Intel 9th Gen Cannon Lake + Intel X399

[ViBEE]

I will stay with my 6700k forever it seems

[tirrorex]

On 26/04/2018 at 4:16 PM, cj09beira said:

lets derail this topic  

1 pentium III

2 pentium 4 (3ghz->3.2ghz)

3 3570k (first pc i bought for myself)

4 4690k (new country new pc)

5 2700x(soon tm)(crypto bling)

1 pentium III 700mhz (ahah)

2 one amd cpu i can't remember the name off (was a year later i think)

3 2500k

4 4790k

5 5960x 4.3ghz

 

Waiting for cannonlake-x to upgrade my gear o/

[asus killer]

On 4/26/2018 at 2:57 AM, Sierra Fox said:

only unfair for those who feel like they need to upgrade every generation.

 

My CPUS went as follows

1. A core2whatever
2. i7-950
3. i5-4460
4. i5-7600k

 

If you buy PC components for "possible future support" then you can't blame the manufactures for not supporting something that was never promised. 

that makes no sense, it's not a question of "every generation". You can genuinely need the extra cores the next year, you are comparing to a time when next gen would always have the same cores and a stupidly small clock bump, so there was no reason to upgrade anyway, those times are gone. That comparison makes no sense at all.

 

Or you could just do a CPU upgrade later on to make the best use of that stupidly expensive mobo you bought.

One mobo 2 generations seemed stupid, one mobo 1 generation, especially on the high end for it's insane cost, seems just unreasonable. Intel just can't plan 8 months ahead, this is just ridiculous.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

One mobo 2 generations seemed stupid, one mobo 1 generation, especially on the high end for it's insane cost, seems just unreasonable. Intel just can't plan 8 months ahead, this is just ridiculous.

On HEDT and servers getting 2 generations out of a socket is a more recent luxury than what it used to be. Main difference with those platforms is they were designed from the start to last 3 years and you could buy CPUs with 4 to 12, 16, 22 cores etc while the desktop platforms stuck to the 4 core paradigm.

 

Desktop platform fell back on short design life to try and push a shorter time between upgrades by trying to add what is realistically meaningless features like USB 3.1 vs 3.0. More care is taken in HEDT/Server as to why something is added and it's made sure it really is stable and supported for a longer life, motherboards don't get ahead of cases I/O wise etc.

 

Personally I'm of the opinion of if you don't really have something that is generationally better than the last product don't bother, wait until you have something more meaningful. There was a few times a while ago where Intel would put out a new CPU/chipset architecture right before another major bit of tech was about to come out and it wouldn't have on chip support for it, if you know it's coming and you're still pushing 4 cores and only giving increase of 200Mhz ish why are you not waiting, no one is actually going to care about 4 extra months if you get something like 802.11ac or TB (or any higher TB standard).

 

I'm actually fine with only 1 or 2 CPU generations on a motherboard/chipset so long as the life span is long enough and it's not obsoleted for something dumb and ultimately not that useful.

[asus killer]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

On HEDT and servers getting 2 generations out of a socket is a more recent luxury than what it used to be. Main difference with those platforms is they were designed from the start to last 3 years and you could buy CPUs with 4 to 12, 16, 22 cores etc while the desktop platforms stuck to the 4 core paradigm.

 

Desktop platform fell back on short design life to try and push a shorter time between upgrades by trying to add what is realistically meaningless features like USB 3.1 vs 3.0. More care is taken in HEDT/Server as to why something is added and it's made sure it really is stable and supported for a longer life, motherboards don't get ahead of cases I/O wise etc.

 

Personally I'm of the opinion of if you don't really have something that is generationally better than the last product don't bother, wait until you have something more meaningful. There was a few times a while ago where Intel would put out a new CPU/chipset architecture right before another major bit of tech was about to come out and it wouldn't have on chip support for it, if you know it's coming and you're still pushing 4 cores and only giving increase of 200Mhz ish why are you not waiting, no one is actually going to care about 4 extra months if you get something like 802.11ac or TB (or any higher TB standard).

 

I'm actually fine with only 1 or 2 CPU generations on a motherboard/chipset so long as the life span is long enough and it's not obsoleted for something dumb and ultimately not that useful.

1 mobo 1 CPU, you can almost say that the next logic step is Intels all in one mobo with soldered CPU's

[ScratchCat]

Cannon Lake still not in sight. At this rate someone has replaced Intel's roadmap with:

count = 0
while True:
  release("ALL NEW 14nm" + "+" * count)
  count += 1
  
#Output
ALL NEW 14nm
ALL NEW 14nm+
ALL NEW 14nm++
ALL NEW 14nm+++
ALL NEW 14nm++++
ALL NEW 14nm+++++
ALL NEW 14nm++++++
ALL NEW 14nm+++++++
ALL NEW 14nm++++++++
ALL NEW 14nm+++++++++

 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, asus killer said:

1 mobo 1 CPU, you can almost say that the next logic step is Intels all in one mobo with soldered CPU's

Well you can't do that for a product stack with so many CPU SKUs and motherboard vendors, it only works for those because it's for a very specific design goal. There is actually no need to ask for chipsets/sockets to have support for multiple CPU generations if the CPUs themselves just last longer and there is an actual reason to upgrade.

 

When you go 4+ generations after a i7-2600k and there is zero difference to 95% of people using a computer you kind of have to question why those 4+ generations exist in the first place.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Well you can't do that for a product stack with so many CPU SKUs and motherboard vendors, it only works for those because it's for a very specific design goal. There is actually no need to ask for chipsets/sockets to have support for multiple CPU generations if the CPUs themselves just last longer and there is an actual reason to upgrade.

 

When you go 4+ generations after a i7-2600k and there is zero difference to 95% of people using a computer you kind of have to question why those 4+ generations exist in the first place.

it was a joke

 

still i don't agree with you. There should be a limit, 4+ gens seems to much, 1 gen 1 cpu seems to little. And it's a complete waste of resources (environmentally i mean) but i understand its better for all involved in the selling process. But more than that i see no technological reason it as to be this way.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

it was a joke

 

still i don't agree with you. There should be a limit, 4+ gens seems to much, 1 gen 1 cpu seems to little. And it's a complete waste of resources (environmentally i mean) but i understand its better for all involved in the selling process. But more than that i see no technological reason it as to be this way.

I know but I still don't really see why there would be a want for multiple generations of CPUs per chipset/motherboard if the pointless CPU revisions was resolved. There would most definitely be a technical reason to require a new motherboard if that were the case and you'd be doing it after 3-5 years not 1-2 so that 100-200 motherboard only costs $33 to $67 per year which I don't see that as an unreasonable cost to stay up to date technologically. It's better than spending ~$200 on a high end motherboard for it to be obsolete in 12 months almost guaranteed.

 

Environmental issues would be resolved along with it, you'd only ever be replacing something when it actually needs replacing and existing stock wouldn't be wasted as there is no 12-18 months to get it out the door before the next thing comes along.

 

What issue are you actually trying to solve when it comes down to it? Do you want multiple CPU generations per motherboard or do you want real progress per generation great enough that it would actually not be possible to reuse an existing motherboard. I'd take the second myself, mind you I've always purchased HEDT systems so I live with that already mostly.

 

X58: DDR3 3 channel memory, QPI replacing FSB, 4 cores max, PCIe lanes on chipset not CPU (36 total), 2 micro-architectures. Would require new motherboard.

X79: DDR3 4 channel memory, DMI2 instead of QPI, 6 cores max, PCIe lanes on CPU (40 max), 8 PCIe chipset lanes, 2 micro-architectures. Would require new motherboard.

X99: DDR4 4 channel memory, DMI2, 10 cores max, PCIe lanes on CPU (40 max), 8 PCIe chipset lanes, 2 micro-architectures, Would require new motherboard.

 

Intel actually has logical progression on HEDT (pre X299), something that cannot be said for desktop.

 

I'm actually still running my X79 system, R4BE ($450 MSRP) and 4930k ($600 MSRP), which I've had coming on to it's 6th year at the end of this year. If you do the math that's not a high yearly cost but I would have to caveat that with if it weren't for desktop line being stuck on 4 cores during that time so software not getting updated I would have been on X99 by now.

[Jito463]

On 4/25/2018 at 8:40 PM, NumLock21 said:

Looks like Z370 is rushed out instead of taking its time to mature like the rest of their 300 series.

I've said it all along that Z370 was rushed.  They just tweaked a Z270 board in order to rush their new 8th gen 6-cores to market.  If they had delayed a little longer, they could have released a future-proof chipset that wouldn't be left behind with the next generation.

 

Z370, the red headed step-child of the Intel chipset family.

On 4/26/2018 at 1:46 PM, App4that said:

I have a Z370 board and could* care less.

*couldn't

 

_{^{"could care less" means you do care, even if just a little}}  

[Maticks]

Why can't they do a flashable chipset on an expensive board for those who want to upgrade. Seems a bit wasteful one processor supports one board.

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, Maticks said:

Why can't they do a flashable chipset on an expensive board for those who want to upgrade. Seems a bit wasteful one processor supports one board.

Not all new features can be integrated with software. Power delivery and new memory technology all require physical changes to the motherboard. 

 

The interesting thing about these discussions is that everyone wants a platform to support CPUs for 4+ years, But history has shown that this length of platform support comes at the cost of feature support.  And on top of that no one can predict the CPU market in 4 years time. It doesn't matter if you buy Intel or AMD, if they stagnate on CPU development (for any reason as both have done in the past) and you have bough a MOBO hoping to upgrade the CPU only, you might easily find yourself with nothing but shit options.