I'm more curious what 4 channels at 4000MHz even means to raw performance. Historically more than dual channel just hasn't mattered except to very, very specific scenarios where memory subsystem throughout has an effect on the application. X58 demonstrated even triple channel DDR3 1333mhz was overkill (at the time) which is why it was abandoned for years until finally resurfacing in the HEDT market as quad channel, which was also mostly unnecessary (the IPC improvement from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge was pretty mild, something like 9% on average)
Either way, it's cool to see, but just entirely unnecessary for 90% of the people who are probably going to adopt it...
Knowing what we know about PCI-Ex bandwidth and graphics cards (namely that 16x v 8x doesn't seem to make much if any difference at PCI-Ex 3.0 speeds), as well as the falling utility of Crossfire/SLI in the first place, I don't think it really matters to most gamers. And considering gamers are absolutely the target market for the 7800X and 7820X, it seems like people are making the lanes argument more because they want to whine about something than it being an actual issue for consumers.
In an extreme workstation or deep learning environments with 40GbE or Intelliband cards, multiple GPUs, etc... sure! But if you are dropping $500 on NICs and thousands on RAM/GPUs, are you really going to use a 7800X and 7820X?
All of AMD's HEDT offerings (Threadripper) have identical cache sizes, feature sets, and amount of lanes (64), from lowest end offering to highest end offering. What you pay for is more cores and/or Ghz. That's it. It's a very straightforward approach. So yeah, with the lowest end Threadripper you get 64 lanes, same amount of cache as the 16-core Threadripper flagship, etc.
Intel however fractures their X299 platform (in usual fashion, trying to force users who want a specific feature to have to pay up to a more expensive model) with some being able to do 16 lanes, some do 24 lanes, some do 40+4 lanes. Some have an integrated GPU and can't use it, other have none. Some do dual channel, some do quad channel, some have 4 dimm slots, others have 8 dimm slots. Cache sizes vary wildly from lowest end to highest end.
People are tired of the marketing shenanigans. It's not costing them anything to enable a defacto 40+4 PCI-e lanes across the product stack. Any accusations of cannibalizing their product stack is rendered moot because by charging $500 for a quad-core with 16 PCI-e lanes, you get a lot more from the AMD side.
The complaints of PCI-e lanes aren't because most users will need more than that, but because people aren't wrong to expect the normal 40 PCI-E lanes for HEDT. This is the platform you should be able to assume that "I'm getting more of everything than I really need, so I'm somewhat futureproof.", except with something as minor as 16 PCI-e lanes, it's a joke.
I understand people see this as a "morality" issue, that somehow Intel is cheating them by not offering a product they want at the price they want, but quite frankly thats business. Intel is a publicly traded company trying to extract as much money as they can from as many customers as they can, and AMD is doing the exact same thing. AMD thinks offering fully enabled chips will give them a better marketplace edge. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Remember they are the ones that gave us tri-core CPUs made of the exact same fully functional die as more expensive "premium" parts with one core software disabled. And is currently selling a range of chipsets on identical dies with disabled features for the low end.
Forced segmentation may not be "consumer friendly", but lets be real... these are big companies chasing big profits, they will be as consumer unfriendly as they can get away with.
The other question is are you not only required to buy a CPU with 40+ PCIe lanes (but less then half of them enabled), do you also have to buy a motherboard with similar capabilities (that is instantly neutered with your neutered CPU? Because the motherboard companies are going to push back even if the consumers don't.
I think time has come to vote by using our money to buy something other than Intel for this reason. If they are going to keep nickel and dimeing us on processors than it is time to move on. I switched to AMD a while ago when they had a better offering, I guess it is time to do that again. Intel just doesn't care about its customers, only about their stock price for their stock members. Time for all of us to use our pocketbook and walk to AMD.
Yeah AMD actually Bin's for quality and the higher priced CPU's have the best Thermal/power characteristics.
With Intel, The Best CPU's are Binned for the T series line or kept for notebook chips, and most of the lower quality (power wise) are shunted to the K Series CPU's (most expensive) because TDP and power doesn't really matter on a 94w cpu.
With Intel, is very very hard to find golden chips in the K Series CPU's.
I agree about the PCIE lanes not really being an issue for those lower end chips. Very very few people can saturate 28 PCIE lanes however some can with M.2 SSD's and dual graphics cards. With that said Intel would sell more if they didn't dork around with the number of PCIE lanes that are already on the chip anyhow. Now we have AMD coming along without cutting PCIE lanes on Threadripper so maybe this practice will go by the way side as it is pretty pointless way to differentiate chips.
Back in the day lanes mattered for GPU, now we need the lanes for SSD's as you have pointed out. Also you need a ton of lanes for lots of USB 3, and sata ports. 28 lanes on a $600 CPU is mental. Intel is now making it's consumers pay 1 Grand to get 44 lanes.. 1 Grand used to be the top of the line CPU that only rich kids bought, but intel is cleverly trying to normalize $1k CPU's to leave room for future price increases.
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.
16 Comments
Back to Article
Gothmoth - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
well if intel would give me more than 28 pci lanes in a 500+ euro CPU i maybe would be interested....JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
HOW DARE YOU BADMOUTH INTEL.You're paying for the PRIVILEGE of using 28 lanes. If you want 40 lanes you must deposit addition shekels.
Samus - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
I'm more curious what 4 channels at 4000MHz even means to raw performance. Historically more than dual channel just hasn't mattered except to very, very specific scenarios where memory subsystem throughout has an effect on the application. X58 demonstrated even triple channel DDR3 1333mhz was overkill (at the time) which is why it was abandoned for years until finally resurfacing in the HEDT market as quad channel, which was also mostly unnecessary (the IPC improvement from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge was pretty mild, something like 9% on average)Either way, it's cool to see, but just entirely unnecessary for 90% of the people who are probably going to adopt it...
Cygni - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
Knowing what we know about PCI-Ex bandwidth and graphics cards (namely that 16x v 8x doesn't seem to make much if any difference at PCI-Ex 3.0 speeds), as well as the falling utility of Crossfire/SLI in the first place, I don't think it really matters to most gamers. And considering gamers are absolutely the target market for the 7800X and 7820X, it seems like people are making the lanes argument more because they want to whine about something than it being an actual issue for consumers.In an extreme workstation or deep learning environments with 40GbE or Intelliband cards, multiple GPUs, etc... sure! But if you are dropping $500 on NICs and thousands on RAM/GPUs, are you really going to use a 7800X and 7820X?
JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
It's more of argument out of principle.All of AMD's HEDT offerings (Threadripper) have identical cache sizes, feature sets, and amount of lanes (64), from lowest end offering to highest end offering. What you pay for is more cores and/or Ghz. That's it. It's a very straightforward approach. So yeah, with the lowest end Threadripper you get 64 lanes, same amount of cache as the 16-core Threadripper flagship, etc.
Intel however fractures their X299 platform (in usual fashion, trying to force users who want a specific feature to have to pay up to a more expensive model) with some being able to do 16 lanes, some do 24 lanes, some do 40+4 lanes. Some have an integrated GPU and can't use it, other have none. Some do dual channel, some do quad channel, some have 4 dimm slots, others have 8 dimm slots. Cache sizes vary wildly from lowest end to highest end.
People are tired of the marketing shenanigans. It's not costing them anything to enable a defacto 40+4 PCI-e lanes across the product stack. Any accusations of cannibalizing their product stack is rendered moot because by charging $500 for a quad-core with 16 PCI-e lanes, you get a lot more from the AMD side.
The complaints of PCI-e lanes aren't because most users will need more than that, but because people aren't wrong to expect the normal 40 PCI-E lanes for HEDT. This is the platform you should be able to assume that "I'm getting more of everything than I really need, so I'm somewhat futureproof.", except with something as minor as 16 PCI-e lanes, it's a joke.
Cygni - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
I understand people see this as a "morality" issue, that somehow Intel is cheating them by not offering a product they want at the price they want, but quite frankly thats business. Intel is a publicly traded company trying to extract as much money as they can from as many customers as they can, and AMD is doing the exact same thing. AMD thinks offering fully enabled chips will give them a better marketplace edge. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Remember they are the ones that gave us tri-core CPUs made of the exact same fully functional die as more expensive "premium" parts with one core software disabled. And is currently selling a range of chipsets on identical dies with disabled features for the low end.Forced segmentation may not be "consumer friendly", but lets be real... these are big companies chasing big profits, they will be as consumer unfriendly as they can get away with.
naris - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
Segmentation also helps to sell dies that are partially functional where something is broken in 1 of the cores or whatever..shabby - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
Unfortunately with competition heating up this segmentation might start hurting them.mickulty - Sunday, June 11, 2017 - link
It's also "business" for people to feel cheated and avoid the crippled product as a result.wumpus - Tuesday, June 13, 2017 - link
The other question is are you not only required to buy a CPU with 40+ PCIe lanes (but less then half of them enabled), do you also have to buy a motherboard with similar capabilities (that is instantly neutered with your neutered CPU? Because the motherboard companies are going to push back even if the consumers don't.Ahnilated - Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - link
I think time has come to vote by using our money to buy something other than Intel for this reason. If they are going to keep nickel and dimeing us on processors than it is time to move on. I switched to AMD a while ago when they had a better offering, I guess it is time to do that again. Intel just doesn't care about its customers, only about their stock price for their stock members. Time for all of us to use our pocketbook and walk to AMD.naris - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
That's most likely why AMD's offerings are like that. To help compete against Intel they are offering more lanes, cache, features, etc...Morawka - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
Yeah AMD actually Bin's for quality and the higher priced CPU's have the best Thermal/power characteristics.With Intel, The Best CPU's are Binned for the T series line or kept for notebook chips, and most of the lower quality (power wise) are shunted to the K Series CPU's (most expensive) because TDP and power doesn't really matter on a 94w cpu.
With Intel, is very very hard to find golden chips in the K Series CPU's.
fanofanand - Wednesday, June 14, 2017 - link
spot onFreckledTrout - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
I agree about the PCIE lanes not really being an issue for those lower end chips. Very very few people can saturate 28 PCIE lanes however some can with M.2 SSD's and dual graphics cards. With that said Intel would sell more if they didn't dork around with the number of PCIE lanes that are already on the chip anyhow. Now we have AMD coming along without cutting PCIE lanes on Threadripper so maybe this practice will go by the way side as it is pretty pointless way to differentiate chips.Morawka - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link
Back in the day lanes mattered for GPU, now we need the lanes for SSD's as you have pointed out. Also you need a ton of lanes for lots of USB 3, and sata ports. 28 lanes on a $600 CPU is mental. Intel is now making it's consumers pay 1 Grand to get 44 lanes.. 1 Grand used to be the top of the line CPU that only rich kids bought, but intel is cleverly trying to normalize $1k CPU's to leave room for future price increases.