Intel getting kicked by AMD ever few years is good for the market and the consumer. I am still planning on getting an AMD system to show my support for their efforts. I have been holding off for one with a <i>gasp</i> integrated GPU as I will be using the system as a media center. Right now I have the high end Intel compute stick. The limited RAM is a huge draw back. Oh, if it plays Civ6 well, that's a huge bonus.
> Intel hasn’t given many details on AVX-512 yet, regarding whether there is one or two units per CPU, or if it is more granular and is per core.<p>I can't imagine it being more than one per core. For context Knights Landing has two per core but that's a HPC focused product.<p>> We expect it to be enabled on day one, although I have a suspicion there may be a BIOS flag that needs enabling in order to use it.<p>This seems odd.<p>> With the support of AVX-512, Intel is calling the Core i9-7980X ‘the first TeraFLOP CPU’. I’ve asked details as to how this figure is calculated (software, or theoretical)<p>So lets work backwards here the Core i9-7980XE has 18 cores but as of yet the clock speed is not specified.<p>A couple of assumptions:<p>- We're talking double precision FLOPs<p>- We can theoretically do 16 double precision FLOPs per cycle<p>FLOPs per cycle * Cycles per second (frequency) * number of cores =~ 1TF<p>So we can guesstimate the clock frequency being ~3.47Ghz.<p>Edit: In review such a clock speed seems rather high for an 18 core part. I'm not sure if consumer parts will do 32DP FLOPs?
Looks like they think they're still winning regardless of the price and that simply bumping core count to be the kings and bringing the price back to the Haswell-EP level high (rather than Broadwell-EP crazy) will be enough.<p>What also shows that they seem to be confident is that they're further segmenting the market based on the PCIE lane count to push everyone wanting >32 lanes into the >$1k regime.<p>All in all, the cool thing is not the i9s and high core counts which you could get even before by plugging a Xeon chip into a consumer X99 mobo (though you'd have to pay some $$$), but the <i>new cache hierarchy</i> which will give serious improvements in well-implemented, cache friendly codes!
It seems Skylake X will not be soldered [0] unlike previous HEDT CPU's from Intel. AMD even solders their normal consumer CPU Ryzen. How much will Intel save with this? 2 to 4 dollars per CPU?<p>I'm also curious what that means for the thermals. Intels 4 core parts have much better thermals when delided to change the bad TIM.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/intel_s_skylake-x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1" rel="nofollow">https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/intel_s_skyla...</a>
It's high time Intel started adding more cores to consumer CPUs rather than spending half the silicon area on a crappy integrated GPU. It's only thanks to Ryzen that this is happening.
This really makes me wonder how many more unreleased products Intel has waiting in some drawer somewhere for that case where they have some serious competition.<p>It is also strong proof that without competition Intel is not going to release anything to move the market forward.
I can't even read this article properly. The site uses 130% CPU, scrolling hardly works at all, it keeps making network requests like crazy and it even crashed my Chrome tab.<p>And for what reason? I do understand the dilemma that ad funded sites are in. I'm not using an ad blocker. But I simply don't get what purpose this sort of abusive website design is supposed to have.<p>I will never visit Anandtech again. I've seen it many times. It's never long after advertising gets irrational that content quality suffers as well and the entire site goes down the drain.
Oh. So <i>now</i> they're making the i9!<p>So it did take AMD and Ryzen to make Intel push it's game from it's 5-6 year long hiatus with the i7 eh?<p>Competition is clearly good :)
That's good. Finally, we're moving with processors forward - probably thanks to AMD, again. My only hope is for them (both, either) to make thunderbolt standard feature on motherboards or ditch it completely.
Meh, I bought a Ryzen 5 1600 for $199 and a ASUS B350M for $29 at micro center, paired that with 16 GB Crucial ECC DDR4 2400 for $149 (working on ubuntu 16.04, confirmed and stress tested)... so for $377 I have 12 threads @3.9GHz with ECC, that can go up to 64GB. Thanks Intel, but no.
Intel has been selling hexa-channel DDR4 Xeons since 2015 to select customers.<p>For users like myself constrained by memory bandwidth I would prefer that they publicly started selling their Skylake-SP Purley platform. In some configurations they even include a 100Gbit/s photonic interconnect and an FPGA for Deep Learning acceleration.<p>I would gladly pay $2500-3500 for an 18-24 core Intel CPU with hexa-channel DDR4 and PCIe 4.0 (or simply more than 44 lanes of 3.0).
Really intel? I don't want 10+ cores just to get reasonable PCIe connectivity. This is just another strike against these parts (after the lack of ECC). I guess intel is trying really hard to protect their server parts, but they continue to gimp the high end desktop parts (as if the removal of multisocket isn't enough).<p>I would really like to understand why intel tries so hard to not make a desktop part for people willing to spend a little more to get something that isn't basically an i5 (limited memory channels, limited PCIe, smaller caches, etc).
Well, Intel still didn't show anything better than Ryzen 8 core. Their processors have higher costs and require fancy motherboards which I don't even sure I can buy in my city.
I'm sick of having 0 to 1 choice in so many things. If a monopoly is bad, then what's the next worst number of companies? Two. Isn't the governments job to enhance the "free" market by forcing competition through forcing open on-boarding, or IP sharing, or breaking up, or really anything effective to lubricate the wheels of capitalism.