The new Intel i9-10980XE specs

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

(Our laptop that LDC supplied to our new hall is a HP Pentium... Lol)

 

Intel's tactic of slowly bumping up clock speeds and adding more features across its product stack, like Hyper-Threading, has proven to be a good-enough strategy to fend off AMD's increasing pressure with the first-gen Zen chips, but the arrival of Zen 2 and the 7nm process blow that approach out of the water. It's quite shocking to see Intel thoroughly unprepared to attack AMD's high end Threadripper parts, and we're not convinced that bringing the high core count Xeon W parts down to the standard HEDT segment would help.

 

Intel says it will have 10nm parts for the desktop soon, but we don't know where those products will land yet, and they certainly won't attack the HEDT market for at least another year, meaning the company has ceded the high end to AMD.

 

The refined 14nm process equates to faster clocks speeds, and thus performance, at lower overall power consumption. The Core i9-10980XE also has much higher overclocking headroom than its predecessor, but Intel's textbook incrementalism is no longer enough to fend off AMD in the 7nm Zen 2 era. 

 

The Core i9-10980XE has two primary competitors: the Ryzen 9 3950X and the Threadripper 2970WX that AMD has left on the market to address this price bracket...

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10980xe/6

 

Intel Core i9-10980XE at PCcasegear for $1,819

 

Just Older

 

 

[Dages]

KHs don't need powerful computer, it's easy to find something under 300/400 that is good enough.

[Jarred]

Obviously the chip mentioned would be Overkill for a KH computer, but there are cases when a more powerful computer would be appropriate.

For instance, in the United States, the branch has added the capability to stream live video to the elderly or infirm unable to attend meetings in person.

In this case you would most likely need a mid-priced PC ($6-900) with an i5 or better CPU to handle the video encoding.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Beggar for the Spirit]

8 hours ago, Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz said:

...but the arrival of Zen 2 and the 7nm process blow that approach out of the water.

Hi Tony, 

I don't know much about computer chips, processors, etc, but I had the understanding that in these past years the Intel i3 or i5 or i7 were always better or recommended by experts compared to their AMD counterpart. So just wondering if you are suggesting in your post that now AMD has caught up or surpassed Intel's i9 with their latest Zen chips?

 

[Qapla]

54 minutes ago, Beggar for the Spirit said:

I had the understanding that in these past years the Intel i3 or i5 or i7 were always better or recommended by experts compared to their AMD counterpart

 

Sad to say, this is like the debate about Apple, Android and Windows. There are "experts" that say Apple is better than Windows and/or Android - while other "experts" prefer Android, etc.

 

In the PC marketplace you have those who like Intel and those who like AMD. You have so-called "experts" who have their favorite ... this debate/competition has been going on for years.

 

The benefit for the consumer is that, regardless if you buy "new" Intel or AMD, you will have an up-to-date reliable PC that will work just fine ... they each keep improving and neither one stays ahead of the other for long.

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

It was a tongue-in-cheek report. (Not my thoughts, I copied and pasted the website comments.)
Technology always changes. I recall (as many older ones do) the VHS vs BETA wars on TV recording formats. It is generally agreed, the better one did not win, but the most popular / most advertised / better pushed or supported etc - won the race.
So the Intel vs AMD wars continue.
The Pentium does most that we require at K-Hall level. Better programming could squeeze a lot more out of those CPUs.
For our AVS teams, some more grunt is required. I have an old i7. It still can keep up with what I use. My son uses a new i7.
As was noted at the time of Nimrod, there is no end to the advances man can apply themselves to. I was just astounded at the speed and threads these new chips are handling, and thought I would share...

Just Older

[Qapla]

I tend to lean towards AMD - have since the 80's

[Myew]

10 hours ago, Beggar for the Spirit said:

I had the understanding that in these past years the Intel i3 or i5 or i7 were always better or recommended by experts compared to their AMD counterpart.

From about 2010 to 2017, Intel's chips were practically more functional than AMD's offerings, especially on the lower end. Of course, they cost more then too. Currently, you're much better off performance-per-dollar going with an AMD Ryzen chip. They're smaller chip dies which makes them more energy and heat efficient, they have more cores and threads on lower models, better onboard graphics thanks to AMDs GPU division, they're all overclockable, they can use ECC memory, the new x570 motherboards include PCI Express 4.0 for much faster storage technology which Intel doesn't have yet, and they're simply much cheaper than Intel's prices.
 

9 hours ago, Qapla said:

In the PC marketplace you have those who like Intel and those who like AMD. You have so-called "experts" who have their favorite ... this debate/competition has been going on for years.

Some people prefer AMD or Intel because they feel a kinship to one of the brand's marketing styles, yes. AMD tends to push the 'value' aspect whereas Intel's shtick is 'reliability'. However, you also have 3rd party reviewers who continually do real world hardware performance comparisons which I keep up with... such as Hardware Unboxed https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg and Tech Deals https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCss3QxegBkF8BAetIo0qXA. They do the math. Comparing benchmarks and metrics has become realistically practical in the past few years compared to any time before. There is verifiable data to combat opinion. All the computers that I have built for myself are AMD, but that's mainly because I have been poor and don't go top of the line anyway. I have built Intel for others. Practically, when it comes to new computer hardware, all that really matters is that you get the best performance per dollar and it handles what you need reliably. There was a time that Intel CPUs had the highest end performance... then AMD for a bit thanks to overclocking and core unlocking... then Intel for around 10 years... but now AMD's Zen 2 7nm chips are the top performers once again. Intel recently cut the prices of their top chips in half and still can't compete with AMD's current chips which are cheaper. Intel has been having manufacturing trouble for years trying to get onto a new die process, they're stuck on 14nm for economies of scale reasons according to what I've read. They have refined that same process with their chips to the point that they are called 14nm++++++. They've had several years of minor efficiency boosts, but not a generational leap like AMD's newer 7nm Ryzen chips made. Intel still has innumerably more resources than AMD and will eventually get there if the world continues. Regardless, very few people need top of the line consumer chips. Professional video editors, hardware enthusiasts and maybe game streamers. Both AMD and Intel get the majority of their money from the business and server space, that's where AMD is really making strides. They'll always have their poor gamer fanbase.

Spoiler

 

19 hours ago, Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz said:

(Our laptop that LDC supplied to our new hall is a HP Pentium... Lol)

Yes but what model Pentium processor? It hurts to not know. :<

Edited February 3, 2020 by Myew

[Myew]

15 hours ago, Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz said:

Technology always changes. I recall (as many older ones do) the VHS vs BETA wars on TV recording formats. It is generally agreed, the better one did not win, but the most popular / most advertised / better pushed or supported etc - won the race. So the Intel vs AMD wars continue.

In that case, when you break down the facts, VHS technology continued to innovate whereas Beta did not. In fact, Beta even ended up lowering the video quality in order to increase recording times with Beta 2, but still could not compete with VHS offerings for the average consumer. It's not that VHS was better advertised, but it was more popular because of legitimate practical reasons for the consumer and the developers. It was easier to record on, had longer length, and had VHS-C for camcorders. VHS 'won' because they were focused on serving the users practical needs, where Sony chose to stick to their design philosophy. It's the same now where AMD has been innovating and managed to pull ahead in practical functionality (powerful onboard graphics and more cores in cheap thin and light 2-in-1 laptops!) but Intel has remained stagnant for several years. I recommend watching Technology Connections 'documentaries' which breaks down the engineering of both VHS and Beta formats VCRs and Cassettes. All of his videos are fascinating, even how toasters work.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Memeber212]

For purposes of our meetings an i5 from 2012 processor is more than enough. Newer i3s would work as well. You won't buy a track to carry a fridge once every 2 years (although I know one brother who thinks that way and that was his reasoning).