Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Hyte Y60 chassis review
Intel Shows 28-core processor die-shot
During its Technology and Manufacturing Day Intel has shared a slide of a server-processor with 28 cores. The die-shot as such must be the Skylake-SP series of products in the Xeon Platinum range.
Yes, Platinum. Each core would get 1024KB of L2 cache. The Xeon SKUs always have been segmented into a numeric schema, like the E5-2640 v5. Starting with the 8000 series the 22 to 28 core models will be the flagship products, these will be the Xeon Platinum series. The 14 to 22 core parts 5000 and 6000 series will be the gold models. The 4000 series on their end will get 10 cores, will be the Silver series.
The new processors will be based on a new socket (Yes intel LOVES new sockets) called LGA 3647. Earlier on a user on the Anandtech forums already posted the new lineup and specs on these processors, though that remains unconfirmed information. It is unclear yet when Intel will announce the new Xeon processors.
Intel Shows Optane SSD writing at 2GB per second - 04/16/2016 10:33 AM
Over at IDF in China a prototype of an Optane SSD from Intel has been showing some staggering numbers. The SSD is based on 3D XPoint storage technology and while copying a 25GB file it did so at 2 GB/...
Intel shows Core i7-6950X specs at 3,5GHz and 25MB cache - 04/04/2016 10:34 AM
Intel posted info on their Core i7-6950X over the weekend on their website. The 10-core processor will get a 3,5GHz base clock and 25MB cache. Other then some snippets of info, nothing specific is m...
Intel shows Broadwell, Quark and new phone SoCs - 09/11/2013 08:56 AM
At the Intel developper forum CEO Brian Krzanich exposed a preview upcoming chips. 14nm Broadwell processor will start ship to Intel's customomers at the end of the year and will be available to con...
Intel Shows New Technologies for Efficient Cloud Datacenters - 09/05/2013 08:56 AM
Intel Corporation today introduced a portfolio of datacenter products and technologies for cloud service providers looking to drive greater efficiency and flexibility into their infrastructure to supp...
Intel shows first fully patterned 450mm wafer - 01/22/2013 10:04 AM
Intel presented world's first fully patterned 450mm wafer at last week's SEMI Industry Strategy Symposium. No further details were shared by Intel at the event but previous reports indicate the chip...
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11568
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11568
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5413681 Posted on: 03/29/2017 04:24 PM
Only working idiots or spoiled brats care about Intel nowadays tbh. An idiotic overpriced company. They only want us pay more for less each new generation. Their innovation skills are not equal to their R&D size. But, whatever, move on...
You have a pretty closed mind.
Basically you're saying anyone who has money is an idiot... Well newsflash
.
Intel is still the best performing. Now whether that's worth the cost to someone that's another story.
Only working idiots or spoiled brats care about Intel nowadays tbh. An idiotic overpriced company. They only want us pay more for less each new generation. Their innovation skills are not equal to their R&D size. But, whatever, move on...You have a pretty closed mind.
Basically you're saying anyone who has money is an idiot... Well newsflash
.
Intel is still the best performing. Now whether that's worth the cost to someone that's another story.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5413687 Posted on: 03/29/2017 04:34 PM
I find it funny too lol I mean these are enterprise grade sever parts not something anyone here is buying for there little desktop computer at home lol
I see no problem with a new socket for consumer grade processors every other gen either tbh
I've stated in the past how the Guru3D reader-base doesn't understand enterprise-grade hardware and that articles like this should probably be avoided for that very reason (I doubt Intel appreciates the negative publicity), though I've been told off for making such statements.
Personally, I do see a problem with new consumer-grade sockets every other gen. If making a new socket is a necessity then by all means go for it. But I have a very hard time believing Intel needed a new socket for the CPUs that fit in 1155, 2011, and 1150. As for 1151, I'll give that a pass, since that was transitioning to DDR4.
Meanwhile, look at what AMD accomplished - if you have an AM3 (non-plus) CPU, that can fit in AM2+, AM3, AM3+, and some some cases, AM2 boards. These are not pin-identical, and, this goes from DDR2 to DDR3. Based on release dates of the sockets themselves, that's a range of roughly 5 years. If you take into account when AM3+ was superseded by AM4, that would be 11 years. That's impressive. Sure, AM3 CPUs were a slower than their Intel counterparts, but not by a wide margin. In another perspective, AMD also had at least 2 completely different architectures compatible with socket AM3+.
Intel has the funding to make a socket last, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they have a deal with motherboard manufacturers where they're expected to break compatibility in order to increase sales. If Intel went AMD's route, motherboard manufacturers would likely lose tens of millions of dollars every year. Think of it in this way: motherboard manufacturers maybe give Intel a small bribe for making a new socket, allowing them to make an entire set of sales when Intel releases a new CPU. As for Intel - they don't care. They have their own fabrication facilities so it's not like they have to pay a 3rd party a hefty price for changing designs. They're going to make sales whether they change the socket or not, so the little bribe they get from the motherboard manufacturers likely pay for the expense of changing things up. In the end, it's a win-win for both companies. The consumer never knows the secrets behind these designs, so they'll never know if the change in socket was ever a necessity.
I find it funny too lol I mean these are enterprise grade sever parts not something anyone here is buying for there little desktop computer at home lol
I see no problem with a new socket for consumer grade processors every other gen either tbh
I've stated in the past how the Guru3D reader-base doesn't understand enterprise-grade hardware and that articles like this should probably be avoided for that very reason (I doubt Intel appreciates the negative publicity), though I've been told off for making such statements.
Personally, I do see a problem with new consumer-grade sockets every other gen. If making a new socket is a necessity then by all means go for it. But I have a very hard time believing Intel needed a new socket for the CPUs that fit in 1155, 2011, and 1150. As for 1151, I'll give that a pass, since that was transitioning to DDR4.
Meanwhile, look at what AMD accomplished - if you have an AM3 (non-plus) CPU, that can fit in AM2+, AM3, AM3+, and some some cases, AM2 boards. These are not pin-identical, and, this goes from DDR2 to DDR3. Based on release dates of the sockets themselves, that's a range of roughly 5 years. If you take into account when AM3+ was superseded by AM4, that would be 11 years. That's impressive. Sure, AM3 CPUs were a slower than their Intel counterparts, but not by a wide margin. In another perspective, AMD also had at least 2 completely different architectures compatible with socket AM3+.
Intel has the funding to make a socket last, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they have a deal with motherboard manufacturers where they're expected to break compatibility in order to increase sales. If Intel went AMD's route, motherboard manufacturers would likely lose tens of millions of dollars every year. Think of it in this way: motherboard manufacturers maybe give Intel a small bribe for making a new socket, allowing them to make an entire set of sales when Intel releases a new CPU. As for Intel - they don't care. They have their own fabrication facilities so it's not like they have to pay a 3rd party a hefty price for changing designs. They're going to make sales whether they change the socket or not, so the little bribe they get from the motherboard manufacturers likely pay for the expense of changing things up. In the end, it's a win-win for both companies. The consumer never knows the secrets behind these designs, so they'll never know if the change in socket was ever a necessity.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9800
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9800
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5413689 Posted on: 03/29/2017 04:43 PM
If you were happy with the 2600k, why should you need to upgrade your processor to benefit from other peripheral upgrades like M.2 slots and the like. Sure, you'd need to buy a new motherboard, but Intel's frequent socket changes is what ties the chipset upgrade with a CPU upgrade, a tie that doesn't need to exist. The last umpteen Intel processor updates have maintained the same DMI chipset connection, yet Intel's frequent socket swapping effectively forces CPU upgrades when all you might want is a upgrade to USB 3 or M.2.
Sure, Skylake brought DDR4, that likely warrants a socket upgrade. Yet compare LGA1155 and LGA1150, and there is very little change in supported technologies. Ivy Bridge supported DDR3, PCI-E 3.0, so did Haswell. But if you wanted things like M.2 which started coming in with the Z97 chipset, you needed Haswell, even though m.2 functionality is independent on the processor as they both support the same chipset connection.
Reality is, Intel most likely could have made the Z97 chipset support LGA1151, allowing you to keep your 2600k and still take advantage of newer technologies like M.2 and more USB3 ports. But doing that wouldn't force people to buy a new processor, so less money for Intel.
I've stated in the past how the Guru3D reader-base doesn't understand enterprise-grade hardware and that articles like this should probably be avoided for that very reason (I doubt Intel appreciates the negative publicity), though I've been told off for making such statements.
Personally, I do see a problem with new consumer-grade sockets every other gen. If making a new socket is a necessity then by all means go for it. But I have a very hard time believing Intel needed a new socket for the CPUs that fit in 1155, 2011, and 1150. As for 1151, I'll give that a pass, since that was transitioning to DDR4.
Meanwhile, look at what AMD accomplished - if you have an AM3 (non-plus) CPU, that can fit in AM2+, AM3, AM3+, and some some cases, AM2 boards. These are not pin-identical, and, this goes from DDR2 to DDR3. Based on release dates of the sockets themselves, that's a range of roughly 5 years. If you take into account when AM3+ was superseded by AM4, that would be 11 years. That's impressive. Sure, AM3 CPUs were a slower than their Intel counterparts, but not by a wide margin. In another perspective, AMD also had at least 2 completely different architectures compatible with socket AM3+.
Intel has the funding to make a socket last, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they have a deal with motherboard manufacturers where they're expected to break compatibility in order to increase sales. If Intel went AMD's route, motherboard manufacturers would likely lose tens of millions of dollars every year. Think of it in this way: motherboard manufacturers maybe give Intel a small bribe for making a new socket, allowing them to make an entire set of sales when Intel releases a new CPU. As for Intel - they don't care. They have their own fabrication facilities so it's not like they have to pay a 3rd party a hefty price for changing designs. They're going to make sales whether they change the socket or not, so the little bribe they get from the motherboard manufacturers likely pay for the expense of changing things up. In the end, it's a win-win for both companies. The consumer never knows the secrets behind these designs, so they'll never know if the change in socket was ever a necessity.
So witch is it? Intel making the killing or the MB manufacturers. You two contradict each other.
If you were happy with the 2600k, why should you need to upgrade your processor to benefit from other peripheral upgrades like M.2 slots and the like. Sure, you'd need to buy a new motherboard, but Intel's frequent socket changes is what ties the chipset upgrade with a CPU upgrade, a tie that doesn't need to exist. The last umpteen Intel processor updates have maintained the same DMI chipset connection, yet Intel's frequent socket swapping effectively forces CPU upgrades when all you might want is a upgrade to USB 3 or M.2.
Sure, Skylake brought DDR4, that likely warrants a socket upgrade. Yet compare LGA1155 and LGA1150, and there is very little change in supported technologies. Ivy Bridge supported DDR3, PCI-E 3.0, so did Haswell. But if you wanted things like M.2 which started coming in with the Z97 chipset, you needed Haswell, even though m.2 functionality is independent on the processor as they both support the same chipset connection.
Reality is, Intel most likely could have made the Z97 chipset support LGA1151, allowing you to keep your 2600k and still take advantage of newer technologies like M.2 and more USB3 ports. But doing that wouldn't force people to buy a new processor, so less money for Intel.
I've stated in the past how the Guru3D reader-base doesn't understand enterprise-grade hardware and that articles like this should probably be avoided for that very reason (I doubt Intel appreciates the negative publicity), though I've been told off for making such statements.
Personally, I do see a problem with new consumer-grade sockets every other gen. If making a new socket is a necessity then by all means go for it. But I have a very hard time believing Intel needed a new socket for the CPUs that fit in 1155, 2011, and 1150. As for 1151, I'll give that a pass, since that was transitioning to DDR4.
Meanwhile, look at what AMD accomplished - if you have an AM3 (non-plus) CPU, that can fit in AM2+, AM3, AM3+, and some some cases, AM2 boards. These are not pin-identical, and, this goes from DDR2 to DDR3. Based on release dates of the sockets themselves, that's a range of roughly 5 years. If you take into account when AM3+ was superseded by AM4, that would be 11 years. That's impressive. Sure, AM3 CPUs were a slower than their Intel counterparts, but not by a wide margin. In another perspective, AMD also had at least 2 completely different architectures compatible with socket AM3+.
Intel has the funding to make a socket last, but, it wouldn't surprise me if they have a deal with motherboard manufacturers where they're expected to break compatibility in order to increase sales. If Intel went AMD's route, motherboard manufacturers would likely lose tens of millions of dollars every year. Think of it in this way: motherboard manufacturers maybe give Intel a small bribe for making a new socket, allowing them to make an entire set of sales when Intel releases a new CPU. As for Intel - they don't care. They have their own fabrication facilities so it's not like they have to pay a 3rd party a hefty price for changing designs. They're going to make sales whether they change the socket or not, so the little bribe they get from the motherboard manufacturers likely pay for the expense of changing things up. In the end, it's a win-win for both companies. The consumer never knows the secrets behind these designs, so they'll never know if the change in socket was ever a necessity.
So witch is it? Intel making the killing or the MB manufacturers. You two contradict each other.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6564
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5413694 Posted on: 03/29/2017 04:50 PM
There is no contradiction - like I said in my post, both Intel and the mobo companies will return a profit. Both of them have to spend a little extra in design changes, but that's worth it if it ensures both sides make sales. Without changing the socket, only Intel will profit. If Intel kept the same socket for most of their consumer-level DDR3 CPUs, mobo manufacturers would be at a massive loss, because nobody would need to buy a new board when upgrading the CPU. Since Intel isn't really in a position to anger mobo companies, they likely made a deal to change things up once in a while.
So witch is it? Intel making the killing or the MB manufacturers. You two contradict each other.
There is no contradiction - like I said in my post, both Intel and the mobo companies will return a profit. Both of them have to spend a little extra in design changes, but that's worth it if it ensures both sides make sales. Without changing the socket, only Intel will profit. If Intel kept the same socket for most of their consumer-level DDR3 CPUs, mobo manufacturers would be at a massive loss, because nobody would need to buy a new board when upgrading the CPU. Since Intel isn't really in a position to anger mobo companies, they likely made a deal to change things up once in a while.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Joined: 2012-10-22