Who's buying Skylake-X? (You may now change your vote)

[swilli89]

Whether you think it is okay or not ultimately doesn't matter. If the market will pay it, they will price it accordingly.

Remember that there is the economics concept of "optimal pricing" - they are a multi-billion dollar corporation, and they didn't get to their current status as industry heavyweight by being a charity. Salaries and R&D are expensive.

I completely understand, I'm arguing from a consumer's perspective, as we all reasonably should. However the bolded parts aren't what's driving them to try and capture record breaking margins.. its their ever growing obligation to stockholders to return higher profits. Salaries and R&D have long been easily affordable by Intel. If they weren't, Intel wouldn't be spending things like FIFTEEN $Billion on acquisitions.

 

[WhiteNoise]

Should be a 'maybe' option as I am considering it. I really want to upgrade my daughters gaming rig. She is using a 2500K with GTX 980. I'd love to give her my current i5 6600K, mobo and ram and move on to something better for my main rig. I've been wanting to upgrade to an i7 so yeah I am keeping my eye on the new skylake X

I have used many AMD CPU's over the years but in my main rigs I have been happy with every Intel chip I have bought and I have no plans to switch from Intel anytime soon unless AMD offers up a CPU that blows me away; that has not happened yet. Money is something to think about but I don't mind spending $300-$450 for a CPU if I'm getting a great CPU with solid OC potential.

 

[zinfamous]

Hmm, Skylake-X. I liked it better when it was called Ryzen and was a far greater value. The pricing on the majority of these chips, with today's reality, is outright lunacy, imo.

 

[zinfamous]

$400+ CPU's will not bring about a multi-core/multi-threaded software revolution.

You're probably right. AMD offers 6c/12t for about $250, though.

 

[Zucker2k]

So you're saying that since we've had gouged margin products historically that its actually supposed to be ok that Intel charges $400 more for 2 additional cores on the same socket?

History has nothing to do with this. the 10 core chip is an absolutely awful value proposition and since we aren't talking about gaming core count/$ is everything.

Can't see the forest for the trees? Consider this, Intel used to charge over $600 more for the 'unlocked' feature. Value-wise, this is probably the best dollar-for-core deal Intel is bringing to the $999 bracket, $100 per core.

 

[swilli89]

Can't see the forest for the trees? Consider this, Intel used to charge over $600 more for the 'unlocked' feature. Value-wise, this is probably the best dollar-for-core deal Intel is bringing to the $999 bracket, $100 per core.

Not trying to be inflammatory but that is not the correct use of that colloquialism. Just like other posters you are citing their historically awful pricing as justification that their new pricing is "good".

The only real barometer of value is gauged against other current industry offerings. This includes both Intel and AMD. Versus Intel's other soon to be current offerings, charging $400 more for 2 additional cores based on the same die in insane. Their $999 processors have ALWAYS been awful deals, just because this is slightly less awful doesn't make it valuable.

Now versus AMD, all we have to go on is that you can get a similar IPC 8-core CPU for $400 from AMD right now. It remains to be seen what ThreadRipper will do to the value discussion. If AMD actually manages to get their 16 core TR at or below $999 then Intel's offering will become even more vastly overpriced for the performance it returns.

 

[Arachnotronic]

No one is crying foul that their 8c is $599 and then... a straight jump to $1000 for 2 more cores? How is anyone ok with that?

Kinda sucks that they are still going to be using TIM for their $2000 18C chips.. Same old Intel ha..

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

And it's not a jump to $1K for two more cores. It's two more cores + more PCI-Express lanes.

The yields of a fully-functional 10 core LCC die are surely much lower than the yields of an 8 core. Think about it mathematically, to get a 7900X, you need essentially "perfect" Skylake-EP LCC dies.

To get a 7820X, you can have two defective cores (and "defective" in this case is "can't run at 4.3GHz" since all cores on a die need to be validated to run at Turbo Boost 2.0 speeds) as well as some defective PCIe lanes, so the effective yields are much higher for the 8 core than the 10 core.

That reality is reflected in the pricing.

 

[Zucker2k]

Not trying to be inflammatory but that is not the correct use of that colloquialism. Just like other posters you are citing their historically awful pricing as justification that their new pricing is "good".

The only real barometer of value is gauged against other current industry offerings. This includes both Intel and AMD. Versus Intel's other soon to be current offerings, charging $400 more for 2 additional cores based on the same die in insane. Their $999 processors have ALWAYS been awful deals, just because this is slightly less awful doesn't make it valuable.

Now versus AMD, all we have to go on is that you can get a similar IPC 8-core CPU for $400 from AMD right now. It remains to be seen what ThreadRipper will do to the value discussion. If AMD actually manages to get their 16 core TR at or below $999 then Intel's offering will become even more vastly overpriced for the performance it returns.

Your politeness is much appreciated. I would appreciate, even more, an example of the correct use of this colloquialism, here or pm. Thank you.

 

[krumme]

We all ocasional have to be specific if we are talking from a consumer, personal or professional perspective. Or we miss each others points.

What Intel did was a major change. We see a new die in the hedt stack. I am surprised by eg the 18c lowish price. Its clearly stellar value vs the prior 10c bwe.

Personally i dont find it and the lesser models attractive as i dont run any wide vector code and find the flooding of more or less single threadded dx9 based games bm utterly meaningless. I have a 3.8 1700 running in a 90usd mb. It does the job all over and is dirt cheap to boot.

I am sure threadripper will give some outstanding value and that counts for me. But that doesnt mean this new portfolio isnt a huge step forward because it is. We got a bigger serverdie in disguise.

This will raise compettitive pressure and thats what we want as consumers.

 

[Timmah!]

I was not going to get SKL-X and i still certainly wont this year, but have to say, that 12-core version for 1100 rather than originally expected 1800 intrigues me quite a bit. Not going to pay 2000 for 18-core, but 1000/1100 i could do - would have go for 6950x instead of 6850k if it was 1000 instead 1800. Anyway, we shall see about ThreadRipper pricing now.

 

[Edrick]

7820X will be coming home with me day 1. AVX-512 support just solidified my purchase.

 

[TahoeDust]

7820X will be coming home with me day 1. AVX-512 support just solidified my purchase.

Yep. I literally can not get it soon enough. If I could pre-order it today for earlier possible delivery, I would.

 

[swilli89]

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

You and a handful of other posters use this same tactic when people questioned nVidia when they began to release their big chips as "Titans" only to lower the price on an artificial 6-month cadence. I have a right to discuss what I believe offers value in consumer products. You're answer does nothing to validate any type of opinion for or against the topic at hand.

And it's not a jump to $1K for two more cores. It's two more cores + more PCI-Express lanes.

Which makes the use-case almost non-existent, as this price increase justification (while still a very weak justification) is now almost purely for people that game.. yet the discussion has been that this many cores is a bad choice for gamers..

The yields of a fully-functional 10 core LCC die are surely much lower than the yields of an 8 core. Think about it mathematically, to get a 7900X, you need essentially "perfect" Skylake-EP LCC dies.

Skylake LCC is a 12-core die. The $1000 10 core chip has 2 cores already disabled.. not perfect.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.
To get a 7820X, you can have two defective cores (and "defective" in this case is "can't run at 4.3GHz" since all cores on a die need to be validated to run at Turbo Boost 2.0 speeds) as well as some defective PCIe lanes, so the effective yields are much higher for the 8 core than the 10 core.

Four defective cores. And I have to stop you there for a second. This is Intel's three year old 14nm process. Skylake's core itself has been in manufacturing for over two years itself. You have praised Intel's fabbing prowess! Skylake-X LCC looks to be about 280mm2.

That reality is reflected in the pricing.

There is zero reality reflected in Intel's pricing. Intel, supposedly the best fab in the world, who is making 280mm2 chips (bit larger than Polaris) on a three year old process is having bad yields on fully enabled chips? C'mon on now don't make it that easy...

 

[LTC8K6]

You're probably right. AMD offers 6c/12t for about $250, though.

CL-S will do battle in that price ballpark.

 

[Ranulf]

CL-S will do battle in that price ballpark.

In 3 months supposedly. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Muadib]

I may be changing my vote.The 7820X is calling my name.

 

[swilli89]

I may be changing my vote.The 7820X is calling my name.

Really? $600 for 8 cores and an extra $100 for the HEDT board and you're even then limited to 28 PCIE lanes which removes one of the primary benefits of the HEDT platform?

$600 + $250 + $250 for quad channel ram and your platform costs are $1,100 before tax..

Just don't see the value here. You can grab equivalent 8c/16t performance with

$400 + $100 + 100 = $600. Almost half the cost for a few % less IPC while you also are getting future options with AM4 socket..

 

[Triloby]

Unfortunately, it looks like both Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X CPU's will not be soldered, but instead, will use TIM.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1

If voiding the warranty on your 7700K to reduce temps while overclocked was bad enough, imagine voiding the warranty on a CPU that could cost more than $1000.

 

[Ajay]

Unfortunately, it looks like both Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X CPU's will not be soldered, but instead, will use TIM.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1

If voiding the warranty on your 7700K to reduce temps while overclocked was bad enough, imagine voiding the warranty on a CPU that could cost more than $1000.

I'm not so concerned about my warranty, but this is a serious PITA. Really sours the experience of buying an 'X' CPU.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Really? $600 for 8 cores and an extra $100 for the HEDT board and you're even then limited to 28 PCIE lanes which removes one of the primary benefits of the HEDT platform?

28 lanes > 16 lanes.

$600 + $250 + $250 for quad channel ram and your platform costs are $1,100 before tax..

You don't have to get quad channel ram if you don't want to. SKX gives you the option for quad channel, doesn't force you to use it.

Just don't see the value here. You can grab equivalent 8c/16t performance with

$400 + $100 + 100 = $600. Almost half the cost for a few % less IPC while you also are getting future options with AM4 socket..

You get less IPC, less frequency headroom, inconsistent performance in games (and generally worse than 7700K in games from most benchmarks), and while AM4 does give you future options, so does LGA-2066.

And if you're into professional stuff, AVX-512 should be pretty sweet, too.

 

[Triloby]

Also, why does an i5 with no HT require a 112W TDP? I can understand wanting to put all of the powerful "X" CPU's on a single socket, but Intel seriously couldn't reduce the TDP of an i5 with no hyper threading to less than 100W?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Also, why does an i5 with no HT require a 112W TDP? I can understand wanting to put all of the powerful "X" CPU's on a single socket, but Intel seriously couldn't reduce the TDP of an i5 with no hyper threading to less than 100W?

TDP != power consumption.

 

[Ajay]

Really? $600 for 8 cores and an extra $100 for the HEDT board and you're even then limited to 28 PCIE lanes which removes one of the primary benefits of the HEDT platform?

$600 + $250 + $250 for quad channel ram and your platform costs are $1,100 before tax..

Just don't see the value here. You can grab equivalent 8c/16t performance with

$400 + $100 + 100 = $600. Almost half the cost for a few % less IPC while you also are getting future options with AM4 socket..

If you are happy with a a 1700 and a cheap mobo and cheap ram, good for you. Why whine about something you are not going to buy? Geez, all this feel good by putting other people's choices down is getting contemptible.

 

[swilli89]

If you are happy with a a 1700 and a cheap mobo and cheap ram, good for you. Why whine about something you are not going to buy? Geez, all this feel good by putting other people's choices down is getting contemptible.

No need to be on the defense there. My post was offering perspective on what I feel is a bad value proposition. I was not whining, don't be upset!

 

[Arachnotronic]

You and a handful of other posters use this same tactic when people questioned nVidia when they began to release their big chips as "Titans" only to lower the price on an artificial 6-month cadence. I have a right to discuss what I believe offers value in consumer products. You're answer does nothing to validate any type of opinion for or against the topic at hand.

You have a right to discuss what you want.

Which makes the use-case almost non-existent, as this price increase justification (while still a very weak justification) is now almost purely for people that game.. yet the discussion has been that this many cores is a bad choice for gamers..

Let's drop the pretenses, for most games, a hyper-fast quad core is still going to smoke these high core count chips from both Intel and AMD and it'll require much less exotic cooling, too.

Skylake LCC is a 12-core die. The $1000 10 core chip has 2 cores already disabled.. not perfect.

LCC die is 10 cores. MCC is 18 core, HCC is 28 core.

Four defective cores. And I have to stop you there for a second. This is Intel's three year old 14nm process. Skylake's core itself has been in manufacturing for over two years itself. You have praised Intel's fabbing prowess! Skylake-X LCC looks to be about 280mm2.

Two defective cores. Also, the 14nm process being used to build Sky-X is not the same 14nm process that was used to build Broadwell-E, Broadwell-U/Y, or Skylake-S.

Further, the Skylake core inside of the SKX chip is actually quite a bit different. L3 cache structure is totally different, L2 cache is much larger (1MB vs 256KB), the CPU core has AVX-512 support (and this is a pretty significant addition in itself).

There is zero reality reflected in Intel's pricing. Intel, supposedly the best fab in the world, who is making 280mm2 chips (bit larger than Polaris) on a three year old process is having bad yields on fully enabled chips? C'mon on now don't make it that easy...

Die size isn't all that matters, your clock speed/power consumption targets matter, too. Selling parts in which all 10 cores are guaranteed to run at 4.3GHz (and two guaranteed to run at 4.5GHz) is no easy feat, especially with the much larger L2 cache in this core vs the client SKL core.