC he's not even overclocking his current setup. Not a crime in itself but it certainly is when youre trying to criticise something. That's the beauty of opinions, it helps to have experience of what you are criticising. If it wasn't for the Haswell EP and server market i doubt we'd have these chips in the first place. It's easy to sit there and say 'they could easily have'. A lot of things can be easily had. You're not the ones forking out for them however. Not to mention Andy himself has an Ivy-E CPU, so he fell for the very thing he's moaning about instead of opting to keep / or originally buy a SB-E chip.


Can I just point out the obvious though as a closing point. x79, talking natively, is prehistoric. It's a 4 year old chipset. Haswell on x79 would probably be problematic to put it mildly, due to the nature of the IVR...

So enough with the Intel conspiracies.

 

[Kaapstad]

Your completely missing the point of my post. I guess you didn't understand it, I'll try again:

'X99 can do a lot that X79 can't do. For one, it has a retail, enthusiast grade 8 core unlocked CPU available. You cannot get an unlocked 8 core on X79. Do I need to list the benefits of having an unlocked 8 core, that can overclock to quite high clock speeds?'

That was from my post. The point is, Intel didn't release an 8 core on x79. Yes they could have, but they didn't.

That means X99 does offer a native 8 core, while X79 doesn't.

It's not very realistic to talk about fantasy products that never got released (even though intel could have released one if they wanted), you have to wakeup and see the reality of the situation. The reality is that X99 offers an unlocked 8 core and x79 does not.

I disagree with your opinion, I suspect many do. That's the beauty of opinions - we can each have our own and then get on with it.

This may come as a shock for you, but posting your opinion in capitals, in a larger font, doesn't encourage anyone else to agree with it, if they didn't already. It just makes you look like a spotty teenager with anger issues.

 

[Dave2150]

The things I highlighted in bold and caps are simply facts. I was not trying to make my personal opinion look like fact. It's a fact that there is no unlocked 8 core on x79 (even though it would have been possible for intel to make one).

 

[drunkenmaster]

Dear lord people, thread about ddr4, ddr4 sucks. It's "brand new" memory which 3 years ago would have looked good at current speeds vs ddr3 speeds 3-4 years ago, even then it would still be a small 10-15% performance advantage which in terms of platform would mean maybe 5% faster on average (benchmarks, real world less so).

Today not only is ddr3 stronger making ddr4 a basically non existent upgrade to 99% of the consumer market, 64gb for gaming, me thinks not. You can get 32gb ddr3 kits at the same speed as 64gb ddr4, and almost no one buys either.

But as said, ddr4 is launching on what is the cusp of HBM and HMC. It's like launching a new HDD that is 1% faster than the previous gen but with a higher capacity 3 months before the first SSD's come out which will blow it the hell away. Except at least with HDD's capacity did and still matters even in the consumer market, in memory capacity isn't even close to a big issue and won't be in the next 5 years either.

HMC 2.0 just got announced, which increases bandwidth per stack to 480GB/s max though the internal memory maxes out and 320GB/s AND this is absolutely no where near what you get in reality. Lots of complexities with HMC. It moves a lot of the memory controller off die and onto the HMC logic chip. The communication is compressed where possible which is one reason there is still a on chip memory controller but it also deals with address space and plenty of other things.

The max bandwidth listed is effective bandwidth, HMC bandwidth scales significantly with packet size as it's to a degree a heavily encoded signal transmission system so there is significant overhead with each packet so the smaller the packet the higher percentage of waste in the overhead. It's something like 30-40% effective bandwidth at 64byte packets and 70-80% at bigger packets.

The main thing the 480GB/s allows is double the bandwidth per lane. Much like PCI-E you can choose to use less lanes which saves money.

The main goal of HMC is to reduce power and traces/pinout. Instead of the 288 pin out of DDR4(up from DDR3), it uses 8 or 16(not sure if it can go to 4/2/1) serial connections which is a massive reduction. HBM goes the other way, uses more connections but keeps them silicon scale and on package, when going off package like HMC less connections that are massively more efficient is the way to go.

HMC is also about reducing latencies again though I've really not seen any real numbers stated, it's supposed to be significantly reduced as well as giving much higher bandwidth.

Don't forget that even at 40% efficiency on a 480GB/s max that is circa 200GB/s of bandwidth PER STACK and with much of the memory controller logic and complexity moved to the stack adding more stacks while increasing the memory controller size cpu side will still be pretty easy to do.

Ultimately what I'm trying to get across, again, is that ddr4 years before HMC would be a useful stop gap, before, LONG before DDR4 gets any useful speed advantage on DDR3 it will be completely and utterly obsolete.

HMC will offer per channel lets call it roughly 20GB/s(15GB/s today, 20-25GB/s in a few years) for DDR4 and 200GB/s and up for HMC but with lower power usage, lower latencies, lower motherboard cost, lower CPU cost, smaller pin out.

HBM offers pretty much all the same advantages just going about it a very different way, a magnitude higher bandwidth also, lower power usage even over HMC, literally no clue about latencies, lower motherboard cost, lower pin out, likely lower cpu mem controller complexity/cost as well. HMC will probably move more stuff off the cpu mem controller and save more on cpu but HMC itself will likely cost more so, who knows which comes out on top in terms of cost.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I will keep it to the point - particularly with memory the early adoption is not worth the price. Whilst some are defending its potential it is not worth a song and a dance till the price drops.

You are only kidding yourself if you try and justify this being worthwhile.