In what Intel CPU generation will 8 cores be introduced?

[AtenRa]

You do know AMDs future bet is 2 modules/4 threads APUs? AM3+ platform gets one last CPU with 4 modules/8 threads and thats it. No more there, deadend.

AMD is going for less cores and more iGPU in the future.

So, we must also conclude that Intel will not release more Socket 2011 CPUs after the SB-E. No more highend CPUs from Intel just because the road map ends in 1H 2013 ???

We know that AM3+ will be dead after the Vishera CPUs, that doesn't mean that there will be no more high end 8-10 (or more) core Steamroller CPUs. There is a rumor for a single socket (FM3 ??) for both the future APUs and highend CPUs but it is early yet and we only speculate.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So we are back to wanting it, but not pay for it.

No, wanting it and paying for it, but within reasonable limits.

Same as that people are prepared to pay $50-100 more for a 4 core IB, compared to a 2 core IB. If the price difference would have been $500-1000 instead, not many 4 core IBs would have been sold...

 

[Ratman6161]

And so the plan is that games will just stagnate where they are now? We've hit the limit??

Systems are fine now for 1080p gaming, but with the push to higher resolutions and of course continuing improvement in physics, lighting, ai, tomorrows game will always run not as well on yesterdays tech. Might still get that min 30 fps but how many pieces of eye candy do you have to turn off?

The limit we have hit is with the price/performance on GPU's not CPU's. For the resolutions you are describing, more CPU power will not help at all unless you are willing to spend thousands on multiple high end video cards. As always you have to find the real bottleneck and fix that before speeding up anything else makes any difference.

 

[Phynaz]

And for most home users, gaming is about the most intensive thing they will do with the machine

Nope. Home video work is done a lot more by anyone I know.

PC gaming is a niche market.

 

[Ratman6161]

If there was no demand for CPUs that perform well in multi-threaded scenarios, then how come Intel 3770K is selling well? If there was no demand for it then everyone would just be getting the 3570K instead.

I know 3770K only has Hyper-Threading support and not 8 "true" CPU cores, but still the point is that it only performs better than 3570K in multi-threaded scenarios (apart from some minor frequency difference). And there's clearly a demand for it, since the 3770K is selling well...

There are a lot of enthusiasts out there that are buying processing power that they can't necessarily take any real world advantage of. The 3770 is a perfect example. I know that a lot of the time when selecting components I end up saying something to the effect of "well I'm already spending $1000 on hardware so... I don't need that 3770 but I sure WANT it! Why not fork over the extra $100?" So I end up over buying. Like last time when I got the 2600K when the 2500K really would have been fine. That said, now that I have the 2600K there is nothing I do, or will do in the next couple of years that will need more than that.

Sure, there are people out there who can really take advantage of 8 threads, but not that many. And like I said at the beginning, there are already true 8 core CPU's in existence if you can afford them. Here is a list: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&name=8-Core

So for those that have the money and can make use of 8 cores or just want it, there you go - its available.

 

[Ferzerp]

There are a lot of enthusiasts out there that are buying processing power that they can't necessarily take any real world advantage of. The 3770 is a perfect example. I know that a lot of the time when selecting components I end up saying something to the effect of "well I'm already spending $1000 on hardware so... I don't need that 3770 but I sure WANT it! Why not fork over the extra $100?" So I end up over buying. Like last time when I got the 2600K when the 2500K really would have been fine. That said, now that I have the 2600K there is nothing I do, or will do in the next couple of years that will need more than that.

Sure, there are people out there who can really take advantage of 8 threads, but not that many. And like I said at the beginning, there are already true 8 core CPU's in existence if you can afford them. Here is a list: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=1&name=8-Core

So for those that have the money and can make use of 8 cores or just want it, there you go - its available.

I have 96 of one of those on the way

 

[Fjodor2001]

I don't need that 3770 but I sure WANT it!

Regardless of whether all people use the available processing power, there is a demand for it, which was what should be proven.

Also, once more cores become widely available, SW will adapt to make use of it. How many applications made use of 4 cores when all we had was single core mainstream CPUs?

So for those that have the money and can make use of 8 cores or just want it, there you go - its available.

As stated previously, those are not mainstream CPUs. As also stated previously, people are prepared to pay for more performance, but within reasonable limits.

A lot of people are prepared to pay $50-100 more for a 4 core IB, compared to a 2 core IB. But if the price difference would have been $500-1000 instead, not many 4 core IBs would have been sold...

So can we please the discussion of expensive 8 core Xeons behind? If money is no object, then we've had the chance to build 100.000 core interconnected systems for quite some time. But most people don't run nuclear weapons simulations, and that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[jhu]

Regardless of whether all people use the available processing power, there is a demand for it, which was what should be proven.

Also, once more cores become widely available, SW will adapt to make use of it. How many applications made use of 4 cores when all we had was single core mainstream CPUs?


As stated previously, those are not mainstream CPUs. As also stated previously, people are prepared to pay for more performance, but within reasonable limits.

A lot of people are prepared to pay $50-100 more for a 4 core IB, compared to a 2 core IB. But if the price difference would have been $500-1000 instead, not many 4 core IBs would have been sold...

So can we please the discussion of expensive 8 core Xeons behind? If money is no object, then we've had the chance to build 100.000 core interconnected systems for quite some time. But most people don't run nuclear weapons simulations, and that's not the topic of this thread.

What is your price point for considering a processor "mainstream"? $100? $200? Is Core i7 considered "mainstream"? But also consider that you can buy 6-core i7 that is overall faster in multithreaded applications than many Xeons in a uniprocessor configuration including the entire Xeon E3 line, most of the Xeon E5-2xxx series, and the entire Xeon E5-4xxx line.

 

[Ferzerp]

Regardless of whether all people use the available processing power, there is a demand for it, which was what should be proven.

Also, once more cores become widely available, SW will adapt to make use of it. How many applications made use of 4 cores when all we had was single core mainstream CPUs?


As stated previously, those are not mainstream CPUs. As also stated previously, people are prepared to pay for more performance, but within reasonable limits.

A lot of people are prepared to pay $50-100 more for a 4 core IB, compared to a 2 core IB. But if the price difference would have been $500-1000 instead, not many 4 core IBs would have been sold...

So can we please the discussion of expensive 8 core Xeons behind? If money is no object, then we've had the chance to build 100.000 core interconnected systems for quite some time. But most people don't run nuclear weapons simulations, and that's not the topic of this thread.

You want it, you just aren't willing to pay for it.

Got it.

 

[Fjodor2001]

You want it, you just aren't willing to pay for it.

Got it.

You got it wrong.

I want it and am willing to pay for it, but within reasonable limits.

Please read the previous posts, so that we don't have to keep repeating stuff over and over.

 

[Fjodor2001]

What is your price point for considering a processor "mainstream"? $100? $200? Is Core i7 considered "mainstream"? But also consider that you can buy 6-core i7 that is overall faster in multithreaded applications than many Xeons in a uniprocessor configuration including the entire Xeon E3 line, most of the Xeon E5-2xxx series, and the entire Xeon E5-4xxx line.

I guess that "mainstream" is within the price range where the bulk of the CPUs are sold. Currently I'd say that for Intel that includes the Socket 1155/1156 i3/i5/i7 CPUs, but not e.g. Xeons or 6-core Socket 2011 i7 (which are not sold in large volumes, and are quite a lot more expensive)? Do you agree?

 

[Ferzerp]

And I want 2TB SSDs for $200, but no one is willing to sell me one...

(it makes as much sense)

Maybe I can get a 2013 GT500 for $35k too... Hmm. I'm entitled, right?

 

[Fjodor2001]

And I want 2TB SSDs for $200, but no one is willing to sell me one...

(it makes as much sense)

Maybe I can get a 2013 GT500 for $35k too... Hmm. I'm entitled, right?

Look at the IB die layout image in one of my previous posts. As can be seen, if the iGPU would be skipped, it would not take a much larger die size to make an 8 core IB CPU (compared to current 4 core IB CPUs). Hence it should not have to be much more expensive than current 4 core IB CPUs either.

Also, in this thread we're talking about future Intel CPU generations. And then there will be 2-4 times the amount of transistors available on the same die size. Then moving from 4 to 8 cores should really not be a problem cost-wise.

 

[lakedude]

... moving from 4 to 8 cores should really not be a problem cost-wise.

If you notice all the current 8 core machines are on a bigger socket and not entirely because the cores take up more room. They also take up more bandwidth from all the supporting hardware. It is a challenge to keep 8 cores powered and fed with data so you need more "pins" and a better platform to support all the I/O an 8 core machine can generate.

A typical user who is surfing the internet, watching movies, playing music and using office really only needs a 2 core machine.

Sure there are apps that make use of more cores but that type of work is generally more the kind of thing a server does, hence the 8 core chips being available on server platforms.

I understand that a few rare users can make use of more cores, my BOINC projects will use all the cores they can find.

As an engineer you are making compromises. A faster, cheaper quad on a consumer machine will better serve the average consumer better than a slower 8 core machine on a more expensive platform.

You can't just duct tape a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine to a Piper Cub...

 

[JustMe21]

I'd rather see a 4.5 to 5 GHz stock at under 100W than to see an 8 core. We've been sitting in the 3 GHz speed range for stock speeds for so long now.

 

[amenx]

I have a feeling that even if a hypothetical, terrible 8 core processor was made (even worse than BD), that people would still buy it just because it has moar cores, and even if a 4 core HT one could demonstratively be proven to be superior to it in every test, application or workload.

 

[intangir]

I have a feeling that even if a hypothetical, terrible 8 core processor was made (even worse than BD), that people would still buy it just because it has moar cores, and even if a 4 core HT one could demonstratively be proven to be superior to it in every test, application or workload.

Truly, cores are the new gigahurtz.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I have a feeling that even if a hypothetical, terrible 8 core processor was made (even worse than BD), that people would still buy it just because it has moar cores, and even if a 4 core HT one could demonstratively be proven to be superior to it in every test, application or workload.

Sound like you're comparing an 8C Bulldozer with a 4C/8T Ivy Bridge, which does not make much sense. If you stay within the same CPU architecture, then I don't see why a true 8C CPU should be worse performance-wise than a 4C/8T CPU (all other things being equal).

 

[Fjodor2001]

If you notice all the current 8 core machines are on a bigger socket and not entirely because the cores take up more room. They also take up more bandwidth from all the supporting hardware. It is a challenge to keep 8 cores powered and fed with data so you need more "pins" and a better platform to support all the I/O an 8 core machine can generate.

They are primarily on larger sockets because they are designed for server usage (and the requirements that come with that such as high I/O throughput, something that may not be as relevant on desktop PCs). But note that the 8C Xeon E5-2xxx is on the LGA 1356 socket, which only has 200 pins more than the 4C socket 1156 CPUs. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Xeon_E5-2xxx_.28dual-processor.29

Regarding socket 2011, the reason it has so many more pins is as I understand it primarily because it has more PCIe lanes and a quad channel memory controller, something that is not strictly necessary for 6/8C on a desktop PC. See:

http://compare-processors.com/lga-2011-vs-lga-1155-sockets/1528/

Larger caches will be needed though. But that is taken into account when looking at the IB die layout image I posted earlier, i.e. caches are expected to grow with the number or cores.

But really, memory and I/O bandwidth is hardly a limiting factor for introducing 8C CPUs on desktop PCs currently. Just see how little performance gains are made by overclocking the RAM on 4C CPUs on socket 1155. And PCIe 3.0 is hardly bottlenecked either.

A typical user who is surfing the internet, watching movies, playing music and using office really only needs a 2 core machine.

Perhaps. But this thread is not about what specific individual will actually makes use of 1, 2, 4 or 8 cores, or what specific individual is willing to pay what for that. I can however see that some people want to turn it into such an off-topic sub-discussion, and that is unfortunate.

This thread is about discussing when we think the mainstream Intel CPUs will transition from 4 to 8 cores and why, regardless of whether some people think that may be necessary or not.

Clearly, 4-5 years from now Intel intends to have introduced 2 node shrinks, so they can fit 4 times the amount of transistors on the same die area. What do you think they intend to do with all those transistors? Keep growing the iGPU and caches? :\

 

[ShintaiDK]

Perhaps. But this thread is not about what specific individual will actually makes use of 1, 2, 4 or 8 cores, or what specific individual is willing to pay what for that. I can however see that some people want to turn it into such an off-topic sub-discussion, and that is unfortunate.

This thread is about discussing when we think the mainstream Intel CPUs will transition from 4 to 8 cores and why, regardless of whether some people think that may be necessary or not.

So you say Intel should release 8 core mainstream CPUs, even if people wont use them and there is no need or demand? Just because _you_ can then get an 8 core CPU cheap.

You never wanted to discuss anything besides why you couldnt get a cheap 8 core.

Try think on what the 400mio other CPU buyers need and want.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So you say Intel should release 8 core mainstream CPUs, even if people wont use them and there is no need or demand? Just because _you_ can then get an 8 core CPU cheap.

For gods sake, start reading my previous posts! As I wrote before:

"But this thread is not about what specific individual will actually make use of 1, 2, 4 or 8 cores, or what specific individual is willing to pay what for that."

Try think on what the 400mio other CPU buyers need and want.

Arguing like that, we should not have more than 2C mainstream CPUs, since the average user does not use 4C anyway according to some people.

It's not like Intel ONLY has to make 8 core mainstream CPUs. They can still provide 4C and 2C variants as well, for those that do not need 8C. Same as that they provide both 4C and 2C mainstream CPUs today.

The big question here is what Intel should do with 4 times the amount of available transistors in 4-5 years? You've not even touched on the main subject of this thread yet...

 

[ShintaiDK]

The big question here is what Intel should do with 4 times the amount of available transistors in 4-5 years? You've not even touched on the main subject of this thread yet...

I did, you just refused anything that didnt fit the 8 core goal.

 

[lakedude]

...note that the 8C Xeon E5-2xxx is on the LGA 1356 socket, which only has 200 pins more than the 4C socket 1156 CPUs...

Yes and notice how the highest TDP 8C Xeon E5-2xxx part is only 95 watts, and the fastest 8c is only 2.3GHz.

Notice how the 2011 socket parts have higher TDP and faster clocks...

At 1 volt a 150 watt part is going to draw 150 amps! That is a lot of current, like about as much as your whole house uses. How much current do you think each of those tiny wires on a CPU can safely handle?

Have you ever seen the pinout on a modern CPU? A whole bunch of pins are devoted to POWER.

Are you interested in a 2.3GHz 8c machine? I'm not! I'll take a 2600k over that any day.

 

[lakedude]

The big question here is what Intel should do with 4 times the amount of available transistors in 4-5 years? You've not even touched on the main subject of this thread yet...

Ok I'll play.

As the nm of the process shrinks, less power will be needed so that will help as far as needing a ton of power pins.

However, as the core size shrinks removing the heat will be a bigger challenge. I'm pretty sure they are already making parts artificially big to spread out the hot spots. In other words if heat was not an issue they could make cores smaller.

I'm confident the bright engineers at Intel (and hopefully AMD) will figure this stuff out and eventually we will see cheap 8c parts.

Speaking of which you need look no farther than Bulldozer to see why at this time in the desktop PC space an 8 core machine is not such a great idea. A FX-8150 is an awesome chip for the money if you can use all 8 cores but most folks would rather have an Intel SB/IB quad.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I did, you just refused anything that didnt fit the 8 core goal.

Do you mean what you wrote here? I.e.:

"VRM integration, PCH(SATA, USB, NIC, Audio etc) integration, faster iGPU, possible memory integration and so on.
[...]
The cores themselves also grow in transistor terms."

In that case, you're arguments did not hold. See previous posts here and here which break your arguments.