Intel HEDT up to 18 cores

[mackerel]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ging-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999

No more rumours, with some official info now.

"low core count" models with up to 12 cores are mostly fleshed out with the 8 core part comparable to 1800X. TDP is higher as I've discussed previously as it is likely due to the much higher FPU performance on Intel CPUs, but for other tasks I think they would be comparable.

The "high core count" models are where it gets interesting, although priced out of reach for mortals. These cover 14 to 18 cores and are likely a response to Threadripper. There are not many details yet but the top model is a wallet busting $1999. I guess they don't need to give more details until AMD reveal their hand, but this also puts an upper bound on Threadripper prices.

I find it curious that the L3 cache is now confirmed to be reduced. This is an interesting choice and I'll have to dig further into that. AVX512 has also been confirmed, although there are few implementation details yet.

Edit: on the L3 cache, they've changed model and it is more similar to that in Ryzen now. L3 is now non-inclusive with L2 cache, which gets bumped up to a whopping 1MB per core. It will be interesting to see how this balance plays out... if we do as AMD have done and count total L2 + L3 cache in this way, an 8 core Ryzen has 20MB compared to 19MB of Skylake-X. HCC parts are believed to be implemented in two rings, thus could have different latencies between each core group similar to AMD CCX or multi-die Threadripper parts.

 

[Mr Alpha]

I love the smell of competition in the morning. It smells like victory (for the consumer, that is).

 

[Johan45]

But the prices are insane.

 

[Woomack]

Consumers will read news and test results ... will be excited ... and will buy 4-6 cores as everything above that will be in ridiculous prices. It's always the same. These top series are not selling good, are more like a marketing tool to show which side is better choice. The same is in graphics cards. Btw those who really needed 18+ cores for workstations could buy Xeons up to 24 cores for 2011-3 motherboards. I don't think that new chips will change so much even if will have 18+ cores. Prices won't be much lower and AMD will faster adjust their prices to Intel than Intel will significantly drop their prices.

 

[mackerel]

Personally if I were going for this quantity of cores with Intel, I think it would be more cost effective to go multi-socket Xeon, which isn't cheap either. The biggest thing making me wonder about this range is of course it is OC-able, and beyond that of Ryzen. This will truly be a test of cooling ability.

The lowest model isn't bad. You might say, why buy 6 cores when existing Ryzen is already offering 8, but it'll still come down in part to cores vs clock. I'm seeing question marks over if the AVX512 implementation in these will be full fat offerings, or some lesser implementation than on Xeons. So performance comparisons are difficult, even without having to deal with the new cache structure too.

I think the biggest question really is in the up to $1000 market. What will AMD offer there? With Intel only going to 10 cores there, AMD could offer 16 at that price point in a similar way 1800X offered ball park a factor of two on price to performance ratio. Personally, I'd be interested to see if they bring out a 1700 equivalent with Threadripper. I wouldn't say no to a lower clock, lower price offering with close to 16 cores...

 

[Woomack]

I said that in other threads... if AMD won't fix motherboard issues ( quick updates and final products without issues ) and won't present good and stable base for their processors then no matter if they will be cheaper than Intel or not, they won't sell it in larger quantities. Enthusiasts and overclockers are different market. Most these 6 core+ CPUs go to servers and workstations and that users care about stability and additional features more than 2 more or less cores.
AMD made a big mistake releasing "unfinished" product which made a lot of noise about various issues. In this way many potential users don't trust Ryzen. Almost only gamers are buying Ryzen and not even all.
Those who care about stability will stick to Intel regardless if it's going to cost more or will offer less cores in similar price.
Intel isn't scared to lose the market. I guess they don't want AMD to take over too big part of desktop market which is their face in all marketing materials. They are showing how good is their new i7 and maybe they are not selling a lot of these i7 but sales of new Pentiums and i3 are going up. When AMD will show that they are better then automatically their lower products will be more interesting ... and they are.

 

[mackerel]

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/786481-intel-x299-cpus-not-soldered/

Apparently we'll need a new de-lid kit if we get one. These CPUs are NOT soldered.

 

[Woomack]

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/786481-intel-x299-cpus-not-soldered/

Apparently we'll need a new de-lid kit if we get one. These CPUs are NOT soldered.

I'm not sure if I even want to buy new X series Intel. If I do then something 12c+ but if AMD will OC good then I will probably get AMD because of price. I just doubt that 12c+ from Intel will be in my price range.
Other thing regarding link. There was big problem with der8auer delidding tool availability. I was waiting for over 2 months for delivery and they couldn't make it in this time ( ordered directly from their partner ). At the end I got other tool.

 

[mackerel]

I don't normally order things not in stock. I got the Rockit 88 as that was the only one available at the time. The import fees added a significant chunk to the cost.

Thinking about my next main desktop already, but I'd more likely take the Xeon equivalent than these.

 

[Woomack]

When I was ordering my delid tool then none was in stock. I ordered one which had info "in delivery" and I got confirmation it will be in about 1-2 weeks ... and then some more mails that there is 2 week delay ( 3 times or something ) and store offered me tool from a different brand in the same price.

I doubt that Xeons will OC. Intel already limited that in previous series. There were 18+ core Xeons but low frequency and not even overclockers were using them for benchmarks. We can expect that only K series will be worth something. When I was comparing 2x 6c 2.4GHz Xeons then multithreaded test results were about the same as i7 5820K at 4.8GHz ( one of these 2.4GHz cost about the same as i7 5820K ). If there will be something like 10 core i7 in reasonable price ( I doubt ) and will overclock at least up to 4.5GHz on water then you will need at least 20 core 2.25GHz Xeon to match that. Current Xeons with more cores are closer to 2GHz than 3GHz.

 

[custom90gt]

Sadly unless you go with a V3 xeon there is no way to overclock them. The V3 thing is only a bug as well, although it does help the 18c cpus run at 3.5ghz on each core (more if they turn off cores). It's how I have my 14c running at 3ghz on each core vs the 2.4ghz that it ran at stock with all cores loaded. However if multi-threaded apps are your thing, it's hard to beat the performance/$. I picked up my 14c for 250 shipped on ebay.

 

[mackerel]

I wouldn't want to OC the Xeon, as my aim for my next system is to go for stability not raw performance, and AVX512 could be a massive plus. I know support is already being worked on for software of interest. I will wait and see what offerings there are balancing cores vs. clocks. I already have a 14 core Haswell-EP (ES) as plaything which clocks to 2.3 GHz all cores active. Even at stock it destroys quads. Roughly equivalent in peak throughput to Skylake i7 quad at 14 * 2.3 / 4 / 1.14 = 7 GHz. The 1.14 is an IPC modifier I apply for my use case. That is, Skylake is 14% faster than Haswell in my application of interest.

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly unless you go with a V3 xeon there is no way to overclock them. The V3 thing is only a bug as well, although it does help the 18c cpus run at 3.5ghz on each core (more if they turn off cores). It's how I have my 14c running at 3ghz on each core vs the 2.4ghz that it ran at stock with all cores loaded. However if multi-threaded apps are your thing, it's hard to beat the performance/$. I picked up my 14c for 250 shipped on ebay.

Ooh, same Xeon, although mine is ES so it only goes to 2.3 GHz all cores loaded. I haven't heard of OC-ing them, can you give a pointer? I suspect as mine is ES I couldn't do it anyway, as even with single core loaded I'm not sure I see it go above 2.3 GHz. Still not complaining, at the time I paid far less than $250 for it. I think I paid more for the mobo which was the cheapest new X99 I could find at the time.

 

[custom90gt]

Hah you replied as I was typing mine. See this:

If you have a Haswell xeon you need to read this:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/what-controls-turbo-core-in-xeons.2496647

I know you said that you don't want to OC, but you could probably get that all core speed up to 2.9ghz... Also let me know if you need help, that thread is quite a beast. It really comes down to what motherboard you're running.

 

[mackerel]

Shall have to look at that later. I'm not interested in OC my next possible Xeon build. The existing E5 v3 is a plaything so if there might be a chance to clock it, I'm going to try...

 

[custom90gt]

Shall have to look at that later. I'm not interested in OC my next possible Xeon build. The existing E5 v3 is a plaything so if there might be a chance to clock it, I'm going to try...

I think it's worth it. My server is used for transcoding and steam stream. The extra 600mhz on all the cores really helped. It's stable too, I ran prime95 for 48 hours before putting everything together.

 

[Helgaiden]

I wouldn't want to OC the Xeon, as my aim for my next system is to go for stability not raw performance, and AVX512 could be a massive plus. I know support is already being worked on for software of interest. I will wait and see what offerings there are balancing cores vs. clocks. I already have a 14 core Haswell-EP (ES) as plaything which clocks to 2.3 GHz all cores active. Even at stock it destroys quads. Roughly equivalent in peak throughput to Skylake i7 quad at 14 * 2.3 / 4 / 1.14 = 7 GHz. The 1.14 is an IPC modifier I apply for my use case. That is, Skylake is 14% faster than Haswell in my application of interest.

- - - Updated - - -



Ooh, same Xeon, although mine is ES so it only goes to 2.3 GHz all cores loaded. I haven't heard of OC-ing them, can you give a pointer? I suspect as mine is ES I couldn't do it anyway, as even with single core loaded I'm not sure I see it go above 2.3 GHz. Still not complaining, at the time I paid far less than $250 for it. I think I paid more for the mobo which was the cheapest new X99 I could find at the time.

Also, the E5-16xx v1-v3 Xeons are multiplier unlocked. Less cores than what you guys are talking about but i got my E5-1650 to 4.2ghz and if i had more thermal headroom, i could get to 4.6ghz with more tweaking. I've heard others getting up to 4.8 and higher even. Crazy for a 6c/12t. Cool thing about Xeons if you can OC them is that their IHS is always soldered. Benchmarking scores at 4.5ghz have it basically equivalent to a stock R5 1600 in multi-threaded, and yet still equivalent to an overclocked R5 1600 in single threaded Cinebench R15 scores.

 

[custom90gt]

I had forgotten about the 16xx xeons, I also believe the V4 ES samples were unlocked but not the retails (opposite of the V1-V3).

What's funny is my E5-2683 V3 under full load at 3ghz for hours doesn't even break 60C with a h80i. I'm happy with those temps for sure.