french toast
Senior member
- Feb 22, 2017
- 988
- 825
- 136
We are not getting 1800x speeds for 180w, not a chance in hell.
Unless....That B2 stepping is better than i think?
Unless....That B2 stepping is better than i think?
We are not getting 1800x speeds for 180w, not a chance in hell.
Unless....That B2 stepping is better than i think?
Yea probably 3.2 ghz, 3.5 turbo, no idea about ST or xfr, personally i think that leak is fake.In the list of things to fix, moving the frequency ~300Mhz to the right, while impressive and even awe-inspiring, would not be the first item on my list. I bet 3.6Ghz *was* the goal, but I just don't buy it. Current ES samples, which are rumored to already be on the next stepping, are only at 3.1. Either we're not getting 3.6, or we're not getting B2. I'll be really happy with 3.2-3. Memory latency, on the otherhand, and memory overclock stability -- those things seem substantially more important to me. YMMV, but I expect half of that rumor was baloney. At least it isn't as ridiculous as "overclocks to 5G on air."
1800X is 3.6GHz base, 4.1GHz XFR/precision boost, and 3.7GHz all-core turbo @ 95W TDP.
Slap together 2x 1800X = ~190W. It's not out of the realm of possibility, especially since you are going to have double the die area to dissipate the heat, meaning something like a Noctua D15 should be adequate.
X399 boards are going to need some beefy and efficient VRMs...
I kinda forgot lol but isn't the all cores XFR 3.8GHz?
but ST turbo at 4GHz with 4 cores would be nice.
3.7
I agree. I don't understand why ST turbo isn't active with one core per CCX in the first place. Seems like there would be less coordination involved :shrug:
AMD's precision boost speed is for up to 2 cores.
Which you'd assume would be 4 for a 16C variant...?
So everyone is excited about the HEDT platform again? Cool. Just a few months ago before Ryzen launched everyone was saying how overbuilt and overblown HEDT chips were and how no one wants them anymore and it is a dying market. Forgive me if it's hard to keep up.
That said, it will be interesting to see how these chips measure to Skylake-X. The IPC won't be as good, so how the clock speeds and pricing compared to Skylake-X will be interesting. I wonder just how aggressive Intel's shareholders will let them be with their pricing.
Actually im hoping for a 12 core for not much more then the 1800X(obviously not clocked as high) . I dont care about avx-512 and absolute highest IPC/clock isn't that important. Lots of solid threads and lots of dimm slots is what i am after. If that doesn't happen then i wold just get 2x1700's for the job ( home esxi setup).So everyone is excited about the HEDT platform again? Cool. Just a few months ago before Ryzen launched everyone was saying how overbuilt and overblown HEDT chips were and how no one wants them anymore and it is a dying market. Forgive me if it's hard to keep up.
That said, it will be interesting to see how these chips measure to Skylake-X. The IPC won't be as good, so how the clock speeds and pricing compared to Skylake-X will be interesting. I wonder just how aggressive Intel's shareholders will let them be with their pricing.
Nup, to much, if a 1700X is 399, a 1700 is $329 then and a 1600 is $219 then to me a 12 core non should be ~$630 a 12 Core X ~$700, the 16 core ~$750 the 16 core X $850 and the 16 core flag ship X $999.12 core for 799$ would put the cat amongst the pigeons, especially if software and bios are significantly improved in that time.
Too much?? That would obliterate a 1100$ 6900k, remember technology pricing is not anywhere close to linearNup, to much, if a 1700X is 399, a 1700 is $329 then and a 1600 is $219 then to me a 12 core non should be ~$630 a 12 Core X ~$700, the 16 core ~$750 the 16 core X $850 and the 16 core flag ship X $999.
All of these prices would give better margin then selling the two dies separate.
This kind of market is where the Zeppelin SOC design starts to really ramp up vs the monolithic die AMD should ram home that advantage to the benefit of us .
Too much?? That would obliterate a 1100$ 6900k, remember technology pricing is not anywhere close to linear
Too much?? That would obliterate a 1100$ 6900k, remember technology pricing is not anywhere close to linear
Nup, to much, if a 1700X is 399, a 1700 is $329 then and a 1600 is $219 then to me a 12 core non should be ~$630 a 12 Core X ~$700, the 16 core ~$750 the 16 core X $850 and the 16 core flag ship X $999.
I'm fairly certain the argument was that the market is very small, not that it's dying.So everyone is excited about the HEDT platform again? Cool. Just a few months ago before Ryzen launched everyone was saying how overbuilt and overblown HEDT chips were and how no one wants them anymore and it is a dying market. Forgive me if it's hard to keep up.
That said, it will be interesting to see how these chips measure to Skylake-X. The IPC won't be as good, so how the clock speeds and pricing compared to Skylake-X will be interesting. I wonder just how aggressive Intel's shareholders will let them be with their pricing.
Can't see it going that cheap (although I'd be utterly delighted if AMD proved me wrong!!).
X399 is going to be deep into the prosumer market - thus your looking at margins somewhere between Ryzen and Opteron.
I reckon you could double the 8C prices to get the 12C prices, and probably 3.5x the 8C prices to get the 16C prices.
1800X = $499
1900X = $1000 (12C)
2000X = $1750 (16C)
So, the 1900X would be similar price to the Intel 6900, but batter it in (non AVX512) productivity, while the 2000X is similar to the 6950, and would embarrass it in (non AVX512) workloads.
No one is going to buy a 1750 16C processor, just like no one buys the 6950.
Your thinking of you and not looking at the wider marketplace.
Prosumers would jump at the chance to buy a 16C processor running at >3.0 GHz for under $2K.
The price of a 16C Xeon running at between 2.6 GHz (base) - 3.6 GHz (max ST turbo) is $2900 (E5-2697v4).
That is what you are comparing to.