Intel unveils new X-series processors, including the $2,000 18-core/36-thread i9 chip

[Jack Reacher]

Uh ... No thanks Intel, I'm happy with the size of my "package."

 

[captaincranky]

Just a mistake I realized, of the marketing team: TFLOPS singular isn't "teraflop" (PS stands for "per second", the S is not for plural).

Actually, I believe the "OP" combined is "operations", and the "S", (which isn't normally capitalized (?)), simply stands for "second", (singular).

Which gives you this, "Tera FLoating point OPerations (per) Second".

But don't pay me too much mind, I still thnk "RAID" stands for, "Redundant Array of Independent Discs", rather than "Redundany Array of Inexpensive Discs" << (Which is absurd, but often used).

 

[EEatGDL]

Actually, I believe the "OP" combined is "operations", and the "S", (which isn't normally capitalized (?)), simply stands for "second", (singular).

Which gives you this, "Tera FLoating point OPerations (per) Second".

Yet we both agree that S stands for second, doesn't represent plural, and shouldn't be removed for singular.

 

[captaincranky]

Yet we both agree that S stands for second, doesn't represent plural, and shouldn't be removed for singular.

That's something, I suppose.

Actually, I think it can stand for the plural, assuming a device's capacity is greater than 1 tera FLOP(s). You are dealing with an assumed quantity of time. After, all, who, (in their right mind), would think is terms of a "teraflop", being measured over the course of a a day, hour, or even a minute.

The "second" is an assumed quantity of time, except where it would be absolutely necessary to maintain coherance.. To wit, "MPH, MPS, MPM". (*)

Besides, you're dealing with a real old timer. I still measure frequency in "cycles", instead of "Hertz" (**)

(*) In the case of "MPS", and "MPM", to be correct in context, you would have to write out, "Miles per Second", and, "Miles per Minute" at least the first time you used then, for clarity's sake.

This is fun, can we do this some more?

(**) EDIT: In the old days frequency was measured in, "cycles per second". This was from zero through infinity. Sound and AM radio would be in "kilocycles", (until you hit one millions cycles per second, then the term began as "megacycles". So, you have "kcs" and "mcs". When the measuring standard was changed to "Hertz", it was implied that the included time of measurement was one second. So saying, "Hertz per second", would essentially be a vulgarity, or unnecessary extension of the term.

 

[Tommy Lee]

Looking at the specs and having a Broadwell-e 6850k I see no reason to even consider it because the comparisons are pretty much identical except X299 have more Cpu's with more cores which is useless in gaming content creation is one thing but Intel trying to trick people into buying these for gaming is nuts

 

[captaincranky]

Looking at the specs and having a Broadwell-e 6850k I see no reason to even consider it because the comparisons are pretty much identical except X299 have more Cpu's with more cores which is useless in gaming content creation is one thing but Intel trying to trick people into buying these for gaming is nuts

How is Intel trying to trick you into anything?

AMD releases a bunch of CPUs with a ton of cores, and all the game boys go nuts, "gotta have one". Intel one-ups them, and now they're trying to trick gamers into buying them?

Spare me!

 

[slamscaper]

I can remember when it was much more affordable to have Intel's highest end chipset. I still have my old X58, core i7 920 build running with Windows 10 Pro 64-bit installed (along with a GTX 670). Back when I built that rig, it was on average $300 to get an X58 motherboard and about $330 for the i7 920, which could be OC'ed to match the speed of everything except the 980x, which had two more cores at it's disposal but certainly wasn't worth the extra $700 for that. Back then, the 920 was such a no-brainer as it did match the 980x in games seeing as they were single-threaded for the most part.

Things are so different today. Seeing as you can buy high end hardware in nearly ever socket config, x299 has to be OUTRAGEOUS to matter and Intel surely is making it so. I bet the motherboards are gonna average around $400-$600. It's good they have at least a few affordable CPU's but the prices on the 10 core model and above are completely insane. The days when you could spend a decent chunk of change, overclock your gear and nearly match the performance of the folks spending much more on X series CPU's are over. They have effectively forced everyone to seriously fork out cash if you want that performance. While that makes sense in some degree, for overclocker's without seriously deep pockets, it's a let down I must say.

P.S. Only having 16 PCIe lanes on the affordable quad-core X series CPU's is just a drag. Hell even having 28 on the hexa-core's is disappointing. On X58 I have 36 regardless of CPU I chose. Now I realize back then the controller didn't reside inside the CPU, but still it's the idea of it. You buy Intel's X series platform for all the extras, like ample USB and SATA ports. PCIe lanes are important these days and I think they should have included more with the lower-end X299 CPU's. 16 lanes is just not very appealing.

 

[Tommy Lee]

How is Intel trying to trick you into anything?

AMD releases a bunch of CPUs with a ton of cores, and all the game boys go nuts, "gotta have one". Intel one-ups them, and now they're trying to trick gamers into buying them?

Spare me!

I'll Spare you all this is a big Gimmick
All this racing to put more cores into CPU's is a bunch of crap you will not see any difference only in benchmarks
Plus the pretty much made it unaffordable to anyone who is even trying to get the best performance makes this platform a joke but I am sure people like you will hang them all their money and then some
For your information captain cranky pants it's aimed at gamers

 

[captaincranky]

I'...[ ]....For your information captain cranky pants it's aimed at gamers

Like they say, "a fool and his money are soon parted company". If gamers are fools, then so be it.

I'm certainly not chafing at the bit for anything other than what I already have.

If you ring a bell at a gamer, and the boy salivates, whose problem is it really? The one who's ringing the bell, or the fool who's listening for it.

Here ya go, Intel's playing your song:

 

[captaincranky]

Things are so different today. Seeing as you can buy high end hardware in nearly ever socket config, x299 has to be OUTRAGEOUS to matter and Intel surely is making it so. I bet the motherboards are gonna average around $400-$600. It's good they have at least a few affordable CPU's but the prices on the 10 core model and above are completely insane. The days when you could spend a decent chunk of change, overclock your gear and nearly match the performance of the folks spending much more on X series CPU's are over. They have effectively forced everyone to seriously fork out cash if you want that performance. While that makes sense in some degree, for overclocker's without seriously deep pockets, it's a let down I must say....[ ].....

Ah, poor baby, you can't afford the biggest, baddest rig around any more? My heart goes out to you. I say screw Intel and go buy a "Ryzen".

Never mind, do whatever you like. We'll likely never hear the end of whichever you choose.

 

[Kibaruk]

As said by @captaincranky already, AMD does it they get praised, Intel does it and they are tricking people... damned fanboyism. Wait until they release the benchmarks but let me tell you this, logically speaking, there is not a chance that Intel will market and release an under-performing product at a more expensive price than AMD.

Ok fanboys, don't get me wrong, AMD has usually won the BfB (Bang for Buck) and for most times it makes a lot of sense to build rigs with AMD procs -I know I've made a couple-, but AMD has never been on the lead for the past 10+ years on real performance. Intel is cutting AMD some slack and I'm pretty sure they are quite unhappy with this new announcement.

I remember when the new line of video cards came out, the RX ### "this is the best card ever", later nvidia released the 10## line, there it goes AMD. They have been playing catch up for the last decade, what are you expecting?

 

[captaincranky]

OK, with this "X" series, what you're most likely looking at, (particularly at the high core count end), is the new Zeons, partially "optimized", for desktop fanatics. Zeons ain't cheap, so why would you expect these heavy hitters to be different? One has to assume Intel is going to run lower lines under these flagship models.

The bottom line is, all the whiners and whimperers who have been posting to this thread, are most likely the same hacks who have been running their mouths for the past decade, saying, "I would never would be stupid enough to buy an Intel 'Extreme' processor, those are a ripoff".

Well now, you don't have to waste your collective breath with those machinations. You simply can't afford one, so hush..

(BTW, you most likely couldn't afford one of those $1000.00 P-4s either).

Comparing a P-4 Extreme with a new 18 core 36 thread behemoth is an absurdity anyway. In fact, you'd likely have to buy 36 of those P4's, to provide the same throughput as the new $2,000.00 single chip'

So, at $36,000.00 worth of P-4's, versus $2000.00, I'd say that new whooper of an "X'" chip, is about the biggest bargain going.

 

[slamscaper]

Ah, poor baby, you can't afford the biggest, baddest rig around any more? My heart goes out to you. I say screw Intel and go buy a "Ryzen".

Never mind, do whatever you like. We'll likely never hear the end of whichever you choose.

Thanks I do like Ryzen myself.

Seeing as you have 12,000+ posts, I'm sure we'll hear a hell of a lot more from you.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]... Seeing as you have 12,000+ posts, I'm sure we'll hear a hell of a lot more from you.

Gee, I hope that's not a problem for ya.......