Rumor ! - Intel to Launch 12c/24t skylake-x cpu's to crush AMD RYZEN

[Bouzoo]

24 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Even that would be completely untenable on the kind of scale that a business like AMD/Intel operates at.

 

That kind of Mickey Mouse nonsense might have happened in the past with ES chips in the old days, but reviewers have retail Ryzen chips. There's no pixie dust in them.

It's not really hard when you think about it, especially since AMD is supposed to have 1M CPUs ready for first wave which means a lot of higher binned chips. They are retail chips as well, it all depends on your luck. 

The thing for debate is if they would do such a thing, and I won't go there. 

[Space Reptile]

5 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Inb4 AMD releases a 16C/32T at  190W TDP

its called naples , and goes up to 32c/64t

[Humbug]

Well ya Naples server CPUs are also based on Zen architecture just like Ryzen. So AMD could cut that down and sell it as a 12 core desktop part. But I doubt it can be made compatible with socket AM4.

 

I think AMD will not respond to this. Maybe intel wants to maintain the status of having the performance crown on paper so they can say they have the fastest workstation desktop CPU on the market at least in parallel workloads. Halo product...

[Thony]

18 hours ago, kladzen said:

Heavy Discounts On Intel Processors

Yea right.

 

 

[Mihle]

Paul said his 1800x was one of those that had been in one of the computers the YouTube's went to, not that it was tested to be tested.

[TOMPPIX]

i think intel is kinda fucked right now. if it has a competitive price, they are gonna have some pretty pissed off consumers who have bought their cpus for more than a 1000 bucks. 

[UMxMarky94]

13 hours ago, corsairian said:

I dont think so. We need someone pushing the High End Platforms. Intel can afford to throw more cores at the problem. AMD will still have a market between $50 and $500. Intel has the $2000 market. I hope AMD comes swinging next year with some crazy 20 core 40 thread beast.. not likely.

(Hope this makes sense)

 

Idk if id ever get thar 12 core cpu. My 6core 5820k is still overkill for me. 

I was more pointing towards the price slash, If Intel matches AMD at price it could really hurt AMD thus leading to there possible collapse which in turn lead to Intel being broken up. 

[samcool55]

Hang on, the only reason now broadwell-e is so expensive is because if it would be any cheaper it would be a better option than their xeon cpu's.

So if this is true this means even without naples, AMD managed to indirectly hit intel on the server market, that's actually quite amazing tbh

 

 

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Even that would be completely untenable on the kind of scale that a business like AMD/Intel operates at.

 

That kind of Mickey Mouse nonsense might have happened in the past with ES chips in the old days, but reviewers have retail Ryzen chips. There's no pixie dust in them.

Not really. While it's unlikely they will be wasting time binning for the best of the best to send reviewers, they certainly won't be sending any of you guys a lemon of an overclocker either. There is a reason they are sending known/tested CPU's out to reviewers. Sure, you can say it's to save them money, but AMD surely has enough stock to send out brand new chips.

 

It's not far-fetched to assume they sent out chips used in their events, because these chips were at least validated to clock decently beforehand. Last thing you want when marketing a hype-chip like Ryzen, is a reviewer saying "My chip only hit X clocks" due to the chip being a complete lottery loser. Nobody is doubting that your chips are not retail, but nobody is going to believe they are not at least decently-binned retail chips. That's what people are referring to.

[19_blackie_73]

WHY the hell is everyone fearing that the reviewer chips will perform way different than anything retail?

 

They CAN'T change stock performance without huge development costs and producing completely different chips.

 

They MIGHT be cherry picked in terms of OVERCLOCKING, but STOCK performance will be the same as on the consumer (retail) chips. No one can deliver valid arguments why they should sent completely different chips to everyone. The only thing that makes a CPU faster clock to clock is the IPC, and IPC is a thing determined through the architecture. So IF they would do a higher IPC chip, they would have to spend huge amount of R&D in developing a better chip only for the reviewers and then would not give them to the public. Where would the logic be? They would earn a huge shit storm from everyone and keep in mind the financial stand point: They would fool the consumer, which would lead to huge image damage and especially are in Murica enough people who have fun taking anybody anytime to court so they would have to pay for that. and on top of that, they would have have the extra development cost so they would loose money twice. And AMD is not that financially strong and in the position to play such a game.

 

So the only thing that might be changing for us consumers is compared to the reviewers is how far we can push the oc on the CPUs. Even Intel will not ship any reviewer a chip that collapses at  .2GHz OC. There will be just like before (and this relates to any other chip manufacterer) chips that overclock well and chips that don't oc that well. Like LMG and every other youtuber says: Your mileage will vary. Or does every 7700k oc to 5GHz without a problem? I guess not, i have read many times of not reaching it or only on very high temps and voltages, but others can do 5GHz without any effort.

 

You can do simple maths: Your Ryzen chip will probably perform and overclock somewhere inbetween the stock and overclocked benchmark results the reviewers will publish!

Thanks for @LinusTech for joining the discussion  

 

 

[JamieOlive]

4 minutes ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

 

WHY the hell is everyone fearing that the reviewer chips will perform way different than anything retail?

 

They CAN'T change stock performance without huge development costs and producing completely different chips.

 

They MIGHT be cherry picked in terms of OVERCLOCKING, but STOCK performance will be the same as on the consumer (retail) chips. No one can deliver valid arguments why they should sent completely different chips to everyone. The only thing that makes a CPU faster clock to clock is the IPC, and IPC is a thing determined through the architecture. So IF they would do a higher IPC chip, they would have to spend huge amount of R&D in developing a better chip only for the reviewers and then would not give them to the public. Where would the logic be? They would earn a huge shit storm from everyone and keep in mind the financial stand point: They would fool the consumer, which would lead to huge image damage and especially are in Murica enough people who have fun taking anybody anytime to court so they would have to pay for that. and on top of that, they would have have the extra development cost so they would loose money twice. And AMD is not that financially strong and in the position to play such a game.

 

So the only thing that might be changing for us consumers is compared to the reviewers is how far we can push the oc on the CPUs. Even Intel will not ship any reviewer a chip that collapses at  .2GHz OC. There will be just like before (and this relates to any other chip manufacterer) chips that overclock well and chips that don't oc that well. Like LMG and every other youtuber says: Your mileage will vary. Or does every 7700k oc to 5GHz without a problem? I guess not, i have read many times of not reaching it or only on very high temps and voltages, but others can do 5GHz without any effort.

 

You can do simple maths: Your Ryzen chip will probably perform and overclock somewhere inbetween the stock and overclocked benchmark results the reviewers will publish!

Thanks for @LinusTech for joining the discussion  

 

 

I think that people, especially guys who baughty Intel and suppoted them for years, they don't want AMD to come to market and undercvut her by a significant margin.

 

So they make excuses in every department about O.C, reviewer samples, small batch in reviews and AMD bweing thge hype king which it is, but AMD is developing this thing 4 years now and it works and syrely Intel will seee that and cut prices in about 203 months from now, and truth be told a 12c/24t CPU is stupid, especially if it cost more htan 1,000 cause it will be a niche product, for select enthusiast and Youtubers.

Enteprises won't check out the Xeons and E.C.C Support and more validation for a regular Xeon 5 years ago.

[tomotomov92]

3 minutes ago, JamieOlive said:

I think that people, especially guys who bought Intel and supported them for years, they don't want AMD to come to market and undercut her by a significant margin.

 

So they make excuses in every department about O.C, reviewer samples, small batch in reviews and AMD being the hype king which it is, but AMD is developing this thing 4 years now and it works and surely Intel will see that and cut prices in about 2-3 months from now, and truth be told a 12c/24t CPU is stupid, especially if it cost more than 1,000 cause it will be a niche product, for select enthusiast and YouTubers.

Enterpise won't check out the Xeons and E.C.C Support and more validation for a regular Xeon 5 years ago.

 

Actually Intel is going to change their prices a lot sooner - I think in about 3 to 7 days maybe?

The current prices for Intel are driven by not wanting to destroy their previous products out of the box as the only competition that Intel had in the CPU market were Intel.

The tables have turned in some ways and expect real price cuts in a really small time from now.

 

P.S. Sorry about fixing your spelling in the quote but it was bugging me.

[JamieOlive]

3 minutes ago, tomotomov92 said:

P.S. Sorry about fixing your spelling in the quote but it was bugging me.

I really hope so but it seems a bit early. But hopefull if it does happen.

No worries, I wanted to change it to, but then I thought its funny so leave it like that, thanks!!!!

 

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, LinusTech said:

So your theory is (honestly) that AMD has special chips whose MHz are magical that perform better than the ones the general public will get?

 

Do you have any idea what it would cost to have a special part just for that? 

 

Give your head a shake.

No, that they could overclock much higher in which while limited, would have an impact on performance. As I said before the "silicon lottery" can be rigged.

[Dingus]

23 hours ago, porina said:

 

In a way, this has echos of the gigahertz race if anyone is old enough to remember that.

Heh, I had just graduated high school when my friend got a computer with a P90 in it, so yeah I'm old enough.

[Simon771]

5 hours ago, Thony said:

Yea right.

 

 

10% discount! Get your Intel CPU today!

And that 12c CPU will beat any other CPU probbably, but at what cost? paying 3x more for 20-30% better performance? No thanks.

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

paying 3x more for 20-30% better performance? No thanks.

And you're not the target customer for that chip, assuming it exists.  Folks that can and will actually use the extra 20-30% (or whatever) performance boost are.  And they'll pay whatever is required to get that boost, too.

 

As an aside, if Intel is actually releasing this 12c thing, it'll likely have nothing at all to do with Ryzen's release.  Product cycles aren't immediate like that.  Changing prices on existing and upcoming products?  That's a different story.  But releasing an entirely new chip isn't something you just do on a whim.  So should this CPU materialize, it won't have any affect on Ryzen's sales, nor will Intel even think to try that.

 

Just a wee bit of attention-grabbing headline work by the article writer.

[Simon771]

2 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

And you're not the target customer for that chip, assuming it exists.  Folks that can and will actually use the extra 20-30% (or whatever) performance boost are.  And they'll pay whatever is required to get that boost, too.

 

As an aside, if Intel is actually releasing this 12c thing, it'll likely have nothing at all to do with Ryzen's release.  Product cycles aren't immediate like that.  Changing prices on existing and upcoming products?  That's a different story.  But releasing an entirely new chip isn't something you just do on a whim.  So should this CPU materialize, it won't have any affect on Ryzen's sales, nor will Intel even think to try that.

 

Just a wee bit of attention-grabbing headline work by the article writer.

Yeah that makes more sense.

Wondering how it will affect Xeon 12c CPUs sale.

[jasonvp]

8 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

Wondering how it will affect Xeon 12c CPUs sale.

Barely, if at all.  Folks who buy Xeons are generally after the ability to run multi-processor, and the ability to use ECC RAM.  The 12C i7 consumer chip won't be able to do either of those.  Also, Xeons are generally more stable and robust than the consumer chips.

 

I don't see it having any affect on the Xeon's sales.

[Simon771]

4 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Barely, if at all.  Folks who buy Xeons are generally after the ability to run multi-processor, and the ability to use ECC RAM.  The 12C i7 consumer chip won't be able to do either of those.  Also, Xeons are generally more stable and robust than the consumer chips.

 

I don't see it having any affect on the Xeon's sales.

Yeah, and I also remembered that Xeon are mostly used in servers. And those companies buy hundreds of those CPUs.

So you are right ... it won't affect Xeon market.

[tomotomov92]

18 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

Barely, if at all.  Folks who buy Xeons are generally after the ability to run multi-processor, and the ability to use ECC RAM.  The 12C i7 consumer chip won't be able to do either of those.  Also, Xeons are generally more stable and robust than the consumer chips.

 

I don't see it having any affect on the Xeon's sales.

That's right but there is one other thing - you can still swap a Xeon on the X99 platform to make use of the ECC memory (most X99 boards are able to use the ECC memory as 2011 v3 is compatible with the latest Xeons).

 

The other thing with going to Xeon from the E (or X series with Skylake and above) - you will not be able to OC them. This is the main reason why Xeons are "more stable" than the consumer CPUs.

 

So the most powerful strength of the Extreme Intel line is more cores (6+) with OC-ing the crap out of them (Broadwell-E can get up to ~50% clock increase with the appropriate cooling).

 

 

The main thing that will benefit Intel a lot in their next line of Extreme line (Skylake-X) will be lowering the X299 chipset cost compared to X99 to be able to compete with RyZen and then increase the minimum core count later from 6c/12t to 8c/16t (this may or may not be able to happen with Skylake-X).

 

The best thing right now is that RyZen (if good enough) can shake up the market enough that Intel will change the way they are working from now on.

[JoeCoke]

Wow, a i7 12 core? I wonder how much that will cost...

 

 

4000 dollars

[SammoFS]

*AMD inside*

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Needs your opinion, OP.

[kladzen]

2 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

Needs your opinion, OP.

what u want to hear ?