Intel's new i7 is their first 10 core desktop cpu, costs $1,723
27 replies, posted
[url]http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/31/intel-debuts-its-first-10-core-cpu-the-core-i7-extreme-edition/[/url]
[QUOTE]Now that the megahertz race has slowed down in the desktop processor world, the new race is all about cores. To that end, Intel just announced its first 10-core desktop CPU, the Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition, today at Computex. (It's had 10-core Xeon CPUs for servers since 2011.) The new processor will run at 3GHz (with boost speeds up to 3.5GHz), pack in 25MB of cache and feature Intel's new Turbo Boost 3.0 technology. Just but be prepared to pay through the nose for the privilege of owning it, as the 10-core i7 Extreme Edition will cost $1,723.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Intel claims it's twice as fast as the quad-core i7 6700K when it comes to 3D rendering, and 35 percent faster than the last-gen Core i7-5960X. When it comes to editing 4K video, it's 65 percent faster than that same quad-core chip and 25 percent faster than the previous i7. On the gaming front, it's 25 percent faster than the 5960X when it comes to gaming in 4K while encoding and broadcasting a 1080p Twitch stream. Basically, if you're dealing with massive amounts of content on a daily basis, it could be the ideal CPU for you.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/af62d29646f2565efd334df5c9a525d5/203887082/Screen+Shot+2016-05-31+at+12.32.02+PM+1.png[/IMG]
PC Gamer has gaming benchmarks here:
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/broadwell-e-i7-6950x-performance-preview/[/url]
God damn.
I had a bunch of money a while ago ($999 USD) and spent it on the i7-980. The best investment I ever made, hands down. I never had my computer slow down for anything (the 980+24GB of RAM).
But $1723 USD? That's kinda pushing it.
EDIT: having said that if I have the abilitiy then I'll purchase this fucker or at least its successor. What's not to like about 10 cores.
[QUOTE=icarusfoundyou;50432009]God damn.
I had a bunch of money a while ago ($999 USD) and spent it on the i7-980. The best investment I ever made, hands down. I never had my computer slow down for anything (the 980+24GB of RAM).
But $1723 USD? That's kinda pushing it.
EDIT: having said that if I have the abilitiy then I'll purchase this fucker or at least its successor. What's not to like about 10 cores.[/QUOTE]
Can I have $10
I was hoping their 8 core chip would be cheaper (and cost around €500) but I was sorely disappoint.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50432170]Can I have $10[/QUOTE]
It was only at a certain stage of my life. TBH, I'd rather spend money on a fancy processor than health insurance so I'm no one ot look up to.
The 980 was pretty amazing though.
The price will have to come down eventually, no game devs will build games around using it due to how uncommon it will be.
Could be a good replacement for streamers who use a dedicated streaming machine so they dont need 2 computers on at a time.
[QUOTE=mickers;50432221]The price will have to come down eventually, no game devs will build games around using it due to how uncommon it will be.
Could be a good replacement for streamers who use a dedicated streaming machine so they dont need 2 computers on at a time.[/QUOTE]
Not everything is about video games though.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;50432347]Not everything is about video games though.[/QUOTE]
Cant think of the word to google for it now, but i would love to see some graphs on what higher end cpu's are mostly bought by. If its 3d movie studios, gamers, developers ect
I wish Intel would give it a go at making a low performance processor with many many cores, like a 16-core Atom, thus it'd be affordable for the average consumer.
Surely with the right multicore processing, software would run better? And hell I bet there'd be an interest for it in the budget server industry, I know that I would.
[QUOTE=Tools;50432432]I wish Intel would give it a go at making a low performance processor with many many cores, like a 16-core Atom, thus it'd be affordable for the average consumer.
Surely with the right multicore processing, software would run better? And hell I bet there'd be an interest for it in the budget server industry, I know that I would.[/QUOTE]
ARM has really taken the market with lower power CPUs, Atoms were kinda pushed outta the race due to ARM market dominance.
Just look at the Cortex A9s for multicore low power CPUs.
would love to have this for lightning fast renders. shame it costs so fucking much
finally I can run arma 3 at 30 fps
[QUOTE=Bobie;50432782]would love to have this for lightning fast renders. shame it costs so fucking much[/QUOTE]
Does any video editing software take advantage of GPU based rendering? It always seems like a CPU bottleneck for video editing.
[QUOTE=mickers;50432416]Cant think of the word to google for it now, but i would love to see some graphs on what higher end cpu's are mostly bought by. If its 3d movie studios, gamers, developers ect[/QUOTE]
It is pretty awesome to have if you edit video too, professionally anyhow. I wouldn't spend 1700 dollars to make my dumb youtube vids a little faster.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50432840]Does any video editing software take advantage of GPU based rendering? It always seems like a CPU bottleneck for video editing.[/QUOTE]
i don't know about video editing, but if you're into CG then use redshift render. Blizzard used it for their overwatch shorts, its 10-20 times faster than any CPU based renderer on the market
6850k looks like a very nice sweetspot of cores/clock, and the price is pretty good too.
[editline]31st May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50432840]Does any video editing software take advantage of GPU based rendering? It always seems like a CPU bottleneck for video editing.[/QUOTE]
Depends what part, encoding is almost exclusively done on the CPU because of how it works, it can't effectively utilize GPU with current algorithms (h.26x, VPx).
Actual fades and effects on video can sometimes be accelerated with a GPU, and path-tracing for CGI certainly can (Octane render)
Cost and TPD is off putting, I'd rather just get a Xeon for that price.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;50433335]Cost and TPD is off putting, I'd rather just get a Xeon for that price.[/QUOTE]
The main point of these over a Xeon is stock clockspeed and overclocking. Not like you're really going to get a Xeon with comparable clockspeed for any cheaper. In fact they'd be more expensive.
[QUOTE=Levelog;50433369]The main point of these over a Xeon is stock clockspeed and overclocking. Not like you're really going to get a Xeon with comparable clockspeed for any cheaper. In fact they'd be more expensive.[/QUOTE]
While that is true, you still CAN OC a Xeon
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117629[/url]
Since I work heavily in IT I was looking forward to this line up for price points, running a VMware lab and some servers on it can get pricey in power. Obviously, if you are going for the best gaming performance you will most likely want to look into the 6800k.
[QUOTE=Tools;50432432]Surely with the right multicore processing, software would run better?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Well. Kind of.
If the tasks are long running and the data sets have no weird dependencies on other parts of itself it's trivial to speed up using more cores. Though this isn't really the hard part, the hard part is getting fuckers to use threaded and multi-core paradigms properly.
In the mobile market it's not super bad as Android and iOS abstract so much of this stuff away that you can naively implement background tasks and parallel workers and the OS will probably not fuck you over. But when it comes to desktop stuff where you're not just given an API it's much easier to fuck shit up.
I'd love to see an influx in mobile many-core processors like that though. Just shitloads of programs running in parallel so even the expectedly lower clock speed won't destroy you.
I was waiting to see what the stats on these would be like, none of them are really worth it for gaming compared to price/performance with the 6700k.
Going to just buy a 6700k soon to go with my gtx 1080.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;50433417]While that is true, you still CAN OC a Xeon
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117629[/url]
Since I work heavily in IT I was looking forward to this line up for price points, running a VMware lab and some servers on it can get pricey in power. Obviously, if you are going for the best gaming performance you will most likely want to look into the 6800k.[/QUOTE]
Shitty BCLK overclocking. Nothing very serious.
I'm probably being a CIPWTTKT but why do they choose slow speeds? Why not past 4Ghz with 10 cores? Why not a fast processor with shittons of cores instead of a processor with a shitton of cores?
I don't exactly know why they're clocked so low, but you can get some pretty high overclocks with relative ease with these. My 5820k can get all the way up to 4.7ghz with good temps before pumping too much into vcore and leaving what many consider the safe zone for haswell-e (below 1.35 volts), even the shittiest ones could cap out at 4.3ghz.
Xenon came out with a 22 core, only if I could afford such tech
[QUOTE=RockyTV;50433853]I'm probably being a CIPWTTKT but why do they choose slow speeds? Why not past 4Ghz with 10 cores? Why not a fast processor with shittons of cores instead of a processor with a shitton of cores?[/QUOTE]
It's partly because of power dissipation. When you cram more cores into a tiny metal can AND crank up the frequency up, you're going to dissipate ridiculous amounts of heat.
[QUOTE=RockyTV;50433853]I'm probably being a CIPWTTKT but why do they choose slow speeds? Why not past 4Ghz with 10 cores? Why not a fast processor with shittons of cores instead of a processor with a shitton of cores?[/QUOTE]
Heat.
[QUOTE=RockyTV;50433853]I'm probably being a CIPWTTKT but why do they choose slow speeds? Why not past 4Ghz with 10 cores? Why not a fast processor with shittons of cores instead of a processor with a shitton of cores?[/QUOTE]
Because if we had just stuck with increasing clock speeds the sheer physics dictates that eventually voltage leaks so bad that more energy is leaking than you can pump into it. It's like trying to fill a bucket that has an ever growing hole.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.