Holy Crap: Intel i7 8c/16T For Way Less Than $1000!

Apart from conservative PCIe lane numbers for 8C/16T I really wonder whats with the L3 cache sizes. Its basically half the current capacity (counted per core). If I remember correctly L3, at least in current Intel architectures, must include L2 mirror.

Basically I'm still wait form more info :slight_smile:

EDIT: apparently mirroring L2->L3 was discontinued in favor of 4x larger L2 caches.

I am curious to see some benchmarks on how this effects performance of certain tasks. :smiley:

Any source on this?

Few articles I saw share nothing about the L2 cache configuration nor its size.

TBH this seems to me they cut the L3 cache size to make it cheaper and limit competition between these and Xeon branded parts. Classic market segmentation.

m8 we need the sauce

3 Likes

The mobo chipset can pick up the slack, although, I would imagine that would add to the cost of the mobo.

No that is with all lanes. It is just like it is with X99.

It's also bullshit. Before we needed the $550 SKU to get 44 lanes. Now we need the $1000 one.

God help you if you plug in one of the damn 4 cores.... It's really going to be a mess.

Watch the whole video then.

To be honest, all info regarding the L2/L3 changes is in one slide.

Concretely :
1. "inclusive"->"non-inclusive" L3
2. there is an old L2 size 256KB vs new 1MB, precisely 4x larger.
3. there is value for L3 size/Core 2.5MB/C vs 1.375/C Which is precisely 1.818181818(18) times smaller than the old value (or simply 0.55 times the old value - but 1.81.... looks more saucy ).

(link with timemark: )

1 Like

I was afraid it might be case. But it seems from the slide on the video, it might be actually the other way around. And change is aimed to make performance better (the description on the bottom about better performance because of larger L2).

Let's all thank AMD for lower Intel prices, by going out and purchasing Intel silicon! What will be the long term result of this? Simple, AMD will once again abandon the enthusiast desktop market, Intel will regain their monopoly, Intel will double their prices and we'll go back to paying stupid money for what has essentially been a tick, tock, tock, tock, tock development model.

I am not suggesting that AMD products are a good fit for everyone's workload. And, I understand if some folks do not have the necessary patience while the bugs get squashed in AMD's latest CPU firmware. But, if AMD's products are not truly on our shortlist for purchase consideration, then Intel's newfound product innovation and pricing strategy will quickly become but a fading memory.

The only way to maintain pressure on Intel is to ensure that if AMD releases compelling products, that they be supported in the marketplace.

7 Likes

Correct!

Actually with the new AGESA update that is rolling out in June, the situation with RAM and virtualization become much better and I think it is more than ready now. I don't think that Intel will have a flawless start of their X299 platform either, if you remember when they launched X99.

5 Likes

Agreed. After what seemed like an eternity of using Phenom II x4 and x6 machines, I finally built an X99 workstation and you are entirely correct. Things were a wee bit bumpy at the beginning, but thankfully the ASRock mobo that I used was far more problem free than what others were experiencing.

For some reason, the hardware vendors have taken a page out of Ubisoft's* playbook. They stamp their beta products with a 1.0 designation and allow their customers to perform the final QC testing and bug reporting. I'm not totally opposed to this, so long as there is full disclosure and a discount offered for purchasing beta quality products. Unfortunately, honest product representation seems to be a quaint and old fashioned concept these days.

`* Unfortunately Ubisoft aren't the only software dev/pub that plays this game, but perhaps they are among the most brazen.

Rule #1 - Don't pre-order.
Rule #2 - Just because a product is available through the retail chain, doesn't mean that it is suitable for purpose. Unless you need another hobby, always allow suitable time to pass for the dust to settle.

1 Like

Well a flawless start of a new platform is allways pretty much impossible.
However intel has the advantage that their mainstream Skylake and Kabylake platform,
is allready out for a while.
So that should be a much smoother launch in compairisson to am4 which is a completely new architecture and platform from the ground up.
X99 back in 2014 was a revolutionairy platform, because it was their first platform with DDR4 memory.
That was one of the main hurtles they had with X99.
X299 on the otherhand isnt really much more then Z170 / Z270 on sterroids.

2 Likes

Actually 8 core isn't much cheaper than i7 6900K if you consider that they chopped pci-e lanes. I calculated some time last year that i7 6900K would cost little bit over 600$ if it was 28 pci-e lanes. Price difference from 6800K and 6850K is around 30% just becasue of pci-e lanes

In last gen (broadwell-e) you could get 40 pci-e lanes for 600$ now you must pay 1000$ for 10 core to get above 28 pci-e lanes. Threadripper has a huge advantage in that area (all of them will be 64 pci-e gen3 lanes)

So basically I'm disspointed with intel prices of skylake-x 6 and 8 core. 10-18 core have OK price considering how bad it could be (hint 70% price delta between 8 and 10 core in broadwell-e gen)

1 Like

Although I can appreciate the enthusiasm of the this post.. yes Intel 8 core for less than 1k... But... Are they not the same that kept us with Quad cores for so long?

Then along comes AMD and says here you go, now Intel has an 18core.. lmao...

BTW.. the new AMD 16 core part is shaping up to be very cool. From what I'm understanding AMD's offering will allow for more pcie lanes.. and now they are supporting higher memory speeds which directly relates to performance for the way the chip is engineered.

3 Likes

Well, it's AMD's fault that we got intel 4 cores as a de facto for the longest time because their 8 core FX series had shitty single core IPC.

1 Like

I thought Intel sets the prices and not AMD (Although yes, the FX CPUs had lower IPC), I mean I don't see AMD charging $1000 for an 8-Core Ryzen CPU or barely even half of that just because it can keep up with a 6900K that does cost $1000.

I am a bit sour that AMD's 8 Core CPUs are only 16 PCI-E Lanes
And then now we skip to 64 PCI-E Lanes, while my 5820K has 28 PCI-E Lanes.

Do you really need more than 16 lanes? Don't get me wrong but most people on the forum here complain about having only x cores and y PCIe lanes, when all they do is play some games and surf the web.

Ryzen 7 is more of a high-end consumer platform while Threadripper will be enthusiast level. I am fairly sure that AMD didn't announce their entry level Threadripper CPU but their best offer, in order to get the most interest, so they are probably going to make less powerful chips for cheaper. Maybe a 10-12 core with 32 lanes?

Almost any consumer can easily make a case for a definitive "yes" to that question.

Graphics card + M.2 = 20 lanes.

On the other hand...do most enthusiasts need more than 28 lanes?

Well...SLI can theoretically be 16 times whatever, so 2-way plus an NVME for 36 lanes...

Considering Graphics cards can be the real hog, absolute best performance in games might like a fewer core, higher clock, processor with 36+ PCIE lanes.

but honestly, 16 + 8 for SLI, and another 4 for an NVME drive (total 28 lanes) it typically more than adequate for any enthusiast. The only time you might truly need more than that is 4-way SLI...which technically isn't really a thing anymore...16 + 8 + 4 = 28...what a coincidence that Intel's lower end HEDT processors have 28 lanes...

And eve if it's a workstation, not a gaming rig, 1 graphics card + 12 extra lanes for peripherals. If you need more than that, you'll probably need the extra cores too.

So ultimately, it's complicated. We aren't really bottle-necking graphics cards at 16x...

TLDR;

But back to the question, it can easily be argued that even the mainstream platform needs more than 16 lanes, and that more specifically 20 would be optimal.

Similarly, it can also be argued (but to a lesser extent than 20 lanes mainstream) that the enthusiast platform could use a lower core count CPU with more than 28 lanes...however, that (since 3+ way SLI is being phased out) 28 lanes is enough for the majority.

I would say sweet spot for lanes is around 48 lanes or more, gives you 4 x4 lane devices and 2 x16 lanes

also remember that even if you have the lanes you want doesnt mean the mobo will split them how you want so 64 might be the sweet spot

1 Like