Rumour: Intel Core 9000 series to get more threads

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

As an open question, just how many cores can the consumer usefully use? I'm not saying there aren't some situations where you can't get enough performance, but we already have HEDT for that. Are the highest end consumer CPUs at 12 cores+ going to largely end up for bragging rights? 

At the risk of someone coming to my house and hitting me with a baseball bat because I said this, truth is most people don't need anything more than a quad core. Crap someone is already at my door.

A lot of people still are under the impression that you need a billion cores for multitasking, which depends on what you do you may actually need all the cores, however when you ask them what they view as multitasking they respond with having YT opened in the background playing a song, having discord opened and playing a game. Without realizing that doesn't stress the cpu as much as they think it does.

So I would say the average consumer will be more than happy with just a quad core (yes I know we're about to end 2017 and we're still talking about quad cores), and if they think it's not enough a six core will be more than enough.

Now will you excuse me as I prepare myself for the bat.

 

 

[PocketNerd]

Competition (and I mean REAL competition) is such a wonderful thing  

[Godlygamer23]

9 hours ago, Lawliet93 said:

you will be able to put every cpu, that Amd is going to release in it.

Even if AMD is using AM4 for the foreseeable future, you can't expect AMD to use the same socket forever. They will encounter limitations eventually and will be forced to change sockets, though they may not necessarily break compatibility, but they could if they deem it necessary. 

[Godlygamer23]

8 hours ago, hoboX10 said:

Intel essentially held the world back a decade in computing with their greediness. Makes my blood boil.

You can't blame them entirely if there was no incentive to innovate. 

[8uhbbhu8]

And here I am still on my 4790k with no thoughts of upgrading yet  

[cj09beira]

36 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

At the risk of someone coming to my house and hitting me with a baseball bat because I said this, truth is most people don't need anything more than a quad core. Crap someone is already at my door.

A lot of people still are under the impression that you need a billion cores for multitasking, which depends on what you do you may actually need all the cores, however when you ask them what they view as multitasking they respond with having YT opened in the background playing a song, having discord opened and playing a game. Without realizing that doesn't stress the cpu as much as they think it does.

So I would say the average consumer will be more than happy with just a quad core (yes I know we're about to end 2017 and we're still talking about quad cores), and if they think it's not enough a six core will be more than enough.

Now will you excuse me as I prepare myself for the bat.

 

 

you can only say that because games have been stuck in a situation where they couldn't use more cpu power without alienating most of their costumers, now that 6 cores is the mainstream you will start to see games using more cpu power for things like much more npcs (think AC), and more assets things like that.

and as a quad core i5 user, having a yt tab IS enough to make problems in games, not all games but in some, especially if you are watching said video in fullscreen, with smt you can get away with a bit more but not enough, 

[Taf the Ghost]

45 minutes ago, porina said:

As an open question, just how many cores can the consumer usefully use? I'm not saying there aren't some situations where you can't get enough performance, but we already have HEDT for that. Are the highest end consumer CPUs at 12 cores+ going to largely end up for bragging rights? 

6 cores is going to be optimal in most "directed" tasks. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

 

There's some better graphs that lay out how much uplift you get from Serial vs Parallel compute tasks, but 6 cores at high-clocks are going to be staple in the Mainstream space for a very long time. Intel going to 8c on Mainstream will get them nothing in gaming and is going to cannibalize their HEDT sales unless version 2.0 of the Mesh can drop the latency by 50%. 

 

The main thing other cores do is free up I/O. Part of the problem with a lot of the Tech Reviewers is that they aren't from an era where they had to actually deal with real bottlenecks. Neither Intel nor AMD CPUs, outside of something like Cinebench or parallel render tasks, is ever actually pinned at 100% utilization. They're spending a significant amount of their cycles waiting on the rest of the I/O to clear itself up and deliver something to compute. This is why Intel has been doing iterations for the last 7 years: the basic unit of the Core uArch is far beyond the rest of the system to feed it. AMD has this problem as well, now, with Zen. (There's an argument that Dozer had this problem, but they seem to have screwed up several stages in that one.)

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

you can only say that because games have been stuck in a situation where they couldn't use more cpu power without alienating most of their costumers, now that 6 cores is the mainstream you will start to see games using more cpu power for things like much more npcs (think AC), and more assets things like that.

and as a quad core i5 user, having a yt tab IS enough to make problems in games, not all games but in some, especially if you are watching said video in fullscreen, with smt you can get away with a bit more but not enough, 

More cores free up I/O in ways that even more threads does not. 6 cores let's you 4c Game and 2c the rest of your I/O and programs. Windows itself sits there eating up Cycles & I/O, which is why when you pin your CPU in a game the non-GPU-based microstutters can happen. That's a lot of the reason for the Ryzen "smoothness" discussion. 

[Septimus]

12 hours ago, Essence_of_Darkness said:

Holy sh** if that rumor is true, then I might just cancel my Ryzen order

I would probably cancel it anyway (unless you really need/want it) considering that Zen 2 is coming up - which should fix some of the issues with Ryzen, such as it's lower clock speed - and that this kind of stuff from Intel is coming out.

[Kamina]

Back at it again with the core wars.

[Essence_of_Darkness]

5 hours ago, Septimus said:

I would probably cancel it anyway (unless you really need/want it) considering that Zen 2 is coming up - which should fix some of the issues with Ryzen, such as it's lower clock speed - and that this kind of stuff from Intel is coming out.

I have Phenom 1055T and I am doing CAD, gaming, virtualization and learning software (Adobe Creative Cloud, Corel...)

[Hobox]

15 hours ago, dizmo said:

Intel did release 12 core processors in 2012. On Xeon, where they belonged. 

8 core processors aren't even mainstream now. You can't use what some of a tech forum are buying either, we're far from the majority. 

This is really stupid and entirely missing the point. Sure Intel had a 12 core on Xeon. I said 6. Half of their server offering would have been more than easy.

 

Either way, you're missing the obvious point here. It's not to have higher core counts, but have software that takes advantage of it. Yeah, it's not mainstream right now. I pointed that out myself already, if they WERE for sale 5 years ago, it WOULD BE mainstream by now.

[BuckGup]

Intel and Nvidia are not nice

[Okjoek]

On 11/27/2017 at 7:59 AM, Morgan MLGman said:

This is sad A core # increase wasn't possible in 7 previous generation (Nehalem to Kaby Lake) but it's possible to double the core count in 2 gens now that AMD actually offers competitive CPUs?

I've heard AMD's Ryzen uses a very cost effective manufacturing process due to the way they're manufactured using compute complexes. Will Intel make up for this?

[porina]

5 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

I've heard AMD's Ryzen uses a very cost effective manufacturing process due to the way they're manufactured using compute complexes

All else being equal - which it isn't, but run with it - smaller dies not only cost less but gives better yields. You waste less area per flaw on the wafer. Ryzen at the least has two major space savings compared to Intel - no GPU, and only half the FPU. Those take up a fair bit of space each. Now the silicon part isn't the entire CPU of course, there are other parts and processes that are needed regardless so costs wont scale solely to silicon. Would be interesting how much a CPU really costs AMD compared to equivalent Intel. Things will equal out a bit more possibly when the APUs come out. Also AMD may choose to nor make as much on each unit sold compared to Intel to make pricing even more aggressive.

[Taf the Ghost]

29 minutes ago, porina said:

All else being equal - which it isn't, but run with it - smaller dies not only cost less but gives better yields. You waste less area per flaw on the wafer. Ryzen at the least has two major space savings compared to Intel - no GPU, and only half the FPU. Those take up a fair bit of space each. Now the silicon part isn't the entire CPU of course, there are other parts and processes that are needed regardless so costs wont scale solely to silicon. Would be interesting how much a CPU really costs AMD compared to equivalent Intel. Things will equal out a bit more possibly when the APUs come out. Also AMD may choose to nor make as much on each unit sold compared to Intel to make pricing even more aggressive.

Estimates put the actual die costs for AMD around $25 USD to manufacture. So the Ryzen 3s through Ryzen 7s cost AMD probably around 30-35 USD to get to market. (R&D & IP costs are real, but those scale down by volume.) This is why Ryzen prices see deep discounts when on sale: retailers are making mad margin on them.

 

Though the real power of the Zen design is for the Server parts. Threadripper probably costs around 120 USD per CPU, and Epyc is probably around 160 USD. Those have a larger chunk of packaging to deal with, but that's every unit of their HEDT and Server parts. The only differences are binning & disabled parts. It's the reason the TR 1950X was seeing 800 USD sales and few going for 700 USD. The manufacturing cost for a i9-7900X is far, far higher. 

 

From WikiChip:

 

Zeppelin Die (Ryzen): 213 mm²

LCC (7800X to 7900X): 325 mm²

HCC (7920X to 7980XE): 485 mm²

 

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/skylake_(server)

 

Failure rates (and thus costs) scale radically with size increases. This is why Intel is responding in the ways it is. AMD has committed itself to a path that can keep their costs & risks down compared to Intel. Expect the Core Wars to continue, even if 6c is about all that Mainstream will need for a while. You run into heat issues with more cores and programing only scales so far.

[Septimus]

16 hours ago, Essence_of_Darkness said:

I have Phenom 1055T and I am doing CAD, gaming, virtualization and learning software (Adobe Creative Cloud, Corel...)

lol yeah you kind of need it

[Dabombinable]

7 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Estimates put the actual die costs for AMD around $25 USD to manufacture. So the Ryzen 3s through Ryzen 7s cost AMD probably around 30-35 USD to get to market. (R&D & IP costs are real, but those scale down by volume.) This is why Ryzen prices see deep discounts when on sale: retailers are making mad margin on them.

 

Though the real power of the Zen design is for the Server parts. Threadripper probably costs around 120 USD per CPU, and Epyc is probably around 160 USD. Those have a larger chunk of packaging to deal with, but that's every unit of their HEDT and Server parts. The only differences are binning & disabled parts. It's the reason the TR 1950X was seeing 800 USD sales and few going for 700 USD. The manufacturing cost for a i9-7900X is far, far higher. 

 

From WikiChip:

 

Zeppelin Die (Ryzen): 213 mm²

LCC (7800X to 7900X): 325 mm²

HCC (7920X to 7980XE): 485 mm²

 

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/skylake_(server)

 

Failure rates (and thus costs) scale radically with size increases. This is why Intel is responding in the ways it is. AMD has committed itself to a path that can keep their costs & risks down compared to Intel. Expect the Core Wars to continue, even if 6c is about all that Mainstream will need for a while. You run into heat issues with more cores and programing only scales so far.

A lot of the lower cost would be the lack of an iGPU-which are gigantic in Intel's CPU.

[nexus6]

On 11/27/2017 at 3:48 PM, dizmo said:

Welcome to business.

Pretty sure a majority of the forum is American, so rumor would be correct

 

The English spell it rumours, nuff said  (Chrome underlines it in red)

[Thony]

i5 with HT ?! I believe it when I see it. Sounds highly unlikely as it would kill previous i7 6/12. 

 

Lets wait and see what happens.

[porina]

15 minutes ago, Thony said:

i5 with HT ?! I believe it when I see it. Sounds highly unlikely as it would kill previous i7 6/12. 

i3-8350k with 4c4t and 8MB of cache already exceeds i5-7600k which also has 4c4t and 6MB cache. The 7600k has lower base and higher turbo clocks, but both are k CPUs so many will overclock anyway.

 

Intel has been forced to change. The question now is, what are they going to do next? We can't make all the same assumptions we did in the past. AMD have thrown down "moar cores" and they're being forced to match.

[Damascus]

Does anyone else think r3 should be somewhat different? 

1200----- 4c/4t low clocks no XFR

1200x---- 4c/4t high clocks, XFR

1300----- 6c/6t low clocks no XFR

1300x---- 6c/6t high clocks, XFR

 

Seems like this could be realistically achieved and it would make the r3 platform more varied and useful.  Hoping for zen2 to do something similar (scaled up to the rest of the arch ofc)

[Bit_Guardian]

On 11/27/2017 at 5:54 PM, cj09beira said:

you can only say that because games have been stuck in a situation where they couldn't use more cpu power without alienating most of their costumers, now that 6 cores is the mainstream you will start to see games using more cpu power for things like much more npcs (think AC), and more assets things like that.

and as a quad core i5 user, having a yt tab IS enough to make problems in games, not all games but in some, especially if you are watching said video in fullscreen, with smt you can get away with a bit more but not enough, 

Ahem, BS. Games have been so far behind in optimisation regardless of core count it's not even funny. Thread Pools have only recently (in the last 15 months or so) begun replacing explicit threading in games for the various physics, networking, and AI routines. Lock-free implementations of the component systems to squeeze out even more performance in multi-frame rendering pipelines are in their infancy. That was all possible to do without more cores, and the performance benefits at 4 cores are palpable even then. Then there's all the vectorisation work replacing all the old SSE code with AVX/2 which provides double the performance and sometimes more for those code paths.

 

It's not the lack of more than 4 cores being mainstream was a valid excuse, especially since Intel invented one of the cleanest, simplest multithreading frameworks for C/C++ in 1999 (OpenMP) and has been improving it every year since to support heterogeneous offloading, atomics, hands-off lock mechanisms, etc.. The development houses are the ones to blame here.

 

Nah, YT is lightweight unless you're watching it on Chrome.

[Bit_Guardian]

On 11/28/2017 at 2:26 AM, hoboX10 said:

This is really stupid and entirely missing the point. Sure Intel had a 12 core on Xeon. I said 6. Half of their server offering would have been more than easy.

 

Either way, you're missing the obvious point here. It's not to have higher core counts, but have software that takes advantage of it. Yeah, it's not mainstream right now. I pointed that out myself already, if they WERE for sale 5 years ago, it WOULD BE mainstream by now.

Again, no, it wouldn't be automatically mainstream. Software can be built to scale regardless of core count for a single node using a code base not much more complex than you see in game engines today. Intel even made it scarily easy with OpenMP nearly 2 decades ago. And development houses held off redoing their game engines and other software for a long time specifically because it takes a long time to migrate a whole codebase from explicit threading to pools or to build an engine from scratch.

 

You can't logically blame Intel for this.

[Bit_Guardian]

19 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Estimates put the actual die costs for AMD around $25 USD to manufacture. So the Ryzen 3s through Ryzen 7s cost AMD probably around 30-35 USD to get to market. (R&D & IP costs are real, but those scale down by volume.) This is why Ryzen prices see deep discounts when on sale: retailers are making mad margin on them.

 

Though the real power of the Zen design is for the Server parts. Threadripper probably costs around 120 USD per CPU, and Epyc is probably around 160 USD. Those have a larger chunk of packaging to deal with, but that's every unit of their HEDT and Server parts. The only differences are binning & disabled parts. It's the reason the TR 1950X was seeing 800 USD sales and few going for 700 USD. The manufacturing cost for a i9-7900X is far, far higher. 

 

From WikiChip:

 

Zeppelin Die (Ryzen): 213 mm²

LCC (7800X to 7900X): 325 mm²

HCC (7920X to 7980XE): 485 mm²

 

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/skylake_(server)

 

Failure rates (and thus costs) scale radically with size increases. This is why Intel is responding in the ways it is. AMD has committed itself to a path that can keep their costs & risks down compared to Intel. Expect the Core Wars to continue, even if 6c is about all that Mainstream will need for a while. You run into heat issues with more cores and programing only scales so far.

Yup. I expect Intel will make extensive use of EMIB for the next HEDT and server chip lineup if manufacturing cost is actually an issue.

 

What I want is a 6/8C successor to the 5775C, with 72/96 graphics cores or an integrated Vega/Navi die on the new DDR5 platform. I'd be set pretty much for life.