Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

yesiree, 10980XE will be half the price of 9980XE
No doubt due to competition from AMD.
Although I heard elsewhere that Intel didn't sell that many of the
998OXE, as not enough dies had full 18 cores working. Charge $2000
and that would dampen demand to what they could supply.
So have Intel got better yields for the 'new' generation (still 14 nm)?

Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

wrote:
yesiree, 10980XE will be half the price of 9980XE
No doubt due to competition from AMD.
Although I heard elsewhere that Intel didn't sell that many of the
998OXE, as not enough dies had full 18 cores working. Charge $2000
and that would dampen demand to what they could supply.
So have Intel got better yields for the 'new' generation (still 14 nm)?

Call me when it hits $25.

This gives some background on the generation from last year.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13402...core-i9-9980xe

*******

The most expensive processors in the list, the price on those
is negotiable. And the day Spectre/Meltdown came out, you can
be sure the spot price dropped like a rock. Nobody ever pays
$13000 for the $13000 processor (only a "consumer" does that).

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/file...Price_List.pdf

The cheapest processor now is $42 for a dual, whereas
there was a quad in the list for $17 at one time (BGA
for $100 tablets). But AMD, right now, isn't going to
"race them to the bottom".

The only time Intel isn't going to make a profit, is
if they can't keep the fab running at 100% capacity.

And Intel keeps hedging their bets. They bought an FPGA
company (so they could make the $1000 chips in their fab).
And they're going to make video cards - whether this
will work, we'll have to wait and see.

Paul

Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:08:46 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

The most expensive processors in the list, the price on those
is negotiable. And the day Spectre/Meltdown came out, you can
be sure the spot price dropped like a rock. Nobody ever pays
$13000 for the $13000 processor (only a "consumer" does that).

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/file...Price_List.pdf


Some weird offerings on that price list: like a $213 hexcore on LGA3647,
which is intended for the many-core monster Xeons. So the mainboard would
cost 4x as much as the CPU?

Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:08:46 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:
The most expensive processors in the list, the price on those
is negotiable. And the day Spectre/Meltdown came out, you can
be sure the spot price dropped like a rock. Nobody ever pays
$13000 for the $13000 processor (only a "consumer" does that).

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/file...Price_List.pdf


Some weird offerings on that price list: like a $213 hexcore on LGA3647,
which is intended for the many-core monster Xeons. So the mainboard would
cost 4x as much as the CPU?

They might as well just give those away :-)

What's funny about those gimped processors, is I've never
read a story about anyone using one. They exist in a price
list and that's about it.

You would think, if you had $40000 worth of memory,
an $800 motherboard, you could do a little better than
plug a $213 processor into it.

Paul

Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

On 2019-10-04 10:52 a.m., Paul wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:08:46 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:
The most expensive processors in the list, the price on those
is negotiable. And the day Spectre/Meltdown came out, you can
be sure the spot price dropped like a rock. Nobody ever pays
$13000 for the $13000 processor (only a "consumer" does that).

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/file...Price_List.pdf



Some weird offerings on that price list: like a $213 hexcore on LGA3647,
which is intended for the many-core monster Xeons. So the mainboard
would
cost 4x as much as the CPU?

They might as well just give those away :-)

What's funny about those gimped processors, is I've never
read a story about anyone using one. They exist in a price
list and that's about it.

You would think, if you had $40000 worth of memory,
an $800 motherboard, you could do a little better than
plug a $213 processor into it.

Â*Â* Paul

I didn't count em but, Do we really need that many CPUs?
Now I don't feel too bad about buying *one* Lonely AMD!

Rene

Intel halves the price of 18-core i9!
 

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:19:42 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I didn't count em but, Do we really need that many CPUs?
Now I don't feel too bad about buying *one* Lonely AMD!

-

When my last computer exploded (supply pole outside the building was
struck by lightning), it was a "rush job". There were three or four
general AMD classifications/iterations supported by the BIOS, within
which, perhaps 20 to 50 processors might be subclassified within each
type-classification

I bought two, amid many, one of which wasn't a sound choice and was
indicative better to replace, upon a more replete, conclusively
studied manner from an aftermarket dealer in used CPUs located in
South Korea.

If fleas infest used CPUs in Ebay's habitat, then Korea is a further
degree of pricing microorganisms.

Core counts do actually help, I find. And not necessarily eight,
twelve or sixteen;- Even in instances and applications where six can
justify advantage over four cores. And where AMD is presently
positioning six-core Ryzens, the price-point average is near to parity
with a prior-generation sockets at respective core counts.

There's a land mine type that was deployed in the
Serbian/Bosnia-Herzegovina war that's designed not to explode upwards,
but first to propel itself upwards before deploying unidirectionally.
I think that's what AMD engineering meant when exceeding four cores
for their early "flagship series", its first and better instances
among the above pre-Ryzen/AM4 iterations.

In fact, six minimally if not eight liberally -by some- is the new
norm to cores.