Intel Cannonlake SoC will have 4-core, 6-core and 8-core versions

[tential]

More cores per se isn't advancing CPU performance if they just sit idle and unused while racing to gate the fastest.

Its the software that is lacking. And no, adding more cores wont fix that. And its not looking to change anytime soon either. Servers for example dont have an issue with more and more cores for the exact reason that software and concurrency is there. And why Skylake will scale to 28 cores there.

But even with servers, everything isn't all rosy. Hence why a product like this exist.
http://ark.intel.com/products/83358/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2637-v3-15M-Cache-3_50-GHz

And there are more examples of it. Speed over core count.

You're beating a dead horse. The average enthusiast buyer has no idea how much cpu power a mainstream consumer uses daily.

The only thing they care about is more cores, more IPC, more clockspeed.

Trying to explain to them that Intel is focusing on perf/watt, overall consumption, igp, etc is lost on them.

Since I spend/care more about my mainstream usage since my gaming needs are served perfectly by the 4770k, I'm very very happy Intel focuses on what they do.

I can't wait until my surface tablet with doc can get ridiculous battery life. I'm in fact still waiting on the indepth speedstep review that we were promised. Saving power is everything in this market.

Amd did the more cores thing. That turned out very well. Intel thankfully understands what the market wants.
This is why I won't be surprised when zen has too many cores, caters the the enthusiast amd segment, loses the money makers, and completely collapses the company.

 

[Maxima1]

You're beating a dead horse. The average enthusiast buyer has no idea how much cpu power a mainstream consumer uses daily. [...]

This is why I won't be surprised when zen has too many cores, caters the the enthusiast amd segment, loses the money makers, and completely collapses the company.

Yup. E-series is what they need. LOL

 

[frozentundra123456]

Or there will be a market for more cores with DX12 games and Intel will be caught with their pants down. It would serve them right.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Or there will be a market for more cores with DX12 games and Intel will be caught with their pants down. It would serve them right.

Jeebus,
When will people wake up to the fact that it just isn't that easy to make software highly multithreaded, beyond a very small niche that doesn't include gaming.

This failure to grasp basic facts about multithreaded challenges is particularly rife among those with an unhealthy attachment to a failing semiconductor company.

 

[firewolfsm]

Jeebus,
When will people wake up to the fact that it just isn't that easy to make software highly multithreaded, beyond a very small niche that doesn't include gaming.

DX12 has solved that problem.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Have you looked at the CPU usage charts in game.gpu recently? Pretty much every new AAA game is highly threaded. Intel is only still ahead because AMD per core performance is so poor. That could change with Zen if it comes close to the hype.

And if you have followed most of my posts, you will see that I have been a pretty staunch Intel supporter. However, I sincerely believe it is time to change their strategy of relying on fewer cores, since they seem to be unable to wring much more performance out of them.

 

[Boze]

You're beating a dead horse. The average enthusiast buyer has no idea how much cpu power a mainstream consumer uses daily.

The only thing they care about is more cores, more IPC, more clockspeed.

Trying to explain to them that Intel is focusing on perf/watt, overall consumption, igp, etc is lost on them.

Since I spend/care more about my mainstream usage since my gaming needs are served perfectly by the 4770k, I'm very very happy Intel focuses on what they do.

I can't wait until my surface tablet with doc can get ridiculous battery life. I'm in fact still waiting on the indepth speedstep review that we were promised. Saving power is everything in this market.

Amd did the more cores thing. That turned out very well. Intel thankfully understands what the market wants.
This is why I won't be surprised when zen has too many cores, caters the the enthusiast amd segment, loses the money makers, and completely collapses the company.

On the contrary, a lot of us know exactly how much computing power mainstream users need... its obvious to us when mainstream users are using their smartphones over buying laptops.

When a smartphone provides all the computing power someone needs for recording and editing video, taking photographs and touching them up in Photoshop for iOS / Android, for watching Netflix / Hulu / Amazon Prime, and playing games, all on a device that weighs a few ounces, believe me, the enthusiasts know.

We just don't care. Because I'm not one of those people who can't afford a $3000... or a $4000... or even a $5000 computer.

If Intel could make a 4.0 gHz processor with 12 cores and charged $2500 for it, guess what... I'd still buy it. And I'd still overclock it to 5.0 gHz. And I'd still find a use for it. When I'm not gaming, or editing video / audio, I'd load up Folding@Home and power through some proteins.

So for every single mHz and additional core that Intel and AMD can squeeze onto a die, I'll find a use for it, mark my words. If it isn't directly benefiting me by giving me another .75 FPS in Grand Theft Auto V at 5120 x 2880, then it'll indirectly benefit some researcher at Stanford.

 

[toyota]

Have you looked at the CPU usage charts in game.gpu recently? Pretty much every new AAA game is highly threaded. Intel is only still ahead because AMD per core performance is so poor. That could change with Zen if it comes close to the hype.

And if you have followed most of my posts, you will see that I have been a pretty staunch Intel supporter. However, I sincerely believe it is time to change their strategy of relying on fewer cores, since they seem to be unable to wring much more performance out of them.

yeah some games will go over 50% usage on my cpu. Crysis 3 will even go over 80% usage in spots. Batman Arkham Knight and especially Watch Dogs run noticeably worse if I disable HT and only run 4 cores. no way would I recommend an i5 anymore to those building a new gaming pc and wanting to run a high end gpu.

 

[ShintaiDK]

DX12 has solved that problem.

Not really. And its only for the API. Not the actual game logic. DX12 will if anything just lower CPU usage.

Seems you are better of with a 10-15% higher clocked quadcore vs hexcore or octocore.

 

[cbn]

Here is an example of a single box, multi-user set up:

http://lime-technology.com/unraid-featured-on-linustechtips/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465735-2-gamers-1-cpu-virtualized-gaming-build-log/

(1 CPU, 2 Gamers , etc.)

And if these cores do in fact get cheaper (and I think they will) then we should see more development into these types of boxes.

The problem as currently stands is that going from 2C/2T cores to 4C/4T effectively triples the CPU price. Same thing happens we going from 2C/4T to 4C/8T or 4C/8T to 8C/16T. This discourages consolidating two boxes into one in many cases.

It was only with the introduction of the i7 5820K that this rising cost core per core as the die gets larger trend was broken. (ie, i7 5820K was only ~15% more expensive even though it offered 50% more cores compared to i7 4790K).

 

[tential]

Here is an example of a single box, multi-user set up:

http://lime-technology.com/unraid-featured-on-linustechtips/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465735-2-gamers-1-cpu-virtualized-gaming-build-log/

(1 CPU, 2 Gamers , etc.)

And if these cores do in fact get cheaper (and I think they will) then we should see more development into these types of boxes.

The problem as currently stands is that going from 2C/2T cores to 4C/4T effectively triples the CPU price. Same thing happens we going from 2C/4T to 4C/8T or 4C/8T to 8C/16T. This discourages consolidating two boxes into one in many cases.

It was only with the introduction of the i7 5820K that this rising cost core per core as the die gets larger trend was broken. (ie, i7 5820K was only ~15% more expensive even though it offered 50% more cores compared to i7 4790K).

I still plan on trying it with the 5820k. I'll use the full power when I can, but when I have a guest split it in 3 for side by side gaming.
Well except with cannonlake that maybe be an 8 core processor and not a 6.

 

[Sweepr]

If anyone thinks this leak is about Cannonlake-DE (future Xeon-D parts), think again.

Looks like Intel is about to increase Xeon-D's core count to 16 cores as soon as this quarter:
www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015102201_Intel_Xeon_D_chips_may_have_up_to_16_cores.html

 

[Burpo]

Wonder what clock speed & TDP?

 

[Fjodor2001]

DX12 will if anything just lower CPU usage.

The initial effect may be that it'll lower CPU usage. But more important is the long term effect that it'll make better use of multi-core CPUs.

So going forward, games can add functionality that require more CPU usage and make better use of more cores.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The initial effect may be that it'll lower CPU usage. But more important is the long term effect that it'll make better use of multi-core CPUs.

So going forward, games can add functionality that require more CPU usage and make better use of more cores.

Only for the render. Everything else is unchanged. So dont expect much if anything in terms of game logic enhancements compared to DX11.

 

[jpiniero]

If anyone thinks this leak is about Cannonlake-DE (future Xeon-D parts), think again.

Looks like Intel is about to increase Xeon-D's core count to 16 cores as soon as this quarter:
www.cpu-world.com/news_2015/2015102201_Intel_Xeon_D_chips_may_have_up_to_16_cores.html

That's good news about Intel's 14 nm process if true. Still, having 80W? processors kind of kills the idea of the microserver. Could be a sign that Xeon D is being used for much more than that though.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Only for the render. Everything else is unchanged. So dont expect much if anything in terms of game logic enhancements compared to DX11.

Well anything multi-core CPU bound will benefit from DX12. Or what's your point?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well anything multi-core CPU bound will benefit from DX12. Or what's your point?

Game logic is still primary serial for most games. DX12 doesn't change that. Its no wonder DX12 is so overhyped if people believe its all magic.

DX12 also contains a nasty little joker that will make sure DX11 isn't going away.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That's good news about Intel's 14 nm process if true. Still, having 80W? processors kind of kills the idea of the microserver. Could be a sign that Xeon D is being used for much more than that though.

80W isn't a problem at all. Specially not with 16 cores and a complete SOC with everything.

A micro server is all about cost and space.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Game logic is still primary serial for most games. DX12 doesn't change that.

You mean stuff not handled by DX12 but by the game itself? Of course, for that it's completely up to the game developers to make the game logic handle multi-core better.

Anyway, what I said is true for all parts that are handled by DX12. I.e. going forward it'll be possible for game developers to make better use of multiple CPU cores for stuff that is handled by DX12.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You mean stuff not handled by DX12 but by the game itself? Of course, for that it's completely up to the game developers to make the game logic handle multi-core better.

Anyway, what I said is true for all parts that are handled by DX12. I.e. going forward it'll be possible for game developers to make better use of multiple CPU cores for stuff that is handled by DX12.

You assume its even possible to do with any worthwhile gain. Its usually not.

Anyway, as soon as the games doesn't get updated for new graphics uarchs, they will default back to DX11 anyway.

 

[Fjodor2001]

You assume its even possible to do with any worthwhile gain. Its usually not.

Why wouldn't it be? In that case why did Microsoft even bother to make better use of multi-core on DX12?

Anyway, as soon as the games doesn't get updated for new graphics uarchs, they will default back to DX11 anyway.

So games that only support DX11 will not make use of DX12 features. What a revelation! And games that only support DX10 will not make use of DX11 features. Obviously.

But what's important is the trend going forward. And that's what DX12 provides.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why wouldn't it be? In that case why did Microsoft even bother to make better use of multi-core on DX12?

Mainly because of the weak Xbox CPU. Secondary due to laptops/2in1 devices for power consumption.

So games that only support DX11 will not make use of DX12 features. What a revelation! And games that only support DX10 will not make use of DX11 features. Obviously.

But what's important is the trend going forward. And that's what DX12 provides.

You miss the point as always. DX11(.3) can use the same features as DX12 except for 2 that is only performance related. And this is the backdoor escape when game developers dont upgrade for new uarchs that gets developed. Else you end up with games that could potentially not run at all on new hardware.

But again this is way OT.

 

[jpiniero]

80W isn't a problem at all. Specially not with 16 cores and a complete SOC with everything.

A micro server is all about cost and space.

Well it would complicate the cooling setup with all those 80W processors in such a tight space. The cloud companies are obviously fine with it otherwise they wouldn't have asked for it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well it would complicate the cooling setup with all those 80W processors in such a tight space. The cloud companies are obviously fine with it otherwise they wouldn't have asked for it.

Nah, its a relatively tiny cooler. And it can easily fit 1U for example.