Preview: Intel Core i9 Skylake-X processors

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. Humanoid_1

    Humanoid_1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    66
    GPU:
    MSI RTX 2080 X Trio
    It's all roses until a bad change effects you right?
    As more boards support 2+ M.2s so more people will want to RAID them, already seen people commenting here that they want to do so.

    Mind you this move won't be hurting AMD any...
     
  2. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,783
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Out of curiosity what benefits would setting two NVMe M.2 SSD's to RAID 0? I can see RAID 10 but other than that don't see the benefit for 0, 1 or 5.
     
  3. Solfaur

    Solfaur Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,440
    Likes Received:
    913
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080Ti Ga.X
    I for one am very happy about all this, even though I don't plan on getting either x299 or AMD's x399 (unless my current platform dies). It just shows how some competition can stir up the pot. And after seeing Intel's reaction, now I REALLY curious to see how this Threadripper will perform.
     
  4. nosirrah

    nosirrah New Member

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980M
    I joined today for this particular conversation after being a regular reader for at least 10 years.

    I have a Eurocom Sky X9E and use RAID 1 on both the 2 NVME M.2 SSDs and 2 SATA SSDs. The reason for this is that you can survive a single drive failure and RAID 1 does reads @ near RAID 0 speed due to the reads being distributed. All RAID 0 gets you over RAID 1 is faster writes, double the available space and the added danger of course.

    X299 was going to be the centerpiece of my new desktop workstation and I had planned on going with the 7820X but if this BS with both RAID 1 locked out without a key and booting from RAID locked out for all non-Intel NVME SSDs is true then I do not see any way I can stick with Intel. 2 960 Pros in RAID 1 is something I have already used on a laptop, no way in hell am I going slower on a desktop just because Intel added a bunch of roadblocks.

    If I go with AMD instead this will be my first AMD system since the 939 platform. I actually have no idea what the M.2 situation is on AMD but I guess I have some reading to do.
     

  5. BigMaMaInHouse

    BigMaMaInHouse Member Guru

    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    Zotac 1080Ti AMP Ex
  6. Humanoid_1

    Humanoid_1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    66
    GPU:
    MSI RTX 2080 X Trio
    Long ago in the past I have run RAID 0 (stripes the data across two drives theoretically doubling read and write performance, but lose 1 HDD lose all data, as you know) and it was definitely very helpful back then when HDDs were a lot slower in the 90s.

    Since then I've not develed into RAID at home due to expense of HDDs and Fast RAID controllers having been Very Expensive.
    I've actually been thinking to revisit it again now RAID controller tech built into motherboards Should be up to par as tech has improved so much - that and can actually afford it these days :)

    RAID 5 has held the greatest interest to me as you get more HDD space accessible + safety for the number of HDDs/SSDs you put in.
    RAID 5 needs a min of 3 HDD and can scale to many more, but always needs 1 HDD as a parity bit drive effectively, so you always lose 1x HDD worth of space in a RAID 5 setup.

    RAID 5 brings you the combined read and write performance of as many HDDs as you put in theoretically + should be able to scale well with modern fast controllers.
    If 1 HDD fails everything keeps running and usually you can even hot swap out the defective HDD and the array will repopulate the new drive with the relevant data.

    The Problem I have seen many times though is that when finally one of the mech HDDs fails, when you replace it with a new one, a second old HDD fails under the stress of copying all the necessary data to the new HDD, losing all your data on the RAID 5 array :(

    I personally know of this happening 3 time to friends around me.

    I believe such a scenario is Far less likey with SSDs and although I've had a few of them fail on me I find it very unlikely a second in an array would die so close to another.
    RAID 5 looks a very interesting prospect today on M.2 as some of the new X399 boards have 3x M.2 slots ;)

    The read speeds attainable in such an array today are really tempting to anyone working with large databases or other data intensive situations, will save a Lot of time!
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  7. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,465
    Likes Received:
    495
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    So why artificially lock it to +$200 if it harms nothing?

    How can you defend such obvious milking by saying "most won't use it eh?"

    Aren't you forgetting that you're the consumer? Would you buy a car with a prebuilt sunroof that would require you to pay $500 to remove a special screw that keeps it closed? Have we stooped so f*cking low? Really?
     
  8. Venix

    Venix Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    544
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    well we present you the 2nd attempt from intel to implement hardware DLC to their product their first attempt was with the pentium G 3xxx right ? to enable HT and turn em into i3's right ?
     
  9. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,465
    Likes Received:
    495
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    It's not even the second attempt. My 2600k doesn't have VT-d because f*ck me, that's why. The normal (and cheaper) 2600 does have it. How nice of Intel.
     
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Please note I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just explaining what the price increase is actually for. As for profits, the stupid thing is Intel doesn't need more of that - their net revenue is multitudes greater than all of AMD's assets combined. I'm pretty sure Intel can "make some sacrifices" in order to retain good quality products.

    Also being devil's advocate: generally speaking for most things, the more complicated something gets, the price will go up disproportionately. Sure, it'd be ludicrous to pay $400 for a dual core with a 16 PCIe lanes, but when you've already got 16 cores and dozens of PCIe lanes, the engineers are running out of room on the die and they need to make sure the socket can accommodate the increase in resources. This isn't simple or cheap to do.

    All over the place, I'm seeing respected and popular reviewers talking very harshly toward i9 and X299. Don't worry - Intel is not going to get away with this. They're still going to get oodles of cash, but they're doing AMD (hell, maybe even IBM) a huge favor here.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017

  11. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,783
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    I'm not defending it but I do understand why they are doing it.

    And I was seriously asking why you would need raid 1 and 5 on a personal PC?

    It's like "needing" ECC RAM on a personal computer.
     
  12. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,233
    Likes Received:
    2,721
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    Idk, I've definitely ran RAID setups on my personal PC for backing up random projects/school stuff/etc - I have it all on a NAS now - but yeah. Plus X299 is supposed to be "HEDT" and targeted towards workstation users. I've built dozens of "workstation PC's" with RAID 5/6/10 (I try to avoid 5 personally) for people doing either video/photo/CAD stuff for themselves or as hobbyists.

    I understand why Intel is doing it in the sense that they are trying to make a really weird separation of their workstation users/consumers in their HEDT line (which also explains the $400 gap between the 8/10 core CPU). But I think it's a ****ty way of doing it. If they had locked out the more advanced features like high end AVX instructions or intel management features or something - I could understand that. But RAID is pretty basic feature level to lock behind a paywall.

    On the other hand, I don't think it's going to prevent me from buying the 8 core if it ends up where I think it will end up because now that I have the NAS I don't plan on using any of the RAID storage stuff.
     
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I've seen mostly-new $250 PCs that offered RAID 0, 1, 10, and JBOD with SATA3. In other words, I could almost buy an entire CPU+RAM+mobo for the price of this "unlockable feature". How could you understand what Intel is doing?

    If you're using HDDs, RAID1 is a very practical choice. You get double the read performance without really hurting latency, and you get redundancy. For anyone who actually cares about their workstation and data integrity, RAID1 is a smart choice. The i9 lineup is ideal for workstations. Meanwhile, RAID0 is a terrible idea for an i9 setup. RAID0 is what you do when you want a large amount of fast storage for cheap. Considering the CPUs alone might cost as much as $2000, only offering RAID0 is such a tease.

    RAID 5 I agree is a bit unnecessary, and I never understood why people buy ECC for their non-server PCs.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  14. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,783
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    The reason they are doing it is to not cannibalize the Xeon line. Again I don't agree with it but I understand why they did it.
     
  15. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,465
    Likes Received:
    495
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    Because I actually used to have RAID 5 with an Athlon 800. It's stupid and ridiculous, and especially for workstation machines that work with large amounts of data RAID5 is almost mandatory if it's within the budget.
     

  16. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,233
    Likes Received:
    2,721
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    FYI I would always avoid Raid5 and do either 10/6. The cost of the extra drive is nothing compared to the failure rate of a single drive during a rebuild. I've seen so many people get burned by Raid5 rebuilds that I completely avoid it now unless the person I'm doing it for is really stubborn. In which case i couldn't care less what happens to their data.
     
  17. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Though that is a valid reason, it is not a reason that makes sense. Is Intel really so stingy that they'd rather hurt their reputation and give a sale to AMD than to lose a few hundred dollars to the Xeon counterparts?

    If Intel made it so the only differences between i9 and Xeon counterparts were OC support and ECC/buffered RAM, they'd still make an obscene amount of cash from both markets. Xeon users don't care about OCing; they care about stability and customer support. There is still a solid market for Xeons.

    As I've said before, Intel can make some sacrifices. They have/had a huge opportunity to blast Threadripper into obscurity and indifference, yet they're doing the exact opposite.
     
  18. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,465
    Likes Received:
    495
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 Quadrobake
    Fair point, but it really depends on the storage "budget" for each system. It's still better than RAID1 for performance, and not that much more dangerous. Most of these systems also have full backup schedules.
     
  19. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,783
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    Simple answer. Yes
     
  20. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    RAID5 is great when your RAID10 array fails and you're too lazy/cheap to buy another drive. I once built a "wireless router" out of some crappy low-power Core2 system. I put in 4x identical 160GB drives someone gave me. As someone who doesn't like to throw away perfectly usable hardware, I figured "this'll make for a decent shared redundant network storage" only to find one of the drives was faulty. So, I RAID5'd them instead.

    I wouldn't recommend RAID5 to anyone but it's great for those "meh, why not" situations.

    lol well alright then.
     

Share This Page