EK Classic RGB P240 review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
Intel Comet Lake 10 Core Procs in 2020 - Socket 1200?
One does wonder where these roadmaps come from. Over at XFastest a new one was posted, indicating that the procs mentioned yesterday will not arrive before 2020. Comet Lake does have a design with a maximum of 10 cores and 20 threads, the pin count now is rumored to be LGA 1200.
The information got provided to XF though an anonymous email and did not indicate a source, so take all this with a good pinch of salt again. The form and style of the slides certainly do match previous Intel media decks. The images show an up to 10 cores and 20 threads proc series, Wi-Fi 802.11ax, RST 17, and more. The socket would be LGA 1200, the highest TDP 125W and all that would be paired with an Intel 400 chipset.
The unconfirmed slide shows Comet Lake will be launched in the first quarter of 2020, but it does not list the detailed model of the processors, nor can it verify or confirm the authenticity of the i9-10900KF model. I am just posting this as-is. Have a peek at the slides, courtesy of XFastest.
$749 Ryzen 9 3950X Beats $2000 Intel Core i9-9980XE (18-core) in Geekbench Test - 06/13/2019 03:07 PM
AMD is on track releasing some interesting new processors, at this weeks announcements you've learned about the Ryzen 9 3950X. A Geekbench test surfaced, and guess what? The processor giving a $2,00...
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: Overclocked to 5 GHz Allcore faster than Intel Core i9 - 06/13/2019 09:01 AM
You've been able to read up on a lot of news and article about the pending Ryzon Series 3000 processors. The one proc that made a lot of news is, of course, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, however at the eve...
Intel Core processor with 10.000 naming Shows up - 04/30/2019 09:06 AM
Yes, what if you run out of series numbers like Core i9 9900K? Move another digit or go back to the drawing board with a new naming? Well, it appears Intel will be doing the first and could be using a...
Intel combines Optane memory and Intel QLC 3D NAND storage - 04/10/2019 07:36 PM
Intel released details about a new SSD called Optane H10. This is not just an SSD as it uses both Intel's QLC flash memory and 3D Xpoint (also known as Optane). Available in m.2 format, and uses the ...
Intel Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650 Perfs leaks though marketing material - 04/08/2019 12:56 PM
In the Asia region, a number of presentation slides have leaked, they originate from MSI and shows some numbers based on a laptop with the pending Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650....
Ricardo
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2019-04-26
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 2019-04-26
#5690284 Posted on: 07/11/2019 06:15 PM
10 cores would be under the 12 that AMD already offers at very respectable single-core performance. Not to mention that 2020 is supposed to be the year when zen 3 launches, so there's even the possibility that these 10 cores will be put against faster 16 core processors.
Considering the fact that Comet Lake is 14+++nm, I think this will be DOA, unless there's some very deep price cuts and they can somehow squeeze even more performance from their 14nm process. I mean, they've been doing it for what, 5 years now? How much more refined can it get?
10 cores would be under the 12 that AMD already offers at very respectable single-core performance. Not to mention that 2020 is supposed to be the year when zen 3 launches, so there's even the possibility that these 10 cores will be put against faster 16 core processors.
Considering the fact that Comet Lake is 14+++nm, I think this will be DOA, unless there's some very deep price cuts and they can somehow squeeze even more performance from their 14nm process. I mean, they've been doing it for what, 5 years now? How much more refined can it get?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9316
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9316
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5690305 Posted on: 07/11/2019 07:20 PM
Oh how little I care at this point. Until they get 10nm to work or scrap in favor of 7nm I don’t care to see another product from Intel.
Oh how little I care at this point. Until they get 10nm to work or scrap in favor of 7nm I don’t care to see another product from Intel.
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 15521
Joined: 2009-02-25
Senior Member
Posts: 15521
Joined: 2009-02-25
#5690322 Posted on: 07/11/2019 07:51 PM
Isn't Intel's process more refined though the 10nm process seems to have been incredibly troubled and I don't know how Intel anticipated AMD's Zen, Zen+ and current Zen2 architecture and how it would stack up.
Then again the nm stuff is mostly marketing anyway from what I recall and for users it's more about features and performance, pricing too of course and then things like sockets and getting a fan or water kit mount and of course motherboards and all that stuff.
Guessing Intel will also start doing something about the various exploits and potential performance issues from workarounds and fixes here but no idea if that's 2020 or later and who knows what sort of hardware changes will be needed.
EDIT:
"Isn't Intel's process more refined...they've sure had a lot of issues with it though."
*Thumbsup*
Yeah..about that.
Isn't Intel's process more refined though the 10nm process seems to have been incredibly troubled and I don't know how Intel anticipated AMD's Zen, Zen+ and current Zen2 architecture and how it would stack up.
Then again the nm stuff is mostly marketing anyway from what I recall and for users it's more about features and performance, pricing too of course and then things like sockets and getting a fan or water kit mount and of course motherboards and all that stuff.
Guessing Intel will also start doing something about the various exploits and potential performance issues from workarounds and fixes here but no idea if that's 2020 or later and who knows what sort of hardware changes will be needed.
EDIT:
"Isn't Intel's process more refined...they've sure had a lot of issues with it though."
*Thumbsup*
Yeah..about that.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5690352 Posted on: 07/11/2019 09:03 PM
Why exactly does pin count matter? Most of the pins in a CPU are ground, voltage, and dummies. If the CPU's wattage decreases, you can actually shrink the pin count, rather than add more. And what are you going to do with 40 PCIe lanes on a mainstream platform?
I just want to see something that's actually new and interesting. By the time Comet Lake comes out, it'll have been 5 years since we've seen something mildly interesting, in a good way. I say "mildly" because going from Haswell to Skylake wasn't a big jump, but, at least it actually had noteworthy changes.
As far as I'm concerned, Intel's 10nm has been ready over a year ago, but they can't switch to it because they can't achieve high enough clock speeds on it. Right now, high clocks (both for core and memory) and single-threaded performance is where Intel has the most leverage over AMD, otherwise, they're pretty much worse in every other way (I'm not sure if Zen2's AVX performance is caught up with Intel's or not, but, most things don't need AVX). The gains from shrinking by 4nm isn't going to make up for the performance losses.
I'll sure buy one more iteration of Skylake with 10 (20) cores but not until it matches or exceeds Socket AM4+ pin count, with 1350 pins minimum and 40 PCIe lanes direct from the CPU... oh wait, that's LGA2066 and Core i9-9900X. OK then, so probably never.
Why exactly does pin count matter? Most of the pins in a CPU are ground, voltage, and dummies. If the CPU's wattage decreases, you can actually shrink the pin count, rather than add more. And what are you going to do with 40 PCIe lanes on a mainstream platform?
Oh how little I care at this point. Until they get 10nm to work or scrap in favor of 7nm I don’t care to see another product from Intel.
I just want to see something that's actually new and interesting. By the time Comet Lake comes out, it'll have been 5 years since we've seen something mildly interesting, in a good way. I say "mildly" because going from Haswell to Skylake wasn't a big jump, but, at least it actually had noteworthy changes.
As far as I'm concerned, Intel's 10nm has been ready over a year ago, but they can't switch to it because they can't achieve high enough clock speeds on it. Right now, high clocks (both for core and memory) and single-threaded performance is where Intel has the most leverage over AMD, otherwise, they're pretty much worse in every other way (I'm not sure if Zen2's AVX performance is caught up with Intel's or not, but, most things don't need AVX). The gains from shrinking by 4nm isn't going to make up for the performance losses.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1597
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1597
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5690395 Posted on: 07/11/2019 10:50 PM
Is it so that Intel won't switch to a new architecture (would be about the time) before they can make the CPUs using the smaller process technology? So, if they can't get it up, they will just keep refining the old Core arch, and increase the core count by two, the MHz by 200, or something.
Is it so that Intel won't switch to a new architecture (would be about the time) before they can make the CPUs using the smaller process technology? So, if they can't get it up, they will just keep refining the old Core arch, and increase the core count by two, the MHz by 200, or something.
karma777police
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 2018-08-17
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 2018-08-17
#5690397 Posted on: 07/11/2019 10:53 PM
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
asturur
Senior Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 2010-05-12
Senior Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 2010-05-12
#5690474 Posted on: 07/12/2019 07:59 AM
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
Seems an extreme plan.
This would be everything but not smart.
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
Seems an extreme plan.
This would be everything but not smart.
NCC1701D
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 2015-05-20
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 2015-05-20
#5690641 Posted on: 07/12/2019 05:44 PM
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5690649 Posted on: 07/12/2019 05:58 PM
That's pretty much exactly why I made my comment about Intel's 10nm being ready, but not capable of sustaining the high clock speeds. There's only so much you can do to force physics to behave the way you want. Intel can make 10nm chips but because of stuff like quantum tunneling, they can't push the voltage high enough to maintain the clock speeds people are expecting. And since they aren't doing anything to improve IPC (beyond shrinking the die by 4nm), it doesn't make sense to release any high-end or overclockable chips because the overall performance will be worse than their existing 14nm node.
Ironically, they've just been digging themselves into a deeper hole by bumping up the clocks every generation they couldn't get 10nm out the door.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
That's pretty much exactly why I made my comment about Intel's 10nm being ready, but not capable of sustaining the high clock speeds. There's only so much you can do to force physics to behave the way you want. Intel can make 10nm chips but because of stuff like quantum tunneling, they can't push the voltage high enough to maintain the clock speeds people are expecting. And since they aren't doing anything to improve IPC (beyond shrinking the die by 4nm), it doesn't make sense to release any high-end or overclockable chips because the overall performance will be worse than their existing 14nm node.
Ironically, they've just been digging themselves into a deeper hole by bumping up the clocks every generation they couldn't get 10nm out the door.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12314
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12314
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5690652 Posted on: 07/12/2019 06:03 PM
It's semi related. Cell libraries can be optimized for switching speed, density, power, etc. Critical path weighting/optimization becomes a big factor too - keeping the entire chip in sync, designing stages for that, etc. Typically a transistor can switch a lot faster then what a processors rated clockspeed but everything else keeps it limited.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
It's semi related. Cell libraries can be optimized for switching speed, density, power, etc. Critical path weighting/optimization becomes a big factor too - keeping the entire chip in sync, designing stages for that, etc. Typically a transistor can switch a lot faster then what a processors rated clockspeed but everything else keeps it limited.
DmitryKo
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 2011-08-08
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 2011-08-08
#5690761 Posted on: 07/13/2019 12:40 AM
Why exactly does pin count matter?
what are you going to do with 40 PCIe lanes on a mainstream platform?
I was basically saying that even though Intel obviously planned their response for Zen2 announcement well in advance, yet they probably underestimated the impact and underdelivered on the Comet Lake specs. So it would probably take them another iteration in the form of Tiger Lake silicon (Willow Cove architecture) to get closer to AMD SocketAM4+ which I suppose comes with Zen3/Zen4 and introduces DDR5 memory - and match AMD's 1350+ pin count too
As for PCIe lanes, everything is PCIe these days - SSDs, video cards, chipset links, even flash memory cards (QXD/CFexpress and SD Express), as well as USB4/Thunderbolt and DisplayPort 2.0. The old days when chipset was handling DRAM, expansion cards and all kinds of legacy BIOS 'super I/O' (for COM LPT PS/2 8254 FDD PATA PCI etc. based on LPC bus) will soon be gone. Yes, say goodbye to booting your 1987 DOS 3.3 USB-floppy images.
Honestly we don't even need a chipset anymore - all we need is PCIe to connect our peripheral devices directly to the processor. 16x videocard, x8 expansion slot, 4 x1 expansion cards, x1 2.5G Ethernet port, 3 x4 M.2 /SATA RAID, 8x USB4/Thunderbolt and USB3/USB2 ports... here go your 40 PCIe lanes offered by mainstream AMD X570 chipset (itself a scaled-down version of EPYC 'Matisse' I/O die).
Why exactly does pin count matter?
what are you going to do with 40 PCIe lanes on a mainstream platform?
I was basically saying that even though Intel obviously planned their response for Zen2 announcement well in advance, yet they probably underestimated the impact and underdelivered on the Comet Lake specs. So it would probably take them another iteration in the form of Tiger Lake silicon (Willow Cove architecture) to get closer to AMD SocketAM4+ which I suppose comes with Zen3/Zen4 and introduces DDR5 memory - and match AMD's 1350+ pin count too
As for PCIe lanes, everything is PCIe these days - SSDs, video cards, chipset links, even flash memory cards (QXD/CFexpress and SD Express), as well as USB4/Thunderbolt and DisplayPort 2.0. The old days when chipset was handling DRAM, expansion cards and all kinds of legacy BIOS 'super I/O' (for COM LPT PS/2 8254 FDD PATA PCI etc. based on LPC bus) will soon be gone. Yes, say goodbye to booting your 1987 DOS 3.3 USB-floppy images.
Honestly we don't even need a chipset anymore - all we need is PCIe to connect our peripheral devices directly to the processor. 16x videocard, x8 expansion slot, 4 x1 expansion cards, x1 2.5G Ethernet port, 3 x4 M.2 /SATA RAID, 8x USB4/Thunderbolt and USB3/USB2 ports... here go your 40 PCIe lanes offered by mainstream AMD X570 chipset (itself a scaled-down version of EPYC 'Matisse' I/O die).
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5690773 Posted on: 07/13/2019 01:35 AM
I get what you're saying, but you can't use pin count as a way to determine that. I don't disagree that it'll take another iteration for them to really catch up, but pin count is not a good/reliable metric for performance.
Sure, but how often do you find yourself running out bandwidth or lanes? In a lot of cases, motherboards use PCIe multiplexers for on-board 3rd-party controllers like ethernet, audio, more USB controllers, or more SATA ports, because most of those things don't need that much bandwidth. Sometimes they'll even use multiplexers for x1 slots. If you really need all those extra lanes, a mainstream platform like socket AM4, 1151, or 1200 isn't meant for you.
Why stop there? Why not just solder the CPU to the motherboard?
I was basically saying that even though Intel obviously planned their response for Zen2 announcement well in advance, yet they probably underestimated the impact and underdelivered on the Comet Lake specs. So it would probably take them another iteration in the form of Tiger Lake silicon (Willow Cove architecture) to get closer to AMD SocketAM4+ which I suppose comes with Zen3/Zen4 and introduces DDR5 memory - and match AMD's 1350+ pin count too
I get what you're saying, but you can't use pin count as a way to determine that. I don't disagree that it'll take another iteration for them to really catch up, but pin count is not a good/reliable metric for performance.
As for PCIe lanes, everything is PCIe these days
Sure, but how often do you find yourself running out bandwidth or lanes? In a lot of cases, motherboards use PCIe multiplexers for on-board 3rd-party controllers like ethernet, audio, more USB controllers, or more SATA ports, because most of those things don't need that much bandwidth. Sometimes they'll even use multiplexers for x1 slots. If you really need all those extra lanes, a mainstream platform like socket AM4, 1151, or 1200 isn't meant for you.
Honestly we don't even need a chipset anymore - all we need is PCIe to connect our peripheral devices directly to the processor. 16x videocard, x8 expansion slot, 4 x1 expansion cards, x1 2.5G Ethernet port, 3 x4 M.2 /SATA RAID, 8x USB4/Thunderbolt and USB3/USB2 ports... here go your 40 PCIe lanes offered by mainstream AMD X570 chipset (itself a scaled-down version of EPYC 'Matisse' I/O die).
Why stop there? Why not just solder the CPU to the motherboard?
DmitryKo
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 2011-08-08
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 2011-08-08
#5690783 Posted on: 07/13/2019 02:15 AM
Right now, I've just added an M.2 PCIe x4 adapter card with an NVMe SSD to a second x16 slot on my motherboard, but I cannot install a USB3.0 controller card because the only spare PCIe x1 slot is obstructed by 2-slot cooling system of my video card, and the rest of my slots are conventional PCI.
As I said, Socket AM4 offers up to 40 PCIe lanes with AMD X570 chipset. Isn't that a 'mainstream' platform?
Last time I checked, motherboard makers are different entities from CPU makers, so what would be their incentive to offer such packages for the traditional desktop?
Of course there are embedded all-in-one desktop and headless server motherboards where the CPUs come in BGA packages and they are indeed soldered to the motherboard.
The point was that AMD EPYC CPUs do not require a chipset even in multiprocessor motherboards, they have all the necessary I/O on board.
pin count is not a good/reliable metric for performance
I was talking about features, like PCIe/SATA/USB lanes direct from the processor, which allow you to only upgrade the processor but leave the system board and memory.how often do you find yourself running out bandwidth or lanes?
Right now, I've just added an M.2 PCIe x4 adapter card with an NVMe SSD to a second x16 slot on my motherboard, but I cannot install a USB3.0 controller card because the only spare PCIe x1 slot is obstructed by 2-slot cooling system of my video card, and the rest of my slots are conventional PCI.
If you really need all those extra lanes, a mainstream platform like socket AM4, 1151, or 1200 isn't meant for you.
As I said, Socket AM4 offers up to 40 PCIe lanes with AMD X570 chipset. Isn't that a 'mainstream' platform?
Why stop there? Why not just solder the CPU to the motherboard?
Last time I checked, motherboard makers are different entities from CPU makers, so what would be their incentive to offer such packages for the traditional desktop?
Of course there are embedded all-in-one desktop and headless server motherboards where the CPUs come in BGA packages and they are indeed soldered to the motherboard.
The point was that AMD EPYC CPUs do not require a chipset even in multiprocessor motherboards, they have all the necessary I/O on board.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4341
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5690787 Posted on: 07/13/2019 02:46 AM
Yes, it is. My point is if you expect more than that, you're not really fitting mainstream needs, and need to go higher-end.
The chipset is half the reason you buy a motherboard. If you have a SoC (which is basically what you're asking for), you start to complicate things for the user because you're removing the user's ability for budgeting and customization. If you buy a high-end CPU with all the bells and whistles, you kinda have to buy a high-end motherboard to socket it in and interface with those features or else you wasted your money. Meanwhile, if you buy a low-end CPU (implying a crippled chipset) and stick it in a high-end board, half the features won't work. Take that i5 for the X299 platform, for example.
For PC enthusiasts, having the chipset external allows much more variation and freedom. This doesn't matter so much for servers since they don't care about aesthetics or peripherals, they just want a bunch of I/O, cores, and memory.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad idea (ARM, MIPS, and RISC-V platforms work like this) but it's a bit of a slap in the face to PC enthusiasts since you're removing choices from people.
Well if you also take a close look at many server motherboards, they don't have much in the way of rear-panel I/O. In a lot of Epyc boards, I'm pretty sure most of the I/O is from 3rd party controllers integrated into the motherboard, rather than fed directly from the CPU. So, Epyc doesn't need a chipset because people who buy those platforms are expecting to either use their own expansion cards, or, whatever the 3rd party controllers are that were included by the manufacturer.
As I said, Socket AM4 offers up to 40 PCIe lanes with AMD X570 chipset. Isn't that a 'mainstream' platform?
Yes, it is. My point is if you expect more than that, you're not really fitting mainstream needs, and need to go higher-end.
Last time I checked, motherboard makers are different entities from CPU makers, so what would be their incentive to offer such packages for the traditional desktop?
The chipset is half the reason you buy a motherboard. If you have a SoC (which is basically what you're asking for), you start to complicate things for the user because you're removing the user's ability for budgeting and customization. If you buy a high-end CPU with all the bells and whistles, you kinda have to buy a high-end motherboard to socket it in and interface with those features or else you wasted your money. Meanwhile, if you buy a low-end CPU (implying a crippled chipset) and stick it in a high-end board, half the features won't work. Take that i5 for the X299 platform, for example.
For PC enthusiasts, having the chipset external allows much more variation and freedom. This doesn't matter so much for servers since they don't care about aesthetics or peripherals, they just want a bunch of I/O, cores, and memory.
I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad idea (ARM, MIPS, and RISC-V platforms work like this) but it's a bit of a slap in the face to PC enthusiasts since you're removing choices from people.
The point was that AMD EPYC CPUs do not require a chipset even in multiprocessor motherboards, they have all the necessary I/O on board.
Well if you also take a close look at many server motherboards, they don't have much in the way of rear-panel I/O. In a lot of Epyc boards, I'm pretty sure most of the I/O is from 3rd party controllers integrated into the motherboard, rather than fed directly from the CPU. So, Epyc doesn't need a chipset because people who buy those platforms are expecting to either use their own expansion cards, or, whatever the 3rd party controllers are that were included by the manufacturer.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 2011-08-08
I'll sure buy one more iteration of Skylake with 10 (20) cores but not until it matches or exceeds Socket AM4+ pin count, with 1350 pins minimum and 40 PCIe lanes direct from the CPU... oh wait, that's LGA2066 and Core i9-9900X. OK then, so probably never.