Rumor Mill: Intel Core-i9 CPUs to Appear Soon - Lots of Cores

I always get confused with the people who argue the price thing for pc's. In the last 20 years of my life with a pc, I've spent probably over 40% of it on the pc. I've learned long ago that it's easy to justify spending $100~$200 more on a decent chip that does what you need it to do. No this doesn't mean Intel all the time.

None the less this doesn't relate to the intiial post. I found that in fact the 5960x I got was in fact the wrong chip for what I personally do, so while these chips look great I don't care much for all these extra cores right now.

(For those buy for the future people....why not buy for the present, and when the future does happen, buy for the present again at that point?)
 
RAutrey said:
Just remember... Intel says overclocking is no bueno
Click to expand...

No they said to avoid it or it would possibly void your warrenty just like Amd has said because it's legally smarter for them to do that on a business standpoint. Dont' be that guy that starts bias rumors.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Meh.

I'll take fewer faster cores over more slower cores 100 times out of 100.

I have no problem with higher core counts, but as soon as going up to the next number of cores results in a lower max OC I stop.
Click to expand...

That's why I went 6900k over 6950x, better chance of meeting the settings I wanted more comfortably. Well that and being $700 or so less.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Meh.

I'll take fewer faster cores over more slower cores 100 times out of 100.

I have no problem with higher core counts, but as soon as going up to the next number of cores results in a lower max OC I stop.
Click to expand...

100% this. I had a major hankering with the upgrade bug and got me a 5960x for a decent price....it's been absolutely to no benefit (and even worst for me in some cases) for what I do. Most of my photography programs aren't really benefiting from more cores, and my 5930k games better than my 5960x does, but they both don't have that raw power feel my old 4790k running at 5ghz had.
 
Glad intel did all the R&D of these i9's right after Ryzen came out. AMD definitely made them work fast. Oh wait...ryzen and amd financials, lol.
 
trentchau said:
100% this. I had a major hankering with the upgrade bug and got me a 5960x for a decent price....it's been absolutely to no benefit (and even worst for me in some cases) for what I do. Most of my photography programs aren't really benefiting from more cores, and my 5930k games better than my 5960x does, but they both don't have that raw power feel my old 4790k running at 5ghz had.
Click to expand...

Still hesitant to upgrade from my 4770K. When games actually benefit from more than 4 cores, I will upgrade. Maybe 2nd gen i9s will be more than a rush to beat out Ryzen popularity.
 
trentchau said:
I always get confused with the people who argue the price thing for pc's. In the last 20 years of my life with a pc, I've spent probably over 40% of it on the pc. I've learned long ago that it's easy to justify spending $100~$200 more on a decent chip that does what you need it to do. No this doesn't mean Intel all the time.

None the less this doesn't relate to the intiial post. I found that in fact the 5960x I got was in fact the wrong chip for what I personally do, so while these chips look great I don't care much for all these extra cores right now.

(For those buy for the future people....why not buy for the present, and when the future does happen, buy for the present again at that point?)
Click to expand...

Intel's HEDT is not always a $100-$200 jump. The 6950 is a $1,700 chip and is a plain example of exploiting market position when the difference between the 6900 and 6950 would allow you to buy the RAM and MB to run the computer. Even the jump from the 6850 to 6900 is rather steep $400.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Intel's HEDT is not always a $100-$200 jump. The 6950 is a $1,700 chip and is a plain example of exploiting market position when the difference between the 6900 and 6950 would allow you to buy the RAM and MB to run the computer. Even the jump from the 6850 to 6900 is rather steep $400.
Click to expand...

yeah but no one is holding a gun to your head to get it, and it's already a market saturated with options. It's like complaining about the price of a Titan when one is in the market for a 1060. Yeah it's expensive, but it's a luxury item. The $100~$200 qoute is pretty much for the difference between the i5 to i7's...but even when you do the math a really decent high end chip is $1000 average. Most of us probably spend 4 to 8 hours a DAY on a computer. So lets say we spend 4 hours, 5 days a week on a computer...that's 1040 hours on a computer a year for a very low average...I find it easy to justify spending $500~$1000 on the computer one thinks they would want.

The people buying the 6950x don't "Need" it, they just want it and gotten it, or think it's overpriced and won't get it. Intel has priced it for that. But honestly most of us probably would function fine with a R5, r7, i5, i7, or even i3's.

What I see posted by KB is now there is even more options to choose from, which imho is great...though if I had a choice I would just go back to the 4/8 for now at 5ghz.
 
trentchau said:
yeah but no one is holding a gun to your head to get it, and it's already a market saturated with options. It's like complaining about the price of a Titan when one is in the market for a 1060. Yeah it's expensive, but it's a luxury item.

The people buying the 6950x don't "Need" it, they just want it and gotten it, or think it's overpriced and won't get it.

What I see posted by KB is now there is even more options to choose from, which imho is great...though if I had a choice I would just go back to the 4/8 for now at 5ghz.
Click to expand...

Actually, its a lack of market saturation that allows Intel to overcharge. And it's more like complaining about how Nvidia jacked up the price of the 1080's on release because there was no competition from AMD. Intel charges so much for its HEDT because of the same, until now possibly, lack of competition from AMD on the CPU side.
 
CaptainApathy said:
Still hesitant to upgrade from my 4770K. When games actually benefit from more than 4 cores, I will upgrade. Maybe 2nd gen i9s will be more than a rush to beat out Ryzen popularity.
Click to expand...

TBH I don't know if games will really make too much of an impact. My buddy in the game industry talked to me about the hardware thing when I asked him and he said they tend to aim for the lowest specs possible because India and China is such a huge market for games. So I think we will see improved performance with multicore, but nothing crazy. Though Battlefield has proven to love lots of cores.


Teenyman45 said:
Actually, its a lack of market saturation that allows Intel to overcharge. And it's more like complaining about how Nvidia jacked up the price of the 1080's on release because there was no competition from AMD. Intel charges so much for its HEDT because of the same, until now possibly, lack of competition from AMD on the CPU side.
Click to expand...

Overcharge? The prices have stayed roughly the same despite inflation. I remember buying a p3-1ghz in 2000 for $1000.
 
Who would buy that many cores w/only 28 lanes? It just seems like a waste, and makes me happier I picked up a 6850k.
 
4saken said:
Glad intel did all the R&D of these i9's right after Ryzen came out. AMD definitely made them work fast. Oh wait...ryzen and amd financials, lol.
Click to expand...

Didn't amd just report a losing quarter? Lol maybe intel wants to not base their tatics on that? :)

I keed I keed..I don't think we will see the results for Ryzen until this quarter and I do hope AMD goes on the upside...despite personally feeling that their 500 series releases was a crock of horse shit.
 
Teenyman45 said:
So that's why you also stopped at Sandy-E? I'm hoping for more cores at a decent speed so that I can play giant map turn based simulator games. The largest Civ and GalCiv maps would take forever on a highly clocked quad core and even bog down with hex core. Now with 12-16 cores, if all are being used, then even if they are only running at about 4-4.2 overclocked I should still see some improvement with end of turn processing times.
Click to expand...


Well, I've had no reason to upgrade yet.

My Sandy-E 3930k hits 4.8Ghz. I've had none of the problems you speak of even in huge Civilization V or VI games. Turn times are very manageable even late in game.

Here are my built in benchmark runs from a while back.

I don't think having more cores would improve things. The load on the chips as it is I very light during end of turn computations.
 
Last edited:
trentchau said:
TBH I don't know if games will really make too much of an impact. My buddy in the game industry talked to me about the hardware thing when I asked him and he said they tend to aim for the lowest specs possible because India and China is such a huge market for games. So I think we will see improved performance with multicore, but nothing crazy. Though Battlefield has proven to love lots of cores.
Click to expand...

Well eventually the "common hardware" will increase past 4 cores. We just aren't there yet.
 
drescherjm said:
It will be several quarters till ryzen produces a profit. Currently OEMs don't have any systems.
Click to expand...
When was the last time that AMD posted a profitable quarter? Q216. Last profitable year? Four or five years ago?
 
trentchau said:
TBH I don't know if games will really make too much of an impact. My buddy in the game industry talked to me about the hardware thing when I asked him and he said they tend to aim for the lowest specs possible because India and China is such a huge market for games. So I think we will see improved performance with multicore, but nothing crazy. Though Battlefield has proven to love lots of cores.




Overcharge? The prices have stayed roughly the same despite inflation. I remember buying a p3-1ghz in 2000 for $1000.
Click to expand...

Which is still overcharging. Look at how the prices of 1080p and 720p tvs of a given screen size have declined despite inflation.

Zarathustra[H] said:
Well, I've had no reason to upgrade yet.

My Sandy-E 3930k hits 4.8Ghz. I've had none of the problems you speak of even in huge Civilization V or VI games. Turn times are very manageable even late in game.

Here are my built in benchmark runs from a while back.

I don't think having more cores would improve things. The load on the chips as it is I very light Turing end of turn computations.
Click to expand...

That's still a good 10-15 seconds longer than I would like, and its not apparent that you are using the largest maps. I've had between turn load times in GalCiv III in the near 1 minute time frame.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Which is still overcharging. Look at how the prices of 1080p and 720p tvs of a given screen size have declined despite inflation.



That's still a good 10-15 seconds longer than I would like, and its not apparent that you are using the largest maps. I've had between turn load times in GalCiv III in the near 1 minute time frame.
Click to expand...

So you mean a highly populous consumer Market that completely overshadows high-end desktop

In respect to what you wrote. Intel released a few months ago a 2 core hyper-threading chip for $43 that pretty much matches the same speed as their chips that were two to $300 just a few years ago. Isn't this the progress similar to what you just mentioned?

With Tvs also there is still a super high end luxury segment where the Tvs are $5k-$15k. I consider the X series from Intel to be that type of luxury.
 
Last edited:
trentchau said:
So you mean a highly populous consumer Market that completely overshadows high-end desktop

In respect to what you wrote. Intel released a few months ago a 2 core hyper-threading chip for $43 that pretty much matches the same speed as their chips that were two to $300 just a few years ago. Isn't this the progress similar to what you just mentioned?
Click to expand...

Intel actually has competition in that marketspace from AMD and even potentially from ARM at the 40-$50 price range. But, those chips are not as fast as $300 overclocked 2600k chips, otherwise people would have side-graded just to save on electricity.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Meh.

I'll take fewer faster cores over more slower cores 100 times out of 100.

I have no problem with higher core counts, but as soon as going up to the next number of cores results in a lower max OC I stop.
Click to expand...
Long as I can hit around 4.2GHZ I dont really mind. 4.2GHZ has been plenty for most of what I do. More cores at 4.2GHZ is something I dont mind. Dont get me wrong though, higher clock speeds would be nice.
 
trentchau said:
Didn't amd just report a losing quarter? Lol maybe intel wants to not base their tatics on that? :)

I keed I keed..I don't think we will see the results for Ryzen until this quarter and I do hope AMD goes on the upside...despite personally feeling that their 500 series releases was a crock of horse shit.
Click to expand...
yup. Just got back from DellEmc world too. Not a PEEP about AMD in anything.
 
Darkswordz said:
I can see it now....

i9 7920X (12c/24t) = Firstborn
i9 7900X (10c/20t) = Left nut
i9 7820X (8c/16t) = Right nut
i9 7800X (6c/12t) = $549.99

Ryzen HEDT = Mother-in-law
Click to expand...

FTFY ;)

collegeboy69us said:
*shrugs* I went from a 2600k to a 6600k after something like 5 years and barely noticed any difference. I'd be willing to bet my lowly 6600k will last me another 5 years easily.
Click to expand...
You went from 4c/8t -> 4c/4t? A little mixed-bag of an upgrade.

T_A said:
Did you just wake up from a 10 year comma ? IPC is the name of the game not Ghz.
Click to expand...
Which means exactly squat when IPC has been rising slower than a 90 year old grandpa's dick ;)
 
Last edited:
I couldn't resist...

YodaCoreWars.jpg
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Well, I've had no reason to upgrade yet.
My Sandy-E 3930k hits 4.8Ghz. I've had none of the problems you speak of even in huge Civilization V or VI games. Turn times are very manageable even late in game.
Here are my built in benchmark runs from a while back.
I don't think having more cores would improve things. The load on the chips as it is I very light during end of turn computations.
Click to expand...
He sounds like the type of over-enthusiastic person who thinks anything less than the current flagship CPU might as well be a Zilog Z80 ;)
 
Teenyman45 said:
Intel actually has competition in that marketspace from AMD and even potentially from ARM at the 40-$50 price range. But, those chips are not as fast as $300 overclocked 2600k chips, otherwise people would have side-graded just to save on electricity.
Click to expand...

If Intel has no competition whats the measurement to determine if they are overcharging?

BTW Im not blind to your point but I don't agree with it based solely on the acronym you are using. HEDT or most importantly high end. It's a luxury market that demands its own n price
 
My issue here is as an i7 gamer I will eventually want to upgrade to more cores, but I want more IPC. I don't care of the MHZ are less as long as the IPC are so much better than the new cpu at whatever GHZ rating is a better performer than my current CPU at my current GHZ rating. And I just about guarantee that INTEL won't achieve that for what.. 12 generations? Like this last time my real reason to upgrade will be bus/motherboard features rather than the CPU holding me back. (Unless I get into some serious number crunching and time sensitive work on my gaming PC.)
 
My guess is that these will be more attractively priced than Broadwell-E. Lowering the the price of Broadwell-E to be competitive with Ryzen would look like reacting, whereas a new generation that is significantly faster and cheaper than old generation (and also makes the competitor look bad) is very good optics in comparison. The 12 and 10 core parts will still probably be >1G though, or at least in that neighbourhood.
 
T_A said:
Did you just wake up from a 10 year comma ? IPC is the name of the game not Ghz.
Click to expand...

You can basically guess the age of the poster based on their reaction to this. Years ago it was published in many articles as well as at least one peer reviewed journal entry that we are reaching the peak of our clock speeds (with current technology) and therefore shifting to IPC and multi-core. I'm guessing Kyle could even probably pull some up - I'd be at a loss if you asked me too. Not only that miniaturization has led to higher thermals which hampers MOAR GHZ (I think that moar is right in this context).

For those of us that lived through the late 90s and 2000s and saw the introduction of netburst it's fairly easy to understand. For the youngsters this is when AMD was hands down king - due to more efficient CPUs. When Core technology was introduced it shifted to Intel and they have never looked back. It's all about IPC as you can control thermals.
 
haste. said:
You can basically guess the age of the poster based on their reaction to this. Years ago it was published in many articles as well as at least one peer reviewed journal entry that we are reaching the peak of our clock speeds (with current technology) and therefore shifting to IPC and multi-core. I'm guessing Kyle could even probably pull some up - I'd be at a loss if you asked me too. Not only that miniaturization has led to higher thermals which hampers MOAR GHZ (I think that moar is right in this context).

For those of us that lived through the late 90s and 2000s and saw the introduction of netburst it's fairly easy to understand. For the youngsters this is when AMD was hands down king - due to more efficient CPUs. When Core technology was introduced it shifted to Intel and they have never looked back. It's all about IPC as you can control thermals.
Click to expand...

It's the combination of clock speed and IPC that matters. Either in isolation of the other is completely meaningless.

Core count? Count me out. Unless you render/encode there is no point to more than ~4 to 6 cores.

All it does is result in more expensive, hotter designs without any real benefits, and sometimes drawbacks as the lower clocked many core parts perform worse in most tasks.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's the combination of clock speed and IPC that matters. Either in isolation of the other is completely meaningless.

Core count? Count me out. Unless you render/encode there is no point to more than ~4 to 6 cores.

All it does is result in more expensive, hotter designs without any real benefits, and sometimes drawbacks as the lower clocked many core parts perform worse in most tasks.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with you - but clock speeds have reached their peak (for the most part) on current technology. That is what led to the focus on cores and IPC to compensate for the ceiling they have hit.
 
On principle, i will still buy a Ryzen to replace my i5-3570k.

Intel had all the time to release these things at a more reasonable price, yet they raped us when they could, now they are being reasonable.

Fuck them.
 
grtitan said:
On principle, i will still buy a Ryzen to replace my i5-3570k.

Intel had all the time to release these things at a more reasonable price, yet they raped us when they could, now they are being reasonable.

Fuck them.
Click to expand...
Intel is a business first. You are fooling yourself if you think AMD wouldn't do the same thing if the roles were reversed. AMD is not some charity. I guarantee you AMD wouldn't be selling Ryzen at the current price if it crushed Intel.
 
If it drops prices on most, if not all of the rest of lineup, cool. If not, meh, whatever.
 
"could compete with AMD's Ryzen"

Look I'm no Intel fanboy, but Intel is going to pulverize Ryzen. Undoubtedly. You guys all know this.
 
SonicTron said:
"could compete with AMD's Ryzen"

Look I'm no Intel fanboy, but Intel is going to pulverize Ryzen. Undoubtedly. You guys all know this.
Click to expand...

So I guess your ignoring the AMD 16 core 32 thread that is coming with the nickname thread ripper? More cores only plays to AMD's advantage as their process is a low power design and keep the speed up without going nuclear. Should be a interesting time in CPU's, but no one is destroying the other.
 
trentchau said:
Didn't amd just report a losing quarter? Lol maybe intel wants to not base their tatics on that? :)

I keed I keed..I don't think we will see the results for Ryzen until this quarter and I do hope AMD goes on the upside...despite personally feeling that their 500 series releases was a crock of horse shit.
Click to expand...

The 500 series release, is still releasing ;)
And we can all understand why AMD wanted to get the negative of the 400 re-brand out of the way as not to cause flak with the high-end cards launch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top