
Intel brings a six-core i9 CPU to laptops - jpalomaki
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12607/intel-expands-8th-gen-core-core-i9-on-mobile-iris-plus-desktop-chipsets-and-vpro/
======
zdw
There appears to be no LPDDR4 support in these processors, which seems like a
major omission:

[https://ark.intel.com/products/134903/Intel-
Core-i9-8950HK-P...](https://ark.intel.com/products/134903/Intel-
Core-i9-8950HK-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_60-GHz?q=i9-8950HK)

Which means they'll be stuck using LPDDR3-2133 memory with the same bandwidth
as previous generations in any power conscious design.

For example, Apple's MacBook Pro line continues to use LPDDR3-2133:
[https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/](https://www.apple.com/macbook-
pro/specs/)

I wish AMD would add LPDDR4 support to their mobile chips, if only to light
another fire under Intel to have feature parity like they did with core count.

~~~
neverminder
I don't understand how long will this bullshit continue. At the moment your
average phone can technically support more than 16GB of RAM (LPDDR4), but not
Intel's laptop CPUs. Is there some kind of massive obstacle that we don't know
about?

~~~
brandonmenc
With super fast SSDs, does anyone really _need_ 32GB of RAM?

I don't even shut down my multiple JetBrains IDEs and gazillion browser tabs
or bloated Slack when I take a break and pin the CPU with Ableton Live and a
bunch of soft synths on my MBP. Nothing skips a beat.

Is anyone seriously running into issues with only 16GB of RAM?

~~~
chasedehan
Oh yeah! When I showed up at my current employer, I had a laptop with 32gb and
2 PCI SSDs in RAID0. Almost immediately, I had to upgrade to 64GB.

I'm a data scientist and regularly work with multiple datasets simulataneously
that require the RAM usage. Both Python and R rely on in-memory processing.
Loading on/off disk is substantially slower and does not fit with what I am
trying to do. For really large datasets I also have a 28 core Xeon with 196GB
that I can remote into, but it is nice to not have constraints on my laptop.

Of course, you could go with Hadoop or Spark to process some of these
datasets, but that requires quite a bit of overhead and its easier (and
cheaper) to just buy more RAM

~~~
super_mario
Once your datasets go out of the bounds of single reasonable machine, it's
time to switch to Apache Spark cluster (or similar).

You can still write your data analysis code in Python, but you get to leverage
multiple machines and intelligent compute engine that knows how to distribute
your computation across nodes automatically, keeping data linkage and
parentage information, so computation is moved closest to where data is
located.

~~~
znpy
You know, sometimes you are in that uncomfortable spot where you have too much
data for a single laptop but too little to justify running a whole computing
cluster.

That is the kind of spot where you max out everything you can max out and just
go take a break when something intensive is running.

~~~
makmanalp
This - honestly depending on the task hundreds of GB can be still the "single
computer" realm because it's just not worth it to set up a cluster in terms of
time and money and also administration overhead. However parallel + out of
core computation doesn't necessarily imply a cluster: single-node Spark or
something like dask works fine if you're in the python world.

~~~
super_mario
Setting up ad hoc (aka standalone) Spark cluster with a bunch of machines you
have control over is ridiculously trivial task though. It's as easy as running
spark --master=x where you designate one machine as master. All others started
with --master=x become slaves of x. Then you just submit jobs to x and that's
all.

~~~
bitL
Spark is slow though. On the other hand, Pandas is also extraordinarily slow
:D

------
StillBored
So, the laptop processor has a higher turbo frequency than the desktop parts?

Sigh, the same old intel, they accuse others of selling desktop parts as
server cores, but they are the ones that don't have a proper desktop lineup.
Rather their focusing entirely on power/thermal constrained mobile parts, and
then packing as many as possible into a server part. Desktop users get
whatever random dies are left over. At least the new "workstation" series
xeon's acknowledge that there are users for which single threaded desktop
performance is still important.

~~~
sigi45
turbo frequency is not everything.

Every benchmark i know from intel desktop cpu versus mobile cpu is the same:
desktop wins by big margins.

I'm guessing that the mobile version does have less execution units.

~~~
hajile
It's several things. Desktops dissipate more heat, so sustained clocks are
possible. Max Turbo is theoretical in most laptops. A decent example of this
phenomenon is the m5 vs m7. Though the much is theoretical faster by double
digits, in practice the clocks that those systems can sustain are identical
(so save $100 by getting the m5).

Let's compare a 8550u and 8700k. The desktop has a base clock of 3.7 instead
of 1.8. it has 12mb cache instead of 8mb. Twice the bus speed. Faster
supported memory and more bandwidth. Desktop also has 16 pcie Lanes vs 4 (both
can access more via the chipset, but then there's that bus bandwidth issue).
Instruction and feature support is almost identical (except some things like
vpro).

Sustained clocks, bandwidth, and more cache make a huge difference.

~~~
paol
Very true, trying to evaluate laptop CPU performance is highly deceiving.
Unlike desktop parts the actual performance depends completely on the
particular laptop's cooling capability, which is impossible to know from
looking at the spec. And often that cooling is terrible.

That's why desktop high end CPUs have such a large gap in performance in
desktop vs. mobile. The gap seems small if you just look at the specs, but is
much larger in practice.

------
MikusR
Much better article. [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12607/intel-expands-8th-
gen-c...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12607/intel-expands-8th-gen-core-
core-i9-on-mobile-iris-plus-desktop-chipsets-and-vpro/)

~~~
dang
OK, we'll change to that from [https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/03/intel-8th-
gen-i9-laptops...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/03/intel-8th-
gen-i9-laptops/).

------
bhouston
The Intel Core i7 laptop series also features 6 core CPUs:

Core i7-8850H

Core i7-8750H

Core i7-8700T

Just not clocked as high as the i9.

I wonder if any of these 6 core laptop CPUs will have the AMD integrated
graphics - it appears not at this moment. I was looking forward to that on an
upgrade to my Dell XPS 15.

Who is getting the AMD integrated graphics CPUs then? Apple? I really wanted
one in my Dell as I was hoping it would be faster and more power efficient
than the NVIDIA 1050/1050 Ti.

~~~
kikimaru
The model numbers you're looking for are iX-8xxxG.

Dell are doing preorders on XPS15 2-in-1; HP doing same on the 15" Spectre
x360.

------
chx
WTF. The Core i7-8700T is a desktop CPU with 6 / 12 cores/threads at 2.4-4.0
GHz at 35 W for 303 dollars.

The i7-8750H has the amount of cores and thread it is rated at 2.2-4.2 GHZ.
But it's 45 W and 395 dollars. That's a lot of money and heat to pay for a
paltry 5% speedup at the very top -- and let's not forget the non Turbo speed
is 8% lower.

~~~
thesausageking
Ghz range != performance. Among other differences, the i7-8700T only has turbo
on one core.

~~~
chx
At least this article doesn't say anything about that. In fact, it presumes
all cores have turbo (which would make sense): At the peak turbo of 4.0 GHz,
or for all-cores somewhere in the middle (again, Intel won’t specify), the
power will obviously be higher.

Later they do some "sleuthing" to quote them and come up with this chart which
again indicates turbo across all cores:
[https://images.anandtech.com/doci/12607/Turbos.png](https://images.anandtech.com/doci/12607/Turbos.png)

------
jpalomaki
Intel press release: [https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-core-i9-processor-
come...](https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-core-i9-processor-comes-mobile-
best-gaming-creation-laptop-processor-intel-ever-built/)

------
slipwalker
So, are those chips immune to the Spectre and meltdown already ?...

~~~
mmphosis
and Intel ME has been removed from those chips already ?...

------
dis-sys
11 years after the first quad core laptop hitting the US market. Well done
Intel!

[https://www.cnet.com/news/first-quad-core-laptop-hits-
u-s/](https://www.cnet.com/news/first-quad-core-laptop-hits-u-s/)

~~~
coldtea
Because there was some contract that cores have to be increased before some
end date?

If anything, most cores are underutilized in laptops even today...

~~~
jacquesc
Why does it matter if some people are underutilizing cores on their laptop?
Mine are constantly pegged (developer running a lot of different heavy
processes) and I'd appreciate the ability to pay more for an upgrade. There
are many others like me.

~~~
coldtea
Not many enough (or not paying high enough), or there would be a market.

Instead, the major market pressure was on power efficiency.

(My cores are pegged too -- I run DAWs and NLEs -- but me and you are
irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, if there are not enough of us. And
that's not determined by counting us, but by the emergence of a market).

------
dmix
> All of the new processors and their accompanying chipsets will support
> Intel's Optane technology. [..] Intel claims the technology helps game
> levels load 4.7 times faster on the Core i7 8750H

Anyone try out these Optane chips yet and seen a significant difference? This
is apparently the other big announcement coming to laptops...

~~~
nfriedly
I think that's compared to loading from a 5400rpm mechanical hard drive. I'll
easily believe that optane is 4.7x faster than that.

I also expect most high-end NVME SSDs are going to be in a similar ballpark,
maybe "only" 4.5x faster or something.

~~~
aseipp
Optane performs much better at low queue depths which accounts for many common
workloads, and has better power usage at these depths -- this lets it compete
with NVMe at the same performance for many tasks with a smaller footprint
(e.g. battery). It's not all about peak GB/s, though to be fair not even
Intel's blurb makes this obvious...

That said it's quite possible NVMe drives will be "good enough" where PCI-e
Optane never makes major inroads, even just in terms of pure volume. The
dollar-per-GB needs to come down a lot, still.

Optane in DIMM form is also still MIA. I'm extremely skeptical it will live up
to the original hype it was put through ( _" thousands of times faster"_) but
I imagine it will be able to outclass many competitors.

------
bob_theslob646
I just hope the do extensive testing on cooling these machines.

As a former user of laptop workstations, there is nothing worse than having to
always lug around a bulky UPC as well as worry about overheating.

The other reason I could see them doing this is maybe related to wanting to
push people to use more graphic related applications (3D rendering), but even
that is slowly going to cloud.

------
mark-r
Intel is dead to me until they support ECC memory in their desktop processors
like Ryzen does.

------
KeitIG
I don't really understand the demand for this, does not having an i9 defeat
the purpose of laptops (working without a power source)? I usually buy laptops
with i5 processors which is the perfect trade-off between performances and
battery life.

~~~
freehunter
There is a market (not sure how big, but there is one) for modern-day
luggables. They're more often called "desktop replacements", and "working
without a power source" is really far down the list of requirements for them.

The common use case for these machines: a developer who needs a fast CPU and
lots of RAM (and often a dedicated video card) coupled to a 15" or better yet
a 17" screen and a ton of hard drive space. You may unplug to go to a meeting
for an hour or two, but you'll be back to your desk (and docking station)
pretty quickly. You're not working from a coffee shop or a couch because you
need a real mouse and a real desk. You occasionally take your work computer
home when you're the on-call resource that week.

In that case you don't need a big battery (or rather you need a big battery
but not a lot of battery life). Five hours is more than good enough, but you
can't trade that performance for anything you don't need.

I know because I have one sitting unused beside me (Thinkpad W530) from back
in the days before I started traveling for work.

~~~
w0m
> Five hours is more than good enough

Was only a few years ago where any decently performant machine didn't get more
than 3 or 4 hours anyway. Everyone has a different use case.

~~~
lallysingh
Who's got 5 hour meetings?

~~~
Willson50
In my experience, it is usually 5 1-hour meetings.

~~~
freehunter
All day "strategy meeting".

------
KillerRabbitt
Based on the slides, do some processors lack virtualization support?

~~~
sebazzz
Must be a mistake. Other than video rendering, virtualization is a good task
for a multi-core processor.

~~~
JonathonW
“vPro” in this context is probably Intel AMT (Intel uses the “vPro” branding
to cover several unrelated technologies)... but Intel’s used virtualization
capabilities (specifically VT-d and VT-x) as a point of product line
segmentation before, so its not that far-fetched that they might omit
something, especially if they’re concerned about cannibalizing server-class
processor sales.

------
mtgx
Did I miss it or is there no mention of price? I assume that's because it's
going to be more expensive than AMD's 8-core chips?

~~~
MikusR
$583

------
TwoNineA
Good is competition. Began the Core Wars have.

~~~
astrodust
Finally the regular i7 has moved beyond four cores. It only took ten years.

~~~
krylon
IIRC there were i7 chips with six or eight cores available for a while, they
were just ridiculously expensive.

~~~
astrodust
The X series has always been ahead of the curve, but priced astronomically
expensive, usually well above the equivalent Xeon part.

The i7 was introduced as a 4-core part and only now have they started to shift
that to 6-core by default.

If their initial trend with Core continued we'd be at 16+ by now.

------
mikerg87
Anyone more in the know - how much ram could one of these new chips handle -
the 16GB limit is something that has to go.

~~~
dorfsmay
Isn't the 16 GiB a self-imposed limit by the laptops manufacturers rather than
the processors?

~~~
rsynnott
Bit of both. Current Intel chips (including these ones) don't support LPDDR4.
This is largely because Intel is at this point years behind on their roadmap;
phone chips have supported LPDDR4 for a while. They support LPDDR3 and plain
(non-low-power) DDR4. So if you want to go over 16GB, you have to use plain
DDR4, and power usage, especially suspended power usage, suffers.

Next-gen Intel chips will support LPDDR4, making the whole thing a bit of a
non-issue.

~~~
Jesus_Jones
If the next gen was close, it would not be an issue. But because it's way
behind and one commenter up above stated its 18 months out. So it's an issue.

My dev team is _finally_ abandoning mac books for lenovo laptops with 32 gig.

~~~
pacificmint
If you mean mbell's comment, they said it's 18 months late, not 18 months out.

How many months it's out from this point is presumably something only Intel
knows. Or maybe not even Intel.

~~~
Jesus_Jones
ah, thanks for the correction. so when is it expected, if not in 18 months?
I've been waiting for > 16 gig for literally 2+ yaers.

~~~
dashesyan
Hopefully soon. I've been waiting for > 16GB for almost 7 years now. :/ (I
have a 2011 MBP with 16GB RAM)

~~~
Jesus_Jones
It'll be this decade or next, never you worry.

------
mnw21cam
That web site is extremely heavy. I hate to think how much Javascript it's
trying to run in the background.

~~~
notafxn
It's super fast and light here. Is your ad blocker up to date?

~~~
Narishma
He's probably talking about the previous link before it was changed.

------
einrealist
Accidently dropped my gaming laptop during the weekend. Guess I will buy a new
one. The Gigabyte Aero 15X v8 looks promising. So this is a nice coincidence.

The only issue is the missing Spectre / Meltdown silicon fixes. And even when
they are available, its probably pure luck to get a model having it. :(

------
lwhalen
Great. Can we get > 16GB RAM while we're at it? :-)

------
tasty_freeze
Does this generation add any hardware support to mitigate/eliminate meltdown
and/or spectre?

------
jtl999
How's the TDP?

------
jumelles
I miss the old processor wars; is this a reboot?

------
k_sze
Yes, but no Vega. :(

------
Shivetya
one a related note, this is the chipset many in the iMac world are expecting
for some new models. being that it will also be a twentieth anniversary of the
platform there is expectations of a new chassis as well

~~~
samcat116
iMac doesn't use mobile CPUs. The current top end iMac has a 7700K

~~~
JudasGoat
Would be an a$$ kicking mac mini with 6 cores.

------
bufferoverflow
12-core laptops have been available since 2013.

[http://www.eurocom.com/configure(2,234,0)](http://www.eurocom.com/configure\(2,234,0\))

~~~
evilduck
That design is stretching the definition of "laptop" pretty far.

