Why would you say it is incomplete? Looks a lot more legit than anything Intel have said/done over the last 12 months about 10nm and forward progress.
-
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.
Another upcoming 14nm++++++ Desperate CPU from Intel
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Why would you say it is incomplete? Looks a lot more legit than anything Intel have said/done over the last 12 months about 10nm and forward progress.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,876
- Location
- Surrey
Because there are items missing in the roadmap.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 967
That's the best they can do and it's probably better than nothing. At least more cores at lower speeds are more power efficient so there is that crumb of comfort.
Any company can only release what they have available no matter how uncompetitive.
Did AMD really fancy releasing Bulldozer but that's all they had.
As a web developer I have little sympathy for situations like this. There has to be a point at which you no longer pander to old kit, otherwise everything stagnates and we don't move forward. The bulk of what I do is corporate so I had to retain Internet Explorer 6 (way back) and Internet Explorer 8 support for a lot longer than in my non-corporate work, but a point came where I simply had to charge more money because of the ridiculous amounts of extra work involved to build in that support. And for some clients it just wasn't financially viable to keep paying inflated development costs to support their archaic systems then just pull the trigger and actually updating said systems.
AMD (or whomever) of course need to ensure their goods are as universally operational as possible, but not to the detriment of their advancement.
Like what?
I think AMD were perfectly happy releasing Bulldozer, it was the numerous iterations trying to fix their fundamental mistakes that I'm sure they didn't like.
Good luck getting an answer...
Problem is often the people who understand the system are long gone and often no one wants to be the one to sign off on the huge amount of money needed to update the system in one go or be responsible if the transition to a new system goes wrong - they'd rather smaller, though inefficient, ongoing costs to keep beating the system into life and that is how it is always going to be.
Quite frustrating in some cases - I once wrote a proof of concept application in an afternoon for transferring data between two archaic systems for a place I worked at which was being done manually by printing everything off and re-entering it in a way the other system understood - albeit as part of a bigger digital makeover millions of pounds and I think something like 2 years later the external company had produced something buggier and less functional than the program I'd created in a few hours and last I heard it had taken 3 years of iterations to get it upto speed.
I know where Rroff is coming from.
I used to work for a large transport company, in a team of eight programmers.
The program they used to control stock and HGV vehicles over a number of UK and European warehouses had been written (undocumented) over a period of years.
To rewrite it and document it from scratch would entail another entirely separate team of programmers at a cost probably running into a couple of million.
This was at a time of downturn in the global economy and would never be entertained.
Far cheaper to plod on with the incredibly ponderous and slow and hard to maintain set of software, which is exactly what the company did.
I think this is one of the key factors - a few years back with the downturns, etc. replacing the systems would never even be entertained short of a full failure - there is slowly starting to be some momentum now especially as cloud services, etc. become more mainstream. But fact remains there are a lot of companies that are beating old software into life by using immense amount of hardware to brute force past software architecture inefficiencies that by their nature don't perform as well on the latest AMD hardware which is actually on paper ideal with its core counts, etc. a lot due to things like scheduler problems.
Doesn't help that a lot of these systems were in part or entirely moved from Unix/Linux to Windows in a fairly inefficient manner as well and/or are now sitting on Windows boxes but using emulation for underlying Unix functionality.
Trust me, I know what you guys are saying. I've been there myself. It's just that a point comes where "plodding on" is just insanity and costs more money than just biting the bullet and reinvesting. But I'll admit I'm biased because I've never had a business case rejected when trying to point this out and therefore always got my way 
Bot?
yup ..a pretty obvious one
No idea, but I think Intel are going to drip feed their desperation a little: 9900KS should retake/regain the gaming crown as that's the only metric they can realistically still fight for and keep that in the public eye. Then if Z390 boards can handle 10 cores without melting I see it coming out around September to rain on the 3950X's parade as the de facto top-end gaming chip. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Z395 board required for the 10 core too with even bigger VRMs.
That 10 core is going to be a ******* IED, the Wattage will be off the charts. I also dont see how it's supposed to improve gaming perf, assuming that 5GHz is generally the limit of the arch on 14nm. Unless ofcourse they've taken off the IGPU and replaced the entire area with L3 cache.
Last edited:
I'm sure Intel will limit it to only 200W base with maybe 225W max on turbo.
And allegedly HT will be disabled so this wee beastie is looking to be even more hilarious than we first thought.