Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel

Intel Launches 8th Generation Core CPUs (anandtech.com) 97

Reader joshtops writes: Today Intel is launching its new 8th Generation family of processors, starting with four CPUs for the 15W mobile family. There are two elements that make the launch of these 8th Gen processors different. First is that the 8th Gen is at a high enough level, running basically the same microarchitecture as the 7th Gen. But the key element is that, at the same price and power where a user would get a dual core i5-U or i7-U in their laptop, Intel will now be bumping those product lines up to quad-cores with hyperthreading. This gives a 100% gain in cores and 100% gain in threads. Obviously nothing is for free, so despite Intel stating that they've made minor tweaks to the microarchitecture and manufacturing to get better performing silicon, the base frequencies are down slightly. Turbo modes are still high, ensuring a similar user experience in most computing tasks. Memory support is similar -- DDR4 and LPDDR3 are supported, but not LPDDR4 -- although DDR4 moves up to DDR4-2400 from DDR4-2133. Another change from 7th Gen to 8th Gen will be in the graphics. Intel is upgrading the nomenclature of the integrated graphics from HD 620 to UHD 620, indicating that the silicon is suited for 4K playback and processing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Launches 8th Generation Core CPUs

Comments Filter:
  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @12:51PM (#55057499)
    Intel is claiming a 40% performance gain based on the additional cores. But the fact is that most apps use only a single thread, so with a lower clock rate, most apps will actually run slower! Yes, for the few apps designed to use all available threads there should be an improvement, but only if the memory architecture has enough bandwidth to keep all those CPUs fed with data. The limiting factor in most high performance computing is not CPU cycles, it's delays in getting data to each CPU. In other words memory bandwidth is more important than total available CPU cycles. Also, these processors slow down the clock rate as each additional CPU is utilized to avoid overheating.d Short summary: Your Mileage May Vary.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      All modern operating systems are multithreaded and anyone will see huge improvement even in single threaded apps because the OS will be able to allocate other processes and housekeeping chores to entirely different cores. You need to get out of the 1990's my friend and join us here in the 21st. If you make the jump today, you can even see an eclipse!
      • You would see an improvement in going from a single core to dual core, yes. But if your OS is running on one thread and a single-threaded app on another, then not that much improvement, unless your OS actually fully utilizes all but one of the threads -- which it doesn't, due to all the threads time-sharing the same data bus. Again, for most problem sets, data throughput is the bottleneck, not aggregate CPU cycles.
      • All modern operating systems are multithreaded and anyone will see huge improvement

        No, you will see tiny improvements. OS overhead is usually less than 10%, and often less than 2%. So adding a second core will give you a slight boost in performance for a single threaded app. Additional cores after that will get you nothing.

      • by Khyber ( 864651 )

        "All modern operating systems are multithreaded"

        And by default all modern OSes run everything (or try to) across every core, which quite often fucks up performance of single-threaded applications.

    • this has been the case since they released MMX 20 years ago. Anything coded to use their architecture and special instructions gets a huge boost. everything else no.

      welcome to how computers have always worked

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      AMD CPUs have better features anyway. ECC RAM support on the desktop, for example.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I care more about reliability, and on that front I can only draw from my own experience. Being a former Amiga user, I finally migrated to the PC world with a self-built AMD-K6 cpu. I got royally fucked because I was all into playing games like Quake that my Amiga could never play, only to later learn that AMD had a shitty FPU. My next PC was AMD Athlon based. But, after this I worked a few years as a PC repair tech. I saw countless fried CPUs in my day.... ALL of them being AMD. Since then, I went Int

    • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:16PM (#55057695)
      On the other hand, the turbo is faster so unless you're really pegging that single core for a prolonged period of time, the new chip is going to have a small performance edge. Also, the bigger L3 cache will probably be helpful in certain applications.
      • Agreed, any increase in the size of on-chip cache should be a win in terms of getting data into the CPU. Again, I believe the peak boost speed decreases when more CPUs are in use. I assume Intel did a better job of balancing this so there should be some improvement for certain problem sets.
    • Don't let the AMD circle-jerkers hear you talking about single threaded performance. Didn't you know Ryzen is The Second Coming and Intel will be out of business in a matter of months?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      They have lower base clock but higher boost. If you're really only using a single threaded app, maintaining boost clock rate shouldn't be a problem.

  • So, in fewer words (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Intel has new labels for the same processors at the same price. AMD must really have Intel executives crapping their pants.

    • This is why I love AMD. Intel and nVidia start getting complacent then AMD punches them in the face until they catch up again.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Agreed. I am glad that AMD exists, and I am glad that somebody else is willing to buy the AMD 'stuff.'

        • by rock_climbing_guy ( 630276 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:13PM (#55057675) Journal
          Amen to this. I remember years ago when AMD was considered a joke and they suddenly burst onto the scene with their "Athlon" line of processors.

          Prior to this, Intel would charge north of $1000 for their top-of-the-line CPUs and AMD forced them to sell for more competitive prices.

          • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

            The punchline to the joke was the first time I visited my brother-in-laws house after he had bought an Athlon box. It was so loud I thought maybe he was running a Rocket Simulator on it.

          • by Hydrian ( 183536 )

            I agree that the AMD's k5 were crap. But AMD was good even before they released the Athlon line. My AMD 66 MHz DX2 did loops around my friends Intel Pentium 100Mhz.

      • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        This is why I love AMD. Intel and nVidia start getting complacent then AMD punches them in the face until they catch up again.

        LOL yea that Vega release was a real big blow to NVidia.

    • by Ost99 ( 101831 )
      Going for 2 core to 4 cores (U-series laptop processors) and from 4 to 6 (desktop) doesn't seem to be just relabeling.
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:03PM (#55057601)

    Intel has lost the crown for performance, never had the crown for being low power and has even discarded all attempt to enter the IoT market. It seems like all these releases are Intel's attempt at throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. Meanwhile, I wonder how much cash they are doling out to prevent people from selling systems with AMD chips.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by KingMotley ( 944240 )

      The what? AMD doesn't have anything available that competes at the high end performance wise, and hasn't for a very long time. As for low power, except at the extremely low end, intel chips require a lot less power than their AMD equivalent at the same performance level.

      • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert@slashdoHORS ... minus herbivore> on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:50PM (#55057927) Homepage

        It doesn't matter, high price and high performance ends up in an ever shrinking niche - especially since processors have been powerful enough for 99% of users for many years already.

        Intel never made anything that was performance competitive with Alpha, MIPS, POWER, HPPA or SPARC in their heydays, Intel were just much cheaper. ARM and AMD don't need to produce the best chips, just good enough chips that are cheaper.

        Intel have lost the lowend to ARM, and the lowend is where the volume is.

        • I tend to agree with your general line of thinking, but we aren't there yet, and probably won't be for at least 3-5 years.

          AMD with $1.1b in revenue vs intel with $14.8b in revenue in the most recent quarter.
          AMD with $25m in profit, Intel with $3,500 in profit.

          Volume doesn't really mean much if you are losing money on each and every one of them.

        • Intel have lost the lowend to ARM, and the lowend is where the volume is.

          I don't know the economics of CPUs, but as with Apple v Android, margin is more important than volume.

      • AMD doesn't have anything available that competes at the high end performance wise, and hasn't for a very long time.

        Umm... did you wake up from a coma recently?

        As for low power, except at the extremely low end, intel chips require a lot less power than their AMD equivalent at the same performance level.

        This isn't an AMD vs Intel argument, I'm talking about ARM. Intel has tried and failed to enter the cell phone market several times. ARM chips own the low power market and Intel doesn't have a single ARM chip.

        • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

          AMD doesn't have anything available that competes at the high end performance wise, and hasn't for a very long time.

          Umm... did you wake up from a coma recently?

          As for low power, except at the extremely low end, intel chips require a lot less power than their AMD equivalent at the same performance level.

          This isn't an AMD vs Intel argument, I'm talking about ARM. Intel has tried and failed to enter the cell phone market several times. ARM chips own the low power market and Intel doesn't have a single ARM chip.

          AMD has nothing that can out-compete Intel on single thread performance, and even for multi-threaded performance ThreadRipper only beats Intel high end CPUs for extremely multi-threaded applications like rendering apps.

          • Keep in mind Intel OCed the i7 7700K waaay overboard out of fear of AMD. It gets up to 90C easily without liquid cooling at 5 ghz for crying out loud! Also the first reviews of Ryzen had ram at 2600 mhz and had bios issues.

            The silicon used on Ryzen is more power efficient and therefore has a limit between 3.8 ghz and 4.2 ghz. Basically a Ryzen 1800X is an 8 core 16 thread i7 4790K Haswell. It is not that far behind and of courtse a Ryzen 1800x will cream an i7 7700k for multithreaded performance with no thr

            • Do an honest survey of multiple tests reported on internet sites. Ryzen's base clock is lower, ryzen has lower IPC, ryzen can't be overclocked as far whether on air, water, or LN2.

              AMD has greatly improved performance, so much so that in very heavily multi-threaded applications where AMD's core count advantage can be used, AMD is faster on about half of the applications. Good for AMD, I like seeing the company successful. Nonetheless, the Ryzen line is not as good as Intel's products.

              • Do an honest survey of multiple tests reported on internet sites. Ryzen's base clock is lower, ryzen has lower IPC, ryzen can't be overclocked as far whether on air, water, or LN2.

                AMD has greatly improved performance, so much so that in very heavily multi-threaded applications where AMD's core count advantage can be used, AMD is faster on about half of the applications. Good for AMD, I like seeing the company successful. Nonetheless, the Ryzen line is not as good as Intel's products.

                I disagree as not as good.

                4 cores for an expensive CPU is not a good product in 2017. Again I say this as an Intel user if I were to buy today. Google threadripper and also google the i7 6800 series which perform about as bad in games and worse than the lower core i7 7700K for IPC per core. I don't see people saying the i7 6850 sucks comments or they are not good? Sure both Ryzen and a i7 6900/6800 can do the heavy workloads and game. Ryzen is half the cost of these exotic intel CPUs.

                I guess it is the defi

            • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
              I never said it didn't have a place in high-end PC builds, it certainly does. But the GP's assertion that "Intel has lost the crown for performance" is absurd. That (and his attempted defense of it) is what I replied to.
        • Umm... did you wake up from a coma recently?

          No, have you not taken off your AMD rose colored glasses lately? Name your segment (IoT, laptop, desktop, or server) and the fastest performing AMD chip, and I'll respond with an Intel one that outperforms it. Sure, if you limit yourself based on price, then AMD competes, but we aren't talking about a performance/price comparison, it was is the "crown for performance" as YOU specified.

      • Facepalm .... FYI AMD rehired the Alpha CPU and AthlonXP architect in 2014 and created a brand new architecture from scratch.

        Spend 10 seconds and google "Ryzen CPU". Ryzen had embarrased Intel this spring [youtube.com] and ran less watts than the i7 7700K. No you did not misread my last sentence.

        Seriously watch the video if you are into computers?

        • I may have not misread your last sentence, but it is also not true. The 1800X uses about 35%-40% more power than the 7700K. Go check any review where they actually measure the power draw.

          • I may have not misread your last sentence, but it is also not true. The 1800X uses about 35%-40% more power than the 7700K. Go check any review where they actually measure the power draw.

            Video above. Wattage of of 7700K is slightly less.

            As you can see [tomshardware.com]at idle the i7 770K is 1.5 whole watt less than the Ryzen. When cranked up AMD wins in the AutoCad test in power consumption over Intel. In torture loop in the end Intel wins but AMD runs cooler.

            I may add Tomshardware has been accused for 15 years now of being in the pockets of Nvidia and Intel and many would say biased in the link above.

            They are pretty close as AMD measures power consumption differently. Some tests AMD is ahead. Go look at th

  • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @02:55PM (#55058359) Homepage

    "Obviously, nothing is free" [so speed had to go down to pay for other improvements].

    I assure you, sir, that in the past, we got stuff for free all the time. Basically, every new generation had more complex circuitry (oh, man, that jump from 16-bit to 32!) with more instructions and a drop in cycles/operation, **A*N*D** the chip ran faster.

    The curve has been bending for some time, of course - I read these things because I got a high-end i7 in 2013 that had come out in 2012, (i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz) and I'm still not sure if I would *notice* the speedup if I bought a 2017 system to replace it. A gamer friend tells me I will notice, but only if I get the latest thing in RAM and the latest thing in SSD disks, each on the latest thing in buses. All of that together will not double the performance of my early-2013 purchase, and "double" used to be every couple of years.

    But, anyway, it was that "of course" that got to me. It means that the psychology has changed; the lack of automatic silicon progress has been accepted at a deep level, and people are planning around an era of Limits To Growth. "Moores Law" as a *social* era, has ended. We no longer expect next year's progress to solve this year's problems. We'll have to make some Hard Choices, give up something, to solve a resource lack.

    • You will not notice anything using a recent CPU, the gain is insubstantial.
      As you said : the RAM, the graphical card and the disks are what matters most.

    • with more instructions

      This is the truth! Instructions like AVE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • by rbrander ( 73222 )

        Yow, those ARE cool! And in my 5-year-old CPU.

        Oh, yeah, my rant skipped another thing. When it was still debatable that Moore's was over, one counterargument was that maybe GHz had stopped climbing, but we were getting more and more cores! I see the new line also quits at 6 cores, maybe you can get 8 later at high prices. Exponential increase in core-count has also stopped dead. (Just as well; Amdahl's Law says it wasn't a really productive direction, going to 16 and higher...)

    • ...and I'm still not sure if I would *notice* the speedup if I bought a 2017 system to replace it. A gamer friend tells me I will notice, but only if...

      I still have my i7-3770 (3.4GHz) in my gaming PC because CPU is not a major factor. SSD and GPU makes most of the difference these days.
      A new CPU also means a new motherboard and new RAM. An expensive upgrade for probably 10% difference...

  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @03:12PM (#55058515)

    I honestly would've liked to see Intel keeping Atom development going to see next generations to Cherry Trail... low powered small PCs seemed to have a good future there if only Atom kept going for some more years.

Seen on a button at an SF Convention: Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1990-1951.

Working...