Intel is seriously out of control as of late. Fun thread but true.

[Organik]

Hey all thanks for reading my thread / rant in a way towards what Intel has been doing now for about a year and half. As if it's not confusing enough theres 10 code names per new tech. Ok all that is ok, but here is what I don't get. Why the fudge cake are the 78xx series called i9 yet its called 7th gen. Then a i7 is a higher gen then a i9 . Finally now they came up with the 9900K and that is called i9 like the 78xx but is 2 tech ahead of the poor 78xx series.

Also why does Intel hype up a 7890XE at 18 cores. Then the next week their hyping up a 28 core. Make up your mind talk about one thing at a time and release it to prove your point. I have a friend who got the 7980XE couple months ago and hes furious about how he paid 2k dollars and hes already behind in the generation game and he now knows a 28 core cpu is coming out.

 

[Janus67]

The i3/i5/i7/i9 is the model/series not the generation. They've had that naming scheme for the better part of a decade.

 

[EarthDog]

Well, yes, it is confusing...but for different reasons.

Like Janus said, the first misstep is thinking the i3/i5 etc marked generations. They mark FAMILIES. That said, its still confusing. In the past, i3's were dual cores with Hyperthreading, i5 was quad, i7 was a quad with HT on the mainstream chipset (Z77-Z270 , Sandybridge to Skylake). Move forward to coffee lake and things changes. i3 8 series are 4c/4t parts, i5 8 series is 6c/6t and i7 is 6c/12t on the mainstream chipset (Z370, Coffee Lake). That isn't even talking the HEDT platform you are on.

The second misunderstanding comes from thinking that more cores = a generational gap. Its still based off the same underlying arcitecture but with more cores. It is the SAME generation. Same thing with the i9-9900K. the i9 nomenclature on this platform is for 8c/8t or 8c/16t, while the number of the series changes as well.

So yes, its confusing, but, hopefully this information straightened things out as far as generations and core count, series, etc.

 

[Alaric]

Intel's inability to focus is spelled R-Y-Z-E-N. LOL

 

[Organik]

I think Intel has lost some rope,,,

- - - Updated - - -

AMD 32core Threadripper is how much again ? Look how long it took to get a 32core for AMD and 18 core for Intel. And were 2019 almost. AMD is sure being agressive, and I think they have something else up their sleeves. Like a 48 core CPU in 2020 or 2021 or so.

 

[Alaric]

The 32c/64t 'Ripper's suggested retail is $1835, @3.4 GHz base speed. $44 less than the 7980X Extreme Edition (18 cores).

 

[Evilsizer]

well yea look at the whole line, celeron->pentuim->i3 and so on... way can the pentuim lineup be the celeron line up. it is really hard to find all the differences unless intel is having a hard time with L3 cache failures. i mean if they really are manufacturing cores with different L3 sizes they should really cut down the line. they are bloating their product lineup and some sales are cannibalizing other sales, people like the idea of more L3 = better. that is true for the most part, its lvl's off after X size and in day to day tasks it really doesn't make a difference. i know im expecting to be bombarded with people going against me, im use to it. i mean really think about it, is L3 going to make a difference in bootup speed, web surfing, watching videos online, word, spreadsheets, and those kind of basic tasks. lets not forget some of the other intel cpus, as in the ones that either evolved from Atom line up which got a slight change up in arch around the 3rd or 4th gen.

while i see AMD doesnt have that issue, what i do see is a lack of other options. im not much of an AMD person but if i wanted a all-in-one build it would be nice to find something like a vega 8 or maybe cut it down to a vega 6, something along those lines. in a dual core or quad core for a HTPC setup, i know those are going away for more HTPC/gaming builds.

maybe sales from both AMD to Intel, people are buying for different reasons and needs. there is to much on one side and not enough of the other, in regards to variations/diversification.

 

[Organik]

The 32c/64t 'Ripper's suggested retail is $1835, @3.4 GHz base speed. $44 less than the 7980X Extreme Edition (18 cores).

That is crazy man, 16 more cores and threads, I didn't know the price but its like your getting 64 threads compared to Intel 36 threads at the same price. hmmmmm

 

[Evilsizer]

The 32c/64t 'Ripper's suggested retail is $1835, @3.4 GHz base speed. $44 less than the 7980X Extreme Edition (18 cores).

That is crazy man, 16 more cores and threads, I didn't know the price but its like your getting 64 threads compared to Intel 36 threads at the same price. hmmmmm

well im confused on a few things, closest AMD with 32c/64t i can find is the AMD EPYC's, each with a base clock speed of 2ghz. the thread rippers im finding have 16c/32t, with a base clock starting at 3.4ghz. which clock speed wise matches up to what alaric is saying. Amd's 32/64 starting price per newegg is $2,296.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100008494 601307814

what we have is
Consumer side
Intel Core i9-7980XE 16c/32T @ $1,879.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117836
Server Side
Intel Xeon Scalable Platinum 8180 28c/56T @ $9,999.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117904

then
Consumer side
AMD AMD RYZEN Threadripper 1950X 16c/32t @ $779.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113447

Server Side
AMD EPYC 7551P 32c/64T @ $2296.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113470

looking at base clock speeds
consumer
Intel 2.6ghz vs AMD consumer 3.6ghz
server
Intel 2.5ghz vs AMD 2ghz

yes for the price being lower your getting more cores, after looking over review sites from all over. it seems some of AMD specs for L3 also include L2 when listing L3 size. Sticking to what i can find, amd is using 512kb per core for L2 vs intels still rather low 256kb. intel may be sticking to a lower L2 to help increase cpu clock speeds with more cores. where amd is more L2 with lower clock speeds, now unless things have changed with new arch, L2 still runs at CPU speed. intel back in the day ran into CPU scaling when large amounts of L2 which is more then likely why they cut it way down to 256kb starting with the first gen i7. i still think this is a bad move imo since just on L2 testing with Core 2 lineup showed the sweet spot was 512kb for gaming. that is if we were soley looking at CPU bound FPS numbers. anything higher then 512kb L2 showed little to no improvement, in a lot of case going to 1mb L2 had a FPS variation that could have been chalked up to variations in benchmarks runs.

as much as i would like a simpler line up like cars/trucks, it just wont happen. its clear that in making dies they will have enough that can do X so they make a new model to sell that off and not lose money sorta speak.

 

[EarthDog]

32c Threadripper thread - https://www.overclockers.com/forums...-AMD-Threadripper-32-cores-listed-and-spotted

Its not out yet.

 

[Evilsizer]

im still in the boat with games and stuff i do, my 4790k is overkill. im not on the other side where i could even come close to using that many cores. even when i toiled with a X5660 on my X58, about the only that made use of it is when i was making my movies for steaming on the network. even then that was about a week then a buddy need a computer and i made him a deal on it. sweet runing hex core for sure, 4ghz with HT on and small cpu-v bump.

 

[Alaric]

im still in the boat with games and stuff i do, my 4790k is overkill. im not on the other side where i could even come close to using that many cores.

Ditto. My Skylake may well outlive my ability to use a computer. It already has, according to some.

 

[HankB]

The next digit after the family name identifies the generation (I think.)
I7-4770K - 4th gen
I7-8550U - 8th gen

The subsequent digits probably encode other information but I'm too lazy to look it up.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

That is crazy man, 16 more cores and threads, I didn't know the price but its like your getting 64 threads compared to Intel 36 threads at the same price. hmmmmm

You pay for per core Epeen with Intel.

Ah the signs of change. Why get a little more Epeen when you can have a whole bunch more of a little lesser Epeen at a little lower dollar amount.

Hook Line and sinker. AMD built a monstrous Hot server processor and released on desktop

 

[Woomack]

I feel like we are talking about the same in next thread.

 

[Organik]

Yes ShrimpBrime your right, your soo right. 18 core vs AMD 32core. Man 64 threads. What does this processor OC to with proper cooling. Intel is goofing off, alto I have no idea what I would need all those cores and threads for,, is beyond me.

 

[EarthDog]

They've done 19B in revenue in the server space holding a dominant lead of market share. AMD is catching up, but I highly doubt all they (intel) wanted to make were low end chips...not with that revenue...nerp.

Intel also has pages describing overclocking and processors that are unlocked. They also talk about HT as well.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/overclocking-intel-processors.html
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...per-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html

I think the disconnect is lack of research perhaps? Sometimes 'office workers' can benefit from HT as its a less expensive way to get more performance with the same number of cores. Obviously it doesn't scale like adding real logical cores, but, I'm sure you get the point.

 

[Organik]

I hear you thank you. Also the big thing I never stood was why video cards are 3x almost higher in price then a CPU. You get a 8700K for 300 dollars but if you want 1080 you pay 700 dollars. I don't get the math behind this.

 

[EarthDog]

The obvious part to me is a CPU is one part of a whole, whereas a GPU has the core/GPU, a PCB, VRM, cooling, etc.........

 

[ATMINSIDE]

The obvious part to me is a CPU is one part of a whole, whereas a GPU has the core/GPU, a PCB, VRM, cooling, etc.........

This. A GPU is effectively a CPU+Mobo+RAM.