Intels new 10 Core?! - How true is this leak do you think?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,896
498
136
#26
If true, there is merit to the idea as it allows Intel to be more competitive with the Ryzen 3000 lineup. Obviously it won't beat the 3950X but everything below that should look more competitive. Like others I'm dubious about how hot the 10C part will run though. Is 14nm fully tapped out or is there one last round of optimisation left in it?

I actually wrote on these forums a while back that enabling HT on all SKUs was Intel's last 'low hanging fruit' until they sort out their 10nm mess. It makes sense because there is almost no reason at all to get a 9th gen core CPU unless you're chasing high fps gaming.
How I think people talking about their desktop markets forgets how in dire straights their server products are. Not in a sales level but a supply level. Intel is spending billions getting more capacity out 14nm because of the 10nm CF. That's stuff that won't even be turned on till later this year or early next year (should tell you their 10nm confidence). They are releasing a 2 die 48c CPU to keep up with demand and lower the demand on EPYC. Most of the super large data center and hpc customers will want those CPU's. Meaning constrained supply, which means for every die they sell that isn't one of those, is less they have to sell to their major customers. If you want a reason why 9900k is $500 its because Intel had to push margins up on that to make sure it offset the wafer production impact it had vs those 28c dies a 10c die just increases it's impact on Server CPU supply even more. They know they have to keep up. But its dragging them down. The 1090k or whatever it is called isn't going to be able to compete with a 12c Ryzen let alone the 16c. Because the power requirements to maintain high clocks just isn't going to be reasonable (200+ is my guess) and they can't really compete with AMD on price. They aren't really going to be able to get away with really lowering the price on the 8c chips anyways. Also pricing on the 3900x is probably where AMD can park the 3950x if they wanted taking the 12 down to $400 or so if they really needed to.

I don't see how this doesn't stay basically status quo, with one really disappointing Halo product.
 
Apr 4, 2013
56
3
71
#28
But the way they are going.... for how long. This is what you don't understand. This is why they are trying to not be in the toilet.
But for how long? Shouldn't we ask this about AMD also? Historically, they come out with good products and enjoy a few years of success, followed by a way-too-long period of mediocrity. Rinse and repeat. They're on a high note again, hope they can keep it rolling for the long term.

But damn...I'm already considering upgrading my 8700K with a 3900x. Gawd that CPU looks good!
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
372
93
116
#29
But for how long? Shouldn't we ask this about AMD also? Historically, they come out with good products and enjoy a few years of success, followed by a way-too-long period of mediocrity. Rinse and repeat. They're on a high note again, hope they can keep it rolling for the long term.
Historically, there have been two things that have caused AMD to struggle - the first being their (and later GloFo's) fabs, and the second being a habit of trying to get too clever for their own good, as demonstrated with Bulldozer, and Phenom I to a lesser extent.

The former is now essentially a non-issue, and while I wouldn't rule out AMD getting complacent again and trying something overly ambitious, I think they've got a better idea now of what they are and aren't capable of.

Of course, we shouldn't be ruling Intel out completely either, as they could get back on-track if they pull a rabbit out of the hat with 7nm.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,697
641
136
#30
But for how long? Shouldn't we ask this about AMD also? Historically, they come out with good products and enjoy a few years of success, followed by a way-too-long period of mediocrity. Rinse and repeat. They're on a high note again, hope they can keep it rolling for the long term.

But damn...I'm already considering upgrading my 8700K with a 3900x. Gawd that CPU looks good!
It's very difficult to use history as a sure guide here. It's not like we're talking about a universal law. I remember when the first Athlon 64 X2 models came out at very high prices and Ruiz started boasting about the huge lead AMD had. It almost seemed as if he thought that Intel would take forever to catch up, but this was his thinking. I don't think the present AMD is going to relax anytime soon if ever (in modern timing). Use Grove's philosophy and keep going. We already see them eclipsing their previous gen quickly.

In any case, especially if the lower end models resemble the slide, they should stay relevant.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
851
363
106
#31
But for how long? Shouldn't we ask this about AMD also? Historically, they come out with good products and enjoy a few years of success, followed by a way-too-long period of mediocrity. Rinse and repeat. They're on a high note again, hope they can keep it rolling for the long term.
I'd say Zen already was a good product, Zen+ was a good if minor upgrade for the consumer market. Zen 2 is a new good product that likely shows AMD current modus operandi wrt what they try to achieve with new generations: Jump onto a new process node, improve IPC through picking low hanging fruits, improve scalability through uncore and package changes, and trying to exploit the newly created scalability to the maximal feasible degree within given platform limitations right within the same gen.

That kind of cadence at the current rate (every ~15 months) is unprecedented so it will be very interesting to see where (and in what part) it will stop. E.g. going by rumors so far Zen 3 may only increase the scalability of virtual cores using SMT4, keeping the actual amount of cores unchanged. Also they haven't yet managed to apply this successful cadence to their RTG yet (RX 5700 may have been the very first step).

On the other hand Zen 1 through 3 were planned way back when AMD's lifeline was their semi-custom business and little else. With their Zen based products being successful they now should have the financial backing to ensure Zen 3 and gens onward continue to keep up the pace set by Zen and Zen 2.
 
Jul 12, 2006
95,562
3,427
136
#32
But for how long? Shouldn't we ask this about AMD also? Historically, they come out with good products and enjoy a few years of success, followed by a way-too-long period of mediocrity. Rinse and repeat. They're on a high note again, hope they can keep it rolling for the long term.

But damn...I'm already considering upgrading my 8700K with a 3900x. Gawd that CPU looks good!
Sort of. One also has to remember that the post-AMD64 years were heavily influenced by non-competitive practices from Intel, which they had to pay a hefty fine for. That, and the last ~8 years or more of IPC gains from Intel were an intentional design implementation that deliberately compromised very real security for some very fake performance gains. The construction years from AMD wouldn't really have looked as bad as they do now if Intel were actually concerned with their customer's security during those generations.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY