Its not Intel thread, but...
http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-english-news/8079-rumor-intel-could-commercialize-a-12c-24t-skylake-x
It is quite funny
Expect competitive prices from 6 and 8 core CPUs vs Ryzen CPUs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Discussion
- Thread starter koyoot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-english-news/8079-rumor-intel-could-commercialize-a-12c-24t-skylake-x
It is quite funny
Expect competitive prices from 6 and 8 core CPUs vs Ryzen CPUs.
Fat chance of that happening. Historically, if you've wanted to use ECC on an Intel build, you go with their server lineup. No point in cannibalizing your intro server or mid range chips by allowing ECC on HEDT setups.
[doublepost=1487814190][/doublepost]
Just the code names. If the next iterations of Ryzen can improve, then Intel will have to think things over. The server processors AMD will be putting out in Q2 may take a significant chunk out of Intel's market share which is around 90% I'd imagine.
I actually laughed my ass off, on this information about CPU OC tool from AMD.
Want to know what it is called?
Ryzen Master
A bit cheesy, but one does wonder how they came up with "Ryzen."
Last edited:
Apple wouldn't be waiting for a few years, they would have access to AMD's roadmap with Zen+ and Zen++ and all the APUs and custom options.
If you recall Apple switched to Intel because they knew they had a good roadmap for the future starting with the Core Duo and then Core 2 Duo. And it was absolutely the right choice to make at the time. Now AMD has a very solid looking roadmap so it could be time for Apple to adopt.
And it's not like they couldn't have a mixture of Intel and AMD processors if they wanted as many manufacturers do.
The only reasons I could see Apple not adopting some AMD chips is either Intel is giving them an stupid awesome deal or they just don't care about the Mac platform (both which are possible)
Right, but that's some time away from now. For all we know, Intel might have something in the works. Swap now only to get unseated by the blue giant in a few years isn't smart.
Jobs switched to Intel because he liked the incredible roadmap they had planned out. Apple picked up on Intel in 2005, half a year before Intel began shipping out Core chips to Apple, and the general market. The original Core chips and Core Duo were good, but not really hot like Core 2 Duo was later in 2006.
I don't have faith in Intel not pulling another dirty tactic.
See above, but I'd assume they'd want to keep Apple as a client. I can totally see Apple using Zen server processors in a future Mac Pro, if one is available. If mainstream pricing carries over then I can see 32 core 64 thread Mac Pros in the future running Zen server processors. Possibly a dual CPU option, too. 64 cores 128 threads. If Vega 10 workstation cards are a hot number, they'll offer it too, especially if they outperform NVidias offerings. The Mac Pros will either cost the same but pack much more performance or be slightly cheaper. This would be incredible for professionals that roam the Mac Pro system forums getting their pitchforks out because they've been neglected (which you have).
BUT, I have to agree with AidanS here (paging @AidenShaw). Benches are nice, but I think most potential customers of Ryzen would like to see some real world usage before they buy. AMD's pretty darn good at hyping products up and falling short of the mark. Once we've got an idea then and find out they're the real deal, we can extrapolate on how the server chips may perform. Because really that's what's going to be used in a Mac Pro. Serious workloads call for serious hardware.
oh shoot, I forgot the top end 1800x was 8 core.
Man, I love these new chips. Any chance that they could put two 1800's on one mobo or do we have to wait for a server release of those?
This is basically what AMD's "Naples" server/workstation platform is. There is rumored to be 16 core versions for workstations and up to 32 for high density servers. Clock speeds will probably be a bit lower because of the thermal density involved.
Erm, the 6700K in current iMac is actually 91W TDP CPU
.So what is the difference between that and 95W?
And this is just the delta between Idle and Load.
AM4 is single CPU platform.
Because in the iMac you would waste the XFR.Erm, the 6700K in current iMac is actually 91W TDP CPU
So what is the difference between that and 95W?
Doesn't Apple own more gratuitous patents than ones actually seen in products?
Yes, I know. But liquid cooling is one of the ways where XFR would not be wasted in an iMac.
For E5 v4 ( Broadwell EP) there are three dies. The die shared with the HEDT line up is a 5 layer "cake" (on the right in this image ).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10158/the-intel-xeon-e5-v4-review/2
To get to 6, 8 , 10 , 12 with one die they'd have to have a 6 layer cake. While possible that is going to be tough given only at a modified 14nm++ for next iteration. With 5 layers 6 means just 4 "non functional" cores and caches. With 6 layers that goes up to 6 "non functional cores and caches". That is a lot to 'print' in order to not use if the vast bulk of sales are in the 6-8 range. [ 6 layers is possible, if not probable, because the "if you have to ask the price you can't afford it" die goes 6 deep.... but at substantive lower clocks. ]
Throw on top increasing pricing pressure from AMD and all that unused die helps even less.
If Intel is looking to crank up the clock speed ( don't try to match TDP but go on higher bandwidth and throughput) then sticking with the 5 layer stack probably delivers more bang for the buck. If E? v5 (Skylake-X_) is decoupling from the rest of E5 then probably won't have multiple dies available.
Yes, and if AMD is smart, they'll have a decent turbo on that and possibly the ability to OC, if you choose to use it as a workstation. The 16c/32t would be mighty interesting. I think the most powerful machine you can get through custom ordering is the Z840 with 44c/88t. So if the 16c/32t Naples is cheap, say around 1,200-1,600, it's going to be a really good processor for professionals and people who simply care about expanded workload over something niche like gaming. It's going to be a dream for content creators who need above and beyond performance. Alas, we have to wait and see. IF AMD really has hit it out of the park and goes after Intel with Naples, when and if I do upgrade in a few years from my IB-E system, I will go for the 16 or 32 core, provided the latter's price comes down at some point, or if they bring in something like a 20 core, 26 core whatever Naples.
I had buyer's remorse with my IB-E system but that quickly faded.
[doublepost=1487921763][/doublepost]
Probably not. There's a rumor that their 4c/8t will be around $220 and the 4c/4t will be even cheaper. I was close with my 1800X estimate, not so much the others in the R7 lineup, as I overshot on those.
What doesn't make sense is the pricing disparity between the 1700X and the 1800X. $100 for 200 Mhz of speed on base and turbo. I suspect the 1800X price will drop 1.5-3 months post release. Which would actually fall in line with Intel's price playbook in 2006.
Edit: Can anyone confirm that Ryzen will make available the ability to use 8 SATA 6Gb/s ports versus Intel's standard 6 ports? Usually on Intel boards, even high priced ones, the extra 3 or 4 are third party.
Last edited: