I guess the joke used against AMD of old, "Moar cores", now takes on a new meaning.
I can see Intel states pcg 2017x for the entire line eg 7640x (same for lesser models):Update: Intel neglects solder on hew high end skylake-x chips. https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1
I think this is referring to the stock Intel HSF, not the internal TIM.I can see Intel states pcg 2017x for the entire line eg 7640x (same for lesser models):
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/x-series/i5-7640x.html
is that related to the non soldering?
https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2...-What-You-See-Is-Not-Always-What-You-Get-675/Intel themselves states 15% and 10% performance uplift in specint 2006 for 7900x vs. 6950.
And thats for 2133 ram on the bwe and 2667 on the skl x. As seen in the footnotes too.
The 6950 is sold as 3.0 base
https://ark.intel.com/products/9445...ssor-Extreme-Edition-25M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
The 7900x is sold as 3.3 base
http://ark.intel.com/products/123613/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-Processor-13_75M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz
15% IPC "plus" ? Its a stretch and then some. Did they regress for frequency then ?
We know where the performance is, and on a new process node i think they actually managed to get a slight bit of higher freq even for base. As is also seen by the spec sheets.
It definitely does not. Skylake E3 is 10% faster per clock than Haswell E3 in SpecCPU. If we assume all-core turbo is the same, maybe we are seeing 2-3% gain for the new cache arrangement. It's the best case though. Because there's such a big gap between base and Turbo for 7900X while the spread is much smaller on 6950X. It's 15% faster in single thread because SKL-X has clock speed advantage. That's with SKL-X using DDR4-2666 and BDW-E using DDR4-2133.
You thought diminishing returns in IPC was bad the past 10 years. Time to see the next 10. With Icelake we would be hard pressed to see 5%+ gains. Oh, how loud the cries would be on enthusiast forums when the gains for waiting 2-3 years become 2-3%.
I fully admit that this isn't a great resource, but it is at least one data point:"But Intel sells A LOT of its top-end HEDT processor. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 10-core $1721 part was the bestselling Broadwell-E processor. So if AMD took that crown, Intel would lose a position it has held for a decade."
(from the AT front-page article on Skylake-X)
That's actually rather interesting, that the author seems to think that Intel's highest-end HEDT CPU, during the BDW-E era, was in fact their best-seller. I don't think that's true of the enthusiasts in this forum that purchased BDW-E, at least not that I've seen.
Generally, your "halo" product is NOT your "bestselling" product; generally that's something a few notches down in the product stack.
So the 7800X and 7820X are now i7 again? That makes little sense. Meh what's a moniker anyway
Intel quotes throughput figures for double-precision. Still, it's not looking good for AVX-512 on Skylake-X. I just crunched the numbers, and 1 TFLOP/s is consistent with AVX2 running at 3.5 GHz.To get 1 TFLOP with AVX-512 on a 18-core CPU with two FMA units you need about ~900 MHz.
As a reminder KNL gets 6 TFLOP. Of course I'd not hesitate between i9 and Phi
What? They already have an 8-core SKU at this price on a much cheaper platform.. The cost of this "entry" 6 core will still cost $600 or more to buy.I'm not pleased with the 140W TDP of the 7800x, but dang it's a hell of a CPU for the price.
I sure hope AMD was keeping one in the chamber.
I sure hope AMD was keeping one in the chamber.
i suppose $2000 for 18 Intel cores isn't terrible if you're a content creator... with A LOT of content to create.
The X299 motherboard pricing is going to be the nail in the coffin. With AMD, you can pay $300 for a R7 1700, add another $80 for a B350 board, and OC all the way to 4 GHz. Intel is simply lost and without a clue.What? They already have an 8-core SKU at this price on a much cheaper platform.. The cost of this "entry" 6 core will still cost $600 or more to buy.
The 1700X has double the cache, 33% more cores at the same price... Not to mention the platform is probably half the cost.
Based on the chart, it looks like they're drawing the distinction between i7 and i9 on the number of PCIe lanes.
I agree with you. Definitional arguments aside, the "competition" (as perceived by the average consumer) will not lead to as much competition as some hope. AMD and Intel have different strengths and segmentation strategies. Ultimately, this means that there really isn't 1:1 overlap in a lot of cases, making it possible for both to preserve their desired margins.
No effect whatsoever in Photoshop, unless you are writing your own custom plugins.Could someone please comment on how AVX 512 might make a difference to the average user? Primarily I would be interested if it made a difference in Photoshop.
No effect whatsoever in Photoshop, unless you are writing your own custom plugins.
Yes Turbo 3.0 for two cores is something new. Should be useful in Photoshop as it likes having a few fast cores.Thank you for saving me ~$600
Clock speeds sure are impressive with the 10C though - no penalty whatsoever if you just use Intel's turbos.
Another tidbit I picked up is that the Turbo 3.0 is for two cores, not one - not sure if that's new or not.
I have to wonder if it will hurt their Xeon sales for 1P servers though?
Please try to be even a little objective.
Its tough wading through so much sh!te on these forums.
Intel neglects solder on hew high end skylake-x chips.
The X299 motherboard pricing is going to be the nail in the coffin. With AMD, you can pay $300 for a R7 1700, add another $80 for a B350 board, and OC all the way to 4 GHz. Intel is simply lost and without a clue.