The purpose of creating a bidding war for a low volume niche product is to generate conflict and drive sales of down stack SKUs. It's sort of like that college business textbook example owning two pizza restaurants operating under different names and then creating an artificial price war between them to drive sales of both restaurants upward as customers banner-wave for their favorite pizza place. Not exactly the same thing, but the press coverage a stunt like this will generate results in a lot of controversy, discussion, and low cost to free advertising. I would have expected Intel to be a bit less amateur about it, but I guess not every marketing idea is a win.
this is meant for stock brokers and hedge funds, where trading at exactly the right second can make a difference of millions of dollars. threadripper is completely useless for this. a $500 Dell PC from best buy with an intel i5 CPU would do a better job than any threadripper for this application.
I'm thinking Xex360 meant to ask "Why not release a 5 GHz version of 9980XE?". That said, that'd be a more difficult (perhaps impossible) binning, due to both heat and defects.
They really must be tearing their hair out on how to respond to AMD if this is the only kind of lame idea they can come up with. But then, someone will buy them; a fool and his money are soon parted.
this is meant for stock brokers and hedge funds, where trading at exactly the right second can make a difference of millions of dollars. threadripper is completely useless for this. a $500 Dell PC from best buy with an intel i5 CPU would do a better job than any threadripper for this application.
I bet they will be auctioned individually or maybe in the dozens, definitely not in the thousands. There will probably only be a couple of thousand of these in total, they are probably like the 0.1% of the already best binned chips.
The entire point of this chip is to say they have the fastest CPU, it has nothing to do with actually supplying the market with them.
Intel's existing Xeon Scalable processors put a cap on how much some of these unusual CPUs are worth for work purposes, even for someone who has need of a high-clocks and/or high core count.
For example, if Intel tries to charge $8k for the W3175x, it would be competing with 2x 6416 with the same number of overall cores, but a higher all-core turbo @ 3.9 for $1,500 less, or even 2x 6154 for $1,000 less, which wouldn't clock as high as the 3175x when lightly-loaded, but would give you 1.5x the total cores, and an all-core turbo speed of 3.7GHz that the W3175x probably still won't be able to match.
As for this processor, it doesn't accept ECC memory, can't be put in a multi-processor setup, and anything that benefits significantly from having 14 cores rather than 8 could probably also use a lot more. Ie. 14 cores at 5 GHz is impressive - but if that matters for what you're doing, twice as many cores at 3.5+ GHz is probably better still.
So this probably won't be used for work - it will be the Ferrari/Lambo of CPUs, put in very expensive gaming machines.
The article was updated and it confirms that all cores are at 5Ghz and not just a single core. Just remember all cores are not created equal and it depends on your applications. If application uses AVX-512 and it this speed, I would be it would dominate a non-AVX 512 xeon with twice the amount of cores.
A lot depends on how machine is used and I would think anything that uses for graphics, the primary thread is most important.
You are also forgetting that in a dual socket system, you can support more memory which also provides more memory bandwidth. The number of PCIe lanes is higher on a dual socket systems which for certain niche applications is even more important than processor speed too.
The big down side to dual socket systems is of course NUMA as many applications take a performance hit being split across two sockets. There are avenues for tuning based on a particular application but generally speaking as long as a single socket has enough bandwidth, it'll be faster than a dual socket with similar core count/clocks.
The thing about gaming systems is that clock speed is still generally preferred after you go beyond four cores in a system. Yes, some games are starting to utilize more threads but they're more of an exception and still scale with clock speed as well. The i9-9900K for gaming is better suited overall for that market due to its high base clock and good turbo.
As an off-roadmap, sounds like this is a chip built for someone else that either had the deal fall through, or Intel had higher yields than expected of the top bin and say a chance to create a new SKU rather than just dump those shiny chips to a lower binning. The latter would be intriguing, as it might mean some 'golden sample' i9-9940X chips floating about that could achieve similar clocks.
Or it allows them to market a very fast CPU and therefore say they're better than AMD, with the average consumer just hearing how super fast they are and therefore buying them, same as Nvidia did.
remember, before the iPhone, Apple was just the Patek-Phillipe of personal computer companies. with iPhone now withering, may haps they're content to be that again? :)
Yea before iPhone they were pretty much a small niche company. By the way they not not only stole the name "iPhone" from Linksys which had products out with iphone product naming long before Apple released the first iphone they also as confirmed by Mr Jobs himself went to a event and seen a Sony concept phone about to be released in the near future yep rectangle device with a flat front with glass on the front and big screen (at least for that time) he then went back to Apple head quarters & said I want this and I want it now make it happen people. They quickly got patents on the shape and format of the new device some how before Sony got their own patents approved and went with it.
On the iPhone name stealing from Linksys I knwo this also to be true because I owned a iphone device at least 4-5 years before Apple even had wet dreams about the smart phone industry. The Linksys Iphone devices were not smart phones though they were internet phones that worked with programs like skype and yahoo etc. You could make calls on them from Skype as I did to call family members all over Canada without long distance charges and it worked like a real land line phone pretty much. Anyways Apple releases the iPhone and Linksys goes to Apple and says hey guys uhm you kinda like are using our patented name on a device you made what gives you need to stop now. Apple either threw fist fulls of money at Linksys or took it to court either way they got to keep the name and all iphone named products form Linksys soon disappeared off of the market.
This is one of the weirdest things to ever come out of Intel...I can't believe they are going through all this trouble for a chip that will be sold in the hundreds. Just the binning, sampling and packaging of a chip that is produced in the hundreds is ridiculous enough - and if they skip the sampling part they are essentially selling engineering samples (which might explain the lack of warranty.) So they have engineers doing that, then they have PR doing the auction end with OEM's? To make, what, a couple hundred grand a quarter?
This just doesn't fit into the overall idea I had of Intel being a company that focuses 3 comma's, not 1.
it really depends on how they identify the chips. if they fall out through standard in-process work (or, at least, eliminate say 90% from consideration), then it's not so expensive. OTOH, if the only way is a full-chip test of every completed chip, then, yeah, it's stupid.
Sounds nice. Even a 12 core version would still be something I would want. However the cooling of such things, especially if you overclock them to run on 5 GHz on all cores, is starting to become a problem. AiOs wouldnt be able to do that, air coolers neither. Water cooling would be mandatory, and I am not ready to dish out $600 just for cooling.
Yes, same as AMD's Zen 1 sweet spot was around 3.6GHz clock vs power, with 4 usually drawing quite a bit more, and some having a doubling of power draw from 3.6 to 4.2-4.4 (about 20% higher clock) depending on binning.
It's completely normal, GPU's have the same problem, it's also why Vega runs so hot as it's way overclocked from what its best power/performance ratio is in order to compete with Nvidia.
Nvidia also does the same because users look at reviews performance charts, most don't care about the power usage/know how to interpret it, so higher numbers is all that matters.
Order of importance for proper system building... 1. RTX 2080 TI (If you are not buying one of these, you might as well just get a chrome book.) 2. Samsung 960 PRO or 970 PRO 1TB 3. DDR4 3000 CL15 RAM (16GB minimum) 4. Any 6+ core micro-processor from the last 4 years (for 99% of what you'll do .. it won't matter.)
A 2080 is not much better than a 1080 today. No need to upgrade till 3080 or better hits the shelves. My 1800x - is just well rounded. Its the small block of CPUs. Many cores and many threads win in my scenario over a low core, hf Intel chip. I can do 3d cad, fea, browse 100 sites, code video, play 3d games, mail, gimp, word, excel without lag or slowdown and I got an upgrade path...which Intel does not offer. Its by far the best pc I ve ever had. Its was also about 1000$ less than a similarly speced Intel chiped tool. I d rather buy four slightly slower AMD chipped PC than spending that money on a single 9900xe. Full redundancy is priceless compared to only one machine without chip warranty. Its really a nobrainer.
Weird to see a brainless wcftech like post. Odd seeing it here. People use computers for different things like running this web site, content creation, playing games, data mining, AI, high transactional financial systems, scientific simulations, running databases etc.
This build is really just a high end gaming machine. This would make a terrible workstation for most content creation as you don't have near enough cores for parallelizing work. It certainly would be horrible at any server tasks.
wow, that's a /lot/ of hype and manufactured exclusitivity for speeds that i would imagine are already being hit by overclockers with well-specced watercooling.
With another year+ until Intel 10nm on the desktop and 7nm Ryzen dropping soon, I have a feeling we're going to see them in full-on "Pentium 4 Emergency Edition" mode (for those of you who remember that) and this is merely the beginning.
They're not really being hit by overclockers, the cooling requirement for 225W Intel is probably more along the lines of min. 300W if you go by Intel's dumb ratings. At that small an area to dissipate that amount of heat, better binning will be required.
What a joke less cores oh but it might turbo to 5GHz on 1 or 2 cores if you are lucky. Then they put it as Auction only item knowing most of these auctioned off will probably go for more than the 9980xe because well stupid people like to spend money on crap like this. Here is a thought just buy the i9 9940x if you want 14/28 setup and clock it to 5.0GHz your self and save a few bucks while doing it. Just my own opinion
About a decade ago I built a Supermicro Dual Xeon 5160 3Ghz monster with NVidia Geforce 5900 along with 8G of ram and superfast SAS drives - it still can run but Windows 10 has issues with audio drivers on this machine. It has Dell 30in dual-dvd monitor cost me around $8000
For the longest time - it was faster then even some of early i7's and it was Core 2 based. It had total of 4 cores - no hyperthreading - it was faster than most machine primary because Xeon had better IO on them. Spending money on such a machine is because of reliability.
I not sure the current desire for more cores - I think average user would not use more than 4 - it better to have more processing power in primary core than more cores. Of course Frequency is not the only factor - but it exciting to see Intel increase computational units in Sunny Cove.
If I would choose between different faster less cores or slower more cores - I would choose faster less cores especially if having more cores means less faster primary core.
Never mind the fact that 4.9 GHz stable is possible on all 18 cores of an i9-7980XE (of course with some serious AVX offsets and it being delidded/custom water cooled) even with core voltages well below 1.4V, and these parts can be had for far less than whatever stunt Intel is trying to pull here.
@Ian Cutress - "Instead of selling to end users directly, Intel will offer it to select OEMs via a series of auctions, held once a quarter, with the first auction scheduled for the third week of 2019."
Now that we're into the fifth week of 2019, has there anynews about how the auction went w/r/t volume and prices? Thx
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
Back to Article
danielfranklin - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
That would make it a "Super binned" i9-9940X, not 9960x right?Ian Cutress - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Correct :)IGTrading - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Rich, ignorant morons and research scientists where the 5 GHz frequency may show some productive benefits will bid against each other .Leave it to Intel to "justify" ridiculous prices and rare/extreme use cases :)
PeachNCream - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
The purpose of creating a bidding war for a low volume niche product is to generate conflict and drive sales of down stack SKUs. It's sort of like that college business textbook example owning two pizza restaurants operating under different names and then creating an artificial price war between them to drive sales of both restaurants upward as customers banner-wave for their favorite pizza place. Not exactly the same thing, but the press coverage a stunt like this will generate results in a lot of controversy, discussion, and low cost to free advertising. I would have expected Intel to be a bit less amateur about it, but I guess not every marketing idea is a win.solomonshv - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
this is meant for stock brokers and hedge funds, where trading at exactly the right second can make a difference of millions of dollars. threadripper is completely useless for this. a $500 Dell PC from best buy with an intel i5 CPU would do a better job than any threadripper for this application.jrs77 - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
This makes it a super binned 9940X not 9960X.I guess this is some sort of last ditch effort to win the epeen-race against AMD, who is currently murdering intel with their lineup.
flptrnkng - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
"This makes it a super-binned 9960X"9940X?
Xex360 - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Why not the 9980xe?Ian Cutress - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
The 9980XE already exists. What's the question?Zok - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
I'm thinking Xex360 meant to ask "Why not release a 5 GHz version of 9980XE?". That said, that'd be a more difficult (perhaps impossible) binning, due to both heat and defects.mode_13h - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Oh, c'mon Intel! You promised us *all-core* turbo of 5.0 GHz on *28* cores!KaiserWilly - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
You got an Aquarium chiller? Then you're set!mapesdhs - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
:D I'd keep a fire extinguisher to hand aswell, just in case...r3loaded - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Oh look, another super expensive Core i9 that'll get trashed by a Threadripper that costs half the price.mapesdhs - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
They really must be tearing their hair out on how to respond to AMD if this is the only kind of lame idea they can come up with. But then, someone will buy them; a fool and his money are soon parted.solomonshv - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
this is meant for stock brokers and hedge funds, where trading at exactly the right second can make a difference of millions of dollars. threadripper is completely useless for this. a $500 Dell PC from best buy with an intel i5 CPU would do a better job than any threadripper for this application.AshlayW - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Prepare for global powercuts when this thing hits.Supercell99 - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
I wonder what the minimum bid per thousand will be?PixyMisa - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
As if they're going to find a thousand of these.RSAUser - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
I bet they will be auctioned individually or maybe in the dozens, definitely not in the thousands.There will probably only be a couple of thousand of these in total, they are probably like the 0.1% of the already best binned chips.
The entire point of this chip is to say they have the fastest CPU, it has nothing to do with actually supplying the market with them.
wickedwil - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Who are the three system integrators?eastcoast_pete - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
P.T. Barnum said it best: "There's a sucker born every minute". Intel's sales and marketing department is listening, and awaits your order.myself248 - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
With today's modern computers, we're talking kilosuckers per second!https://sniggle.net/Images/cje35.gif
(And that banner's been unchanged since at least 2002, likely earlier. We're probably up to megasuckers now.)
HStewart - Friday, January 25, 2019 - link
Not just Intel and all of them do it including NVidia, Apple and AMD.zepi - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
So which three OEM-sponsored professional overclockers will battle this one out?twtech - Monday, January 14, 2019 - link
Intel's existing Xeon Scalable processors put a cap on how much some of these unusual CPUs are worth for work purposes, even for someone who has need of a high-clocks and/or high core count.For example, if Intel tries to charge $8k for the W3175x, it would be competing with 2x 6416 with the same number of overall cores, but a higher all-core turbo @ 3.9 for $1,500 less, or even 2x 6154 for $1,000 less, which wouldn't clock as high as the 3175x when lightly-loaded, but would give you 1.5x the total cores, and an all-core turbo speed of 3.7GHz that the W3175x probably still won't be able to match.
As for this processor, it doesn't accept ECC memory, can't be put in a multi-processor setup, and anything that benefits significantly from having 14 cores rather than 8 could probably also use a lot more. Ie. 14 cores at 5 GHz is impressive - but if that matters for what you're doing, twice as many cores at 3.5+ GHz is probably better still.
So this probably won't be used for work - it will be the Ferrari/Lambo of CPUs, put in very expensive gaming machines.
fallaha56 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Great pointsExcept it won’t be 14C@5Ghz, just single core turbo
And that’s before we activate AVX ;)
Intel bit of a dead duck at the moment, I wish AMD would get a move on and get Zen3 out -or at least properly demo’d
valinor89 - Thursday, January 17, 2019 - link
"Except it won’t be 14C@5Ghz, just single core turbo"As far as I understand what I read in the article they don't say the all core turbo will be 5 GHz, do they?
HStewart - Friday, January 25, 2019 - link
The article was updated and it confirms that all cores are at 5Ghz and not just a single core. Just remember all cores are not created equal and it depends on your applications. If application uses AVX-512 and it this speed, I would be it would dominate a non-AVX 512 xeon with twice the amount of cores.A lot depends on how machine is used and I would think anything that uses for graphics, the primary thread is most important.
Kevin G - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
You are also forgetting that in a dual socket system, you can support more memory which also provides more memory bandwidth. The number of PCIe lanes is higher on a dual socket systems which for certain niche applications is even more important than processor speed too.The big down side to dual socket systems is of course NUMA as many applications take a performance hit being split across two sockets. There are avenues for tuning based on a particular application but generally speaking as long as a single socket has enough bandwidth, it'll be faster than a dual socket with similar core count/clocks.
The thing about gaming systems is that clock speed is still generally preferred after you go beyond four cores in a system. Yes, some games are starting to utilize more threads but they're more of an exception and still scale with clock speed as well. The i9-9900K for gaming is better suited overall for that market due to its high base clock and good turbo.
edzieba - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
As an off-roadmap, sounds like this is a chip built for someone else that either had the deal fall through, or Intel had higher yields than expected of the top bin and say a chance to create a new SKU rather than just dump those shiny chips to a lower binning. The latter would be intriguing, as it might mean some 'golden sample' i9-9940X chips floating about that could achieve similar clocks.PixyMisa - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Or they know exactly what AMD is planning to release in the next few months.RSAUser - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Or it allows them to market a very fast CPU and therefore say they're better than AMD, with the average consumer just hearing how super fast they are and therefore buying them, same as Nvidia did.iwod - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
As much as I like AMD and wants them to be inside Apple, I think we see these end up in the next iMac.cpkennit83 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
If apple is going to price the next imac at over 20k, maybe.IGTrading - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
@cpkennit83 You've got that one right :) Only if Apple wants to sell computers more expensive than cars.Mitch89 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Apple already sells computers more expensive than cars.https://imgur.com/a/YLWvdWk
Midwayman - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
I don't think Apple releasing a 20k Mac would surprising anyone.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
remember, before the iPhone, Apple was just the Patek-Phillipe of personal computer companies. with iPhone now withering, may haps they're content to be that again? :)rocky12345 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Yea before iPhone they were pretty much a small niche company. By the way they not not only stole the name "iPhone" from Linksys which had products out with iphone product naming long before Apple released the first iphone they also as confirmed by Mr Jobs himself went to a event and seen a Sony concept phone about to be released in the near future yep rectangle device with a flat front with glass on the front and big screen (at least for that time) he then went back to Apple head quarters & said I want this and I want it now make it happen people. They quickly got patents on the shape and format of the new device some how before Sony got their own patents approved and went with it.On the iPhone name stealing from Linksys I knwo this also to be true because I owned a iphone device at least 4-5 years before Apple even had wet dreams about the smart phone industry. The Linksys Iphone devices were not smart phones though they were internet phones that worked with programs like skype and yahoo etc. You could make calls on them from Skype as I did to call family members all over Canada without long distance charges and it worked like a real land line phone pretty much. Anyways Apple releases the iPhone and Linksys goes to Apple and says hey guys uhm you kinda like are using our patented name on a device you made what gives you need to stop now. Apple either threw fist fulls of money at Linksys or took it to court either way they got to keep the name and all iphone named products form Linksys soon disappeared off of the market.
bizantium - Saturday, April 13, 2019 - link
Not linksys, but CiscoCloudflare steals Cisco's IP address, too via 1.1.1.1
Kevin G - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
They're first have to release a Mac. The Mac Pro model they are currently selling is a 2013 design.bizantium - Saturday, April 13, 2019 - link
However, Apple will use their in-house Apple A-series chip on Mac in 2020, so it won't happenSamus - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
This is one of the weirdest things to ever come out of Intel...I can't believe they are going through all this trouble for a chip that will be sold in the hundreds. Just the binning, sampling and packaging of a chip that is produced in the hundreds is ridiculous enough - and if they skip the sampling part they are essentially selling engineering samples (which might explain the lack of warranty.) So they have engineers doing that, then they have PR doing the auction end with OEM's? To make, what, a couple hundred grand a quarter?This just doesn't fit into the overall idea I had of Intel being a company that focuses 3 comma's, not 1.
Beaver M. - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Most likely because it will be massively overpriced. A price of $3000 to $4000 would justify something like that easily.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
it really depends on how they identify the chips. if they fall out through standard in-process work (or, at least, eliminate say 90% from consideration), then it's not so expensive. OTOH, if the only way is a full-chip test of every completed chip, then, yeah, it's stupid.Beaver M. - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Sounds nice. Even a 12 core version would still be something I would want.However the cooling of such things, especially if you overclock them to run on 5 GHz on all cores, is starting to become a problem. AiOs wouldnt be able to do that, air coolers neither. Water cooling would be mandatory, and I am not ready to dish out $600 just for cooling.
Gratin - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Does it mean it takes an addition of 90W to raise the base clock frequency from 3.3 to 4Ghz?54% more power to increase the frequency by only 29%?
Spunjji - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Sounds about right, they're already rising above their voltage/frequency sweet spot at that point. It only gets worse from there upwards!RSAUser - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Yes, same as AMD's Zen 1 sweet spot was around 3.6GHz clock vs power, with 4 usually drawing quite a bit more, and some having a doubling of power draw from 3.6 to 4.2-4.4 (about 20% higher clock) depending on binning.It's completely normal, GPU's have the same problem, it's also why Vega runs so hot as it's way overclocked from what its best power/performance ratio is in order to compete with Nvidia.
Nvidia also does the same because users look at reviews performance charts, most don't care about the power usage/know how to interpret it, so higher numbers is all that matters.
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Order of importance for proper system building...1. RTX 2080 TI (If you are not buying one of these, you might as well just get a chrome book.)
2. Samsung 960 PRO or 970 PRO 1TB
3. DDR4 3000 CL15 RAM (16GB minimum)
4. Any 6+ core micro-processor from the last 4 years (for 99% of what you'll do .. it won't matter.)
PEJUman - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
I can guess what you have:1. 2080TI bought at launch.
2. 960 pro 1TB
3. 32GB of DDR4 3200, CL16.
4. i7 8700k or older.
How many did I get right?
RSAUser - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Depends on what you're building, if it is not parallelizable, then the higher CPU cores would be better/GPU doesn't really matter that much.You build according to need, and for some paying $4000 means nothing as that 5% boost will pay back off the device in a short amount of time.
808Hilo - Sunday, January 20, 2019 - link
A 2080 is not much better than a 1080 today. No need to upgrade till 3080 or better hits the shelves. My 1800x - is just well rounded. Its the small block of CPUs. Many cores and many threads win in my scenario over a low core, hf Intel chip. I can do 3d cad, fea, browse 100 sites, code video, play 3d games, mail, gimp, word, excel without lag or slowdown and I got an upgrade path...which Intel does not offer. Its by far the best pc I ve ever had. Its was also about 1000$ less than a similarly speced Intel chiped tool. I d rather buy four slightly slower AMD chipped PC than spending that money on a single 9900xe. Full redundancy is priceless compared to only one machine without chip warranty. Its really a nobrainer.FreckledTrout - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
Weird to see a brainless wcftech like post. Odd seeing it here. People use computers for different things like running this web site, content creation, playing games, data mining, AI, high transactional financial systems, scientific simulations, running databases etc.This build is really just a high end gaming machine. This would make a terrible workstation for most content creation as you don't have near enough cores for parallelizing work. It certainly would be horrible at any server tasks.
KateH - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
wow, that's a /lot/ of hype and manufactured exclusitivity for speeds that i would imagine are already being hit by overclockers with well-specced watercooling.With another year+ until Intel 10nm on the desktop and 7nm Ryzen dropping soon, I have a feeling we're going to see them in full-on "Pentium 4 Emergency Edition" mode (for those of you who remember that) and this is merely the beginning.
RSAUser - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link
They're not really being hit by overclockers, the cooling requirement for 225W Intel is probably more along the lines of min. 300W if you go by Intel's dumb ratings. At that small an area to dissipate that amount of heat, better binning will be required.rocky12345 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
What a joke less cores oh but it might turbo to 5GHz on 1 or 2 cores if you are lucky. Then they put it as Auction only item knowing most of these auctioned off will probably go for more than the 9980xe because well stupid people like to spend money on crap like this. Here is a thought just buy the i9 9940x if you want 14/28 setup and clock it to 5.0GHz your self and save a few bucks while doing it. Just my own opinionDixonSoftwareSolutions - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
I'm holding out for the i9 9999XE for $9,999.99. 18 core, 5GHz all core boost...only 999 manufactured.HStewart - Thursday, January 24, 2019 - link
About a decade ago I built a Supermicro Dual Xeon 5160 3Ghz monster with NVidia Geforce 5900 along with 8G of ram and superfast SAS drives - it still can run but Windows 10 has issues with audio drivers on this machine. It has Dell 30in dual-dvd monitor cost me around $8000For the longest time - it was faster then even some of early i7's and it was Core 2 based. It had total of 4 cores - no hyperthreading - it was faster than most machine primary because Xeon had better IO on them. Spending money on such a machine is because of reliability.
I not sure the current desire for more cores - I think average user would not use more than 4 - it better to have more processing power in primary core than more cores. Of course Frequency is not the only factor - but it exciting to see Intel increase computational units in Sunny Cove.
If I would choose between different faster less cores or slower more cores - I would choose faster less cores especially if having more cores means less faster primary core.
HStewart - Thursday, January 24, 2019 - link
$8000 is entire compute does not mean just the monitor. Also when starting this beast up, it sounds like a hurricane.SharpEars - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
Never mind the fact that 4.9 GHz stable is possible on all 18 cores of an i9-7980XE (of course with some serious AVX offsets and it being delidded/custom water cooled) even with core voltages well below 1.4V, and these parts can be had for far less than whatever stunt Intel is trying to pull here.SharpEars - Wednesday, January 16, 2019 - link
I am talking no binning, 50% of all chips (i.e., average chips).HStewart - Thursday, January 24, 2019 - link
This article got notice by the financial industry and notes that Intel is doing something smarthttps://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/23/intel-is...
pgattocpa - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
@Ian Cutress - "Instead of selling to end users directly, Intel will offer it to select OEMs via a series of auctions, held once a quarter, with the first auction scheduled for the third week of 2019."Now that we're into the fifth week of 2019, has there anynews about how the auction went w/r/t volume and prices? Thx
pgattocpa - Wednesday, January 30, 2019 - link
Gaack - I hate my own typos...*has there been any news