By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Intel i9 officially announced

There is a lot to take in here. The most interesting points are that Intel plans to one-up AMD Threadripper by offering an 18-core processor but it also wants to change the perception of the X299-class platform by offering lower price, lower core count CPUs like the quad-core, non-HyperThreaded Core i5-7640X. We also see the first ever branding of Core i9.
Intel only provided detailed specifications up to the Core i9-7900X, a 10-core / 20-thread processor with a base clock of 3.3 GHz and a Turbo peak of 4.5 GHz using the new Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0. It sports 13.75MB of cache thanks to an updated cache configuration, includes 44 lanes of PCIe 3.0, an increase of 4 lanes over Broadwell-E, quad-channel DDR4 memory up to 2666 MHz and a 140 watt TDP. The new LGA2066 socket will be utilized. Pricing for this CPU is set at $999, which is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it is $700 less than the starting MSRP of the 10c/20t Core i7-6950X from one year ago; obviously a big plus. However, there is quite a ways UP the stack, with the 18c/36t Core i9-7980XE coming in at a cool $1999.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-Announced-18-core-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-and-X299

 



Around the Network

Improve my framerates in games or i don't care.



Ka-pi96 said:

Dumb question but... what do multiple cores in processors even do? Sure an 18 core processor sounds a lot, but how much does it actually increase performance?

Actually relevant to me too, unlike graphics card stuff, since the PC games I play are all processor intensive rather than graphics intensive.

Nothing yet since most games  for pc are optimized to only use four cores, but in the future, most games will have to run on even more cores. Also if you use stuff like photoshop or vegas pro, the more cores the better.



Ka-pi96 said:

Dumb question but... what do multiple cores in processors even do? Sure an 18 core processor sounds a lot, but how much does it actually increase performance?

Actually relevant to me too, unlike graphics card stuff, since the PC games I play are all processor intensive rather than graphics intensive.

If a program is compiled/written for parallellization in you split the program into 18 pieces and run them in parallell and in theory the program will be executed/preform the task at hand in 1/18 of the time it would take if it ran on a single core (in reality you will probably run the task/execute the program in maybe 1/10 of the time compared to runing it on a single core).

Or you can run 18 different programs at once completley uninterupted each using it's own core (of course this is also in theory not taking into account bus witdh memory speeds and other possible bottlenecks outside of the CPU) 



Some games make use of it but most only use less cores (up to 4) I am sure the PS5 and next Xbox will use more cores since more cheap cores is cheaper then less faster cores.

PC gaming is usually held back by the mainstream market, which isn't bad but when you buy a PC these days its very good to keep in mind which parts will be more "future proof"

Look at the sandy lake 2xxx series when people said you could buy a 2500k over a 2600k because NO game used the HT (8 logical cores vs 4) option but in the past period of gaming the difference between these 2 processors is NIGHT and DAY.

Same goes for benchmarks right now the cores in Ryzen or i9 won't gain much short-term performance gain but 3-4 years from now you will be very happy you spend that extra money especially since processors can go a long time with no upgrades unlike graphics cards.




Twitter @CyberMalistix

Around the Network
Liquid_faction said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Dumb question but... what do multiple cores in processors even do? Sure an 18 core processor sounds a lot, but how much does it actually increase performance?

Actually relevant to me too, unlike graphics card stuff, since the PC games I play are all processor intensive rather than graphics intensive.

Nothing yet since most games  for pc are optimized to only use four cores, but in the future, most games will have to run on even more cores. Also if you use stuff like photoshop or vegas pro, the more cores the better.

Not even true, some games use up to 4 cores. Other games can't for different reasons and still only use 1 core for the core gamplay.

 

An example of this is Civilization VI. The rounds can't be parallellized since each computer round is dependant of the result of the previous. This game has multiple core support but the other cores only run UI-elements (for smooth navigation during computation of the computer players rounds) but each actual round still takes time to compute since it can only be done on one core.



Ka-pi96 said:
Spindel said:

If a program is compiled/written for parallellization in you split the program into 18 pieces and run them in parallell and in theory the program will be executed/preform the task at hand in 1/18 of the time it would take if it ran on a single core (in reality you will probably run the task/execute the program in maybe 1/10 of the time compared to runing it on a single core).

Or you can run 18 different programs at once completley uninterupted each using it's own core (of course this is also in theory not taking into account bus witdh memory speeds and other possible bottlenecks outside of the CPU) 

ah thanks. This all sounds pretty useful. I'll definitely have to consider stuff like this then when I get round to buying my next PC!

If you want to use your PC for games then you should definitely avoid a high core count. Games aren't even close to be able to utilize those cores. For now it's perfectly fine to go for 4 core 8 thread CPUs with a high clock. If you like to multitask while gaming, go for 6 or 8 cores. Anything more is wasted and will actually decrease your gaming performance since CPUs with lots of cores are also lower clocked because they're packed tighter.

High core CPUs today are used in workstations and hypervisors for virtualization of many virtual machines. I pity anyone who buys an 18 core for gaming. They are server CPUs first and foremost. It's as stupid as trying to use an Nvidia Tesla for gaming.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Ka-pi96 said:

Dumb question but... what do multiple cores in processors even do? Sure an 18 core processor sounds a lot, but how much does it actually increase performance?

Actually relevant to me too, unlike graphics card stuff, since the PC games I play are all processor intensive rather than graphics intensive.

Game designers are slowly going from optimising for 4 cores, to 8.

So in todays world, haveing a 8 core CPU means your future proofed for longer, and will see benefits.

18 cores? I doubt any fully take advantage of that many cores yet. Waste of money to invest in such, for gameing purposes.



So are those just rebranded Xeons or is there more to it?



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

OdinHades said:
So are those just rebranded Xeons or is there more to it?

Yes and no. HEDT is usually the same chips as Xeons anyway just with different verification processes.

Ka-pi96 said:

Dumb question but... what do multiple cores in processors even do? Sure an 18 core processor sounds a lot, but how much does it actually increase performance?

Actually relevant to me too, unlike graphics card stuff, since the PC games I play are all processor intensive rather than graphics intensive.

It does whatever the software wants it to.

If you have a game that is only using 4 threads, then most modern processors will use the spare TDP to boost higher anyway.

Plus just because a game is only using 4 threads doesn't mean you won't see a benefit with 8 or more cores.
Windows has a ton of background services, run a virus scanner, transcoder, encoder, itunes, browser, steam, origin, torrents, xsplit, servers, maybe a few programs like Photoshop in the background... And not take even a slight performance hit in your game.

It also allows you to future proof. I'm still running my 3930K which is 6 years old at this point and it's still not even breaking a sweat in the latest games, it could probably outlive two console generations at this rate! haha

The Core 2 Quads managed to stick around for almost a decade running the latest and greatest titles thanks to it releasing with more cores than what software was demanding at the time.

malistix1985 said:

Some games make use of it but most only use less cores (up to 4) I am sure the PS5 and next Xbox will use more cores since more cheap cores is cheaper then less faster cores.

PC gaming is usually held back by the mainstream market, which isn't bad but when you buy a PC these days its very good to keep in mind which parts will be more "future proof"

Look at the sandy lake 2xxx series when people said you could buy a 2500k over a 2600k because NO game used the HT (8 logical cores vs 4) option but in the past period of gaming the difference between these 2 processors is NIGHT and DAY.

Same goes for benchmarks right now the cores in Ryzen or i9 won't gain much short-term performance gain but 3-4 years from now you will be very happy you spend that extra money especially since processors can go a long time with no upgrades unlike graphics cards.

Well. The Playstation 3 had 1 PPE and 6 SPE's. (8 SPE's all up, 1 disabled, 1 for the OS and such) and the Xbox 360 had a Hyper-Threaded 3-core processor (6-threads) and it had zero effect on game threading on the PC. Most games of that generation on the PC are only dual-threaded with only a few using 4 threads.
This generation the Playstation 4 and Xbox One have 6-7 cores for gaming, the Switch has 3 if I remember correctly...

So I think it is safe to say that the number of cores in Console land has minimal effect on the PC, the PC can run multiple "console cores" worth of work on a single CPU core anyway.

But like you said, platform longevity is the real draw card of these chips, especially in regards to gaming.

Plus CPU performance in single-threaded scenario's is starting to slow down as the low-hanging fruit to increase CPU performance has been picked... So if Intel and AMD are struggling to go faster... Then they will just have to go wider. And the long-term outlook is for very large and wide CPU's.

The Core Wars has begun, it has.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--