• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

What will come of this "Core war" HEDT processor manufacturers are in?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
It seems, just like in the early 2000s with the GHz war, that Intel and AMD are going to be getting into a battle of who can pack the most cores into a single HEDT die. What do you guys think will be the effects of this? Will it trickle down to consumer chips and result in Intel making higher core count i3, i5, and i7 processors? Will the Xeon and Naples markets suffer from this?

I personally think we might see a repeat of the late 2000s with the quad core race: using multiple dies to achieve technically higher core counts. And I also think that if Intel and AMD get too overzealous with this, and don't watch how they price their HEDT chips compared to their server chips, people will buy the HEDT instead of server and the server markets might suffer a bit. Though I don't think it'd be a largely concerning number.

 

Woomack

Benching Team Leader
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
I will only say that Intel has 22 cores supported on X99 motherboards and core number will go up soon. It's not war about who will have more cores but who will provide higher overall performance per reasonable priced CPU. Since both sides can't go much higher with frequency then they are adding cores. It's normal and was predicted couple of years ago. On the other hand more than 6 cores is waste of money for most home computers.
6 core+ Intel CPUs were more often used in workstations than home computers. Somehow I can't see AMD in workstations in most companies. AMD has reputation of less stable and generally designed for entertainment computers. This opinion won't change for some time regardless how many cores they put into one die.
CPU is only one part of whole platform. It won't change much and it won't affect servers in larger scale.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
It is quite a complicated area...

Depending on the workload, Intel still has up to 2x IPC over Ryzen. This may increase further as they bring AVX512 into consumer level hardware.
There's performance, and there's performance per watt. Do not be misled by Ryzen TDP, that's simply lower as they can't do as much FPU work in peak conditions. In other lesser like for like loads, they're pretty close.
On performance per watt, both Intel and AMD do the more cores at lower clock thing. You still get more performance, but the lower clock is required to help manage power.
At the end of the day, I can't ignore price either.

The GHz war was half needed, half marketing. Some users like me will never have enough power and can use anything they get. But they were also using it as marketing to sway users to whatever products were on offer. I don't see a core war any different. If you can use available performance, and it is priced right, people will get it. Equally, there will be people who buy it who don't need it, even at the cost of not getting a fewer core product that would perform better.

I've stated a concern before, that in a push to provide more cores, each core may start to do less than they do now. AMD have already taken the first step with Ryzen. Intel may be forced to copy so as not to lose the marketing numbers game.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
I'd like to predict it will lead to more software/games using more cores and becoming faster/more efficient. But, look how long it took games to actually use 4 cores. AMD has frequently been so far ahead the that when their technology came to fruition in the rest of the tech world their leading edge was dull and obsolete. x64 and quad core CPUs come to mind. Both were out before any real need for either was common in desktops. A 16c/32t HEDT at 4 GHz is going to be a monster, but only for the few who can really utilize that kind of horsepower. It will be a status symbol for most. Looking at common usage and the majority of consumer software (how many of us use mostly free software?) I don't see any real benefit for most people, at least not in the lifetime of the new crop of chips. We're probably several generations away from that. My 4c/8t rig is so overkill for my needs it may be the last rig I build. LOL
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
We're might look at software as the magic bullet that allows multi-core to scale better, but not all software can or needs to be scaled up. It might be that there is some future "killer app" that might take the extra power available to do things we can't imagine today, although with cloud this extra power doesn't necessarily have to be local. Is there some home user case where you have a data set big enough that cloud processing of it isn't viable? I'm not sure there is one.

Gaming as an example, we're still in a situation where under most realistic use cases, we're GPU limited. Throwing more CPU at it isn't going to gain much without more GPU, unless they think of other ways to use the CPU to enhance the experience. For example, in most games, I'd argue cities don't feel busy enough. Imagine more NPCs in the environment, and not just standing idle, but each one with their own personality, doing their own thing.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
At my resolution, my games aren't GPU limited by any means. I wouldn't use cloud anything for basic security/privacy concerns. I'm not familiar enough with multi threaded programs to guess which ones would benefit from even more cores than are available today, other than Handbrake, Photoshop(?) and multiple VMs. I know my rig is so overkill for my purposes that I'm as futureproof as I can be, barring some huge and fundamental shift in computing hardware and the utilization thereof. LOL. My main reason for cheering on AMD's Ryzen and Threadripper is knowing Intel needed a swift kick in the jimmy on pricing, or needs to suffer from not doing so. Competition is good, everybody benefits. Well, everybody except somebody's stockholders :D
 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Server and network area's will always benefit from more cores. As will the mass numbers crunching segment. That is the target area. That's where the money is. You WILL see a shift toward AMD in these segments. They are a more cost efficient system right now. The HEDT segment is just a niche market to make some extra dough for the companies.
You can use the gaming argument all you want but gaming is not the end all beat all in processor comparison.
Frankly, I'm kinda sick of hearing how gaming won't benefit from the core increase. It's not the processor manufacturers fault, it's the software coders fault for not using the available resources.
Intel will not be changing any pricing scheme anytime soon, so stop waiting and dreaming.
 
Last edited:

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Server and network area's will always benefit from more cores. That is the target area. That's where the money is. The HEDT segment is just a niche market to make some extra dough for the companies.
You can use the gaming argument all you want but gaming is not the end all beat all in processor comparison.
Frankly, I'm kinda sick of hearing how gaming won't benefit from the core increase. It's not the processor manufacturers fault, it's the software coders fault for not using the available resources.
Intel will not be changing any pricing scheme anytime soon, so stop waiting and dreaming.

Yay! Honesty!
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
How can they get away with that though? Charging $1k for a processor AMD has available for $500? I just don't get why anyone would buy it, unless they do things that somehow require thunderbolt and Optane.

 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
It's their product. They can charge anything they want for it......and have been since the PIII days.
Other manufacturers have no bearing on what they can charge. It works like this for anything. Why are you surprised?
Example: Chevy cannot tell Ford what to charge for their products.
You don't like Intels pricing?......don't buy it. Nobody's putting a gun to your head.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
How much of a system cost is the CPU? For an enterprise workload, total cost over its lifespan including running costs and support. If the CPU costs a bit more, but there may be some saving elsewhere, it will confuse the picture.

Also I have to repeat, Ryzen architecture is not an equal to Intel. It may be slightly better in some ways, worse in others. Simply having a CPU at half the price doesn't mean it would result in that saving.
 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
How much of a system cost is the CPU? For an enterprise workload, total cost over its lifespan including running costs and support. If the CPU costs a bit more, but there may be some saving elsewhere, it will confuse the picture.

Also I have to repeat, Ryzen architecture is not an equal to Intel. It may be slightly better in some ways, worse in others. Simply having a CPU at half the price doesn't mean it would result in that saving.

What ever it lacks for the application, if anything, would be made up CPU cost and energy savings.
Honestly, I'm not going to argue about this especially with you. You have shown yourself as pro Intel no matter what in every single Ryzen thread. I'm not interested in beating my head against the wall.
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
How much of a system cost is the CPU? For an enterprise workload, total cost over its lifespan including running costs and support. If the CPU costs a bit more, but there may be some saving elsewhere, it will confuse the picture.

Also I have to repeat, Ryzen architecture is not an equal to Intel. It may be slightly better in some ways, worse in others. Simply having a CPU at half the price doesn't mean it would result in that saving.

16 threads at 95W. It's multitasking power is very good.

Did you know my 4690K is just as good as your 6700K in gaming? Isn't Ryzen IPC performance that or equal to Intel at some point? Only..... there's 16 threads of it?
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
It's their product. They can charge anything they want for it......and have been since the PIII days.
Other manufacturers have no bearing on what they can charge. It works like this for anything. Why are you surprised?
Example: Chevy cannot tell Ford what to charge for their products.
You don't like Intels pricing?......don't buy it. Nobody's putting a gun to your head.
Well I know, but I kinda see it as if somebody started making Ford GTs, and rebranded them with their own logo and sold them for $200k instead of $250k, and there wasn't an application process. Which one would you buy?

 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Well I know, but I kinda see it as if somebody started making Ford GTs, and rebranded them with their own logo and sold them for $200k instead of $250k, and there wasn't an application process. Which one would you buy?
Kinda irrelevant. Nobody rebranded anything here.
I understand what you were trying to get at though, and my answer to that is "somebody will buy them". There are 'one upper's' everywhere that will some how think the more expensive product is better. That happens with everything too.
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Fair enough.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, AMD has a damaged reputation to overcome with server builders. How hard do you think it would be for them to overcome that? I don't think Ryzen and Naples will be enough, they might start regaining trust after the next generation or two launches, if they're all consecutively successful, but until then I think AMD is gonna struggle a bit.

 

Mr.Scott

Beamed Me Up!
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Fair enough.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, AMD has a damaged reputation to overcome with server builders. How hard do you think it would be for them to overcome that? I don't think Ryzen and Naples will be enough, they might start regaining trust after the next generation or two launches, if they're all consecutively successful, but until then I think AMD is gonna struggle a bit.
I cannot predict any of that.
What I do know is that money talks in big business. Somebody will try it out based on projected savings, and once the word gets out it will steamroll from there. It won't take long. Big business's monitor what each other are doing, especially if it's saving them money. You do not run a successful company with a closed mind.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
How can they get away with that though? Charging $1k for a processor AMD has available for $500? I just don't get why anyone would buy it, unless they do things that somehow require thunderbolt and Optane.

Well, first of all, competative amds chips just came out. In enterprise, you dont just say 'zomg amd is cheaper' and replace hundreds of servers. Things like that take time. There are support contracts to consider in that as well...
 
OP
Vishera

Vishera

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Well, first of all, competative amds chips just came out. In enterprise, you dont just say 'zomg amd is cheaper' and replace hundreds of servers. Things like that take time. There are support contracts to consider in that as well...
Yeah, i was more talking about consumer people and home content creators (aka YouTubers).