Intel Roadmap Leaks: 9th Gen Sept, New, 28 core A-Series

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

can't get past 4.4 on a 4770k with a custom loop due to temps. Top level mayo was used.

Silicon lottery... My cpu can do 4,5 GHz at 3.33V at reasonable temps. It could do 4,7 GHz at okay-ish temps but the voltage is too much(1.4x V)....

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I will revive my chilled water testbench for 28 cores, and shoot for 5Ghz.

 

And jesus christ the AMD dick riding is out of control around here.  This is going to be the top dog CPU, it's going to smash AMD's 32 core in every workload.  Then we can start hearing the whining about power consumption or perf/$ or whatever the fuck other metric that real enthusiasts don't give a fuck about.

It's a game of clocks. The A-series is on 14nm+, so it can do 4.8 Ghz all-core, if you can absorb the heat. So it's 4.2 Ghz vs 4.8 Ghz at "best possible with LN2" cooling. It's a matter of what is reasonably likely for this. So that means high-end Air cooler, 240 & 360 AIOs in an eATX case, plus a 2U chassis test. 

[MMKing]

11 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I will revive my chilled water testbench for 28 cores, and shoot for 5Ghz.

 

And jesus christ the AMD dick riding is out of control around here.  This is going to be the top dog CPU, it's going to smash AMD's 32 core in every workload.  Then we can start hearing the whining about power consumption or perf/$ or whatever the fuck other metric that real enthusiasts don't give a fuck about.

 

Well you don't have to wait around for Intel to release the newly dubbed A series CPUs with 28 cores to test out your chilled water test bench. Newegg already list the 28 core for the low price of 9999$, since price to performance don't matter i mean. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117904

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

You forgot the "remember to pick up a new Ryzen because hurrdurr you can buy yet another Ryzen next year using the same motherboard" .

Yeah, Fuck Intel shit,  I'm buying Ryzen because I don't want to have to upgrade my SSD, PSU and Case every 2 weeks when I upgrade the CPU.

 

12 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

I will revive my chilled water testbench for 28 cores, and shoot for 5Ghz.

 

And jesus christ the AMD dick riding is out of control around here.  This is going to be the top dog CPU, it's going to smash AMD's 32 core in every workload.  Then we can start hearing the whining about power consumption or perf/$ or whatever the fuck other metric that real enthusiasts don't give a fuck about.

 

In seriousness I think the talk about efficiency is a joke when enthusiasts are spending this much money on top end mobos and CPUs for the purpose of overclocking and performance.    No one cares about fuel consumption when they buy and modify a V8.

[grimreeper132]

23 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

can't wait to see the 28c vs 32c benchmarks come out.

also the price to performance comparison between the two, as the 32 core is $1900ish this 28 I recon will be $2500-$3000 maybe

[79wjd]

 

Quote

In seriousness I think the talk about efficiency is a joke when enthusiasts are spending this much money on top end mobos and CPUs for the purpose of overclocking and performance.    No one cares about fuel consumption when they buy and modify a V8.

As much as certain people would like to pretend that suddenly no one cares about power consumption now that AMD is more efficient, the truth is much less juicy. AMD got shit in the past because they consumed more power AND weren't competitive in terms of performance. Whereas today, Intel might be less efficient, but they still perform better (whether or not the higher performance is worth the higher cost/consumption is another story entirely and comes down to personal priorities).

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

 

As much as certain people would like to pretend that suddenly no one cares about power consumption now that AMD is more efficient, the truth is much less juicy. AMD got shit in the past because they consumed more power AND weren't competitive in terms of performance. Whereas today, Intel might be less efficient, but they still perform better (whether or not the higher performance is worth the higher cost/consumption is another story entirely and comes down to personal priorities).

People care about power consumption when it's "too much". It just depends on the application for what that tolerance is.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

 

As much as certain people would like to pretend that suddenly no one cares about power consumption now that AMD is more efficient, the truth is much less juicy. AMD got shit in the past because they consumed more power AND weren't competitive in terms of performance. Whereas today, Intel might be less efficient, but they still perform better (whether or not the higher performance is worth the higher cost/consumption is another story entirely and comes down to personal priorities).

Exactly,  if AMD had been performing better complaining about the power consumption would have been a joke back then too.  All I see today are arguments being chery picked to support an ideal rather than discussing the actual merits of each product.  Efficiency is subjective (some people care others do not), performance is objective.

[The Benjamins]

40 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Silicon lottery... My cpu can do 4,5 GHz at 3.33V at reasonable temps. It could do 4,7 GHz at okay-ish temps but the voltage is too much(1.4x V)....

It's not silicone lottery it's TIM lottery

[S w a t s o n]

44 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

And jesus christ the AMD dick riding is out of control around here.  This is going to be the top dog CPU, it's going to smash AMD's 32 core in every workload.

Pot calling kettle black.

 

Besides, even though you might be able to hit 4.8ghz on a chiller, most people will be running AIO or Air, which wont handle a 28core skylake very well at all. Meanwhile 2990x will do 4ghz on the new air cooler. Stock cooling solution to stock cooling solution, I'm betting on AMD

[Taf the Ghost]

https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/08/02/intel-guts-10nm-to-get-it-out-the-door/

 

Appears Intel has had to really roll back 10nm to get 10nm+ out the door at some point. Looks like Icelake will happen in probably 2020. AMD might actually be on a better node, even then.  Interesting development.

[Taf the Ghost]

https://twitter.com/Dayman58/status/1025158228408246272

 

Intel DMCA'd a tweet with that roadmap image in it. So, confirms it is real, lol.

[AnonymousGuy]

 

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

People care about power consumption when it's "too much". It just depends on the application for what that tolerance is.

If I can get this chip to crest 1000W or melt a molex connector then I'm going to be giddy with excitement.  With the death of quad-SLI there hasn't really been a use case (except mining) where you need more than an 1000W PSU so it's cool that is about to change.  Theoretically you could get this chip to be a flamethrower in excess of 2000W (you could make a 7700k consume 300W by itself x 7 more cores).  Hell we might need 3x8 pin CPU power connectors and VRM waterblocks.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

 

If I can get this chip to crest 1000W or melt a molex connector then I'm going to be giddy with excitement.  With the death of quad-SLI there hasn't really been a use case (except mining) where you need more than an 1000W PSU so it's cool that is about to change.  Theoretically you could get this chip to be a flamethrower in excess of 2000W (you could make a 7700k consume 300W by itself x 7 more cores).  Hell we might need 3x8 pin CPU power connectors and VRM waterblocks.

Melted Molex will be a great video.

[TahoeDust]

I'll be interested to see what lower core count socket 2066 chips they release.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, TahoeDust said:

I'll be interested to see what lower core count socket 2066 chips they release.

Knowing Intel, probably the entire stack of 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 cores.

[Bananasplit_00]

10 hours ago, cj09beira said:

at what temps though?

~70C

 

10 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

can't get past 4.4 on a 4770k with a custom loop due to temps. Top level mayo was used.

4770K is more of a distance from IHS to die problem though iirc, that's why the 4790K is a thing. Same shitty paste on both as far as I know just that the 4790K has less of it between the die and ihs

[cj09beira]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Knowing Intel, probably the entire stack of 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 cores.

are there any xeons with those core counts on lga 2066?, on it they should be a lot more memory constrained

[Dylanc1500]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

are there any xeons with those core counts on lga 2066?, on it they should be a lot more memory constrained

No not currently. However the XCC die is technically (area) able to fit within the LGA-2066 package.

[porina]

On 8/2/2018 at 3:02 AM, ravenshrike said:

The had a chiller meant for a minimum of 300 liters connected to the computer. That's hilarious. 

It's meant to stop your fish cooking at 300L. If you use it on a smaller volume, you see bigger temperature drops. You wouldn't use it on a small aquarium unless you like frozen fish. On a CPU, it sounds much better.

23 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I mean, it is easy to say AMD is the better choice if you make the assumption that:

AMD processors will have higher clock speed.

That AMD processors will be cheaper.

That the IPC will be the same.

 

But that's just assumptions which might be completely wrong.

Has anyone (tech tuber or otherwise) looked at performance-per-watt under workloads for recent Intel and AMD CPUs? It has to be per-CPU, not system level though.

 

Assuming IPC is roughly the same, power efficiency per core is generally related to how close to the wall you operate. Let's see where they land.

 

Where this gets complicated is when IPC is NOT the same, such as for FP heavy workloads. When not bottlenecked elsewhere, full fat AVX-512 cores could do 4x the work AMD cores do. It is really punishing for heat output, but you are getting potentially a lot more work out. This is why we have AVX offsets. If you reduced AVX performance from Intel to match Zen, you'd probably find their rated TDPs drop a LOT.

[ravenshrike]

12 minutes ago, porina said:

It's meant to stop your fish cooking at 300L. If you use it on a smaller volume, you see bigger temperature drops. You wouldn't use it on a small aquarium unless you like frozen fish. On a CPU, it sounds much better.

I know, but that's also when you have at least two 750+ watt lights* pumping heat into the system. 300L means at minimum a 60 gallon tank when accounting for additional water conditioning systems.  

 

 

*Things have changed somewhat with the advent of LEDs but still.

[porina]

34 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

I know, but that's also when you have at least two 750+ watt lights* pumping heat into the system. 300L means at minimum a 60 gallon tank when accounting for additional water conditioning systems.  

 

 

*Things have changed somewhat with the advent of LEDs but still.

Thankfully I got into fish after halides were mostly out of fashion, and after some early years on tubes I'm all LED now. Helps a lot.

 

And... just to drag this vaguely back on topic, I have thought about using aquarium or other pet gear for... let's just say "novel CPU cooling solutions". So janky even Linus wouldn't touch it...

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

are there any xeons with those core counts on lga 2066?, on it they should be a lot more memory constrained

There's so many pins on the larger sockets that I forgot that was the HCC/X299 socket. They could probably fit the XCC dies on there, but that's going to the moved over Xeon socket. Which is 3647.

 

https://ark.intel.com/products/120475/Intel-Xeon-Gold-5122-Processor-16_5M-Cache-3_60-GHz

 

Socket 3647 takes from 4c/8t all the way up to 28c/56t parts. Sort of amazing.

 

On the core parts front, apparently Intel only has a single 22c SKU for the Skylake Xeons. Not important, I just found it interesting. I guess 22c isn't very popular.

[Stefan Payne]

10 hours ago, porina said:

Has anyone (tech tuber or otherwise) looked at performance-per-watt under workloads for recent Intel and AMD CPUs? It has to be per-CPU, not system level though.

Yes, there is an Article of Tomshardware...

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-8.html

 

There is another one wich shows similar results.

In short, it looks like Intel lost its advantage in Power Consumption.

 

AMD might not clock that high because its more optimized for Efficiency.

 

And especially Comperatsation between 15W-35W TDP CPUs is interesting, if you can limit the system to a hard TDP.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, there is an Article of Tomshardware...

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,4987-8.html

Tom's link only shows power consumption. I'm specifically looking for performance per watt. I know the 1700X and 1800X will be lower performing than an Intel quad core at P95 in throughput as AMD intentionally didn't put in as much FPU when designing Zen. So while it uses a little less power, it does less work too. And that's kinda where I want to see the comparison made. It would have to be done across different models on both sides, as likely the 1700 would be better than the 1800X for example.