So you get 80% more cores than 1 year old 6950X for 200$ more (15% higher price) and TR/Ryzen has nothing to do at all with that? It was the plan all along huh? It seems so logical and like a typical intel move when we look at past generation launches and core counts, prices and positioning. Oh wait.Intel wasn't "trying to figure out TDP and clockspeeds." Intel didn't want to show its hands first to give AMD a target to go after. AMD committed to an earlier date to release threadripper so Intel could afford to play the waiting game. I'm not surprised Intel released final specs soon after AMD released theirs.
Indeed.. very interested to see power consumption and gaming performance for these two. Should be the main comparison of late 2017 for most consumers.A more interesting comparison would be the 8600K to the 1600X. Both probably will cost about the same amount, both use the same TDP. Both have about the same base clock. The 8600K will have 7.5% faster turbo. But the 1600X would have hyperthreading.
The problem is that we don't know when the plans changed. The 12c showed up on the slides in January when vendors were first seeing R7 final silicon. Rumors of the TR hit us in mid March. So maybe even earlier for Intel. So if MCC was already being tested prior to January and sometime in Q1 they changed their plans. Then all of sudden its 6-9 months and not 4. Half a year sounds about right. Remember AMD didn't get Ryzen to Mobo companies till a week or two before the Chinese new year.
You seemed to be focused on the the fact that the because Intel released different products the slides were wrong. When to a lot of people which includes the motherboard manufacturers its seems like they ended up being wrong because Intel released different products. Or better put that the slides were right till Intel decided they needed to change the lineup and not that they were off the entire time.
As for TR vs. SL-EP vs. SL-X. The Xeon lineup isn't competing (though it can compete) in the same market as TR and SL-X. SL-X and TR are about high performance desktops. Not "workstations" and not server work. AMD if they wanted to could fill most of the market just like you are saying with the Xeon lineup with EPYCs. If the rumors are right even the 8c EPYC would still offer great margins. So they would just need mobo companies to make a Desktop SP workstation board. But TR is about performance on top of core count. It has aggressive clocks to match their lower core count brethren which they couldn't do with EPYC. This is what SL-X is about competitive clock speeds using an enterprise chip. These are High performance platform which mean they need to be the jack of all trades. The fact that they didn't know and where still trying to figure out TDP and clockspeeds after announcing the product should tell you that. Which goes back to point 1 that considering the three major points. 1. No reference to the CPU's in the roadmap, 2. The surprise by the mobo makers of their existence. 3 That the specs were not finalized even though they had been producing the chip for a while in the form of SL-EP, that it is more likely than not that their inclusion in the x299 launch was a newer development and not that Intel was always planning it but wasn't ready yet.
Just like today's announcement probably has more to do with Threadripper being days from being available with chips with 60% more cores and Intel needing to tell everyone to remember that they have the 12c+ stuff still coming.
I don't know the full extent it affected Intel, but it definitely looks to have had Intel moving products forward and pricing. Of course Intel would never admit to anything. So we will never know the full extent.
It did affected timing that for sure, as for prices im still not sure, SKL-X top sku increased in price compared to BDW-E top sku, and X299 cpu options are far more limited than X99, x99 supported up to a 22C E5-2699V4.I don't know the full extent it affected Intel, but it definitely looks to have had Intel moving products forward and pricing. Of course Intel would never admit to anything. So we will never know the full extent.
SKL-X top sku increased in price compared to BDW-E top sku,
I don't know how on the one hand Intel is too expensive but as soon as it suits your argument it's not expensive enough Make up your mind already, old buddy. Intel is selling server variant 16 core for $1,894. So 18 core desktop for $2,000 is very much within reason. Oh, don't forget, another company is pushing 16 whole cores for a paltry $999So you get 80% more cores than 1 year old 6950X for 200$ more (15% higher price) and TR/Ryzen has nothing to do at all with that? It was the plan all along huh? It seems so logical and like a typical intel move when we look at past generation launches and core counts, prices and positioning. Oh wait.
...don't forget, another company is pushing 16 whole cores for a paltry $999
Here's the thing though, but I may be wrong on pricing. I think the HCC and priciest Broadwell-E was 10 cores @ $1700? Now, they have 18 cores for only $300 higher than their previous highest core count CPU (8 extra cores for only $300)? That's one of the reasons I think AMD affected pricing.
It's really hilarious that some people think that Intel releases new products at all because of AMD and not because, you know, that's what chip companies do.
Intel does not care about PCMR E-PEEN,and they even said themselves before the Ryzen launch,it would be a disruptive,but confident that they would have products to counter it later in the year.
You whould call that a price reduction?
Better hope it doesn't come with that thermal paste they useThat 6/12 coffee lake should be great, but with typical Intel pricing something tells me Bob Barker wouldn't approve.
Indeed.. very interested to see power consumption and gaming performance for these two. Should be the main comparison of late 2017 for most consumers.
Funny thing, given recent package shots of TR.. AMD may very well release a 20 or 24 core count "extreme" edition of their own. Time will tell.
Do it!
But... Intel needs that in their lineup, against the face of competition, from Ryzen 3 and 5.Having a new i3 that is 4 core 8 threads is essentially 7700k and eating the sales of 6 core i5s.
Videocard just had an article where leak of i3 specs don't have hyperthreading, i was right lol.But... Intel needs that in their lineup, against the face of competition, from Ryzen 3 and 5.
Videocard just had an article where leak of i3 specs don't have hyperthreading, i was right lol.
https://videocardz.com/71740/intel-core-i7-8700k-pictured-i3-8350-and-i3-8100-specs-leaked
False. If you read about SKL-X and CFL-S in the past 6 months you would know we had clear signals Intel tried to expedite chip release as much as possible.Pricing and marketing can be adjusted, but there is no lever you can crank to advance the product queue.
Back in reality it works exactly this way: when competition puts on the pressure management is inclined to optimize deadlines and cut corners. Some deadlines in the silicon industry may be immovable, but others are not, due to margins included to make sure everything runs smoothly. The "optimization" result can be easily observed in the maturity of the first X299 wave: from firmware problems (turbo clocks, power usage) to underwhelming power delivery for meticulously planned overclockable 16-18 core SKUs. They cut corners and it shows. It doesn't get any more real than this.Back in reality, it doesn't work that way. Schedules on every product are a source of stress for employees. It is often hell to make regular deadlines.
But let's not forget there were people around here feeding on that i3 4c/8t screenshot without even running some image analysis tool on it. Just envision this candy cake: Intel renaming i7 7700 and selling it for half the price because screenshot.I bet you there will be i5 SKUs that have 4C/8T.