Disappointed to see no major desktop cpu releases. I want the next i7 in my workstation SFF. That along with the stuck-in-production GHOST S1 Or Dan Case A4 sff cases.
Page 4 has 20 (assuming I counted right) additional desktop parts as Intel's filled out the lineup started with a handful of mostly high end K parts last fall.
I know desktop gamers will not like to hear this - but reality is the desktop market is shrinking and mobile market is where both where the money is at and is increasing performance so desktop market will go away one day.
There are a lot of us out here who actually do work on desktop PC's. Don't forget that gaming is not the only usage. There is no laptop that is going to replace my three 24 inch monitors :)
I have a laptop with 3 independent screens, if I opened the laptop I would have 4 screens. The number of screens has nothing to do with desktop/laptop.
And at that point, why not just have a desktop PC? If it's a desk space issue, UCFF and SFF PCs can now rival full desktop performance. I guess there's the portability angle, you can take your "desktop" with you when you travel and work/game on the road. Otherwise, three large desktop monitors and USB or Bluetooth connected peripherals can be served equally well from a tower, UCFF PC, or a laptop.
Can you open your desktop while on a plane, at the hotel, etc... You really want to carry monitor + keyboard + wires +++ while travelling? Facts are there, desktop market is shrinking and laptops are now almost as powerful as a desktop for a couple hundred dollars more. Whatever is the reason behind that, it is happening. I personally own both. Laptop to game at work and desktop to work at home.
This excuse about monitor keyboard mice can't be used any more. I am old school person that built my own pc and actual use a dos editor call brief. I work at home and use a ThinkPad and monitor stays down and Conniected to two 24in monitors, day keyboard and Microsoft wireless mouse.
But the advantage of I need to go I can take laptop on plane with me - try that with a huge desktop
I believe I can go more than two monitor on this system but for me two is perfect
The traditional desktop segment used for gaming might kind of go away but you'll always be able to throw a workstation CPU into a gaming desktop if that's your thing. Server and workstation CPUs aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future.
I would agree on server segment of industry - but workstations have lately - and especially with latest 8th Generation move mobile with Mobile Xeon chips - but still you need to desktop chips for higher core counts and multiple cpu's.
I could see one day with technology like EMIB, have multiple cpus and gpu on a laptop. Who knows they could possible do that with dual EMIB on system. It depends on demand - workstation industry actually in a lot of ways of driving CPU and GPU even more than gaming.
I remember when first interested in Lightwave 3D - I learn that NewTek switch to include Windows because of advancements in Windows NT technology. At this time it was only on Apple Mac which were the obsolete PowerPC devices
The analogy can be made to SSD vs HDD also. SSD might replace 80% of use cases but there will always be some areas where raw storage is simply more valuable than immediate speed. HDD will never go away as long as the $/gb remains far far less than SSD.
Fixed desktops will never go away entirely as long as bigger, power-hungrier parts can still outperform mobile parts at lower costs. You pay more for mobile but you pay for the convenience of mobility.
However with a standard business dock or newer USB-C/Thunderbolt/WiGig docks there is really no excuse for 90% of people to still need a desktop - keyboard/mouse/monitor arguments are indeed archaic and totally misguided. A single connection is all it takes these days. Personally I have my MXMaster dongle permanently in the primary laptop itself, so I always have the mouse available whether I'm at the desk or the couch; other dongles attached to the dock take care of the other laptops in the house which I might also use in the dock(s).
Now, I'm not a big gamer, in fact I'm not much of one at all, but just like I need a separate "system" for storage, I would also never consider a laptop (even though it's core i7) if I was going to get into --serious-- gaming. Desktop parts are faster and cheaper, which is a good trade-off against mobility. But I do think that gaming laptops with a good dock can take care of the needs of 90% of gamers; the question becomes, how much extra are you throwing into the laptop to have a single machine? It's very likely that you could buy a superlight/ultraportable with only basic graphics, plus build a full gaming PC for the same total price as a well-equipped gaming laptop. That would be the best of both.
Disclaimer: I use a laptop in a dock as my HTPC also. :p
If you have an engineering labor that costs $1000 a day, any hour saved is profit. If a desktop/workstation is the tool that shaves couple hours daily of that engineering time, you break even within a week. Besides, giving that engineer an extra laptop+tablet+phone is just small extra cost to keep things running. Not even going into cost accounting calculations of having projects accomplished faster and it's implications on the whole corporate structure and costs...And, statistically, the consumer PC gaming market is actually increasing as average sale price and total revenue. The overall consumer PC market shifts towards mobile devices and compute sticks/embedded apps, but the gaming is still quite profitable. And, not to forget that the market is not just America, there are other localities, growing with different price points.
Just look at the PC gaming sales charts and you'll see how many gamers there are. It may not be growing wildly (or at all) like mobiles where its ok to spend 900$ every year to get the latest toy from a fruit seller but it is huge, almost as large as all the consoles combined.
The death of desktop PC has been predicted to be imminent for the past two decades. We still have an ever-growing PC gaming community, desktops are used everywhere people need more sustained power than laptops can offer. And that will never change. Software gets more and more complex as new processors become more and more powerful. A laptop will always be thermally constrained compared to what you can achieve with a desktop PC. That's why heavy workloads can never be run on laptops in a productive manner. Laptops are great for people who mainly write or do spreadsheets or powerpoints or stuff like that. But you just can't replace all of the world's desktop PCs with laptops because they are not the optimal solution for all the workloads out there. Video editing, image editing, 3D design. Those things eat up all the performance your machine has, and the more performance you have, the more productive you are. That is the most important thing companies care about. If you spend three hours a day twiddling your fingers, waiting for your computer to finish doing something, that time is completely wasted and costs your employer tons of money annually.
In desktop , it's hilarious how few SKUs have HT enabled, EPA should fine them or something for wasting power. They depend too much on the 8700k so anything bellow it gets hits harder than usual.
Not really. The 1800X still beat the 8700K in most multi-threaded workloads. Intel has the crown for best performance if all you do is single player gaming at low resolution. That's about it. Multi-threaded workload and professional workloads Intel is behind. Gaming at higher resolution or streaming it's really a toss up.
Well. There is a rush. There are those who are on Westmere/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge who have 6 core processors but are looking to upgrade, like myself.
Intel's 6-core mainstream parts aren't really attractive considering I have had a 6-core processor for almost a decade, sure... I will gain a massive increase in single threaded performance... But it's nothing that a little bit of overclocking to 4.8ghz on my 3930K that couldn't make up some of that difference.
Besides... In heavy threaded scenario's, AMD beats Intel.
I guess I am waiting another year to upgrade. Another year Intel doesn't get my cash. Probably not a bad thing at the moment anyway with the price of DRAM.
"Westmere/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge who have 6 core processors"
But those were the extremely high end expensive CPU's back then. Those dont compare with todays standard consumer models, they compare with the Core i9 which has 10 cores https://ark.intel.com/products/123613/Intel-Core-i...
And the mess doesn't stop there: "It is worth noting that the 35W TDP value is only valid when the CPU is at its base frequency, which in this case is 2.4 GHz"
So... a meaningless figure. Might as well go with "0W TDP... but only valid when completely off".
Yeah, that chart on page 1 says it all. The 8th gen is a huge mess. Fortunately for Intel, most of their customers only know "i7 = best" and buy it anyhow.
I know all about that. Last year we bought a round of thin and light laptops where the users were stamping their feet and insisting they needed i7's. At first I tried hard to explain to them that in the 7th gen mobile "U" cpu's there was practically no difference (and definitely no difference they would notice) between an i7U and an i5U. We bought the i5's and they were P.O'd but they wouldn't have been happy no matter what we gave them. I was very sorely tempted to order a set of Intel i7 Inside stickers to put on them - you can actually buy them on Amazon:)
My manager just didn’t understand why I said buying an i7 laptop doesn’t solve our performance problems - we aren’t ordering the 4 core model, not sure why our vendor hasn’t tried to upsell at least. Yes, I want some fries with that dammit.
Actually the issues were process related and continued delays on 10nm parts... The marketing is a BS reaction to try and sell more parts and "slap some lipstick on that pig". Most of their customers don't know or care about the differences, they just want the current "i5" or "i7" part and buy it.
But there's already a lot of speculation based on a Bloomberg article of a shift starting in 2020 from Intel x86 CPUs to some sort of higher performance ARM processor in order to unify the OS experience across Apple products. Take a look on Google for Kalamata which is the project name. If what looks like leaks are true, there's a change blowing in the wind in Apple's Macintosh product line.
I doubt it will be a good change if you are a die hard Mac person. As things stand today, no ARM chip is going to match Intel for raw computing power. Power consumption, sure but no where close on raw speed. To me it seems almost like they are getting ready to write off their traditional fan base of graphics people.
I really don't know what to make of this from a performance and compute perspective (or any other perspective for that matter) as I don't own or use a Mac. If its true that Apple is planning to use in-house ARM processors in only a couple of years, then they've probably already been in development for a while and they will need to compete with x86 hardware if they expect to land sales. At this point, I'm just curious about what will happen and how it might or might not shake up the industry.
"2020 from Intel x86 CPUs to some sort of higher performance ARM processor "
well, they could stamp 12 or 24 or 48 ARM cores on a chip, and call it a CPU. but that would mean they've abandoned single thread performance. it only makes sense if they've some secret multi-threaded sauce, built into macOS (or whatever they end up calling it), that runtime converts from single to multi. that's some Catch 22.
It sounds like the current intent is to consolidate under iOS across all of their computing devices. I do wonder how you'd reach a x86-comparable performance level with ARM cores. You're right they'd almost have to go crazy into multi-threaded stuff, but there are still some workloads that just don't benefit much. Like I said above though, I'm not really praising the move or particularly excited about it. It's just something that'd be interesting to watch happen.
I was a Macbook and Powerbook user around the time of the PowerPC/x86 transition. Apple handled it well by having the Rosetta translation library; the Intel Core Duo chips back then had enough grunt to handle translated code at a decent speed too. It took a few years before big programs like Photoshop had native Mac Intel ports.
An ARM Macbook with 20 hour battery life and Intel-equivalent performance would be a big seller provided code translation works well and popular apps have native ARM versions. Most Macbooks are used for Web and app development so it won't be hard to recompile code for ARM. I'd say Apple could do this better than the half-baked efforts by Windows OEMs to make Qualcomm PCs.
Are we talking low end Apollo Lake or high end Coffee Lake equivalent performance. The former isn't going to have compelling performance in anything beyond (perhaps) Web Apps. The later is a pipe dream. I don't much care for Intel as a company, but do you seriously believe they are so incompetent at designing processors that a company with only 8 year experience designing processors (Apple) is going to double battery life (Macbook) with the same performance while using translation? Catching up to Intel, while not easy, is doable. After all, many of the things Intel did to get to their current performance are now known quantities. Very suddenly passing Intel up doesn't seem plausible as that would require Apple to have design expertise Intel doesn't have. Very suddenly passing them up by such a wide margin ... well I hope it happens as it would spur on competition. However, hope is not in fact a strategy, so I'm not counting on it. More realistically, they could take the AMD approach of offering more cores and trading off single threaded performance for mult-ithreaded performance. That may make it compelling for some use cases.
20 hours based on the Qualcomm PCs which a few vendors have demoed. An Apple ARM chip could achieve similar battery life with similar x86 translation performance. If Qualcomm can do it, I would bet that Apple can too, especially as they control both hardware and software on their devices.
Not only this. Apple can add special "sauce" in TensorCore chips into the mix and moe specialised co-processors within the Arm CCN that Intel cannot really match. There is much to innovate in that space where Intel just went into "brute force" speed and power-savings just to market their chips over the last few generations. Apple's GPU expertise is also coming to speed so there is much hope there....
Using AMD for CPU is non-sense - it obvious that Intel has lead on AMD especially in the Mobile CPU and Apple has pretty much abandon the desktop area. Only with iMac Pro with monitor based iMac's are basically now mobile cpu because of size and power.
ARM MacBook would have many challenges - it would also have to be able to run Windows programs and more importantly able to recompile applications for OS on the same machine.
Apple has rumors of attempting an ARM based Mac - but so far ARM is using in display controllers for 5K screens and in iOS products. Apples wants people to believe that iPad Pro's are PC replacements - but they no more that glorified iPad's. The new iPad is good example of this and has same Apple Pencil and probably faster that original iPad Pro.
I remember using Photoshop on the first Intel Macbook in 2006, it was translated from PowerPC code using Rosetta. This was in OS X, not Windows. The OS X Intel (Universal) port arrived two years later. The translated version was surprisingly bearable to use on a Macbook even when compared to the PowerPC native port running on a top-spec G4 Powerbook.
Rosetta saved the translated code so it wouldn't be so slow on subsequent running. Apple could do the same thing to get OS X Intel code working on an ARM Macbook, just like what Qualcomm and Microsoft are doing on Windows Snapdragon PCs.
As for coding, Xcode has iOS ARM targets so adding a MacOS ARM variant shouldn't be difficult. I'm not sure about Windows on ARM Macbooks though. Apple might be willing to drive away that user segment because it's so small and niche.
I believe Apple makes it's announcements in June They would be foolish not to release the 6 core mobile MacBook Pro update - they would not wanted to compete with new Windows notebooks using 6 cores.
On the Apple move for own CPU, I think it only going release in low end Mac line if so - possible in the iOS line. Apple has always blindly want people to believe iPad Pro are desktop replacements - but until those devices can actually successfully run the Mac development tools that allow developers to create iOS applications, Apple is dream - in any ask espected processing power is expected to be very limited.
Another big concern that Mac line has to live with Windows compatibily - Mac are good for limited purpose - which Apple has been very good at - primary in schools - but also in graphics industry but that is no longer the case. There are other options - especially in schools.
I don't understand the designation of certain chips as i3, i5, i7, i9 on mobile recently. At least on desktop you can immediately identify how many cores and threads they have (outside of HEDT). It seems so arbitrary on mobile now.
What is the target market for the new T-series chips? It's the same price as the chip with iGPU and the lower TDP comes at the cost of lower clock and still no overclocking.
Intel ... the i9 branding already is a tortured SKU name. Anything i9 should be auto-badass awesome insaneballs SKU.
Instead, we get the insult that i9 is not only brought back for ANY SKU, but a mobile SKU. Which is already lying BS marketing SKU (hey, a mobile i7 is actually 2 real cores + HT which in desktop land is a low end i3 but who cares! marketing!).
While a mobile coffee lake native 6 core with no HT WOULD have been impressive (assuming no tard low base speed) as a very high i5 or i7 mobile... resurrecting the tortured i9 branding with anything less than 12 cores (of any dam*** sort) is insulting.
FU intel. And FU to all the folks who gobble this up at a premium cause 9 > 7 in mobile land which enables Intel Marketing to justify this ****
I just have to add, the cynicism in this article from Ian is amazing. That's no insult or judgement - just "holy moly, it's so bad even finally it broke through."
I don't want to face the reality that PC hardware doesn't mean anything to the average (mass market - quantity) buyer when purchasing their next disposable facebook terminal....
iX does make sense only inside a segment. You can't suppose, that i7 for ultrabooks is comparable to i7 fo HEDT. This is not a technical term, it's marketing term. If you expect anything else...
It bothers me because I'm involved in purchasing PC's for the company. Users always complaining because they bought the marketing and think what we are getting them is crap because it doesn't have an i7 sticker on it.
Intel's "mobile" branding was always a clusterfuuu. They just relied on the reputation the desktop parts had and used the same branding and very similar model numbers to sell castrated CPUs with lower core count and much lower frequency that delivered nothing like the desktop ones.
Because they have no idea that one is 15W and the other is 90W. The other thing they have no clue about is that in my experience most mobile cpu;s are going to spend very little time at the advertised turbo speed. They will start thermal throttling almost instantly
@satai, so you mean the millions of people who go to a store or a website and buy a laptop know that it uses a 15W CPU and not a 65 or 95W CPU? Is this a joke?
Most people hear about Intel or i7 and then go for the laptop that has that. And Intel capitalizes on the
Intel capitalizes on the confusion this creates. And it takes more than basic HW knowledge. Most people don't spend their days on tech websites. You would probably make the same mistakes in a field you're not familiar with.
My first computer was an AND composed marking cup- at the time I thought I was getting an Intel 386 25mhz chip and they put Amd clone 25mhz chip. I spent $1700 and that was cheep then
If Apple does move to ARM (in a few years and only for lower powered models) the Y CPUs are the first to take the hit. There are very few ultraportables so successful to justify Intel's continued research in this. They already go out of mobile for the same reason, it's likely that in the future they will get out of the (ultra?) low power parts (under 10W).
yeah that's what i was thinking... is there any news on the release date for these? I've just seen rumours of "late 2018", so I can only assume december...
yeah i realised after i posted but still. i know the U series are being used in ultra lights... but they still arent as ultra light as Y's.... all the U based ultrabooks start at 1.4KG and have cpu fans, my core Y ultrabook is 1KG and has no fans... oh well, will just have to keep waiting...
My Acer Switch Alpha 12 uses an i5-6200u, weighs 1.28 kg and is passively cooled. There's a few ultrabooks/tablets/2 in 1's that use u-series processors and no fans, but yeah they are rare. Personally I'd rather have a U processor for the added unmph...the 4.5w Y's will struggle to do much more than surf the web. Even high resolution video decoding can push past a Y processor's limits.
The Y segment is probably better served by much cheaper Atoms. I've run video transcodes on an Atom Windows tablet and it barely gets warm. I'd rather have decent sustained performance instead of a burst of speed that crashes hard from thermal limits.
It's not even the products exactly that disappoint. The marketing is so bad....
Just make it simple like Ryzen. No i5+, i5 means 6 core, 4 core hyper... I build computers all the time and I just feel tired reading that slide deck. Why should I memorize all that. Who cares...
When you buy Ryzen, you just buy the number of cores you want. Ignore everything else.
The reason why Ryzen 5 1400 is a "5" is because if they called it a "3", that wouldn't make sense as it is about the same as an i7-7700. I think the Ryzen "5" confusion is a response to Intel's marketing more than anything else.
@satai, stop being a shill. You already use some arguments that don't make sense (like insisting that everybody who buys a laptop knows the TDP of the CPU and can make the difference for performance based on that - which is asinine but here you are claiming it).
Intel has been muddying the waters when it comes to branding for at least a decade. Dozens of SKUs meant only to confuse even people with more than basic knowledge. Mixed model numbers and random feature allocation that even this article confirms. Unless you walk around with the slide deck or learned the ARK website by heart you'll never know what model does what and what the numbering represents.
The Ryzen naming scheme is pretty clear and understandable at least by comparison. And while it could create some confusion between mobile and desktop specs, that's minor. There's a very solid overlap in corecount between mobile and desktop (like 4/4 and 4/8 models in the in the 3 and 5 ranges).
And I'm pretty sure it was done simply because it's the only way to fight a company that sold you the same crappy advancements YoY for a boatload of money. If even AT kicks Intel to the curb you know that whoever is defending them is either paid to do it or needs some adult supervision.
This update seems to put Microsoft in an awkward position for their high-end Surface Pro.
They've been using the 15W Iris Pro part for high-end for quite a while. All of a sudden Intel only has 28W parts with Iris Pro. A visit to the ark website tells us all these Iris Pro 655 models only have a cTDP down to 20W, which is may not be nearly enough for Surface Pro's cooling system.
One would think the Ryzen 2700U would be the perfect replacement candidate for Microsoft, but the lack of LPDDR support may prove "mortal" for tablets, as we're yet to see a single 12" tablet with detachable keyboard based off AMD's 15W offerings.
But most of all why the hell are all these new sub-35W APU offerings not coming with LPDDR4 support? Looks like such a waste..
You make it sound like MS is not already in an awkward position on Surface after hitting a brick wall trying to get into Enterprise business and having on average eight daily visitors to their brick and mortar stores.
"Many people expect Apple to be Intel’s biggest customer with these parts, however the future of the product line is unclear, with Intel unwilling to discuss the roadmap on what is being called ‘Kaby Lake-G’."
There's already been recent news about Apple possibly moving to a different CPU supplier in Macintosh systems in 2020, so less than 2 years from now. Maybe in the short term, Apple will be a customer for such chips, but the mid- to long-term future appears to be quite different. Here's a link to a source article about that:
Apple has been hovering around 8% - 10% market share in laptops and a bit lesser share for desktops for a very long time. 10% is certainly enough for Intel to take notice but not enough for them to be coming out with CPU's specifically for them.
i9? Where are the 8 cores? Three architectures in one generation with no way simple way of distinguishing? Is 10nm coming this decade? Oh but you’ve added a single useless feature to optane. The market will bring retribution for incompetence soon.
"Three architectures in one generation with no way simple way of distinguishing? "
the thing about maths, and a processor is just maths made manifest, is eventually you find the "best" topology. you've been walking toward a wall, half the distance at a step. in time you get close enough that you can't tell the difference. after that, it's just an engineering exercise in silicon/whatever. it's more than likely that the wall has been contacted. but none of the chip companies want us to know it.
Actually all Intel chip have been protected with micro-code updates. Future generations will have hardware specific updates - however I glad to see Dell DPS 2in1 does not use the As media chips
Seriously, the number of 8th gen architectures in that table is just ridiculous. Is Intel doing this out of desperation? Even Samsung stopped the shotgun approach to marketing a while back.
I just have to officially come out in defense of even numbers. The blatant, years-long entrenched odd-itism in Intel's CPU model branding is starting to get beyond ridiculous. Yes, I know that 3, 5, 7 and 9 are really cool and everything - but why do we, the consumers, continue to act indifferently when confronted with such odious, manifest prejudice against 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10? Even numbers matter too!
I must have been doing it wrong all these years. I specifically have 4 SSDs in my rig FOR games (and OS of course), the spinners are there for infrequently accessed dumb data storage/backups.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
123 Comments
Back to Article
milkywayer - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Disappointed to see no major desktop cpu releases. I want the next i7 in my workstation SFF. That along with the stuck-in-production GHOST S1 Or Dan Case A4 sff cases.WinterCharm - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Desktop will come much later... Intel always does this.Y and U series chips >> Mobile chips >> desktop chips.
DanNeely - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Are you reading the same article I am?Page 4 has 20 (assuming I counted right) additional desktop parts as Intel's filled out the lineup started with a handful of mostly high end K parts last fall.
HStewart - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I know desktop gamers will not like to hear this - but reality is the desktop market is shrinking and mobile market is where both where the money is at and is increasing performance so desktop market will go away one day.Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
There are a lot of us out here who actually do work on desktop PC's. Don't forget that gaming is not the only usage. There is no laptop that is going to replace my three 24 inch monitors :)rahvin - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I have a laptop with 3 independent screens, if I opened the laptop I would have 4 screens. The number of screens has nothing to do with desktop/laptop.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"The number of screens has nothing to do with desktop/laptop."it's the keyboard that is most different.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
USB ports.kaidenshi - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
And at that point, why not just have a desktop PC? If it's a desk space issue, UCFF and SFF PCs can now rival full desktop performance. I guess there's the portability angle, you can take your "desktop" with you when you travel and work/game on the road. Otherwise, three large desktop monitors and USB or Bluetooth connected peripherals can be served equally well from a tower, UCFF PC, or a laptop.Galid - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Can you open your desktop while on a plane, at the hotel, etc... You really want to carry monitor + keyboard + wires +++ while travelling? Facts are there, desktop market is shrinking and laptops are now almost as powerful as a desktop for a couple hundred dollars more. Whatever is the reason behind that, it is happening. I personally own both. Laptop to game at work and desktop to work at home.0ldman79 - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
It is kind of hard to have a 95W CPU and a 200W GPU in a laptop with 6 hard drives though.The desktop isn't going anywhere.
HStewart - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
This excuse about monitor keyboard mice can't be used any more. I am old school person that built my own pc and actual use a dos editor call brief. I work at home and use a ThinkPad and monitor stays down and Conniected to two 24in monitors, day keyboard and Microsoft wireless mouse.But the advantage of I need to go I can take laptop on plane with me - try that with a huge desktop
I believe I can go more than two monitor on this system but for me two is perfect
samsonjs - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
The traditional desktop segment used for gaming might kind of go away but you'll always be able to throw a workstation CPU into a gaming desktop if that's your thing. Server and workstation CPUs aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future.HStewart - Saturday, April 7, 2018 - link
I would agree on server segment of industry - but workstations have lately - and especially with latest 8th Generation move mobile with Mobile Xeon chips - but still you need to desktop chips for higher core counts and multiple cpu's.I could see one day with technology like EMIB, have multiple cpus and gpu on a laptop. Who knows they could possible do that with dual EMIB on system. It depends on demand - workstation industry actually in a lot of ways of driving CPU and GPU even more than gaming.
I remember when first interested in Lightwave 3D - I learn that NewTek switch to include Windows because of advancements in Windows NT technology. At this time it was only on Apple Mac which were the obsolete PowerPC devices
a13antichrist - Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - link
The analogy can be made to SSD vs HDD also. SSD might replace 80% of use cases but there will always be some areas where raw storage is simply more valuable than immediate speed. HDD will never go away as long as the $/gb remains far far less than SSD.Fixed desktops will never go away entirely as long as bigger, power-hungrier parts can still outperform mobile parts at lower costs. You pay more for mobile but you pay for the convenience of mobility.
However with a standard business dock or newer USB-C/Thunderbolt/WiGig docks there is really no excuse for 90% of people to still need a desktop - keyboard/mouse/monitor arguments are indeed archaic and totally misguided. A single connection is all it takes these days. Personally I have my MXMaster dongle permanently in the primary laptop itself, so I always have the mouse available whether I'm at the desk or the couch; other dongles attached to the dock take care of the other laptops in the house which I might also use in the dock(s).
Now, I'm not a big gamer, in fact I'm not much of one at all, but just like I need a separate "system" for storage, I would also never consider a laptop (even though it's core i7) if I was going to get into --serious-- gaming. Desktop parts are faster and cheaper, which is a good trade-off against mobility.
But I do think that gaming laptops with a good dock can take care of the needs of 90% of gamers; the question becomes, how much extra are you throwing into the laptop to have a single machine? It's very likely that you could buy a superlight/ultraportable with only basic graphics, plus
build a full gaming PC for the same total price as a well-equipped gaming laptop. That would be the best of both.
Disclaimer: I use a laptop in a dock as my HTPC also. :p
Ananke - Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - link
If you have an engineering labor that costs $1000 a day, any hour saved is profit. If a desktop/workstation is the tool that shaves couple hours daily of that engineering time, you break even within a week. Besides, giving that engineer an extra laptop+tablet+phone is just small extra cost to keep things running. Not even going into cost accounting calculations of having projects accomplished faster and it's implications on the whole corporate structure and costs...And, statistically, the consumer PC gaming market is actually increasing as average sale price and total revenue. The overall consumer PC market shifts towards mobile devices and compute sticks/embedded apps, but the gaming is still quite profitable. And, not to forget that the market is not just America, there are other localities, growing with different price points.ForgotPants - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Just look at the PC gaming sales charts and you'll see how many gamers there are. It may not be growing wildly (or at all) like mobiles where its ok to spend 900$ every year to get the latest toy from a fruit seller but it is huge, almost as large as all the consoles combined.https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-12-20-...
In addition to gamers, a lot of professionals use desktops in their day to day activities. This market is not going anywhere soon.
Kepe - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link
The death of desktop PC has been predicted to be imminent for the past two decades. We still have an ever-growing PC gaming community, desktops are used everywhere people need more sustained power than laptops can offer. And that will never change. Software gets more and more complex as new processors become more and more powerful. A laptop will always be thermally constrained compared to what you can achieve with a desktop PC. That's why heavy workloads can never be run on laptops in a productive manner.Laptops are great for people who mainly write or do spreadsheets or powerpoints or stuff like that. But you just can't replace all of the world's desktop PCs with laptops because they are not the optimal solution for all the workloads out there. Video editing, image editing, 3D design. Those things eat up all the performance your machine has, and the more performance you have, the more productive you are. That is the most important thing companies care about. If you spend three hours a day twiddling your fingers, waiting for your computer to finish doing something, that time is completely wasted and costs your employer tons of money annually.
Icehawk - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link
This dead on IMO. The perf/time thing is how I convinced my company to replace all mech drives with SSDs.jjj - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
So in mobile a heavy focus on boosting ASPs.In desktop , it's hilarious how few SKUs have HT enabled, EPA should fine them or something for wasting power. They depend too much on the 8700k so anything bellow it gets hits harder than usual.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
tl;dr. No consumer line 8-core from Intel yet.Tyler_Durden_83 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
No need to rush it since Intel still has the performance crown (the best value crown is another matter ofc).SaturnusDK - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Not really. The 1800X still beat the 8700K in most multi-threaded workloads. Intel has the crown for best performance if all you do is single player gaming at low resolution. That's about it. Multi-threaded workload and professional workloads Intel is behind. Gaming at higher resolution or streaming it's really a toss up.StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Well. There is a rush.There are those who are on Westmere/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge who have 6 core processors but are looking to upgrade, like myself.
Intel's 6-core mainstream parts aren't really attractive considering I have had a 6-core processor for almost a decade, sure... I will gain a massive increase in single threaded performance... But it's nothing that a little bit of overclocking to 4.8ghz on my 3930K that couldn't make up some of that difference.
Besides... In heavy threaded scenario's, AMD beats Intel.
I guess I am waiting another year to upgrade. Another year Intel doesn't get my cash.
Probably not a bad thing at the moment anyway with the price of DRAM.
goatfajitas - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"Westmere/Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge who have 6 core processors"But those were the extremely high end expensive CPU's back then. Those dont compare with todays standard consumer models, they compare with the Core i9 which has 10 cores https://ark.intel.com/products/123613/Intel-Core-i...
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"In heavy threaded scenario's, AMD beats Intel."which matters once we have more than a handful of multi-threaded apps. running discrete apps in background really isn't the same thing.
Nozuka - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
wow their lineup is such a mess now...close - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
And the mess doesn't stop there:"It is worth noting that the 35W TDP value is only valid when the CPU is at its base frequency, which in this case is 2.4 GHz"
So... a meaningless figure. Might as well go with "0W TDP... but only valid when completely off".
euskalzabe - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Yup!goatfajitas - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Yeah, that chart on page 1 says it all. The 8th gen is a huge mess. Fortunately for Intel, most of their customers only know "i7 = best" and buy it anyhow.Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I know all about that. Last year we bought a round of thin and light laptops where the users were stamping their feet and insisting they needed i7's. At first I tried hard to explain to them that in the 7th gen mobile "U" cpu's there was practically no difference (and definitely no difference they would notice) between an i7U and an i5U. We bought the i5's and they were P.O'd but they wouldn't have been happy no matter what we gave them. I was very sorely tempted to order a set of Intel i7 Inside stickers to put on them - you can actually buy them on Amazon:)Icehawk - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link
My manager just didn’t understand why I said buying an i7 laptop doesn’t solve our performance problems - we aren’t ordering the 4 core model, not sure why our vendor hasn’t tried to upsell at least. Yes, I want some fries with that dammit.Chaitanya - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Stupid marketing of i7+ , what's next brainfart from this marketing team?goatfajitas - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Actually the issues were process related and continued delays on 10nm parts... The marketing is a BS reaction to try and sell more parts and "slap some lipstick on that pig". Most of their customers don't know or care about the differences, they just want the current "i5" or "i7" part and buy it.nukunukoo - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Here's to hoping for a surprise 6-core, 32GB Macbook Pro this year...damianrobertjones - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
No, no and no. The value of that machine will fall fast once Apple moves to (Add cpu here) in 2020.goatfajitas - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
LOL. Keep dreaming. Apple has a tiny marketshare and their media strong CPU's are not and will not be a match for Intel in real computing space.PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
But there's already a lot of speculation based on a Bloomberg article of a shift starting in 2020 from Intel x86 CPUs to some sort of higher performance ARM processor in order to unify the OS experience across Apple products. Take a look on Google for Kalamata which is the project name. If what looks like leaks are true, there's a change blowing in the wind in Apple's Macintosh product line.Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I doubt it will be a good change if you are a die hard Mac person. As things stand today, no ARM chip is going to match Intel for raw computing power. Power consumption, sure but no where close on raw speed. To me it seems almost like they are getting ready to write off their traditional fan base of graphics people.PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I really don't know what to make of this from a performance and compute perspective (or any other perspective for that matter) as I don't own or use a Mac. If its true that Apple is planning to use in-house ARM processors in only a couple of years, then they've probably already been in development for a while and they will need to compete with x86 hardware if they expect to land sales. At this point, I'm just curious about what will happen and how it might or might not shake up the industry.BillBear - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Actually, we've already seen ARM chips surpass Intel in the server space where Intel is strongest.https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"2020 from Intel x86 CPUs to some sort of higher performance ARM processor "well, they could stamp 12 or 24 or 48 ARM cores on a chip, and call it a CPU. but that would mean they've abandoned single thread performance. it only makes sense if they've some secret multi-threaded sauce, built into macOS (or whatever they end up calling it), that runtime converts from single to multi. that's some Catch 22.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
It sounds like the current intent is to consolidate under iOS across all of their computing devices. I do wonder how you'd reach a x86-comparable performance level with ARM cores. You're right they'd almost have to go crazy into multi-threaded stuff, but there are still some workloads that just don't benefit much. Like I said above though, I'm not really praising the move or particularly excited about it. It's just something that'd be interesting to watch happen.HStewart - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
A non Intel based Mac will never replace high end mac - that may try it say MacBook Air line - but it likely be very unsuccessful.SaturnusDK - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
You underestimate the baa! of the iSheep. They'll buy whatever crap Apple launches.serendip - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I was a Macbook and Powerbook user around the time of the PowerPC/x86 transition. Apple handled it well by having the Rosetta translation library; the Intel Core Duo chips back then had enough grunt to handle translated code at a decent speed too. It took a few years before big programs like Photoshop had native Mac Intel ports.An ARM Macbook with 20 hour battery life and Intel-equivalent performance would be a big seller provided code translation works well and popular apps have native ARM versions. Most Macbooks are used for Web and app development so it won't be hard to recompile code for ARM. I'd say Apple could do this better than the half-baked efforts by Windows OEMs to make Qualcomm PCs.
BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Are we talking low end Apollo Lake or high end Coffee Lake equivalent performance. The former isn't going to have compelling performance in anything beyond (perhaps) Web Apps. The later is a pipe dream. I don't much care for Intel as a company, but do you seriously believe they are so incompetent at designing processors that a company with only 8 year experience designing processors (Apple) is going to double battery life (Macbook) with the same performance while using translation? Catching up to Intel, while not easy, is doable. After all, many of the things Intel did to get to their current performance are now known quantities. Very suddenly passing Intel up doesn't seem plausible as that would require Apple to have design expertise Intel doesn't have. Very suddenly passing them up by such a wide margin ... well I hope it happens as it would spur on competition. However, hope is not in fact a strategy, so I'm not counting on it. More realistically, they could take the AMD approach of offering more cores and trading off single threaded performance for mult-ithreaded performance. That may make it compelling for some use cases.serendip - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
20 hours based on the Qualcomm PCs which a few vendors have demoed. An Apple ARM chip could achieve similar battery life with similar x86 translation performance. If Qualcomm can do it, I would bet that Apple can too, especially as they control both hardware and software on their devices.fteoath64 - Thursday, April 5, 2018 - link
Not only this. Apple can add special "sauce" in TensorCore chips into the mix and moe specialised co-processors within the Arm CCN that Intel cannot really match. There is much to innovate in that space where Intel just went into "brute force" speed and power-savings just to market their chips over the last few generations. Apple's GPU expertise is also coming to speed so there is much hope there....HStewart - Saturday, April 7, 2018 - link
Using AMD for CPU is non-sense - it obvious that Intel has lead on AMD especially in the Mobile CPU and Apple has pretty much abandon the desktop area. Only with iMac Pro with monitor based iMac's are basically now mobile cpu because of size and power.HStewart - Saturday, April 7, 2018 - link
"It took a few years before big programs like Photoshop had native Mac Intel ports."Wrong... Photoshop originally was created on Mac and later ported to Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Earl...
ARM MacBook would have many challenges - it would also have to be able to run Windows programs and more importantly able to recompile applications for OS on the same machine.
Apple has rumors of attempting an ARM based Mac - but so far ARM is using in display controllers for 5K screens and in iOS products. Apples wants people to believe that iPad Pro's are PC replacements - but they no more that glorified iPad's. The new iPad is good example of this and has same Apple Pencil and probably faster that original iPad Pro.
serendip - Sunday, April 8, 2018 - link
I remember using Photoshop on the first Intel Macbook in 2006, it was translated from PowerPC code using Rosetta. This was in OS X, not Windows. The OS X Intel (Universal) port arrived two years later. The translated version was surprisingly bearable to use on a Macbook even when compared to the PowerPC native port running on a top-spec G4 Powerbook.Rosetta saved the translated code so it wouldn't be so slow on subsequent running. Apple could do the same thing to get OS X Intel code working on an ARM Macbook, just like what Qualcomm and Microsoft are doing on Windows Snapdragon PCs.
As for coding, Xcode has iOS ARM targets so adding a MacOS ARM variant shouldn't be difficult. I'm not sure about Windows on ARM Macbooks though. Apple might be willing to drive away that user segment because it's so small and niche.
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"A non Intel based Mac will never replace high end mac"again. they've been on 3 processors so far.
HStewart - Saturday, April 7, 2018 - link
I believe Apple makes it's announcements in June They would be foolish not to release the 6 core mobile MacBook Pro update - they would not wanted to compete with new Windows notebooks using 6 cores.On the Apple move for own CPU, I think it only going release in low end Mac line if so - possible in the iOS line. Apple has always blindly want people to believe iPad Pro are desktop replacements - but until those devices can actually successfully run the Mac development tools that allow developers to create iOS applications, Apple is dream - in any ask espected processing power is expected to be very limited.
Another big concern that Mac line has to live with Windows compatibily - Mac are good for limited purpose - which Apple has been very good at - primary in schools - but also in graphics industry but that is no longer the case. There are other options - especially in schools.
Tyler_Durden_83 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Which sku do you think will power the next nucs (the normal ones, not the gaming oriented hades canyon ofc).TheBestPessimist - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
+1 i'd love to know that as well.abrowne1993 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I don't understand the designation of certain chips as i3, i5, i7, i9 on mobile recently. At least on desktop you can immediately identify how many cores and threads they have (outside of HEDT). It seems so arbitrary on mobile now.DanNeely - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
It's always been a lot more arbitrary on mobile with significant spec differences at each branding level depending on the TDP.edzieba - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Absence of Z390 is interesting, many were expecting that alongside the H/Q/B PCHs.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
they really ought to come up with a different name. this one is a mashup of ancient IBM Big Iron. not, I'd wager, the image they seek.wr3zzz - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
What is the target market for the new T-series chips? It's the same price as the chip with iGPU and the lower TDP comes at the cost of lower clock and still no overclocking.A5 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
OEM SFF boxes, like the Dell Optiplex Micro series.xrror - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
i9. Mobile. 6 core with no HT.Intel ... the i9 branding already is a tortured SKU name. Anything i9 should be auto-badass awesome insaneballs SKU.
Instead, we get the insult that i9 is not only brought back for ANY SKU, but a mobile SKU. Which is already lying BS marketing SKU (hey, a mobile i7 is actually 2 real cores + HT which in desktop land is a low end i3 but who cares! marketing!).
While a mobile coffee lake native 6 core with no HT WOULD have been impressive (assuming no tard low base speed) as a very high i5 or i7 mobile... resurrecting the tortured i9 branding with anything less than 12 cores (of any dam*** sort) is insulting.
FU intel. And FU to all the folks who gobble this up at a premium cause 9 > 7 in mobile land which enables Intel Marketing to justify this ****
xrror - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I just have to add, the cynicism in this article from Ian is amazing. That's no insult or judgement - just "holy moly, it's so bad even finally it broke through."I don't want to face the reality that PC hardware doesn't mean anything to the average (mass market - quantity) buyer when purchasing their next disposable facebook terminal....
I don't. .. . .. ... .. *cry*
close - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
It's so bad even AT is kicking Intel to the curb :).satai - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
iX does make sense only inside a segment. You can't suppose, that i7 for ultrabooks is comparable to i7 fo HEDT. This is not a technical term, it's marketing term. If you expect anything else...A5 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
...yeah. Getting *this* upset about a company's branding strategy is nuts.xrror - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
fine, i guess I was nuts back when they did this with Sandy Bridge mobile. I'll consider myself chastised and STFU as you wish.Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
It bothers me because I'm involved in purchasing PC's for the company. Users always complaining because they bought the marketing and think what we are getting them is crap because it doesn't have an i7 sticker on it.PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Tell them they need to be more productive and waste less time so the company is more profitable an can afford to purchase i7 laptops.close - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Intel's "mobile" branding was always a clusterfuuu. They just relied on the reputation the desktop parts had and used the same branding and very similar model numbers to sell castrated CPUs with lower core count and much lower frequency that delivered nothing like the desktop ones.satai - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
@close - how can anybody with a basic knowledge of HW expect, that a 15W part is going to perform similary to a 90W one?Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Because they have no idea that one is 15W and the other is 90W. The other thing they have no clue about is that in my experience most mobile cpu;s are going to spend very little time at the advertised turbo speed. They will start thermal throttling almost instantlyclose - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
@satai, so you mean the millions of people who go to a store or a website and buy a laptop know that it uses a 15W CPU and not a 65 or 95W CPU? Is this a joke?Most people hear about Intel or i7 and then go for the laptop that has that. And Intel capitalizes on the
close - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
*Crappy 1997 comment system.Intel capitalizes on the confusion this creates. And it takes more than basic HW knowledge. Most people don't spend their days on tech websites. You would probably make the same mistakes in a field you're not familiar with.
HStewart - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
These statements are confusing, everything here stated that the mobile 6 core CPU's do have Hyperthreading. 6C/12TMarketing wise - AMD does similar tactics calling Ryzen 7, Ryzen 3 .... maybe they will have Ryzen 9 one day.
Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
AMD is at least a little better on this. Generally speaking the 3/5/7 distinctions hold up...with potentially confusing exceptions of course.HStewart - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
My first computer was an AND composed marking cup- at the time I thought I was getting an Intel 386 25mhz chip and they put Amd clone 25mhz chip. I spent $1700 and that was cheep thenSonic01 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Still no Core Y / 4.5W updates... its been 2 years now :/jhoff80 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I'm guessing that they're skipping to Cannon Lake / 10nm for the Y-series, but who knows.close - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
If Apple does move to ARM (in a few years and only for lower powered models) the Y CPUs are the first to take the hit. There are very few ultraportables so successful to justify Intel's continued research in this. They already go out of mobile for the same reason, it's likely that in the future they will get out of the (ultra?) low power parts (under 10W).Sonic01 - Friday, April 6, 2018 - link
yeah that's what i was thinking... is there any news on the release date for these? I've just seen rumours of "late 2018", so I can only assume december...HStewart - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Actually an year and half since Q3 2016 - but it looks like 8th gen u series can be used in ultra lightsSonic01 - Friday, April 6, 2018 - link
yeah i realised after i posted but still. i know the U series are being used in ultra lights... but they still arent as ultra light as Y's.... all the U based ultrabooks start at 1.4KG and have cpu fans, my core Y ultrabook is 1KG and has no fans... oh well, will just have to keep waiting...Kakti - Sunday, April 8, 2018 - link
My Acer Switch Alpha 12 uses an i5-6200u, weighs 1.28 kg and is passively cooled. There's a few ultrabooks/tablets/2 in 1's that use u-series processors and no fans, but yeah they are rare. Personally I'd rather have a U processor for the added unmph...the 4.5w Y's will struggle to do much more than surf the web. Even high resolution video decoding can push past a Y processor's limits.serendip - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
The Y segment is probably better served by much cheaper Atoms. I've run video transcodes on an Atom Windows tablet and it barely gets warm. I'd rather have decent sustained performance instead of a burst of speed that crashes hard from thermal limits.Alistair - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
It's not even the products exactly that disappoint. The marketing is so bad....Just make it simple like Ryzen. No i5+, i5 means 6 core, 4 core hyper... I build computers all the time and I just feel tired reading that slide deck. Why should I memorize all that. Who cares...
satai - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U - 4C/8TAMD Ryzen 7 1700(X) - 8C/16T
AMD Ryzen 7 2700(?) - probably 8C/16T
(Intel segmenting is a mess when considering features (ECC, management...) but why to bash them for C/T thread count that is pretty reasonable?)
Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Also Ryzen 5 even in the desktop line has some 4C and some 6C that are all Ryzen 5Alistair - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
When you buy Ryzen, you just buy the number of cores you want. Ignore everything else.The reason why Ryzen 5 1400 is a "5" is because if they called it a "3", that wouldn't make sense as it is about the same as an i7-7700. I think the Ryzen "5" confusion is a response to Intel's marketing more than anything else.
satai - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
When you buy Core, you just buy the number of cores you want. Ignore everything else (unless you have some niche needs such as ECC).close - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
@satai, stop being a shill. You already use some arguments that don't make sense (like insisting that everybody who buys a laptop knows the TDP of the CPU and can make the difference for performance based on that - which is asinine but here you are claiming it).Intel has been muddying the waters when it comes to branding for at least a decade. Dozens of SKUs meant only to confuse even people with more than basic knowledge. Mixed model numbers and random feature allocation that even this article confirms. Unless you walk around with the slide deck or learned the ARK website by heart you'll never know what model does what and what the numbering represents.
The Ryzen naming scheme is pretty clear and understandable at least by comparison. And while it could create some confusion between mobile and desktop specs, that's minor. There's a very solid overlap in corecount between mobile and desktop (like 4/4 and 4/8 models in the in the 3 and 5 ranges).
And I'm pretty sure it was done simply because it's the only way to fight a company that sold you the same crappy advancements YoY for a boatload of money. If even AT kicks Intel to the curb you know that whoever is defending them is either paid to do it or needs some adult supervision.
satai - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
"nsisting that everybody who buys a laptop knows the TDP of the CPU"I don't say or think such a thing.
"Dozens of SKUs meant only to confuse even people with more than basic knowledge"
google with site:ark.intel.com
If you are not able o do this...
"The Ryzen naming scheme is pretty clear and understandable at least by comparison. "
Partly because AMD competes only in some segments...
"There's a very solid overlap in corecount between mobile and desktop (like 4/4 and 4/8 models in the in the 3 and 5 ranges)."
So you need to have apriori knowledge that this is about 5 and 3 and not for 7 anyway...
ToTTenTranz - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
This update seems to put Microsoft in an awkward position for their high-end Surface Pro.They've been using the 15W Iris Pro part for high-end for quite a while. All of a sudden Intel only has 28W parts with Iris Pro. A visit to the ark website tells us all these Iris Pro 655 models only have a cTDP down to 20W, which is may not be nearly enough for Surface Pro's cooling system.
One would think the Ryzen 2700U would be the perfect replacement candidate for Microsoft, but the lack of LPDDR support may prove "mortal" for tablets, as we're yet to see a single 12" tablet with detachable keyboard based off AMD's 15W offerings.
But most of all why the hell are all these new sub-35W APU offerings not coming with LPDDR4 support? Looks like such a waste..
Gunbuster - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
You make it sound like MS is not already in an awkward position on Surface after hitting a brick wall trying to get into Enterprise business and having on average eight daily visitors to their brick and mortar stores.PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"Many people expect Apple to be Intel’s biggest customer with these parts, however the future of the product line is unclear, with Intel unwilling to discuss the roadmap on what is being called ‘Kaby Lake-G’."There's already been recent news about Apple possibly moving to a different CPU supplier in Macintosh systems in 2020, so less than 2 years from now. Maybe in the short term, Apple will be a customer for such chips, but the mid- to long-term future appears to be quite different. Here's a link to a source article about that:
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-t...
Ratman6161 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Apple has been hovering around 8% - 10% market share in laptops and a bit lesser share for desktops for a very long time. 10% is certainly enough for Intel to take notice but not enough for them to be coming out with CPU's specifically for them.satai - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Apple sells/buys with above average prices. That makes them pretty valuabe customer.Intel did some tweaks of CPUs for them before (smaller packaging for C2D for Air and possibly others).
12Parsecs - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
https://ark.intel.com/products/77912/Intel-Xeon-Pr...;-)
tipoo - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
There we go, ULV quads and Iris Plus were probably what the 13" rMBP was waiting on.willis936 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
i9? Where are the 8 cores? Three architectures in one generation with no way simple way of distinguishing? Is 10nm coming this decade? Oh but you’ve added a single useless feature to optane. The market will bring retribution for incompetence soon.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
"Three architectures in one generation with no way simple way of distinguishing? "the thing about maths, and a processor is just maths made manifest, is eventually you find the "best" topology. you've been walking toward a wall, half the distance at a step. in time you get close enough that you can't tell the difference. after that, it's just an engineering exercise in silicon/whatever. it's more than likely that the wall has been contacted. but none of the chip companies want us to know it.
NATE1372 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Any mention or update on the Intel Z390 chipset?jaydee - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Any Coffee Lake mainstream mobile (15W TDP) CPUs, or are they skipping it for Cannon Lake?t99 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Do these chips all fix spectre and meltdown? Suprising there were was no reference anywhere in article.ericgl21 - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Interesting.Not a single word on whether the new 8th gen CPUs have the new design to protect them against Meltdown & Spectre vulnerabilities.
Hixbot - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
That will not be until Icelake, possibly Cannon lake. There won't be a silicon fix for Coffee Lake.How Intel keeps selling these vulnerable chips at full price, I don't know.
gammaray - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
you don't have to buy themHStewart - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Actually all Intel chip have been protected with micro-code updates. Future generations will have hardware specific updates - however I glad to see Dell DPS 2in1 does not use the As media chipstuxRoller - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
Is there an error in the table on page 3 where the L3 cache for the i5s are listed with 1.5MB/core?serendip - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
8th gen is whatever we want it to be!Seriously, the number of 8th gen architectures in that table is just ridiculous. Is Intel doing this out of desperation? Even Samsung stopped the shotgun approach to marketing a while back.
boeush - Tuesday, April 3, 2018 - link
I just have to officially come out in defense of even numbers. The blatant, years-long entrenched odd-itism in Intel's CPU model branding is starting to get beyond ridiculous. Yes, I know that 3, 5, 7 and 9 are really cool and everything - but why do we, the consumers, continue to act indifferently when confronted with such odious, manifest prejudice against 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10? Even numbers matter too!sorten - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
wake me up when 10nm is availableFunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
if you mean 10nm in X,Y,Z top to bottom... well you'll put Rip Van Winkle to shame. it's never going to happen Heisenberg wins.zepi - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Where is my LPDDR4 support?!I want more memory without destroying standby life.
0ldman79 - Wednesday, April 4, 2018 - link
Did they change the Kaby Lake to be electrically compatible with the Coffee Lake when the named them as part of the 8000 series?r3loaded - Friday, April 6, 2018 - link
Trying to understand Intel's product line-up makes my head hurt :(araczynski - Monday, April 9, 2018 - link
I must have been doing it wrong all these years. I specifically have 4 SSDs in my rig FOR games (and OS of course), the spinners are there for infrequently accessed dumb data storage/backups.ezekiel68 - Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - link
Grrr special place in hades for marketeers who designate a chip as "I9" with no AVX-512. At least from what I can read on the ARK page at https://ark.intel.com/products/134903/Intel-Core-i...