The 8 Core CPU: Are they replacing 4 Cores as the standard? (Poll Inside)

[moonbogg]

I say yes, its still early, but the 8 core era is here. People argue that 8/16 is just too many threads for the average person and most people don't need that much power. I understand that argument and I know where it comes from. It comes from a decade of stagnation having entered the mind and killing expectations. But once the ice breaks, you fall into cold water pretty quickly. Ryzen broke that ice.
Being overpowered for today doesn't mean it won't become standard. When I got my i7 2600K it was absolutely overpowered, not to mention those who went early with an i7 920. That thing was total overkill. The average person did not in any way need that much CPU grunt. Most people were still doing fantastic on dual cores or non hyperthreaded quad cores. It was impossible to imagine a scenario where a gamer would actually need 8 Sandy Bridge threads blazing along at 4.6ghz. The point is, even though the average person couldn't max out their 4/8 CPU, that didn't stop those chips from becoming standard.
The 8/16 CPU will be in the spot light. It will be what everyone refers to, talks about and compares others to. By next year, when people think of a modern mainstream CPU that is fully featured and up to date with the latest standards, they will think of the 8/16 CPU, not 4/8 or 6/12. The 8/16 CPU will enter the mind just like the 2600K enters the mind, or 7700K, or i7 920. An 8/16 chip is just what you will buy when you want the best gaming and mainstream performance. It makes no sense to think of other chips, even if you don't need all the CPU power today, because who wants to buy precisely what they need today and run on the ragged edge of their CPU's capability? The answer is no one, and that's what the i7 920 gave us. Its what the 2600K gave us. Its what the 7700K pretended to give us, but failed.
The CPU configuration that represents the next standard should look overpowered today rather than looking merely appropriate. The 8700K looks appropriate to me, not overpowered. It won't deliver the overpowered, safe for tomorrow expectation you get from buying the best mainstream chip. Those chips will come next year with Intel's 8/16 mainstream configuration to rival the new and faster Ryzen chips. Ryzen+ is coming and Intel will need something more than a 6/12 chip to compete properly. AMD brought us into the land of mainstream 8/16 and Intel will quickly snap back to catch up. The market can't go back now from 8/16 anymore than a pickle can become a cucumber.

 

[IEC]

Given a long enough timeline, anyone who disagrees will be proven wrong.

Just in the past ten years, remember these arguments?:
Dual core is enough for gaming (Core2Duo vs Core2Quad)
i5 is enough for gaming (i5-2500K vs i7-2600K, etc.)
Quad cores are enough for gaming (RIP quad cores thanks to Battlefield 1)

Those of us who upgrade frequently don't need to worry, but people who only upgrade every 5+ years have a tendency to be penny wise, pound foolish. That was me when I sprung for a C2D instead of a C2Q. And again when I sprang for an i5-2500K instead of an i7.

Hex cores will probably be considered the sweet spot by many until the next gen consoles launch. But with some games already performing better with 8 cores versus 6 cores, I don't see why you wouldn't spring for the 8 core as the gold standard, all else being equal. It's not like there is a significant fMax difference in 8 core processors versus 6 core processors. I would expect a hypothetical i7-9700K with 8 cores to be 33% more awesome than an i7-8700K.

 

[Yakk]

If mainstream gaming consoles can have 8 cores, mainstream PCs should be possible also.

 

[crashtech]

No, quads are enough for 99% of users. I think we could rather say that we are seeing the death of the dual core in the mainstream, though.

 

[TahoeDust]

This may as well just be Ryzen vs Intel thread part two.

 

[IEC]

No, quads are enough for 99% of users. I think we could rather say that we are seeing the death of the dual core in the mainstream, though.

Not on this forum, they aren't. The unwashed masses can stick with their dual cores and their quads and remain stuck in 2005.

It's (current year) and I literally have a pile of dual and quad core chips sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust.

 

[crashtech]

Not on this forum, they aren't. The unwashed masses can stick with their dual cores and their quads and remain stuck in 2005.

It's (current year) and I literally have a pile of dual and quad core chips sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust.

Well, I might be interpreting what "the standard" means differently. I'm thinking PCs in general moving forward. Sell those CPUs while they're still worth something!

 

[TahoeDust]

8-cores is nice. It is what I wanted and what I bought. Should a processor like mine, which is what CL's 8 core will be like, be the new standard? Absolutely not. It is far beyond overkill for the average user. Honestly, it is probably overkill for me.

 

[Rifter]

For enthusiast yes for sure.

For the general public hell no and likely wont be for at least a decade.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Didn't we just have this debate? Oh yeah.... http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...olete-for-gaming.2520630/page-2#post-39107048

When I got my i7 2600K

If your trusty old i7 is any indication, 8 core CPU's will be the mainstream some time around 2025.

 

[moinmoin]

8 core APUs or just CPUs? Just for CPUs 8 cores certainly is the new standard for AMD seeing how everything lower so far are salvaged 8 core chips. This will change with the APUs though, where Intel set the new max at 6 with their limited availability CFL launch.

 

[Topweasel]

No for the same reason that Intel still offers four and 2 core CPU's for users and why AMD will have 4 core APU's. The good enough crowd is where most of the buying power is. Intel stepping up the general consumer lineup to 6 cores is a good first step and will impact how games are developed, none of them are going to waste the opportunity to sell a lot less for a little less to a lot more (try to figure that one out). Intel keeps a giant hold on the buying market by offering a dedicated 2 core design that they can sell for as little as $25 to OEM's and the 4 core i3's will push 4 cores into the barely enough market that outweighs all other consumer markets together. AMD has no choice but to drop core counts on it's APU's which will also be their general Laptop CPU, which is a much larger market than the desktop market.

So even if Intel comes out with an 8 core CPU after Coffeelake and even though the next Ryzen Desktop chip could be a 12c design. We are still a long way from 8 cores becoming a defacto standard except maybe in game development.

 

[PeterScott]

No, quads are enough for 99% of users. I think we could rather say that we are seeing the death of the dual core in the mainstream, though.

Yeah. I am hoping we are finally seeing the death of the dual core. I bet that even in 2017 the dual core was in the majority of computers sold (Wintel Laptops), and quad cores came out about decade ago.

So it's more than bit premature to call the death of the quad core. Check back in a decade.

Maybe the next Mac Mini will finally have a quad core across the range. I was entertaining the idea of getting a Mini, but not being updated in 3 years and having dual cores, put me off.

 

[TheGiant]

I will accept 8 Core as mainstream when I don't have to sacrifice ST performance for moar coarz. Now its 6 Core 8700K.
Until then, it is a downgrade on the desktop.

(and I am silently waiting for 16C 4,8GHz not 400W CPU)

 

[Timmah!]

Seeing how people go crazy about CoffeeLake currently, subjectively more so than about Ryzens or Skylake-X (although thats understandable given those are HEDT), i would say its 6-core, what is about to replace 4-cores in mainstream. Or in other words whatever Intel brings to the masses, cause like it or not, more people are still buying their CPUs, even if AMD counterparts are objectively better (which is questionable in this case). 8-cores will become standard, when Intel brings them to mainstream, maybe as soon as next year, if those rumors are true.

 

[Burpo]

Wtf?
Have we entered the era of the common 8 core CPU?

1. Yes, 8 cores are the new standard and Intel will catch up very soon.
2. Nope! No way 8 cores are the new standard!

Lame Poll, but then coming from this op doesn't shock me..

Intel will catch up soon? LMAO

I'd say intel caught up in 2014!

https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-unleashes-its-first-8-core-desktop-processor/

PENNY ARCADE EXPO (PAX), Seattle, Aug. 29, 2014 – Intel Corporation unveiled its first eight-core desktop processor, the Intel® Core™ i7-5960X processor Extreme Edition, formerly code-named “Haswell-E,” targeted at power users who demand the most from their PCs.

Eight cores and more
Dubbed the Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition, the flagship CPU of the first Haswell-E lineup will be Intel’s first desktop, consumer-class 8-core processor.

"The Core i7-5960X is the most powerful consumer processor ever. It's so quick, in fact, that it's overkill even for most enthusiasts."

 

[Topweasel]

Wtf?
Have we entered the era of the common 8 core CPU?

1. Yes, 8 cores are the new standard and Intel will catch up very soon.
2. Nope! No way 8 cores are the new standard!

Lame Poll, but then coming from this op doesn't shock me..

Intel will catch up soon? LMAO

I'd say intel caught up in 2014!

https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-unleashes-its-first-8-core-desktop-processor/

PENNY ARCADE EXPO (PAX), Seattle, Aug. 29, 2014 – Intel Corporation unveiled its first eight-core desktop processor, the Intel® Core™ i7-5960X processor Extreme Edition, formerly code-named “Haswell-E,” targeted at power users who demand the most from their PCs.

Eight cores and more
Dubbed the Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition, the flagship CPU of the first Haswell-E lineup will be Intel’s first desktop, consumer-class 8-core processor.

"The Core i7-5960X is the most powerful consumer processor ever. It's so quick, in fact, that it's overkill even for most enthusiasts."

That was also a 1k CPU. I think the point was we have a general consumer CPU with 8 cores and Intel even has a general consumer CPU with 6 cores at under $200. Considering less than a 1/10 of 1% would purchase a 1k CPU you can't really call it common. To top it off even now their only 8 core configuration is on a pretty large die that goes up to 10 cores and an expensive platform that requires at least 4 sticks of what is now expensive memory. Even if the CPU's price is a bit more palatable it's still not a common 8 core CPU.

 

[epsilon84]

In an ideal world, 8 core will be the new high end standard, something like this

i7: 8C/16T
i5: 6C/12T
i3: 4C/8T

Have HT enabled on all chips, none of this artificial market segmentation BS. Now this is looking at it from an Intel perspective, I'm aware AMD already has mainstream 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs.

Alas for financial or technical reasons (perhaps both) we are stuck with the current model.

 

[Burpo]

That was also a 1k CPU. I think the point was we have a general consumer CPU with 8 cores and Intel even has a general consumer CPU with 6 cores at under $200.CPU.

You too? This farce of a poll doesn't include any mention of price, etc. It does however make these ridiculous statements.

Those chips will come next year with Intel's 8/16 mainstream configuration to rival the new and faster Ryzen chips. Ryzen+ is coming and Intel will need something more than a 6/12 chip to compete properly. AMD brought us into the land of mainstream 8/16 and Intel will quickly snap back to catch up. The market can't go back now from 8/16 anymore than a pickle can become a cucumber.

Seems rather bias'd and pretty much false. AMD took 3 years to have an answer for the i7-5960X. Now there's this; https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/x-series/i9-7980xe.html

I'm done with this lame Poll thread. Ya'll have fun..

 

[Topweasel]

You too? This farce of a poll doesn't include any mention of price, etc. It does however make these ridiculous statements.



Seems rather bias'd and pretty much false. AMD took 3 years to have an answer for the i7-5960X.

I'm done with this lame Poll thread. Ya'll have fun..

I mean it's right in the title

Have we entered the era of the common 8 core CPU?

A 5960x was never common. Take price out if it if you want, it wasn't common.

Just to give you an idea. The current $1k Intel configuration (10 cores) takes up .02% of users on the Steam report. I am not a fan of using it, partially because it's more skewed toward enthusiast setups in the first place. But that should tell you something. .02% of all users and that is on the high side of actual usage. 8 cores is at .5% but that accounts for 5960x, 6900, 7820, 1700, 1700x, 1800x. Still rather uncommon and that is with current prices ranging from $300-$600. The potential now is for common and general user availability of 8 core CPU's but even 1/3 the price of your 5960x still hasn't made a dent in actual computer sales.

 

[Burpo]

I don't give a <redacted> what it costs. It's a Consumer-class product that's been available since 2014 and in fact was the #2 selling CPU at NewEgg (in revenue) for all of 2015. That seems pretty common to me.

https://blog.neweggbusiness.com/components/best-selling-cpus-of-2015/

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
The * replacement does not make it OK.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Topweasel]

I don't give a <redacted> what it costs. It's a Consumer-class product that's been available since 2014 and in fact was the #2 selling CPU at NewEgg for all of 2015. That seems pretty common to me, never mind your opinion.

https://blog.neweggbusiness.com/components/best-selling-cpus-of-2015/

We are talking commonality of 8 cores. Not price, I brought up price because it affects adoption. No need to get nasty.

Even in your link, Volume, which is what when people talk about the commonality, a Bulldozer product sold more than the 5960x. It's easy to make up on revenue when it only takes 1 CPU to match 10 of the others.

 

[IEC]

It's really amusing to see people get so riled up by moonbogg. We are already in the era of "common" 8 core CPUs, at least as defined by consumer CPUs with 8 cores being available at mainstream pricing. An example is the Ryzen 7 1700 as a benchmark. $299 every day and $250-260 on sale is within reach of the average PC builder. I spent more than that on my Celeron 300A back in the day, and that's not even counting inflation!

Back in the day we all excitedly wanted ever more MegaHertz and more cores. Today, even my cell phone has 6 cores. Being able to get 6+ cores on the desktop starting at around $200 is pretty much the best the PC market has ever been. Now imagine 8 core equivalents of the current Coffee Lake lineup. There would be zero need to compromise on ST vs MT performance for the vast majority of users. I can't wait.

 

[moonbogg]

This may as well just be Ryzen vs Intel thread part two.

It has nothing to do with that. The OP said Intel will have an 8/16 mainstream answer to Ryzen's updated lineup, and of course its true. This is about recognizing that 4/8 chips are relics of the past and 8/16 is the new standard. We now have common and affordable 8/16 CPU's and Intel will soon catch up in that regard. 8700K is good, but looking back in only 12-18 months it will seem mid range. All of the common mainstream chips that people actually care about and talk about will be 8/16 and 8/8 chips. Anything less will be for budget builders who can get by with less and don't want to spend the $350 on a new and fast 8/16 Intel or AMD chip.

 

[Bouowmx]

Because the Qualcomm Snapdragon 625's 8 in-order cores (ARM Cortex-A53 2.0 GHz) set such a high bar of performance... Better off not mentioning smartphones.