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

[Sweepr]

Haswell 4+2 at 22nm process is 170mm2
Skylake 4+2 at 14nm process is 122mm2
....
So at the end we are looking at 100-110mm2 for a 8+2 Cannonlake.

That's still pretty small, even if the cost per mm² goes up fitting 8-cores, PCH and an improved GT2 iGPU in smaller die than 4C+GT2 Skylake would be quite a feat.

Well, i dont believe Intel will bring something like that to the client market, especially not in Laptop space.

Im expecting Intel to double the iGPU with Cannonlake, especially for the mobile market.
So they will devote more and more die space for larger iGPUs, like they do 4-5 years now with every new process. Cannonlake will be their first real SoC specifically oriented for the Mobile market. You dont need 8 cores for the mobile but you need a faster iGPU.

They could very well have a native 4-core and a native 8-core die, just like they have 4-core and 2-core options right now.
Skylake-H already operates at high clocks, there's unlocked K chips and energy-efficient options starting at 25W TDP. Two years from now they might be able to offer quad-cores at U series TDPs and at least some 6C/12T 'H' models. It's the next step and the last thing they want is Apple and the ARM crowd closing the gap at lower TDPs.

 

[NTMBK]

Intel's 10nm is finfet.

No QWFET at 10nm? Aww

 

[Fjodor2001]

No I didn't.

So how many cores do you think the Average Joe needs? 1, 2, 4, ...?

Remember this? You linked extreme gamers and more cores together. Yet you couldn't provide a single fact.

Not more cores specifically, but more threads. However I admit I have no documentation for that (I haven't searched for it either), only reasonable arguments for the case, and the info from Intel about the estimated market segment size.

BTW: Do you have any facts that says otherwise though?

And would you call 4C/4T CPUs an "extreme" gaming CPU? Then what would you call 4C/8T, and 8C/16T (5960X)?

Also you even noted them with really high performance hardware. Yet now you try and showhorn them down into cheap limited builds. Because else you got caught by the HEDT platform in price.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think you missed my point. I'm saying it's possible to build a high performance gaming PC using a quite cheap motherboard and chipset, since that does not affect performance much. However on the HEDT platform, there are no such cheap motherboards.

Having said that, I think most "extreme" gamers will opt for expensive motherboards anyway, even on the mainstream 1151 platform. That's because those users are often enthusiasts that like to spend extra $$$ to get top of the line HW, no matter what impact it'll actually have on performance.

 

[tential]

So you admit you have no idea what Intel considers to be an extreme gamer.
Youre making an assumption that fits your argument and are moving from there..

Lol look at the previous threads in this subsection. People won't even jump up to an i7 when they have a 980ti. The demand for more cores/threads isn't there.

This is a simply case of an extremely small minority being vocal. Can you guys even find a massive segment of pc gamers complaining about core counts? Nope just fringe enthusiasts complaining because they're too cheap to step up to the hedt platform.

 

[AtenRa]

Nope just fringe enthusiasts complaining because they're too cheap to step up to the hedt platform.

Give them the new HEDT platform the same time as the new client platform and see how many will jump to the 6-core HEDT CPUs in a blink of an eye.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So you admit you have no idea what Intel considers to be an extreme gamer.
Youre making an assumption that fits your argument and are moving from there..

Lol look at the previous threads in this subsection. People won't even jump up to an i7 when they have a 980ti. The demand for more cores/threads isn't there.

This is a simply case of an extremely small minority being vocal. Can you guys even find a massive segment of pc gamers complaining about core counts? Nope just fringe enthusiasts complaining because they're too cheap to step up to the hedt platform.

Exactly :thumbsup:

Its all about wanting 150-200$ octocores with Skylake performance because of the entitlement feeling. But again, people like Fjodor would still wait for Zen

 

[ShintaiDK]

Give them the new HEDT platform the same time as the new client platform and see how many will jump to the 6-core HEDT CPUs in a blink of an eye.

One that gets it!

That's something to advocate for. Faster HEDT introduction. We may see this happening as Intel say they will focus more on desktop gamers in the future. But as always it takes time to set in motion.

 

[biostud]

Give them the new HEDT platform the same time as the new client platform and see how many will jump to the 6-core HEDT CPUs in a blink of an eye.

And the reason why the X99 platform was an easy choice over the Z97, when it was launched.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Shin, you and tential either just don't get it or you are being deliberately obtuse. Nobody in this thread is saying a mainstream hex core should sell for 200.00, or even be cheaper than HEDT. What I, and I think others are saying, is give us a hex core on the latest process with the latest architecture, not some 2 generation old server reject. It has nothing to do with being cheap or feeling entitled. And as for all the arguments against it, like lower clockspeed and higher tdp those somehow magically don't seem to apply to HEDT.

 

[VirtualLarry]

One that gets it!

That's something to advocate for. Faster HEDT introduction. We may see this happening as Intel say they will focus more on desktop gamers in the future. But as always it takes time to set in motion.

Aren't the current roadmap / rumors saying that Skylake-E will share the mainstream (at that time) PCH? That, at least, would be an improvement to the current state of HEDT.

ShintaiDK... slides please?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Shin, you and tential either just don't get it or you are being deliberately obtuse. Nobody in this thread is saying a mainstream hex core should sell for 200.00, or even be cheaper than HEDT. What I, and I think others are saying, is give us a hex core on the latest process with the latest architecture, not some 2 generation old server reject. It has nothing to do with being cheap or feeling entitled. And as for all the arguments against it, like lower clockspeed and higher tdp those somehow magically don't seem to apply to HEDT.

Some have previously expected cheap octocores.

I think you forget HEDT is 140W. While LGA1151 is 95W tops. This means every single LGA1151 board would have to be able to handle the TDP you expect. That adds cost for everyone else. Or you would have to down clock it until it fits within 95W.

But again, its been shown over and over again how limited the platform is just for Skylake. It would be much worse for a hex or octocore limited to dual channel. Plus you also need the 15-20MB cache and increased ringbus setup.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Aren't the current roadmap / rumors saying that Skylake-E will share the mainstream (at that time) PCH? That, at least, would be an improvement to the current state of HEDT.

ShintaiDK... slides please?

Yep. It will use the Kaby Lake PCH.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Some have previously expected cheap octocores.

I think you forget HEDT is 140W. While LGA1151 is 95W tops. This means every single LGA1151 board would have to be able to handle the TDP you expect. That adds cost for everyone else. Or you would have to down clock it until it fits within 95W.

But again, its been shown over and over again how limited the platform is just for Skylake. It would be much worse for a hex or octocore limited to dual channel. Plus you also need the 15-20MB cache and increased ringbus setup.

I know what the TDP is.

Come on, you know there are a multitude of models of skylake motherboards with a variety of features. Even AMD has motherboards rated for different TDPs. They could make a high end 1151 board, you seem to have no problem with a special motherboard (or 140W TDP) for X99.

But this argument is becoming pointless. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. All I can say is Intel better hope Zen does not hit a home run, because if it does, "HEDT" may not be good enough. Intel may be forced to actually give the consumer the best product they can, rather than the one that keeps their margins highest.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I know what the TDP is.

Come on, you know there are a multitude of models of skylake motherboards with a variety of features. Even AMD has motherboards rated for different TDPs. They could make a high end 1151 board, you seem to have no problem with a special motherboard (or 140W TDP) for X99.

But this argument is becoming pointless. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. All I can say is Intel better hope Zen does not hit a home run, because if it does, "HEDT" may not be good enough. Intel may be forced to actually give the consumer the best product they can, rather than the one that keeps their margins highest.

All X99 boards can handle 140W.

If you want 140W on LGA1151, essentially all boards would have to support this. From H110 to Z170. And it adds cost.

 

[Boze]

Instead of making your text walls and picking something out of context. Try stay on track next time.

Nah, I'm with Russian on this one Shintai... its the reason I chose to build my system off the i7-5960X and an X99 motherboard with 64 GB of RAM.

Sure, no game out today requires more than 8 GB RAM, and I don't even know a game that recommends 16... but, could we say the same in 2020?

I would not at all be surprised to hear that The Witcher 5 comes out in 2021 and minimum RAM requirement is 16 GB with recommended 32 GB. Nor would I be surprised when 4 GB video cards are required as minimums for AAA games, with recommendations at 8 GB.

The great advantage of buying advanced hardware is it tends to last for a long time. And if USB 4.0 comes out, so what... I'll drop in an add-in card with 4 ports and a Molex connector and add USB 4.0 to my system. I have an M.2 SSD in the system right now, and I find it very hard to believe that 1700 MB/s read speeds will be "outdated" in 2020. Even if they are, I'll just buy a new M.2 SSD in 2-3 years. We already have 2170 MB/s reads on some M.2s, so 3 to 4 GB/s reads are not outside the realm of possibility.

I just don't see some dramatic increase in desktop processor technology that would absolutely require an upgrade in the next 3-5 years. As always, I love to be proven wrong about performance, so I would be tickled if AMD or Intel could boost performance over an i7-5960X, but even if they did, I'd just really dig in and tweak settings and push my processor to 4.3 ~ 4.4 gHz.

 

[Boze]

Exactly :thumbsup:

Its all about wanting 150-200$ octocores with Skylake performance because of the entitlement feeling. But again, people like Fjodor would still wait for Zen

Re-read what Russian told you.

Its about 6-8 core Skylake and beyond on the most current motherboards.

If Intel released a 6-core 3.8 gHz Skylake tomorrow that you could drop into a Z170 motherboard and priced it at $450, how many people would jump on that? A lot, I'd imagine...

 

[Arachnotronic]

There seems to be the (IMHO erroneous) assumption that just because Intel is bringing 6/8 cores to the "mainstream" platform that the company won't go ahead and charge more for those chips.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Nah, I'm with Russian on this one Shintai... its the reason I chose to build my system off the i7-5960X and an X99 motherboard with 64 GB of RAM.

Sure, no game out today requires more than 8 GB RAM, and I don't even know a game that recommends 16... but, could we say the same in 2020?

I would not at all be surprised to hear that The Witcher 5 comes out in 2021 and minimum RAM requirement is 16 GB with recommended 32 GB. Nor would I be surprised when 4 GB video cards are required as minimums for AAA games, with recommendations at 8 GB.

The great advantage of buying advanced hardware is it tends to last for a long time. And if USB 4.0 comes out, so what... I'll drop in an add-in card with 4 ports and a Molex connector and add USB 4.0 to my system. I have an M.2 SSD in the system right now, and I find it very hard to believe that 1700 MB/s read speeds will be "outdated" in 2020. Even if they are, I'll just buy a new M.2 SSD in 2-3 years. We already have 2170 MB/s reads on some M.2s, so 3 to 4 GB/s reads are not outside the realm of possibility.

I just don't see some dramatic increase in desktop processor technology that would absolutely require an upgrade in the next 3-5 years. As always, I love to be proven wrong about performance, so I would be tickled if AMD or Intel could boost performance over an i7-5960X, but even if they did, I'd just really dig in and tweak settings and push my processor to 4.3 ~ 4.4 gHz.

Try take your 5960X. Disable 2 memory channels and disable 60% of the cache and tell me how it performs.

Also buying electronics as future proofing is plain silly.

And you seem to have missed what RS began with, since he also completely missed it. Because I never said you couldn't buy more cores. I said it was silly for multiple reasons on LGA1151 due to its limitations. Its not for fun and its blue eyes sakes that your 5960X got both 20MB cache and quad channel. And being twice the size of a 4+2 Haswell LGA1150. Also when RS replied, it was about cost since Fjodor was trying to shift the goalpost again because of the HEDT platform destroyed his argument.

 

[mikk]

Skylake 4+2 at 14nm process is 122mm2

You should mention this is no fact as Intel don't give this numbers anymore.

 

[frozentundra123456]

All X99 boards can handle 140W.

If you want 140W on LGA1151, essentially all boards would have to support this. From H110 to Z170. And it adds cost.

Why would all boards have to handle 140W? Make a six core skylake, call it "HEDT modern", and build special motherboards for it just like they do for X99.

 

[AtenRa]

You should mention this is no fact as Intel don't give this numbers anymore.

I dont believe there is more than 2-5mm2 difference from the 122mm2 number.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why would all boards have to handle 140W? Make a six core skylake, call it "HEDT modern", and build special motherboards for it just like they do for X99.

So a Socket R type HEDT platform with a Kaby Lake PCH. Got it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I dont believe there is more than 2-5mm2 difference from the 122mm2 number.

Yep, 120-125. Potatoes potatoes.

 

[Boze]

Also buying electronics as future proofing is plain silly.

Must not be that silly, because that's what I've been doing for the past decade.

The fact is, you can spend $4000 or so and build a computer that will last five years. You've been able to do that since 2005 or so, or whenever the Core 2 Quads came out.

You might not have cutting edge features, but it'll last you. Just like my USB 4.0 illustration. If I want USB 3.1, I'll just drop an add-in card to my case and bam, done.

The past decade I've spent about $8000, +/- $500 on my desktop systems, and I've never felt like a new technology came out and I just had to have it.

 

[Enigmoid]

All X99 boards can handle 140W.

If you want 140W on LGA1151, essentially all boards would have to support this. From H110 to Z170. And it adds cost.

And what about 95W and 130W AM3 boards? Must not have existed.