Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[Videocardz] Intel counters 16c/32t Threadripper with 18c/36t Core i9

13K views 187 replies 70 participants last post by  Chargeit 
#1 ·
#3 ·
This is more like it! Don't want to imagine what the heat output of the 18c when OCed is going to be like though. Depending on how bad it gets this may end up as an even fight.
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clukos View Post

That 18 core will cost around $3k+ more or less. Can't see Intel pricing aggressively due to Xeons being a thing. Can't wait to see some builds from the lucky few who will buy this thing in these forums
biggrin.gif
Try 5K.

Their current 18/36 offering retails at $5700 and it's a locked, 2.2GHz base 3GHz turbo chip.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

Their current 18/36 offering retails at $5700 and it's a locked, 2.2GHz base 3GHz turbo chip.
With no competition. AMD has absolutely forced Intel to respond here. They can price it at 5k if they want, but Threadripper will eat it all day long. I think (assuming TR tops out at $1000) we might see $1500 to $2000.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyson Poindexter View Post

With no competition. AMD has absolutely forced Intel to respond here. They can price it at 5k if they want, but Threadripper will eat it all day long. I think (assuming TR tops out at $1000) we might see $1500 to $2000.
Intel's shareholders would eat them alive if they priced it that low. They like those tasty tasty margins.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrious View Post

This is more like it! Don't want to imagine what the heat output of the 18c when OCed is going to be like though. Depending on how bad it gets this may end up as an even fight.
Dude, their 10-core chips are already at 175w TDP. An 18-core chip at the same frequency is going to be something stupid like... 300w or higher. Like, AMD is going to win in the temperature and price market, otherwise, Intel wouldn't be trying so hard to keep their Core architecture on top.
rolleyes.gif
 
#12 ·
Finally we have some competition between them.
AMD has been out of the CPU market for too long.

Though if we are honest, how long has intel been sitting on this chip not releasing it because they didn't actually need to? I wonder if we could have gotten this chip 1-2 years ago if they really had a reason to release something like that?
It is not like they can mock up a chip like that in a few months. It takes several years of R&D and manufacturing testing to make it.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrious View Post

Intel's shareholders would eat them alive if they priced it that low. They like those tasty tasty margins.
This.

Plus pricing them super low would make the Intel shareholders fear that they have lost pretty much any edge they had over AMD thus have to price far lower to maintain the marketshare.

It won't happen, not with SKL-E/Zen anyway.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imglidinhere View Post

Dude, their 10-core chips are already at 175w TDP. An 18-core chip at the same frequency is going to be something stupid like... 300w or higher. Like, AMD is going to win in the temperature and price market, otherwise, Intel wouldn't be trying so hard to keep their Core architecture on top.
rolleyes.gif
Which then leaves intel 2 choices:
1. Lower clock speeds and voltages to remain under 200W TDP, at which point the performance penalty will have AMD come out the victor.
or
2. Clock that sucker aggressively, hit a 300W TDP at stock, and STILL lose to AMD on Perf/watt.

AMD really did manage to catch them with their pants down didn't they?
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: kyrie74
#15 ·
and.... if anyone is crazy enough jump into hype with Intel mindshare, use AMD as a reason to buy anything cheaper from Intel, then AMD will run out of cash.

No R&D, The cycle repeat, everyone stuck with no competition again for 6 years.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Power Drill
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrious View Post

Which then leaves intel 2 choices:
1. Lower clock speeds and voltages to remain under 200W TDP, at which point the performance penalty will have AMD come out the victor.
or
2. Clock that sucker aggressively, hit a 300W TDP at stock, and STILL lose to AMD on Perf/watt.

AMD really did manage to catch them with their pants down didn't they?
Looks like Intel still dont understand something, what they did is not more cores, what they need is to GIVE US MORE IPC!

That is their punishment for giving us nonsensical 5% IPC every gen, and give us a rubbish BWE 2 years after HWE rather than skip it straight and go to SKE. Serve them right, they deserve losing more share IMHO.

And that Kaby-lake X, what a joke it has become? By releasing so many CPUs in a single lineup is going to make production difficult for them lol. Just scrape those KBL-X either that or give us a 18 cores KBLX instead.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro3ootector View Post

Isn't Epyc using same socket as Threadripper?

It's funny how 7700k became low end.
Low end for what? CPU work? Yeah, it was not that great to begin with here..
Gaming? Not so much. It will continue to be among the best gaming CPU's for years to come.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lass3 View Post

Gaming? Not so much. It will continue to be among the best gaming CPU's for years to come.
Nope, seeing how SKLX is the same architecture as 7700K, nope. Dont forget SKL is going for 4.5GHz boost same as 7700K, and with better cache no way it will lose in single threading to 7700K. It might even performance better in games than 7700K.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imglidinhere View Post

Dude, their 10-core chips are already at 175w TDP. An 18-core chip at the same frequency is going to be something stupid like... 300w or higher. Like, AMD is going to win in the temperature and price market, otherwise, Intel wouldn't be trying so hard to keep their Core architecture on top.
rolleyes.gif
"Dude", Intel already have several 16/32 core chips from the E5 series varying from 120W to 135W, and the desktop 10/20 core is 140W no 175W, and those are the current gen, not the expected next gen which brings more performance and lower TDP.
Do a bit of research before you puke all over everyone's screen.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by guttheslayer View Post

Nope, seeing how SKLX is the same architecture as 7700K, nope. Dont forget SKL is going for 4.5GHz boost same as 7700K, and with better cache no way it will lose in single threading to 7700K. It might even performance better in games than 7700K.
That is going to actually depends on games.
Most games are still running 4 cores just like 6 or 8 cores, and even if intel ups the performance of the skylake-x, gaming wise, most likely the 7700k will be a match in performance numbers because of games are still not the best CPU friendly programs, which will leave it the best gaming CPU you can buy until either game engines get completely reworked (which will take several good years), or a new cpu comes out on that market, most likely from intel with lower nm and higher clocks.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

"Dude", Intel already have several 16/32 core chips from the E5 series varying from 120W to 135W, and the desktop 10/20 core is 140W no 175W, and those are the current gen, not the expected next gen which brings more performance and lower TDP.
Do a bit of research before you puke all over everyone's screen.
The existing 16/32 and 18/36 chips have 50% lower base clocks and 50% lower turbo clocks.

It's not going to be a 135W chip. Not a chance.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzybass View Post

Not surprised at all. Obviously Intel of course had some R&D for future products waiting to be used when competition eventually came from AMD. They were just on cruise control until AMD released something. Intel wouldn't have just sat by for years doing nothing.
Honestly that's probably exactly what they did. IMHO it looks like their efforts were aimed at GPUs with the Xeon Phi and some atom-like low power solution looking to compete with ARM. They were also pushing data center CPUs like the E7-8894 v4 which has 22 cores and can have up to 8 CPUs in the system.

They've only recently announced work on their next CPU architecture for desktop and workstations once Rysen hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

The existing 16/32 and 18/36 chips have 50% lower base clocks and 50% lower turbo clocks.

It's not going to be a 135W chip. Not a chance.
Keep in mind AMD didn't say anything about clocks. Lets wait to see the SKUs first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

That is going to actually depends on games.
Most games are still running 4 cores just like 6 or 8 cores, and even if intel ups the performance of the skylake-x, gaming wise, most likely the 7700k will be a match in performance numbers because of games are still not the best CPU friendly programs, which will leave it the best gaming CPU you can buy until either game engines get completely reworked (which will take several good years), or a new cpu comes out on that market, most likely from intel with lower nm and higher clocks.
That's where directX 12 and Vulkan come in. We will see games utilize more than 4 threads in the near future. I believe Battlefield 1 and Ashes of the singularity can use more than 4 cores today.. and more will come on the horizon as well. I do not believe however that we'll see games that can utilize more than 8 cores in the near future. It comes down to price and user base. I doubt they'll publish a game that requires 8c/16t or more when the userbase mostly sports 4c/8t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top