anandtech is reporting that the chip might be for the LGA2066 platform[1] for home use. ;)
Before you get too excited, the current generation of 28-core xeon running at 2.5G costs you over $10k each [2]. I won't be too surprised if Intel sets the price of a 5G 28-core Xeon at $15-20k.
That being said, having more choices is always good. Can't wait to see how AMD is going to respond to this using their Epyc line of chips.
Intel's 18-core i9 CPU is still impressive, but that's last year's news. Today at Computex, Intel SVP Gregory Bryant demoed a 28-core processor running at 5GHz. It's the first time we've seen a single socket desktop CPU cram in that many cores, and it's certainly powerful. In Cinebench, it achieved a score of 7,334 on stage, something that's only bested by multi-processor systems. Better yet, Bryant says it's not just a concept, as Intel plans to sell the 28-core CPU by the end of the year. Time to start saving.
Same here. I went up to the partner list, didn't get what the toggle buttons were supposed to mean (should I toggle them on or off?), closed the page. The title (on HN) will have to do, good job to them.
GDPR rules in practice seem to turn into the "this site uses cookies" notice but on mega steroids. Privacy control is great, but it's just not interesting to have a checkbox or agreement click through on every new site visited.
- If your browser doesn't have this option yet, write its developers, product managers, or CEO, voicing your most humble request that they try do something that does work, at least with some pages some of the time, to try to proactively automatically agree to GDPR and cookies. (Or automatically disagree with them, discard cookies, whatever.)
I promise you that it is possible technically to do something that works on at least 1 page, that other web sites could mimic the interaction of and have it work on them too.
Sites won't all support browsers' solutions but if browsers can automate something, then some web sites can adapt to it. (By using the same interaction, names, etc - i.e. legally clicking for the user, or so that the web site can't tell if the browser sent that automated per the setting chosen by the user, or if the user manually clicked. Even if they can only automate ones that closely match certain element names etc it will still be a step ahead.)
I think you're missing the point. The operators of these sites are not interested in respecting user choice. I'm sure they're aware that the most ergonomic thing to do, and arguably the only legal thing to do, is to present users with two buttons "Yes, track me" and "No, don't track me", then provide the service with no degradation either way.
But they realise that almost nobody actually wants the tracking, and that does not align with their interests.
The thing is that the law requires exactly that. So it will be interesting to see the consequences.
They are currently just trying the waters, see what they can get away with, most certainly already have a backup plan they will enable at the first sign of trouble.
This may be true for most (non-tech) people, but there's a huge difference for us : we know that you can't refuse cookies and still be able to log in to an app (since cookies are used for session permanence).
The GDPR is very different : it does not prevent offering legit features by itself. So I often happen to leave a site if I'm not satisfied by their GDPR implementation and they try to force tracking on me, I won't sell my privacy that cheap if I'm given the choice. That's something I couldn't do with cookies and I just was accepting their notice blindly.
The reality is very simple: I don't want any website (except those where I choose to sign-up and sign-in with a personal account) or any of its partners or whoever to save any data about me and provide any kind of "personalization" (I have even set up an extension to delete all the relevant cookies as soon as I close a page). And now I have a right to demand this yet the sites choose to annoy me by requiring to disable every piece of this crap manually before letting me in. GDPR does not allow them to just deny me entering if I don't allow tracking but it seemingly does allow them to annoy me and I'm sure they're doing it as annoying as possible intentionally.
By the way there even is a simple standardized way to know if I give my consent for tracking me or not without asking - the Do Not Track HTTP header field. That's a pity Microsoft has screwed it by turning it on by default. I wish GDPR would just require every website to respect this flag.
For most sites just disabling JS works perfectly, but not for Engadet. I just had a look at their source and found out the actual post ("18-core i9 CPU is still impressive, but that's last year's news") starts at the line 1086! Over one thousand of lines of useless crap before I can read the actual text. Incredible.
> I'm pretty sure this against the spirit of the GDPR.
I'm pretty sure almost every reaction and e-mail that I have got due to GDPR is against the spirit. I had never thought it would be allowed, much less massively adopted, to "opt in" 100% of your existing userbase by fleshing out your existing Terms of Service and that's that. I thought it would require a new contract/agreement with the user to be signed/clicked "yes" to. I swear by far most have just somehow pulled me into their new "more privacy aware" system.
I mean, we all knew this was going to happen, right? There's no way this was actually going to turn out to be a helpful thing, at least on this class of sites.
I wouldn't say it's true, but it shows we all got trapped in a way. Let's take Mac OS development. In order to be able to publish apps, you need to have a recent version of Xcode. In order to use a recent version of Xcode, you also need to have a relatively recent version of macOS. Unfortunately, this also means your hardware need to be up to date. When you discover you can no longer develop on your 2012 machine, you buy a new one with a fast processor and plenty of RAM. (NB Even your app is so simple it could run on 3GS perfectly well, your lowest target is set at devices supporting the most recent iOS, but it's a topic for another discussion.) Now you feel the full power of your hardware and your opinion of what it means "current hardware" and "fast app" changes. You start to say things like "Come on, it's 2018, 8 GB RAM is low-end." You stop caring about these Core 2 devices because it looks like Apple doesn't care about them too, co why would you? In this way the machine is pushed forward, and we're becoming more and more wasteful.
> You start to say things like "Come on, it's 2018, 8 GB RAM is low-end."
No. Electron "developers" may say that. The vast majority of us, do not in fact say that.
I've yet to actually see any argument directly from someone involved, in favour of electron apps besides "it was just or a web app" or "it's quicker/cheaper this way".
If I throw a bucket of house paint over your Honda, that's also quicker. That doesn't mean the result is really what anyone would consider 'acceptable'.
a 2012 machine is more than acceptable as a builder, heck my mother still uses a 2009 MacBook pro and she uses her laptop quite "heavily" (She never closes programs/browser tabs), my mac pro is from 2013 and it's perfectly capable.
But, I think my pedantry does not dissuade from your actual point; making a modern MacOS program requires that you have a macOS machine- It also precludes learning a language that typically only runs on that platform (I know swift is cross platform but none of the windowing libraries that you'll use are).
Making tailored software per platform is tedious, making the same program multiple ways so that it can be native is just time consuming if nothing else.
Electron is an ugly way of fixing that; but it does the job of fixing it- Qt is an ideal solution in theory but it's obviously too much of a burden on developers to adopt.
> In order to use a recent version of Xcode, you also need to have a relatively recent version of macOS. Unfortunately, this also means your hardware need to be up to date.
Eh? No it doesn't.
> When you discover you can no longer develop on your 2012 machine
The cutoff would be either 2008 or 2009 depending on line.
The title is misleading, it reached 5Ghz through overclocking and no mention of how many cores booted at 5Ghz, the nominal frequency of this part with all cores is 2.7ghz. Saw the photos but still skeptical about it like price wise and what cooling it need.
> Air cooling is however quite likely out of the question if you want to keep your hearing.
I think air cooling is 100% out. Using the current generation LFA3647 Xeons, you pretty much need dual 8180 kind of setup to get Cinebench score of around 7500, that is 410w TDP for two processors. With the same 14nm, squeezing such computing power into a single chip is not going to lower the TDP. We are about to see the hottest (300-400W) Intel processor ever released.
If we assume this design is based off of something similar to the 28-core 8180 which has a 2.5GHz base frequency and (generous, likely understated) 205W TDP, this chip could easily have a TDP north of 300W.
Those boxes on stage sure don't look air-cooled to me.
The plumbing seriously resembles that of a phase-change setup, which would actually make sense here as an extremely low operating temperature would help tame the leakage power tremendously.
In summary though, it ain't gonna be cheap to buy or cool.
I think the cooling could be a significant part of the picture here---you can nudge the power/frequency curve a bit with very aggressive cooling (phase-change is extremely aggressive) to drop the leakage power (e.g., as AMD did with the liquid cooled Fury X [1]).
If this had a different core count from the 8180 I would agree but I wouldn't expect Intel to do a completely separate design just for a model that will need to be highly binned regardless.
That or Intel has made some serious magic happen at 14nm++++++++++.
I'm more interested in Zen2 on 7nm which seems to be coming out earlier than Intels 10nm CPUs.
Possible IPC enhancements from architecture optimizations of Zen2 + better clocks = first time since over a decade that AMD beats Intel in single threaded workloads? Due to their better SMT implementation (?) they seem to beat Intel in multithreaded scenarios already with same core count and around the same clock (at least in Cinebench).
Yes, Zen2 will be very interesting to watch next year. The only problem is that AMD has not offered anything else other than some ppt presentation on how great is the Zen2.
Apparently Supermicro had some X299 motherboards on display that were rated for 300 watt CPUs. So it sounds like you're on the right track.
Though I don't think phase-change is really suitable for a consumer CPU. I would think it's just going to be bundled with a big integrated water-cooler (a bit like AMD's FX-9590 CPU which was a 220TDP part)
> If we assume this design is based off of something similar to the 28-core 8180 which has a 2.5GHz base frequency and (generous, likely understated) 205W TDP, this chip could easily have a TDP north of 300W.
How many will they ship, though? And at what price?
Interesting how only when AMD starts shipping something competitive with their chips, does Intel roll up its sleeves and get busy on breaking new ground. There almost seems to be a correlation ...!
When AMD released a competitive GPU, nVidia released a new GPU with chips that had been sitting in a warehouse for more than 6 months. Competition is necessary.
Yeah, Volta should have been ready to ship in volume like 6 months ago.
Now I am not completely sure they are just sitting in a warehouse though. I understand Volta is currently in mass production and will launch around July/August.
All the current rumors and info I've seen indicate that Volta will never be in a consumer graphics card, so it has already launched (tesla v100 was available ~July 2017).
I bought a Sandy Bridge CPU in 2011. 4 cores, 8 threads, 3.0 ghz.
Last year I went looking through consumer-class CPUs looking to upgrade. They are more or less all a very unimpressive 4 core, 8 thread, 3.0 ghz. Maybe they have a tiny bit more cache. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade.
Progress on consumer-class CPUs this decade has been utterly anemic. The only one I've seriously been wowed by is the Ryzen Threadripper. Now all of a sudden, Intel is readying better CPUs. Entirely coincidental, I'm sure.
> They are more or less all a very unimpressive 4 core, 8 thread, 3.0 ghz. Maybe they have a tiny bit more cache. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade.
In a way, that was good thing, though. For the first time in my memory, a five-year-old PC is not a piece of junk I am just too lazy to get rid off, but a machine fully capable running current software (at least after install more RAM and an SSD). (Within reasonable limits, of course, I am not talking about high end games or such.)
The fact that CPUs did not get faster (not much, at least) also meant that software could not afford to get slower, which greatly extended the useful lifespans of older machines.
That 2600K you bought in 2011 was a premium part. The ones you're looking at now are low end. If you look in the same price range you find 6-core Coffee Lake CPUs at 4.4GHz, which has 50% more cache, about 2x the GPU performance, maybe 15% better IPC on typical workloads, and draws about 30% less power under load.
No, it's not the mid 90's anymore where we were tripling performance every time we upgraded. There's still progress.
Depends what you are doing and whether the upgrade justifies the cost and productivity gain. I just bought several i5 quad core 3.2Ghz Dell Optiplex 3010 for our church for $35 ea. They run Windows 10 and LibreOffice just fine on a HDD. Now, if I'm crunching for distributed computing, I might want that quad XEON 24-core 1U server off eBay instead. Just depends on your workload and use case.
A lot of the consumer-class CPU focus this decade has been on power consumption and the GPU part.
A Sandy Bridge 4-core, 8-thread, 3.0 ghz CPU from 2011 would be something like a i7-2960XM. It's actually 2.70 ghz base frequency, but 8MB cache and 55W.
A comparable modern CPU (same cores, threads, base frequency, cache) is a i7-8559U. This has a TDP of 28W.
The old processor would scale up to 3.7 ghz while the new one scales up to 4.5. And the new processor has 1.5 times the memory bandwidth. And I expect the GPU is a lot better.
The new processor probably has somewhat better instruction throughput at the same clock rate. All that said, I agree this is not the 90s and we're not getting 10x or more improvements in speed over the course of 7 years here... The new processor _is_ better; just not enough better to be worth paying $400 for unless you're getting a new computer anyway for other reasons.
(Note that these are both "mobile" processors, fwiw; I assume that's the comparison point if we're talking consumer-class, because consumers don't really buy desktops.)
You need to understand how CPUs are made to understand the progress in the last decade. When Intel releases a new generation of i3/i5/i7 processors, they aren't different designs - in fact, they're the exact same chip. The only difference is how many errors were present on each chip and the final product is extremely sensitive to the smallest errors like scratches, missing or misplaced dopants, and other material impurities.
In order to maximize their yield and make consumer processors an economic reality, Intel tests every single chip that goes off the assembly line and cut the "fuses" of the regions that don't pass quality control. A perfect chip becomes an i7 (or an i9 or even sometimes a Xeon) while the less perfect chips become i5s and the ones with the most errors become i3s with most of their cores disabled.
As other posters have noted: that 2600K CPU part you bought in 2011 is the Intel Extreme line, which are the top of the line i7s that have not only passed QC on their cores but have also been "burned in" or tested for stability at the higher end of possible operating frequencies for that generation. You're literally comparing the best of the best from 7 years ago to stuff that just barely missed the dumpster.
For example, out of the dozens of desktops I've built for my friends, family, and me, all of the -K processors that I've used are still alive today - including an i7-965 Extreme that's almost ten years old now. My experience with i3/i5 is much worse.
It's true both Intel and (especially) AMD sell fused-off core CPUs as downmarket models, it's not true that Intel only uses a single die from their 4 core i3 models all the way up through their, e.g., 28-core models (as mentioned in TFA).
AMD's Zen arch is an 8 core die, and they get very high yields out of it. Even the downmarket parts mostly or entirely had 8 working cores before fusing off.
Intel's big 28 core parts are (at least historically) a huge single die, with very very low yields. They charge a huge dollar amount for the parts because they cannot afford not to — the manufacturing costs are very high. There is some speculation that this 5GHz part is actually a bridged smaller die design, like AMD's Zen platform. Intel's bridge design is called "EMIB," if you want to google that speculation further.
> As other posters have noted: that 2600K CPU part you bought in 2011 is the Intel Extreme line,
No. The 2700K was a high end consumer CPU that could be bought for about $300, and didn't need a crazy expensive motherboard or socket. It wasn't extreme (also note the lack of an "X" in the model name).
Haswell+ has much better IPC than the SB generation. AMD's Zen platform has a bit better IPC than SB, a lot more cores, and generally clocks above 3 GHz. I'd consider upgrading.
(FWIW, TR is a very upmarket part compared to a 4-core SB and you will pay a large premium for that, especially for the motherboard. However, even an 8-core Ryzen 1700X would be a huge upgrade over a 4-core SB and the 4- and 6-core Ryzens look very affordable.)
Exactly. Keep in mind that AMD is currently selling 32-core chips.
They don't go up to that insane frequency, but still. There's plenty of opportunity to shop around if you want really beefy systems, which is a very refreshing state of affairs compared to just two years ago.
Moores law held up pretty well. Frequency scaling did not continue as it did in the old days, I mean we had 3ghz back in the P4 days. But performance has certainly improved thanks to better IPC, more cores etc.
Presumably they were too expensive (manufacturing, power, cooling, etc.) since they're not ubiquitous. IIRC the "barrier" to going any higher was the speed of light across the chip: running faster than 5GHz would require the output to be causally independent from the input!
(Tremendous hubris warning, please correct me if I'm off base with where I go)
Moore's law doesn't include capital investment as a factor.
Initially, it could be mostly ignored as it was swamped by available profits (at least for microprocessors, less so for memory). More recently, I believe it's been matched by increased volume of semiconductors used throughout the global economy.
But at some point we'll reach saturation. And costs to shrink feature size will continue to increase exponentially. So it simply won't make financial sense to continue.
(Unless non-silicon, non-electrical, or radical patterning technology hits a breakthrough)
Moore's law has slowed somewhat for CPUs, and Intel announced a few years ago that they were intentionally slowing down the pace of their releases.
"Intel stated in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm feature width around 2012, and continuing at 14 nm.[20] Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced, 'Our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two.'"
Interesting, I wonder if it has to do with the marketing side of things rather than development. They cannot develop a CPU in less than 6 months. I think it could just be that they want to have the last word, so people will talk about it for longer.
In Germany, we have a saying: Konkurrenz belebt das Geschäft (roughly: Competition enlivens business).
I am just afraid Intel will once more use its deep pockets and questionable business practices to crush AMD just when things were starting to get interesting again.
They're already shipping them. 28 core Skylake-SP parts have been available under the Xeon Platinum branding for almost a year now. This is presumably just a consumer paint job on the existing silicon. And yes, they're very expensive: $10k+ per chip.
Yes, the Xeon Platinum 8180 had 28 cores clocked at 2.5Ghz with a TDP of 205W. I don't see how they could pull off 5Ghz this year, apart from using LN2...
You've gotten confused about how the numbers interact. The 2.5GHz is a base frequency calibrated to be under the TDP under all operating conditions[1], actual clocks are allowed to be higher (in particular when only a subset of cores are used), but subject to thermal throttling. The chip turbos to 3.8GHz in single core operation. Surely the 5GHz number is likewise a turbo rate.
This sounds extraordinarily doable to me. I'd be very shocked if this was anything but an off-the-shelf SKL-SP die with consumer fusing.
[1] And given that it's a server part, this calibration is inherently more conservative than you see in desktop stuff.
That Cinebench score reflects a multi-threaded benchmark, which is not a workflow where the CPU would (or should, anyway) turbo a single core.
Also, while not AVX-intensive, CB does use some AVX, which usually draws more power (and thus limits clock more) than pure integer or even ordinary FPU computation.
Jumping from 3.8 GHz single core turbo to 5 GHz 28-core turbo is a big jump in power.
Think of it this way; if you're paying the license based on physical CPU socket (commonly the case) then it makes sense to scale vertically.
If you're a cloud provider, it also makes sense to have very large capable machines to increase your density.
Power consumption in datacenters is typically a significant cost of total hosting. (I pay the same as what a server costs in power consumption per year, per server)
So if you can have double the compute, with the same power draw, it's worth double the price in the first year alone, typically servers have a 3-5y life-cycle. So you can extrapolate that to "a server that is double the cost but the same power draw can be worth 5x as much as a slower CPU". but that's the cut-off..
For many servers the flat rate fee of: the license of anything that runs; the motherboard, the drives, the memory, the PSU, the cabling, the space, the power consumption means that it can be economical to egregiously spec out on CPU; if that's the bottleneck which is the case in a lot of virtual or build environments.
Professionals in: VFX/3D (which is why they use Cinebench as a benchmark), game developers (UE4), industrial design. These are multi-billion dollar industries.
Might be bargain if your software vendor is still selling licenses ”per socket” (joke, I guess everybody has migrated to per core or something more complicated).
To put hardware prices to perspective, think how much it costs to run even a small development team. If hardware makes them more productive and/or happier, most of the time you should go for it. Sad too see expensive people stuck with mediocre tools.
This poster links to Anandtech, who suggests these are for home use.[0]
Another poster suggests the TDP is over 300W.[1]
For a home computing device component, that's quite the pricetag. With the amount of heat it generates, maybe Intel could market it as a combination processor and space heater?
>There can't be many people in the world who will pay the 10k-20k price tag. How many people have the pull with their employers to justify it?
our current 2 x 14C workstations are $10-12K - and we're just a lowly no-pull devs in a BigCo not known for any lavishness toward low level rank and file.
Workstations are a common target for these CPUs. In my field, EDA software, FPGA development. A lot of software development I do with SDRs benefit from high core count, high frequency Intel CPUs.
ECC RAM is stuck at 2666 MT/s and rarely overclocks to 1.35V.
Normal RAM can handle 1.35V typically and often goes up to 3200 MT/s (on AMD systems) or 3600 MT/s (on Intel systems). That's easily +20% to +35% more memory bandwidth. With lower latency and better overall specs to boot.
And if your 3d render has a pixel-error on frame 50, delete the .png file and rerender frame 50. No biggie.
That sounds like an artifact of Intel's artificial market segmentation. If we imagine a world where ECC was mandatory then it's likely that ECC gamer RAM would be available.
Well, I obviously didn't mean hardware meant for specific applications where ECC would do notably more harm than good must use ECC anyway nor that non-ECC memory should not be available to those who consciously want it. Perhaps graphics rendering farms should be built with non-ECC RAM or with both kinds used together (ECC for the system code and non-ECC for the graphical data).
As for me I'm just annoyed by the fact I have never seen a laptop that supports ECC (as for now it seems there actually are a couple of models e.g. ThinkPad P70). I personally don't really care about the RAM bandwidth, I'm still using DDR2 anyway, but I would love to use ECC.
I wonder if there isn't some way to manufacture ECC RAM that doesn't need CPU support? It could act towards the CPU/motherboard as if it's non-ECC RAM but still contain 9 bits per byte inside.
The RAM chip itself would do any computation if needed instead of the CPU, and if it needs to give interrupts to warn about error conditions, it could output it as an electric signal you can hook up to anything you want yourself (including to the CPU in some way, like via USB or something lower level, or otherwise a warning light or beep or so)
How is that extremely intrusive tracking-management popup even attempting to adhere to GDPR?
For one it is opt out, which isn't allowed. It also claims that you need to accept to continue using the site, which isn't allowed, then it's countless steps required to opt out (if you even can, I got lost and accidentally allowed everything a few clicks in).
This is probably worse than just pretending GDPR didn't exist. This is a deliberate and disrespectful fuck you to every single visitor.
I agree, but the anandtech article is about Intels anniversary CPU (6 cores running @ 4ghz which can boost to 5ghz on a single core and probably 4.6 ghz on all cores), engadets article is about a 28 core cpu running @ ~5ghz.
If this 28 core monster really is released I'm curious what it will cost. The 18 core i9 costs ~2000 dollar, the 28 core Xeon with much lower clocks (but with ECC etc.) ~8000.
The power requirements will be even more interesting looking at the 18 core numbers when overclocked.
For me it was opt-in (all trackers were unchecked when I opened it) from both of my computers.
It is also not illegal to require visitors to clarify to which data processing they consent to (GDPR only says that if you require consent for processing that is not necessary to provide the service, then that does not count as consent for GDPR purposes).
As I interpret it if you don't actively checked that means that you don't opt out from it. Which really makes sense considering how the sole purpose of the entire feature is to confuse and tire people into submission.
The whole thing is opt-out, since it clearly states that pressing "Ok" (the only button that dismisses the dialog) is accepting tracking.
Is this a single 28-core CPU? The only other 28 core chips that Intel has are the Xeon platinum 8176 and 8180, which cost $9-$13K and don't clock nearly as high.
Or is this like AMD's Threadripper any EPYC, and they are duct taping together multiple CPUs in a single socket? Eg, 2 x 14 cores CPUS connected with QPI or EMIB ? 4 x 7 cores? I wonder if AMD patented this technique..
I wonder how much cache that CPU has, and how many memory channels? 28 cores don't do you much good if half of them are always blocked waiting for instructions.
24/26 core CPUs have been in the market for quite a while. The caches generally look like this: each core has 32KB instruction + 32KB data cache (L1) and 1MB L2 cache. All cores share the 30-40MB L3 cache and the 4/6 memory channels.
In my experience, cores getting blocked for instructions is not commonplace. They can block waiting for data if the computation is memory-bound.
They really need to release a cpu for the FCLGA2066 platform that can beat the 8700K/9700K in games. People are waiting for the 9700K to upgrade, and avoiding intels high end because they dont have the a higher end cpu for gamer enthusiasts.
136 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadBefore you get too excited, the current generation of 28-core xeon running at 2.5G costs you over $10k each [2]. I won't be too surprised if Intel sets the price of a 5G 28-core Xeon at $15-20k.
That being said, having more choices is always good. Can't wait to see how AMD is going to respond to this using their Epyc line of chips.
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12893/intels-28core-5-ghz-cpu... [2] https://ark.intel.com/products/120496/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-81...
AMD had a 5Ghz processor in what, 2014? Clock speed isn’t everything...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12893/intels-28core-5-ghz-cpu...
1) Manage Options
2) (Body font sized link) Manage
3) (Body font sized link) Show
4) Scroll down
5-100) Click each toggle individually (select all button is currently broke) (It is intentionally ambiguous which is the 'correct' selection)
101-150) Do the same on other page
151) Click done
152) Click OK (hoping it's saved, it doesn't feel like it has)
This is much harder than it is to opt-in. I'm pretty sure this against the spirit of the GDPR.
Even if it isn't against the GDPR. It's a dick move.
Intel's 18-core i9 CPU is still impressive, but that's last year's news. Today at Computex, Intel SVP Gregory Bryant demoed a 28-core processor running at 5GHz. It's the first time we've seen a single socket desktop CPU cram in that many cores, and it's certainly powerful. In Cinebench, it achieved a score of 7,334 on stage, something that's only bested by multi-processor systems. Better yet, Bryant says it's not just a concept, as Intel plans to sell the 28-core CPU by the end of the year. Time to start saving.
That's what I've been doing for non-compliant sites.
- If your browser doesn't have this option yet, write its developers, product managers, or CEO, voicing your most humble request that they try do something that does work, at least with some pages some of the time, to try to proactively automatically agree to GDPR and cookies. (Or automatically disagree with them, discard cookies, whatever.)
I promise you that it is possible technically to do something that works on at least 1 page, that other web sites could mimic the interaction of and have it work on them too.
Sites won't all support browsers' solutions but if browsers can automate something, then some web sites can adapt to it. (By using the same interaction, names, etc - i.e. legally clicking for the user, or so that the web site can't tell if the browser sent that automated per the setting chosen by the user, or if the user manually clicked. Even if they can only automate ones that closely match certain element names etc it will still be a step ahead.)
But they realise that almost nobody actually wants the tracking, and that does not align with their interests.
They are currently just trying the waters, see what they can get away with, most certainly already have a backup plan they will enable at the first sign of trouble.
The GDPR is very different : it does not prevent offering legit features by itself. So I often happen to leave a site if I'm not satisfied by their GDPR implementation and they try to force tracking on me, I won't sell my privacy that cheap if I'm given the choice. That's something I couldn't do with cookies and I just was accepting their notice blindly.
By the way there even is a simple standardized way to know if I give my consent for tracking me or not without asking - the Do Not Track HTTP header field. That's a pity Microsoft has screwed it by turning it on by default. I wish GDPR would just require every website to respect this flag.
I'm pretty sure almost every reaction and e-mail that I have got due to GDPR is against the spirit. I had never thought it would be allowed, much less massively adopted, to "opt in" 100% of your existing userbase by fleshing out your existing Terms of Service and that's that. I thought it would require a new contract/agreement with the user to be signed/clicked "yes" to. I swear by far most have just somehow pulled me into their new "more privacy aware" system.
No. Electron "developers" may say that. The vast majority of us, do not in fact say that.
I've yet to actually see any argument directly from someone involved, in favour of electron apps besides "it was just or a web app" or "it's quicker/cheaper this way".
If I throw a bucket of house paint over your Honda, that's also quicker. That doesn't mean the result is really what anyone would consider 'acceptable'.
But, I think my pedantry does not dissuade from your actual point; making a modern MacOS program requires that you have a macOS machine- It also precludes learning a language that typically only runs on that platform (I know swift is cross platform but none of the windowing libraries that you'll use are).
Making tailored software per platform is tedious, making the same program multiple ways so that it can be native is just time consuming if nothing else.
Electron is an ugly way of fixing that; but it does the job of fixing it- Qt is an ideal solution in theory but it's obviously too much of a burden on developers to adopt.
I only hope it's from the second half of 2013: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/06/04/macos-mojave-supported-...
Eh? No it doesn't.
> When you discover you can no longer develop on your 2012 machine
The cutoff would be either 2008 or 2009 depending on line.
16 GB DDR4 cost $200 now. This is not low-end, this is reaching premium levels. I got an entire mid-range smartphone for $165 last month.
They also had the 28 core Cascade Lake on the showroom floor with their partners with normal water blocks.
https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-dominus-spotted-with-28-cor...
Air cooling is however quite likely out of the question if you want to keep your hearing.
I think air cooling is 100% out. Using the current generation LFA3647 Xeons, you pretty much need dual 8180 kind of setup to get Cinebench score of around 7500, that is 410w TDP for two processors. With the same 14nm, squeezing such computing power into a single chip is not going to lower the TDP. We are about to see the hottest (300-400W) Intel processor ever released.
Those boxes on stage sure don't look air-cooled to me. The plumbing seriously resembles that of a phase-change setup, which would actually make sense here as an extremely low operating temperature would help tame the leakage power tremendously.
In summary though, it ain't gonna be cheap to buy or cool.
it is simply not practical to boost freq from 2.5 base/3.5 turbo to all cores 5Ghz.
If this had a different core count from the 8180 I would agree but I wouldn't expect Intel to do a completely separate design just for a model that will need to be highly binned regardless.
That or Intel has made some serious magic happen at 14nm++++++++++.
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x...
will be interesting to watch what AMD is going to offer using their new 12nm toy. ;)
Possible IPC enhancements from architecture optimizations of Zen2 + better clocks = first time since over a decade that AMD beats Intel in single threaded workloads? Due to their better SMT implementation (?) they seem to beat Intel in multithreaded scenarios already with same core count and around the same clock (at least in Cinebench).
Though I don't think phase-change is really suitable for a consumer CPU. I would think it's just going to be bundled with a big integrated water-cooler (a bit like AMD's FX-9590 CPU which was a 220TDP part)
300W??
http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/overc...
Try 800W.
Interesting how only when AMD starts shipping something competitive with their chips, does Intel roll up its sleeves and get busy on breaking new ground. There almost seems to be a correlation ...!
Now I am not completely sure they are just sitting in a warehouse though. I understand Volta is currently in mass production and will launch around July/August.
Last year I went looking through consumer-class CPUs looking to upgrade. They are more or less all a very unimpressive 4 core, 8 thread, 3.0 ghz. Maybe they have a tiny bit more cache. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade.
Progress on consumer-class CPUs this decade has been utterly anemic. The only one I've seriously been wowed by is the Ryzen Threadripper. Now all of a sudden, Intel is readying better CPUs. Entirely coincidental, I'm sure.
In a way, that was good thing, though. For the first time in my memory, a five-year-old PC is not a piece of junk I am just too lazy to get rid off, but a machine fully capable running current software (at least after install more RAM and an SSD). (Within reasonable limits, of course, I am not talking about high end games or such.)
The fact that CPUs did not get faster (not much, at least) also meant that software could not afford to get slower, which greatly extended the useful lifespans of older machines.
No, it's not the mid 90's anymore where we were tripling performance every time we upgraded. There's still progress.
I went from a Nehalem i7 3.20GHz extreme hex core, to a kabylake i7 7700k 4-core, and it's a night and day difference.
In every one of my use cases my 7700k outperforms the older CPU.
A Sandy Bridge 4-core, 8-thread, 3.0 ghz CPU from 2011 would be something like a i7-2960XM. It's actually 2.70 ghz base frequency, but 8MB cache and 55W.
A comparable modern CPU (same cores, threads, base frequency, cache) is a i7-8559U. This has a TDP of 28W.
The old processor would scale up to 3.7 ghz while the new one scales up to 4.5. And the new processor has 1.5 times the memory bandwidth. And I expect the GPU is a lot better.
The new processor probably has somewhat better instruction throughput at the same clock rate. All that said, I agree this is not the 90s and we're not getting 10x or more improvements in speed over the course of 7 years here... The new processor _is_ better; just not enough better to be worth paying $400 for unless you're getting a new computer anyway for other reasons.
(Note that these are both "mobile" processors, fwiw; I assume that's the comparison point if we're talking consumer-class, because consumers don't really buy desktops.)
In order to maximize their yield and make consumer processors an economic reality, Intel tests every single chip that goes off the assembly line and cut the "fuses" of the regions that don't pass quality control. A perfect chip becomes an i7 (or an i9 or even sometimes a Xeon) while the less perfect chips become i5s and the ones with the most errors become i3s with most of their cores disabled.
As other posters have noted: that 2600K CPU part you bought in 2011 is the Intel Extreme line, which are the top of the line i7s that have not only passed QC on their cores but have also been "burned in" or tested for stability at the higher end of possible operating frequencies for that generation. You're literally comparing the best of the best from 7 years ago to stuff that just barely missed the dumpster.
For example, out of the dozens of desktops I've built for my friends, family, and me, all of the -K processors that I've used are still alive today - including an i7-965 Extreme that's almost ten years old now. My experience with i3/i5 is much worse.
AMD's Zen arch is an 8 core die, and they get very high yields out of it. Even the downmarket parts mostly or entirely had 8 working cores before fusing off.
Intel's big 28 core parts are (at least historically) a huge single die, with very very low yields. They charge a huge dollar amount for the parts because they cannot afford not to — the manufacturing costs are very high. There is some speculation that this 5GHz part is actually a bridged smaller die design, like AMD's Zen platform. Intel's bridge design is called "EMIB," if you want to google that speculation further.
No. The 2700K was a high end consumer CPU that could be bought for about $300, and didn't need a crazy expensive motherboard or socket. It wasn't extreme (also note the lack of an "X" in the model name).
(FWIW, TR is a very upmarket part compared to a 4-core SB and you will pay a large premium for that, especially for the motherboard. However, even an 8-core Ryzen 1700X would be a huge upgrade over a 4-core SB and the 4- and 6-core Ryzens look very affordable.)
They don't go up to that insane frequency, but still. There's plenty of opportunity to shop around if you want really beefy systems, which is a very refreshing state of affairs compared to just two years ago.
The Epyc 7501, 7601, etc, are all 32 cores and 64 threads.
Presumably they were too expensive (manufacturing, power, cooling, etc.) since they're not ubiquitous. IIRC the "barrier" to going any higher was the speed of light across the chip: running faster than 5GHz would require the output to be causally independent from the input!
Moore's law doesn't include capital investment as a factor.
Initially, it could be mostly ignored as it was swamped by available profits (at least for microprocessors, less so for memory). More recently, I believe it's been matched by increased volume of semiconductors used throughout the global economy.
But at some point we'll reach saturation. And costs to shrink feature size will continue to increase exponentially. So it simply won't make financial sense to continue.
(Unless non-silicon, non-electrical, or radical patterning technology hits a breakthrough)
"Intel stated in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm feature width around 2012, and continuing at 14 nm.[20] Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced, 'Our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
"Intel disclosed in a regulatory filing that it is slowing the pace with which it launches new chip-making technology."
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601102/intel-puts-the-bra...
Moore's law for GPUs, on the other hand, hasn't slowed down yet because it's not as close to the wall.
https://blog.openai.com/ai-and-compute/
https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-ceo-says-moores-law-is-dead-a...
I am just afraid Intel will once more use its deep pockets and questionable business practices to crush AMD just when things were starting to get interesting again.
EDIT: Typo
This sounds extraordinarily doable to me. I'd be very shocked if this was anything but an off-the-shelf SKL-SP die with consumer fusing.
[1] And given that it's a server part, this calibration is inherently more conservative than you see in desktop stuff.
Also, while not AVX-intensive, CB does use some AVX, which usually draws more power (and thus limits clock more) than pure integer or even ordinary FPU computation.
Jumping from 3.8 GHz single core turbo to 5 GHz 28-core turbo is a big jump in power.
There can't be many people in the world who will pay the 10k-20k price tag. How many people have the pull with their employers to justify it?
The production run must be insanely low or i just don't understand the marketplace around high end chips.
If you're a cloud provider, it also makes sense to have very large capable machines to increase your density.
Power consumption in datacenters is typically a significant cost of total hosting. (I pay the same as what a server costs in power consumption per year, per server)
So if you can have double the compute, with the same power draw, it's worth double the price in the first year alone, typically servers have a 3-5y life-cycle. So you can extrapolate that to "a server that is double the cost but the same power draw can be worth 5x as much as a slower CPU". but that's the cut-off..
For many servers the flat rate fee of: the license of anything that runs; the motherboard, the drives, the memory, the PSU, the cabling, the space, the power consumption means that it can be economical to egregiously spec out on CPU; if that's the bottleneck which is the case in a lot of virtual or build environments.
To put hardware prices to perspective, think how much it costs to run even a small development team. If hardware makes them more productive and/or happier, most of the time you should go for it. Sad too see expensive people stuck with mediocre tools.
Another poster suggests the TDP is over 300W.[1]
For a home computing device component, that's quite the pricetag. With the amount of heat it generates, maybe Intel could market it as a combination processor and space heater?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17235900
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17235951
our current 2 x 14C workstations are $10-12K - and we're just a lowly no-pull devs in a BigCo not known for any lavishness toward low level rank and file.
Normal RAM can handle 1.35V typically and often goes up to 3200 MT/s (on AMD systems) or 3600 MT/s (on Intel systems). That's easily +20% to +35% more memory bandwidth. With lower latency and better overall specs to boot.
And if your 3d render has a pixel-error on frame 50, delete the .png file and rerender frame 50. No biggie.
As for me I'm just annoyed by the fact I have never seen a laptop that supports ECC (as for now it seems there actually are a couple of models e.g. ThinkPad P70). I personally don't really care about the RAM bandwidth, I'm still using DDR2 anyway, but I would love to use ECC.
If your 3D rendering has any pixel errors, replace the offending hardware. If your RAM is bad in one place, you need to replace it, ECC or not.
The RAM chip itself would do any computation if needed instead of the CPU, and if it needs to give interrupts to warn about error conditions, it could output it as an electric signal you can hook up to anything you want yourself (including to the CPU in some way, like via USB or something lower level, or otherwise a warning light or beep or so)
For one it is opt out, which isn't allowed. It also claims that you need to accept to continue using the site, which isn't allowed, then it's countless steps required to opt out (if you even can, I got lost and accidentally allowed everything a few clicks in).
This is probably worse than just pretending GDPR didn't exist. This is a deliberate and disrespectful fuck you to every single visitor.
Example: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12875/intel-announces-the-cor...
If this 28 core monster really is released I'm curious what it will cost. The 18 core i9 costs ~2000 dollar, the 28 core Xeon with much lower clocks (but with ECC etc.) ~8000.
The power requirements will be even more interesting looking at the 18 core numbers when overclocked.
It is also not illegal to require visitors to clarify to which data processing they consent to (GDPR only says that if you require consent for processing that is not necessary to provide the service, then that does not count as consent for GDPR purposes).
As I interpret it if you don't actively checked that means that you don't opt out from it. Which really makes sense considering how the sole purpose of the entire feature is to confuse and tire people into submission.
The whole thing is opt-out, since it clearly states that pressing "Ok" (the only button that dismisses the dialog) is accepting tracking.
Which is good becase that saved me a chunk of my life on Engadget who clearly have no respect for the readers.
# of cores: 28
# of threads: 56
Hyper Threading FTW!
http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8490627
Perhaps we should be more worried that it's only 5.something times faster than an 8yo CPU with fewer than half the cores.
https://s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/c18d803c00f096b8d7b57...
Or is this like AMD's Threadripper any EPYC, and they are duct taping together multiple CPUs in a single socket? Eg, 2 x 14 cores CPUS connected with QPI or EMIB ? 4 x 7 cores? I wonder if AMD patented this technique..
IIRC, according to Intel's slides, AMD used glue.
In my experience, cores getting blocked for instructions is not commonplace. They can block waiting for data if the computation is memory-bound.
Edit: These are the specs for the [Skylake 8180](https://ark.intel.com/products/120496/Intel-Xeon-Platinum-81...). These chips are nowhere close to 5GHz though.
How did we manage to break 28 Core all running at 5Ghz barrier when we were previously hold up even 8 Core running at 4.4Ghz at the same time.
Seriously why have the video float? If I’ve scrolled down it’s probably to read - like wtf is the intended user interaction goal there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRH0-QwhvVQ