Intel is planning to release a 2 core i3 for x299, i3-7360X

[Techstorm970]

Intel: "i3 processors are coming to X299!"

 

Me: 

 

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

"but it has potential upgrade paths"

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

they made the for low end chips to get you onto ryzen, ryzen should use the same mobos for 2 more generations so its a good idea, also for the APU fast ram is important and DDR4 is much faster than DDR3

Hmm, a giant APU stuck onto the X399 platform with memory support for quad channel 4000MHz DDR4.

[RGProductions]

Intel's a fucking meme now

[suits]

???

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Intel should just integrate an Atom core into the chipset for this purpose (of testing the board).

I'd like to see an x299 apple core

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

they made the for low end chips to get you onto ryzen, ryzen should use the same mobos for 2 more generations so its a good idea, also for the APU fast ram is important and DDR4 is much faster than DDR3

I wouldn't say much faster, especially in the context of AMD. Their memory controllers for DDR4 are awfully weak, and I personally own DDR3 Elpida kits that would give DDR4 3200 B-Die a run for it's money on Ryzen's IMC. If they refined their IMC on Zen 2.0, that would be an entirely different story, but I certainly wouldn't use DDR4 as that big of a boon for APU's as of right now, especially when it's still worlds slower than your typical VRAM (GDDR5/GDDR5X/HBM). 

 

With all that said, Ryzen's entry level AM4 CPU's make far more sense than Intel's entry level X299 offerings. Understand, X299's purpose is it's enthusiast-class features. The quad channel memory support, the additional PCIe lanes, and of course, the additional threads. These CPU's have none of that. Ryzen, on the consumer platform, is about price:performance. APU's offer a lot of value for the money, and cheap quad cores are cheap quad cores. They simply make sense to exist for those that are truly trying to save a buck without throwing away features that they paid for on their platform. 

[Eredian]

What an absolute madman who came up with this idea.

[LienusLateTips]

amphymemes (R2)-#1  

CC-BY-ND 3.0 - By: JDE, LTT Forums:

 

 

first reaction for me

[Zodiark1593]

54 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'd like to see an x299 apple core

Wish granted...

 

Well, minus the x299 part.

[Keg Ops]

Who does Intel think they are? Apple?

[Jito463]

11 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

At this point they might as well re-release the 8084 on LGA2011 and nobody would be surprised.

I think you meant 8088 (the 8088 preceded the 8086).

9 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I'm still taking the same position I took with KBL-X...I don't hate a product just for existing.  Make  a Celeron that plugs in to X299...knock yourselves out...I don't *have* to buy it.

Agreed, but it doesn't make the product any less stupid.

8 hours ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

While I don't like Intel's specific implementation here, it does remind me of something I really would like to see.

 

I'd love to see just ONE socket be compatible with ALL CPUs.  I want to be able to start with, say, the equivalent of a Kaby Lake Pentium (or Celeron except it only has 2 threads), then upgrade to the equivalent of a 7980XE (but much cheaper preferably), Xeon Platinum, Threadripper, Epyc, etc.  (Intel and AMD used to be inter-socket-compatible with Socket 5, I think it was.)

You can thank Intel for that loss of compatibility.  They decided no one was allowed to use their socket design unless they paid royalties.  That's what killed the Cyrix chips, they were using Intel's socket design without licensing it.  That's when AMD began developing their own socket (and/or slot) for their processors.

3 hours ago, Okjoek said:

To be fair I don't get why AMD made those Athlon and Bristol Ridge chips compatible for Ryzen, but at least AM4 is still a consumer platform.

I'm not really sure about the Athlon, but BR makes sense.  They need something to fill in the low-end of the market until RR is released.  Technically, they've been around over a year now, it's just now that they finally released them for retail purchase.  If they had never ported BR to AM4, they would have lost out on a lot of budget PC sales.

[AMDNeko]

17 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Wish granted...

 

Well, minus the x299 part.

 

You gave me an idea and I think we can please everybody here. (Im sorry Evga I still love you)

 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

I think you meant 8088 (the 8088 preceded the 8086).

Actually the 8088 came out in 1979, the 8086 in 1978, I believe.

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

You can thank Intel for that loss of compatibility.  They decided no one was allowed to use their socket design unless they paid royalties.  That's what killed the Cyrix chips, they were using Intel's socket design without licensing it.  That's when AMD began developing their own socket (and/or slot) for their processors.

(FeelsBadMan) ... WHY (technically, not business) can't there be a STANDARD for CPU sockets, DIMM slots, etc, like there generally are for PCI Express slots, SATA & USB ports, etc?

[LienusLateTips]

11 minutes ago, PPCs-Kat said:

-snip-

You forgot to add a Apple CPU

[AMDNeko]

4 minutes ago, JDE said:

You forgot to add a Apple CPU

Pentium 4 made a lot more sense for the socket  at the rate we are going it looks to be happening anyway

[LienusLateTips]

16 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

\(FeelsBadMan) ... WHY (technically, not business) can't there be a STANDARD for CPU sockets, DIMM slots, etc, like there generally are for PCI Express slots, SATA & USB ports, etc?

I've been thinking about this and something (not saying what) that might be able to replace ATX????????

[Dabombinable]

54 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Actually the 8088 came out in 1979, the 8086 in 1978, I believe.

(FeelsBadMan) ... WHY (technically, not business) can't there be a STANDARD for CPU sockets, DIMM slots, etc, like there generally are for PCI Express slots, SATA & USB ports, etc?

For CPU sockets, look right at Intel.
Super Socket 7 is what AMD helped design and worked with CPU from a lot of manufacturers, but Intel being Intel pushed for Slot 1 (which made motherboards more expensive) after leaving Socket 7 meaning that you could no longer run any CPU on motherboards.
Granted it was a short period and only 2 motherboards supported all possibilities, and even then only 1 could do it on the original BIOS).

[Skanky Sylveon]

I slightly defended the 4 core x299 chips, saying if they allowed quad channel RAM and more PCIe expandability, then there would be a niche market for them.

But if this is true, it's inexcusable.

 

Intel, stop blowing your R&D budget on cocaine!

[You_are_a_cunt]

inb4 X299 proves to be the single biggest flop in Intel history and it ends up destroying them.

[Master Disaster]

Intel, good sirs I would challenge you to a battle of wits but it appears that you're totally unarmed.

[Tieox]

So when is the Intel Celeron D  going on X299?

[Dylanc1500]

I'm all for this. If someone wants to buy it, it's an option that was not previously had. If you don't need it you don't need it, someone might find a need for it.

[vanished]

16 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

I'm all for this. If someone wants to buy it, it's an option that was not previously had. If you don't need it you don't need it, someone might find a need for it.

It's a terrible option though.  I don't think a single person in this thread has been able to come up with a good reason for it to exist.  Its very existence is nothing more than a danger to consumers since someone might accidentally buy it without knowing better.

[Dylanc1500]

40 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's a terrible option though.  I don't think a single person in this thread has been able to come up with a good reason for it to exist.  Its very existence is nothing more than a danger to consumers since someone might accidentally buy it without knowing better.

Sure isn't a great option, but I don't think it would be deceitful from Intel. Heck I went to Microcenter and the guy was trying to get me to purchase a 8320e because it was an 8 core cpu and was ignoring all other aspects that made it a terrible option. The people that choose to buy this option will be informed people, as no one in their right mind would recommend someone buy this. If someone finds a need for it (whatever that may be) at least it's there. I'm never against more options. It's the reason I like the xeon side, options galore.