Comments Locked

33 Comments

Back to Article

  • rahvin - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    Rebranding the previous generation more than likely. They're getting desperate out of fear AMD is taking market share.
  • maroon1 - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    They are releasing 8 core model
  • peterfares - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    Yeah it'll be the same architecture but they'll be introducing the 8-core models. We've known this for months.
  • Eris_Floralia - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    It's already a fact. Except the top 8 core models, all of the rest are just rebranded 8th gen SKUs.
  • Gadgety - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Absolutely.
  • gsuburban - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    I'd have to agree. The previous chipsets 270 and below as well as the CPU's aren't really that much of a lag compared to the current versions. Forcing folks to replace motherboards is criminal. I wonder if there will be the same treatment for those who already spent much to upgrade to 8th gen & 370 or if they will release a BIOS update !!
  • Chaitanya - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    It's just Kaby Lake v3.0 nothing new to expect here. also more than 10 years of rehashing Nehalem and since launch of Zen platform just knee jerk reaction one after another.
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link

    Kaby Lake? Nope, Skylake. Skylake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake & Coffee Lake Refresh are fundamentally just Skylake.
  • shabby - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    My my how times have changed, jan 2017 intel releases a 4 core cpu, 10 months later they release a 6 core, 12 months later an 8 core is coming. Thanks amd!
  • mganai - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    The 6 core was already scheduled for 2018. AMD just forced their hand a little there.
  • Achaios - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Uh, more likely AMD forced something else on Intel and from behind. Just non-partisan setting the record straight, mon.
  • shabby - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    A little is an understatement, intel was always late with their releases before ryzen since there was no competition. Now Intel is on an accelerated schedule and stumbling over itself.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    I'm not seeing the REVOLUTION that you are.. The X99 Platform from 4 years ago has all the same features of platforms today. DDR4 RAM, PCIe 3.0, M.2, USB 3.0, Gigabit Ethernet, and 802.11ac. The ONLY real change has been a dramatic increase in core counts .. and cost.

    My Core i7 5930k, as humble as it seems today, still has no problem with the workloads that I throw at it. To upgrade to the X299/Core i9 platform would cost me about $1200 for just the processor and motherboard. I would get only four more cores, but everything else about the platform really hasn't changed. A Z390/Core i9 platform upgrade would cost about $700 for only two more cores.

    Given the diminished performance returns on adding cores, the lack of ANY new platform features, and finally the high cost involved... I just can't bring myself to get excited about any of this.
  • CaedenV - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Exactly this!
    We have more cores available (for extreme prices), but otherwise everything else is much the same. Performance/$ is locked in, and not getting cheaper. Per-core performance is remaining the same (but with less power and heat). Motherbaord features are down to how many extra lights you can install that nobody really wants.
    This is not the death of the PC, but this is the PC market shifting over to other long-term goods. Refrigerators, cars, etc. are all bought every 5-15 years, all very expensive compared to what you get, and dont really change much year to year. When it dies, you replace it, but the idea of 'upgrading' willingly is something that very few people do. What AMD and ARM are doing is causing one last little 'umph' of progress, but generally speaking it is all done now. The only things that will spur progress is new materials, and new architectures... and those are 2 extremely difficult things to change.
  • Alexvrb - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Maybe if you don't have any taxing well-threaded workloads, sure. I'm sure a dual core from a decade ago would be good enough for you people. Other users benefit.
  • CheapSushi - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Even my X79 boards don't feel all different. I can even use NVMe boot drives with a BIOS update. In fact my current board has more USB slots, more SATA ports, actually full 7 PCIe slots with PLX chips all doing 3.0 and even has a beefier VRM/mosfet design.

    I'm waiting on DDR5 at least to change. The difference is much more significant than DDR3 to DDR4.
  • pixelstuff - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Presumably some 9th generation NUC computers also?
  • Tyler_Durden_83 - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    The eight aren't even out yet so definitely not
  • siberian3 - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    The ninth generation would be good but at that price point i would not suggest any1 of my friends to buy when Ryzen 3000 is on track at second quarter release so nice that we finally have competition on cpu again
  • HollyDOL - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    You know, there is a devil hidden in this philosophy.

    There always is something on track to release soon.
  • parlinone - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    I take it “There has never been a better time to own a desktop PC” translates to: 'There has never been a worse time to buy a new desktop CPU'?

    Prices of Intel chips have skyrocketed over 50% these last few weeks. My wallet tells me something me not to trust this man.
  • CaedenV - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    "Never been a better time to own a desktop PC"
    Yep, becauce they stopped getting better so we don't have to upgrade all the time any more! There are finally some machines that are appreciably faster than my i7 2600... but with the same budget that I had back then for my build, a new computer is still only fractionally faster than my current rig. Granted; a lot of that is because RAM and motherboard prices are crazy high compared to what they use to be. But I miss the days where every 3 years you drop $1k and get something significantly faster in everyday performance. At this point I am just waiting for my current rig to die before replacing it... but the silly thing has been through hell and back and refuses to keel over, so it may be a while.
  • eastcoast_pete - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    So, Intel will release (announce) new hardware, but will they be able to make them in sufficinet number to actually matter? Their 14 nm fabs are already over capacity, and that has led to significant price increases (!) of current, soon-to-be outdated Intel desktop processors. The key question to ask at the Monday event is "How many of these newest and hottest desktop chips can you (Intel) actually ship in Q4 2018 and Q1 2019? " Let's recall that Intel has started to contract out chipset fabbing to second parties (I believe it is TSMC) due to capacity problems.
  • gsuburban - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    There is a lot of hype coming when they announce "more cores". MOST software isn't written to work with "all cores" so what are they cheering about? The biggest and best performance boost in these newer CPU's is the on die memory. That's always been the big gateway to performance.
  • boozed - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Maybe they'll be announcing a compensation program for the security vulnerabilities they've been pushing on us for two decades.

    Hahaha I jest!
  • sparkuss - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Does any of this possibly include the rumor of Win7 compatible MB?
  • GreenReaper - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Wake me when they upgrade to PCIe 4/5 and include AV1 decode support. Oh, and fix all of Spectre. (That which can be fixed in hardware, anyway.)
  • tsk2k - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    If you could post times in UTC that would be great.

    Kind regards,

    World.
  • BambiBoom - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    World,

    US ET (Eastern Time) = UTC -4 so 10AM ET = 14:00 (2PM) UTC
  • Supreme_void - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/20...

    RIP Intel. But lets see what they can offer :)
  • BambiBoom - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    Anandies,

    The key advancements for Intel processors the last three years or so have been noticeable improvements in single-thread performance, more threads, and for less cost. As most programs- and games- are highly reliant on the single thread performance, this is important.

    I use a Xeon E5-1680 8C@3.0/3.8GHz for 3D CAD that originally cost $1,700. This is a rare Xeon that may be overclocked (E5-1650 v2, 1660 v2, 1650 v3, 1660 v3, and 1680 v3 are others)that averages 2101 Passmark single thread mark . This one running at 4.3GHz on all eight cores for a best singel thread mark of 2322. Compare the 2101 average to the current Xeon W-2145 8C@3.7/4.5Ghz for $1,300 that averages a 2537 single-threaded. The average for an i7-7700K 4C@4.2/4.5GHz ($350) is 2583 so the non-OC 8C W-2145 is keeping up well with a highly overclockable 4-core. The i9-7900X 10C@3.3/4.5 ($900) averages 2466. Many 3D CAD workstations are running i7-8700K's (see Puget System's site) - 6C and 2703 for $380. The cost/performance of current Intel CPU's is very good. The support of USB 3.1 C and NVMe are other modern advantages.

    My problems with Intel is the scrambling of the i7/i9 lineup, bizarre choices, and of course the shortage that doubled some CPU's in a week. The i7-7820X 8C@3.6/4.3 $470 ordinarily but $840+ at the moment had a lot of promise, but there are only 28PCIe lanes and 64GB RAM maximum, perhaps to preserve the price of the W-2145. Too many 3D CAD users are buying i7-8700K's and realizing that non-ECC RAM actually works in workstation applications.

    I run two x16 GPU's: Quadro P2000 and GTX 1070 Ti, plus a x4 PCIe M.2 and x4 sound interface. The i7-9700K we're seeing announced is non-hyperthreading and the i9-9900K is oddly running on Z390 - and that is two channel memory on boards with four slots. As an i9 it should have been X299.

    Intel was certainly shaken by AMD < good job there AMD, and while 28 PCIe lanes, non-hyperthreading, dual channel memory works well enough -up to a point, it's "possible" that z370 boards may be updated to run 9th series, and the shortage of some i7's will end someday, Intel is not looking the unassailable fortress it once was.

    I was all set to buy an i9-9900K but I'm going to wait and see what happens with Ryzen 2800X and Ryzen 3rd GEN first.

    BambiBoom
  • Achaios - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    "noticeable improvements in single-thread performance"

    Don't know what world you live in, but the so-called "NOTICEABLE S-T PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS" are such that make an upgrade from my 4770k Haswell unworthy.
  • BambiBoom - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    Archaios,

    My comparison is based on better single thread performance and more cores for a similar cost:

    i7-4770K 4C@3.5/3.9GHz new $350 Passmark single threaded average: 2253
    i7-8700K 6C@4.2/4.5GHz new $350 Passmark single threaded average: 2583

    Which CPU has +2 cores and better cost / performance?

    If the 4770K works well enough, no need to change it.

    But, it's true the i7-4770K is a really good one and some series improved more than others. When I see the results for the i7-4790K:

    i7-4790K 4C@4.0/ 4.4GHz new $350 Passmark single threaded average: 2530

    - it doesn't make a strong argument for an i7-8700K and new motherboard.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now