Intel Skylake-X 14, 16, and 18 core parts expected to ship in October

[Jahramika]

13 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

Intel would win in the 16cv16c battle but loose if you stack up TH against the same priced CPU on the intel side

Really then why bother with the 18c if the 16c is already wins? I get it to use Xeons stocks that would go in servers and make Intel more money.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

What if AMD follows their Ryzen pricing scheme of offering double the cores or threads at the same price? Like 1700 vs 7700k

That'd be too low. Lowest tier 6c is 210 USD.  You still need to sell a Premium product at something of a premium price. I'd expect the 12c, lowest SKU to be around 549 though.

[Dylanc1500]

13 minutes ago, Jahramika said:

Really then why bother with the 18c if the 16c is already wins? I get it to use Xeons stocks that would go in servers and make Intel more money.

If they can offer it and are willing to, why not? 

 

Another aspect is, say their 12 or 14 core beat AMDs top offering in both single threaded and multithreaded loads, people would still point out that AMD has more cores. So it's really so they have the top single threaded and multi threaded offerings plus offering the most cores.

 

Best of the best and a numbers game. That's one of the ways I could see it.

[Jahramika]

12 hours ago, Stefan1024 said:

Not sure if the 10 core part is very good compared to the 8 core as you get a latency penalty between the dies. On the other hand the heat density is reduced.

Please sick of this penalty crop. Zen runs as it was designed

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, Jahramika said:

Really then why bother with the 18c if the 16c is already wins? I get it to use Xeons stocks that would go in servers and make Intel more money.

It's not a matter of "Intel Cores beat AMD Cores". Even in straight IPC, it depends on the workload, memory subsystems and a lot of other little things. (AMD's catch up in memory systems with Zen might actually be a bigger issue than the generalized IPC.)  Clock speed and other parts of the entire system are going to matter. Intel needed more cores than AMD on the HEDT platform, so from the core count angle it's the proper call.

 

After BIOS/UEFI/AGESA updates to Ryzen, we've now got a much better appreciation for what those Zen cores can do, and they're really strong and very power efficient at the low to mid 3 Ghz range.  The 10c i7-7900X already has a base clock of 3.3 Ghz, and we know that several of the 12c & 16c TR SKUs should be higher than that. What happens when you get out to 18c?   A delided 7900X was able to just hold 5 Ghz all-core under load, right at thermal throttle level. The 16c and 18c aren't going to hold that type of clocks without LN2.

 

When we reach into the >10c on the Intel line, the base clock is going to drop fast. We're only talking in these terms because there's a tight range from the "consumer" level clock max and the "server" level max. Epyc is going to be clocking 3.0 to 3.3 Ghz at base, I would assume. On 32c CPUs, when most of the >20c Intel models have base clocks in the low 2 Ghz range. We're used to the Server chips being X% step down from the Consumer level. Because of the Wafer Process, that just isn't true with Zen cores. The Servers can clock to the same as the Consumer.  And given the way the Perf/Watt works on Ryzen, you're still going to clock the server chips around 3 Ghz. 

 

That's why we'll be seeing a 18c "desktop" CPU this year. (How nuts is that?) Intel was looking at losing the Core Count & Performance battle in the HEDT space. They still might lose the Performance battle, but we don't know until we get deep testing after TR drops.  (7900X results are actually kind of predictable; 2.3X 7700k results at the same clock speed.) 

[DXMember]

pfail... most of the motherboards coming out next  week won't support these things

Rampage VI Extreme won't support KabyLake-X

this platform is a joke, I mean the motherboards are probably more expensive than some of the low end SKUs and if you put a low end SKU into that motherboards then half of it doesn't even work, wtf...

u don' mess'd up now Intel

[THE_maverick]

15 hours ago, done12many2 said:

Is anyone else getting Skylake-X or Threadripper?

Yes.  If the Intel part is 1.5x the performance of the AMD part I'll take intel.

[Bananasplit_00]

4 hours ago, Jahramika said:

Really then why bother with the 18c if the 16c is already wins? I get it to use Xeons stocks that would go in servers and make Intel more money.

they need it so they seem like they have the best CPU, which they will have, but its like a childish need to have the most cores so they made x299 and screwed the platform over

[Taf the Ghost]

30 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

they need it so they seem like they have the best CPU, which they will have, but its like a childish need to have the most cores so they made x299 and screwed the platform over

Once they added the 12c part, since it's from the MCC die, adding up to 18c wasn't a big technical issue.  It just cuts into their Server profits.  However, it's not so clear they'll be ahead in performance at the very top. They should be, but https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_gold/6154 is likely the die to be harvested for the 18c part. It's a 3.0 / 3.7 Boost part.  So, we'll see.  I would expect it to, but it's hard enough to find things that leverage 16c/32t as is. Leveraging those 2 other cores could be an issue.  But, still, 16c vs 18c parts at the high-end "consumer" level is cool to see.  And for $3000ish less than last generation.

[Bananasplit_00]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Once they added the 12c part, since it's from the MCC die, adding up to 18c wasn't a big technical issue.  It just cuts into their Server profits.  However, it's not so clear they'll be ahead in performance at the very top. They should be, but https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_gold/6154 is likely the die to be harvested for the 18c part. It's a 3.0 / 3.7 Boost part.  So, we'll see.  I would expect it to, but it's hard enough to find things that leverage 16c/32t as is. Leveraging those 2 other cores could be an issue.  But, still, 16c vs 18c parts at the high-end "consumer" level is cool to see.  And for $3000ish less than last generation.

this is what competition looks like and its great

[tom_w141]

17 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Of course they will be overpriced, but performance will be phenomenal  a small % increase (at >200% cost vs R7 1700, more with X299 mobo)

FTFY

 

It will be the best 8 core around no doubt but it will be in between an R7 1700 and the TR 10c. So lets not get carried away with those expectations  

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

FTFY

 

It will be the best 8 core around no doubt but it will be in between an R7 1700 and the TR 10c. So lets not get carried away with those expectations  

It's not like the Opterons of old where even Microsoft licensing had a 0.75 per core calculation for AMD CPUs, you know you failed when a 3rd party considers your product to be only 3/4 of someone else your competing with.

[Taf the Ghost]

43 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

FTFY

 

It will be the best 8 core around no doubt but it will be in between an R7 1700 and the TR 10c. So lets not get carried away with those expectations  

Parting it out, the "platform" cost of a Ryzen 7 1700 vs a i7-7820X (the 8c part) is, actually, almost exactly half. Graphics card & storage are fixed costs in this discussion. (CPU + Mobo + RAM [dual channel vs quad channel])  Performance difference where it would compare is going to be about 30%. And that's in Render-type tasks that can leverage all of the cores.  In non-all core situations, expect the gap to be much smaller.  We already know what a boosting 7700k does, and the results are going to be in-line or slightly below for that.

[tom_w141]

48 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Parting it out, the "platform" cost of a Ryzen 7 1700 vs a i7-7820X (the 8c part) is, actually, almost exactly half. Graphics card & storage are fixed costs in this discussion. (CPU + Mobo + RAM [dual channel vs quad channel])  Performance difference where it would compare is going to be about 30%. And that's in Render-type tasks that can leverage all of the cores.  In non-all core situations, expect the gap to be much smaller.  We already know what a boosting 7700k does, and the results are going to be in-line or slightly below for that.

The CPU is exactly half* after a mobo you are over £800 vs the £350 for the R7 platform so that is ~ 130% increase in cost, for what I predict to be a 20% performance uplift.

 

Not hating the platform, performance nuts will buy it because they just can. But from my point of view the gain isn't worth it if I can buy 2 of the other platform for the same cost at only a slight performance penalty (my partner is also an enthusiast but I earn more than she does so I often end up buying most of her systems as well as my own so 2 for 1 is very worth it imo).

 

EDIT: Also some of your points are only relevant to the R7. The TR 10c will likely be around $600 too and will have quad channel, 64 lanes vs the 28 due to Intel's artificial limitations on their platform. 10C at 4GHz, quad channel, nearly double the lanes, soldered with large IHS (hopefully helps thermals) and all at the same price as the 8 core will be a real competitor.

 

EDIT 2: Quad vs Dual Channel is rather meaningless btw as its performance change isn't really anything to write home about + without 4 sticks you will be in dual channel anyway.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

Edited June 14, 2017 by tom_w141

[PCGuy_5960]

3 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

FTFY

 

It will be the best 8 core around no doubt but it will be in between an R7 1700 and the TR 10c. So lets not get carried away with those expectations  

I was mostly talking about the 18 Core  So performance will be PHENOMENAL.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

The CPU is exactly half* after a mobo you are over £800 vs the £350 for the R7 platform so that is ~ 130% increase in cost, for what I predict to be a 20% performance uplift.

 

Not hating the platform, performance nuts will buy it because they just can. But from my point of view the gain isn't worth it if I can buy 2 of the other platform for the same cost at only a slight performance penalty (my partner is also an enthusiast but I earn more than she does so I often end up buying most of her systems as well as my own so 2 for 1 is very worth it imo).

 

EDIT: Also some of your points are only relevant to the R7. The TR 10c will likely be around $600 too and will have quad channel, 64 lanes vs the 28 due to Intel's artificial limitations on their platform. 10C at 4GHz, quad channel, nearly double the lanes, soldered with large IHS (hopefully helps thermals) and all at the same price as the 8 core will be a real competitor.

 

EDIT 2: Quad vs Dual Channel is rather meaningless btw as its performance change isn't really anything to write home about + without 4 sticks you will be in dual channel anyway.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

I think you are thinking I was disagreeing with you a bit, when I was in quite heavy agreement.

 

The only place I expect to see any gaming uplift is on the 6c part, as that should be able to leverage the new cache system at the same clocks as a delided 7700k.  6/12t is about as far as Nvidia's driver can stretch itself and the 7700k is pinned over 95% in a few games that can take advantage of those extra threads.  (BF1 and Crysis 3 come to mind.  Actually, most especially Crysis 3.)  So the extra 2c/4t should leverage just a little bit more out of the situation, if you can get a stable all-core OC up to 5 Ghz.  (The fact that deliding is a topic here is kinda sad, but, well, it's tech Oneupmanship... so, whatever.)

 

In productivity, even Ryzen's 8c/16t is hard to saturate. (There's a reason Blender & Handbrake come up so dang much.) Though the 8c i7-7820X should probably be between 15% to 45% better than the 1700 at stock. OC'ing and cooling are going to be huge issue for these discussions. "On Air" and "On Water" are going to be big discussion points, especially in the top-core CPUs. 

[Taf the Ghost]

17 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I was mostly talking about the 18 Core  So performance will be PHENOMENAL.

Yup. And, if you have it at your home, you can also probably turn off the heater in winter. That sucker is going to be a small thermo-nuclear reactor.

[VagabondWraith]

Intel will have higher performance without a doubt. Even clock for clock it'll be faster. Factor in overclocking and it will pull further ahead. Some people are willing to pay for extra performance.

 

I think it's funny because a lot of people arguing over this or that have no intention or means to actually buy TR or X299. They argue just to argue or stand behind their favorite brand when none of these processors matters to them.

 

For people who ARE actually buying into these platforms likely have a very good reason to do so. For some people, lower cost parts make sense to them even if it's behind in performance. That is completely understandable. Others, like myself, are willing to pay a premium to have the very best and can justify their purchase without  reservations.

[done12many2]

13 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

Intel will have higher performance without a doubt. Even clock for clock it'll be faster. Factor in overclocking and it will pull further ahead. Some people are willing to pay for extra performance.

 

I think it's funny because a lot of people arguing over this or that have no intention or means to actually buy TR or X299. They argue just to argue or stand behind their favorite brand when none of these processors matters to them.

 

For people who ARE actually buying into these platforms likely have a very good reason to do so. For some people, lower cost parts make sense to them even if it's behind in performance. That is completely understandable. Others, like myself, are willing to pay a premium to have the very best and can justify their purchase without  reservations.

 

The snowflakes will be here shortly talking about their rights to talk about whatever they want to.  

 

I'm one of those guys willing to pay a bit more money for the nicer things.  I don't spend money on things that don't matter to me and I spend a great deal on those that do.

[tom_w141]

29 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Though the 8c i7-7820X should probably be between 15% to 45% better than the 1700 at stock. OC'ing and cooling are going to be huge issue for these discussions. "On Air" and "On Water" are going to be big discussion points, especially in the top-core CPUs. 

I was in agreement until ^

 

Why would you leave a 1700 at stock? I think you should use air for comparison as its the most common and cheaper. You can get a 1700 up to 3.8 (3.9 if you don't care about noise) on the stock cooler which is pretty amazing and speaks for the quality of the new stock coolers. While we are on the subject that's another freebie for the R7 platform that you will be paying for on Intel which edges you up closer to $900 depending on the cooler you buy. On something like a bigger Noctua you could have the 1700 at 4/4.1 (chip limit dependant) and be fine. I wonder how high you'll be able to get on air with the 7820X? Lastly there sure as shit won't be a 45% performance difference  

[tom_w141]

16 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

The snowflakes will be here shortly talking about their rights to talk about whatever they want to.  

 

I'm one of those guys willing to pay a bit more money  more than double for the nicer things.  I don't spend money on things that don't matter to me and I spend a great deal on those that do.

While I am in agreement mostly, I still couldn't help myself  

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

While I am in agreement mostly, I still couldn't help myself  

 

As long as it outperforms what you have, I'm happy.  

[tom_w141]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

As long as it outperforms what you have, I'm happy.  

 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

I was in agreement until ^

 

Why would you leave a 1700 at stock? I think you should use air for comparison as its the most common and cheaper. You can get a 1700 up to 3.8 (3.9 if you don't care about noise) on the stock cooler which is pretty amazing and speaks for the quality of the new stock coolers. While we are on the subject that's another freebie for the R7 platform that you will be paying for on Intel which edges you up closer to $900 depending on the cooler you buy. On something like a bigger Noctua you could have the 1700 at 4/4.1 (chip limit dependant) and be fine. I wonder how high you'll be able to get on air with the 7820X? Lastly there sure as shit won't be a 45% performance difference  

There's a few tests use cases that are well-tuned to Intel's architecture that might leverage, stock for stock on 8c, close to the 40% range.  However, it's going to be down to the 20% or less against the 1800X.  

 

As for OC'ing, I never recommend it.  Because I'm the "techie" of all of my social circles, so I never suggest anything that's going to cause me phone calls later asking for help when someone melts a CPU.  Hedge everything!

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There's a few tests use cases that are well-tuned to Intel's architecture that might leverage, stock for stock on 8c, close to the 40% range.  However, it's going to be down to the 20% or less against the 1800X.  

 

As for OC'ing, I never recommend it.  Because I'm the "techie" of all of my social circles, so I never suggest anything that's going to cause me phone calls later asking for help when someone melts a CPU.  Hedge everything!

You realise an 1800X is a factory OC on a 1700 right? They are the same chip underneath. It's so easy to run at 1800X stock on a 1700. 0 effort.