Cooler Master MasterBox Q500L review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Colorful iGame GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Advanced OC review
ASRock Z390 Steel Legend review
Corsair M55 RGB PRO gaming mouse review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Lexar NM600 NVMe M.2. SSD (480GB) review
Tech preview: Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - 7nm ZEN2
Patriot Viper VPN100 M2 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
Intel 8-core LGA1151 Processor For Z390 Could Be 14 nm Coffee Lake After All
Earlier last week we talked a little about the fact that Intel will be releasing another chipset called Z390 late this year. That is next to Coffee lake 6-core processors on the Z370 platform. Some new information appeared online, and the assumption that Z390 would be for 8-core 10nm Ice Lake products seems invalid.
To step that up, it seems to be the case that intel has an 8-core 14nm Coffee Lake processor in the works. The new information surfaced from an XTU errata log is showing change-log entry that reads out as "[CFL] Added support for 8,2 core,", see below. CFL obviously is short for Coffee Lake.
It would be an interesting move from Intel, as typically they design one desktop processor and base all models off from that one proc. To create an additional processor holding 8-cores is very unusual. If correct, this would be a 8-core/16-threaded part in the mainstream segment, and that would mean serious competition for AMD Ryzen 7.
Via: BenchLife.info, ComputerBase.de
Mystery solved: Z390 Chipset Will Support Intel 8-Core Processors - 09/17/2017 12:25 PM
Recently we posted a slide demonstrating the Z370 Platform transition chipset for Coffee Lake. Interestingly enough that slide revealed a Z390 chipset which was listed on there. As it turns out, Int...
New Intel 8-series chipset products in September - 07/19/2013 08:56 AM
Intel's 8-series chipsets, designed for Haswell-based processors, are seeing defects in their USB 3.0 feature, and although Intel has distributed fixed chipsets to motherboard and notebook players in...
ECS Intel 8-Series Motherboards - 05/16/2013 10:11 AM
ECS introduces the first Intel 8-Series Motherboards featuring the new 4th Generation Intel Core processor family for their new family of desktop motherboards Pro, Deluxe and Essentials. The new ECS (...
Intel 8-series "Lynx Point" Chipset Models - 04/26/2012 10:47 AM
With Ivy Bridge announcedlets take a look at next year's motherboard chipsets for the Shark Bay platform, as reported by vrzone: Intel's upcoming LGA-1150 Haswell CPUs will be quite different from the...
Intel 8-Core Sandy Bridge-EP Benchmarks - 11/28/2011 01:15 PM
Now that Intel has launched its first desktop processors based on the high-performance Sandy Bridge-E architecture, the chip maker is racing to get out the Xeon version of these CPUs and the first ben...
ladcrooks
Senior Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 2016-12-29
Senior Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 2016-12-29
#5473872 Posted on: 09/21/2017 06:51 AM
Maybe I'm getting too old but I'm with Agent. These conversations and debates are hard to read when half of it is either trolling or off-topic. Maybe I'm just no fun.
There, now I did it too. Meanwhile, I'm glad we're getting all these new processors from both teams. People complain about too many sockets but I never really understand the issue. I can count the number of times I've actually removed a CPU from a board to upgrade it on one hand. Typically, in my little world, a new CPU gets a new motherboard, every time.
this ^^^^
I am old. maybe that's why all these forums feel childish with there fanny inserts. Tired of it, but dont mind some humour :p
Maybe I'm getting too old but I'm with Agent. These conversations and debates are hard to read when half of it is either trolling or off-topic. Maybe I'm just no fun.
There, now I did it too. Meanwhile, I'm glad we're getting all these new processors from both teams. People complain about too many sockets but I never really understand the issue. I can count the number of times I've actually removed a CPU from a board to upgrade it on one hand. Typically, in my little world, a new CPU gets a new motherboard, every time.
this ^^^^
I am old. maybe that's why all these forums feel childish with there fanny inserts. Tired of it, but dont mind some humour :p
user1
Senior Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: 2016-01-29
Senior Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: 2016-01-29
#5473875 Posted on: 09/21/2017 07:06 AM
I dunno, intels strategy prevents amusing things like this
from existing, I mean what if i wanted to use an old athlon 64 x2 and then upgrade to an fx-8320e later.
all jokes aside, i think the many chipsets intel is pushing is more of a side effect of their internal issues, ie loss of DT cannonlake and them being forced to launch really early. z370 looks like it will get an upgrade path , so it shouldn't be that big of a deal , unless its very very flawed.
X299 however, I suspect will never get a 10nm cpu, seems really far behind, unless intel is intending to launch a surprise cannon lake X in 2018 , i don't see how it can remain relevant. 2014 intel tech vs 7nm zen cores in 2018/19 seems like a losing strategy to me,
If icelake DT is 2019, icelake HEDT seems very very far away, at which point x299 will be very very dead.
I dunno, intels strategy prevents amusing things like this
from existing, I mean what if i wanted to use an old athlon 64 x2 and then upgrade to an fx-8320e later.
all jokes aside, i think the many chipsets intel is pushing is more of a side effect of their internal issues, ie loss of DT cannonlake and them being forced to launch really early. z370 looks like it will get an upgrade path , so it shouldn't be that big of a deal , unless its very very flawed.
X299 however, I suspect will never get a 10nm cpu, seems really far behind, unless intel is intending to launch a surprise cannon lake X in 2018 , i don't see how it can remain relevant. 2014 intel tech vs 7nm zen cores in 2018/19 seems like a losing strategy to me,
If icelake DT is 2019, icelake HEDT seems very very far away, at which point x299 will be very very dead.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5473979 Posted on: 09/21/2017 12:56 PM
Without competition every companies does the same, even AMD... This doesn´t mean it´s the correct way of doing business but it´s just the way it is.
About Nvidia pushing performance forward while Intel´s performance has stagnated, we can´t forget we are comparing GPUs against CPUs. It´s much easier to increase GPU performance than CPU performance! Now Intel and AMD are increasing core counts to push performance but at some point that is going to end. And when that happens CPU performance is going to remain the same for the next years unless there´s some kind of breakthrough...
Agree to the first point.
No, it's not easier. Nvidia just went with the route of: let's make a bigger and more expensive die, like Intel is doing with their 18 cores for example. What will lead to? Poor yields and exorbitant prices.
I said in a thread not long ago that you shouldn't go past 300mm2 or so. Past a certain point you're just going to have too much yield problems and few working chips to divide the cost between. A company that designs a chip with that in mind will have the most profit and will be the more competitive, even if the product isn't king. I still can't see Polaris at MSRP here, they're terrible overpriced.
Without competition every companies does the same, even AMD... This doesn´t mean it´s the correct way of doing business but it´s just the way it is.
About Nvidia pushing performance forward while Intel´s performance has stagnated, we can´t forget we are comparing GPUs against CPUs. It´s much easier to increase GPU performance than CPU performance! Now Intel and AMD are increasing core counts to push performance but at some point that is going to end. And when that happens CPU performance is going to remain the same for the next years unless there´s some kind of breakthrough...
Agree to the first point.
No, it's not easier. Nvidia just went with the route of: let's make a bigger and more expensive die, like Intel is doing with their 18 cores for example. What will lead to? Poor yields and exorbitant prices.
I said in a thread not long ago that you shouldn't go past 300mm2 or so. Past a certain point you're just going to have too much yield problems and few working chips to divide the cost between. A company that designs a chip with that in mind will have the most profit and will be the more competitive, even if the product isn't king. I still can't see Polaris at MSRP here, they're terrible overpriced.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9159
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9159
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5473990 Posted on: 09/21/2017 01:11 PM
Agree to the first point.
No, it's not easier. Nvidia just went with the route of: let's make a bigger and more expensive die, like Intel is doing with their 18 cores for example. What will lead to? Poor yields and exorbitant prices.
I said in a thread not long ago that you shouldn't go past 300mm2 or so. Past a certain point you're just going to have too much yield problems and few working chips to divide the cost between. A company that designs a chip with that in mind will have the most profit and will be the more competitive, even if the product isn't king. I still can't see Polaris at MSRP here, they're terrible overpriced.
Honestly GPU prices have been kept at fairly low prices all things considered. There are very low margins on GPU's unlike CPU's where say a Vega 64/56 cost AMD around $300-350 to actually make, a R3,5,7 cost about $75 to make. Attacking GPU prices is a moot point. Now GPU's tend to be higher volume sales though than CPU's as most people that build PC's tend to do 2-3 GPU upgrades on a CPU.
What is going to increase GPU prices is that as the node shrinks continue the cost per transistors it now increasing not decreasing as before. I expect a across the board price increase with the next true node change from both AMD and Nvidia.
Agree to the first point.
No, it's not easier. Nvidia just went with the route of: let's make a bigger and more expensive die, like Intel is doing with their 18 cores for example. What will lead to? Poor yields and exorbitant prices.
I said in a thread not long ago that you shouldn't go past 300mm2 or so. Past a certain point you're just going to have too much yield problems and few working chips to divide the cost between. A company that designs a chip with that in mind will have the most profit and will be the more competitive, even if the product isn't king. I still can't see Polaris at MSRP here, they're terrible overpriced.
Honestly GPU prices have been kept at fairly low prices all things considered. There are very low margins on GPU's unlike CPU's where say a Vega 64/56 cost AMD around $300-350 to actually make, a R3,5,7 cost about $75 to make. Attacking GPU prices is a moot point. Now GPU's tend to be higher volume sales though than CPU's as most people that build PC's tend to do 2-3 GPU upgrades on a CPU.
What is going to increase GPU prices is that as the node shrinks continue the cost per transistors it now increasing not decreasing as before. I expect a across the board price increase with the next true node change from both AMD and Nvidia.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5474050 Posted on: 09/21/2017 03:47 PM
Honestly GPU prices have been kept at fairly low prices all things considered. There are very low margins on GPU's unlike CPU's where say a Vega 64/56 cost AMD around $300-350 to actually make, a R3,5,7 cost about $75 to make. Attacking GPU prices is a moot point. Now GPU's tend to be higher volume sales though than CPU's as most people that build PC's tend to do 2-3 GPU upgrades on a CPU.
What is going to increase GPU prices is that as the node shrinks continue the cost per transistors it now increasing not decreasing as before. I expect a across the board price increase with the next true node change from both AMD and Nvidia.
If they make the GPU die small enough, they can dilute the price increase of making the wafer over the number of chips made in it. The problem is: Nvidia started to make the die bigger and bigger to stay on top and that drives the price up too. The thing is: people buy them anyway so Nvidia didn't bother staying small.
RX580 is 232mm2 and 229MSRP
1060 is 200mm2 and 299MSRP
Who do you think is making more money per wafer?
A wafer is 300mm diameter right? That's 54 Polaris or 64 Pascal. Assuming 100% yields that's 700$ more per wafer for Nvidia.
This is gone too much of topic I believe.
Honestly GPU prices have been kept at fairly low prices all things considered. There are very low margins on GPU's unlike CPU's where say a Vega 64/56 cost AMD around $300-350 to actually make, a R3,5,7 cost about $75 to make. Attacking GPU prices is a moot point. Now GPU's tend to be higher volume sales though than CPU's as most people that build PC's tend to do 2-3 GPU upgrades on a CPU.
What is going to increase GPU prices is that as the node shrinks continue the cost per transistors it now increasing not decreasing as before. I expect a across the board price increase with the next true node change from both AMD and Nvidia.
If they make the GPU die small enough, they can dilute the price increase of making the wafer over the number of chips made in it. The problem is: Nvidia started to make the die bigger and bigger to stay on top and that drives the price up too. The thing is: people buy them anyway so Nvidia didn't bother staying small.
RX580 is 232mm2 and 229MSRP
1060 is 200mm2 and 299MSRP
Who do you think is making more money per wafer?
A wafer is 300mm diameter right? That's 54 Polaris or 64 Pascal. Assuming 100% yields that's 700$ more per wafer for Nvidia.
This is gone too much of topic I believe.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2014-06-07
Exactly. I just posted a lengthy diatribe in another article with the same point - every time I'm ready to upgrade a CPU, I'm definitely ready to upgrade my mobo/chipset/connections too. While I can upgrade a GPU everyt 2-4 years, I upgrade my CPU 5+ years...by that time there was always a dozen reasons to upgrade the MB. You have changes in everything from SATA, PCIe, RAM, LAN, USB, Wi-Fi, internal audio, etc. Chipsets have all sorts of extensions and support for the newest standards before they're eventually baked into the CPU. In my 20 years of building and using computers, I can't really ever remember a time where I wasn't just as excited to upgrade the MB as the CPU. Sure it'd be a nice possibility but it's far from The Greatest Injustice The World Has Ever Seen® (as many seem to think).