Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-about-meltdown-and-spectre? dept.

Intel Announces 9th Gen Core CPUs: Core i9-9900K (8-Core), i7-9700K, & i5-9600K

Among many of Intel's announcements today, a key one for a lot of users will be the launch of Intel's 9th Generation Core desktop processors, offering up to 8-cores on Intel's mainstream consumer platform. These processors are drop-in compatible with current Coffee Lake and Z370 platforms, but are accompanied by a new Z390 chipset and associated motherboards as well. The highlights from this launch is the 8-core Core i9 parts, which include a 5.0 GHz turbo Core i9-9900K, rated at a 95W TDP.

[...] Leading from the top of the stack is the Core i9-9900K, Intel's new flagship mainstream processor. This part is eight full cores with hyperthreading, with a base frequency of 3.6 GHz at 95W TDP, and a turbo up to 5.0 GHz on two cores. Memory support is up to dual channel DDR4-2666. The Core i9-9900K builds upon the Core i7-8086K from the 8th Generation product line by adding two more cores, and increasing that 5.0 GHz turbo from one core to two cores. The all-core turbo is 4.7 GHz, so it will be interesting to see what the power consumption is when the processor is fully loaded. The Core i9 family will have the full 2MB of L3 cache per core.

[...] Also featuring 8-cores is the Core i7-9700K, but without the hyperthreading. This part will have a base frequency of 3.6 GHz as well for a given 95W TDP, but can turbo up to 4.9 GHz only on a single core. The i7-9700K is meant to be the direct upgrade over the Core i7-8700K, and although both chips have the same underlying Coffee Lake microarchitecture, the 9700K has two more cores and slightly better turbo performance, but less L3 cache per core at only 1.5MB per.

Intel also announced refreshed 8 to 18 core high-end desktop CPUs, and a new 28-core Xeon aimed at extreme workstation users.

Related:
Intel Teases 28 Core Chip, AMD Announces Threadripper 2 With Up to 32 Cores
AMD Threadripper 2 Available Starting on August 13


Original Submission

Related Stories

Intel Teases 28 Core Chip, AMD Announces Threadripper 2 With Up to 32 Cores 40 comments

AMD released Threadripper CPUs in 2017, built on the same 14nm Zen architecture as Ryzen, but with up to 16 cores and 32 threads. Threadripper was widely believed to have pushed Intel to respond with the release of enthusiast-class Skylake-X chips with up to 18 cores. AMD also released Epyc-branded server chips with up to 32 cores.

This week at Computex 2018, Intel showed off a 28-core CPU intended for enthusiasts and high end desktop users. While the part was overclocked to 5 GHz, it required a one-horsepower water chiller to do so. The demonstration seemed to be timed to steal the thunder from AMD's own news.

Now, AMD has announced two Threadripper 2 CPUs: one with 24 cores, and another with 32 cores. They use the "12nm LP" GlobalFoundries process instead of "14nm", which could improve performance, but are currently clocked lower than previous Threadripper parts. The TDP has been pushed up to 250 W from the 180 W TDP of Threadripper 1950X. Although these new chips match the core counts of top Epyc CPUs, there are some differences:

At the AMD press event at Computex, it was revealed that these new processors would have up to 32 cores in total, mirroring the 32-core versions of EPYC. On EPYC, those processors have four active dies, with eight active cores on each die (four for each CCX). On EPYC however, there are eight memory channels, and AMD's X399 platform only has support for four channels. For the first generation this meant that each of the two active die would have two memory channels attached – in the second generation Threadripper this is still the case: the two now 'active' parts of the chip do not have direct memory access.

This also means that the number of PCIe lanes remains at 64 for Threadripper 2, rather than the 128 of Epyc.

Threadripper 1 had a "game mode" that disabled one of the two active dies, so it will be interesting to see if users of the new chips will be forced to disable even more cores in some scenarios.


Original Submission

AMD Threadripper 2 Available Starting on August 13 24 comments

AMD's Threadripper 2 TR 2990WX will be available for retail on August 13. The CPU has 32 cores and the suggested retail price is $1,799, compared to $1,999 for Intel's 18-core i9-7980XE. A 24-core TR 2970WX will be available in October for $1,299.

The 16-core TR 2950X ($899, August 31) and 12-core TR 2920X ($649, October) replace their counterparts from the last generation of Threadripper CPUs, but have slightly improved "12nm" Zen+ cores like the other Threadripper 2 CPUs. The 16 and 12-core chips use 2 dies while the 24 and 32-core versions use 4 dies.

A benchmark leak shows the 32-core TR 2990WX outperforming Intel's 18-core i9-7980XE by 53% in the multithreaded Cinebench R15 (this is an early result, may not represent the final performance, and may be overly favorable to AMD).

Also at Tom's Hardware and Engadget.

Related: First Two AMD Threadripper Chips Out on Aug. 10, New 8-Core Version on Aug. 31
Intel Teases 28 Core Chip, AMD Announces Threadripper 2 With Up to 32 Cores
AMD Ratcheting Up the Pressure on Intel


Original Submission

Company Hired by Intel Uses Fatally Flawed Benchmarks to Promote the Intel Core i9-9900K 25 comments

The Core i9 Gaming Benchmarks Intel Commissioned Against AMD Are a Flat Lie

Intel — or to be precise, a company Intel hired to create a whitepaper on Core i9 gaming performance — has crossed that line. According to Forbes, Intel contracted with Principled Technologies to distribute a whitepaper containing various claims about gaming performance between Intel's upcoming Core i9-9900K and Core i7-8700K and the AMD Threadripper 2990WX, 2950X, and Ryzen 7 2700X. With AMD having surged into competitive positioning in the past 18 months and Intel taking heat from its 10nm delays, Chipzilla has every reason to push a narrative that puts it in the driving seat of gaming. But Intel is using this whitepaper to claim that it's up to 50 percent faster than AMD in gaming based on Ashes of the Singularity in particular, and that's where the problems start. The Intel results are somewhat higher than we'd expect, but the AMD CPUs — particularly the Ryzen 7 2700X — are crippled.

Intel Announces 48-core Xeons Using Multiple Dies, Ahead of AMD Announcement 23 comments

Intel announces Cascade Lake Xeons: 48 cores and 12-channel memory per socket

Intel has announced the next family of Xeon processors that it plans to ship in the first half of next year. The new parts represent a substantial upgrade over current Xeon chips, with up to 48 cores and 12 DDR4 memory channels per socket, supporting up to two sockets.

These processors will likely be the top-end Cascade Lake processors; Intel is labelling them "Cascade Lake Advanced Performance," with a higher level of performance than the Xeon Scalable Processors (SP) below them. The current Xeon SP chips use a monolithic die, with up to 28 cores and 56 threads. Cascade Lake AP will instead be a multi-chip processor with multiple dies contained with in a single package. AMD is using a similar approach for its comparable products; the Epyc processors use four dies in each package, with each die having 8 cores.

The switch to a multi-chip design is likely driven by necessity: as the dies become bigger and bigger it becomes more and more likely that they'll contain a defect. Using several smaller dies helps avoid these defects. Because Intel's 10nm manufacturing process isn't yet good enough for mass market production, the new Xeons will continue to use a version of the company's 14nm process. Intel hasn't yet revealed what the topology within each package will be, so the exact distribution of those cores and memory channels between chips is as yet unknown. The enormous number of memory channels will demand an enormous socket, currently believed to be a 5903 pin connector.

Intel also announced tinier 4-6 core E-2100 Xeons with ECC memory support.

Meanwhile, AMD is holding a New Horizon event on Nov. 6, where it is expected to announce 64-core Epyc processors.

Related: AMD Epyc 7000-Series Launched With Up to 32 Cores
AVX-512: A "Hidden Gem"?
Intel's Skylake-SP vs AMD's Epyc
Intel Teases 28 Core Chip, AMD Announces Threadripper 2 With Up to 32 Cores
TSMC Will Make AMD's "7nm" Epyc Server CPUs
Intel Announces 9th Generation Desktop Processors, Including a Mainstream 8-Core CPU


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:07AM (2 children)

    by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:07AM (#746318)

    Wasn't it just about conclusively proven that hyper-threading had design-level flaws that resulted in security issues?

    Oh wait, I forget, that's all "operating as designed" and "Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world". I'll pass on Intel processors until they smarten up again, thanks.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:42AM (#746351)

      Which is obviously not compatible with security of said user against third parties.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:13PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:13PM (#746538) Journal

      I don't want hyper threading. I want more REAL cores.

      --
      In the name of the lollipop guild, we wish to welcome you to munchkin land!
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13AM (5 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13AM (#746321) Journal
    How about a single core that's properly documented and not defective by design?

    I'd actually pay money for that. But I don't think I'd trust Intel to manufacture it.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:55AM (#746387)

      Are you calling the ME behind every new Intel CPU defective? For shame. Don't you trust your government?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:29PM (3 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:29PM (#746398) Homepage

      Try OpenRISC or even some of the ARM microcontrollers that are now FGPA-able for free.

      Oops... you mean you want a top-performance, state-of-the-art, incredibly-expensive-to-manufacture, fully documented, bug-free, high-performance processor?

      Cheap, fast, secure, pick any two.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:12PM

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:12PM (#746482) Journal

        I don't think you get to pick two with either Intel or RISC.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:48PM

        by Freeman (732) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:48PM (#746496) Journal

        Literally, the only thing going for Intel in that list is Fast, because they certainly aren't cheap and their security was worse by design than AMD. I've been building my personal computers with AMD parts for a decade. All four of the machines I built are still functional, only thing that's gone out on a machine or two is the Graphics Card. In every instance, I was able to build my machine cheaper, and with better than I could have bought with Intel or pre-built of either. I also, got a bit lucky on my last build. I built it between the bitcoin/etherium craze, so my RAM and GPU weren't stupidly over priced. That was about two years ago. Also, Newegg is the goods. They may have some issues, but at least they try to deliver you quality product and give you the information you need to make a decision. Amazon has no equivalent filters that allow you to sort by Best Selling items or Most Reviewed items. Also, Amazon is stupid huge, and I try to avoid them when possible. Competition is good.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:52AM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:52AM (#747301) Journal
        "Cheap, fast, secure, pick any two."

        If only that were the case. It's actually pick one.

        But fast is easy to sacrifice, for me at least. I learned microcomputers in the era when a single core was a given, and clock speeds were measured by the hundredth of a MHz instead of hundredth of a GHz. So in theory I should be perfectly fine with cheap and secure, in fact overjoyed.

        Yeah, doesn't seem to be available. Seems like it's choose one. Granted values for 'fast' might vary.

        Ideally I'm looking for something fast enough to deal with shitty 'modern' code at an acceptable speed, see. I mean, I'm not at all afraid of finding a variable and fixing it and recompiling. But rewriting the entire shitty modern OS from scratch so it will run on, say, a 486 (which by all rights is perfectly capable of handling everything most people do with their PCs today, given the proper software) is the sort of thing I could easily make my life's work and still die without finishing.

        Especially because it's not like anyone is going to pay me to create sanity. Sanity is a dud, it doesn't monetize.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:46AM (13 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:46AM (#746324) Homepage Journal

    There cannot be such a thing as a "mainstream" 8-core CPU. Look at your average user - they have some application open that might make serious use of 1, or at most 2 cores. Toss in another one to handle background work by the OS, and you're done. Even then, those 2-3 cores will spend most of their time idle.

    As a technical user - yesterday I had half-a-dozen background tasks running, in addition to working normally - I was maybe making half-decent use of 4 cores. Realistically, though, my background tasks were limited by disk and/or network throughput, so the CPU was definitely not the limiting factor.

    tl;dr: WTF are all those cores supposed to do outside of a server? In the new Intel line-up, anything over the lowest two options will be completely wasted in any end-user device.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:48AM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:48AM (#746325) Journal

      Damn, knew i should have kept the scare quotes.

      Actually, you know what? I will write "mainstream 16-core" without scare quotes next year when AMD debuts it.

      And here's your mainstream use case... uh... streaming your video game in 4K while using Discord Facebook Messenger!

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Arik on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:51AM

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:51AM (#746326) Journal
      Nonsense.

      The extra 6.5 CPUs are for the nice chaps at MI5.

      You don't want the commies to win, do you?
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:06AM (3 children)

      by choose another one (515) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:06AM (#746344)

      > Look at your average user - they have some application open that might make serious use of 1, or at most 2 cores.

      And one of those applications will be a web browser, with multiple tabs open, almost guaranteed. And because today's ad-polluted web takes so fricken long to load a page (I swear pages loaded quicker when I had a 14.4k modem), many of them will still be loading pages while the user looks at another tab and then switches back when the page has, probably, loaded.

      Source - watching the kids, the wife, and jsut looking in front of me. Biggest CPU hog - chrome, biggest memory hog - chrome, tabs open - double figures, most of the damned time. God forbid chrome crashes, because reloading everything makes the machine unusable for several cups of coffee.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:47PM (#746409)

        Thanks to the whole webapps mentality, web browsers have become virtual machines.

        Never mind that CPUs are rarely utilized to capacity unless the dataset can fit inside cache.

        This because reading anything from ram, never mind HDD/SSD, will have the CPU sit idle for "ages".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:01AM (#746716)

        God forbid chrome crashes, because reloading everything makes the machine unusable for several cups of coffee.

        Sounds like you really need an SSD. Trust me, once you upgrade from an HDD, you can't go back. NAND flash is even almost reasonably priced by now.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:01AM (#748515)

        Step 1. Install Firefox
        Step 2. Install umatrix addon
        Step 3. Enjoy faster web experience

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:14PM (3 children)

      by richtopia (3160) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:14PM (#746416) Homepage Journal

      Then why are mobile processors cranking up the number of cores? It feels like all phones are octacore now, and while some of it may be bloat I can't imagine the budget phones shipping with any more than required.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:19PM (2 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:19PM (#746485)

        There is a battery benefit to staying in deep sleep as long as possible, then firing up the CPU to do everything that's waiting as fast as you can before going back to sleep.

        Which is totally irrelevant to the fact that "my phone has more core than yours, and higher benchmarks in games you don't play because you only check FB/twit/inst/porn, so it's better" is the actual driving force for more cores.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:01PM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:01PM (#746615) Journal

          Most phones have different cores for different purposes. For example, 4 performance cores and 4 lower power cores. Or 2 performance cores, 2-4 regular cores, and 4 lower power cores.

          DynamIQ is the successor to big.LITTLE [wikipedia.org] and can allow weirder configurations [anandtech.com]:

          Another big change is the ability to place up to 8 CPUs inside a single cluster (up from 4 for bL), with the total number of CPUs scaling up to 256 with 32 clusters, which can scale even further to 1000s of CPUs with multi-chip support provided via a CCIX interface. Within a cluster CPUs are divided into voltage/frequency domains, and within a domain each core is inside its own power domain. This allows each CPU to be individually powered down, although all CPUs in the same domain must operate at the same frequency, which is no different from bL; however, with DynamIQ each cluster can support up to 8 voltage/frequency domains, providing greater flexibility than bL’s single voltage/frequency domain per cluster. So, what does this mean? It means that, in theory, an SoC vendor could place each CPU into its own voltage domain so that voltage/frequency could be set independently for each of the 8 CPUs in the cluster. Each voltage/frequency domain requires its own voltage regulator, which adds cost and complexity, so we’ll most likely continue to see 2-4 CPUs per domain.

          ARM still sees 8-core configurations being used in mobile devices over the next few years. With bL, this would likely be a 4+4 pairing using 4 big cores and 4 little cores or 8 little cores spread across 2 clusters. With DynamIQ, all 8 cores can fit inside a single cluster and can be split into any combination (1+7, 2+6, 3+5, 4+4) of A75 and A55 cores. ARM sees the 1+7 configuration, where one A55 core is replaced by a big A75 core, as particularly appealing for the mid-range market, because it offers up to 2.41x better single-thread performance and 1.42x better multi-thread performance for only a 1.13x increase in die area compared to an octa-core A53 configuration (iso-process, iso-frequency).

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:49AM

      by toddestan (4982) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:49AM (#746785)

      By "mainstream" that means it fits into Intel's standard desktop socket, and not their stupidly expensive "charge more just because we can" workstation socket. On the other hand, that also means you lose features such as ECC. Though if you want ECC, I'm sure there's a Xeon somewhere in the lineup that's almost exactly the same but costs about three times as much.

    • (Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:04AM (1 child)

      by exaeta (6957) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:04AM (#746821) Homepage Journal

      Yeah no. Stay in the dark ages if you like, but programmers *should* write multithreaded code. The reason we haven't is laziness and lack of multicore systems. As core count rises, the benefits of multithreading will increase, which will result in multithreading becoming more common. The way forward is multithreading. Since we are hitting the shrinking limit, I also announce a new law: The number of cores on a "mainstream CPU" will double approximately every 2 years.

      In

      --
      The Government is a Bird
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:04AM (#748516)

        but powershell multithread support is quite basic at the moment so why bother just hammer it in one

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:47AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:47AM (#746336)

    Just like the previous generation of disappointing CPUs, these will not be available for months, or will carry hugely inflated prices. Intel cannot even keep up with the current demand for 8000 series CPUs.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:12AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:12AM (#746371)

    Lets face it: They don't have a solution so they're ignoring the problem.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ledow on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:39PM (1 child)

      by ledow (5567) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @12:39PM (#746404) Homepage

      Not really surprising, is it?

      All the Intel performance came from speculative execution - you were effectively following all paths after a decision and executing all the things you would do for both paths, but then just throwing away the "not used" result.

      That's been shown to be inherently flawed unless you apply the same security to your speculative executions as if you were really executing them anyway.

      That's gonna be a performance hit on anything - hence all the fixes are to basically "break" speculative execution, or remove the possibility, when the chips just go back to ordinary chips with no speculative execution. This is why hyper-threading is no longer recommended or even inside most new chips.

      You can make a chip, no doubt, that does the speculative execution properly. But that will require more die-space. Which means a complete redesign AND it's probably just easier at that point to make a chip without SE, but with entire extra cores, for the same price.

      People were warning about SE for years because they knew something like this would happen. And it's only really a bodge unless you're literally executing all paths "for real" and the "rollback" / contention etc. of the wrong path doesn't affect the speed of the right path at any point.

      Pretty much, the more "fancy tricks" you use to make your stuff go faster, the harder it bites further down the road. And without the fancy tricks and pretending, Intel chips are precisely THIS fast, with THIS many cores, and no fancy compiler/processor tricks take place.

      The solution can only be a complete redesign of all chips (which they won't have got close to doing), which will result in a larger/hotter chip to do the same job. Or they remove all the fancy junk, at the same cost, and give you slightly more cores at the same speed.

      It'll be 5-10 years before Intel chips progress again from a new design. At least. And even other manufacturer's aren't immune, and all because they played fast-and-loose with security when speculatively executing instructions.

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:01AM

        by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:01AM (#746845)

        Which means a complete redesign AND it's probably just easier at that point to make a chip without SE, but with entire extra cores, for the same price.

        Designing a chip without speculative execution that performs even half as good for general purpose loads is a hundred billion dollars problem that baffled Intel and HP with the Itanium and remains unsolved. Disabling hyperthreading in favor of more cores only address a very specific speculative execution vulnerability and only to some extent. The other fixes require recompilation and have a significant performance hit.

        Staying OoO, Intel/AMD/ARM are more likely to redesign their microarchitectures following SafeSpec [arxiv.org]. But it's still needs researching and is years away.

        Regardless, right now, they really don't have a solution that doesn't hit you with huge performance overheads.

        --
        compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:19PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @01:19PM (#746419) Homepage Journal

    As you know, I have a running war with the Fake News Media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the Intel community. And I just want to let you know, it's exactly the opposite -- exactly. I absolutely love what our Intel guys are doing with cyber. The new cyber that's coming out. The Teraflop cyber. We love Teraflop. And the kids -- the boys -- love it. Great Christmas gift for the boys. Santa's going to be bringing a lot of Teraflops this year. Merry Christmas!!!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @06:07AM (#748517)

      It's good to see such a distinguished person as yourself into cybering.
      If more people cybered the world would be a better place.
      Mainframe has had teraflops for years. You should look into it!

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by doke on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:49PM (2 children)

    by doke (6955) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:49PM (#746497)

    Intel is using NDA embargoes to block third party reviews of their new chip until the 19th. However, they commissioned and published their own review. To no one's surprise, that review has been shown to be highly biased. In my opinion, these actions show Intel's ethics can't be trusted.

    https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-gaming-benchmarks [pcgamesn.com]

    https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-9900k-benchmarks/ [techspot.com]

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/21950120 [patreon.com]

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday October 09 2018, @04:57PM (#746499) Journal

      Intel hasn't been trutworthy since 15+ years ago when they were...making offers OEMs couldn't refuse...not to use AMD products.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @10:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @10:48AM (#747847)

        The reason we have so few motherboard chipsets today is directly attributable to their handling of the Pentium launch in the early 90s and then finished with the PPro launch. Super Socket 7 was the community retaliation against that, but it only lasted until AMD bought the DEC assets and migrated to Alpha's EV6 bus and compatible chipsets, leaving those chipset manufacturers without technology they could license, design, and produce. As a result many chipset companies died out, the few that didn't find themselves with many technical glitches since they didn't have access to the same level of detail Intel/AMD had internally, and slowly the pool of companies producing them dwindled until only AMD, Intel, and Via remained, with some small showings by ALi/Nvidia(ULi?) before both gave up on their own chipset designs from the AM2/LGA775 era.

        Now chipsets and processors are innately tied together and replacement boards/cpus are single source, rather than multiple source like in the heyday of the 386 to k6-3 (Intel abandoning Socket 7 for Socket 8, Slot 1, and then Socket 370, despite all three using the same bus, which was incompatible with the Socket 7 bus, but intercompatible with adapters, like the PPro Overdrive chips, and Socket 370 to Slot 1 adapters prove.)

(1)