Who's buying Skylake-X? (You may now change your vote)

[Carfax83]

Nonsense. The Skylake-X parts for enthusiasts will have AVX-512 enabled.

Heck, it's going to be forever before consumer applications begin to make use of AVX-512, considering how long they took to make use of AVX2; and even that's been lackluster considering that mainstream CPUs have been AVX2 capable for years. First applications will be encoding/transcoding most likely.

To answer the OP's question though, for me the answer is very likely no. I don't plan on upgrading again until PCIe- 4.0 capable motherboards and CPUs are available, which won't be till next year. I didn't know that Intel was going to improve the Skylake X CPUs and platform with these enhancements though, ie bigger L2 cache and AVX-512. I thought that Skylake-X would be just like any other HEDT part, increased core count, quad channel, larger L3 cache and a relatively newer CPU architecture.

I suppose they would need to increase the L2 cache size and bandwidth to be able to feed the extra wide SIMD vectors though, so it makes sense. 512 bit vectors, that's GPU territory right there, so you need plenty of bandwidth to support it

 

[Carfax83]

Meaningful increases in performance in what, though? This redesigned cache may be designed to maximise AVX-512 performance- the bigger L2 could lead to increased memory latency.

And why would a bigger L2 cache lead to increased memory latency? The purpose of cache in the first place is to reduce having to go to system memory as that incurs a large performance penalty due to latency. That said, memory latency is primarily affected by the design of the memory controller and the speed of the memory, and not the cache size to my knowledge.

 

[xdfg]

Its actually a good argument. With a twist.
Those that bought bwe who actually needed the quad channel memory or pci lanes? As in measurable real world benefit?
I think its like 5% of the segment. They got bwe because it was lots of computing power in a fine tdp.
Now a ryzen delivers practically the same for less than half cost.

I think the basic problem for Intel is amd can box and label this ryzen server cpu in all configurations and change it fast.

They have a 32c server platform. In a two socket mb.
Do hedt need that?

If yes. Amd just sells a 64c hedt system.
They dont have to care for Intel segmentation.
So if Intel respond with a 20c hedt Amd just launch 32c the week later.

Intel is bound to have lost this segment for performance.

Exactly. What were the benefits of Skylake-SP supposed to be?

- double throughput because of AVX-512
- 50% more bandwidth because of 6-channel memory

What do Skylake-X and LCC/MCC Skylake-SP not have?

- AVX-512
- 6-channel memory

Might as well just buy Ryzen 16C/32T and get way more cores and scalability if Intel is only going to release gimped-cores for the public. F*** Intel and their attempt to force sales of Xeon "Platinum" (aka $8000 SKU).

 

[xdfg]

Nonsense. The Skylake-X parts for enthusiasts will have AVX-512 enabled.

The lack of hex-channel is for platform cost reasons. How many times have people whined on this forum that HEDT requires that you buy quad channel memory (though it doesn't actually require it) and that this was a reason HEDT sucked?

Imagine "having" to buy hex-channel memory?

It will "have" AVX-512 deceptively. Intel will put it on the marketing slides, but the execution units will be 256-bit wide unless you fork out $$$ for the "Platinum" tier!

 

[guskline]

I voted no because I just built a Ryzen 1800x rig and already have a wonderful 5960x rig in addition to my 6700k rig.

I'm glad the Skylake X is finally coming out but for me I already have enough cores!

Right now I'm more focused on what the upcoming Vega gpu will bring to the table.

 

[jpiniero]

It will "have" AVX-512 deceptively. Intel will put it on the marketing slides, but the execution units will be 256-bit wide unless you fork out $$$ for the "Platinum" tier!

That'd be a pretty big waste of die space if they limit it to only the Platinum, wouldn't it?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

.

No, I am not that^ guy (who you had an argument with last year).
So nothing you just said matters, as I already stated how I see 2018 unfolding. With software pushing it all. Ironically, it seem you are having an argument with yourself here & including me somehow. I am saying the industry has changed and Dr Su has changed the topography of gaming and Personal Computers.

PCs are a shrinking market and will continue to shrink and the enthusiast market, while one of the few growing segments of that market, is a tiny portion of overall sales. That's the point which you obviously can't get. The HEDT line is used by enthusiasts - a tiny niche market. Real workstations use Xeons or workstation-class chips which have had larger core counts for years. The only thing AMD has done is force Intel into a position where they'll have to re-evaluate prices. However, this isn't the Athlon 64 vs P4 situation where the only thing Intel could do to compete was drastically lower prices - Intel still has the performance lead here and can still charge a premium over AMD and still have decent sales numbers.

Cores are the future and they are coming faster than you would like to admit. I am willing to bet, that I have a firmer grasp on the industry, than you.

And you'd badly lose that bet as well - I'd wager I've used and been involved with computers longer than you've been alive, have worked in the industry well over 20 years, and have an engineering degree so can actually speak to the technology. I've forgotten more about this industry than you know.

By the way, speaking of "cores coming faster than I know" - I've been running a 12C/24T machine at home since 2013. Can you make that same claim?

Lastly, I don't think you make a compelling argument for yourself. Even the stuff you tried to rebuttal, in your own post above is based on old thinking (2016). You fail to understand, that even you right now, YOU can buy a modern 8Core CPU for $329.

Why pay more..?

You could buy an "8 core" CPU from AMD years ago for dirt cheap prices. Why pay more?

How do I fail to understand that I could buy an 8 core AMD CPU right now? What type of nonsensical garbage is that? Of course I know I can, but why would I when, within the next 3-4 months, we'll know about SKL-X, Coffee Lake, and AMD's HEDT offering and I can then make a more informed and intelligent decision? I don't know what you do for a living, but I make a pretty good one and when I build a machine, I don't really need to worry about skimping on components if I don't want to skimp. FWIW, I'll probably build a Ryzen rig at some point, but it may not be a primary rig.

 

[jpiniero]

It will "have" AVX-512 deceptively. Intel will put it on the marketing slides, but the execution units will be 256-bit wide unless you fork out $$$ for the "Platinum" tier!

You know, I wouldn't put it past Intel to do that; but it is not the case.

See the Sandra scores:
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/top_ru...c2ffcfe981bc8caad2efdff99cf9c4f4d2a19cac&l=en

This is an AVX-512 aware application. Notice the Gold 6150 is crushing the 2696v4.

Now Skylake-W/HEDT may not have the full 512-bit; but Gold definitely has it at full speed.

 

[krumme]

People might remember a 1800x ties a bwe 6900 in st peef in cb and many workloads.
Hedt is not an 5ghz 7700k 4c cpu for st perf. I think people mix the results here.

 

[Carfax83]

Even with all of that, you'll note from gaming benches that most games are still not benefitting tremendously from 6+ core CPUs - sure, a few games obviously do, but the GPU is still the single biggest performance booster for a gaming PC and I don't think that will change in the near future. Hopefully the proliferation of 6+ core CPUs WILL spur developers to take more advantage of additional cores but I think it is still a little ways off.

I think the situation with multicore CPUs and gaming has come a long way over the years since the PS4 and Xbox One made their debut, due to 3D engine enhancements that are geared towards multicore CPUs ie task based parallelism, as well as drivers being more capable of using CPUs with greater thread counts. The fact that the Broadwell-E CPUs in this 16 game average come out on top vs the much higher clocked 7700K says a lot. Same thing with RAM capacity. 8GB used to be the sweet spot, but now it's 16GB.

Source

 

[Arachnotronic]

It will "have" AVX-512 deceptively. Intel will put it on the marketing slides, but the execution units will be 256-bit wide unless you fork out $$$ for the "Platinum" tier!

No.

 

[Carfax83]

.

PCs are a shrinking market and will continue to shrink and the enthusiast market, while one of the few growing segments of that market, is a tiny portion of overall sales. That's the point which you obviously can't get. The HEDT line is used by enthusiasts - a tiny niche market.

The enthusiast market might be small (but highly profitable), but the overall PC gaming market is massive and continues to grow. There is a lot of overlap between the PC gaming market and the hardware enthusiasts. Most hardware enthusiasts are gamers after all, like myself.

In fact, games are one of the very few consumer applications that can actually take advantage of the power of modern computers.

 

[jpiniero]

The enthusiast market is basically gamers. The people who buy Skylake-X will be doing it to play games. Well, there is the e-penis types, but they pretty much run game benchmarks instead of actually playing.

 

[Carfax83]

The enthusiast market is basically gamers. The people who buy Skylake-X will be doing it to play games. Well, there is the e-penis types, but they pretty much run game benchmarks instead of actually playing.

I don't think the enthusiast market is basically the same as the gaming market, though the two are certainly intertwined to be sure. Hardware enthusiasts are willing to spend much greater amounts of money on hardware than the vast majority of PC gamers. We are hardware enthusiasts because we love PC hardware, and we like having fast, cutting edge machines.

And while performance matters to gamers, they aren't nearly as obsessed with fast hardware like enthusiasts are. The most popular PC games aren't hardware intensive after all.

Another market you're forgetting about is the prosumer market. Prosumers are likely to invest as much, if not more money in hardware than hardware enthusiasts because they use their machines to make a living. All of these sub markets are intertwined to a large degree however.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The enthusiast market might be small (but highly profitable), but the overall PC gaming market is massive and continues to grow. There is a lot of overlap between the PC gaming market and the hardware enthusiasts.

I'd like to see numbers on this - the last I knew, the "overall" PC gaming market was growing more because of casual games than anything. The hardcore market (ie, people like us) was growing too but it is a much smaller piece of the puzzle (as you point out).

Most hardware enthusiasts are gamers after all, like myself.

As am I.

In fact, games are one of the very few consumer applications that can actually take advantage of the power of modern computers.

But the point is, with few exceptions, games aren't really CPU limited today on anything Sandy Bridge or greater. We've had 6 core CPUs since 2009 or 2010 and only a handful of games take advantage of anything over 4C. The assertion that just because AMD releases cheap 8 core CPUs means that next year or the year after, the market will be exploding with games taking advantage of 8+ cores is ridiculous. They released cheap "8 core" CPUs years ago and it didn't help. I have no doubt that we might see *more* games taking advantage of more cores, but I don't anticipate 8 core CPUs being the norm for PCs for many, many years still as people just aren't upgrading like they used to. I'm a computer geek who has used computers since 1980. I've built my own PCs since the mid 90s. I typically upgraded every 2-3 years. Look at the rig in my sig - it still crushes games and the core of it (the CPU and motherboard)is approaching 6 years old. Keeping 6 year-old core components in my front-line system is unheard of for me but yet, I have found little reason to upgrade.

I don't have a single game that remotely stresses the rig in my sig, and I believe that at least from the CPU perspective, that will probably be the case for the next 2-3 years. I'm interested in upgrading more for the platform improvements than anything else. I believe that my next rig could last me a decade with regular GPU updates.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I think the situation with multicore CPUs and gaming has come a long way over the years since the PS4 and Xbox One made their debut, due to 3D engine enhancements that are geared towards multicore CPUs ie task based parallelism, as well as drivers being more capable of using CPUs with greater thread counts. The fact that the Broadwell-E CPUs in this 16 game average come out on top vs the much higher clocked 7700K says a lot. Same thing with RAM capacity. 8GB used to be the sweet spot, but now it's 16GB.

Source

They come out on top, but the scaling is atrocious. You're paying roughly 3x the price to go from 4 cores to 8 cores for roughly an 11 fps (roughly 13%) gain.

 

[Jhatfie]

Pretty sure the next rig I build will be Ryzen. My 5820k has served me well, but if a 12-16 core Ryzen cpu pops up then I'll be going that route.

 

[moonbogg]

If the 8 core skylake comes in at around $500, I might be tempted. Don't think I'd bite even then though. With an 8 core Ryzen nearly as fast as a 5960x for $330, Intel would have to seriously convince me that my money was being spent on a good deal. Somehow I doubt Intel will deliver a good deal to us. And yeah, I buy more than 4 cores for gaming, but I know its not a big difference. My honest opinion regarding cores and gaming is this; I expect it to be about 10 years before quads can't game well anymore, and 5 years when the tide starts to actually turn. I'll still buy 6-8 core chips though because I'm just so sick and tired of old boring quads.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If the 8 core skylake comes in at around $500, I might be tempted. Don't think I'd bite even then though. With an 8 core Ryzen nearly as fast as a 5960x for $330, Intel would have to seriously convince me that my money was being spent on a good deal. Somehow I doubt Intel will deliver a good deal to us. And yeah, I buy more than 4 cores for gaming, but I know its not a big difference. My honest opinion regarding cores and gaming is this; I expect it to be about 10 years before quads can't game well anymore, and 5 years when the tide starts to actually turn. I'll still buy 6-8 core chips though because I'm just so sick and tired of old boring quads.

Me too - I want to jump to more cores but like you, I think Intel is going to (unpleasantly) surprise us with outrageous prices on SKL-X. If that happens, I'll wait and see what Coffee Lake and the Ryzen HEDT platforms have to offer before deciding.

 

[Carfax83]

I'd like to see numbers on this - the last I knew, the "overall" PC gaming market was growing more because of casual games than anything. The hardcore market (ie, people like us) was growing too but it is a much smaller piece of the puzzle (as you point out).

This was the latest info I could find on the PC gaming market in 2017:

Gaming drives PC market

PC gaming market reaches 30 billion

The synopsis is the same, with perhaps one change. PC gaming is what's driving the PC market and bringing large profits to manufacturers that make gaming products. And this is increasing year over year.

The only amendment I would make compared to what I said earlier, is that there is a much stronger convergence between the PC gaming market and the hardware enthusiast market than what I had previously thought.

Basically, PC gamers are adopting the habits of hardware enthusiasts more and more it seems, which is good for the PC gaming market.

But the point is, with few exceptions, games aren't really CPU limited today on anything Sandy Bridge or greater.

I think it really depends on what kind of games you play and what settings. With the proliferation of open world gaming in particular, CPU performance has taken on a much more important role due to the detail level and reliance on streaming data. Take Ghost Recon Wildlands for example. This game will soak up a DECA CORE CPU, which is remarkable:

Watch Dogs 2 is another one. Both of these games are made by Ubisoft, and it's just another example of how the actual programming techniques have changed over the years to accommodate CPUs with higher core and thread counts.

 

[Carfax83]

They come out on top, but the scaling is atrocious. You're paying roughly 3x the price to go from 4 cores to 8 cores for roughly an 11 fps (roughly 13%) gain.

That's an average over 16 different games remember. There are a few games in that list which have some large gains from hex core and above CPUs, like Ashes of the Singularity, Watch Dogs 2, F1 2016. But my point was, that with current HEDT CPUs, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have awesome gaming performance, plus much greater utility as well.

In the past, you used to have to sacrifice somewhat between higher core counts (which meant lower clock speeds) and greater usability, and lower core counts and higher clock speeds for gaming. Engine and driver optimization for higher core count CPUs has now made the trade off unnecessary.

 

[Carfax83]

With an 8 core Ryzen nearly as fast as a 5960x for $330, Intel would have to seriously convince me that my money was being spent on a good deal

Yeah but you're not considering overclocking. You can overclock that 5960x to at least 4.2ghz, but probably 4.4ghz or more. With the Ryzen, getting over 4ghz is very difficult from what I've seen.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That's an average over 16 different games remember. There are a few games in that list which have some large gains from hex core and above CPUs, like Ashes of the Singularity, Watch Dogs 2, F1 2016. But my point was, that with current HEDT CPUs, you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have awesome gaming performance, plus much greater utility as well.

My plan was to upgrade to Broadwell E last year, but when I saw the pricing, I just couldn't justify it given that my overclocked 2600K still plays everything I need it to play fine. However, the upgrade itch just keeps getting stronger and I'm hoping (probably in vain) that Intel introduces some sanity in the SKL-X pricing so I can jump on that boat. I want to shoot for 8+ cores, but I can't in good conscience pay $1000 for it. Of course, I remember paying $1000 for a Pentium 120 back in the day when I was a poor grad student, so maybe I should loosen up.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the situation with multicore CPUs and gaming has come a long way over the years since the PS4 and Xbox One made their debut, due to 3D engine enhancements that are geared towards multicore CPUs ie task based parallelism, as well as drivers being more capable of using CPUs with greater thread counts. The fact that the Broadwell-E CPUs in this 16 game average come out on top vs the much higher clocked 7700K says a lot. Same thing with RAM capacity. 8GB used to be the sweet spot, but now it's 16GB.

Source

At a more realistic 1080p resolution though, the difference is only about 5%.

 

[BrainEater]

Yea !
I'm buying the best Skylake-x there is probably.
I run a 3930k with 3x 1070's , so I have an upgrade path.
I was saving for a dual Xeon rig already so....easy peasy.