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

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,840
VideoCardz is reporting that Intel might soon unleash HEDT CPUs that could compete with AMD's Ryzen multi-core processors, obviously that will depend on pricing. Intel's new CPUs are to carry Core-i9 7800 and 7900 series branding.

The i9-7900 series will support up to 44 PCIe lanes, while i9-7800 are feature up to 28 lanes and i7-7700/7600 up to 16. Three parts from i9 series will feature a third clock state called Turbo Clock 3.0, which essentially allows Intel’s Core-X CPUs to reach much higher clocks than Broadwell-E. Allegedly Core-X processors have AVX512 extensions enabled. According to the leaker, the L2 cache size is 1MB. Skylake-X parts support quad-DDR4 2666 MHz, while Kabylake-X support dual-channel. All processors expect i9-7920X are to launch next month, probably after PC Gaming Show, which Intel is sponsoring this year.
 
Last edited:
Whats surprising is how much more l3 cache AMDs HEDT chips will have and that Intel is skimping out in that department. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at Intel being cheap, as the TIM on the mainstream probably saves them pennies per cpu. I imagine AMD's 16 core HEDT CPU will be very competitive with the 7920x.
 
Darkswordz said:
I can see it now....

i9 7920X (12c/24t) = $2,449.99
i9 7900X (10c/20t) = $1,649.99
i9 7820X (8c/16t) = $1,049.99
i9 7800X (6c/12t) = $549.99

:banghead:
Click to expand...
You're probably right, the prices wont differ much from the current 8 and 10 core cpu's.
 
Waiting for all the 7700k fanboyz to claim these are amazing even though they will have less FPS at 720P which was a huge sticking point for a select few characters.

Should be quite interesting reading a bunch of the review sites now, the ones that said 7700k is best....then proceed to do all GPU test with 6700ks etc
 
I imagine these i9s will be overpriced... however. It gives Intel a path for higher core server parts to compete with AMDs upcoming offerings. I guess AMD has scared them in the consumer market enought that they are now worried about the real cash cow. lol

Go AMD.
 
i can't find too much fault with my 6600k @ 4.5Ghz... I'd love a Hex-core 12T CPU... but knowing intel it will still cost $500 (if you are lucky) . Nice to see AMD rattling their cage a little bit though.

I'm sure these will be $1k+

If intel really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into AMD's progress, they would just across the board cut prices to match. Sure profits might be zero for a while but they are sitting on 17B dollars, I think they can sell at cost for a while and be okay.

*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.
 
What's with the 6 cores slow speed? shouln't it be the fastest as it would generate less heat?
 
gxp500 said:
You're probably right, the prices wont differ much from the current 8 and 10 core cpu's.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm worried about as well. But if AMD is forcing them to add more cores, I don't think it would make sense to put them in an entirely different price bracket.
 
This is exactly what we thought would happen, but I thought it would take intel a bit longer to respond. Eager to see the prices.
 
Unless Intel is willing to cannibalize their own current HEDT chips, make these new i9's compete at AMD pricing for their 1700X/1800X series and beyond, this really doesn't mean a whole lot.
If Intel is seriously shaking in their boots about what AMD has released/announced, we will see that reflected in future pricing.
Otherwise, they're probably just slightly bumping up already planned releases.

And I'm an AMD fan, but I keep it real.

But yes, competition is a great thing and sadly something we rarely see in the CPU and GPU market.
SO LETS GO AMD!! :)
 
collegeboy69us said:
If intel really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into AMD's progress, they would just across the board cut prices to match. Sure profits might be zero for a while but they are sitting on 17B dollars, I think they can sell at cost for a while and be okay.
Click to expand...

This is the textbook example of an anticompetitive business practice. You can't abuse your market position to drive competitors out of business.
 
Looking at the posts here about AMD scaring Intel to add more cores has me laughing so hard my side hurts.

You people DO understand these are the new "Extreme" line of CPUs from Intel right? They have had 6, 8 and 10 core CPUs in that line up for a while now, the last one being the 6950X, which is a 10 core, the gen before that? 8 core. Now the new one is out and follows the same trend we have seen for many generations now of adding 2 more cores, and then all of a sudden, it's because of AMD or this would have never happened!!! OMG!!!

I just don't understand this history distortion field that seems to exist around people with AMD/Intel.

These will not be cheap, in the past all of the X line of chips have been in the 1K+ range. Now, if you see a significant drop in the prices for these new Extreme line CPUs, we might have something to talk about with AMD.
 
zerogg said:
Whats surprising is how much more l3 cache AMDs HEDT chips will have and that Intel is skimping out in that department. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at Intel being cheap, as the TIM on the mainstream probably saves them pennies per cpu. I imagine AMD's 16 core HEDT CPU will be very competitive with the 7920x.
Click to expand...

I just posted the same in the AMD rumor thread. Any idea why Intel is giving these chips only 1.375MB of L3 cache per core? Sandy and Ivy had 2-2.5 while Broadwell and Haswell had 2.5 per core. Nearly halving the L3 seems odd. Cost savings? Heat dissipation issues? Considering the die size, I don't get all the empty space.

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...

Intel hasn't released chips with much in the way of IPC gains for several years now.
 
Darkswordz said:
I can see it now....

i9 7920X (12c/24t) = $2,449.99
i9 7900X (10c/20t) = $1,649.99
i9 7820X (8c/16t) = $1,049.99
i9 7800X (6c/12t) = $549.99

:banghead:
Click to expand...

lol i was going to post something like that too but held off doing that on the very first post. your post is written way better than mine would of been anyways.


CombatChrisNC said:
Will this drive down the price of the existing i7 lineup at all?
Click to expand...

no, not at all. intel's not having issues selling processors at their current price so there's no reason to lower them further.
 
Then vega will come out and we'll get the 1180/titan vista right after. Looks like I am going to be intvidia a long long long time.
 
Consumer E5's not too shabby, at a reasonable price I could find myself needing a few come September.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top