[OFFICIAL] Intel Announces Skylake-X w/ IPC Gain over Skylake-S: i9-7980XE Bringing 18-Cores at $1999, specs TBD until Threadripper

[dexT]

39 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Will X299 support more than one CPU?  I might just use two i7-7740X's if that is the case.

No. Last non-Xeon to do that was the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 I believe. That was on the 771 not 775 platform and was for Intel Skulltrail.

[leadeater]

Just now, dexT said:

No. Last non-Xeon to do that was the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 I believe. That was on the 771 not 775 platform and was for Intel Skulltrail.

50 minutes ago, lilbman said:

Will X299 support more than one CPU?  I might just use two i7-7740X's if that is the case.

Intel would never allow that now days, that would be Xeon suicide for most of the E5 product range. 

[Dylanc1500]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I don't think they can, but it sure would be funny/horrific.

Do we know for sure that kabylake-x is in fact the die from the consumer quad core, and not similar to the E7 8893 v4? It had support for quad channel and even 60MB L3 cache.

[leadeater]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

Do we know for sure that kabylake-x is in fact the die from the consumer quad core, and not similar to the E7 8893 v4?

The E7 actually uses the first gen 2011 socket not 2011v3 funnily enough but also those are quad channel memory. I don't think they would modify the v5 version of that chip so much if there is even going to be a v5 with only 4 cores again. 

[dexT]

Just now, leadeater said:

Intel would never allow that now days, that would be Xeon suicide for most of the E5 product range. 

For sure. It'd be done.

 

They had to implement raid keys to keep these upcoming chips from just ripping the Xeons apart in x1 CPU. They are still workstation fodder though. 

[Dylanc1500]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The E7 actually uses the first gen 2011 socket not 2011v3 funnily enough but also those are quad channel memory. I don't think they would modify the v5 version of that chip so much if there is even going to be a v5 with only 4 cores again. 

Ya it is kind of a funny thing that they didn't change socket, they also supported 12 DIMMs per socket as well, I dont remember their reasoning they gave us, it has been to long. With as much as they are cutting stuff around I wouldn't be supprised by it, they are already cutting their new Xeons down from six channel ram amongst other things. I'm pretty impressed with the all core boost of the 6154.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

Is this real or ... ?

 

 

Yes it is. Intel completely lost the plot with x299. They doubled down on stupid. Acts like they have much much less competition now that competition is on par or even better. 

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, Notional said:

Yes it is. Intel completely lost the plot with x299. They doubled down on stupid. Acts like they have much much less competition now that competition is on par or even better. 

Most likely because this was all in the works well before Intel knew about TR.

[Notional]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Most likely because this was all in the works well before Intel knew about TR.

PCPer speculated that because the enterprise market pays extra for this feature, they didn't want to screw them over by offering it for free on X299. SO instead they screw over all consumers/prosumers. Yay.

[JuNex03]

12 minutes ago, Notional said:

Yes it is. Intel completely lost the plot with x299. They doubled down on stupid. Acts like they have much much less competition now that competition is on par or even better. 

Lol proprietary SSD's, what's next? Proprietary memory modules, keyboards, mouse and monitor?

[Notional]

Just now, JuNex03 said:

Lol proprietary SSD's, what's next? Proprietary memory modules, keyboards, mouse and monitor?

Ikr? Intel went into the deep end and they don't know how to swim. So now they just dive instead, because stupid is best solved by more stupid.

[JuNex03]

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

Ikr? Intel went into the deep end and they don't know how to swim. So now they just dive instead, because stupid is best solved by more stupid.

They did the same thing with optane if I remember correctly. It only works with Intel Processors.

[rogerwilco91]

Just now, JuNex03 said:

They did the same thing with optane if I remember correctly. It only works with Intel Processors.

To be more specific, it only works with the X270/X299 boards and anything after it...

[Notional]

Just now, JuNex03 said:

They did the same thing with optane if I remember correctly. It only works with Intel Processors.

Yup. And they released it before manufacturing was ok. A lot of reviewers experienced their stupid cache drive dying on them. Idk what they are thinking at Intel. They are like a fat lazy company that got pushed over the edge, and now they can't stop rolling down.

[JuNex03]

1 minute ago, rogerwilco91 said:

To be more specific, it only works with the X270/X299 boards and anything after it...

So it doesn't even work on other processors huh. Just the new ones.

[JuNex03]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Yup. And they released it before manufacturing was ok. A lot of reviewers experienced their stupid cache drive dying on them. Idk what they are thinking at Intel. They are like a fat lazy company that got pushed over the edge, and now they can't stop rolling down.

I have to wonder though, is there any specific tech in the new processors that are not found in the older ones to warrant it not being able to work with their own older processors?

[Notional]

1 minute ago, JuNex03 said:

I have to wonder though, is there any specific tech in the new processors that are not found in the older ones to warrant it not being able to work with their own older processors?

I think it's more chipset specific, but I'm not sure. The problem is that these drives for consumers are used as cache, and not like a drive. Like an SSHD. That requires proper support older chipsets can't do. But that is part of the problem with Optane: It's supposed to be a drive (like the enterprise version). But it seems they are having so many manufacturing issues they can't manage to make higher capacity atm.

[JuNex03]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

I think it's more chipset specific, but I'm not sure. The problem is that these drives for consumers are used as cache, and not like a drive. Like an SSHD. That requires proper support older chipsets can't do. But that is part of the problem with Optane: It's supposed to be a drive (like the enterprise version). But it seems they are having so many manufacturing issues they can't manage to make higher capacity atm.

Yeah, what makes it even weirder is that its supposed to target mainstream PCs (or older systems that want/need an additional oomph), ones that will take advantage of the higher speeds while using older drives. I mean if people want to get the new processors just to be able to use optane, why not just buy an SSD instead?

[Notional]

9 minutes ago, JuNex03 said:

Yeah, what makes it even weirder is that its supposed to target mainstream PCs (or older systems that want/need an additional oomph), ones that will take advantage of the higher speeds while using older drives. I mean if people want to get the new processors just to be able to use optane, why not just buy an SSD instead?

Indeed. I think it's purely down to manufacturing issues. It was supposed to be a superior SSD type (much much lower latency and higher speeds at much lower queue depth). But something went wrong I guess. Because now it's only useful for cheap laptops. But even the cheapest laptop has SSD's today.

 

So yeah, you are right, it makes no sense. Something must have gone wrong.

[Jito463]

11 minutes ago, JuNex03 said:

I mean if people want to get the new processors just to be able to use optane, why not just buy an SSD instead?

I wondered about that when I first heard about Optane.  It sounds to me like we're going back to the original mSATA days, where it was used simply as a cache drive for the HDD.  I just don't see the point.

[JuNex03]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I wondered about that when I first heard about Optane.  It sounds to me like we're going back to the original mSATA days, where it was used simply as a cache drive for the HDD.  I just don't see the point.

Maybe they're planning to release a new type of SSD that will be able to take advantage of optane? One that will be faster than normal SSDs with optane?

 

EDIT: An SSD that will only work with an intel x299 processor.

[MoonSpot]

4 hours ago, NuclearKing said:

... the fact that Nvidia has nicely priced and well performing cards...

Dafaq?  Nicely priced?

/me checks newegg.ca for 1080/1080ti

...sigh,,,,

What'chu talkin' 'bout Willis?

 

3 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Intel my question to you is what cards are you holding up your sleeve? I know you all aren't stupid (quit acting like it), in fact you have some quite brilliant people.

No room for cards up their sleeves when they've been hauling several briefcases at a time filled with enthoOOooziasts cashy monies to their bunkers non-stop for years.

They're dropping server tech down to HEDT, at best they have developments military side that they can't release into other markets for X # of years up their sleeves.

I doubt that any of this is the brain child of the engineers, but suspect that its an angle thats been push by a corporate type.

 

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Yes it is. Intel completely lost the plot with x299. They doubled down on stupid. Acts like they have much much less competition now that competition is on par or even better. 

Ya know, I would have actually accepted a raid key for raid 10 and even 5.  But to not have raid 1...The fuck kind of crap-lousy deal is that!?  What company says, "We're there to help you put yourself at greater risk of ducking all your data over with raid 0, but not if you want the most basic redundancy in raid 1"?

[Notional]

13 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Ya know, I would have actually accepted a raid key for raid 10 and even 5.  But to not have raid 1...The fuck kind of crap-lousy deal is that!?

 

I don't get the point of having to pay to unlock a feature in the hardware you already paid for and own.

[MoonSpot]

Just now, Notional said:

 

I don't get the point of having to pay to unlock a feature in the hardware you already paid for and own.

Oh, sorry.  Meant "begrudgingly accepted".

[Notional]

1 minute ago, MoonSpot said:

Oh, sorry.  Meant "begrudgingly accepted".

 

 

Somehow these 2 pictures fit together nicely.