Have we confirmed this will top out at supporting 64GB of DDR4?
No but there will only be 4 dimm slots. And DDR4 will ship with a 16GB max per unbuffered dimm at release date so 64GB will be the max at least at the start.
Have we confirmed this will top out at supporting 64GB of DDR4?
I too thought there would be a maximum amount of PCI-E lanes on X99 - that's one reason to buy the platform, I thought!
As far as Maxwell is concerned, will it really take up a full PCI-E 3.0 x16 bandwidth?
140W. Will be interesting to see what if they can get away with using the same TIM as Haswell.
I'll speak for myself only and say It's tough to get excited about a quad core, regardless of how much it's warmed over...
As for the 8-core annoucement, this is a product that Intel had over two years ago. They had an awesome product then (E5-2687W) that they ignorantly chose to hard lock.
E5-2678W = 3.1/3.8 GHz @ 150W TDP, business/enterprise segment targets. $1800+.
These = 130-140W TDP, likely higher stock base and turbo clocks, unlocked, PCIe 3.0 plus a wealth of other improvements or additions, and meant for the consumer segment. Probably no more than $1000.
In essence, I look at it as being able to get a two year old Xeon 8 core with more IPC, less TDP, upgraded capabilities, and about half the price.
my bet is that DDR4 2133 will be slower than DDR3 2133 just as DDR3 1066 was slower than DDR2 1066.
Also, Haswell E will probably have silicon with up to 12 cores. Intel is still giving us the shitty end of the stick with 8-core parts.
It has all the features intel brought with ivy and haswell.
It's not a generation behind like previous "high end" intel chips. It will be the current refresh, up to date.
If intel isn't lying, it should overclock better than current haswell chips.
Not necessarily a good thing...DDR4's gonna be stupid expensive for mediocre kits until production ramps up early next year. I question the need when memory bandwidth isn't the constraining factor for performance. DDR4 may even decrease performance, as each iteration of successive memory has done before (the initial, slow-clocked DDR3 sticks were slower than the fast DDR2 sticks, due mainly to increased latency, IIRC).It has DDR4.
I must disagree with this statement. Gulftown was a fully fledged chip, equal to the DP Xeons in core count, most features and size. The Xeon single processor chips were awesome...unlocked and highly overclockable and the only neutered part was the snipped QPI link. Also, if one wanted, the DP Xeons could be used instead on X58 boards, and overclocked to the limits of the CPU. The only dies that Intel made at the time that were superior were Beckton and Westmere-EX, both chips that were never made into LGA1366 variants.It's back to what EE chips were like in the gulftown days. If you're the target audience, this chip is actually gonna be great. If you're not able to make use of all the features, sure, it wont be as cool for you.
For someone like me that likes to do extremely heavy video encoding tasks, the prospect of running 8 haswell cores @ 5ghz under water is going to be a huge leap in performance over what is currently available at normal consumer prices.
Given the locked nature of server chips, it's not really a good idea for me to pay 2-3x more for something that will probably perform slower than the new x99 platform for what I need. DDR3 -> DDR4 is going to be 10% or more alone for what i do. AVX2 another 10%. Add on the IPC improvements and the core count improvement and you see why the hype is real for some of us.
getting excited over an 8-core CPU when 15-core CPUs are already mainstream server CPUs seems kinda silly.
I get where you guys are coming from and agree with you. Intel is holding back, and getting excited over an 8-core CPU when 15-core CPUs are already mainstream server CPUs seems kinda silly.
I'm just glad we're not getting the SB-E/IB-E treatment again. There's no reason we shouldn't expect a core-count increase every generation, given intel already has the silicon with server processors. It'll be good to have an upgrade that is significantly better than the previous generation, rather than the incremental crap we've been getting. Sure, it's not as big of a jump as they could give us..not even close. But it's getting better.
Intel has the capability to give us more than 8-cores, why do the engineer poll if they don't. I'd gladly pay 2.5k for an unlocked 12-core today. Give it the GTX Titan treatment. It's a ton of money, but I wouldn't feel salty about the purchase at all, as it would be a huge leap in power.
Here's hoping for a surprise [H] edition SKU
Well consider this.
90% of desktop software is able to saturate single core utilisation (meaning single core perfornmance is important), but not much software will scale to multi cores to saturate it, yes we have video encoding but that is a small part of the market.
PC games wont be optimised for 8 cores, not a chance, they made for mainstream hardware. $1000 cpus are not mainstream. Games will be optimised for 2-4 cores or more likely single core than 8 core.
The 15 core should be around $6800 retail.
I am more interested in the $2700 12 core E5 v2 than the 15 core E7 v2.
I am not disputing it sells enough (still be fraction of market tho), just dont think gaming software will be optimised for it.
Gaming software won't take full advantage of the CPU, no, but an overclocked 12-core running at 4.5 GHz under good water will be just as fast as an i7-4770K running at the same speed, with the ability to do much, much more at the same time. One could launch video encoding and play a demanding game at the same time with little to no detriment to either task.
If the chip was dual-capable, it would enable a complete monster to be built. With 24-cores overclocked to 4.5GHz, you could throw anything you wanted at it, and the system would largely shrug it off. A clock speed such as that is 50% higher than the default max turbo clock on the E5-2697V2...just imagine the increase in performance. The only apt word that readily comes to mind is "sickening". Just totally stupid levels of performance...
It's an absolute crying shame we aren't permitted to have such a processor, not at any price...
So when are these newer CPU's coming out? Is there an official release date, yet?
(Only skimmed this thread but didn't see anything on it)
yeah but who does that? triple monitor gaming with one displaying a movie, the other doing a compile and the center playing crysis?
Considering there's no 4 core version so far it should be cheaper than 600$.
Tough to say for sure, but $600 sounds likely to me as well. Considering the flagship quad core will be near $400, a $200 premium for a 6-core doesn't sound at all implausible, especially considering the added features that X99 has over Z97.
That really depends on how Intel wants to distinguish them.
socket 1150 Haswell has bigger die than Ivy-Bridge-E due to size of gpu