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

[PeterScott]

Welcome to the new 8/16 era. Quads are the new dual core, hexes are a cheap middle ground for budget builds, and the only chip people will care about and consider relevant for gamers and enthusiast consumers, is the 8/16 CPU.

The only thing close to correct, is that quads are starting to replace dual cores, so in that sense, Welcome to the beginning new Quad core era, where most CPUs sold will start being Quads instead of Duals.

As far enthusiasts only buying 8 Cores; That is nonsense. There are all kinds of enthusiasts, on all kinds of budgets.

First of all, even the power hungry, top end, must have the best performance enthusiast, wouldn't/shouldn't be fixated on one variable. Fixating on core count, is no better than fixating on clock speed.

IMO the top end enthusiast are currently going to buying 6-core 8700K and overclocking them, because that offers the best overall performance. It isn't about one variable it is how they all work together to deliver a wide range of performance.

 

[raghu78]

That looks like a 6 year old post showing two people argue about AMD vs Intel and who's got the better chip. I don't care about that and this thread is not about who has the better chip. This thread is also not about how much CPU power people need. The only thing this thread is about is the new and glorious 8/16 era that I believe we've entered. Things are also different this time with AMD's chips. What's the difference? They don't suck. That's the difference and when they released a $300 8/16 chip into the wild, they really let the genie out of the bottle and there's no way its going back in. Here's why:

Intel can be fine with 8700K for now, but they know AMD's 8/16 chips will get faster. When they get faster, Intel simply must come back with something in order to stay relevant. Their only choice, and I do mean its their only choice, is to release a fair priced 8/16 CPU to compete with the new Ryzen's around the corner.

So you see, it has nothing to do with what consumers need. It has nothing to do with who's got the better CPU. Things are different this time. Ryzen behaves like an i7 this time around. They are similar chips but Ryzen is just clock limited for now. They are in the race and they can't be ignored this time, not at all. Welcome to the new 8/16 era. Quads are the new dual core, hexes are a cheap middle ground for budget builds, and the only chip people will care about and consider relevant for gamers and enthusiast consumers, is the 8/16 CPU.

/end prophetic rant

moonbogg as much as you love to claim a new era in desktop computing has started I think PC gaming is one of the main use cases of desktop usage and till the next generation of consoles arrive in 2020/2021 we are not going to see a new standard like the quad core CPUs which lasted for 6+ years. Moreover we are going to see Zen 2 desktop CPUs with 12 cores in 2019 and probably even more cores in 2020/2021. I think we are about to enter a golden era for desktop and x86 server computing with AMD making a strong return to high performance cores with Zen and a strong roadmap with Zen 2 and Zen 3. I think the next gen consoles will dictate what is the optimum CPU core count as a single console generation lasts 6-7 years. Whatever core count Sony and Microsoft choose is likely to be the standard for a long time as PC games are basically console ports with higher quality game assets and resolution.

 

[gregoryvg]

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.

I like this, though I wouldn't mind if Intel would release a 8C/8T i5 when they go to 8 cores. It's probably what I would upgrade to if given the option.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Whatever core count Sony and Microsoft choose is likely to be the standard for a long time as PC games are basically console ports with higher quality game assets and resolution.

This. I feel strongly that the true next-gen consoles, with Zen-based cores, and Vega-based GPUs, will likely have 8 cores, although, depending on when they get released, they could conceivably have 12.

That would be interesting, might make the new standard in a year or two a 12-core, rather than an 8-core. Would Intel release a 12-core on their mainstream socket? Or has the physical size / power-delivery potential of their 115x socket been tapped out at the rumored 8-core being introduced next year? We pretty-much know that Ryzen will be getting a 12C/24T on mainstream AM4 socket, I believe.

Either way, it's a fairly glorious time to be a hardware enthusiast. Although, DDR4 prices could stand to be lower. (Maybe DDR4-4000 will become the new "sweet spot" for premium DDR4, for CFL rigs, and then the DDR4-3200 (for Ryzen) will drop in price, further cementing Ryzen as a budget option? At least, until the 12C/24T CPUs come out.)

 

[whm1974]

This. I feel strongly that the true next-gen consoles, with Zen-based cores, and Vega-based GPUs, will likely have 8 cores, although, depending on when they get released, they could conceivably have 12.

That would be interesting, might make the new standard in a year or two a 12-core, rather than an 8-core. Would Intel release a 12-core on their mainstream socket? Or has the physical size / power-delivery potential of their 115x socket been tapped out at the rumored 8-core being introduced next year? We pretty-much know that Ryzen will be getting a 12C/24T on mainstream AM4 socket, I believe.

Either way, it's a fairly glorious time to be a hardware enthusiast. Although, DDR4 prices could stand to be lower. (Maybe DDR4-4000 will become the new "sweet spot" for premium DDR4, for CFL rigs, and then the DDR4-3200 (for Ryzen) will drop in price, further cementing Ryzen as a budget option? At least, until the 12C/24T CPUs come out.)

Wouldn't having dual channel memory vs quad channel limit the performance of having more then 8c/16t by a good margin?

 

[Bouowmx]

Wouldn't having dual channel memory vs quad channel limit the performance of having more then 8c/16t by a good margin?

Hard to say, because no review that tests different RAM configurations separates bandwidth from latency. At least for Intel, I'd say with current memory technologies, 8 cores/16 threads won't be bottlenecked by bandwidth, provided high-frequency DDR4 (>3200 MT/s) is used.

 

[whm1974]

Hard to say, because no review that tests different RAM configurations separates bandwidth from latency. At least for Intel, I'd say with current memory technologies, 8 cores/16 threads won't be bottlenecked by bandwidth, provided high-frequency DDR4 (>3200 MT/s) is used.

Yeah but there is a limit to how high they can get the frequency to, especially without major increases in voltage. I think that mainstream CPUs will stay at 6 and 8 cores, with the HEDT market for those who want more cores.

 

[Topweasel]

Wouldn't having dual channel memory vs quad channel limit the performance of having more then 8c/16t by a good margin?

I would imagine that would depend on the workload. I mean sure there are some high bandwidth jobs that require a lot of cores. But for the most part I think latency and capacity matters more. Everything else in the system is so much slower than memory a video card that I can't see dual channel being enough for even a low end prosumer.

 

[whm1974]

I would imagine that would depend on the workload. I mean sure there are some high bandwidth jobs that require a lot of cores. But for the most part I think latency and capacity matters more. Everything else in the system is so much slower than memory a video card that I can't see dual channel being enough for even a low end prosumer.

Maybe not, but I can see a low end prosumer going with dual channel due to budget constraints. CPUs and motherboards with quad channel memory are expensive.

 

[Topweasel]

Maybe not, but I can see a low end prosumer going with dual channel due to budget constraints. CPUs and motherboards with quad channel memory are expensive.

Also true. I guess the point would be that a >8c CPU for the general user would still be useful without quad channel. Hell a lot of the reason for quad channel on HEDT has to do with the platforms the parts were stolen from an not actual use cases. A guy running a test Network on his 12c station isn't going to see a big bump, or encoding. Multitasking you machine to death isn't going slow down more because it's bandwidth starved.

There are use case but those use cases would basically require a HEDT or better setup. Basically just saying that more memory bandwidth maybe be optimal but that doesn't mean lots of people can't use 12c dual channel setups on the cheap.

 

[whm1974]

Also true. I guess the point would be that a >8c CPU for the general user would still be useful without quad channel. Hell a lot of the reason for quad channel on HEDT has to do with the platforms the parts were stolen from an not actual use cases. A guy running a test Network on his 12c station isn't going to see a big bump, or encoding. Multitasking you machine to death isn't going slow down more because it's bandwidth starved.

There are use case but those use cases would basically require a HEDT or better setup. Basically just saying that more memory bandwidth maybe be optimal but that doesn't mean lots of people can't use 12c dual channel setups on the cheap.

Even so there has to be some limit to how many cores/threads a dual channel memory setup can handle without performance dropping.

 

[XavierMace]

Depends what you're doing. Not all CPU intensive tasks are memory intensive.

 

[whm1974]

Depends what you're doing. Not all CPU intensive tasks are memory intensive.

Maybe I'm just assuming too much, but surely anyone who can use 12c/24t will be benefiting from having quad channel vs having only two?

 

[XavierMace]

I have no trouble maxing out 10 cores transcoding a single Bluray rip. Memory has very little effect on that unless you're running the transcodes off a RAM drive.

 

[pantsaregood]

No. AMD has released an eight-core design, but that doesn't mean we have entered the "eight-core era." The FX-8xxx had a case for being an eight-core design - no one called that the beginning of the eight-core era.

As it stands now, we've arguably landed at six cores. AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X is fantastic, and now the i5-8600K and i7-8700K are pushing Intel's "performance" range to six cores. Pentiums, i3s, Ryzen 3s, and lower-end Ryzen 5s still fall under six cores, however - and those are certainly higher volume parts.

If AMD's next revision of Ryzen can bump up clock speeds, then sure - we may actually find ourselves in an eight-core era. Ryzen has only marginally lower IPC than Skylake, but it really struggles with clock speeds.

 

[DooKey]

moonbogg as much as you love to claim a new era in desktop computing has started I think PC gaming is one of the main use cases of desktop usage and till the next generation of consoles arrive in 2020/2021 we are not going to see a new standard like the quad core CPUs which lasted for 6+ years. Moreover we are going to see Zen 2 desktop CPUs with 12 cores in 2019 and probably even more cores in 2020/2021. I think we are about to enter a golden era for desktop and x86 server computing with AMD making a strong return to high performance cores with Zen and a strong roadmap with Zen 2 and Zen 3. I think the next gen consoles will dictate what is the optimum CPU core count as a single console generation lasts 6-7 years. Whatever core count Sony and Microsoft choose is likely to be the standard for a long time as PC games are basically console ports with higher quality game assets and resolution.

Yep, AMD is about to rule the world with moar cores. Kinda like they did with bulldozer. /s

Trolling is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[moonbogg]

Yep, AMD is about to rule the world with moar cores. Kinda like they did with bulldozer. /s

Who said that? Wasn't me. Moar cores will rule the world from both companies. That's what this thread is all about. What gave you the impression this is yet another AMD sponsored MOAR CORES thread? Its not. Those days died with Bulldozer. There are differences now that I'm sure you can see. If you can't spot those differences, its cool. Juts read through the thread and it will point them out to you.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Who said that? Wasn't me. Moar cores will rule the world from both companies. That's what this thread is all about. What gave you the impression this is yet another AMD sponsored MOAR CORES thread? Its not. Those days died with Bulldozer. There are differences now that I'm sure you can see. If you can't spot those differences, its cool. Juts read through the thread and it will point them out to you.

People who are getting worked up over more cores seem to underestimate the difficulty of building a game engine that can properly use an 8-core processor, let alone something that can effectively use >8 cores.

If more cores was the panacea for games that many think it to be, then increasing processor performance would be a trivial exercise, just stick more cores on the die and declare a win. Don't

What matters is a good balance of core count and per core performance, especially if you are power/thermally limited. Where that balance lies is an interesting subject for debate.

 

[traderjay]

Guys lets try keep this adult and civil shall we As geeks we always welcome advancement and healthy competition and like what Arachnotronic have said, designing applications that take full advantage of multicore CPU is not an easy undertaking. Heck even Adobe with all their resources can't fully utilize all the cores in their applications let alone games and other lesser apps. One major benefit that cannot be understated is multicore system allows one to multi-task like mad w/o slowdown!

 

[crashtech]

What matters is a good balance of core count and per core performance, especially if you are power/thermally limited. Where that balance lies is an interesting subject for debate.

Where that balance lies is playing out right before our eyes, in the form of numerous benchmarks that everyone can research. Both approaches have their merits under the proper circumstances. A lot of assumptions get made about use case to push one or the other; at this point it's probably best to make individualized recommendations instead of sweeping generalizations.

 

[moonbogg]

People who are getting worked up over more cores seem to underestimate the difficulty of building a game engine that can properly use an 8-core processor, let alone something that can effectively use >8 cores.

If more cores was the panacea for games that many think it to be, then increasing processor performance would be a trivial exercise, just stick more cores on the die and declare a win. Don't

What matters is a good balance of core count and per core performance, especially if you are power/thermally limited. Where that balance lies is an interesting subject for debate.

A refined 14nm is great for 8 cores. There's no power issue there. And again, we are getting 8 core CPU's whether we need them or not, whether games can use them or not and whether we want them or not. We are getting them because AMD straight up WENT THERE and now Intel's hand is forced. There isn't a choice now. We are one foot inside 8 core land already and about to take off running as soon as Intel releases that necessary, unavoidable, reactionary, inevitable and totally welcomed 8 core BEAST.

 

[PeterScott]

A refined 14nm is great for 8 cores. There's no power issue there. And again, we are getting 8 core CPU's whether we need them or not, whether games can use them or not and whether we want them or not. We are getting them because AMD straight up WENT THERE and now Intel's hand is forced. There isn't a choice now. We are one foot inside 8 core land already and about to take off running as soon as Intel releases that necessary, unavoidable, reactionary, inevitable and totally welcomed 8 core BEAST.

It will be a largish die for intel if they include their typical IGP, and it will be priced accordingly.

It may be on a mainstream socket, but you will almost certainly be paying HEDT prices.

 

[whm1974]

It will be a largish die for intel if they include their typical IGP, and it will be priced accordingly.

It may be on a mainstream socket, but you will almost certainly be paying HEDT prices.

I'm thinking Intel may not include a iGPU on their mainstream 8 core CPU next year to make room available for two more cores.

 

[moonbogg]

It will be a largish die for intel if they include their typical IGP, and it will be priced accordingly.

It may be on a mainstream socket, but you will almost certainly be paying HEDT prices.

We'll have to see about price. I have faith it will be decent. Look at the 8700K. Its a mind blowing chip, seriously. Faster than absolute hell with 6 cores and IGP, all for $360? That's a good price considering its performance lead over everything else. The 8 core may cost more, but it can't cost that much more. It has to be competitive because I get the feeling the pressure from the competition won't let up. I expect that 8 core chip to land around $460 for the K model and $400 for the non K. I'm not sure I'd expect an i5 variant of the 8 core chip yet. They'd probably lean on their 6 core parts to fill the lower price points and keep the 8 core part as a premium 8/16 part only I'd think. I think it would be too early for 8 core i5's, but who knows. Everything gets all mixed up in terms of performance comparison between 4,6,8 cores with and without HT, so the 8 core i5 would overly complicate things. Do you think an 8 core i5 would make sense when they release their 8 core parts? I don't think so. I wouldn't expect an i5.

 

[Bouowmx]

• Haswell 4+2: 177 mm²
• Skylake/Kaby Lake 4+2: 126 mm²
• Coffee Lake 6+2: 149 mm²
• Coffee Lake 8+2, all else being equal to 6+2's, and 2 cores having area ~25 mm²: 174 mm²

Back to Haswell sizes.

See also: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/coffee_lake#Historical_Trend an evolution of the client processors