SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recently, Intel was rumored to be releasing 10 and 12 core "Core i9" CPUs to compete with AMD's 10-16 core "Threadripper" CPUs. Now, Intel has confirmed these as well as 14, 16, and 18 core Skylake-X CPUs. Every CPU with 6 or more cores appears to support quad-channel DDR4:
| Intel Core | Cores/Threads | Price | $/core |
|---|---|---|---|
| i9-7980XE | 18/36 | $1,999 | $111 |
| i9-7960X | 16/32 | $1,699 | $106 |
| i9-7940X | 14/28 | $1,399 | $100 |
| i9-7920X | 12/24 | $1,199 | $100 |
| i9-7900X | 10/20 | $999 | $100 |
| i7-7820X | 8/16 | $599 | $75 |
| i7-7800X | 6/12 | $389 | $65 |
| i7-7740X | 4/8 | $339 | $85 |
| i7-7640X | 4/4 | $242 | $61 (less threads) |
Last year at Computex, the flagship Broadwell-E enthusiast chip was launched: the 10-core i7-6950X at $1,723. Today at Computex, the 10-core i9-7900X costs $999, and the 16-core i9-7960X costs $1,699. Clearly, AMD's Ryzen CPUs have forced Intel to become competitive.
Although the pricing of AMD's 10-16 core Threadripper CPUs is not known yet, the 8-core Ryzen R7 launched at $500 (available now for about $460). The Intel i7-7820X has 8 cores for $599, and will likely have better single-threaded performance than the AMD equivalent. So while Intel's CPUs are still more expensive than AMD's, they may have similar price/performance.
For what it's worth, Intel also announced quad-core Kaby Lake-X processors.
Welcome to the post-quad-core era. Will you be getting any of these chips?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:06PM
May as well thank vmware Inc, because as long as they continue to license on per CPU chip basis we're gonna get ever more cores per chip.
Its not really all that unfair; fundamentally computer power is heat, and two i7-7740X will cost twice the licensing costs as one i7-7820X but will generate about twice the heat or twice the long term processing thru-put or however you want to phrase it. Obviously for identical mfgr processes, each flipped bit makes a little heat so 200 watts of flipped bits is twice the productivity of 100 watts of flipped bits. So I'm curious what the workload is for 18, 20, 32, 64 cores that are not very busy at all but somehow are all in use even at some low thermally limited level.
I've noticed a bifurcation where years ago I'd get like a gig for a virtual image and feel happy about it and very financially productive with it, and nothing has really changed. However in support software the latest vcenter appliance with vsphere and all that junk somehow takes about 14 gigs of ram just to boot up, which seems a bit extreme. I was playing with virtualized networking and thats also extremely memory hungry, a couple distributed switches and some other junk and suddenly I'm using like 10 gigs of ram just for virtualized network appliances, which seems pretty messed up. So anyway my point is something that makes, oh, say 128 gigs of ram cheap and convenient and universal is probably more exciting for me than 18 cores, 17 of which will be thermally limited such that I only get 1 cores worth of thruput anyway.