Intel launches Core-X series with up to 18-cores for 1999 USD

Genghis Cohen · 1 Jun 2017 at 20:25

I'm eyeing a 7820x for my new system but how much more expensive are the motherboards likely to be?

Are we talking 2008 Skulltrail money, or Broadwell-E money?

DragonQ · 1 Jun 2017 at 21:18

Martini1991 said:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-39v-am.html

It's really not.
I thought that it was like £500 at first.

Ha, I rarely check OcUK for prices since they're usually higher than others. Guess not in this case.

AllBodies · 1 Jun 2017 at 21:42

Martini1991 said:
Ryzen parts have crap top clocks, so Intel do have some leeway. Want best performance you've got to pay.

My 1700 was like 289 quid, and all Intel have at that price point are the 4C/8T's though.

Yeah this is true to some extent, but with the 1700 at least this is 8-cores we're talking about. Also AMDs multi-thread scaling is better than Intel's.

So it pretty much only makes a difference for low-core performance. An 8-core Skylake-X at 4.2-4.3 GHz will probably be VERY similar in performance to an 8-core Ryzen at 4 GHz, in something that can utilise all 16 threads properly.

I'm not doubting Skylake-X will be slightly superior core-for-core, but it'll also be more expensive as you've mentioned, and I'm not sure the difference will be there to justify the cost. We'll see for sure though when we get benchmarks.

Combat Fighter · 1 Jun 2017 at 21:51

Amazed these won't be soldered considering these are high end chips.

Will take some big balls delidding them!

Looking forward to reviews and what the temps are going to be. . .

I'm still really happy with my chip, still does everything I need no problem so not in a rush to upgrade.

Rroff · 1 Jun 2017 at 22:00

Is a bit strange they aren't soldered - that said the difference between a 4770K and my 4820K isn't earth shattering. One of the reasons I bought into the X79 platform was the reinforced socket with integrated backplate so definitely something I'd be looking into when upgrading again - not that I'm in a hurry to upgrade unless games actually start using more cores as I just dump stuff like video encoding on another PC if its going to take awhile.

Martini1991 · 1 Jun 2017 at 22:09

Is AMDs scaling actually better? I'd have thought they were basically the same.

DragonQ · 1 Jun 2017 at 22:34

Martini1991 said:
Is AMDs scaling actually better? I'd have thought they were basically the same.

Seems to be from benchmarks I've seen. Not sure if it's just SMT though.

smogsy · 2 Jun 2017 at 18:11

Martini1991 said:
Is AMDs scaling actually better? I'd have thought they were basically the same.

seems better due to the Fabric + the way the caching works. from my research

Dave2150 · 3 Jun 2017 at 09:15

Martini1991 said:
Ryzen parts have crap top clocks, so Intel do have some leeway. Want best performance you've got to pay.

My 1700 was like 289 quid, and all Intel have at that price point are the 4C/8T's though.

Not for long - Intel's mainstream is moving to 6C soon

I think many people think that 8C+ will be 'needed' for gaming soon - it really won't.

Developers will still target the most common specification out there. Dual cores and quad cores are still by far the most common CPU's out there, so developers will target these CPU's first.

It will take many years before a significant percentage of the population own even a 6C CPU.

Obviously for those using their PC (workstation, rather) for work, productivity, rendering, encoding, X299 from Intel and X399 for AMD are extremely exciting, but for only gaming? Forget it!

Also remember that a 1080 runs exactly the same at PCI-E V3 X8 speed as it does at PCI-E V3 X16:

So all these PCI-E lanes arguments are totally irrelevant for gaming also - it's really only for professional applications that the insane IO capabilities are needed (multiple NVME PCI-E SSD's etc).

Journey · 3 Jun 2017 at 09:19

Dave2150 said:
Not for long - Intel's mainstream is moving to 6C soon

Soon = end of Q3.

Dave2150 · 3 Jun 2017 at 09:21

Journey said:
Soon = end of Q3.

Time flies dude

It's only a few months away.

Journey · 3 Jun 2017 at 09:27

Dave2150 said:
Time flies dude It's only a few months away.

Indeed it does, lets hope Intel can get their heads together and realise that they can't push out a 6c/6t i5 for £240 and expect people to be amazed.

Dave2150 · 3 Jun 2017 at 09:31

Journey said:
Indeed it does, lets hope Intel can get their heads together and realise that they can't push out a 6c/6t i5 for £240 and expect people to be amazed.

I expect the i5 6C/6T CPU's to also clock to 5Ghz+, as they will be built on an even more refined process than kabylake was.

At 5Ghz they will be the absolute top performers in gaming.

Perfect_Chaos · 3 Jun 2017 at 10:57

Dave2150 said:
I expect the i5 6C/6T CPU's to also clock to 5Ghz+, as they will be built on an even more refined process than kabylake was.

At 5Ghz they will be the absolute top performers in gaming.

You already said Coffee Lake will make all past CPU's useless, or something to that effect.. either way it's utter rubbish to be honest. Maybe all of 5-10% better, at best? We'll see, i don't see how that makes past CPU's redundant because it doesn't. Then again i think you said similar things about Skylake.

Dave2150 · 3 Jun 2017 at 11:07

Perfect_Chaos said:
You already said Coffee Lake will make all past CPU's useless, or something to that effect.. either way it's utter rubbish to be honest. Maybe all of 5-10% better, at best? We'll see, i don't see how that makes past CPU's redundant because it doesn't. Then again i think you said similar things about Skylake.

I think you're a bit confused, I didn't use the word 'useless' in my post, nor do I recall suggesting anything similar in previous posts. Be my guest and search my post history, if that's your kind of thing, though best not to insinuate unless you can backup your claims.

Obviously no CPU is useless unless it can no longer complete a desired task. When a new CPU releases, all previous CPU's continue to operate as they did before - I'm not sure why I'm explaining this as it's obvious even to a developing child.

My post simply said that a 6C mainstream Intel CPU, on the most advanced process in the world, will be the absolute best performer in games. This is due to the highest IPC of any x86 CPU to date, coupled with the highest clock speeds.

haszek · 3 Jun 2017 at 11:17

Dave2150 said:
I expect the i5 6C/6T CPU's to also clock to 5Ghz+, as they will be built on an even more refined process than kabylake was.

At 5Ghz they will be the absolute top performers in gaming.

With kabylake temps at 5ghz how 6core is going to get to the same speed? there is no logic to me based on the past. Temps skylake>kabylake went up (which was supposed to be refined process) and 2 cores extra are going to increase them even more.

mmj_uk · 3 Jun 2017 at 11:20

Dave2150 said:
Developers will still target the most common specification out there. Dual cores and quad cores are still by far the most common CPU's out there, so developers will target these CPU's first.

Even worse, the majority will target consoles which use processors that are about as powerful as dual core Pentiums. Quad core should be mostly fine until at least the next console generation which hopefully drop Jaguar for Ryzen.

Perfect_Chaos · 3 Jun 2017 at 11:23

It's always either confusion, or misreading right? :rolleyes:

haszek · 3 Jun 2017 at 18:23

Not so easy to delid if anybody's thinking...by der8auer

http://www.pcgamer.com/meet-the-overclocker-who-made-delidding-your-cpu-idiot-proof/

RSR · 3 Jun 2017 at 23:41

So the current rumour mill suggests the high end I9 are delayed according to this :eek:

Did AMD just blindside Intel?