The infamous Intel Core i9 processor... finally real?

[blue11]

That is just plain wrong. Zen supports AVX2. As my Ryzen will testify.

In fact, AMD already supported AVX with Bulldozer, and their own XOP.

If it doesn't support full-throughput AVX, it doesn't support AVX for the purposes of discussing TDP. How you feel about consumer software or Intel market segmentation has nothing to do with this.

Sure they can just snap their fingers and have motherboard manufacturers create a consumer enthusiast motherboard requiring twice the out put they currently supporting and 33% more than they have been supporting on max over clocks. All within fitting current case and power supply standards.

Nobody needs to snap any fingers. Motherboard manufacturers will do it because their product will be superior to the competitors. What do you think the difference between an ASUS Maximus 9001 and a basic Z270-A is?

I can see this might be a bit pointless to explain but just like clocks on a CPU. The higher you get the requirements get that much more extreme. That 50% increase in Power will cost that much more to develop and implement than the 200w before it. You can't compare a consumer platform with a platform made to fit specific use cases that is tons more expensive and made to order.


Point. Neither of them do. TDP is about cooling requirements and limited max power output isn't as important figuring out the cooling requirements. The point is that Ryzen can sit close to 4GHz with 8 cores (double a 7700K) at the power output of the 7700 at 4.5. A 12 core Ryzen is 50% more cores, a 12 core i9 would be 3x the cores. My point was AMD keeping the HEDT cores at the retail speeds of of their R7 lineup would be much more manageable.

An LGA-1151 socket can already deliver over 200 W of power. Why do you think a LGA-2066 (which btw is not a "consumer" socket) can't deliver the same power? In fact, one thread over on this board, you can find fellow enthusiasts overclocking the E5-2699v3 and moving over 300 W through LGA-2011v3.

 

[mikk]

Again wrong. Ryzen performs well enough in AVX software.

It isn't wrong, it is reality. Check y-cruncher numbers with AVX2 binary. The gain over AVX1 is rather small, Ryzen 1800X can't beat an Core i7-7700k with AVX2 binary despite that y-cruncher fully utilizes all cores. Without AVX code Ryzen is much better.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

If it doesn't support full-throughput AVX, it doesn't support AVX for the purposes of discussing TDP. How you feel about consumer software or Intel market segmentation has nothing to do with this.

It isn't wrong, it is reality. Check y-cruncher numbers with AVX2 binary. The gain over AVX1 is rather small, Ryzen 1800X can't beat an Core i7-7700k with AVX2 binary despite that y-cruncher fully utilizes all cores. Without AVX code Ryzen is much better.

I see where this is going. Nothing further to add.

 

[Topweasel]

If it doesn't support full-throughput AVX, it doesn't support AVX for the purposes of discussing TDP. How you feel about consumer software or Intel market segmentation has nothing to do with this.


Nobody needs to snap any fingers. Motherboard manufacturers will do it because their product will be superior to the competitors. What do you think the difference between an ASUS Maximus 9001 and a basic Z270-A is?


An LGA-1151 socket can already deliver over 200 W of power. Why do you think a LGA-2066 (which btw is not a "consumer" socket) can't deliver the same power? In fact, one thread over on this board, you can find fellow enthusiasts overclocking the E5-2699v3 and moving over 300 W through LGA-2011v3.

I can see this isn't going to be an actual consumer debate, but a debate on absolute theoretical performance for bragging rights. I am trying to be nice on the estimate of cost and power usage and my original point was that it wasn't going to be clocked at anywhere near 4GHz out of the box. This is worse than the the 5GHz potential of the 7700. Saying it can hit that, having a couple reviewers push a CPU that they aren't responsible for, is different from actual usage. Possibly sacrificing a $330 CPU to attain crazy clocks is one thing and even then Delidding is still like .5% of the 7700k's out there. But now you are talking about a $500 motherboard and $1.5k CPU (Probably a low on the CPU pricing).

Either way at stock I doubt it's going to have the clock advantage which is what got this whole thing started specially not enough to kill AMD's server and workstation attempts. But if you think running the mobo and CPU at a cost of $2000 at 300w (both those numbers likely less than actual numbers) is a reasonable expectation. Then fine. I don't an a few edge cases on the extreme end of one platform being the expected result on another doesn't make sense to me. It's one thing to say hey I have this robust motherboard that handles an extreme overclock on server chip and another to set expectations on the platform in general as some kind of as it was worded before as a "gimme". Besides the realism of people actually running this setup like that even if they could. Running a 4c CPU at a "gimme" with an extra 30-40w cost, isn't going to automatically be the case when the "gimme" is an extra 100w-130w, and realistically with the CPU clocked down farther for TDP reasons at an extra upwards of 180w-200w cost.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Something tells me that Intel has had these processors on the drawing board for some time, just waiting for AMD to finally release something that competed with their Core i7 desktop processor line:

http://hothardware.com/news/monster-intel-12-core-i9-7920x-leaked

That 12 core/24 thread i9 7920x model looks like a Ryzen 7 slaying beast of a processor! Let's hope that AMD has something similar planned for later this year...

This is just Intel packing in more cores. Well, no one packs in as many cores as AMD.
Behold! AMD ThreadRipper!

https://m.hardocp.com/news/2017/03/29/amd_threadripper_16core_32_thread_monster_rumor/

 

[Topweasel]

It isn't wrong, it is reality. Check y-cruncher numbers with AVX2 binary. The gain over AVX1 is rather small, Ryzen 1800X can't beat an Core i7-7700k with AVX2 binary despite that y-cruncher fully utilizes all cores. Without AVX code Ryzen is much better.

It can't beat it because of the clock speed difference. Wasn't that the point. Sure it can only handle 1 instead of 2 AVX2 commands in a clock cycle but it can use twice as many cores. Which means compared to a 7700k it would perform exactly the same at the same clock speed. So all of Intel's lead in that benchmark is clockspeed. Now as Intel increase core counts and in HEDT where AVX2 will make a bigger difference Zen will fall behind. This assumes that Zen isn't going to have double the cores at whatever price bracket and that Intel can keep up it's clock advantage.

 

[blue11]

I can see this isn't going to be an actual consumer debate, but a debate on absolute theoretical performance for bragging rights. Either way at stock I doubt it's going to have the clock advantage which is what got this whole thing started specially not enough to kill AMD's server and workstation attempts.

Bragging rights are the only reason to buy HEDT CPUs. The only reason you would buy Intel HEDT over the more scalable, energy efficient, and indeed cost-efficient Xeons is to claim you have N cores running at 4+ GHz. Servers are going to be running dual Platinum 8176/8180 with 28 cores at 2.5 GHz (confirmed). Workstations will probably be running at 3.6 GHz on dual 14-core SKUs with 200 W TDP (also confirmed).

The only one that's been talking about pricing so far is you. Nobody knows what the prices are going to be, so why are you spreading FUD about it?

 

[Shivansps]

Most consumer software is still stuck at SSE2, at most SSE 4.2. Intel make sure of that by disabling AVX on their Pentium/Celeron line.

While that is not helping at all, you can still do AVX and use SSE4 fallback, petty much all apps that use AVX do it. Most apps arent even using SSE4, and those were in the market for like 15 years now.

 

[Topweasel]

Projecting pricing on a unreleased CPU to estimate its market is not allowed. Is it FUD? What is the current price, core count, and clock speed of Intel's highest HEDT CPU? Most people would assume looking at historical pricing that it would slide into the previous head honcho's spot. But I am not sure did that happen last time? I mean historically looking back just a single generation Intel slotted the new top core count HEDT Intel increased the cost by 70%. I was projecting a ~15% decrease in price. How is that FUD? FUD would be taking the last switch over and applying it here. Which would be 2900 for the new CPU. That would be the case unless you think Intel is legitimately worried about AMD and is willing to trash their whole pricing structure? But fine what do you think $1000, $1200, again with a $400-$500 motherboard with phases up the wazzu. You really think that running it at 300w all day every day as a gimme is what people are going to do with a $1400-$1700 CPU and motherboard combo.

What I meant was bragging rights, was closer to a Alfa 4C owner throwing around track numbers of Laferrari FXXK to prove that they made a sounder purchase of a car because it did better around a track than a 918, when talking to a Cayman owner. What is theoretically possible with this chip isn't anywhere near as important as what Intel can ship in at stock and none of this really applies to any of us because 90% of it is out of price range and exists as a low volume halo chip that no one is going "stretch it's legs".

 

[Shivansps]

You give you guys some idea, Windows 7, was has to be the most used OS today, does not use SSE at all. You can install and run Windows 7 (provided of enoght memory, 128mb minimum to RUN, 512mb minimum to install), on a AMD K5 or non-MMX Pentiums. That petty much also includes 486 CPUs. MS started to use PAE/NX/SSE2 on Windows 8! Still holds true on Windows 10.

 

[blue11]

Projecting pricing on a unreleased CPU to estimate its market is not allowed. Is it FUD? What is the current price, core count, and clock speed of Intel's highest HEDT CPU? Most people would assume looking at historical pricing that it would slide into the previous head honcho's spot. But I am not sure did that happen last time? I mean historically looking back just a single generation Intel slotted the new top core count HEDT Intel increased the cost by 70%. I was projecting a ~15% decrease in price. How is that FUD? FUD would be taking the last switch over and applying it here. Which would be 2900 for the new CPU. That would be the case unless you think Intel is legitimately worried about AMD and is willing to trash their whole pricing structure? But fine what do you think $1000, $1200, again with a $400-$500 motherboard with phases up the wazzu. You really think that running it at 300w all day every day as a gimme is what people are going to do with a $1400-$1700 CPU and motherboard combo.

Why do you think $1700 is especially expensive? HEDT processors are, and have always been, toys for enthusiasts seeking bragging rights. Consumers buy laptops and don't care about socketed CPUs. Professionals using dual Xeon workstations (e.g. E5-2687Wv4) are paying $4000 in CPUs and likely at least another $4000 in DRAM. Large scale datacenter operators are buying top-bin E5s at $4500 each and paying far more in DRAM (12x 128 GB DIMMs is $14000+). Why do you think Facebook and Google bought out the entire first year's production of Skylake-SP if "Threadripper" or Naples are going to be so amazing?

What I meant was bragging rights, was closer to a Alfa 4C owner throwing around track numbers of Laferrari FXXK to prove that they made a sounder purchase of a car because it did better around a track than a 918, when talking to a Cayman owner. What is theoretically possible with this chip isn't anywhere near as important as what Intel can ship in at stock and none of this really applies to any of us because 90% of it is out of price range and exists as a low volume halo chip that no one is going "stretch it's legs".

The conversation in this thread has gone more like this:
(Us) The new Ferrari is going to be awesome.
(You) Nuh-uh, the everyday users are going to buy Lamborghinis
(Us) Working men buy trucks, not sports cars
(You) (crickets...)

You give you guys some idea, Windows 7, was has to be the most used OS today, does not use SSE at all. You can install and run Windows 7 (provided of enoght memory, 128mb minimum to RUN, 512mb minimum to install), on a AMD K5 or non-MMX Pentiums. That petty much also includes 486 CPUs. MS started to use PAE/NX/SSE2 on Windows 8! Still holds true on Windows 10.

Why would the OS need to use SSE? An operating system shouldn't have any floating point instructions in it.

 

[mikk]

It can't beat it because of the clock speed difference.

Nonsense. i7-7700k only requires 15% more clock to equal Ryzen 8C despite having a 4 core vs 8 core disadvantage. The reason it can't beat Kabylake 4C in this app is AVX2 but also AVX1. It makes a huge difference there.

 

[VirtualLarry]

"ThreadRipper" (16C/32T)... I like! Might actually consider that, if price is under $800. (For the CPU. I expect the mobo to be another $250-300.)

Edit: I wasn't saying that the top bin SKU had to be at most $800. I expect that top out at $1200, or maybe $1400-1500 if AMD is "greedy". But I'm hopeful that there will be a 16C SKU for $800.

 

[Justinus]

"ThreadRipper" (16C/32T)... I like! Might actually consider that, if price is under $800. (For the CPU. I expect the mobo to be another $250-300.)

The top SKU 6 core is $250, top SKU 8 core is $500, twice the price, and you expect to get double that for only 50% higher? I assume the low end 10 core SKU to start at $700-750 and the 16 cores to top out at $1500.

Remember the platform is a 4000 pin LGA with quad channel memory, no way it's going to scale cheaply.

 

[Topweasel]

Nonsense. i7-7700k only requires 15% more clock to equal Ryzen 8C despite having a 4 core vs 8 core disadvantage. The reason it can't beat Kabylake 4C in this app is AVX2 but also AVX1. It makes a huge difference there.

Did you read the stuff you quoted? My point was that Ryzen could only handle half the AVX2 per clock cycle per core. Since it's double the cores, then it would be resource wise tied with Intel.

This means that Intel only needs a 1% clock speed advantage to beat AMD.

 

[wildhorse2k]

The top SKU 6 core is $250, top SKU 8 core is $500, twice the price, and you expect to get double that for only 50% higher? I assume the low end 10 core SKU to start at $700-750 and the 16 cores to top out at $1500.

Remember the platform is a 4000 pin LGA with quad channel memory, no way it's going to scale cheaply.

I would expect the 16C threadripper to be priced similarly like Skylake-X 10C, so about $1000. If its priced like Skylake-X 12C, there may be insufficient motivation for customers to buy it. AMD needs market share badly.

 

[Ajay]

I really don't get the relevance of AVX performance is about. How many ppl here actually use applications that depend on at least a couple of hours of encode/re-encoding, etc.? On the workstation level, there may be more apps that will take take advantage of AVX, but the vast majority of folks here aren't buying systems with the top core counts and 256 GB of ECC DDR4. More professional applications take advantage of GPU compute for doing video encoding and transforms, IIRC. I'll definitely test out some AVX2 libraries on my next CPU since my current one doesn't support it. I might even do some hand coded asm for kicks (since I used to write firmware code and I geek out on this sort of stuff) - but, I'll probably leave AVX turned off the rest of the time so I can run a higher overclock for more ST performance.

Anyway, we are going to get much more information in a little over 14 days on both HEDT/Workstation grade platforms (and most professional workstations still use Xeons anyway). I'm glad for the competition, more than anything else. These are exciting times. I just hope everyone can sit back an enjoy the all the real CPU news that's coming out way - what a nice change

 

[2is]

What do you mean by slower? Slower in benches, real life multi-threaded work or just in clockspeed?
Thanks.

All of the above

 

[whm1974]

I would expect the 16C threadripper to be priced similarly like Skylake-X 10C, so about $1000. If its priced like Skylake-X 12C, there may be insufficient motivation for customers to buy it. AMD needs market share badly.

Yes they indeed do and for that reason I think their 16C/32T "threadripper" will be priced below Intel in order to gain market share.

 

[blue11]

I really don't get the relevance of AVX performance is about. How many ppl here actually use applications that depend on at least a couple of hours of encode/re-encoding, etc.?

AVX can't be ignored when estimating power consumption. Since Zen doesn't have AVX, the "Zen-equivalent" Intel TDP is at least 10-20 W less than the value listed on ARK. When estimating how much power a 12-core CPU will draw, that's near 100 W and quite important. Whether consumer software uses AVX or not is beside the point.

Basically it works like this:

• If you are a consumer and don't use AVX:
  • You will have no problems overclocking to 4.5 GHz, since the 7700K only draws ~50 W on non-AVX workloads
  • A 12-core version would draw about ~150 W, so maybe you'll reach 5 GHz. Who knows.
• If you are a consumer and sometimes use AVX:
  • You will have to set a lower AVX OC and run at ~4.0 GHz.
  • If Skylake-X supports Kaby Lake AVX offset, you can still have a 4.5 GHz regular OC.
• If you are a professional and don't use AVX:
  • You don't care, because you buy Xeons.
  • Or you'll buy AMD, who knows.
• If you are a professional and use AVX:
  • You don't care, because you're already going twice as fast (4x with AVX-512?) as Zen.

 

[Shivansps]

Yes they indeed do and for that reason I think their 16C/32T "threadripper" will be priced below Intel in order to gain market share.

Investors are not going to be happy about that.

 

[Topweasel]

Investors are not going to be happy about that.

Margin and Roi are important when you are a stable company looking to increase profit. But A return to profitability is more important and keeping sales of Zeppelin dies at $300+ is still a major win. Specially since packaging will cost less per die with the HEDT offerings.

I think investors will be more than happy with a tripling of ASP a giant growth in revenue, then over analyzing the cost vs performance curve in comparison to Intel.

 

[bbhaag]

Core count is cool. I get that but even if Intel launches such a beast what consumer software can really utilize it?

 

[blue11]

Core count is cool. I get that but even if Intel launches such a beast what consumer software can really utilize it?

Benchmark software will support it pretty well. That's what people buy these things for anyway.

 

[whm1974]

Margin and Roi are important when you are a stable company looking to increase profit. But A return to profitability is more important and keeping sales of Zeppelin dies at $300+ is still a major win. Specially since packaging will cost less per die with the HEDT offerings.

I think investors will be more than happy with a tripling of ASP a giant growth in revenue, then over analyzing the cost vs performance curve in comparison to Intel.

Yeah AMD really does need to increase their market share in order to return to profitability. They are not in an area right now where they can charge Intel level prices for their products and will not be for a long time.