Intel Unveils Full Specs Core X-series Processor Family Specs 14- to 18-Core

Link meaning what? Threadrippers are explicitly 60 lanes on the CPU and 4 from the chipset, totalling in 64 lanes. To my knowledge there aren't any more lanes than that, from anywhere - that's all you're getting (not like that's a small amount of lanes...).

According to the article, Intel offers a total of 68 lanes, 44 from the CPU and 24 from the chipset, all of which operate at 3.0 speeds. I'm not sure what you mean by "24 @ the speed of 4". 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes means you could have a x16 slot and a x8 slot. If you were to combine the chipset's resources with the CPU, you could have four x16 slots and one M.2 (x4) slot. Note these would all be running at full bandwidth.

Regardless - this is just Intel's way of saying "ha-ha we're better because we have slightly more of a number that makes literally no difference but people will buy into it anyway!" and yet AMD's Epyc is supposed to have 128 lanes. I thought 64 lanes was overkill.

 

He means 24 lanes with a maximum of 3.0 x4 to the cpu, meaning that if you where to try and use all 24 lanes at full speed concurrently, the maximum bandwidth to the cpu is still 3.0 x4 total , each lane would have effectively 1/6th the bandwidth it would have if they were a "true" 24 lanes in this situation.

If you aren't using more than 3.0x4 off the chipset concurrently, a single x4 slot will achieve 3.0x4 speeds.

A possible situation where this would matter is if you were to try and use more than 1 3.0x4 nvme drive concurrently via the chipset , you would be limited to the speed of 1 drive.



Effective total bandwidth to the cpu is 3.0x48 on x299

 

The link between the chipset and the CPU.

And like the above poster, it's 24 lanes at the speed of 4, on intels side.

 

Phew, all this talk of lanes...thought we were talking about Indonesian motorways.

 

Sorry, I'm not following. The chipset is advertised to have 28 3.0 lanes. Where eactly are the other 20 lanes going? The article mentions the x4 lane interconnect, but I get the impression that would cause the opposite scenario, where 4 lanes are lost and the chipset provides 20 that you can actually use.

 

chipset connects to cpu via DMI 3.0 which is a pcie 3.0x4 link, chipset supports up to 24 lanes, the chipset acts as a pcie switch for io essentially. allows you to connect many devices over the 3.0x4 link.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11461...new-highend-desktop-platform-and-x299-chipset

 

Turbo frequencies for X299 chips from Anandtech



Hope this helps

Thanks, Jura

 

Unfortunately without for how long those can be sustained the frequencies mean little. If a 18 core could sustain 3.4Ghz on all core indefinitely, that would be the base frequency and not the turbo.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listing turbo speeds on a giant multicore CPU is just appealing to fagots with little knowledge and lots of money as the only "correct" way to use this platforms it to run them under almost 100% load 24/7, which in turn means base clocks

 

Fagots with money?? :3eyes:

And clearly you are lacking knowledge, many mobos set to allow turbo speeds all of the time regardless of load.

 

So if I understand this correctly, this is works very similarly to how USB hubs work (I am aware there are distinct differences). How dumb, and misleading (sure fooled me anyway).

According to what? You have to use an aftermarket cooler, and pretty much the only reason to get these CPUs vs a Xeon is the overclocking, in which case the turbo is somewhat irrelevant anyway. The main reason it's there is so you can squeeze extra performance without boosting every single core.

Yeah... if you're going to be that crass about your opinion, you might want to do a little more fact checking.

 

I was replying to a factory clocks/turbos sheet, which means stock cooler and settings.
Ofc u can do crazy things when tweaking/overclocking. But if setting the mobo to permanent all core turbo (so, effectively raising the base clock?) were possible with stock cooling, Intel would be doing it themselves.

My point is amd/intel advertising turbo speeds on giant multicore cpus is pretty much worthless, just an idea of oc capability at best.

(And yes, u can buy this platforms, overclock, take a picture, brag for a week and let it cumulate dust or just use it to play 4-threaded games, but u know that's pretty silly and not the "correct" way to use a 28+ threaded cpu )

 

Let me stress this again - the i9 series doesn't come with stock coolers. Turboing isn't the same thing as increasing the base clock. Yes, it is possible for all cores to reach turbo speeds simultaneously (which is stupid), but turboing also allows individual cores to reach different turbo speeds too (which isn't stupid). This is to allow you to achieve better performance on tasks that don't demand all cores without making all of them increase, which in turn results in better power consumption.

For Intel, the turbo speed you get on all available cores is nothing more than a marketing gimmick and might as well be treated as the base clock. For anything involving less than 100% of the cores, turbo speeds are far from worthless.

 

To be fair, I think he was referring to the Anandtech chart, which shows a turbo boost of up to 3.4 GHz on all cores for the 7980XE. By default, turbo will boost up to the CPU's TDP so in less demanding tasks all cores can turbo beyond the base clock, although a 800 MHz delta is pretty significant. I'm guessing this figure is for the least demanding type of work when all cores are active (the chart shows the boost is for non-AVX work).

 

yes a usb hub is a close enough approximation.