# [Updated][G3D] Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K specifications also exposed



## Defoler

Source


> The Core i9-9900K is an 8-core 16 thread with a base clock of 3.6GHz, a Boost of up to 5GHz, a cache memory of 16MB, a TDP of 95W, and an 8-core maximum acceleration clock of 4.7GHz.
> The Core i7-9700K is an 8-core 8 thread. It does not support HT. The base clock is 3.6GHz, Boost is up to 4.9GHz, the cache memory is 12MB, TDP 95W, and the 8-core maximum acceleration clock can reach 4.6GHz.
> Core i5-9600K is a 6-core 6 thread, with the same base clock as 3.7GHz, Boost up to 4.6GHz, cache memory of 9MB, TDP 95W, and 6 core maximum acceleration clocks up to 4.3GHz.
> Intel is expected to launch these chips later at the end of Q3 2018.



Update 26/7
Source


> ou know that Intel eight-core Core i9-9900K that is coming. Word out on the street is that Intel has been shipping some samples to overclockers. And as they found out, the 8-core parts do not use thermal paste, however, have *the heat spreader directly soldered towards the die*, much like Ryzen has.


That is going to be interesting

Update 28/7 
Source


> The eight-core CPU scores 10718 points in the Time Spy CPU test. When you isolate and compare that number a bit back and forth, you can compare it compare with say a Ryzen 2700X, which is at 9147 points, Intel's Core i7 8700K scores an average of 7918 (all at defaults). That's 25% more cores, and 25% more CPU performance.




Seems it will be AMD IPC vs intel clock speeds in the next iteration of chips battle.
Unless AMD are going to push core count further.


----------



## Benuva

An unlocked Core i7 without HyperThreading? and I'm guessing ~350-400 bucks at launch? Maybe they have improved the thermal interface material from bird poop <tm> 

I'm whelmed


----------



## SystemTech

I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.

Who will win....
Exciting times indeed at the moment
Thank you AMD for finally making Intel squirm.

I feel like the CPU race is back on. Each company pushing their technologies and process to make faster processors.
Finally the standard 10% improvements are done for a while and 2500K users have a decent reason to upgrade.

Now if only AMD could pull another rabbit out the hat, and compete with Nvidia for GPU's.
Then things would really be as they were in the mid 2000's where each company was pushing the limits, not sitting idle just raking in cash.


----------



## guttheslayer

SystemTech said:


> I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.


Debauer already said its not bird poop but soldered. So please. *frown*



Defoler said:


> Seems it will be AMD IPC vs intel clock speeds in the next iteration of chips battle.
> Unless AMD are going to push core count further.



AMD going for 16C for 7nm next year Zen 2


----------



## m4fox90

95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right


----------



## KBOMB

m4fox90 said:


> 95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right


I was thinking the same thing..


----------



## sargatanas

They could just make it simpler just release 2 cpus, i7-9900k w/ 8 cores 16 threads and i5-9700k w/ 6 cores 12 threads. Why release ones without ht and just make things complicated? 

And price wise 9900k 8c 16t, should not be more than 400 usd, 1. 8c 16t is nothing new it is around since 2014 with 5960x. 2. AMD is already 2 generations deep in this core count with a 300s price range, is the ipc and clock rate gap gonna be that big to justify the price? 3.This is like what, 3rd or 4th 14nm interation since broadwell in 2014? They should have made at least manufacturing cheaper or more efficient after staying in that node for so long, or they still plan to milk customers to the very end.


----------



## guttheslayer

sargatanas said:


> They could just make it simpler just release 2 cpus, i7-9900k w/ 8 cores 16 threads and i5-9700k w/ 6 cores 12 threads. Why release ones without ht and just make things complicated?
> 
> And price wise 9900k 8c 16t, should not be more than 400 usd, 1. 8c 16t is nothing new it is around since 2014 with 5960x. 2. AMD is already 2 generations deep in this core count with a 300s price range, is the ipc and clock rate gap gonna be that big to justify the price? 3.This is like what, 3rd or 4th 14nm interation since broadwell in 2014? They should have made at least manufacturing cheaper or more efficient after staying in that node for so long, or they still plan to milk customers to the very end.



They want their pigeon pooped 8700K to sell.


----------



## Newbie2009

Intel bringing out the big guns, good to see.


----------



## Threx

Always pleasantly amused to see how a little competition can go a long way. We went from 4c/4t and 4c/8t being the top mainstream chips to 6c/6t and 6c/12t to 8c/8t and 8c/16t in under 12 months.


----------



## nonametoclaim

so if you want the amd equivalent on thread count from intel you have to buy into the I9 series chips, shame on you intel. why no ht on the ranking i7?


----------



## doom26464

4.7ghz all core boost on an 8 core?

On 14nm++ it have to be solder right? It would burn your house down other wise.

Either way this is one impressive cpu. It is going to be a monster for single PC game/stream rig. 


Wonder how all these chips will overclock, guess time will tell.


----------



## kd5151

RiP Z370.


----------



## ToTheSun!

If these are legit, 4.7 GHz boost all cores at stock would probably mean pretty decent bin. That's a lot of performance precluding overclock, but most likely also a commanding premium.

It would be pretty nice if this were the final configuration at $400 or less. It would be the new 2600K.


----------



## EniGma1987

Claimed 95w, yet we will probably have another X299 power and heat catastrophe on our hands with these chips.


----------



## paulerxx

The i5 leaves something to be desired.


----------



## azanimefan

m4fox90 said:


> 95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right


Intel doesn't quote turbo speeds anymore; combined with this "questionable" TDP, I don't believe this leak.


----------



## doom26464

I dunno how they get 4.7ghz all core plus 95w tdp on an 8 core. 

Something doesnt make sense here.


----------



## QuantumX

8c/8t. I just came. 

This is exactly what I've been hoping for. Fingers crossed...


----------



## Blameless

m4fox90 said:


> 95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right


TDP is largely arbitrary.

They can target whatever TDP they like with whatever core count they like as long as long as they bin properly and limit all-core turbo to a reasonable figure.

If they are going back to solder on these parts, that could explain some of it as well as a significant portion of the cooling requirements (which is what TDP is) on the non-metal TIM parts is expended on the additional thermal resistance.

Of course, I wouldn't take this chart for granted either.


----------



## Newbie2009

doom26464 said:


> 4.7ghz all core boost on an 8 core?
> 
> On 14nm++ it have to be solder right? It would burn your house down other wise.
> 
> Either way this is one impressive cpu. It is going to be a monster for single PC game/stream rig.
> 
> 
> Wonder how all these chips will overclock, guess time will tell.


Doubt many will go past the 5ghz mark


----------



## Ph42oN

That is stupid, they call it i9... next year amd will propably release ryzen 5 with 8c/16t, and that will most likely be equal to that i9 in performance, if not better. They should just call it i7, and call that 8c/8t i5, or change i5 to 6c/12t.


----------



## guttheslayer

Ph42oN said:


> That is stupid, they call it i9... next year amd will propably release ryzen 5 with 8c/16t, and that will most likely be equal to that i9 in performance, if not better. They should just call it i7, and call that 8c/8t i5, or change i5 to 6c/12t.


They called it i9 so they charge you i9 price for it, for $499 at least lol.


No doubt next year Zen 7nm with 8C/16T can overtake it at only $199-249


----------



## Pro3ootector

Isn't the lack of HT in i7 result of Spectre variant.... I will call it fix? God please no... . 
This is still the same skylake CPU with better clocks. How many motherboards have it been since than? No mega-tasking Intel? No Iris Pro? A new socket there is isn't it? 

edit: Wonder if Nvidia still made some decent chipset for thease CPU would it also drop support.


----------



## NexusRed

Word on the street is it's going to be $599 CAD
No source, just hearsay. As what we all should do, reserve judgement for final launch price and performance.
Also remember that people do other things besides gaming. I for one do a lot of virtualization work and starting to get into content creation.


----------



## bucdan

If this is the best Intel can do, I see AMD overtaking them next year with Zen 2. Stripping HT and basically dropping the i7 into the same class as an i5 and dropping the i5 into basically an i3. Sleazy.


----------



## Nizzen

Newbie2009 said:


> Doubt many will go past the 5ghz mark


"internet" doubt about OC potential in 7980xe too


----------



## Itglows

Isn't the lower thread count going to be a big hit in performance for a lot of games? I moved up from an i5 because hyperthreading really seemed to be making a big difference now.


----------



## Khelben

Numbers and performance aside, will these chips have in-silicon fixes for the Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities or will they still be susceptible to them?


----------



## Qu1ckset

Man at this rate im def holding on to my 4790k as long as possible, never seen so many chip releases from intel in such a short time period! 

Maybe end of next year il bite on something!


----------



## JedixJarf

Khelben said:


> Numbers and performance aside, will these chips have in-silicon fixes for the Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities or will they still be susceptible to them?


I believe that was slated for Ice Lake (next gen)


----------



## Chargeit

Benuva said:


> An unlocked Core i7 without HyperThreading? and I'm guessing ~350-400 bucks at launch? Maybe they have improved the thermal interface material from bird poop <tm>
> 
> I'm whelmed


First thing I thought. An 8/8 i7 for $350 so they can charge $450 - $500 for the 8/16 i7. Too bad we don't have a "giving the finger" emoji.


----------



## gopackersjt

So we're reverting back to an 8 thread i7? This just doens't make any sense to me.


----------



## kd5151

I'd rather have 8 cores than 12 threads.


----------



## Nizzen

gopackersjt said:


> So we're reverting back to an 8 thread i7? This just doens't make any sense to me.


We don't care about sense, we care about performance her @ OCN


----------



## Dhoulmagus

8 k0ar / 16 thread < $350 or go away Intel.


----------



## Kokin

JedixJarf said:


> I believe that was slated for Ice Lake (next gen)


If that's true, then it would suck for the people who plan to buy these upcoming 9000K series CPUs.

I definitely want to upgrade from my 3570K, but I think I can wait until next year to see what Zen2 or Ice Lake will bring to the table.


----------



## akromatic

Way to crap on HEDT camp. Those who forked for and invested in x299 won't be happy.


----------



## WorldExclusive

kd5151 said:


> RiP Z370.


I hope not. If so I won't upgrade.


----------



## Nizzen

akromatic said:


> Way to crap on HEDT camp. Those who forked for and invested in x299 won't be happy.


We'll live


----------



## JackCY

Now with even more overheating once you remove the power limiter of 95W.


----------



## akromatic

There is not enough seperation to hedt. Especially when hedt cpy costs so much more for less cpu cores and less ipc

Used to be able to put high core count xeons on x platforms. Not any more with x299. 

X299 is just screaming rich and gimp tax


----------



## EniGma1987

akromatic said:


> There is not enough seperation to hedt. Especially when hedt cpy costs so much more for less cpu cores and less ipc
> 
> Used to be able to put high core count xeons on x platforms. Not any more with x299.
> 
> X299 is just screaming rich and gimp tax


Yep the core count, PCI-E lanes for SLI, and double memory bandwidth used to be the 3 draws of the platform. Now that SLI is going down more and more, and cores are at parity, the only draw left to the platform is one that doesn't even really matter for the consumer end of things. They should do something meaningful like take a big chunk of the pci-e and route them to 6x m.2 slots that take 4 lanes each. That would be a pretty decent draw to the platform since it would have the best storage performance by a long shot.


----------



## Nizzen

EniGma1987 said:


> Yep the core count, PCI-E lanes for SLI, and double memory bandwidth used to be the 3 draws of the platform. Now that SLI is going down more and more, and cores are at parity, the only draw left to the platform is one that doesn't even really matter for the consumer end of things. They should do something meaningful like take a big chunk of the pci-e and route them to 6x m.2 slots that take 4 lanes each. That would be a pretty decent draw to the platform since it would have the best storage performance by a long shot.


Intel optane 905p 960GB pci-e is all you need


----------



## bmgjet

So much for the 9th gen being ground breaking.
If any thing looks more like a down grade.

I9 9900, looks stupidly gimped for a i9. 8 core with HT Lol that should of been the I7 9800k, Then I7 9700k should of been 6 core with HT and i5 9600k 6 core no HT


----------



## AlphaC

gopackersjt said:


> So we're reverting back to an 8 thread i7? This just doens't make any sense to me.



8 core with 8 threads is better when you actually use the 8 threads because it will allow you to run the core at 100% of its potential rather than using its downtime. Security-wise it's also more robust against timing attacks and such.
SMT is only about 30-40% efficient so 8 core 8 thread should perform like a 6 core 12 thread.


The reason why Intel can put these out is because Zen and Zen+ don't clock as high.

I'm not terribly interested in these due to lack of in-silicon fixes for Spectre and Meltdown but for people using their systems for "just games" it could very well be a bargain if priced well.


----------



## Crinn

If the i7-9700 includes a iGPU it will be the hands down best CPU for twitch streamers and youtube gamers, as 8c/8t is perfect for modern games and the iGPU allows for video encoding without impacting game FPS.


----------



## Ksireaper

Ready for some new processors. Want to turn my 4790k into a home server. Need new processor before i can begin.


----------



## doom26464

Crinn said:


> If the i7-9700 includes a iGPU it will be the hands down best CPU for twitch streamers and youtube gamers, as 8c/8t is perfect for modern games and the iGPU allows for video encoding without impacting game FPS.


Minus the fact that quick sync is the worst form of encoding compared to NVENC or x264.

I would hope that with the new i9 that x264 encoding on a single machine, with good encoding settings becomes a reality. Hands down making the i9-9900k the best twitch/youtube streaming cpu on main stream.


----------



## Crinn

doom26464 said:


> Minus the fact that quick sync is the worst form of encoding compared to NVENC or x264.
> 
> I would hope that with the new i9 that x264 encoding on a single machine, with good encoding settings becomes a reality. Hands down making the i9-9900k the best twitch/youtube streaming cpu on main stream.


The disadvantages of Quick sync is offset by the advantages of not having encoding workload competing with the game you are recording for CPU resources. Now for 1080p recording this isn't as relevant as the framerate hit of 1080p encoding is marginal, but for doing 4k recording using a iGPU is pretty much required as even a 8c/16t can't do 4k encoding without having to sacrifice either framerate or video quality. NVENC also isn't really viable for 4k either unless you really hate your GPU.


----------



## doom26464

As far as I know twitch/youtube streaming do not support 4k.


Twitch I know for a fact only does 1080p/60fps. Trying to live encode at 4k would be nuts


----------



## guttheslayer

So 6C/12T is officially not inside this 9000 series lineup, meaning if you want 12T and not anything else you have to stick with the pigeon poop version of 8000 series.


Intel shady practices force ppl to jump to I9 because there is no other choice of obtaining 12T at least except to jump to the most expensive CPU. Dirty moves as usual.


----------



## gooface

looks like I am going to stick with my 6850k for a long time...


----------



## Boinz

this still going to be on 1151 socket, or they gonna force another chipset upgrade to use these?


----------



## bmgjet

Crinn said:


> The disadvantages of Quick sync is offset by the advantages of not having encoding workload competing with the game you are recording for CPU resources. Now for 1080p recording this isn't as relevant as the framerate hit of 1080p encoding is marginal, but for doing 4k recording using a iGPU is pretty much required as even a 8c/16t can't do 4k encoding without having to sacrifice either framerate or video quality. NVENC also isn't really viable for 4k either unless you really hate your GPU.


I 4K stream on my 7900X no worries. Games only use about 8-10 threads at most so have another 10-12 threads free for encoding.
Sucks the power down tho adding another 200W power usage to the CPU but thats better then the stuttering you get using the 1080ti to encode.


----------



## ku4eto

m4fox90 said:


> 95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right


Not only that, but 4MB of L3 cache difference between the 8/16 and the 8/8 chips. 

Probably 95W TDP only on stock.


----------



## scracy

ku4eto said:


> Not only that, but 4MB of L3 cache difference between the 8/16 and the 8/8 chips.
> 
> Probably 95W TDP only on stock.


TDP of 95W is for the baseclock


----------



## scracy

WorldExclusive said:


> I hope not. If so I won't upgrade.


Z370 will be compatible with 9th generation CPU's


----------



## aDyerSituation

Is this using ringbus? Not sure sure the added clockspeed alone would be worth the switch from a 7820x @ 4.5/4.6 but I do dip below 100 in fortnite sometimes.


----------



## Nizzen

aDyerSituation said:


> Is this using ringbus? Not sure sure the added clockspeed alone would be worth the switch from a 7820x @ 4.5/4.6 but I do dip below 100 in fortnite sometimes.


 What memoryspeed du you use?


----------



## aDyerSituation

3800


----------



## ku4eto

scracy said:


> TDP of 95W is for the baseclock


Uh, i meant it without the boost.


----------



## EniGma1987

doom26464 said:


> Minus the fact that quick sync is the worst form of encoding compared to NVENC or x264.
> 
> I would hope that with the new i9 that x264 encoding on a single machine, with good encoding settings becomes a reality. Hands down making the i9-9900k the best twitch/youtube streaming cpu on main stream.





Since Kaby, QuickSync has had a lot more profiles to choose from for quality. The top profile actually looks better than any NVENC quality. As you go up in quality you limit the amount of streams you can process at the same time, but even for the top profile you can still get one 4k stream in realtime. At the medium qualities you can get 2-3 4k streams at once, or around 9-10 1080p streams all in realtime.


----------



## Blameless

bmgjet said:


> the stuttering you get using the 1080ti to encode.


I don't get any stuttering when recording at 4k with my 1080 Ti.



EniGma1987 said:


> Since Kaby, QuickSync has had a lot more profiles to choose from for quality. The top profile actually looks better than any NVENC quality. As you go up in quality you limit the amount of streams you can process at the same time, but even for the top profile you can still get one 4k stream in realtime. At the medium qualities you can get 2-3 4k streams at once, or around 9-10 1080p streams all in realtime.


I haven't tried Quicksync on recent parts, but NVENC isn't limited to any preset (and I'd be surprised if QuickSync was) and it's not difficult to use settings that are as perceptibly lossless as the color space allows.

Anything can do well if allowed to use extreme bitrates. The real question is what provides better results at a fixed bitrate in the range commonly used for streaming. In the not too distant past It's been x264 (software) the clear leader, NVENC a distant second, VCE 3.0 not terribly far behind, with QuickSync and VCE 1.0-2.0 essentially tied for dead last.

So, how does QuickSync on Kaby do at 3-10Mbps (megabits per second)?


----------



## EniGma1987

Blameless said:


> So, how does QuickSync on Kaby do at 3-10Mbps (megabits per second)?



I stream my PLEX to work in the range of 4-10mb for 720 or 1080p and it looks just as good as NVENC I had used in the past and a bit less sharp than software x264


----------



## Blameless

EniGma1987 said:


> I stream my PLEX to work in the range of 4-10mb for 720 or 1080p and it looks just as good as NVENC I had used in the past and a bit less sharp than software x264


Sounds promising.

What software/relevant settings are you using?


----------



## Defoler

guttheslayer said:


> Debauer already said its not bird poop but soldered. So please. *frown*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD going for 16C for 7nm next year Zen 2


That is still a rumor I have not seen any concrete information about.


----------



## Defoler

Itglows said:


> Isn't the lower thread count going to be a big hit in performance for a lot of games? I moved up from an i5 because hyperthreading really seemed to be making a big difference now.


I doubt 8 vs 16 is going to many any difference in most games. You rarely see games use more than 4 cores, let alone 8. 
The 4/8 has an advantage in that it gives graphics drivers a bit of a breathing room over 4/4 when they really utilise. But if more than 8 was useful, you would see ryzen overtake intel easy, or the i9 top ends give a lot better performance than the i7s, but they hadn't. 

Most likely the i7 8/8 will be a good option for most, and it will be priced in that category. The i9 8/16 will be a more "premium" on the intel side for those who want or need it.


----------



## EniGma1987

Blameless said:


> Sounds promising.
> 
> What software/relevant settings are you using?





In transcoder settings I use the "prefer better quality" setting just under "make my CPU hurt". From what I remember when setting up the server it uses profile 3 which is two steps down from the top quality profile. In background encoding quality setting I use the "slow" preset, which is also profile 3. Which profile is used depends on your CPU though. It wasn't until Kaby that Intel moved up to 9 different profiles and the top few became better quality presets than the previous gen top profiles. I believe Broadwell and Skylake had 7 profiles and Im not sure if Haswell also had 7 or not, and Ivy had 5. So depending on your CPU, what "prefer better quality" selects will be different.


----------



## Threx

9700k appears in Sisoftware database as 8c/8t. Anyone think this is probably "confirmation" enough?

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_d...c6f7d1b885a3cbf6d0a895b3d6b38ebe98ebd6ee&l=en


----------



## doom26464

Some one please satisfy my curiousty but what platform are you using to stream 4k content too???

I know twitch and mixer both only support 1080p/60fps. 

Im not too familiar with youtube streaming,unless it supports 4k streaming??


Also I figured since intel IGPU has had extremely weak improves(if at all)generation to generation that quick sync had not really improved. Then again I have not tried it on any of the newer xxxlake desgins.


----------



## JedixJarf

doom26464 said:


> Some one please satisfy my curiousty but what platform are you using to stream 4k content too???
> 
> I know twitch and mixer both only support 1080p/60fps.
> 
> Im not too familiar with youtube streaming,unless it supports 4k streaming??
> 
> 
> Also I figured since intel IGPU has had extremely weak improves(if at all)generation to generation that quick sync had not really improved. Then again I have not tried it on any of the newer xxxlake desgins.


YT will allow 4k streams.


----------



## Crinn

doom26464 said:


> As far as I know twitch/youtube streaming do not support 4k.
> 
> 
> Twitch I know for a fact only does 1080p/60fps. Trying to live encode at 4k would be nuts


As already mentioned above youtube allows 4k stream. However I use quick-sync for 4k variable bitrate recording as I only do videos, not livestreams. The variable bitrate allows me to do nice quality 4k without having absolutely insane file sizes.


----------



## EniGma1987

doom26464 said:


> Some one please satisfy my curiousty but what platform are you using to stream 4k content too???
> 
> I know twitch and mixer both only support 1080p/60fps.
> 
> Im not too familiar with youtube streaming,unless it supports 4k streaming??
> 
> 
> Also I figured since intel IGPU has had extremely weak improves(if at all)generation to generation that quick sync had not really improved. Then again I have not tried it on any of the newer xxxlake desgins.





As others have said,
and I use my setup for Plex


----------



## DNMock

aDyerSituation said:


> Is this using ringbus? Not sure sure the added clockspeed alone would be worth the switch from a 7820x @ 4.5/4.6 but I do dip below 100 in fortnite sometimes.


Definitely not worth it. Most Skylake-X chips with proper cooling seem to be able to easily hit 4.8 Ghz. If I were to guess the 9900K will probably average O/C at 5.0 Ghz. 

Since you would need a new MB, it would probably run you $700 to gain 200 MHZ by switching but you would also be giving up some L3 Cache, a dozen pcie lanes, dropping to dual channel memory instead of the quad channel you have now, and depending on your current MB, likely some USB, SATA and NvME ports. 



Just get a better cooler and maybe slap an extra fan on the VRM to be safe, bump your turbo clock speeds to 4.8 and keep the rest of the $500 and enjoy a superior platform and comparable CPU performance.


----------



## bmgjet

doom26464 said:


> Some one please satisfy my curiousty but what platform are you using to stream 4k content too???
> 
> I know twitch and mixer both only support 1080p/60fps.
> 
> Im not too familiar with youtube streaming,unless it supports 4k streaming??
> 
> 
> Also I figured since intel IGPU has had extremely weak improves(if at all)generation to generation that quick sync had not really improved. Then again I have not tried it on any of the newer xxxlake desgins.



Youtube. 68,000kbit bitrate, Have 1gb fiber up/down unlimited. So handles that like a champ.


----------



## white owl

aDyerSituation said:


> Is this using ringbus? Not sure sure the added clockspeed alone would be worth the switch from a 7820x @ 4.5/4.6 but I do dip below 100 in fortnite sometimes.


Streaming? If you're just gaming I don't see how that's possible.
I use my sig rig with 8gb 1600mhz ram and don't dip under 120 unless there is a legitimate issue with the game. When Dusty Divot was made I'd get huge drops there but outside of things like that the game is very easy to run at 144fps, I can't keep 144 constantly because of my CPU but it's between 120 and 200. STW may be different.


----------



## epic1337

Defoler said:


> I doubt 8 vs 16 is going to many any difference in most games. You rarely see games use more than 4 cores, let alone 8.
> The 4/8 has an advantage in that it gives graphics drivers a bit of a breathing room over 4/4 when they really utilise. But if more than 8 was useful, you would see ryzen overtake intel easy, or the i9 top ends give a lot better performance than the i7s, but they hadn't.
> 
> Most likely the i7 8/8 will be a good option for most, and it will be priced in that category. The i9 8/16 will be a more "premium" on the intel side for those who want or need it.


it would definitely depend on the game, but yes most games won't see significant increase in performance just by increasing core count.

on the other hand, background tasks and system tasks can be offloaded to other cores.
this can improve response time (and supposedly better frametimes) of games, specially when background tasks are also doing some heavy-lifting.


----------



## Defoler

epic1337 said:


> it would definitely depend on the game, but yes most games won't see significant increase in performance just by increasing core count.
> 
> on the other hand, background tasks and system tasks can be offloaded to other cores.
> this can improve response time (and supposedly better frametimes) of games, specially when background tasks are also doing some heavy-lifting.


Yeah, more cores can allow more resources to be used, but it also depends on whether you actually utilise the cores. If you use all 8 cores but at 40-50%, adding more cores isn't going to make much of a difference, and you will get much better performance increase in using faster memory to increase to utilisation of the current cores.


----------



## Threx

Only the i7 and i9 cpus will be soldered, according to a German site.

https://www.golem.de/news/core-i9-9900k-intels-achtkerner-ist-verloetet-1807-135685.html


----------



## scracy

Threx said:


> Only the i7 and i9 cpus will be soldered, according to a German site.
> 
> https://www.golem.de/news/core-i9-9900k-intels-achtkerner-ist-verloetet-1807-135685.html


Another confirmation of the above 
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/core-i9-9900k-8-core-will-have-soldered-heatspreader.html


----------



## epic1337

Defoler said:


> Yeah, more cores can allow more resources to be used, but it also depends on whether you actually utilise the cores. If you use all 8 cores but at 40-50%, adding more cores isn't going to make much of a difference, and you will get much better performance increase in using faster memory to increase to utilisation of the current cores.


its all about the scheduling, with more cores available there would be less threads per core, this means the remaining threads on the core will get a bigger share of the cache pool.
as such, considering that even the L3 Cache only has 1MB~3MB per core at most, reducing the number of threads per core can improve the response time by reducing cache miss.

to point out, its the same situation as having a lot of light applications onto a 2core processor, although less dramatic.


----------



## Glottis

I'm liking 9900K more and more with each new info leak. It's starting to look like it might be legendary CPU like 2500K was back in the day.


----------



## white owl

Any solid info on board compatibility? I'm sure there will be new boards but hopefully these will also work on z370.
I really hope the i7 isn't terribly expensive, since they are trying to compete with AMD again I'd imagine they won't price them trough the roof.


----------



## Defoler

white owl said:


> Any solid info on board compatibility? I'm sure there will be new boards but hopefully these will also work on z370.
> I really hope the i7 isn't terribly expensive, since they are trying to compete with AMD again I'd imagine they won't price them trough the roof.


Solid? Not really. 
But I don't expect a forced motherboard refresh to support it.
It seems that they might bring a z390 which a few extra features that they left out on the z370, but considering the z370 just came out, intel will at least give the usually 2 generations per chipset. So they should be compatible.
But we should see it soon enough.


----------



## white owl

That's kinda what I was thinking. Devil's Canyon worked on z87 with a BIOS update so we can hope this is the same way. 

If they do keep z370 alive I can't wait for the people who bought 8 phase "mid-range" boards to drop an 8 core in there and try to OC it. lol


----------



## guttheslayer

This shows that all the BS that Intel has been feeding us about small dies not suitable for TIM is finally exposed.


Intel stop your lies and start delivery quality product like you did in Sandy bridge.


----------



## epic1337

Defoler said:


> Solid? Not really.
> But I don't expect a forced motherboard refresh to support it.
> It seems that they might bring a z390 which a few extra features that they left out on the z370, but considering the z370 just came out, intel will at least give the usually 2 generations per chipset. So they should be compatible.
> But we should see it soon enough.


i think you're confusing socket longevity over chipset, so far Intel had released a new chipset whenever they launched a new CPU generation, and most of the previous chipsets aren't forward compatible out of the box.
e.g. Z67 needs a bios update to support ivy, Z87 also needs a bios update to support broadwell, then Z170 also needs a bios update to support kabylake, neither Z170 nor Z270 supports coffeelake without a hack.
the problematic part is updating the bios to support a newer generation processor, in this case you need an old generation processor to update the bios, then swap it for a new one.


the socket is a bit more long lived in comparison.
LGA1156 has lynnfield and clarkdale, LGA1155 has sandy and ivy, LGA1150 has haswell and broadwell, LGA1151 has skylake, kabylake and to some extent coffeelake.


edit: on the other hand, you'd still need to swap motherboard if you want to support PCIe 4.0 or add more PCIe Lanes or DRAM channels.


----------



## Coco10

Threx said:


> Only the i7 and i9 cpus will be soldered, according to a German site.
> 
> https://www.golem.de/news/core-i9-9900k-intels-achtkerner-ist-verloetet-1807-135685.html



what does soldered mean for the cpu


----------



## Nizzen

white owl said:


> Any solid info on board compatibility? I'm sure there will be new boards but hopefully these will also work on z370.
> I really hope the i7 isn't terribly expensive, since they are trying to compete with AMD again I'd imagine they won't price them trough the roof.


New bioses is out for z370, with 9 series support from most MB vendors.

From bios info:
- Support the latest generation CPU.
- Update CPU microcode for upcoming CPU




https://www.station-drivers.com/index.php?lang=en


----------



## scracy

Coco10 said:


> what does soldered mean for the cpu


Meaning the CPU die will be soldered to the IHS instead of pigeon poop


----------



## Threx

Coco10 said:


> what does soldered mean for the cpu


The cpu won't have terrible temps without delidding.


----------



## white owl

Nizzen said:


> New bioses is out for z370, with 9 series support from most MB vendors.
> 
> From bios info:
> - Support the latest generation CPU.
> - Update CPU microcode for upcoming CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.station-drivers.com/index.php?lang=en


Thanks, I appreciate it.


----------



## Glottis

Would it be a big bottleneck if I reused my current 4x4GB 2666Mhz CL15 sticks with Z390 + 9900K combo? I'm just wondering what sort of theoretical decrease in performance I can expect compared to 3000Mhz and 3200mhz sticks people buy nowadays.


----------



## epic1337

Threx said:


> The cpu won't have terrible temps without delidding.


and it wont worsen as it ages, from what i heard TIM can dry out. :h34r-smi


----------



## ku4eto

Glottis said:


> Would it be a big bottleneck if I reused my current 4x4GB 2666Mhz CL15 sticks with Z390 + 9900K combo? I'm just wondering what sort of theoretical decrease in performance I can expect compared to 3000Mhz and 3200mhz sticks people buy nowadays.


For Intel? Not much probably. And why you would use a 4 sticks kit, performance gains areminimal, compared to stabiltiy and price.


----------



## Glottis

ku4eto said:


> For Intel? Not much probably. And why you would use a 4 sticks kit, performance gains areminimal, compared to stabiltiy and price.


Maybe you misread my post. I already own these 4 sticks because I bought them back in 2015. I want to keep using them with 9900K because current RAM prices are a bit crazy.


----------



## white owl

Glottis said:


> Would it be a big bottleneck if I reused my current 4x4GB 2666Mhz CL15 sticks with Z390 + 9900K combo? I'm just wondering what sort of theoretical decrease in performance I can expect compared to 3000Mhz and 3200mhz sticks people buy nowadays.


As little of a bottleneck as it is now probably. I get great performance in games with a 3 year old i5 and DDR3 at as low as 1333. It's the same arch we have today.


----------



## Defoler

Glottis said:


> Would it be a big bottleneck if I reused my current 4x4GB 2666Mhz CL15 sticks with Z390 + 9900K combo? I'm just wondering what sort of theoretical decrease in performance I can expect compared to 3000Mhz and 3200mhz sticks people buy nowadays.


Most likely it will depend on the game. Some games can gain a big performance increase from faster memory, some very little. 
There are a few reviews that can show a big difference in performance using faster memory. 
Others show not that big of a difference. 
So it really depends on the overall system.
If you currently have 2666, you might as well use it, and if you see a review that shows big differences, you can consider then buying something faster.


----------



## Ph42oN

Glottis said:


> I'm liking 9900K more and more with each new info leak. It's starting to look like it might be legendary CPU like 2500K was back in the day.


I don't think will last as long as 2500k and even if it does, you cannot compare because it will cost at least double price of what 2500k was as new. Sandy bridge was big jump in ipc, that i9 will propably have same ipc as their previous generation, so it's far from what 2500k was. Intel would need to release new uber fast architecture that overclocks like crazy, and have i5 with more cores than games need to be comparable to what 2500k was.


----------



## zealord

Would love to know the prices of these CPUs. I genuinely hope they are not going to "slide 'em up" and try to fool us with naming.
The 9700K looks like what the 9600K should've been and the 9900K looks like what the 9700K should be.

They better not make the 9700K cost as much as the 8700K (or more) and the 9900K even higher than that.


Or is it just me that thinks the 9600K is basically a unnecessary "refresh/rebrand" of the 8600K with no actual improvement and the 9700K and 9900K might be more expensive than what they should be?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Defoler said:


> Most likely it will depend on the game. Some games can gain a big performance increase from faster memory, some very little.
> There are a few reviews that can show a big difference in performance using faster memory.
> Others show not that big of a difference.
> So it really depends on the overall system.
> If you currently have 2666, you might as well use it, and if you see a review that shows big differences, you can consider then buying something faster.


Are the timings listed anywhere (couldn't find) on the first review you linked? They're explicit in the second review, and they probably account for the discrepancy.


----------



## Kokin

Threx said:


> Only the i7 and i9 cpus will be soldered, according to a German site.
> 
> https://www.golem.de/news/core-i9-9900k-intels-achtkerner-ist-verloetet-1807-135685.html


Der8auer also hinted at this a while back in Computex.


----------



## Snoop05

SystemTech said:


> I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.
> 
> Finally the standard 10% improvements are done for a while and 2500K users have a decent reason to upgrade.


From Sandy Brigde to Kaby Lake, those so called "10% improvements" with each generation resulted in about 2% (after 6 years) in wPrime when comparing core-to-core, clock-to-clock aka IPC


----------



## aDyerSituation

white owl said:


> Streaming? If you're just gaming I don't see how that's possible.
> I use my sig rig with 8gb 1600mhz ram and don't dip under 120 unless there is a legitimate issue with the game. When Dusty Divot was made I'd get huge drops there but outside of things like that the game is very easy to run at 144fps, I can't keep 144 constantly because of my CPU but it's between 120 and 200. STW may be different.


no, period. Looking at Retail Row or Titled Towers from the outside while moving my mouse left to right I can easily dip to 90. Streaming doesn't effect my fps really

I also play on mostly low with view distance far.


----------



## white owl

I play on ultra distance and textures, low other stuff. Not sure what the issue might be if my rig runs it as fast as it does. If I have time to tonight I'll use fraps to record the FPS, I don't think it ever dips that low but I might be wrong.


----------



## tpi2007

I wonder if they will be using the same 8 core dies for the 6 core i5 version or will simply re-utilise the ones being used for Coffee Lake, thus the excuse for using solder only on the eight core models will stand as those will be native eight core dies and the hexacores will be native hexacores and not binned eight core dies.

Anyway, this is just Intel pushing 2015's Skylake architecture to the max and finally putting solder on the top end models. What a little competition does. But I don't think that it will be enough if AMD has its 7nm Zen 2 CPUs in good shape as it seems it does. In a way, it's the end of an era. 

Next, we need a CPU arch with a lot of Meltdown and Spectre fixes, not to mention something actually new in terms of arch performance besides a little Speed Shift improvement, which is all we got since 2015 (let that sink in for a moment), and, all in all, this i9-9000 series is not it, it's just an 8 core version of the 6 core Coffee Lake version of the 4 core Kaby Lake version, which in itself is the same as Skylake from 2015, except for the mentioned Speed Shift 2.0 addition which only benefits performance when coming out of idle (more useful in laptops), not top end performance. We will probably only have something truly new from Intel once Jim Keller has done some work over there.




m4fox90 said:


> 95 watt TDP for the 8 cores at the same clocks as the 6 core 8086K? That doesn't seem right



Not the same clocks, the 8086K's (a binned CPU by definition) base clock is 4 Ghz, whereas this purported 9900K's base clock is 3.6 Ghz, which is 100 Mhz slower than the 8700K's. That is how they manage to rate it at 95w, the TDP is measured with all cores running at 3.6 Ghz, not the purported 4.7 Ghz all core boost. Thus, for some time now, TDP is meaningless, because the CPU will never run at those settings out of the box, considering that Turbo Boost 2.0 is enabled by default. 

Unless of course you're using the stock heatsink (on the models that come with one), in which case the CPU will most probably not use Turbo Boost 2.0 fully, as is shown with the i7-8700 (non-K), which comes with a mediocre stock heatsink, see the review here: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8700-cpu-review,5638-2.html


----------



## Recipe7

Soldered? I'm sold(ered). Looking forward to replacing my 5820k.


----------



## aDyerSituation

white owl said:


> I play on ultra distance and textures, low other stuff. Not sure what the issue might be if my rig runs it as fast as it does. If I have time to tonight I'll use fraps to record the FPS, I don't think it ever dips that low but I might be wrong.


I did a quick test in 50 v 50 while looking at tilted on the hill closest to loot lake. Lowest I saw was 102, but that was early game.


----------



## Contiusa

The i7-8700K might still remain the king in games, since the i7-7700K was ahead of the i5-8600K in many benches (https://wccftech.com/review/intel-co...-cpu-review/7/).

So if core count does not have the same strength anymore and HT or SMT is making a difference, the supposed i7-9700K might end up getting a beating from the i7-8700K. It will be funny though. Unless 8 cores makes more difference than 6, since I heard somewhere that 8 threads is what these softwares are using at max.

Honestly, to me a native six core / 12 threads with soldered IHS would be much more enticing than an 8/8 chip. Or they could play with prices and sell the i7-9700K for less than an i7.

--


----------



## guttheslayer

Ph42oN said:


> I don't think will last as long as 2500k and even if it does, you cannot compare because it will cost at least double price of what 2500k was as new. Sandy bridge was big jump in ipc, that i9 will propably have same ipc as their previous generation, so it's far from what 2500k was. Intel would need to release new uber fast architecture that overclocks like crazy, and have i5 with more cores than games need to be comparable to what 2500k was.


You should compared to 2600K instead of 2500K. In that case I dont think it will cost 2x the price of 2600K. 9900K is the true successor to 2600K in that sense, double the core count, 25% IPC jump and able to clock to 5GHz+ with soldered IHS.




Contiusa said:


> The i7-8700K might still remain the king in games, since the i7-7700K was ahead of the i5-8600K in many benches (https://wccftech.com/review/intel-co...-cpu-review/7/).
> 
> So if core count does not have the same strength anymore and HT or SMT is making a difference, the supposed i7-9700K might end up getting a beating from the i7-8700K. It will be funny though. Unless 8 cores makes more difference than 6, since I heard somewhere that 8 threads is what these softwares are using at max.
> 
> Honestly, to me a native six core / 12 threads with soldered IHS would be much more enticing than an 8/8 chip. Or they could play with prices and sell the i7-9700K for less than an i7.
> 
> --


I find it puzzling you are ignoring 9900K. The new king is I9 9900K, not just extra 2 Cores, but it was factory clocked faster than 8700K or even 8086K. It is superior to 8700K in both ST and MT performance, mainly thanks to soldered IHS


----------



## pompss

I need a good white micro atx layout motherboard. anyone know if there is something coming up from intel or amd?
I have my parvum case ready to build but cant find any decent white motherboard. the one i found its from MSi But kinda sucks .


----------



## doom26464

Intel thrown the gloves off, There tired of taking punches from AMD and are not holding back on anything anymore. These will be the best and last of an era of chips from Intel. 10nm will be a few years away and this is intel last chance at taking the crown. No holding back all the stops are being pulled now. Solder IHS, best of the best binned silicon, and some very aggressive factory boost speeds. 


There is no doubt the i9-9900k Will be king of all, It will beat the 2700X in gaming by a good margin, crush in productivity, and be a streamer's wet dream. 

This will all come at a price and intel knows that being the king comes with a kings price. 


They will enjoy this till zen 2 where AMD will be king of all the markets (Mainstream/HEDT/server) then will fade away for a few years till 10nm/jim keller/the rest of there teams new fruit of hard work can shine.


I know personally I will be scooping up an i9-9900k pending reviews.


PS also anyone think AMD has a 2800x hiding im doubtful, Can't see more clocks(10% of best binned dies will be for thread ripper) and I don't think well see a core count jump till zen 2.


----------



## azanimefan

doom26464 said:


> Intel thrown the gloves off, There tired of taking punches from AMD and are not holding back on anything anymore. These will be the best and last of an era of chips from Intel. 10nm will be a few years away and this is intel last chance at taking the crown. No holding back all the stops are being pulled now. Solder IHS, best of the best binned silicon, and some very aggressive factory boost speeds.
> 
> 
> There is no doubt the i9-9900k Will be king of all, It will beat the 2700X in gaming by a good margin, crush in productivity, and be a streamer's wet dream.
> 
> This will all come at a price and intel knows that being the king comes with a kings price.
> 
> 
> They will enjoy this till zen 2 where AMD will be king of all the markets (Mainstream/HEDT/server) then will fade away for a few years till 10nm/jim keller/the rest of there teams new fruit of hard work can shine.
> 
> 
> I know personally I will be scooping up an i9-9900k pending reviews.
> 
> 
> PS also anyone think AMD has a 2800x hiding im doubtful, Can't see more clocks(10% of best binned dies will be for thread ripper) and I don't think well see a core count jump till zen 2.


Is this sarcasm? 

I can't tell if you're serious or not.


----------



## Threx

pompss said:


> I need a good white micro atx layout motherboard. anyone know if there is something coming up from intel or amd?
> I have my parvum case ready to build but cant find any decent white motherboard. the one i found its from MSi But kinda sucks .


We haven't seen any new Z390 boards yet, so no one knows. I'm also going to be making a white PC later this year so I'm also hoping for a white mATX Z390.

Apart from the MSI one you mentioned, the only one closest to being white is the Asus Z370-I, which is silver. Apart from that, nada.


----------



## pm1109

I really hope Icelake will be compatible with the new z390 boards when it hopefully comes out next year ( maybe)


----------



## Threx

pm1109 said:


> I really hope icelake will be compatible with the new z390 boards when it hopefully comes out next year ( maybe)


Icelake is a new architecture so little to no chance it will be compatible with z390.


----------



## ku4eto

doom26464 said:


> Intel thrown the gloves off, There tired of taking punches from AMD and are not holding back on anything anymore. These will be the best and last of an era of chips from Intel. 10nm will be a few years away and this is intel last chance at taking the crown. No holding back all the stops are being pulled now. Solder IHS, best of the best binned silicon, and some very aggressive factory boost speeds.
> 
> 
> There is no doubt the i9-9900k Will be king of all, It will beat the 2700X in gaming by a good margin, crush in productivity, and be a streamer's wet dream.
> 
> This will all come at a price and intel knows that being the king comes with a kings price.
> 
> 
> They will enjoy this till zen 2 where AMD will be king of all the markets (Mainstream/HEDT/server) then will fade away for a few years till 10nm/jim keller/the rest of there teams new fruit of hard work can shine.
> 
> 
> I know personally I will be scooping up an i9-9900k pending reviews.
> 
> 
> PS also anyone think AMD has a 2800x hiding im doubtful, Can't see more clocks(10% of best binned dies will be for thread ripper) and I don't think well see a core count jump till zen 2.


Yea, the i9-9900k will be the king of all. 10% total performance over the 2700X, 20% more power draw than the 2700X, 100% higher price than the 2700X, 100% higher cooling price than the 2700X.


----------



## Nizzen

ku4eto said:


> Yea, the i9-9900k will be the king of all. 10% total performance over the 2700X, 20% more power draw than the 2700X, 100% higher price than the 2700X, 100% higher cooling price than the 2700X.


Nice trolling...

Try to fix the numbers


----------



## Glottis

Defoler said:


> Most likely it will depend on the game. Some games can gain a big performance increase from faster memory, some very little.
> There are a few reviews that can show a big difference in performance using faster memory.
> Others show not that big of a difference.
> So it really depends on the overall system.
> If you currently have 2666, you might as well use it, and if you see a review that shows big differences, you can consider then buying something faster.


Good post. I also watched Linus video on this subject and his findings were inline with TechPowerUp graphs. I'll just keep using 2666Mhz until hopefully RAM prices come down.


----------



## airisom2

How much power do overclocked 8700Ks draw? 200-250w? I think that's the threshold of most flagship air coolers. Adding 33% more cores will be a challenge for those coolers unless you use some fast fans, as an overclocked 9900k is likely to pull over 300w in some workloads. Even with a soldered IHS, that's a lot of heat to dissipate. 

But I guess the good news is that if they're soldering this chip, then Cascade lake and the lga 2066 chips could be soldered as they should be.


----------



## Glottis

airisom2 said:


> How much power do overclocked 8700Ks draw? 200-250w? I think that's the threshold of most flagship air coolers. Adding 33% more cores will be a challenge for those coolers unless you use some fast fans, as an overclocked 9900k is likely to pull over 300w in some workloads. Even with a soldered IHS, that's a lot of heat to dissipate.
> 
> But I guess the good news is that if they're soldering this chip, then Cascade lake and the lga 2066 chips could be soldered as they should be.


I think Noctua NH-D15 will contain the beast with all cores at 5Ghz (assuming rumored 4.7Ghz stock boost clock across all cores is true and you only need 0.3Ghz OC to reach 5). I used D15 for almost 4 years with 5820K and that pulls around 300W at 4.5Ghz.


----------



## Defoler

airisom2 said:


> How much power do overclocked 8700Ks draw? 200-250w? I think that's the threshold of most flagship air coolers. Adding 33% more cores will be a challenge for those coolers unless you use some fast fans, as an overclocked 9900k is likely to pull over 300w in some workloads. Even with a soldered IHS, that's a lot of heat to dissipate.
> 
> But I guess the good news is that if they're soldering this chip, then Cascade lake and the lga 2066 chips could be soldered as they should be.


I think going back to being soldered, is going to help better with heat dispensing. 
And considering high end coolers can handle the higher end chips which are 130w stock but can full a hell of a lot more under OC, it shouldn't be that of a problem.
I think 5ghz with a good cooler, unless they come out very limited in their OC headroom, is a good possibility. Watercoolered with an average CPU, should hit a bit higher.


----------



## Newbie2009

Ph42oN said:


> That is stupid, they call it i9... next year amd will propably release ryzen 5 with 8c/16t, and that will most likely be equal to that i9 in performance, if not better. They should just call it i7, and call that 8c/8t i5, or change i5 to 6c/12t.


Joe public will see i9 faster vs i7 and pay the premium. You can only sucker people so many times though.


----------



## tpi2007

They already announced the discontinuance of the i5-7640X, the i7-7740X, so next will be the 7800X and the 7820X - these are seriously lacking even now as HEDT parts - no full complement of PCIe lanes, no ring bus design, and the hexacore even has a lower speed rated IMC, along with the ubiquitous thermal paste. The rest of the Skylake-X lineup should all come down in price in light of these new i9 CPUs, Thereadripper 2 and also the fact that they will now be in the uncomfortable situation of having HEDT CPUs using thermal paste when some of their mainstream CPUs will start to be soldered again since 2011.


----------



## white owl

Not soldering the HEDT chips was a low blow IMO. Might as well not even solder their whole Xeon line up at that rate.


----------



## opt33

white owl said:


> Not soldering the HEDT chips was a low blow IMO. Might as well not even solder their whole Xeon line up at that rate.


agreed, I used to update every cycle for the fun of building a new computer, but paying that much, still delidding, and with minimal IPC gains, intel cured me of that. Cant decide to go with 9900k/1180, or just wait for 7nm amd and whatever gpu comes then. I would rather support AMD at this point.


----------



## ku4eto

Nizzen said:


> Nice trolling...
> 
> Try to fix the numbers


Those numbers are for the lulz (at least for the price part).

You think, Intel will price their i9-9900k, top of the line chip, for less than 500$? The 8700K, which is 6 cores, costs 350$, and the 2700X costs 330$, where as the 2700 costs 300$. If we look at the 1700, it now costs 220$!!! Do you think, there is anyway Intel will be able to price their offerings, even within 10% of the AMD counterparts? And dont think, you can simply get the i9-9900K and slap it on the same board, on which you are running the 8700K. There will be a need for motherboard revision probably. 33% increase in power draw and heat aint a small stuff.


----------



## Glottis

ku4eto said:


> Those numbers are for the lulz (at least for the price part).
> 
> You think, Intel will price their i9-9900k, top of the line chip, for less than 500$? The 8700K, which is 6 cores, costs 350$, and the 2700X costs 330$, where as the 2700 costs 300$. If we look at the 1700, it now costs 220$!!! Do you think, there is anyway Intel will be able to price their offerings, even within 10% of the AMD counterparts? And dont think, you can simply get the i9-9900K and slap it on the same board, on which you are running the 8700K. There will be a need for motherboard revision probably. 33% increase in power draw and heat aint a small stuff.


Calm down there. Already confirmed 9xxx CPUs will run on Z370 and even H310 motherboards. https://videocardz.com/76849/asrock-confirms-8-core-intel-cpu-support-for-h310-motherboard


----------



## doom26464

azanimefan said:


> doom26464 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intel thrown the gloves off, There tired of taking punches from AMD and are not holding back on anything anymore. These will be the best and last of an era of chips from Intel. 10nm will be a few years away and this is intel last chance at taking the crown. No holding back all the stops are being pulled now. Solder IHS, best of the best binned silicon, and some very aggressive factory boost speeds.
> 
> 
> There is no doubt the i9-9900k Will be king of all, It will beat the 2700X in gaming by a good margin, crush in productivity, and be a streamer's wet dream.
> 
> This will all come at a price and intel knows that being the king comes with a kings price.
> 
> 
> They will enjoy this till zen 2 where AMD will be king of all the markets (Mainstream/HEDT/server) then will fade away for a few years till 10nm/jim keller/the rest of there teams new fruit of hard work can shine.
> 
> 
> I know personally I will be scooping up an i9-9900k pending reviews.
> 
> 
> PS also anyone think AMD has a 2800x hiding im doubtful, Can't see more clocks(10% of best binned dies will be for thread ripper) and I don't think well see a core count jump till zen 2.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this sarcasm?
> 
> I can't tell if you're serious or not.
Click to expand...

Is there somewhere in my post that dictates sarcasm?


----------



## azanimefan

doom26464 said:


> Is there somewhere in my post that dictates sarcasm?


it was such a fanboy gush I thought it was some sort of reverse troll. So you were serious? Dude, stop. Intel's a company, not your family. Their job is to take your money. Not be your friend. From the sound of it you're way too invested in the company identity of your pc parts.


----------



## doom26464

azanimefan said:


> doom26464 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there somewhere in my post that dictates sarcasm?
> 
> 
> 
> it was such a fanboy gush I thought it was some sort of reverse troll. So you were serious? Dude, stop. Intel's a company, not your family. Their job is to take your money. Not be your friend. From the sound of it you're way too invested in the company identity of your pc parts.
Click to expand...

If you read my post you will see where I clearly stated that AMD will over take intel by next year. 

Is that something a fan boy would say?


----------



## white owl

azanimefan said:


> it was such a fanboy gush I thought it was some sort of reverse troll. So you were serious? Dude, stop. Intel's a company, not your family. Their job is to take your money. Not be your friend. From the sound of it you're way too invested in the company identity of your pc parts.


 Don't fanboys say one side or the other is better?
All they said was Intel is doing everything they can to stay on top with 14nm but it will only work for so long.
Unless Intel has a breakthrough with cobalt or gives up on it, that is true.


If you think it's fanboyish to say that an 8 core version of the 8700k will dominate the gaming segment (probably most segments) until we get 7nm Ryzen, I must be a fanboy.
The 8700 is already a slightly better gaming chip than the 2700 and the 8700 has two fewer cores. If they add two more cores AMD will likely loose it's other benefits such a streaming and other multi threaded tasks.
They are both great CPUs but AMD has a very obvious clock defecate.


When Intel makes the 8 core it will be the best desktop CPU out, probably in every area you can measure until AMD catches up in clock speed which I think they will.
It's hard to imagine going from 4ghz to 5ghz in one generation but they've done a great job catching up in a short time. Even if AMD's CPUs are 5-10% slower core for core, I'd probably still buy one if it OC's well.


----------



## epic1337

white owl said:


> Don't fanboys say one side or the other is better?
> All they said was Intel is doing everything they can to stay on top with 14nm but it will only work for so long.
> Unless Intel has a breakthrough with cobalt or gives up on it, that is true.


in my opinion Intel could maintain performance leadership even if they remained with their 14nm node.
to point out, performance doesn't come from die shrinks, it comes from architecture advancements.


AMD for example made an innovative approach with their CCX+SMT design.
their intra-CCX latency is superbly low, throughput is high despite having lower IPC and clock speed, and very low power consumption, not to mention it is extremely scalable.
if AMD could improve their inter-CCX latency, IPC and clock speed then without a doubt their roadmap can become even more firm and solid.


----------



## appylol

Atleast now we will have a worthy chipset from intel, where it's gonna be worth it to buy a quality board.

It probably is a "dead socket" again, given history - meaning we won't see any new CPUs for it. But buyers now have the option of getting the six core and then at a later time pick up a used 8c/16t, which is great i think. Especially for Sandy bridge owners and similar.

I'm gonna hold on to my thrusty 4790k, while looking forward to what AMD can do with zen on 7nm. With higher clocks and latency tweaks to the arch, the new zen CPUs could be even closer to Intel IPC. Atleast im hoping


----------



## tpi2007

appylol said:


> Atleast now we will have a worthy chipset from intel, where it's gonna be worth it to buy a quality board.
> 
> It probably is a "dead socket" again, given history - meaning we won't see any new CPUs for it. But buyers now have the option of getting the six core and then at a later time pick up a used 8c/16t, which is great i think. Especially for Sandy bridge owners and similar.
> 
> I'm gonna hold on to my thrusty 4790k, while looking forward to what AMD can do with zen on 7nm. With higher clocks and latency tweaks to the arch, the new zen CPUs could be even closer to Intel IPC. Atleast im hoping



With the possible exception of AVX2, I'd say that AMD will surpass Intel next year. They are only ~5% behind in IPC and Zen 2 is supposed to be 10-15% faster in that regard, plus 7nm is supposed to deliver higher clocks. Couple that with them being on the record saying that they designed Zen 2 to be competitive with Ice Lake and the fact that next year Intel will be selling an 8 core Skylake arch based chip, which is what the i9-9900K is, and it's becoming clear that AMD will most likely win next year. Maybe Intel can deliver something by the holiday season 2019, which is when they say they'll have 10nm CPUs out.


----------



## ku4eto

Glottis said:


> Calm down there. Already confirmed 9xxx CPUs will run on Z370 and even H310 motherboards. https://videocardz.com/76849/asrock-confirms-8-core-intel-cpu-support-for-h310-motherboard


The BIOS support is OK, but the motherboards ability to support it properly, without VRM throttling is... well, its going to be really tested.


----------



## Contiusa

guttheslayer said:


> I find it puzzling you are ignoring 9900K



See the quote below.



doom26464 said:


> There is no doubt the i9-9900k Will be king of all (...) This will all come at a price and intel knows that being the king comes with a kings price.



I bet it will come with a HEDT price and it will divide the field. What really matters here is the mainstream i7 crowd who does not want to sell a kidney to build a rig. And the i7-9700K indeed might end up getting a beating from the i7-8700K, so what's the point to realease a capped chip and kill the i7? Drive all those i7 owners to AMD Ryzen 2 and keep a few bunch who can pay for an i9?

Stupid move in my opinion.

--


----------



## grss1982

SystemTech said:


> I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.
> 
> Who will win....
> *Exciting times indeed at the moment
> Thank you AMD for finally making Intel squirm.*
> 
> I feel like the CPU race is back on. Each company pushing their technologies and process to make faster processors.
> Finally the standard 10% improvements are done for a while and 2500K users have a decent reason to upgrade.
> 
> Now if only AMD could pull another rabbit out the hat, and compete with Nvidia for GPU's.
> Then things would really be as they were in the mid 2000's where each company was pushing the limits, not sitting idle just raking in cash.



Can't agree more about the bolded part.  The bad side though is the CPU flame wars are gonna start again here in the forums. 



Threx said:


> Always pleasantly amused to see how a little competition can go a long way. We went from 4c/4t and 4c/8t being the top mainstream chips to 6c/6t and 6c/12t to 8c/8t and 8c/16t in under 12 months.


Same here.  A good time to be a PC qnthusiast. Now all I need are price drops in RAM and GPU and I can upgrade to my heart content. lol


----------



## doom26464

The i7 9700k is really a wierd move. 

I feel in games it will be faster then the i7-8700k due to out of box clock speeds. But both at 5ghz is hard to say. I think both will perform the same at same clock speed as games dont really use past 8 threads anyways. 

When it comes to any type of outside workload or multithreaded situation is when things will get dicey. 

The i9 9900k benchmarks are pretty clear in my head its the i7-9700k I will be most keen to watch.


----------



## Falkentyne

doom26464 said:


> The i7 9700k is really a wierd move.
> 
> I feel in games it will be faster then the i7-8700k due to out of box clock speeds. But both at 5ghz is hard to say. I think both will perform the same at same clock speed as games dont really use past 8 threads anyways.
> 
> When it comes to any type of outside workload or multithreaded situation is when things will get dicey.
> 
> The i9 9900k benchmarks are pretty clear in my head its the i7-9700k I will be most keen to watch.


Not a weird move at all.
8 real cores + 8 threads (no HT) is at least 50% faster than 4 cores +8 threads (7700K, etc). And it should pretty much equal in speed to a 6 core 12 thread 8700K/8086K at the same clock speed. 

So you basically get a soldered 8600K. I would always take the 9700K for the 8 real cores vs the 8086K for 6 cores and 6 virtual cores (12 threads).

The question is will it be priced to sell? Pricing is what will make this the "new" 2500K or not.

if the 9900K is $500, then the 9700K will need to be priced at $300.


----------



## Contiusa

Falkentyne said:


> Not a weird move at all.
> 8 real cores + 8 threads (no HT) is at least 50% faster.



Not that fast according to the i5-8600K, which was behind the i7-7700K in many benches, including Cinebench on wccftech (below). Perhaps the market dealt with HT for so long that the bare core lost its reign.

And the i7-9700K won't compete with the i7-7700K. That chip is dead. It was always an i3 on steroids. It will compete with the i7-8700K and everyone knows it.

https://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-core-i5-8400-cpu-review/7/

So I'm curious to see how it will pan out. Perhaps the 8 cores will take the advantage that 8 threads is what games might be using max, but the tests were done on Cinebench too. If it comes a dud, they will have to slice a big part of the tag price because no one will buy it. And like I said, now we have options. Ryzen 2 is around the corner as it appears. They better not bet with a capped i7 because whoever goes to the other side might not come back, and the i9 prices will not entice much of the i7 crowd.

--


----------



## moonbogg

An i7 without HT can't be real. After all the flaming Intel got for taking stuff away with X299, how can they expect to survive against an AMD firing 7nm guns at them when they insist on segmenting away the HT on their supposed high end "i7" chips? That might work for this release, but if Intel keeps that crap up, AMD is going to one punch their asses when 7nm hits Intel like a freight train, especially with Intel's process crapping the bed lately. Segmenting away the HT is a critical error IMO that will only work this time, so it will make them look unsure of themselves when they bring it back to fight AMD's 7nm. Intel like chickens without heads right now. Funny how AMD straight tossed a giant wrench into their game plan. Intel's so confused right now they don't even know which way is up. 

"Its an i7! No, it's an i9! No, make it an i7 just remove HT and sell them the i7 for more money but call it an i9!" 


Lol, good luck. 7nm 16/32 mainstream chips at high clocks coming at ya fast Intel.


----------



## Contiusa

Yup, they tossed us the quad core crap for almost a decade. Now they are supposedly cannibalizing the i7 line, which just rocked the market with the i7-8700K, to push people to spend more in i9s? They are dreaming if this is true.

Bring a true hexacore 6/12 chip i7-9700K (no disabled cores) with soldered IHS. Let whoever wants to spend more and have 8/16 to buy the i9s.

--


----------



## moonbogg

I personally think the 8/16 chip should be the new i7 and the 6/12 chips should be i5. You can have a 6 core i5 with and without HT in my opinion. I think that's fine, but an i7 without HT is brand destroying. An 8/8 chip is just odd as an i7 and shouldn't exist as an i7 IMO. It makes more sense to sell it as a top level i5 variant while keeping the i7 on top. If they wanted an i9 for mainstream it should be something crazy like a 10 core or something, but that's what X299 is for anyway, so...like I said, AMD really just tossed a wrench into their whole world really. Screwed everything all up.


----------



## Contiusa

moonbogg said:


> I personally think the 8/16 chip should be the new i7 and the 6/12 chips should be i5.



The problem is... Intel doesn't like to hand over these giveaways. She rather kills the i7 than to sell it as an octacore with HT. Hence why they are coming with this i9 rubbish. 

I even accept the i9 rubbish, but they can't skimp on the i7 either. In fact they should be giving a bump to the i7 to counter whatever AMD releases, because in terms of price they will always lose. If they don't want to add more cores, give it a true hexacore 6/12 (no disabled cores) with a soldered IHS. It will be the chip everyone expected in mid 2010s. If the i7-8700K is already a classic, add a soldered IHS and some improvements and you have a true champ in sales. 

I think it is better than just 8/8.

--


----------



## moonbogg

Contiusa said:


> The problem is... Intel doesn't like to hand over these giveaways. She rather kills the i7 than to sell it as an octacore with HT. Hence why they are coming with this i9 rubbish.
> 
> I even accept the i9 rubbish, but they can't skimp on the i7 either. In fact they should be giving a bump to the i7 to counter whatever AMD releases, because in terms of price they will always lose. If they don't want to add more cores, give it a true hexacore 6/12 (no disabled cores) with a soldered IHS. It will be the chip everyone expected in mid 2010s. If the i7-8700K is already a classic, add a soldered IHS and some improvements and you have a true champ in sales.
> 
> I think it is better than just 8/8.
> 
> --


Yeah, the 8/8 is very irritating as an i7. It's confusing about which is better, 8/8 or 6/12? Intel is very good at irritating the enthusiast with forcing us into making ridiculous choices, such as: 

Historically we've had to choose between 4 faster cores on the latest architecture or 6 slower ones from the previous architecture. THATS IRRITATING.

Then they started using thermal paste, killing OC potential and forcing delids and a void warranty. THATS IRRITATING. 

Now they (if rumors are true) tempt us with an 8/8 chip that may finally be soldered, but its not the real deal since they just HAD to take something else away, this time being HT, becuase with Intel, there's always a catch. If you want that real 8 core you've been waiting for, soldered and all, you'll have to pay extra for the i9 branding. THATS IRRITATING.

Everything about Intel is just damn irritating. I'm not sure they realize how much I hate them for this, but I am sure they don't care.


----------



## Contiusa

I think 8 threads is nowadays what the quad cores were in the latter part of this decade. I don't think it is enough for gaming and streaming for example. Or even gaming and having some other stuff open. 

That's why the i7-7700K was beating the i5-8600K. The extra two threads might have been an advantage to the i7-7700K (plus 200hz). 

Perhaps even with some hz in bump the i7-9700K won't be able to keep up with the i7-8700K, which has 4 extra threads to milk. 4 threads is a lot.

So Intel might be turning the i7-9700K into the i5s of the past getting bottlenecked in games and unable to stream. Perhaps they can get away with it this year, but to start with 8 threads in late 2018 is to get to the theater at the end of the movie - with no chance to catch the next session.

I would certainly not advise anyone to buy an 8 threaded chip with i7 prices (that's basically an i7-7700K, a dead chip, on steroids). AMD has much better offerings on this regard. Unless the rumor is wrong and the octacore without HT is actually an i5.

--


----------



## moonbogg

I certainly wouldn't want an 8 thread chip at this point either, especially considering many people in this market are already on 6/12. Not everyone, but I think many of us are still on X99 with 6/12 chips (I am) and would be unlikely to "upgrade" to an 8 core chip and LOSE 4 threads while we're at it, lol.


----------



## tpi2007

As a rule of thumb my napkin math adds 25% performance on average for each HT thread, so for a quad core with HT, it's the equivalent of a pentacore (assuming that the software is optimized to use 8 threads instead of 5), and on an 8 core without HT vs an hexacore with HT it will be like comparing 8 cores to 7.5 cores, with the advantage of software only needing to be optimized to take advantage of 8 threads instead of 12, not to mention the smoothness problems with HT that are still present here and there with games.

I'd say that the 9700K will do better than the 8700K. Intel wouldn't be that stupid to have the top end i7 from the subsequent gen perform lower than the previous one.


----------



## Falkentyne

tpi2007 said:


> As a rule of thumb my napkin math adds 25% performance on average for each HT thread, so for a quad core with HT, it's the equivalent of a pentacore (assuming that the software is optimized to use 8 threads instead of 5), and on an 8 core without HT vs an hexacore with HT it will be like comparing 8 cores to 7.5 cores, with the advantage of software only needing to be optimized to take advantage of 8 threads instead of 12, not to mention the smoothness problems with HT that are still present here and there with games.
> 
> I'd say that the 9700K will do better than the 8700K. Intel wouldn't be that stupid to have the top end i7 from the subsequent gen perform lower than the previous one.



That's exactly what I said


----------



## Lupum

Well it could be a matter of yield, and bringing costs down for the i9 chip. If the rumors about the i7 are true, then I guarantee that they are identical chips under the hood. It's cheaper to make 1000 i9s, than it is to make 500 i9s and 500 i7s of a different design. Given that the rumors also suggest a soldered IHS for both chips, it makes the manufacturing even more similar.

Keep in mind though, that they aren't necessarily "neutering" i9s to make i7s. There was always criticism for k models costing more for the luxury of overclocking, but it's most likely a silicon lottery thing. They make 1,000 8700ks, but maybe 300 of them can't clock as high without issues, so they remove the 'k', and knock $50 off the retail cost.

In the same way, the 9900k is a brand new design, with more cores and maybe a soldered IHS. There could just be enough yield issues with this design (getting all those cores/threads to almost 5GHZ) that many of them have to be locked down and turned into 9700ks (disabling the weaker threads of each of the 8 cores).


----------



## Contiusa

tpi2007 said:


> As a rule of thumb my napkin math adds 25% performance on average for each HT thread, so for a quad core with HT, it's the equivalent of a pentacore (assuming that the software is optimized to use 8 threads instead of 5), and on an 8 core without HT vs an hexacore with HT it will be like comparing 8 cores to 7.5 cores, with the advantage of software only needing to be optimized to take advantage of 8 threads instead of 12, not to mention the smoothness problems with HT that are still present here and there with games.
> 
> I'd say that the 9700K will do better than the 8700K. Intel wouldn't be that stupid to have the top end i7 from the subsequent gen perform lower than the previous one.



If the rumors are correct, let's see what the reviews say, because I also made a similar math with the i5-8600K, thinking it would be clearly ahead of the i7-7700K because of the physical cores, but reality showed otherwise, that the i7-7700K was ahead on several benches on that review I posted.

So the core vs thread old math might not apply anymore. Let's see. Regarding what Intel would do, they can simply ignore the reviews (because it should be tight, perhaps a technical draw) saying it is transitioning to more cores than threads and this and that.

The result is that I don't hear much about the i5-8600K. In fact, I don't hear about it at all here in Brazil. They could have not released the i5-8600K and no one would miss it in our forums on this part of the world. And to imagine that the i5-2500K was a legend.

--


----------



## oxidized

moonbogg said:


> I certainly wouldn't want an 8 thread chip at this point either, especially considering many people in this market are already on 6/12. Not everyone, but I think many of us are still on X99 with 6/12 chips (I am) and would be unlikely to "upgrade" to an 8 core chip and LOSE 4 threads while we're at it, lol.


6 "virtual cores" aren't as good as 2 actual cores, i7s are going to be upgraded not downgraded, depending on the use the upgrade will be more or less noticeable.



Contiusa said:


> If the rumors are correct, let's see what the reviews say, because I also made a similar math with the i5-8600K, thinking it would be clearly ahead of the i7-7700K because of the physical cores, but reality showed otherwise, that the i7-7700K was ahead on several benches on that review I posted.
> 
> So the core vs thread old math might not apply anymore. Let's see. Regarding what Intel would do, they can simply ignore the reviews (because it should be tight, perhaps a technical draw) saying it is transitioning to more cores than threads and this and that.
> 
> The result is that I don't hear much about the i5-8600K. In fact, I don't hear about it at all here in Brazil. They could have not released the i5-8600K and no one would miss it in our forums on this part of the world. And to imagine that the i5-2500K was a legend.
> 
> --


Could you show us those reviews where a 8600K is worse than a 7700K? Don't forget the difference in frequency. And honestly now that i think about it, latest reviews i looked at showed 6/6 i5s being on top of 4/8 i7s most of the times, even in blenders and encoders iirc.


----------



## Contiusa

oxidized said:


> 6 "virtual cores" aren't as good as 2 actual cores, i7s are going to be upgraded not downgraded, depending on the use the upgrade will be more or less noticeable.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you show us those reviews where a 8600K is worse than a 7700K? Don't forget the difference in frequency. And honestly now that i think about it, latest reviews i looked at showed 6/6 i5s being on top of 4/8 i7s most of the times, even in blenders and encoders iirc.


You could have looked my posts.

https://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-core-i5-8400-cpu-review/7/

It's been a while, but I think I saw the same thing on other reviews. 

--


----------



## oxidized

Contiusa said:


> You could have looked my posts.
> 
> https://wccftech.com/review/intel-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-core-i5-8400-cpu-review/7/
> 
> It's been a while, but I think I saw the same thing on other reviews.
> 
> --


Which posts? Anyway that's kinda interesting. I'm seeing kinda similar stuff on guru3d, which i honestly trust more than wccftech, but overall the i5 8600K comes out on top considering the lower frequency. Clocked at the same frequency we'd see 7700K losing every time probably.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700_review,9.html

The only tests where 7700K is on top are single threaded tests (not even all of them if i checked correctly), which of course favor the higher frequency in a more noticeable way.


----------



## DarthBaggins

Really can't wait to see how the 9900k performs real-world. I'm really itching to move to something more power efficient over x99 (just hate losing the lanes)


----------



## Asterox

Newbie2009 said:


> *Intel bringing out the big guns*, good to see.


You mean old big 8/16 gun, on "new 14nm process+higher CPU clocks+Fake 95W TDP or barely only for stock CPU setings".

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-6900K-Processor-2011-v3-BX80671I76900K/dp/B01FJLAIG0

When we see CPU performance comparison, i9 9900K vs i7 6900K then you will se how big is i9 9900K gun.


----------



## DarthBaggins

Asterox said:


> You mean old big 8/16 gun, on "new 14nm process+higher CPU clocks+Fake 95W TDP or barely only for stock CPU setings".
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-6900K-Processor-2011-v3-BX80671I76900K/dp/B01FJLAIG0
> 
> When we see CPU performance comparison, i9 9900K vs i7 6900K then you will se how big is i9 9900K gun.


That's why I want to see how it does, especially compared to the 6900k I'm already running (and I didn't pay near the $1k price tag).


----------



## profion

I want to see if its worth upgrading my 8700k with the 9900k


----------



## oxidized

profion said:


> I want to see if its worth upgrading my 8700k with the 9900k


Good luck.


----------



## pm1109

Wonder if it’s worth upgrading from my 3770k to 9900k.Been 6 years since my last upgrade.


----------



## dantoddd

pm1109 said:


> Wonder if it’s worth upgrading from my 3770k to 9900k.Been 6 years since my last upgrade.


I'm gonna look at gaming performance especially CPU intensive ones and then pull the trigger. Hopefully Nvidia will release next gen soon as well. This way can make a new system.


----------



## ku4eto

I dont see how the 9700K and the 9900K are the same, the leaks suggest different L3 cache for them.


----------



## guttheslayer

Contiusa said:


> See the quote below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet it will come with a HEDT price and it will divide the field. What really matters here is the mainstream i7 crowd who does not want to sell a kidney to build a rig. And the i7-9700K indeed might end up getting a beating from the i7-8700K, so what's the point to realease a capped chip and kill the i7? Drive all those i7 owners to AMD Ryzen 2 and keep a few bunch who can pay for an i9?
> 
> Stupid move in my opinion.
> 
> --


I agree with the I9 nonsense but I dont think they can price it too ridiculous to stay competitive. They didnt redesign a new 8C chip just to put on shelves for display. The I9 9900K should not go above $500 for MSRP if you ask me, but unlikely it will be below $450 as well.


----------



## Glottis

DarthBaggins said:


> Really can't wait to see how the 9900k performs real-world. I'm really itching to move to something more power efficient over x99 (just hate losing the lanes)


I hope that 9900K is more power efficient at idle since I leave my computer on most of the time. X99 is very inefficient at idle, of course load power consumption is pretty high as well but that's less of an issue for me.


----------



## white owl

ku4eto said:


> I dont see how the 9700K and the 9900K are the same, the leaks suggest different L3 cache for them.


It's always been that way, i5s are lower binned i7s only now it's moved up to i7/i9.


----------



## tpi2007

ku4eto said:


> I dont see how the 9700K and the 9900K are the same, the leaks suggest different L3 cache for them.



They will be based on the same die, it adds up perfectly. See below.




white owl said:


> It's always been that way, i5s are lower binned i7s only now it's moved up to i7/i9.



Exactly.

The i7-2700K/3770K/4770K/6700K/7700K are 4C/8T CPUs and have 8 MB of L3 cache.

The i5-2500K/3570K/4670K/6600K/7600K are 4C/4T CPUs based on the exact same die as the above and have 2 MB of L3 cache disabled, for a total of 6 MB of L3 cache.

Double the core count and what do you get? 16 MB of L3 cache for the 8C/16T model and 12 MB for the 8C/8T model.


----------



## Threx

9900k score on 3dmark timespy.

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4126457


----------



## Threx

"ASUS is ready for Coffee Lake-S Refresh

At least 19 boards are currently in development at ASUS HQ in Taiwan. The Z390 series will feature STRIX, Prime, TUF and Dragon series. Those who wish to pay a bit more for quality and features will have to look for Maximus XI series instead.

The Z390 series from ASUS feature APEX and Formula for extreme overclocking as well as Mini-ITX models such as Z390-I STRIX. The Dragon series are only for the Chinese market."

https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-officially-confirms-z390-maximus-xi-motherboard-series


----------



## oxidized

Threx said:


> 9900k score on 3dmark timespy.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4126457


3.1 base? really?


----------



## DarthBaggins

Threx said:


> "ASUS is ready for Coffee Lake-S Refresh
> 
> At least 19 boards are currently in development at ASUS HQ in Taiwan. The Z390 series will feature STRIX, Prime, TUF and Dragon series. Those who wish to pay a bit more for quality and features will have to look for Maximus XI series instead.
> 
> The Z390 series from ASUS feature APEX and Formula for extreme overclocking as well as Mini-ITX models such as Z390-I STRIX. The Dragon series are only for the Chinese market."
> 
> https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-officially-confirms-z390-maximus-xi-motherboard-series


I thought Intel had ditched the z390 chipset and were just updating the current z370. . at least the TS sub shows that the CPU works with the z370 chipset (they used a Asus Strix z370-F board)

and not too bad vs the 6900k (but the 6900k was only set to Turbo to 4.1Ghz)


----------



## Threx

DarthBaggins said:


> I thought Intel had ditched the z390 chipset and were just updating the current z370.



I think that was just a rumor with no (alleged) source.


----------



## EniGma1987

profion said:


> I want to see if its worth upgrading my 8700k with the 9900k


lol no. Just 2 extra cores and not even built in spectre fixes? Wait till next gen when things are actually designed for this core count and security issues.


----------



## m4fox90

Threx said:


> "ASUS is ready for Coffee Lake-S Refresh
> 
> At least 19 boards are currently in development at ASUS HQ in Taiwan. The Z390 series will feature STRIX, Prime, TUF and Dragon series. Those who wish to pay a bit more for quality and features will have to look for Maximus XI series instead.
> 
> The Z390 series from ASUS feature APEX and Formula for extreme overclocking as well as Mini-ITX models such as Z390-I STRIX. The Dragon series are only for the Chinese market."
> 
> https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-officially-confirms-z390-maximus-xi-motherboard-series


people out there really thinking 9900K can do 5.5 GHz huh


----------



## Contiusa

EniGma1987 said:


> lol no. Just 2 extra cores and not even built in spectre fixes? Wait till next gen when things are actually designed for this core count and security issues.



Wait... No spectre and those other loophole fixes? Nothing? I read somewhere that 'some' of the loopholes were going to be fixed.

--


----------



## Defoler

If the score is at stock, without OC, it is pretty impressive considering the performance over 2700x.
But since lately intel and leaked seems to have shown too many OC results, it might be under OC, so I would still wait for it to be released.


----------



## Ithanul

DarthBaggins said:


> Really can't wait to see how the 9900k performs real-world. I'm really itching to move to something more power efficient over x99 (just hate losing the lanes)


Yeah, there is that.
Myself, that i5 6c/6t has my interest. If priced right, I can see myself nabbing one to throw into an ITX setup for a daily rig with some side gaming on occasions. Though, I plan to wait for full compression reviews before I do any buying.


----------



## white owl

Ithanul said:


> Yeah, there is that.
> Myself, that i5 6c/6t has my interest. If priced right, I can see myself nabbing one to throw into an ITX setup for a daily rig with some side gaming on occasions. Though, I plan to wait for full compression reviews before I do any buying.


I doubt it will be much different than the current 8600k, it's been said that it won't be soldered so if you want 6c 6t there isn't much reason to wait imo.


----------



## Ithanul

white owl said:


> I doubt it will be much different than the current 8600k, it's been said that it won't be soldered so if you want 6c 6t there isn't much reason to wait imo.


I'm only waiting out on the full compression among the chips. Plus, I'm in no hurry since I'm not hurting on chips (got like five CPUs atm). At most, when individuals jump to these or the AMD chips, I can just nab up a previous arch chip for even cheaper. I just like to keep an eye on newer chips to see if one tickles my fancy.


----------



## doom26464

Defoler said:


> If the score is at stock, without OC, it is pretty impressive considering the performance over 2700x.
> But since lately intel and leaked seems to have shown too many OC results, it might be under OC, so I would still wait for it to be released.


The score seems really high. Nearly touching 1950x.


----------



## Khalil

doom26464 said:


> The score seems really high. Nearly touching 1950x.


An Overclocked [email protected] gives 8,644 CPU score, 9900k rumoured 4.7Ghz all core boost with +2 cores indicates the above score looks ok.
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/4126457/spy/4131677#


----------



## Raghar

Looks like it has 4.3-4.4 all core boost. From that score. Thus that speed table in first post is total craziness.


----------



## Defoler

doom26464 said:


> The score seems really high. Nearly touching 1950x.


That is because the extra cores of the TR aren't very useful in that scenario, as the benchmark is still pretty much tops at 10 cores, while the TR has 16. So at that point, it is all about clock speeds, which the TR lacks compared to the 9900k or the 7900x. 
So compared to the 9900k it get to utilise 2 more cores, so it can keep up, but compared to the 7900x, the extra 6 cores don't come into play as they both "act" like 10 core, while the 7900x has higher boost clock speeds, so it gets the edge.


----------



## Duality92

It's 33% more cores and 33% more performance, but this is to be expected tbh. Anything less would be useless.

I'm sure they're just putting 7820X shrinked on it and calling it 9900K


----------



## Hulio225

Duality92 said:


> I'm sure they're just putting 7820X shrinked on it and calling it 9900K


I dont think so since the 7820X is Skylake X based with mesh interconnection between cores and no iGPU.

The 9900k will be Coffee Lake with ring bus and iGPU its basically a 8700k with 2 more cores and bigger cache.


----------



## Duality92

Oh I know, but knowing intel and the way they're desprate, you never know.


----------



## Hulio225

Duality92 said:


> Oh I know, but knowing intel and the way they're desprate, you never know.


On a technical level i don't think its possible. The wohle design of the chip is based on a complete other socket and Chipset, i don't think its possible to make them work on another socket.


----------



## EniGma1987

Hulio225 said:


> On a technical level i don't think its possible. The wohle design of the chip is based on a complete other socket and Chipset, i don't think its possible to make them work on another socket.


Socket is just a package level piece that has IO and delivers power. It would depend if the mesh interconnect requires significantly different power configuration or not. Chipset is also just connected over PCI-E basically so it doesn't really matter on what processor is connected, Intel just locks it down for sales reasons. Much of the important chipset type IO is now in the CPU itself and the chipset is basically just an expansion IO.


----------



## tpi2007

Hulio225 said:


> On a technical level i don't think its possible. The wohle design of the chip is based on a complete other socket and Chipset, i don't think its possible to make them work on another socket.



Well, even though it's the exact opposite of Kaby Lake-X, it may be possible to just wire 16 PCIe lanes (after all they are able to disable lanes, from 44 down to 28, which is what the 7820X has active) and two memory channels (this last one is perfectly doable as you never had to populate all channels and in practice even some mini-ITX boards have done dual channel X99 motherboards previously), *but* from a practical standpoint, Intel would be doing a first in many years by not having a CPU with an iGPU on the mainstream desktop (I think the last one was the i5-25*5*0K, which was binned, so it was technically there) and then it would also be losing performance by using the Skylake-X mesh interconnect and different cache hierarchy and thus not only not be able to distance itself much from AMD's 2700X, but also have inconsistent gaming performance against the 8700K, and finally, they would be losing money, as the 7820X's die actually has 10 cores in it. The lack of an iGPU does offset that, but the extra die space used by the additional PCIe lanes logic and two extra memory channels would still be there, so in general it would be a die with too much unused stuff and no iGPU.

Overall, it's a very far fetched idea, mainly because of performance reasons. It would be a disappointment in that regard and not what people would be expecting. And from what it seems that AMD is going to deliver with Zen 2, Intel needs all the cushion it can get until it can deliver something else in late 2019 and it's still to be seen if it'll be something actually better (if first gen 14nm is anything to go by and according to their own slides, first gen 10nm will have some lower performance characteristics compared to 14nm++) and it's still not clear what exact arch will be on sale in late 2019, if it's Cannon Lake (which is supposed to be a mere die shrink of Kaby and Coffee Lake, at least in its current laptop form, which is on sale on a limited basis), or if it's the newly announced in-between Cooper Lake or if it's Ice Lake.


----------



## coelacanth

Until we get more powerful GPUs there's not much point for gamers to be buying these CPUs. At anything other than 1080p or less games are going to be GPU limited. And I can't see anyone buying this CPU gaming at 1080p or less.


----------



## Puck

Raise your hand if you think Intel can get their current arch to 4.7ghz across 8 cores with HT enabled in a 95w TDP envelope.

*crickets*

Maybe they ship it with the chiller they used for the 28c stunt? :laughings.


----------



## Nizzen

Puck said:


> Raise your hand if you think Intel can get their current arch to 4.7ghz across 8 cores with HT enabled in a 95w TDP envelope.
> 
> *crickets*
> 
> Maybe they ship it with the chiller they used for the 28c stunt? :laughings.


Undervolt with very good cooling, it may be possible. Who care about TDP anyway. It does't mean powerdraw anyway 

I don't care if my 1950x drawing 150w or 300w, as long the performance is good. Using EK watercooling. This is Overclock.net, not stocktdp.net or stockclock.net


----------



## Nizzen

coelacanth said:


> Until we get more powerful GPUs there's not much point for gamers to be buying these CPUs. At anything other than 1080p or less games are going to be GPU limited. And I can't see anyone buying this CPU gaming at 1080p or less.


There is something called 240hz 1080p monitor 

@ 3440x1440, I'm cpu limited by ryzen 1800x and 1950x TR, compare to Intel 7900x/7980xe with 1080ti sli. So it is possible to get cpu limited over 1080p.

Even with 7900x @ stock I'm cpulimited in some games @ 3440x1440 when using sli. Getting more fps/higher minimumfps with higher cpu clocks/memory clock.


----------



## DarthBaggins

Well I bumped my 6900k to 4.2Ghz and my CPU score jumped into the 9k region so this 9900k better be a monster for me to consider it. Would love to see it's single core performance and rendering benchmarks (something other than TimeSpy)


----------



## Duality92

I was more poking fun, but I guess I should've made that clear, you guys know much more than I do about architecture specifics xD


----------



## doom26464

coelacanth said:


> Until we get more powerful GPUs there's not much point for gamers to be buying these CPUs. At anything other than 1080p or less games are going to be GPU limited. And I can't see anyone buying this CPU gaming at 1080p or less.


most gamer see minmiual gains going past an i5.


I9 will be made for production/multi-tasking/streaming


----------



## Hulio225

Assuming all the rumors and "leaks" are real and the 2 core turbo frequencies are real i would do some kind of an educated guess:

It should be no issue to run all cores at 5 GHz, assuming 2 core turbo is already 5 GHz. My prediction is that the 14 nm process used will be again a bit more refined/matured and we will get on average the same clock increases in terms of OC as we got from Kaby to Coffee which were at ~100-200 MHz.

Taking into consideration that just a little under 50% of Kabys were able to hit 5 GHz (source: silicon lottery) and 86% of Coffees were able to hit that target. It is quit reasonable to assume that the 8 Core chips could do 5,1 to 5,2 GHz at least at a rate of 50%. With some very good samples go even further like 5,3 or 5,4 GHz. Sure power draw will be nuts, but that is another story and not from interest to me ;-).

My 8700k is doing 1770 CB Points at 5.2 GHz multiplied that with 1.33 we can assume the 9900k at same clocks will do around 2350.
At 5.2 GHz and good tight fast RAM i can do almost 10k on Time Spy with my 8700k, so the 9900k could do here around 13k+.

That are my thoughts and a bit hope that it will be like that.


----------



## tpi2007

DarthBaggins said:


> Well I bumped my 6900k to 4.2Ghz and my CPU score jumped into the 9k region so this 9900k better be a monster for me to consider it. Would love to see it's single core performance and rendering benchmarks (something other than TimeSpy)



That's actually a clock for clock comparison I'd like to see, the 6900K against the 9900K, as the Broadwell was the last HEDT 8 core CPU with the same ring bus and the IPC is not that much different. Of course Broadwell doesn't clock that high, but still, it's possible to do an interesting comparison, say at 4 - 4.2 Ghz on all cores. You can even run the 6900K with dual channel DDR4, say at 3 Ghz to make as much of a level playing field as possible. It's also interesting because that's the CPU AMD compared its Ryzen 1800X against last year.


----------



## coelacanth

Nizzen said:


> There is something called 240hz 1080p monitor
> 
> @ 3440x1440, I'm cpu limited by ryzen 1800x and 1950x TR, compare to Intel 7900x/7980xe with 1080ti sli. So it is possible to get cpu limited over 1080p.
> 
> Even with 7900x @ stock I'm cpulimited in some games @ 3440x1440 when using sli. Getting more fps/higher minimumfps with higher cpu clocks/memory clock.


Yes that's why I said there is a point if you're going to game at 1080p.


----------



## Falkentyne

Duality92 said:


> Oh I know, but knowing intel and the way they're desprate, you never know.


No dude.
They did that already with the 8086K.
They used this as speed bin beta test runs for money to milk customers with the 8086 name, in preparation for the 8 core 9900K 5 ghz CPU release.
They aren't binning the ring mesh, or it would never even get close to 5 ghz at absurd voltages.


----------



## Defoler

tpi2007 said:


> Well, even though it's the exact opposite of Kaby Lake-X, it may be possible to just wire 16 PCIe lanes (after all they are able to disable lanes, from 44 down to 28, which is what the 7820X has active) and two memory channels (this last one is perfectly doable as you never had to populate all channels and in practice even some mini-ITX boards have done dual channel X99 motherboards previously), *but* from a practical standpoint, Intel would be doing a first in many years by not having a CPU with an iGPU on the mainstream desktop (I think the last one was the i5-25*5*0K, which was binned, so it was technically there) and then it would also be losing performance by using the Skylake-X mesh interconnect and different cache hierarchy and thus not only not be able to distance itself much from AMD's 2700X, but also have inconsistent gaming performance against the 8700K, and finally, they would be losing money, as the 7820X's die actually has 10 cores in it. The lack of an iGPU does offset that, but the extra die space used by the additional PCIe lanes logic and two extra memory channels would still be there, so in general it would be a die with too much unused stuff and no iGPU.
> 
> Overall, it's a very far fetched idea, mainly because of performance reasons. It would be a disappointment in that regard and not what people would be expecting. And from what it seems that AMD is going to deliver with Zen 2, Intel needs all the cushion it can get until it can deliver something else in late 2019 and it's still to be seen if it'll be something actually better (if first gen 14nm is anything to go by and according to their own slides, first gen 10nm will have some lower performance characteristics compared to 14nm++) and it's still not clear what exact arch will be on sale in late 2019, if it's Cannon Lake (which is supposed to be a mere die shrink of Kaby and Coffee Lake, at least in its current laptop form, which is on sale on a limited basis), or if it's the newly announced in-between Cooper Lake or if it's Ice Lake.


That whole premisses seems to be useless, as it will require a lot of redesign of the skylake-x chip to make it look like a coffee-lake.
It feels it would be a whole lot easier to add 2 cores and cache, than redesign an already closed designed chip to make it look like something else. Especially since the 7820x is a 140 tdp, lower clocks, and less cache than the 9900k is expected to be. So what would be the point of redesign skylake-x to take less power, run faster, add more cache to it, add igpu which it wasn't designed to use, etc. 

It would be like trying to turn an 18 wheeler into a hyper car, instead of turning a sport car into a hyper car.


----------



## Imglidinhere

KBOMB said:


> I was thinking the same thing..


Intel's TDP ratings are also untrue. The CPU doesn't maintain the same 95w TDP at 4.7GHz across all 8 cores. x3


----------



## dantoddd

Ok. So how much are we expected to pay for these. And do you guys think it'll be a good purchase, to future proof for gaming.

I'm also keen on what GTX 1180 or 1180Ti would be capable of. hopefully, with these two under the hood we can do 4K at above 60Hz consistently


----------



## Hulio225

dantoddd said:


> Ok. So how much are we expected to pay for these. And do you guys think it'll be a good purchase, to future proof for gaming.
> 
> I'm also keen on what GTX 1180 or 1180Ti would be capable of. hopefully, with these two under the hood we can do 4K at above 60Hz consistently


For 4k gaming the CPU is the least important part you are always GPU limited especially at high eye candy settings, so in terms of 4k Gaming every not to old 4 Core CPU is future proof if you ask me...

Price-wise the 9900k should be somewhere between 420-500$.

If 1180 Ti will be performance wise somewhere near the Titan V, the answer will be still no in terms to consistent over 60 FPS at 4k.


----------



## Threx

dantoddd said:


> Ok. So how much are we expected to pay for these. And do you guys think it'll be a good purchase, to future proof for gaming.
> 
> I'm also keen on what GTX 1180 or 1180Ti would be capable of. hopefully, with these two under the hood we can do 4K at above 60Hz consistently


The rumor is ~$450 for 9900K and ~$350 for 9700K.

I think 8 core will be the sweet spot for gaming for the next 3-4 years, so if you're upgrading from a 4 core and plan to use it for several years (like I am) I think it's worth it.


----------



## m4fox90

Hulio225 said:


> For 4k gaming the CPU is the least important part you are always GPU limited especially at high eye candy settings, so in terms of 4k Gaming every not to old 4 Core CPU is future proof if you ask me...
> 
> Price-wise the 9900k should be somewhere between 420-500$.
> 
> If 1180 Ti will be performance wise somewhere near the Titan V, the answer will be still no in terms to consistent over 60 FPS at 4k.


What games is the Titan V failing to do that in?


----------



## doom26464

6 core will still be the sweet spot for gamming. I imagine that the i7 and i9 in benchmarks will not be any faster then the i5 for pure gaming. Games are sluggish to even transfer over to using 6 cores from 4, 8 is a long way out yet.

I7 and i9 should offer some more horsepower in multi tasking/workstation usuage though.


----------



## dantoddd

Hulio225 said:


> If 1180 Ti will be performance wise somewhere near the Titan V, the answer will be still no in terms to consistent over 60 FPS at 4k.


Nah! 1180 Ti is gonna be much more powerful than Titan V. Titan v is roughly only 20% above 1080 Ti.


----------



## PedalMonk

I might finally upgrade my 4770K @ 4.7GHZ. It's not the Icelake I was hoping for, but I'm going on 5.5 years without upgrading! I have never gone longer than 2 years before this. Yes, I've upgrded the video card, but that's it. I'm on a 980ti currently. 

I think I might finally go with a 9900k and an 1180ti.

I do photos/videos and gaming, so the extra cores will be welcomed. The only thing that's missing is 10Gb NICs. I have a 30MP camera and transferring files to my NAS and back is sloooow! It has taken the industry forever to adopt 10Gb for prosumers.


----------



## AlphaC

The 8 core 16 thread i9-9900K has been lauded by some leakers, but it isn't surprising that a chip with supposed 5GHz Boost clock and 4.7GHz all core is ~ 20% faster than Ryzen 7.

From HWBot the CPU score on a i7-7820X @ 5GHz ranges around 11.5K to 12.5K. https://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark_...Id=processor_5454&start=0#start=0#interval=20

The tiering is such that I could see the i7-9700K 8c/8t being roughly equal to the Ryzen 7 2700X or a successor R7 2800X with higher clockspeeds. I would surmise that is the rationale behind the naming , not so much that Intel wants to confuse people.

Thus, the competitive landscape would shift to :
i9 HEDT vs Threadripper 2nd gen (16 cores + such as TR 2990WX rated 250W, TR 2970WX rated 180W)

i9-9900K (8c/16t) vs Threadripper 2nd gen (12 cores and higher , probably TR 2920X and the TR2950X rated 125W) --- i9 supposed to be soldered
i7-9700K (8c/8t) vs R7 2700X (8c/16t) rated 105W _and any Zen2 mainstream successor _--- i7 supposedly soldered
i5-9600K (6c/6t) vs R5 2600X (6c/12t)


https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-website-now-lists-several-second-generation-threadripper-skus/
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-adds-second-gen-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus/


----------



## Threx

Umm...so Q1 2019 launch?

https://wccftech.com/intel-desktop-2018-2019-mainstream-hedt-cpu-roadmap-leak/

Original source is a site called hk.xfastest.com. Anyone know how reliable they are?


----------



## Raghar

Would Intel allow interference with HEDP sales, or not? That's the question. I somehow doubt Intel would miss xmas sales, and more importantly Z390 is just behind corner, Asus even released names of new Z390 MBs, NO RANGER. Thus delaying 8 core to next year looks unlikely.


----------



## doom26464

They need to get these chips out asap.
Pushing it too 2019 would be bad as that would put it close to zen2 which will not bode well for 14nm chips. 

If the 9900k is indeed 18% faster then a 2700x then need this chip out yesterday before amd gets zen2 ready.


----------



## tpi2007

Additional reason to release this year, otherwise they'll just give credence to speculation that 10nm is even more delayed and won't make it to the holiday season 2019 as they said it would.


----------



## AlphaC

Threx said:


> Umm...so Q1 2019 launch?
> 
> https://wccftech.com/intel-desktop-2018-2019-mainstream-hedt-cpu-roadmap-leak/
> 
> Original source is a site called hk.xfastest.com. Anyone know how reliable they are?



xfastest is one of the biggest overclocking sites in Taiwan. the hk offshoot is probably just a subdomain.


----------



## Questors

Core i7 without hyper-threading which is an i7 feature, until now. Intel's way of sticking to the... uh...consumer. 

Meanwhile the next product in the stack with HT will be insanely expensive.


----------



## Crinn

Questors said:


> Core i7 without hyper-threading which is an i7 feature, until now. Intel's way of sticking to the... uh...consumer.
> 
> Meanwhile the next product in the stack with HT will be insanely expensive.


How many consumers actually need 16 threads for anything though?

8c/8t is much more practical for your typical consumer, since hyper threaded cores are worse than regular cores and your typical consumer doesn't need 16 threads.

8c/8t is much more appealing to consumers, and is a smart move. People need to stop assuming that more threads is always better.


----------



## Contiusa

Crinn said:


> 8c/8t is much more practical for your typical consumer.



So they are basically going back to a quad core i7-7700K on steroids (8 threads), killing four* threads of the previos generation (i7-9700K). It better be good, because it seems that threads nowadays don't scale like they did in Sandy Bridge. If for some reason it comes close to the i7-8700K and loses in some stances because of the lack of four* treads, the i7 will be oficially buried, like the i5 was when Ryzen was released.

Especially if they release it in 2019 without all the hack fixes, pushing the 10nm for 2020.

--


----------



## m4fox90

Crinn said:


> How many consumers actually need 16 threads for anything though?
> 
> 8c/8t is much more practical for your typical consumer, since hyper threaded cores are worse than regular cores and your typical consumer doesn't need 16 threads.
> 
> 8c/8t is much more appealing to consumers, and is a smart move. People need to stop assuming that more threads is always better.


All of those things are the way they are because Intel held the market at a stranglehold for nearly a decade with 4/8 chips, and now that we're seeing that stranglehold break, people try and say use points like lack of threading as some sort of cudgel *against* more cores. 

The only way to get things written for threads is to have the guys who dominate the market finally push more threads, because as we've seen, AMD doing it isn't enough.


----------



## DaRK^^

Crinn said:


> How many consumers actually need 16 threads for anything though?
> 
> 8c/8t is much more practical for your typical consumer, since hyper threaded cores are worse than regular cores and your typical consumer doesn't need 16 threads.
> 
> 8c/8t is much more appealing to consumers, and is a smart move. People need to stop assuming that more threads is always better.



Sorry, but that sounds like some Intel boardroom marketing spin crap.


----------



## Contiusa

There are a lot of gamers needing extra threads to game and stream, just to mention one application. To release an i7 with only 8 threads incur in the risk to give birth to a stillborn product, something the i5 has experienced for sor some time as a walking dead chip.

--


----------



## white owl

DaRK^^ said:


> Sorry, but that sounds like some Intel boardroom marketing spin crap.


 In what way? If all you do is check your e-mail and facebook why would you need that many cores?
Your typical PC/Laptop user really doesn't need 8 cores but for those of us that do it's great to have the option.
More threads isn't better if you aren't going to use them.


I'm also after the 8c/8t assuming it's your typical i7 price.


----------



## Contiusa

white owl said:


> In what way? If all you do is check your e-mail and facebook why would you need that many cores?.


In this case you get an i3. Is that simple. You are comparing apple and oranges here.


----------



## white owl

Contiusa said:


> In this case you get an i3. Is that simple. You are comparing apple and oranges here.


So not everyone needs 16t is what you're saying?
I don't need 8c/16t so I'll get the other one, there's no reason not to make an 8c/8t chip just because some people don't like that an i7 won't have HT.



Different CPUs for different people, what a concept!


----------



## Threx

Apparently the roadmap has been updated again, release date back to Q3/4 2018.

https://hk.xfastest.com/11058/intel-new-raodmap-2018-2019-i9-9900k-i7-9700k/


----------



## m4fox90

Threx said:


> Apparently the roadmap has been updated again, release date back to Q3/4 2018.
> 
> https://hk.xfastest.com/11058/intel-new-raodmap-2018-2019-i9-9900k-i7-9700k/


Real-time corporate panic is pretty funny


----------



## Contiusa

white owl said:


> So not everyone needs 16t is what you're saying?



You are making no sense dude. If you don't need that many threads you get an i3. But IF YOU ARE GETTING AN I7, OR AT LEAST WHAT WE ASSUME AN I7 SHOUD BE, you sure need threads.

Unless you are saying that they are demoting the i7 to an i5 level, price included. But to say that the i7 doesn't need threads because some people buy a computer to watch YouTube videos is the most bizarre thing I ever read about computers. That's why they release Celerons, Pentiums, i3s, i5s, i7s and so on. Everyone buy what they need.

That's not that hard to understand. And they are priced accordingly. 

--


----------



## m4fox90

white owl said:


> So not everyone needs 16t is what you're saying?
> I don't need 8c/16t so I'll get the other one, there's no reason not to make an 8c/8t chip just because some people don't like that an i7 won't have HT.
> 
> 
> 
> Different CPUs for different people, what a concept!


All of my personal computers are HT (R5 1600X, i7 3770K, and i7 8750H) and the difference between using them and using i5s and i3s for work is staggering and often extremely frustrating. Extra threads might not make in difference in some games, but in daily nonsense, productivity, browsing, videos, etc they can make a HUGE difference in usability.


----------



## Hulio225

white owl said:


> In what way? If all you do is check your e-mail and facebook why would you need that many cores?





Contiusa said:


> *In this case you get an i3*. Is that simple. You are comparing apple and oranges here.





Contiusa;27557708[B said:


> ]There are a lot of gamers needing extra threads to game and stream[/B], just to mention one application.
> 
> --





Contiusa said:


> *If you don't need that many threads you get an i3*. But IF YOU ARE GETTING AN I7, OR AT LEAST WHAT WE ASSUME AN I7 SHOUD BE, you sure need threads.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's not that hard to understand. And they are priced accordingly.
> 
> --


Don't get me wrong here, don't want to offend you...

But to say it in your own words:* In that case get an i9 9900k, its that simple!*

I mean you know what these processors are capable of, what they can and what not, what is the fuss about names? A power user is educated and knows what he is buying, the average Joe won't notice a difference between 8c8t or 8c16t at the performance levels of todays CPUs in the first place.

To be upset about a marketing stunt, which obviously has been made to outmatch AMDs naming scheme in numbers, is hard to understand for me.

The price-tag of 450ish $ for the i9 is okay, considering the rumors are true and these CPUs will be soldered. It saves me time delidding, cleaning and using Liquid Metal on them and i keep my sweet warranty.
To me it is worth paying couple bucks more for that.
If all Intel CPUs should be soldered in the first place is another story, but you knew/know what you are buying and the advertised speeds where always achievable without delidding.

And don't forget no one is forcing you to buy Intel products.


----------



## DaRK^^

Hulio225 said:


> Don't get me wrong here, don't want to offend you...
> 
> But to say it in your own words:* In that case get an i9 9900k, its that simple!*
> 
> I mean you know what these processors are capable of, what they can and what not, what is the fuss about names? A power user is educated and knows what he is buying, the average Joe won't notice a difference between 8c8t or 8c16t at the performance levels of todays CPUs in the first place.
> 
> To be upset about a marketing stunt, which obviously has been made to outmatch AMDs naming scheme in numbers, is hard to understand for me.
> 
> The price-tag of 450ish $ for the i9 is okay, considering the rumors are true and these CPUs will be soldered. It saves me time delidding, cleaning and using Liquid Metal on them and i keep my sweet warranty.
> To me it is worth paying couple bucks more for that.
> If all Intel CPUs should be soldered in the first place is another story, but you knew/know what you are buying and the advertised speeds where always achievable without delidding.
> 
> And don't forget no one is forcing you to buy Intel products.



The average Joe couldn't tell the difference between an i3 and an i9, that's why he isn't spending $350 - $450 on a processor. 


A couple of more bucks??? LOL? Intel is really all of a sudden going to charge a $100 premium for two features that have been done before? Intel knows no bounds...


I have no loyalty to either brand, but Intel is making it really easy to hate them. I just hope we're all wrong and the i9 will be at the i7 price.


----------



## Hulio225

DaRK^^ said:


> The average Joe couldn't tell the difference between an i3 and an i9, that's why he isn't spending $350 - $450 on a processor.


Exactly, that's why I don't get the fuss about names and i7 now not having HT, i7 is now i9, that's it basically.




DaRK^^ said:


> A couple of more bucks??? LOL? Intel is really all of a sudden going to charge a $100 premium for two features that have been done before? Intel knows no bounds...


Yeah and 33% more Cores. It will outmatch AMD until Zen 2 performance wise in every scenario, better AVX performance, far better performance in certain programs like premiere and so on.
Intel would be dumb to not charge a premium for that. Its like all companies work, they have to make as much money as they can.
AMDs pricing is so aggressive compared to Intels because they have to prove them again and it is easier when they can be cheaper and more people are considering them.
If AMD would have been the leading force the past decade or longer they would do the same, its business...


But sure, i would happily pay less for a CPU. But seeing it from the perspective I mentioned it is kinda a fair price at this given time, for me at least.
I have no problem if you disagree, its just my opinion.



DaRK^^ said:


> I have no loyalty to either brand, but Intel is making it really easy to hate them. I just hope we're all wrong and the i9 will be at the i7 price.


I have no loyalty to a brand either, its plain stupid... I just want the best product for my needs...


----------



## white owl

Hulio225 said:


> Don't get me wrong here, don't want to offend you...
> 
> But to say it in your own words:* In that case get an i9 9900k, its that simple!*
> 
> I mean you know what these processors are capable of, what they can and what not, what is the fuss about names? A power user is educated and knows what he is buying, the average Joe won't notice a difference between 8c8t or 8c16t at the performance levels of todays CPUs in the first place.
> 
> To be upset about a marketing stunt, which obviously has been made to outmatch AMDs naming scheme in numbers, is hard to understand for me.
> 
> The price-tag of 450ish $ for the i9 is okay, considering the rumors are true and these CPUs will be soldered. It saves me time delidding, cleaning and using Liquid Metal on them and i keep my sweet warranty.
> To me it is worth paying couple bucks more for that.
> If all Intel CPUs should be soldered in the first place is another story, but you knew/know what you are buying and the advertised speeds where always achievable without delidding.
> 
> And don't forget no one is forcing you to buy Intel products.


This is my point.
People keep assuming pricing and fussing about the name and honestly why does any of it matter if you can get a new i7 for the same price of the old i7 that performs better? Intel might be crooked but they aren't stupid enough to release a slower CPU than the one it replaces.
$50 isn't that bad when you consider people paid that for binned 8700ks. This time you're getting a soldered CPU and 8 cores on mainstream with the option of getting 16t, 8t or an 8700k lol. No one is taking that away from you. I find it odd that the new i5 isn't the old i7 but oh well.


----------



## Contiusa

Hulio225 said:


> Don't get me wrong here, don't want to offend you... But to say it in your own words: In that case get an i9 9900k, its that simple!.


Thank you, you just proved my point. Intel is killing the i7. Or did you forget the price brackets?


----------



## tpi2007

Nah, the i7-9700K will sell like hotcakes to gamers, it will be 8 real cores that can clock up to and beyond 5 Ghz, will have a soldered IHS, at the 8700K's price point. And the i9 will sell well too because there will be nothing like it: Zen+ is slower and Skylake-X is on a more expensive platform, the mesh bus design and cache hierarchy makes them slower for gaming, they don't clock as well and use thermal paste. They will make every last cent of profit, announce to the world just before Zen 2 is released how their margins have never been better, and then Zen 2 is released and they are going to be left behind if AMD's words on Zen 2 having been designed to compete favourably with Ice Lake are anything to go by, so they need to push the envelope... but not too much.

They are doing a balancing act. They can't be seen to be moving too fast in response to AMD's products, otherwise it's not only the investors but also the regular consumer that will see that something is up, after all why would the company in the lead be hurrying up? And so we arrive at the current situation. They command mindshare and, with the i9, a general performance advantage, so why would they sell an 8C/16T CPU for $350? Of course that would put AMD in a worse spot, but Intel's margins don't work like that. If an 8C/8T CPU for $350 does the trick, that's what they are going to do, and it'll be seen as a good while mild improvement over the previous i7 (the not moving too fast part). 

And thus the i7 moniker becomes not a synonym of Hyperthreading but of price point (they've been fiddling with that lately, Pentiums with HT and i3's without but with two extra cores). That explains the introduction of the i9 moniker, to justify the performance and price premium and keep it a step above AMD. Intel can always say that it's them bringing back a bit of the premium HEDT CPUs into the mainstream platform, like in the Core 2 Duo days, where there was no HEDT platform, only better chipsets. And if they have the performance advantage for now, they are going to charge for it down to every last cent.

They are playing their cards right. Their real problem will be next year with their ever delayed 10nm process, AMD's Zen 2, not to mention the Meltdown and Spectre hardware mitigations that they need to implement. This year Intel will still have the upper hand and they will play it all day long because they are going to maximize their profits to better cushion for what's to come next year on the consumer and enterprise segments on AMD's side.

Personally, I'm observing this from a distance because I'm on the X79 platform with hexacore and octacore Xeon options to install and in no hurry. And even if I was, I wouldn't buy an Intel CPU without hardware mitigations for Meltdown and Spectre, for that I might as well stay with what I have anyway or go AMD, so it's Ice Lake and its successors that I'm looking at on their side. On AMD's side, I'm looking forward to Zen 2. The current Zen+ looks nice as a spit polish of the original release, but it's not enough to determine a purchase at this point either.


----------



## Questors

It's established features per where it fits in the product stack. Having put HT in the i7 for years and iteration after iteration, buyers will expect it. It is a feature of that part of the stack. 

It's also about price. The i7 has been the *premium* mainstream part for longer than some users have been alive. The i9 has been the insanely expensive "gotta have it for bragging rights" part (or maybe the user actually needs that many cores and power).

A similar example is the eco-boost engine set up from Ford. Focusing on the upper mainstream part, (akin to the i7) they are twin turbocharged V6 engines in America. They have a certain hp, torque and fuel economy rating associated with them. It's what buyers have come to expect. 

The turbocharging here can represent the HT. Fuel economy represents power consumption. You need extra power on command, you step on the throttle and the turbos spin up giving instant power to overcome the task at hand. Now let's say Ford decides to add two cylinders, making a V8, but they drop the turbo chargers completely and to keep fuel efficiency in check, they hamper the V8 power and torque (1970s style... Ugh! They were horrid!) . Because of the "dumbing down" of the engine, they still call it an Eco-Boost engine {(this time meaning more fuel efficient V8 relative to past V8s = boosted green world friendly) Marketing knows no bounds of treachery!} 

These changes put the V8 in the non-turbocharged high end V6 range, with slightly more power than normal V6. Yet the price stays in the more powerful, higher torque range of the twin-turbos that are no longer there and we have a physically larger and heavier part (upcoming i7 without HT) . Yes, but grandma doesn't need all that power when she only goes to get groceries. 

Now on the way to the store there is a heavy downpour. Grandma has to avoid a self-driving Prius because the downpour fuxxored the sensors and now grandma is stuck in the mud. Try as she might, that horsepower on tap to get out of the muddy slope of the road shoulder isn't there anymore. If she still had the product she expected to be there, she could throttle down and forge ahead to come up out of the mud, up the slope, catch up to the Prius and flip em the bird. But no. Her Hyper-Threading is gone and she has to call tech support to find she was misled with the product.

Tech support tells her there is good news though (From Ford's perspective of course)! She can trade for a V10 with turbocharging for three times the cost of the her entire automobile with the now gimped V8. Grandma is now turning into what may possibly be the start of the zombie apocalypse. 

It's about what a product is supposed to bring at a particular level in a product stack with consideration to the pricing for each product in a stack. No HT in the i7 is panic move by Intel and it was done because they can't do a die shrink. Intel also feels they can get away with it. They have more market share. It's a scramble to attract buyers to a mature process while taking something away what the consumer has come to expect due to Intel's inability to complete a newer processes.

I am not saying this CPU won't be good. I am not saying this CPU won't attract buyers. I am saying it does take away from what has become expected for the i7 level of the product stack.


----------



## sargatanas

Now latest rumors show that core i9 8 cores will be slipping to q4 with an october release:
https://wccftech.com/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-core-x-refresh-cpu-family-october-launch/

Just way too long of a wait, they should released it already this month. Amd can simply counter it by lower ryzen 2 price since they'll be old enough by that time, release a higher clock 2800x, or match it with their 16 core threadripper 2 in price point or do all of that!


----------



## epic1337

Contiusa said:


> There are a lot of gamers needing extra threads to game and stream, just to mention one application. To release an i7 with only 8 threads incur in the risk to give birth to a stillborn product, something the i5 has experienced for sor some time as a walking dead chip.
> 
> --


not quite, not all games _requires_ massive number of threads, and the chip's worth entirely depends on the price point.
plus 4C/4T and 4C/8T chips aren't dead yet or otherwise releasing Ryzen APUs at this point in time would make _zero_ sense as they're "walking dead chips".

as for naming schemes, have names ever been relevant to a chip's performance?
for all i care they could make a 2C/4T i7 chip and price it at $400... oh wait they did.


edit: this reminds me, theres still the "HT-off vs HT-on" debate, and from what i recall amongst the gamers the HT-off is more favorable.


----------



## DarthBaggins

Not alot of people actually need the 8c/16t, but some like myself they do help with large projects within Adobe CC programs, Sketch-Up/ Solid Works, etc. It would be nice to have a more affordable option in the mainstream from the blue team. I would go with AMD but I don't feel like sacrificing performance when it comes to my Adobe Suite, but again your average user is not using the hardware for professional purposes and if they are they don't really need that much (in areas other than the graphic/visual based professionals)

The delay might be due to their pushing towards 10nm, which last I remember and have heard they were having trouble reliably doing this in large batches.


----------



## doom26464

Game streamers have been flocking to AMD and its a big growing market that intel been ignoring. 

An 8c/16t will allow them to re enter with a bang into that market. 


Really they should be handing reviewers these chips by end of month no latter. pushing it too oct only pushes it closer to zen2 as well as black friday which AMD probaly will put 2000 series on sale and sell droves of chips by then.


----------



## Ksireaper

doom26464 said:


> Game streamers have been flocking to AMD and its a big growing market that intel been ignoring.
> 
> An 8c/16t will allow them to re enter with a bang into that market.
> 
> 
> Really they should be handing reviewers these chips by end of month no latter. pushing it too oct only pushes it closer to zen2 as well as black friday which AMD probaly will put 2000 series on sale and sell droves of chips by then.


If the price is competitive. I think that is the great thing about the 2700x. Great price point for a great workhorse. I do some streaming, not a ton and i am thinking about jumping on that 2700x myself.


----------



## Crinn

m4fox90 said:


> All of those things are the way they are because Intel held the market at a stranglehold for nearly a decade with 4/8 chips, and now that we're seeing that stranglehold break, people try and say use points like lack of threading as some sort of cudgel *against* more cores.
> 
> The only way to get things written for threads is to have the guys who dominate the market finally push more threads, because as we've seen, AMD doing it isn't enough.


That's not how it works. You can't just take any workload and multithread it. Some things can be multithreaded very well (such as video encoding) most things however cannot be fully multithreaded. 

Games engines for example are primarily logic, and that logic must be done in a specific order which means there is no advantage to multithreading. Now some aspects of the game engine such as portions of the graphics pipeline can be multithreaded, but pretty much every game made in the last 5 years already multithreads that.

I'm getting really tired of how often "multithreading" gets thrown around like it's some sort of miracle solution to everything.


----------



## Contiusa

tpi2007 said:


> Nah, the i7-9700K will sell like hotcakes to gamers, it will be 8 real cores that can clock up to and beyond 5 Ghz, will have a soldered IHS, at the 8700K's price point.



I rather have an i7-9700K with 6 cores and 12 threads and soldered IHS. They might not be doing it because ideally they had to do two dies, one with six cores and another with eight. The six core i7 with soldered IHS would be a beast in OC.

I think the 8/8 is just a glorified i7-7700K, which should have been turned into an i3 by now. Cores don't seem to scale that well like before. In my mind they are indeed downgrading the i7 and not everyone will have the money to buy i9s.

--


----------



## doom26464

Contiusa said:


> tpi2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, the i7-9700K will sell like hotcakes to gamers, it will be 8 real cores that can clock up to and beyond 5 Ghz, will have a soldered IHS, at the 8700K's price point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rather have an i7-9700K with 6 cores and 12 threads and soldered IHS. They might not be doing it because ideally they had to do two dies, one with six cores and another with eight. The six core i7 with soldered IHS would be a beast in OC.
> 
> I think the 8/8 is just a glorified i7-7700K, which should have been turned into an i3 by now. Cores don't seem to scale that well like before. In my mind they are indeed downgrading the i7 and not everyone will have the money to buy i9s.
> 
> --
Click to expand...

comparing 8 physical cores to a glorfied 7700k is just wrong. 


I think once benchmarks hit you will be pleasently suprised. I rather 8 physical cores vrs 6 hyper threaded ones.


----------



## epic1337

doom26464 said:


> I think once benchmarks hit you will be pleasently suprised. I rather 8 physical cores vrs 6 hyper threaded ones.


i second this, i'd be expecting Intel's 8C/8T chip to outperform AMD's 6C/12T chips due to two reasons.
one is Intel's cores are monolithic, it does not have inter-CCX latency penalty, the other is it can clock way higher.


----------



## Contiusa

doom26464 said:


> comparing 8 physical cores to a glorfied 7700k is just wrong.
> 
> I think once benchmarks hit you will be pleasently suprised. I rather 8 physical cores vrs 6 hyper threaded ones.



The i5-8600K did not fare that well against the i7-7700K like everyone expected. It stood in the same range, sometimes below. The i7-7700K has a clock advantage, but still I think the extra cores did not scale accordingly like people imagined. From what I see, I much rather have 12 threads than 8 cores.

--


----------



## EniGma1987

I really hope we can see some good die shots of the new processors. See how the layout looks now, and also if they use 2 separate dies for the 8 and 6 cores or if the 6 is just an 8 with 2 cores cut out.


----------



## Hulio225

Contiusa said:


> The i5-8600K did not fare that well against the i7-7700K like everyone expected. It stood in the same range, sometimes below. The i7-7700K has a clock advantage, but still I think the extra cores did not scale accordingly like people imagined. From what I see, I much rather have 12 threads than 8 cores.
> 
> --


I checked some tests and the 8600k won all of them when both CPUs were at 5GHz.

I mean if we compare thread counts on CPUs with different physical core counts, they have to have the same speed, everything else would make little sense.

I think here is not a single chart where the 7700k at the same overclock pulls ahead:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400/page-2

Especially when you want to compare stock settings, the upcoming 9700k has 4.6 GHz 8 core turbo vs 8700k 6 core turbo at 4.3 GHz. It makes the 9700k far better for the same price.


----------



## white owl

Contiusa said:


> doom26464 said:
> 
> 
> 
> comparing 8 physical cores to a glorfied 7700k is just wrong.
> 
> I think once benchmarks hit you will be pleasently suprised. I rather 8 physical cores vrs 6 hyper threaded ones.
> 
> 
> 
> The i5-8600K did not fare that well against the i7-7700K like everyone expected. It stood in the same range, sometimes below. The i7-7700K has a clock advantage, but still I think the extra cores did not scale accordingly like people imagined. From what I see, I much rather have 12 threads than 8 cores.
> 
> --
Click to expand...

They gimped the clock speed for that reason and you're only talking about 1% differences. At the same clock speeds the 8600k wins in most things.


----------



## Contiusa

white owl said:


> They gimped the clock speed for that reason and you're only talking about 1% differences. At the same clock speeds the 8600k wins in most things.



Not all people overclock the CPU and even at the same clocks the difference is of a meek 4% in games (all the tests at 5Ghz combined). 

On Blender (same review), clock per clock the difference if of 7% (both tests at 5Ghz combined).
On 3DMark FireStrike (same review), clock per clock they are tied, the i7-7700K 0,1% ahead (yes, ahead!).

So much for all the talk that core is king. On Ashes of the Singularity the difference does not account for 1 frame.

Then I don't expect much from an i7-9700K 8/8.

--


----------



## white owl

So 6 real cores at the same clock of the same arch is equal to or more than 4c 8t? Is that what you're saying? 
Users chosing to OC or not isn't relevant when the whole debate is wether or not 8c is a worthy successor to 6c 12t...that 4 to 5% is Intel's usual tock improvement isn't it? And you were talking about actual in game performance not just benchmarks so that's pretty real world especially considering the GPU can periodically be a bottleneck.


----------



## Contiusa

white owl said:


> So 6 real cores at the same clock of the same arch is equal to or more than 4c 8t? Is that what you're saying?
> Users chosing to OC or not isn't relevant when the whole debate is wether or not 8c is a worthy successor to 6c 12t...that 4 to 5% is Intel's usual tock improvement isn't it? And you were talking about actual in game performance not just benchmarks so that's pretty real world especially considering the GPU can periodically be a bottleneck.



What I'm saying is that by the results (on the aggregated result, the i5-8600K is just 3,6% ahead of the i7-7700K both at 5Ghz) shows that for some reason the two extra cores of the i5-8600K did not scaled as expected and did not pull ahead of the i7-7700K at all. It is basically a tie.

Why? I have no idea. I imagine that the marked was so forced to work with HT for so many years in the mainstream market that they really got good at it. I imagine that in some instances, like heavy multithreading use like stream and such, the i7-8700K would be a better option than the i7-9700K.

But we'll see. Perhaps 8 threads is what it takes and above that it won't make much a difference. So the i7-9700K might fare better than the i5-8600K against the previous generation. 

But I would not bet my money on it.

--


----------



## Kokin

It honestly depends on how each program uses the cores/threads. Most programs and games only use a limited number at this time, so it's typical to see parallel performance between a 4c/8t and 6c/6t as both are likely using 4 or less cores to compute. It's unwise to say one is better than the other because everyone uses their computers differently for various types of workloads. This goes back to Crinn's point about multithreading, you can't just expect programs to use up more cores/threads if the software itself isn't designed for parallel workloads.


----------



## Contiusa

Kokin said:


> It honestly depends on how each program uses the cores/threads. Most programs and games only use a limited number at this time, so it's typical to see parallel performance between a 4c/8t and 6c/6t as both are likely using 4 or less cores to compute. It's unwise to say one is better than the other because everyone uses their computers differently for various types of workloads. This goes back to Crinn's point about multithreading, you can't just expect programs to use up more cores/threads if the software itself isn't designed for parallel workloads.



But then we are basically discussing two very similar CPUs, and if you are gaming and streaming for example, it can be taxying on the threads.

If I had to choose in advance if I would like to see an i7 with 8/8 or 6/12, with the information we have I would have to go with 6/12. They might not be doing it because they would have to make two different dies (ideally) to don't seel i7s with disable cores.

Or they just imagine that people love to hear about core counts, so for 99,9% of the customers people will buy an 8/8 CPU thinking that they are clearly ahead of a six core CPU. Heck, regular people in shops bought FX octacore for years with this mentality of core count.

Or they will cap at 8 threads in benches and games and the i7-9700K will be clearly ahead of the i7-8700K. But I don't think so.

--


----------



## Falkentyne

Contiusa said:


> There are a lot of gamers needing extra threads to game and stream, just to mention one application. To release an i7 with only 8 threads incur in the risk to give birth to a stillborn product, something the i5 has experienced for sor some time as a walking dead chip.
> 
> --


Let's stop having the tail wag the dog, please.
I'm happy Intel is doing this. No one out there is saying a 7700K is dog slow and a worthless CPU, is there? No they aren't.
And a 9700K with 8 REAL cores (moar corez) is going to trade blows heavily with a i7 8086K, with both clocked at 5 ghz (less cores more threads. Remember a core is more valuable than a hyperthreaded thread).

All intel has to do is to price it to sell. The problem is how are they going to price it?

If they price an i9 9900K at $500 and an i7 9700K at $250, that's a MASSIVE win win for everyone. People on a budget will buy the 9700K and power gamers will buy the 9900K, and $250 for a nice 8 core CPU is going to be VERY attractive for those who don't want to be homeless.

I don't think anyone would complain about this pricing.
The problem is Intel undercutting their own product lines. And you know how angry those who fell for the 8086K scamwagon are going to be....


----------



## AlphaC

https://www.hardocp.com/news/2018/0...ies_compatibility_chart_for_z370_motherboards


Apparently Z370 will support Intel 9000 series CPUs.


There's also a MSI Z370 OC Gaming which I could only find on the Chinese site. https://cn.msi.com/Motherboard/Z370-OC-GAMING.html
Looks pretty weak to be honest.


----------



## tpi2007

Contiusa said:


> I rather have an i7-9700K with 6 cores and 12 threads and soldered IHS. They might not be doing it because ideally they had to do two dies, one with six cores and another with eight. The six core i7 with soldered IHS would be a beast in OC.
> 
> I think the 8/8 is just a glorified i7-7700K, which should have been turned into an i3 by now. Cores don't seem to scale that well like before. In my mind they are indeed downgrading the i7 and not everyone will have the money to buy i9s.
> 
> --



You don't know what you'd rather have until you see the performance results, that's what matters. In your mind they are downgrading the i7, but it's the performance that will or won't validate that. 

I will say it right now, if the i7-9700K performs worse out of the box compared to the i7-8700K, then Intel was stupid. But I sincerely doubt that they did that and from the rumours about higher stock clocks, I think they know what they are doing.




Contiusa said:


> The i5-8600K did not fare that well against the i7-7700K like everyone expected. It stood in the same range, sometimes below. The i7-7700K has a clock advantage, but still I think the extra cores did not scale accordingly like people imagined. From what I see, I much rather have 12 threads than 8 cores.
> 
> --



From what I'm seeing from the TechPowerUp review, the 8600K is just between under 1% and up to 2.7% behind the 7700K at stock and I'm not at all surprised by that. You see, there are two things to consider: first, the 8600K was launched in the same year as the 7700K, so the least that Intel could do to try to mitigate buyers' remorse of a dead Z270 platform is to configure the stock clocks on the i5-8600K so that the i7-7700K barely wins, and that's exactly what they did. The 8600K wins against the older, but otherwise identical in IPC, Skylake i7-6700K, which just so happens to be clocked lower out of the box.

And then of course there's the fact that the 8600K is an i5 and the 7700K an i7, which validates what Intel did regarding stock clocks and stock performance.

The 9700K will be a different case because it's still an i7 _and _the rumours so far say that it will be clocked higher than the 8700K and cost around the same, so I don't think that it will perform worse under any circumstance. It better not, because that would be a basic mistake to make and, again, I don't think that Intel is that stupid.


----------



## white owl

I love how "gaming" is a by word for weak VRM lol


----------



## epic1337

Contiusa said:


> Not all people overclock the CPU and even at the same clocks the difference is of a meek 4% in games (all the tests at 5Ghz combined).


uhh, that just makes the 9700K a superior choice, its boost clock is 4.6Ghz on _all cores_ out of the box (compared to 4.3Ghz on 8700K).
hence theres no need to OC nor is there a need to "tweak" as its already clocked high on stock settings.


----------



## blackhole2013

Looks like it might be time to part with my good ole 6700k thats done me good for about three years ...


----------



## pm1109

blackhole2013 said:


> Looks like it might be time to part with my good ole 6700k thats done me good for about three years ...


And my 3770k which has served me well for over 6 years


----------



## Hulio225

Contiusa said:


> But then we are basically discussing two very similar CPUs, and if you are gaming and streaming for example, it can be taxying on the threads.
> 
> 
> --


It is taxing!

But more hyper-threaded cores aren't real ones.

You can check that by yourself, Cinebench is very well optimized for threads and the core and thread scaling is very very close to a linear scaling. A coffee lake at 5 GHz / 4.8 GHz Cache has around 220 Points per physical core, a logical core (a hyper-threaded one) has around 64 points, which equals 29,1% in performance compared to a physical core. This is basically the maximum you will get from a logical one, Cinebench (Cinema 4D) is very good at that.

So 8 physical cores can reach almost 8 * 220 points = 1760 (i say almost because it is not 100% linear scaling but pretty close)

A 8700k with 6C and 12t will reach: 6 * 220 + 6 * 64 = 1704 (its a bit less in reality since not 100% linear scaling like mentioned)

Here a actual Screenshot of my 8700k @ 5GHz | Score: 1691, which is close enough to my calculations:


Spoiler














Here another Screenshot of my 8700k with HT turned off | Score: 1305 | 386 points difference divided by 6 = 64,33 points per logical core:


Spoiler















So as you can see it is close but the 8 Core with 8 physical Cores still beats the 6c12t one at the same speed in a very well optimized multi-threaded scenario.

This simply proves that you can juggle around with these points to get approximately correct performance numbers for different core counts and thread counts.

Now lets see what happens if we take the stock clocks of the 8700k (4.3 GHz all core) and the 9700k (4.6 GHz all core), (Cache on both at 3.4 GHz):


Spoiler















As you can see its 200 vs 187 points, now lets calculate again:

8700k @ 4.3GHz: 

*187 * 1,29* (added HT Performance) *= 241 | 241 * 6* (Core count) *= 1446*
Real world run | Score: 1441:


Spoiler














Proves again, we can juggle around with these numbers.

Now 9700k @ 4.6 GHz:

*200 * 8 = 1600*

*1600 / 1441 = 1,11*

This should be pretty damn accurate what you can expect in heavy multi-threaded workloads.

So the 9700k is basically 11% faster than the 8700k at stock speeds!!


----------



## guttheslayer

Hulio225 said:


> This should be pretty damn accurate what you can expect in heavy multi-threaded workloads.
> 
> So the 9700k is basically 11% faster than the 8700k at stock speeds!!



I think u miss out the 0.5 MB less cache per core. It might end up cancelled out.


----------



## tpi2007

guttheslayer said:


> I think u miss out the 0.5 MB less cache per core. It might end up cancelled out.



It might a bit, but not entirely, because HT uses resources that are freed by its absence. And then each core has its own 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, with the 9700K having two more cores.

Intel's ideal on the mainstream platform is a virtual slice of 2 MB of L3 cache per HT enabled core and 1.5 MB per non-HT enabled core, so looking at the specs of both 8700K and 9700K, it adds up.

Then, on another note, if the rumours are correct, the all core boost clocks on the 9700K will be 300 Mhz higher out of the box compared to the 8700K, so any performance deficit will not only be compensated by that, but we'll see a performance increase. Then some software might be better optimized to take advantage of 8 threads instead of 12, where it takes more effort to spread the load across more threads and HT doesn't always give consistent results because it's a virtual core that gets work done when it can, so that will count in favour of the 9700K.

I'd say that the 9700K will give more consistent results over the 8700K and be about equal clock for clock. At most there will be a 1-2% penalty for the less L3 cache per core, but the 9700K might also overclock better, especially since it will be soldered and there might be some improvements in the manufacturing process and thus any deficit, even at the high-end overclocks, may also be compensated and surpassed. Also, even though there will be two more cores, there will be less heat density per core with HT disabled, so even if the manufacturing process doesn't have any improvements, it might overclock better on that account alone.

If Nvidia's Pascal is anything to go by, it's not a problem. The Pascal cores are actually a little slower clock for clock compared to Maxwell, but it's such a small amount and the clocks on Pascal are so much higher that the end result means higher performance and the market said that that is perfectly ok.


----------



## Falkentyne

tpi2007 said:


> It might a bit, but not entirely, because HT uses resources that are freed by its absence. And then each core has its own 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, with the 9700K having two more cores.
> 
> Intel's ideal on the mainstream platform is a virtual slice of 2 MB of L3 cache per HT enabled core and 1.5 MB per non-HT enabled core, so looking at the specs of both 8700K and 9700K, it adds up.
> 
> Then, on another note, if the rumours are correct, the all core boost clocks on the 9700K will be 300 Mhz higher out of the box compared to the 8700K, so any performance deficit will not only be compensated by that, but we'll see a performance increase. Then some software might be better optimized to take advantage of 8 threads instead of 12, where it takes more effort to spread the load across more threads and HT doesn't always give consistent results because it's a virtual core that gets work done when it can, so that will count in favour of the 9700K.
> 
> I'd say that the 9700K will give more consistent results over the 8700K and be about equal clock for clock. At most there will be a 1-2% penalty for the less L3 cache per core, but the 9700K might also overclock better, especially since it will be soldered and there might be some improvements in the manufacturing process and thus any deficit, even at the high-end overclocks, may also be compensated and surpassed. Also, even though there will be two more cores, there will be less heat density per core with HT disabled, so even if the manufacturing process doesn't have any improvements, it might overclock better on that account alone.
> 
> If Nvidia's Pascal is anything to go by, it's not a problem. The Pascal cores are actually a little slower clock for clock compared to Maxwell, but it's such a small amount and the clocks on Pascal are so much higher that the end result means higher performance and the market said that that is perfectly ok.


Finally someone agrees with me.
The 9700K soldered will be a GREAT choice if it's priced right. 65% of the price of a 9900K would hit the spot quite well.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Falkentyne said:


> Finally someone agrees with me.
> The 9700K soldered will be a GREAT choice if it's priced right. 65% of the price of a 9900K would hit the spot quite well.


They'll be the new 2500K and 2600K, judging by the clocks and current IPC. I have a feeling we're going to be seeing quite a few 5.5 GHz 9700K's.


----------



## catbuster

Why is 9600k not soldered?  All i need is fast cores...


----------



## pm1109

So is it confirmed that the 9700k and 9900k will be soldered? If that’s the case I will finally retire my 3770k for good.The only thing that will hold me back than is the damn high DDR4 prices


----------



## Nizzen

pm1109 said:


> So is it confirmed that the 9700k and 9900k will be soldered? If that’s the case I will finally retire my 3770k for good.The only thing that will hold me back than is the damn high DDR4 prices


It'not THAT high? High end memory never was cheap. You want 4000c17- 4400c19 for 9900k. 16 GB is enough for most scenarios.


----------



## m4fox90

ToTheSun! said:


> They'll be the new 2500K and 2600K, judging by the clocks and current IPC. I have a feeling we're going to be seeing quite a few 5.5 GHz 9700K's.


Where is this 5.5 GHz thing coming from? There's not a process shrink, it's just soldered *and* there's more cores. Given how Coffee Lake has performed, even just keeping 5 at reasonable voltage within the same TDP envelope seems iffy. Where are they going to pull another half a gig from?


----------



## ToTheSun!

m4fox90 said:


> Where is this 5.5 GHz thing coming from? There's not a process shrink, it's just soldered *and* there's more cores. Given how Coffee Lake has performed, even just keeping 5 at reasonable voltage within the same TDP envelope seems iffy. Where are they going to pull another half a gig from?


Just speculation. If they're shipping them with 5 GHz turbo stock, it means there's some headroom in terms of frequency and temperature for stability, possibly a product of a few manufacturing refinements.

The alternative is they're EXACTLY the same as 8700K's with a pair of cores attached, but binned to an extreme extent.

"I have a feeling" just means I believe the first scenario to be more plausible than the second. "A few" means I'm talking about the very top end of the spectrum.


----------



## guttheslayer

ToTheSun! said:


> Just speculation. If they're shipping them with 5 GHz turbo stock, it means there's some headroom in terms of frequency and temperature for stability, possibly a product of a few manufacturing refinements.
> 
> The alternative is they're EXACTLY the same as 8700K's with a pair of cores attached, but binned to an extreme extent.
> 
> "I have a feeling" just means I believe the first scenario to be more plausible than the second. "A few" means I'm talking about the very top end of the spectrum.


Well, solder itself help alot in the boost speed.


----------



## scracy

m4fox90 said:


> Where is this 5.5 GHz thing coming from? There's not a process shrink, it's just soldered *and* there's more cores. Given how Coffee Lake has performed, even just keeping 5 at reasonable voltage within the same TDP envelope seems iffy. Where are they going to pull another half a gig from?


There have been rumours floating around that the new 6C/6T coffee lake CPU's have been hitting 5.5Ghz not to be confused with the 9900K.
https://www.pcbuildersclub.com/2018...st-verloetete-prozessoren-vor-und-achtkerner/


----------



## Raghar

ToTheSun! said:


> Just speculation. If they're shipping them with 5 GHz turbo stock, it means there's some headroom in terms of frequency and temperature for stability, possibly a product of a few manufacturing refinements.
> 
> The alternative is they're EXACTLY the same as 8700K's with a pair of cores attached, but binned to an extreme extent.
> 
> "I have a feeling" just means I believe the first scenario to be more plausible than the second. "A few" means I'm talking about the very top end of the spectrum.


When they are shipping them with 5 GHz Turbo, they are expecting to run one core at Turbo speed. Overclocking is running all cores at 4.9 GHz speeds.

Yea. They ran all cores at turbo speed of single core. They overclocked 8 core so hard.


A 8700K with two core attached and clocked 0.2 GHz less is perfectly plausible. (Actually one core Turbo would likely be roughly the same, all core turbo 0.2 to 0.5 less.) Ryzen can't do 4.7 GHz, and it's less efficient per cycle, thus Intel has some advantage. When Intel not overprice theirs CPU, they would sell like hot potatoes. Of course there is question of next three generations. Even when AMD developers are not smartest, they would catch up, and then its about manufacturing capacities and marketing.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

waiting for the meltdowns lol
the 8700k get infernal delidded at 1.4v i dont imagine this one hahahhhaahh


----------



## Hulio225

zGunBLADEz said:


> waiting for the meltdowns lol
> the 8700k get infernal delidded at 1.4v i dont imagine this one hahahhhaahh


I don't feel like "its infernal" when delidded.










Even at peak voltages of over 1,5 V and prime stress testing i have my temps under control with a custom loop.

1.4 V is a piece of cake with a custom loop.

The 8 core has a bigger die so the surface area where the heat is dissipated is bigger, i don't think it will be significantly harder to cool to be honest.


----------



## ku4eto

Hulio225 said:


> I don't feel like "its infernal" when delidded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even at peak voltages of over 1,5 V and prime stress testing i have my temps under control with a custom loop.
> 
> 1.4 V is a piece of cake with a custom loop.
> 
> The 8 core has a bigger die so the surface area where the heat is dissipated is bigger, i don't think it will be significantly harder to cool to be honest.


The fact, that you have dropped enough money for another CPU in cooling and delidding should mean INFERNAL, when you are doing over 70*C.


----------



## EniGma1987

ku4eto said:


> The fact, that you have dropped enough money for another CPU in cooling and delidding should mean INFERNAL, when you are doing over 70*C.





How do you know he spent $400 on cooling and delid? Even without the latest CPUs most people here are spending around the $100-120 range on AIOs and such. You yourself spent the same percentage on cooling upgrades as he likely did. It is also possible to maintain the temps he has on a big AIO just fine.
And delid is free and easy. People only pay for it cause they think its cool and easier to pay, which its not.


70c is also not "infernal" as you call it. CPUs have been that temp for many, many years now. The only reason Piledriver says it is not running that high is because you are looking at a different temperature with PD than with core i.


----------



## Falkentyne

ku4eto said:


> The fact, that you have dropped enough money for another CPU in cooling and delidding should mean INFERNAL, when you are doing over 70*C.


I see someone with an ancient, anemic system, jealous of someone who has the money to buy top of the line. That's what I see here.


----------



## Contiusa

Yup, I would love to have an i7-8700K at 5.2Ghz barely over 70ºC while running Prime. These Coffee Lake chips are a beast.

--


----------



## ku4eto

EniGma1987 said:


> How do you know he spent $400 on cooling and delid? Even without the latest CPUs most people here are spending around the $100-120 range on AIOs and such. You yourself spent the same percentage on cooling upgrades as he likely did. It is also possible to maintain the temps he has on a big AIO just fine.
> And delid is free and easy. People only pay for it cause they think its cool and easier to pay, which its not.
> 
> 
> 70c is also not "infernal" as you call it. CPUs have been that temp for many, many years now. The only reason Piledriver says it is not running that high is because you are looking at a different temperature with PD than with core i.


When you are doing water cooling, 70*C aint exactly "normal". 



Falkentyne said:


> I see someone with an ancient, anemic system, jealous of someone who has the money to buy top of the line. That's what I see here.


So, are we flaunting how much money everyone has now? Not everyone is top level enthusiast, ready to drop 1k$ just for 1 or 2 components. 

Also, i havent updated my signature rig for a lot of time. I do have a R7 1700 sitting on the shelf, just because i am too lazy to get the mobo and install it. I did spend indeed a good percantage - 40% of the CPU price for cooling - 30$ for cooling, and 80$ for the FX-8320. I know that PD/BD are hot, no need to remind me of that.

Also, the system is still good enough to run modern games pretty well. It may be an old CPU, but it sure has enough power to get stuff done.


----------



## Contiusa

ku4eto said:


> When you are doing water cooling, 70*C aint exactly "normal".


From Running Prime at 5.2Ghz? Have you been living under a rock?

--


----------



## Kokin

ku4eto said:


> When you are doing water cooling, 70*C aint exactly "normal".


Even my delid 3570K running 4.7GHz at 1.264V will hit 70*C when using Prime95 with AVX instructions. I also run a custom loop with an EK Supremacy EVO RGB block, so it's as good as it gets in terms of cooling. Regular loads will be between 40-50*C, but a torture test easily surpasses what you would normally see.


----------



## Martin778

It's extremely unlikely the new SKU's will be soldered because even the anniversary special edition 8086K is not.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> It's extremely unlikely the new SKU's will be soldered because even the anniversary special edition 8086K is not.


We'll see 

If not, we'll delidding it


----------



## scracy

Martin778 said:


> It's extremely unlikely the new SKU's will be soldered because even the anniversary special edition 8086K is not.


A very well known German overclocker has hinted that the 9700K and 9900K are indeed soldered :thumb:


----------



## ToTheSun!

ku4eto said:


> Also, i havent updated my signature rig for a lot of time. I do have a R7 1700 sitting on the shelf, just because i am too lazy to get the mobo and install it.


Spending 100% of the CPU's price on cooling for it sounds like a better application of one's money than buying a new, albeit cheaper, CPU and putting it on a shelf without use.


----------



## Ithanul

scracy said:


> A very well known German overclocker has hinted that the 9700K and 9900K are indeed soldered :thumb:


I sure hope so. Keeping an eye out for these, as I want to fiddle with one most likely considering my 5960X died several months back.


----------



## Larky_the_mauler

Martin778 said:


> It's extremely unlikely the new SKU's will be soldered because even the anniversary special edition 8086K is not.


Not a great indicator as the 8086 is literally just a binned 8700k exact same silicone, a 9900k will at least be a new chip.


----------



## tpi2007

Larky_the_mauler said:


> Not a great indicator as the 8086 is literally just a binned 8700k exact same silicone, a 9900k will at least be a new chip.



Both the 9900K and 9700K, both using the same 8 core die, are supposed to be soldered. They will be physically larger dies, so on that count alone Intel can give the excuse that they can now feasibly do it because the die is now large enough. Of course they will have to zap everybody with a Men in Black type of device so that we all forget that a large core count, 14nm+, big die 18 core $2000 Skylake-X exists with thermal paste on it.

P.S.: It's silicon, not silicone. Silicone is another material.


----------



## guttheslayer

tpi2007 said:


> Both the 9900K and 9700K, both using the same 8 core die, are supposed to be soldered. They will be physically larger dies, so on that count alone Intel can give the excuse that they can now feasibly do it because the die is now large enough. Of course they will have to zap everybody with a Men in Black type of device so that we all forget that a large core count, 14nm+, big die 18 core $2000 Skylake-X exists with thermal paste on it.
> 
> P.S.: It's silicon, not silicone. Silicone is another material.


It is larger die if it comes with iGPU. Maybe they remove that nonsense part to give way for more processing power.


----------



## Max78

Threx said:


> Always pleasantly amused to see how a little competition can go a long way. We went from 4c/4t and 4c/8t being the top mainstream chips to 6c/6t and 6c/12t to 8c/8t and 8c/16t in under 12 months.







But, but, but, core count only matters for production! It useless everything else and gaming so we should all go back to quad core. . . . said far to many people when Zen released. . . .


----------



## Nizzen

Max78 said:


> But, but, but, core count only matters for production! It useless everything else and gaming so we should all go back to quad core. . . . said far to many people when Zen released. . . .


No one said quadcore


----------



## doom26464

Max78 said:


> Threx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always pleasantly amused to see how a little competition can go a long way. We went from 4c/4t and 4c/8t being the top mainstream chips to 6c/6t and 6c/12t to 8c/8t and 8c/16t in under 12 months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but, core count only matters for production! It useless everything else and gaming so we should all go back to quad core. . . . said far to many people when Zen released. . . .
Click to expand...

I mean it is kind of true though lol.


----------



## BeeDeeEff

Asrock confirms 8-core support

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1320...ds-their-support-to-intel-300series-platforms


----------



## Hulio225

ku4eto said:


> When you are doing water cooling, 70*C aint exactly "normal".



You do realize its 5200 MHz @ 1.5+ V, do you?

This was just for testing if it will run stable at these clockspeeds.

When i back down to 1.335 V and 5 GHz no AVX offset, i can turn off my rad fans completely and let it cool "passive" (zero noise, very nice with open back headphones) and the temps wouldn't surpass 70° C or maybe barely.

And take in mind these Chips start to thermal throttle at 100° C so there is a lot headroom.

And you are right my custom loop is more worth than other people payed for their whole PC System, not just the CPU.

But you know what? It is basically a one time investment which i can use on my future components...

My Point is simply a delidded Coffee Lake is far from being infernal. On less clocks and voltages i can keep it at 40-45° C under load...


----------



## Raghar

Hulio225 said:


> My Point is simply a delidded Coffee Lake is far from being infernal. On less clocks and voltages i can keep it at 40-45° C under load...












This is on air with room temperature 27 C, with next to noiseless air cooling. (I tend to forget to stop stress tests because of that.) It's generally wise to keep 14 nm under 60C degree.

8-core no HT means double radiated power. Which in my case would go from 53 W to 103 W, 65 C - 73 C with the same test.


----------



## EniGma1987

Raghar said:


> It's generally wise to keep 14 nm under 60C degree.





Might depend on which 14nm you are talking about, but regardless, why do you say that?


----------



## Hulio225

Raghar said:


> It's generally wise to keep 14 nm under 60C degree.



Say what?! Please elaborate, this is the first time i hear such a thing. 

No offense, but I am sure this is BS.

Edit: I could say it is generally wise to keep all components sub zero, since it would be good for the longevity...


----------



## Nizzen

Is this Guru3d forums?


----------



## DarthBaggins

Need to see proof of this 60c - real proof - this is a first I've heard of this at all.


----------



## Raghar

DarthBaggins said:


> Need to see proof of this 60c - real proof - this is a first I've heard of this at all.


The only possible proof would be baking few CPUs and extrapolating data from when they started failing. I assume CPU should be reliable for 14/7 7 years of continuous mixed workload operation, 0 errors for 4 first years of use. AKA minimum requirements of a disabled pensioner. Normal people might have less strict reliability requirements.

I do remember, when I got better heatsink I switched to passive operation for my old dual core. Then half year later I hastily added low speed fan, lowered frequency, and lowered voltage. The 45 nm dual core got cache degradation from half year of (non continuous) use at about 72-75 C. Now it has 10 years and it's still working. However 14 nm FinFet is bit more fragile than 45 nm planar. (However current CPUs are using error correction for caches, thus cache degradation isn't as big problem.)


----------



## dantoddd

i talked to an old friend who works at intel. he works at the fabrication side so he's very much in the middle of all the problems intel is having right now. basically he's saying that intel can't get the 10nm production sorted out. most likely we won't see intel 10nm until late 2019 he says.


----------



## Wishmaker

dantoddd said:


> i talked to an old friend who works at intel. he works at the fabrication side so he's very much in the middle of all the problems intel is having right now. basically he's saying that intel can't get the 10nm production sorted out. most likely we won't see intel 10nm until late 2019 he says.



Could it be that Chipzilla hit a wall others have yet to hit?
Could it be that Chipzilla did not find a solution to some problems like others did?
If we look at the life cycle of a design, the 'late 2019' chip was in the books and probably being tested.

Hopefully they get it sorted and push more innovation .


----------



## Contiusa

Raghar said:


> The only possible proof would be baking few CPUs and extrapolating data from when they started failing. I assume CPU should be reliable for 14/7 7 years of continuous mixed workload operation, 0 errors for 4 first years of use. AKA minimum requirements of a disabled pensioner. Normal people might have less strict reliability requirements



Why would you do that? The i7-6700K has an official Tcase of 64ºC. Everyone knows that this is not the core temp, so you give a few degrees margin and it is safe to say that you can keep it at 70ºC with no problems.

Right off the bat your 60ºC guess is wrong. You might like to keep it at 60ºC, but it does not mean it is the cap temperature. It is not even the Tcase cap for the i7-6700K.

--


----------



## scracy

i9-9900K solder confirmed.....but but micro cracks https://videocardz.com/77356/intel-core-i9-9900k-confirmed-to-be-soldered


----------



## R99photography

scracy said:


> i9-9900K solder confirmed.....but but micro cracks https://videocardz.com/77356/intel-core-i9-9900k-confirmed-to-be-soldered


Not only the 9900K, but maybe even other two models? I am more interested in to the 9700K, I don’t know if the HT of 9900K is needed at my side.


----------



## tpi2007

scracy said:


> i9-9900K solder confirmed.....but but micro cracks https://videocardz.com/77356/intel-core-i9-9900k-confirmed-to-be-soldered





R99photography said:


> Not only the 9900K, but maybe even other two models? I am more interested in to the 9700K, I don’t know if the HT of 9900K is needed at my side.


 
I'd say that the 9700K being an eight core CPU, it's pretty much confirmed to have solder, the question is whether the 9600K also has it. From the second slide, and considering that there is no corresponding asterisk on the solder item like there is for Optane, it does indeed sound like the hexacore 9600K will also have solder. Unless the hexacore is a binned eight core die, I really want to know what the excuse will be for not having used solder on the 8700K and 8600K. Well, then again, there is Skylake-X up to 18 cores and no solder anywhere, so there is no excuse, it will probably be a wall of silence.

Maybe if the 9600K doesn't use solder they should write "NEW Up to solder." lol

I do like how they are advertising solder on the IHS as something new that they had never done before, probably to people who apparently have short term memory and don't remember anything prior to 2012 for mainstream (Sandy Bridge has solder)... or last year for the HEDT segment (Broadwell-E also has solder). 



"NEW Solder Interface Material (STIM)."

You've got to have some gall. LOL


Oh and the ""STIM delivers a desired benefit to the overclocking community" on the third slide is priceless. A desired benefit that the overclocking community has been asking Intel to put back since they took it away in 2012 and has been ignored for all these years and now for some odd reason (read: competition is a great thing) decided to announce as something new.


----------



## DarthBaggins

I've found it odd they didn't use solder on the Skylake-X/Kabylake-X CPU's but did for the previous gens. But I really can't wait to try a 9900k out and see how it fares against my 6900k.


----------



## moonbogg

They shoulda called them "i7 9700 Pro" and "i9 9800 Pro". Woulda been way more legit.


----------



## Krzych04650

9900K looks to be the ultimate CPU, 8c/16t Coffe Lake with easy 5 GHz+ overclocks, easy very high frequency memory support, 40 PCI-E lanes for SLI and solder for actually being usable in the first place. This is the CPU I always wanted to have, best of mainstream and HEDT worlds in one, without the need to pay for 5000 unutilized cores or compromising with single threaded performance. I wouldn't really bother if I still had my 4.7 GHz core/4.4 GHz cache 5960X paired with 3300+ memory, but it died and was replaced with average 6900K (barely 4.3 core/3.5 cache), now with 3000 memory, so I lost up to 11% of performance, especially single-threaded, which is the most important, as vast majority of games still rely on that. 9900K should be the answer to everything.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Hulio225 said:


> zGunBLADEz said:
> 
> 
> 
> waiting for the meltdowns lol
> the 8700k get infernal delidded at 1.4v i dont imagine this one hahahhhaahh
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel like "its infernal" when delidded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even at peak voltages of over 1,5 V and prime stress testing i have my temps under control with a custom loop.
> 
> 1.4 V is a piece of cake with a custom loop.
> 
> The 8 core has a bigger die so the surface area where the heat is dissipated is bigger, i don't think it will be significantly harder to cool to be honest.
Click to expand...

First thats non avx second only 20min if is p95 26.6 thats just a warm up 15min each fft instead of 3m
So it has not touch the surface yet.

Put a screenie of latest p95 running avx at least for an hr even better why not a 12k/12k 90% ram allocated

Btw i do better temps than that doing exactly what you did lol


----------



## ozlay

I don't like it. An i7 with out HT. Why not 6c/12t. Are we saving that for the 9800k?

I would have done...
i9 8c/16t
i7 6c/12t
i5 8c/8t
i3 6c/6t
But who knows what intel is thinking...


----------



## doom26464

ozlay said:


> I don't like it. An i7 with out HT. Why not 6c/12t. Are we saving that for the 9800k?
> 
> I would have done...
> i9 8c/16t
> i7 6c/12t
> i5 8c/8t
> i3 6c/6t
> But who knows what intel is thinking...


I5 would beat the i7 in alot of cases if they did that. Hyperthreading doesnt add as much as people believe it does vrs acutal physical cores.....this has been discused alot already. 


But anyways to stay on topic, its amazing what competetion does, intel is actually trying 100% now.


----------



## EniGma1987

Krzych04650 said:


> 9900K looks to be the ultimate CPU, 8c/16t Coffe Lake with easy 5 GHz+ overclocks, easy very high frequency memory support, 40 PCI-E lanes for SLI and solder for actually being usable in the first place. This is the CPU I always wanted to have, best of mainstream and HEDT worlds in one, without the need to pay for 5000 unutilized cores or compromising with single threaded performance. I wouldn't really bother if I still had my 4.7 GHz core/4.4 GHz cache 5960X paired with 3300+ memory, but it died and was replaced with average 6900K (barely 4.3 core/3.5 cache), now with 3000 memory, so I lost up to 11% of performance, especially single-threaded, which is the most important, as vast majority of games still rely on that. 9900K should be the answer to everything.


And when did we learn that Intel is increasing the PCI-E lanes to the HEDT levels on mainstream CPUs?


----------



## mouacyk

Krzych04650 said:


> 9900K looks to be the ultimate CPU, 8c/16t Coffe Lake with easy 5 GHz+ overclocks, easy very high frequency memory support, 40 PCI-E lanes for SLI and solder for actually being usable in the first place. This is the CPU I always wanted to have, best of mainstream and HEDT worlds in one, without the need to pay for 5000 unutilized cores or compromising with single threaded performance. I wouldn't really bother if I still had my 4.7 GHz core/4.4 GHz cache 5960X paired with 3300+ memory, but it died and was replaced with average 6900K (barely 4.3 core/3.5 cache), now with 3000 memory, so I lost up to 11% of performance, especially single-threaded, which is the most important, as vast majority of games still rely on that. 9900K should be the answer to everything.


16 CPU + 24 Chipset = 40 Platform Lanes.


----------



## tpi2007

Krzych04650 said:


> 9900K looks to be the ultimate CPU, 8c/16t Coffe Lake with easy 5 GHz+ overclocks, easy very high frequency memory support, 40 PCI-E lanes for SLI and solder for actually being usable in the first place. This is the CPU I always wanted to have, best of mainstream and HEDT worlds in one, without the need to pay for 5000 unutilized cores or compromising with single threaded performance. I wouldn't really bother if I still had my 4.7 GHz core/4.4 GHz cache 5960X paired with 3300+ memory, but it died and was replaced with average 6900K (barely 4.3 core/3.5 cache), now with 3000 memory, so I lost up to 11% of performance, especially single-threaded, which is the most important, as vast majority of games still rely on that. 9900K should be the answer to everything.



Ultimate will be when they fix the hardware bugs in a subsequent iteration.

Also, you can forget about the "40 PCI-E lanes for SLI", read it again, it's "40 platform PCIe lanes", meaning, as in previous platforms, that some of those come from the chipset, so you can connect storage and whatnot. You will still only get 16 PCIe lanes for GPUs coming from the CPU.

Edit: Ninja'ed by mouacyk.


----------



## moonbogg

EniGma1987 said:


> And when did we learn that Intel is increasing the PCI-E lanes to the HEDT levels on mainstream CPUs?


They aren't, of course. They'll still cheeseball us with a paltry 16 lanes; just enough for a single GPU and NOTHING ELSE. Not even a sound card. It wouldn't be Intel if they didn't screw you somewhere. Expect it. Every. Single. Time. I hope AMD straight rips their balls off with 7nm Freddy claws.


----------



## kd5151

doom26464 said:


> I5 would beat the i7 in alot of cases if they did that. Hyperthreading doesnt add as much as people beeve it does vrs acutal physical cores.....this has been discused alot already.
> 
> 
> But anyways to stay on topic, its amazing what competetion does, intel is actually trying 100% now.


Right. The 7700K and 8600K are basically one of the same. The 8700K and 9700K are going to be very identical. However the stock clock speeds are higher on the 9600K,9700K and 9900K. But in terms of overclocking. A 5ghz 8600K is still going to beat a stock 9600K. So I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch yet. I would like to see solder on all models. That would really push 5ghz and beyond a breeze.


----------



## Brutuz

Ph42oN said:


> That is stupid, they call it i9... next year amd will propably release ryzen 5 with 8c/16t, and that will most likely be equal to that i9 in performance, if not better. They should just call it i7, and call that 8c/8t i5, or change i5 to 6c/12t.


If the rumoured move up to a 8 core CCX is true, AMD should stick it to Intel again and move Ryzen 3 to 6c, Ryzen 5 to 8c, Ryzen 7 to 12c and make a Ryzen 9 16 core. They could get away with charging more for their 16 core chips vs keeping them Ryzen 7 and still offer more cores/threads at a similar IPC with decent clocks at every price point.



Itglows said:


> Isn't the lower thread count going to be a big hit in performance for a lot of games? I moved up from an i5 because hyperthreading really seemed to be making a big difference now.


It depends on the core count of a CPU. A 6 core, 12 thread CPU would likely be around as fast as an 8 core version of the same CPU without SMT in apps that make use of all its threads, probably even a bit slower. (eg. SMT on my 3770k makes up for the speed of just over 1 real Ivy Bridge core at 4.6Ghz, so a hypothetical 6 core Ivy Bridge i9 3970k without SMT would still outperform my 3770k. I'd imagine that the 12 thread chips would perform about as well as a 7 core chip without SMT, maybe a bit under.)

i5s are struggling in modern games because they're either quads or hexas without HT, the hexas only struggle in a few games but those are games that quad core i7s usually struggle in nearly as much if not more. People often also forget that having too few cores for a game to run isn't really going to show through FPS drops unless you're running a severe bottleneck, it will always show through random stutters and pauses way before the FPS is really affected at all and it makes sense when you think about it: The game pausing for a fraction of a second every few minutes is something you'll notice, but isn't going to affect the average FPS numbers over a 15-30 minute benchmark run and might not affect minimums that much either. It might not even show up in a benchmark if it's only when Windows decides it wants to check for updates or download them or the gazillions of other automated background things happening on a typical modern PC, too.

Even if they're graphing it out, those low performance outliers might not actually be properly represented because of how short they are but unlike the outliers where your FPS spikes from above 60 to some ridiculous number, these ones are very noticable in normal gameplay and can make the difference between a playable game and a stuttery mess. Then again, there's other benefits that SMT has over increased cores for a workload like gaming simply because you have more threads to play with and it does still duplicate the front end...If a core is waiting for data or the like and is stalled as a result, (Take this with a grain of salt, I'm going off of memory here) SMT is usually quicker to get something else (eg. a background task) processing on that core than Windows figuring it out and getting something else to process while that data is loaded into memory along with generally being quicker at giving the background task enough processing time to be waiting for something else anyway. It's hard to explain what I'm getting at here, but simply put if more cores can give faster throughput in terms of GFLOPs for programs that can make use of all the cores, more threads can still give latency improvements when there's many processes vying for some resources even if it won't provide the straight up performance increase of a full core and it's much simpler to make an 8 core, 16 thread CPU than a 16 core CPU.



I don't believe this rumour. The clocks are too high for another 14nm chip with even more cores on it at that TDP. I suspect the clocks may actually be true but the i9 will launch with a 130w TDP and a new cooler that harkens back to the 775 Intel stock cooler with some RGB and the like. (If Intel is really smart, they'd then bundle that cooler with every k chip they sell. It'd be replaced on most chips but you'd likely still hit 5Ghz on a Core i3 with it)


----------



## Hulio225

zGunBLADEz said:


> First thats non avx second only 20min if is p95 26.6 thats just a warm up 15min each fft instead of 3m
> So it has not touch the surface yet.
> 
> Put a screenie of latest p95 running avx at least for an hr even better why not a 12k/12k 90% ram allocated
> 
> Btw i do better temps than that doing exactly what you did lol


It was 27 minutes, which is 30% more than 20 minutes, don't exaggerate.
The loop and the system in general was heated up since it wasn't the first test i did on that day. 

Why should i do AVX stress tests at 5.2 GHz and 1.5V ? I think you are missing the whole point of the screenshot and what was said before...

And don't call for screenshots to prove something while pretending to do better without prove....

Show me a screenshot at 1.5V with better temps and we can continue to talk, otherwise stop bothering dude.


----------



## Raghar

ozlay said:


> I don't like it. An i7 with out HT. Why not 6c/12t. Are we saving that for the 9800k?
> 
> I would have done...
> i9 8c/16t
> i7 6c/12t
> i5 8c/8t
> i3 6c/6t
> But who knows what intel is thinking...


Well programmed game uses real cores not virtual. As for speed 8 core no HT = 8, 6 core 2-way HT = 6*1.22. 7.32 is notably slower than 8. BTW 4-way HT would have 32 virtual cores on 8-core design. Would you like it?

I found from game and other programming, when you need the power, you need real core. And when you need RAM access, HT doesn't help because waiting on RAM access and doing different stuff just means there would be twice as many RAM accesses per second, which would saturate RAM even more. With 128*2^20B L4 cache it might be different, but Intel is no longer making Iris-E CPUs for mainstream.

Also Intel don't wanna i3 to have 6-cores. i3 are supposed to be dirt cheap CPUs for people in poverty, and low end systems. Still decent CPUs that have heavy competition with Gxxx CPUs.


----------



## Falkentyne

Raghar said:


> Well programmed game uses real cores not virtual. As for speed 8 core no HT = 8, 6 core 2-way HT = 6*1.22. 7.32 is notably slower than 8. BTW 4-way HT would have 32 virtual cores on 8-core design. Would you like it?
> 
> I found from game and other programming, when you need the power, you need real core. And when you need RAM access, HT doesn't help because waiting on RAM access and doing different stuff just means there would be twice as many RAM accesses per second, which would saturate RAM even more. With 128*2^20B L4 cache it might be different, but Intel is no longer making Iris-E CPUs for mainstream.
> 
> Also Intel don't wanna i3 to have 6-cores. i3 are supposed to be dirt cheap CPUs for people in poverty, and low end systems. Still decent CPUs that have heavy competition with Gxxx CPUs.


Took long enough for people to finally get a clue and agree with me.

9700K soldered 8 core/8 thread (no HT) > 8086K/8700K 6c/12t.

Better to have the two extra cores.

And people flaming Intel for doing name shenanigans on the i7/i9 thing when the it's nothing but *LETTERS* is really silly.


----------



## mouacyk

This 8c/8t will be very interesting. The 8600K was not enough for bf1 at 6c/6t. For the first time, we may have a pure gaming cpu without HT.


----------



## Kana Chan

Are they changing it from gold/indium to nickel/aluminum? ( indiumcorp sells nanofoil with nickel/aluminum and the w/m-k should be higher than indium, right? )


There's still the option of doing this with a lighter or torch if you wanted a copper IHS too.





 from rockitcool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf8V_UulpBk#t=12m47s ~8-10c drop against solder with a high power cpu.


----------



## white owl

Falkentyne said:


> Took long enough for people to finally get a clue and agree with me.
> 
> 9700K soldered 8 core/8 thread (no HT) > 8086K/8700K 6c/12t.
> 
> Better to have the two extra cores.
> 
> And people flaming Intel for doing name shenanigans on the i7/i9 thing when the it's nothing but *LETTERS* is really silly.


Actually it's genius, everyone who thinks HT makes an i7 an i7 will now have to buy the i9 instead. I'll go wherever the PPD is lol.



Anyone remember this?











Now if you take HT away people flip out lol 

Fickle bunch you humans are.


----------



## Threx

white owl said:


> Fickle bunch you humans are.


Welcome to Earth, Mr. Alien.


----------



## m4fox90

Hyper threading actually doesn't matter? then why are HT models universally better performers than non-HT models? 

Or, what i5 outperforms its i7 sibling at literally anything?


----------



## Puck

Hyperthreading matters until Intel says it doesn't :laughings.


----------



## azanimefan

m4fox90 said:


> Hyper threading actually doesn't matter? then why are HT models universally better performers than non-HT models?
> 
> Or, what i5 outperforms its i7 sibling at literally anything?


Intel sticks bigger L3 cache on it's i7 hyperthreaded chips. I recall difference in performance between identically clocked i5s and i7s back when they both had 4c, was due to the increased L3 cache size on the i7. In fact this was pretty verifiable. 

Besides, games are still pretty much 1-3 cored adventures. all these extra cores really mean nothing in the end for performance. Finally in the RARE case a game is threaded enough to use a hyperthreaded core, the best gains you'll ever see out of hyperthreading is around 25%, so a 6c12t, will probably behave somewhere around a 7.5 core cpu with similar clocks and cache size. Just like the old 4c/8t used to be basically equivalent to a 5c if you were in a fully threaded situation. Again this assumes similar cache sizes.


----------



## EniGma1987

Kana Chan said:


> Are they changing it from gold/indium to nickel/aluminum? ( indiumcorp sells nanofoil with nickel/aluminum and the w/m-k should be higher than indium, right? )



nickel is WAY lower thermal conductivity than gold, but aluminum is quite a bit higher conductivity than indium. So it really depends on the composition of the material. I doubt they use much gold given the price, so if the gold/indium is something like 95% or more of indium, then yes the nickel/aluminum could have a bit higher overall W/m-k than the more expensive gold/indium mix. I would expect the G/I to be a lot more durable though.


----------



## Raghar

m4fox90 said:


> Hyper threading actually doesn't matter? then why are HT models universally better performers than non-HT models?
> 
> Or, what i5 outperforms its i7 sibling at literally anything?


Non HT: 1.5 GB L3 cache/core, HT: 2 GB L3 cache/core.
Non HT: who knows what silicon it is. HT: it survived enough testing to be sold as fully enabled chip.
Non HT: game wants 12 cores. HT: yea game requires 12 cores but it's only hard coded restriction which nobody can remove because of DRM exe protection in reality it requires just 4, when it would actually require computing power of 12 real cores we would be in trouble. 8 core with HT fools the game just fine. *1
Non HT: 8 cores kills RAM bandwidth. HT: uses twice as much RAM bandwidth (when HT works), but we can disable HT in BIOS. Thus turn CPU with HT into less power hungry CPU with larger L3 cache.
Non HT: sometimes close to being affordable. HT: CPU for pensioners/disabled/poor, you gotta be kidding.

Well, my point is it's not always that simple, but typically not worthy of 100+ $ difference in price.



*1 It's based on real situation when a game was hardcoded to require 4 cores, but in reality worked at full speed even on pentium dual core OC to 3.7 GHz.

(Also additional benefit of HT CPUs is you can disable HT, underclock CPU to have better thermals, and cause mental dirhaea to some people on certain forums.)


----------



## paulerxx

What's the estimated IPC increase this tick? Something is left desirable in the i5 section, no?


----------



## Raghar

paulerxx said:


> What's the estimated IPC increase this tick? Something is left desirable in the i5 section, no?


1.04 decrease because of Spectre and Meltdown mitigation.


----------



## Hulio225

Raghar said:


> 1.04 decrease because of Spectre and Meltdown mitigation.


1.04 is still a increase since its bigger than 1, which is equivalent to 100%.

I guess you meant something like 0.96 which would be 4% slower than initially before mitigation. :thumb:


----------



## VeritronX

We have pentiums with HT and i3's without, but the i7 has always had all it's cache enabled until now. It's the difference between a disabled feature and a cut down / harvested chip and it bothers me.


----------



## tpi2007

VeritronX said:


> We have pentiums with HT and i3's without, but the i7 has always had all it's cache enabled until now. It's the difference between a disabled feature and a cut down / harvested chip and it bothers me.



The Sandy Bridge-E hexacores, including the top of the line ones, the i7-3960X and i7-3970X, are actually made from octacore dies, in order to get higher clocks at the 130w TDP (150w for the 3970X, released later), and the i7-3930K has 3 MB of L3 cache disabled compared to the higher end models, which just goes to show that Intel has done it before to i7's, and what's more, in the enthusiast segment. And then there's the PCIe lane segmentation, starting with Haswell-E, and on top of that the IMC memory speed validation on Skylake-X, where the i7-7800X's IMC is only validated for DDR4 2400 Mhz vs 2667 Mhz for the higher core count models.

And if you want to know more, the 8 MB of L3 cache that they put on the mainstream dies of the quad core i7's, from Sandy Bridge all the way up to Kaby Lake, is not even the ideal amount of L3, the ideal is 10 MB, as present in the quad core i7-3820 and i7-4820K, so the mainstream parts have always gotten the "good enough", less costlier version.


----------



## Lex Luger

I wonder if my Z170 OC Formula will have all the world records for the new 8 cores like it has for the 6 core coffee lake CPU's.

BTW 8 core has already been confirmed to work on Z170 OC Formula. Intel is the coolest and NEVER LIES.


----------



## Hulio225

Lex Luger said:


> I wonder if my Z170 OC Formula will have *all the world records* for the new 8 cores like it has for the 6 core coffee lake CPU's.
> 
> BTW 8 core has already been confirmed to work on Z170 OC Formula. Intel is the coolest and NEVER LIES.


Most world records are made on the APEX X board...

Sure it will work with hardware-mods and bios mods on a top end board which was is/meant for OC.

But take the cheapest low end z170 board you can find and put an up coming 9900k or even todays 8700k on it and see how good it will work in a cheapo bad ventilated case under load, because the user don't understand the topic very well.

I don't think intel was lying per se. Additionally intel always had a 2 Generation cycle in almost the past decade, imagine the whining of the mainboard manufacturers if nobody would have to buy a new mainboard in 4 years or so...

There is a lot more to the whole topic than just: "hey intel is lying those CPUs can work on z170 platforms etc."

Just my two cents.


----------



## Raghar

Lex Luger said:


> I wonder if my Z170 OC Formula will have all the world records for the new 8 cores like it has for the 6 core coffee lake CPU's.
> BTW 8 core has already been confirmed to work on Z170 OC Formula. Intel is the coolest and NEVER LIES.


MB modder said there are resistance problems. You'd need to do some checking with multimeter like stuff and use silver pen to correct it.

Of course Intel could do better and make it more forward compatible. 3 chipsets just to have 3 chipsets is quite bad idea.


----------



## Vlada011

Hulio225 said:


> Most world records are made on the APEX X board...
> 
> Sure it will work with hardware-mods and bios mods on a top end board which was is/meant for OC.
> 
> But take the cheapest low end z170 board you can find and put an up coming 9900k or even todays 8700k on it and see how good it will work in a cheapo bad ventilated case under load, because the user don't understand the topic very well.
> 
> I don't think intel was lying per se. Additionally intel always had a 2 Generation cycle in almost the past decade, imagine the whining of the mainboard manufacturers if nobody would have to buy a new mainboard in 4 years or so...
> 
> There is a lot more to the whole topic than just: "hey intel is lying those CPUs can work on z170 platforms etc."
> 
> Just my two cents.


ASUS Apex is Beast. But for Z370 have another great motherboard ASUS Maximus X Code.
X Code is so cool and Formula as well.
Next generation we will see. But Apex is always attractive.

ASUS ROG Motherboards are jewel of every gaming RIG.
Except I start to support saving money on Code version because Extreme worth if you can install 2 or more Gen of processors.


----------



## Hawk777th

Well looks like ill wait till 10 Series to upgrade at least. I can still score right around 9800+ on the bench with my OC 5960X so not worth it yet.


----------



## Lex Luger

Other than the ROG Hero boards, the ASUS top of the line motherboards are super overrated. Do you guys work for ASUS or something?

The ASUS Apex only has the memory frequency world record. 

The cpu frequency world record and superpi32 and most others belongs to ASRock Z170 OC Formula Micro, which has the same VRM layout as full version. 

And that said VRM layout is the best for socket 1151 chips. It's better than any ASUS motherboard with 12 robust VCC phases powered by top of the line international rectifier components. 

And it will remain the best board for clocking the 8 core chips as well unless some awesome new Z390 board comes out. The different pin layout in z370 makes virtually zero difference in voltage, less than 1 percent. 

It all lies and all the high end z170 and z270 boards should have been giving support for these chips, but intel lies through their teeth like usual. If intel really cared about motherboards not having robust enough VRM to support chips, we wouldnt have been given unlocked 18 core chips that work on any X299 motherboard. Many high end Z170 boards have better VRM setup than mid range X299 boards.


----------



## Nizzen

Lex Luger said:


> Other than the ROG Hero boards, the ASUS top of the line motherboards are super overrated. Do you guys work for ASUS or something?
> 
> The ASUS Apex only has the memory frequency world record.
> 
> The cpu frequency world record and superpi32 and most others belongs to ASRock Z170 OC Formula Micro, which has the same VRM layout as full version.
> 
> And that said VRM layout is the best for socket 1151 chips. It's better than any ASUS motherboard with 12 robust VCC phases powered by top of the line international rectifier components.
> 
> And it will remain the best board for clocking the 8 core chips as well unless some awesome new Z390 board comes out. The different pin layout in z370 makes virtually zero difference in voltage, less than 1 percent.
> 
> It all lies and all the high end z170 and z270 boards should have been giving support for these chips, but intel lies through their teeth like usual. If intel really cared about motherboards not having robust enough VRM to support chips, we wouldnt have been given unlocked 18 core chips that work on any X299 motherboard. Many high end Z170 boards have better VRM setup than mid range X299 boards.


LoL Cry more...


----------



## Kana Chan

The 3 motherboards above could run 8700Ks except maybe the first two might have issues with the 9900K? 

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7...ula-intel-z170-motherboard-review/index3.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8...pex-intel-z270-motherboard-review/index3.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8...pex-intel-z370-motherboard-review/index3.html

The bigger board has 12+4 and the smaller one is 8+4 ( the latter has 2 more pcb layers though )

But they could upgrade the components for Z390 to that 10phase at the bottom. They're at least 6% more efficient than the ones used in those 3 boards.

https://www.powersystemsdesign.com/...esents-a-significant-power-challenge/22/12200


> IFX’s latest multiphase digital controller IR35219 is the only 10-phase controller in the market that supports up to 600 A load current. It is a dual-loop controller with flexible phase configuration and is available in in small 48-pin 6 x 6 mm package. Besides having the standard IFX digital controller features, the IR35219 has built-in phase fault detection and protection features that allow multiphase VR to continue operation even with a failed phase. This means it can be used in redundant VR design for mission-critical applications.





> To deliver the power density required by AI-enabled servers, Infineon has developed high efficiency, high power density power stages. The power stages contain a low quiescent current synchronous buck gate-driver IC, high-side and low-side MOSFETs and a Schottky diode in the same package to further improve efficiency. The package is optimized for PCB layout, heat transfer, driver/MOSFET control timing and minimal switch node ringing when layout guidelines are followed. The paired gate driver and MOSFET combination enables higher efficiency at lower output voltages required by cutting edge CPU, GPU and DDR memory designs.





> The TDA21472 70A power stage’s internal MOSFET current sense algorithm with temperature compensation achieves superior current sense accuracy versus best-in-class controller based inductor DCR sense methods. Protection includes cycle-by-cycle OCP with programmable threshold, VCC/VDRV UVLO protection, phase fault detection, IC temperature reporting and thermal shutdown.





> The power stages also feature a deep-sleep power saving mode, which greatly reduces the power consumption when the multiphase system is disabled.
> 
> Operation of up to 1.5 MHz switching frequency enables high performance transient response, allowing miniaturization of output inductors, as well as input and output capacitors while maintaining industry-leading efficiency.
> 
> When combined with Infineon’s digital controllers, the TDA21472 power stage incorporates the Body-Braking feature through PWM tri-state that enables reduction of output capacitors. This quickly disables both internal MOSFETs in order to enhance transient performance or provide a high impedance output. The power stage is optimized for processor core and memory power delivery in server applications.


----------



## Hulio225

Lex Luger said:


> Other than the ROG Hero boards, the ASUS top of the line motherboards are super overrated. Do you guys work for ASUS or something?
> 
> The ASUS Apex *only* has the memory frequency world record.
> 
> The *cpu frequency* world record and *superpi32* and most others belongs to *ASRock Z170 OC* Formula Micro, which has the same VRM layout as full version.



Dude get your facts right before you start to discuss with people actually following stuff on HWBot:

1.SuperPi32 WR:


Spoiler











http://hwbot.org/submission/3902881_rsannino_superpi___32m_core_i7_8086k_4min_6sec_547ms



2.Frequency WR (8700k/8086k):


Spoiler











http://hwbot.org/submission/3888313_toppc_cpu_frequency_core_i7_8700k_7436.11_mhz/


But to be honest here, this CPU just ran on 2C2T. To me the real WR belongs to another user of the MSI Godlike pushing 6C12T it is this entry:


Spoiler



http://hwbot.org/submission/3670813_ren_kei_yang_cpu_frequency_core_i7_8700k_7405.12_mhz/



3. I am tired posting single results:


Spoiler















By now it should be clear that the APEX X has more records with current mainstream 6c12t intel chips.


Sure the 170 OC formula is a good MB, but you are wrong saying the 170 OC has all records...
Alone in the CPU Benchmarks it is 8 vs 1 for the APEX, if we would add GPU benchmarks, where 8700k and 8086k were used the number would be even bigger.


----------



## OcerEXP

How can anyone be excited for new CPU's that are broken by exploits right out of the gate? lol... I'll hold onto this 4790k platform until we get CPU's that address this garbage on a hardware level.


----------



## DarthBaggins

I was a fan of the Gigabyte SOC boards in the past, but the ASRock OC Formula was a killer board as well.


----------



## PepsixDoggo

I'm just gonna leave this here:

Disable SMT/Hyperthreading in all Intel BIOSes:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=153504937925732&w=2

VMware Performance Impact Statement for ‘L1 Terminal Fault - VMM’ (L1TF - VMM) mitigations: CVE-2018-3646 (55767)(up to 30% less performance across the board for Intel CPUs):
https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/55767


----------



## Scotty99

How legit are those 5.5ghz rumors? Just got this 8700k but man id have to upgrade for that.


----------



## scracy

Scotty99 said:


> How legit are those 5.5ghz rumors? Just got this 8700k but man id have to upgrade for that.


Depends on whether you consider 1.537V Vcore legit


----------



## Scotty99

scracy said:


> Depends on whether you consider 1.537V Vcore legit


Oh lul i didnt know we had a vcore number, ya i could probably do that on mine and pass a benchmark or two. Lame.


----------



## farmdve

What I currently don't like about Intel(despite the fact that I've ordered a 8700k) is that each gen requires a new socket or chipset or that there are no silicon fixes for Spectre/Meltdown.


----------



## Hulio225

farmdve said:


> What I currently don't like about Intel(despite the fact that I've ordered a 8700k) is that *each gen requires a new socket or chipset* or that there are no silicon fixes for Spectre/Meltdown.


That is not true, its every two generations and was like that almost the past decade. Nothing which is currently happening, it is happening like i said almost 10 years...


6. and 7. had z170 and z270 compatibility. 
8. and 9. have z370 and z390 compatibility.

Just to show the last 4 generations... Before that it was the same.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Scotty99 said:


> Oh lul i didnt know we had a vcore number, ya i could probably do that on mine and pass a benchmark or two. Lame.


add almost double the heat as well to the equation as thermals increment are in doubles and no % intel was no fool in to solder those cpus lol

saw the z390 leaks itx board and pro from asus i smell trouble in the horizon on the vrm department XD
bullzoid going to have a blast with them again ,,


----------



## Contiusa

Leaked review on the i7-9700K. 

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-9700k-8-core-cpu-review-performance-detailed/

If this is true, the i7-8700K will tie or even push ahead clock per clock since the i7-9700K has a 300mhz advantage on stock speeds IIRC (4.3Ghz vs 4.6Ghz on all cores respectively). The i7-8700K even managed to win over the i7-9700K on wPrime.

From the latest leak at 5.5Ghz, I was predicting a tie. I wonder how they both perform while streaming, comparing 12 vs 8 threads, because this might be decisive. Depending on the price cuts on the i7-8700K, it might be a better solution for who does not want to OC it past 4.8Ghz. Or even a bargain compared to the i7-9700K.

That will be interesting. 

--


----------



## ToTheSun!

9900K at $450? That's a little on the limit after which I'd consider Ryzen instead, but, sure, count me in!


----------



## Sleuth

EMEA Region dollar cost
BX80684I99900K USD: 466
BX80684I79700K USD: 362
BX80684I59600K USD: 247


----------



## DarthBaggins

Really that's not too bad of a price point for a 8/16 mainstream CPU. I know MicroCenter will have it for the best price as they always do w/ CPU's (New)


----------



## EastCoast

Found what might be leaked results.
If true I hope AMD actually does have a 2800X.


----------



## mouacyk

8c/16t 5GHz 1.248v 2166 CBR15
-- That voltage seems low (unstable) or golden, unless process has improved.

The CBR15 score is in line to my 5GHz 8700K at 1668 = (12/16) * 2166 (+/-3%). Good find and seems legit with the CPUz evidence.


----------



## EastCoast

mouacyk said:


> 8c/16t 5GHz 1.248v 2166 CBR15
> -- That voltage seems low (unstable) or golden, unless process has improved.
> 
> The CBR15 score is in line to my 5GHz 8700K at 1668 = (12/16) * 2166 (+/-3%). Good find and seems legit with the CPUz evidence.


If that is legit, I am assuming it's a golden sample with that voltage and performance.


----------



## 113802

mouacyk said:


> 8c/16t 5GHz 1.248v 2166 CBR15
> -- That voltage seems low (unstable) or golden, unless process has improved.
> 
> The CBR15 score is in line to my 5GHz 8700K at 1668 = (12/16) * 2166 (+/-3%). Good find and seems legit with the CPUz evidence.


Intel's been improving their 14nm process quite a bit. 5Ghz on all 28 cores with Cascade Lake with a chiller is impressive. 

Core i7 6700k - 4.2Ghz 1.32v 170w
Core i7 7700k - 4.5Ghz 1.25v 147w
Core i7 8700k - 4.7Ghz 1.237v 143w


----------



## chispy

No need for 2800x , AMD Ryzen 2700x can make that same CBR15 score of 2166 at 4.6Ghz - http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ , 2166 CBR15 done on Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz  , so i9900k at 5.0Ghz = Ryzen 2700x at 4.5Ghz


----------



## 113802

chispy said:


> No need for 2800x , AMD Ryzen 2700x can make that same CBR15 score of 2166 at 4.6Ghz - http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ , 2166 CBR15 done on Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz  , so i9900k at 5.0Ghz = Ryzen 2700x at 4.5Ghz


Show me a 2700x that can hit 4.6Ghz with normal cooling? They need a 2800x that can actually overclock.


----------



## empyr

Am i the only getting a bit bothered by the sheer waiting time for a release date for these?
It's been two months of leaking things here and there, without any word on an actual release date (Besides roadmap) but that can get pushed as they see fit.


Oh well


----------



## chessmyantidrug

EastCoast said:


> Found what might be leaked results.
> If true I hope AMD actually does have a 2800X.


Why should AMD release _another_ 8C/16T CPU that can't hit 4.5+ GHz on air? They don't need to do anything until Zen 2 is ready for prime time. Hopefully all the predictions for Zen 2 clock speed are at least mostly true.


----------



## chispy

My post was not about cooling , instead it was an informative post to show the ipc of AMD Ryzen 2700x versus ipc of the 9900k at whatever clocks they run for the same score at CBR15. Let people see with their own eyes if Ryzen ipc can compare with intel upcoming 9900k. That was the sole purpose of my posting.


----------



## bigjdubb

chispy said:


> No need for 2800x , AMD Ryzen 2700x can make that same CBR15 score of 2166 at 4.6Ghz - http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ , 2166 CBR15 done on Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz  , so i9900k at 5.0Ghz = Ryzen 2700x at 4.5Ghz





WannaBeOCer said:


> Show me a 2700x that can hit 4.6Ghz with normal cooling? They need a 2800x that can actually overclock.


I would be curious to see how many people can get 4.6 out of their 2700x. I am quite new to overclocking AMD (last time I oc'ed amd was a dual core "black edition") and have had difficulties getting past 4.2. I haven't put a huge amount of effort into it yet but from what I have read so far 4.3 is all I really expect to be able to get.




chispy said:


> My post was not about cooling , instead it was an informative post to show the ipc of AMD Ryzen 2700x versus ipc of the 9900k at whatever clocks they run for the same score at CBR15. Let people see with their own eyes if Ryzen ipc can compare with intel upcoming 9900k. That was the sole purpose of my posting.


I don't know how other people feel, but for me IPC is only an important metric for comparison when the two parts have similar clock speeds. While it's important to note, in the end it doesn't matter if Intel needs to run at higher speeds to get the performance when the chips can in fact run at higher speeds.


----------



## 113802

chispy said:


> My post was not about cooling , instead it was an informative post to show the ipc of AMD Ryzen 2700x versus ipc of the 9900k at whatever clocks they run for the same score at CBR15. Let people see with their own eyes if Ryzen ipc can compare with intel upcoming 9900k. That was the sole purpose of my posting.


That score is thanks to their SMT performance not IPC. We already know their IPC is 3% slower than Intel. We already know their SMT is more efficient. We also know that their latency is horrible causing a 4-9% performance gap in gaming.

We have no clue what the 9900k can overclock to but I'm expecting 5.4Ghz.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

chispy said:


> My post was not about cooling , instead it was an informative post to show the ipc of AMD Ryzen 2700x versus ipc of the 9900k at whatever clocks they run for the same score at CBR15. Let people see with their own eyes if Ryzen ipc can compare with intel upcoming 9900k. That was the sole purpose of my posting.


It's been known for several months now there's little difference in IPC between Skylake/Kaby Lake/Coffee Lake and Ryzen+. Intel's lead stems from clock speed. I'm also not nearly naive enough to take one synthetic test and use it as gospel.


----------



## SuperZan

bigjdubb said:


> I would be curious to see how many people can get 4.6 out of their 2700x. I am quite new to overclocking AMD (last time I oc'ed amd was a dual core "black edition") and have had difficulties getting past 4.2. I haven't put a huge amount of effort into it yet but from what I have read so far 4.3 is all I really expect to be able to get.


I honestly don't even bother with overclocking my 2700x. It's generally better for single-core performance to leave it with PBO and XFR2, and the multi-core gains are minimal..


----------



## bigjdubb

There is no bias needed to state that Intel makes the faster gaming chips, I think that is a quantifiable statement. The difference may be negligible for most people in light of the price difference, but the difference is there. Of course there are lots of other important things besides gaming performance.

We are once again living in a time where both AMD and Intel are producing great CPU's. Let's all bask in that glory instead of arguing over which one is better when it's obvious that the only correct answer is which one is better for you.


----------



## bigjdubb

SuperZan said:


> I honestly don't even bother with overclocking my 2700x. It's generally better for single-core performance to leave it with PBO and XFR2, and the multi-core gains are minimal..


I have been running mine stock when not running benchmarks except for the memory @3200. I found out that maximum (synthetic) effort from my 2700x and my 1080ti at the same time is too much for the 650 watt power supply powering the systems it's currently in. Once I get it in it's proper home I will give it another shot, but you are correct in that the difference isn't something you would notice without running benchmarks. 

Overclocking was more fun back when I couldn't afford to get the top end stuff, there was something rewarding about buying the cheaper parts and making them perform like the expensive parts. Now I just buy the expensive parts and make them a little faster even though they are generally faster than needed at stock.


----------



## Sanmayce

Since this thread concerns the incoming 9700K let me ask you what benchmarks are you gonna use to compare it with OC AMD 2700X?

The thing that interests me is the side-by-side comparison of their integer AVX2 capabilities -they are extensively used in modern compression and other nifty algorithmic abracadabras.
For those who know me, I am AMD supporter since time of ... Barton, but on the other hand I am big fan of Intel C Optimizer while hater of Intel price policy, so naturally this schism makes the benchmarking all more exciting - I am all about showing the best performer. My expectations, OC 9700K is gonna beat OC AMD 2700X in my matrix benchmark.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Sanmayce said:


> Since this thread concerns the incoming 9700K let me ask you what benchmarks are you gonna use to compare it with OC AMD 2700X?
> 
> The thing that interests me is the side-by-side comparison of their integer AVX2 capabilities -they are extensively used in modern compression and other nifty algorithmic abracadabras.
> For those who know me, I am AMD supporter since time of ... Barton, but on the other hand I am big fan of Intel C Optimizer while hater of Intel price policy, so naturally this schism makes the benchmarking all more exciting - I am all about showing the best performer. My expectations, OC 9700K is gonna beat OC AMD 2700X in my matrix benchmark.


I'm a strong AMD supporter too, but it's hard to run a 2700X when it gets 20 FPS less in WoW than the 8700K, and thats my main game.


----------



## Sanmayce

Shiftstealth said:


> I'm a strong AMD supporter too, but it's hard to run a 2700X when it gets 20 FPS less in WoW than the 8700K, and thats my main game.


Strong point, in my view it is ironical, the doctrine of the chip developer is not in sync with the gospel of the compiler "*Vectorize and thread your code—or performance dies on modern processors.*" , hee-hee:

Blizzard is notorious for sticking to not using many cores, thus lagging behind, pun intended.










So, by Intel's dogma itself we can see that such games are not representatives of modern coding.

In my amateurish view, AMD offers CPUs better-suited for Intel's philosophy


----------



## aDyerSituation

My 7820x at 4.7ghz can get over 2100. Though it runs too hot at those clocks. To think a 9900k @ 5-5.2ghz won't do at least 2300 seems absurd to me.


----------



## AlphaC

Looks like i9-9900k gets around 2166 Cinebench R15


i7-9700K around 1476 CB R15 and barely better than R7 2700X in X264 which is AVX based (not AVX2) as well as Unigine Heaven.



https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/09/intel-core-i7-9700k-review/




i7-9700K will be worth it for single threaded performance, unlike i7-8700K since all threads are actual cores.


----------



## Nizzen

9900k users be like : only game in 1080p with 240hz monitor, and benchmarking aida 64 memorybenchmark 24/7


2700x users be like : only game in 4k max gpubound 60hz, and benchmarking CBr15 24/7


----------



## zGunBLADEz

aDyerSituation said:


> My 7820x at 4.7ghz can get over 2100. Though it runs too hot at those clocks. To think a 9900k @ 5-5.2ghz won't do at least 2300 seems absurd to me.


8700k delidded also runs hot when shooting 1.4v

The difference is the x299 cpus are more robust in that aspect they also require less volts they run hot but you see how robust they are thats not even funny.

You look a 8700k in any way wrong and he will bsod on you lol.


----------



## rdr09

AlphaC said:


> Looks like i9-9900k gets around 2166 Cinebench R15
> 
> 
> i7-9700K around 1476 CB R15 and barely better than R7 2700X in X264 which is AVX based (not AVX2) as well as Unigine Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/09/intel-core-i7-9700k-review/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i7-9700K will be worth it for single threaded performance, unlike i7-8700K since all threads are actual cores.


Forget the 2700X. That 2600 is only 165$. lol


----------



## robert c james

Could someone please explain to me why anyone who only surfs and plays WOW on there comp would by any CPU but a i3 ? 
Am I the only one who noticed the 4core 4 thread I3s are like having a higher clocked i5 gaming beast (i5 7600) from not that long ago most games will run GREAT on those 


If your a real "gamer" that play all the newest titles go with the 9900k (if you can aford it) remember Bulldozer sucked for games because Nothing used 8 cores  That is changing but for the next couple yrs even alot of US don't realy NEED a 16 thread CPU to do what we do 

If Threads are what you need get a Ripper if single core grunt is your Need go with the 9900k Nothing has changed for yrs now if you need More Cores go AMD if you need per core go Intel We all know this so why are we getting personal with arguments ? 

I'd love to see AMD stay at 8-16 for the next two gens and focus on per core/clock speed 7nm gives Alot of room for improvement switch from core wars to clock wars for a couple gens let the devs catch up with 16 threads


----------



## chessmyantidrug

AMD has already caught up in terms of single-core performance. The reason to go blue is for clock speed.


----------



## Doubletap1911

chessmyantidrug said:


> AMD has already caught up in terms of single-core performance. The reason to go blue is for clock speed.


Big claims require big evidence. I don't think they're there yet.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Doubletap1911 said:


> Big claims require big evidence. I don't think they're there yet.


Are you trying to say you don't think AMD has caught up in terms of single-core performance? That there isn't enough evidence out there already suggesting this?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

I have both and at similar clocks amd is a bit faster specially on multi core. Smt is miles ahead intel ht too.

Like he said intel only has the mhz advantage for now.


Thats my 7820x @ 50x it only wants 1.31v for it

I dont see the gigiddy on this i9 to be honest

Intel thinks playing with stock boosts may fool most ppl.


----------



## mouacyk

hey


----------



## Kokin

Given how a lot of members have gotten older, I'm seeing more old man arguments nowadays than ever before.

I'm kind of leaning towards upgrading my 3570K to a 2700X and whatever Zen2 has to offer next year, but I'm dying to see what kind of performance the 9900K/9700K have to offer. My 3440x1440 higher res makes me GPU-bound, but the 120Hz refresh rate is also reliant on a fast-clocking CPU.


----------



## EastCoast

@robert c james
LOL

But yeah I too am curious to see what 7nm brings to the table. At this point AMD really doesn't need more cores for PC gamers. As already mentioned they simply need more clock speed.


----------



## Doubletap1911

chessmyantidrug said:


> Are you trying to say you don't think AMD has caught up in terms of single-core performance? That there isn't enough evidence out there already suggesting this?


If there is, please enlighten me and when AMD can clock up like an Intel, I'll give them serious consideration but for now, I'm considering going from a 7700k to the 9900k

Edit: It looks like they're within a few percentage points in integer performance on the Gen1 TR but have a weaker FPU and more memory latency which seems to hold them back in gaming performance.

https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8379/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-core-i9-cpus-clock/index7.html

Maybe they'll be worth considering in another generation or so.

I have no love for either company and I'm not a performance per dollar shopper (to a point) so AMD just doesn't excite me. Not since the Athlon 650 days...


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Thread cleaned, and apologies if anybody was caught in the crossfire. There is no need to be this hostile and condescending because other users bought a CPU you didn't.


----------



## navjack27

You are a good son, thank


----------



## kd5151

Doubletap1911 said:


> If there is, please enlighten me and when AMD can clock up like an Intel, I'll give them serious consideration but for now, I'm considering going from a 7700k to the 9900k
> 
> Edit: It looks like they're within a few percentage points in integer performance on the Gen1 TR but have a weaker FPU and more memory latency which seems to hold them back in gaming performance.
> 
> https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/8379/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-core-i9-cpus-clock/index7.html
> 
> Maybe they'll be worth considering in another generation or so.
> 
> I have no love for either company and I'm not a performance per dollar shopper (to a point) so AMD just doesn't excite me. Not since the Athlon 650 days...


 FX-9590 

i5-8400 3.8ghz
Ryzen 5 2600 4.2ghz


----------



## Raghar

I looked around, and it seems there will not be new 6-core with HT because i7-8700K would be the one. Kinda wonder why Intel bothered with 9600K at all.

Anyway it looks like prices I posted were correct. There is yet another site which shows a similar price. Personaly, I think Intel 9900K prices should be lower, and they should stop thinking about that 5 GHz for single thread insanity. (Tested yes, reliable yes, but 5 GHz preset for normal user, that should be big no. In addition I remember how they talked about Sky-X and needing W10 to select best core for proper single core turbo. Normal CPUs, when they have turbo, should allow max speed on any core.)


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Raghar said:


> I looked around, and it seems there will not be new 6-core with HT because i7-8700K would be the one. Kinda wonder why Intel bothered with 9600K at all.


It'll be interesting. A 6C/6T i5 makes sense, and an 8C/16T i9 makes sense, but there are two configurations in the middle: 6C/12T and 8C/8T. If Intel chooses the former, they've effectively launched an 8700K v2, which is fine...ish. If Intel chooses the latter, they're able to salvage some of the 8-core dies. The problem is that, with an 8C/8T, they can't make the CPU below it 6C/12T; there are several cases in which this will actually outperform the 8C/8T and it was speculated that Coffee Lake's removal of the 4C/8T configuration between 4C/4T and 6C/6T was for this reason.

One important thing to consider with Intel's different CPU configurations is L3 cache. The best CPUs of a given core count (i3-x300 since Haswell and i7s) have 2MB of L3 per core, while the slower CPUs (i3-x100 since Haswell and i5s) have 1.5MB per core. When Coffee Lake made the best quad-core CPUs 4C/4T i3s, Intel offered them with up to 8MB of L3 cache; otherwise-equivalent i5s had 6MB previously. Logically then, if the best hexa-core CPU becomes a 6C/6T i5, Intel will probably offer them with 12MB of cache rather than 9MB like current Coffee Lake i5s. Similarly, an 8C/8T i7 will have 12MB of L3 and an 8C/16T i9 will have 16MB.

Effects on performance will be small though. It lets Intel salvage imperfect dies, and this is important because cache takes up a huge amount of die space, but it's not something you'll notice in day to day use or even a lot of benchmarks.

EDIT: HAHA JUST KIDDING. 6-core i5 is supposed to be 9MB. It’s a slightly overclocked 8600K, and the 9700K will likely be slower than the 8700K.


----------



## tconroy135

CynicalUnicorn said:


> It'll be interesting. A 6C/6T i5 makes sense, and an 8C/16T i9 makes sense, but there are two configurations in the middle: 6C/12T and 8C/8T. If Intel chooses the former, they've effectively launched an 8700K v2, which is fine...ish. If Intel chooses the latter, they're able to salvage some of the 8-core dies. The problem is that, with an 8C/8T, they can't make the CPU below it 6C/12T; there are several cases in which this will actually outperform the 8C/8T and it was speculated that Coffee Lake's removal of the 4C/8T configuration between 4C/4T and 6C/6T was for this reason.
> 
> One important thing to consider with Intel's different CPU configurations is L3 cache. The best CPUs of a given core count (i3-x300 since Haswell and i7s) have 2MB of L3 per core, while the slower CPUs (i3-x100 since Haswell and i5s) have 1.5MB per core. When Coffee Lake made the best quad-core CPUs 4C/4T i3s, Intel offered them with up to 8MB of L3 cache; otherwise-equivalent i5s had 6MB previously. Logically then, if the best hexa-core CPU becomes a 6C/6T i5, Intel will probably offer them with 12MB of cache rather than 9MB like current Coffee Lake i5s. Similarly, an 8C/8T i7 will have 12MB of L3 and an 8C/16T i9 will have 16MB.
> 
> Effects on performance will be small though. It lets Intel salvage imperfect dies, and this is important because cache takes up a huge amount of die space, but it's not something you'll notice in day to day use or even a lot of benchmarks.
> 
> EDIT: HAHA JUST KIDDING. 6-core i5 is supposed to be 9MB. It’s a slightly overclocked 8600K, and the 9700K will likely be slower than the 8700K.


I wonder if there will be variance in overclockability between the 8C/8T and the 8C/16T when Hyperthreading is disabled so they both have just 8C.


----------



## Raghar

And I was wondering in what world Intel would release i5 CPU with full cache.


----------



## Struzzin

I am just happy that I don't know what to do about my next system. 
I was thinking about a upgrade to a 2700X and X470 but I also want to mess with a 9900K !
I also want to see what Zen 2 could bring. 
My 2600K system is just sitting around maybe sell it on Amazon and tell myself I am worth it haha


----------



## UltraMega

That's a much larger jump over the 8700k than I was expecting.


----------



## treadstone

Well i just placed my vote...
just ordered

A - Intel 8th Gen Limited Edition i7-8086K and ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero with a Thermaltake Core P3 TG Snow 

I look forward to the new chips to upgrade my sons rig


i was tired of waiting....


----------



## Glerox

9900K on canadian retailer, 693$ (530 USD) http://www.directdial.com/BX80684I99900K.html


----------



## rdr09

Glerox said:


> 9900K on canadian retailer, 693$ (530 USD) http://www.directdial.com/BX80684I99900K.html


Retail is 765$ CAD. That's a Super Deal!


----------



## Kaihekoa

Glerox said:


> 9900K on canadian retailer, 693$ (530 USD) http://www.directdial.com/BX80684I99900K.html


These prices are crazy. Doesn't Intel realize AMD sells their 8C/16T for $280 USD?

http://www.microcenter.com/product/...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler


----------



## EniGma1987

Kaihekoa said:


> These prices are crazy. Doesn't Intel realize AMD sells their 8C/16T for $280 USD?
> 
> http://www.microcenter.com/product/...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler





Ya the AMD ones are a way better deal. Unfortunately for Intel, they have not been able to transition to multiple small dies yet, which means their costs are significantly higher so they must be priced higher.


----------



## doom26464

Intel is really doing a good job of handing the market shares over to AMD. 

While I have no doubt intel cpu will be like 15-17% faster it wont be worth nearly double the price


----------



## bigjdubb

I think it's going to depend on the application as to how much faster it is than the 2700x. The 8700k doesn't trail the 2700x by much when it does trail the 2700x, adding 2 more cores with similar clock speeds will make things interesting. Worth the price or not will depend heavily on what the price is and how heavily you value performance. I'd be willing to pay more money for more clock speed and better memory support, I'm guessing I won't have problems running 4 sticks of fast ram with the 9900k.

I've only had my 2700x for a month but I can't wait to pick up a 9900k and put this 2700x where it belongs, in a workstation.


----------



## Raghar

EniGma1987 said:


> Ya the AMD ones are a way better deal. Unfortunately for Intel, they have not been able to transition to multiple small dies yet, which means their costs are significantly higher so they must be priced higher.


What would be the point? AMD moved to 8 cores per Zen die. Intel CPU that's closest to multi die CPU (aside old Q6600) was Sky-X. Which has no ringbus, thus users were complaining about increase in latency. With multidie, there might be problem with RAM to die communication, and there would be problem with die to die communication, which is best solved by ringbus, and when there are too many cores, it's best solved by multi-ringbus systems or mesh. Multi-ringbus systems are expensive, mesh is slow. 

I'm not sure taking 28 Atom cores and gluing them together is the best future of PC industry.


----------



## Nizzen

doom26464 said:


> Intel is really doing a good job of handing the market shares over to AMD.
> 
> While I have no doubt intel cpu will be like 15-17% faster it wont be worth nearly double the price


Since when did performance scale with prize?


Want the best? Pay for it. Like everything else in the world.


----------



## EniGma1987

Raghar said:


> What would be the point? AMD moved to 8 cores per Zen die. Intel CPU that's closest to multi die CPU (aside old Q6600) was Sky-X. Which has no ringbus, thus users were complaining about increase in latency. With multidie, there might be problem with RAM to die communication, and there would be problem with die to die communication, which is best solved by ringbus, and when there are too many cores, it's best solved by multi-ringbus systems or mesh. Multi-ringbus systems are expensive, mesh is slow.
> 
> I'm not sure taking 28 Atom cores and gluing them together is the best future of PC industry.



I never said sticking a bunch of crap cores together was the future. The problem that all these companies are running into is that process nodes are not shrinking like they used to, and so the only way forward is to take multiple dies and stick them together. This can be done for cost, as two small dies cost less than 1 giant die, and for performance. We can only go so big in die size, and we are reaching that limit. The only way to move forward from a performance standpoint is to put multiple dies together. And right now, AMD can crush Intel on price fronts because they just stick some 44mm2 sized dies together, while Intel has to manufacture dies around 200mm2. If Intel moves up to even higher sizes then they not only make each chip cost more, they also have higher failure rates which drive up cost. Meanwhile multi-die configs don't have to scrap whole processors when only one of the small dies are bad leading to lower cost of failures and lower general manufacturing costs. So from both cost and future performance standpoints it is the only solution for the future. They simply cant keep adding more in the 1 die when the nodes stop becoming smaller.


----------



## SuperZan

Nizzen said:


> Since when did performance scale with prize?
> 
> 
> Want the best? Pay for it. Like everything else in the world.


I think his (entirely reasonable) point was that he doesn't want it (or at least acknowledges that he doesn't need it) and so he won't pay for it. Most responsible consumers should be thinking the same thing. No need to pay extra for something you don't need if you can get the performance you require for less. That's why we started overclocking in the first place. It's why most people don't sell their houses to buy Lambos.


----------



## doom26464

SuperZan said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when did performance scale with prize?
> 
> 
> Want the best? Pay for it. Like everything else in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> I think his (entirely reasonable) point was that he doesn't want it (or at least acknowledges that he doesn't need it) and so he won't pay for it. Most responsible consumers should be thinking the same thing. No need to pay extra for something you don't need if you can get the performance you require for less. That's why we started overclocking in the first place. It's why most people don't sell their houses to buy Lambos.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly.


As an enthusiasts I am willing to pay a premium for that top notch part that sits above the rest, but at a certian point that value for the small amount of performance goes so terrible out the window it gets very hard to make it worth buying. I also build pc's for friends and family and have to take very good noticed of new products and the value said products bring.


It will be intresting to hear offical MSRP from intel on the 9900k.


----------



## guttheslayer

doom26464 said:


> Intel is really doing a good job of handing the market shares over to AMD.
> 
> While I have no doubt intel cpu will be like 15-17% faster it wont be worth nearly double the price


Didnt I warn you that Intel will sell their 8C/16T at $499 or more and you criticized me for being biased against Intel. Intel deserved to be criticized and biased toward!


----------



## chessmyantidrug

The price Silicon Lottery currently has listed for the i9-9900K is $479. They say that's the price they're being given from one of their suppliers. link

I was expecting an MSRP between $450 and $475. Considering their pricing convention over the years. $470 to $480 makes the most sense. You have to be rather naive to believe the i9-9900K will have an MSRP north of $500 USD. I don't expect release prices to reflect MSRP for maybe a month or two since supply is unlikely to meet demand. I don't think I will be willing to buy the i9-9900K at $479. Performance is rather easy to assume since it's the fourth series of processors based on Skylake architecture. The i7-9700K will be a more intriguing part. If Microcenter has the i9-9900K available for under $425, I'll be much more interested. And now that ASUS is bringing back the Maximus Gene for Z390, I'm more inclined to go that route.


----------



## rdr09

chessmyantidrug said:


> The price Silicon Lottery currently has listed for the i9-9900K is $479. They say that's the price they're being given from one of their suppliers. link
> 
> I was expecting an MSRP between $450 and $475. Considering their pricing convention over the years. $470 to $480 makes the most sense. You have to be rather naive to believe the i9-9900K will have an MSRP north of $500 USD. I don't expect release prices to reflect MSRP for maybe a month or two since supply is unlikely to meet demand. I don't think I will be willing to buy the i9-9900K at $479. Performance is rather easy to assume since it's the fourth series of processors based on Skylake architecture. The i7-9700K will be a more intriguing part. If Microcenter has the i9-9900K available for under $425, I'll be much more interested. And now that ASUS is bringing back the Maximus Gene for Z390, I'm more inclined to go that route.


That's US price. There are gamers/users in other parts of the world. Im from the US but i've lived in Europe, Asia, and currently in Africa. In South Africa, for example, the price will be a lot more. 

I bought my Asus B350 and a Ryzen 5 1600 while in Egypt for a bit more than in the US.

EDIT: check this out . . .

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html


----------



## Lass3

doom26464 said:


> Intel is really doing a good job of handing the market shares over to AMD.
> 
> While I have no doubt intel cpu will be like 15-17% faster it wont be worth nearly double the price


Well sadly it's more than "15-17%" in CPU bound gaming scenarios, which is what I use my homerig for (165 Hz). Even with b-die at 3466/CL14.

I'll be picking up 9700K or 9900K on launch to replace this Ryzen 2700X.

This 2700X @ 4.25 was a sidegrade or even downgrade coming from my 3770K at 5 GHz, depending on game. Overwatch was the only game where Ryzen could keep up (almost).


----------



## rdr09

Lass3 said:


> Well sadly it's more than "15-17%" in CPU bound gaming scenarios, which is what I use my homerig for (165 Hz). Even with b-die at 3466/CL14.
> 
> I'll be picking up 9700K or 9900K on launch to replace this Ryzen 2700X.
> 
> This 2700X @ 4.25 was a sidegrade or even downgrade coming from my 3770K at 5 GHz, depending on game. Overwatch was the only game where Ryzen could keep up (almost).



Same here. I upgraded my Phenom X6 to the Ryzen 7 2700 and i was able to compare the latter to my intel i7 2700K 4.5GHz but did not see much difference. But, i only have a GTX 1060. Maybe if i have a 1080 Ti i would.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

rdr09 said:


> That's US price. There are gamers/users in other parts of the world. Im from the US but i've lived in Europe, Asia, and currently in Africa. In South Africa, for example, the price will be a lot more.
> 
> I bought my Asus B350 and a Ryzen 5 1600 while in Egypt for a bit more than in the US.
> 
> EDIT: check this out . . .
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html


I realize there's more markets across the entire globe. Since I'm not exactly in tune with those markets, I don't comment on them. However, I'm rather in tune with the US market and have a pretty good idea of Intel's pricing history over the last seven or eight years. Ever since Sandy Bridge, their mainstream pricing has been rather predictable. If prices have been predictable in other markets over the same time span, then the Coffee Lake refresh pricing should also remain predictable.


----------



## Lass3

chessmyantidrug said:


> I realize there's more markets across the entire globe. Since I'm not exactly in tune with those markets, I don't comment on them. However, I'm rather in tune with the US market and have a pretty good idea of Intel's pricing history over the last seven or eight years. Ever since Sandy Bridge, their mainstream pricing has been rather predictable. If prices have been predictable in other markets over the same time span, then the Coffee Lake refresh pricing should also remain predictable.


Intel should lower prices tho, considering the shortages, competition and 10nm delay.
I hope to see this. We'll see in a week or two.

2700X is $320-330 atm? 9700K should not be much more expensive than this. $350 and $450 for the i9-9900K would be decent prices. I hope we won't see $500+ for the i9.
It would not make much sense to price both 9700K and 9900K much higher than 2700X and only have i5-9600K, a 6C/6T part, in this pricesegment.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

this are my tests from 7820x vs 2700x they both tweaked
gpu is a 1080 this are 1080P benchies 1080 its not overclocked

they both running @ 3466LLs same kit of ram same timings.
7820x @ 49x
2700x @ 41.25x

ROTR its my bench of choice as it reacts to everything cpu/ram/mobo tweaks


----------



## Lass3

zGunBLADEz said:


> this are my tests from 7820x vs 2700x they both tweaked
> gpu is a 1080 this are 1080P benchies 1080 its not overclocked
> 
> ROTR its my bench of choice as it reacts to everything cpu/ram/mobo tweaks


Well i7-8700K at 5 GHz beats 2700X much more than that.
Ryzen and Intel HEDT is pretty much the same in terms of gaming, from my experience and in the reviews I've seen.
Ring Bus > Mesh.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Lass3 said:


> Well i7-8700K at 5 GHz beats 2700X much more than that.
> Ryzen and Intel HEDT is pretty much the same in terms of gaming, from my experience and in the reviews I've seen.
> Ring Bus > Mesh.


my latency is in the 50ns i doubt my 8700k is any faster lol XD in the 40ns its very very negligible at best

did i mention i also have a 52x 8700k?

I did put the 7820x to match the 2700x latency wise for that sole reason.. My 7820x its in the 50ns in regular usage 32x mesh XD in quad channel

Have to use the same kit of ram and same timings to make it legit.


DX12
Very high Quality mode
FXAA/HBAO+ enabled
16x AF enabled
Pure Hair Normal (on)
Tessellation On

need a baseline on what exactly was used for comparisson. Not many websites give you this info
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i7-8700k-processor-review,19.html


----------



## doom26464

guttheslayer said:


> doom26464 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intel is really doing a good job of handing the market shares over to AMD.
> 
> While I have no doubt intel cpu will be like 15-17% faster it wont be worth nearly double the price
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt I warn you that Intel will sell their 8C/16T at $499 or more and you criticized me for being biased against Intel. Intel deserved to be criticized and biased toward!
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. You look only intrested in antagonazing memebers here so Im just going to ignore the rest of that post. 


But to stay on topic. 9900k should be 400-450USD to be a reasonibly good buy based off leaked performance. 

450-500USD and it gets into terriorty where it makes it a hard buy

500+USD and it becomes a flat out nope. 


There is still a matter of overclocking headroom being unknown which can allow some variance to its "worth".


There is also black friday comming up and if AMD puts there 2000 series cpu on sale like they did to there 1000 series last year.....well then its hard not too look the other way


----------



## Alex132

rdr09 said:


> That's US price. There are gamers/users in other parts of the world. Im from the US but i've lived in Europe, Asia, and currently in Africa. In South Africa, for example, the price will be a lot more.
> 
> I bought my Asus B350 and a Ryzen 5 1600 while in Egypt for a bit more than in the US.
> 
> EDIT: check this out . . .
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html


Why would you choose to live in Africa if you previously lived in the US/Europe/Asia?


-Someone who emigrated from RSA.


----------



## ToTheSun!

doom26464 said:


> There is also black friday comming up and if AMD puts there 2000 series cpu on sale like they did to there 1000 series last year.....well then its hard not too look the other way


This year's BF is going to decide what I'm upgrading, as well.


----------



## rdr09

Alex132 said:


> Why would you choose to live in Africa if you previously lived in the US/Europe/Asia?
> 
> 
> -Someone who emigrated from RSA.



Work


----------



## bigjdubb

Have there been any new leaks about release dates? The last I heard was that it could possibly be next Friday (Oct. 5th).


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Lass3 said:


> Intel should lower prices tho, considering the shortages, competition and 10nm delay.
> I hope to see this. We'll see in a week or two.
> 
> 2700X is $320-330 atm? 9700K should not be much more expensive than this. $350 and $450 for the i9-9900K would be decent prices. I hope we won't see $500+ for the i9.
> It would not make much sense to price both 9700K and 9900K much higher than 2700X and only have i5-9600K, a 6C/6T part, in this pricesegment.


In what world would shortages (less supply) mean lower pricing? If anything, that would lead to higher pricing. I anticipate these new CPU's won't be available for MSRP for about a month or two. Hopefully I'm wrong and supply is higher than expected out the gate.

The i5-9600K won't be in the same price tier as the R7 2700X. The unlocked i5 has historically been priced around $250. I expect a small price bump like we saw with the i5-7600K over the i5-6600K. The only interesting processors from the refresh will be the i7's and i9's. I'm not at all worried about i7-9700K pricing. It's safe to assume it will stay in the $350 to $370 range. I expect the price gap between the i9-9900K and i7-9700K to be similar to the gap between the i7-9700K and i5-9600K.


----------



## crpcookie

zGunBLADEz said:


> my latency is in the 50ns i doubt my 8700k is any faster lol XD in the 40ns its very very negligible at best
> 
> did i mention i also have a 52x 8700k?
> 
> I did put the 7820x to match the 2700x latency wise for that sole reason.. My 7820x its in the 50ns in regular usage 32x mesh XD in quad channel
> 
> Have to use the same kit of ram and same timings to make it legit.
> 
> 
> DX12
> Very high Quality mode
> FXAA/HBAO+ enabled
> 16x AF enabled
> Pure Hair Normal (on)
> Tessellation On
> 
> need a baseline on what exactly was used for comparisson. Not many websites give you this info
> https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i7-8700k-processor-review,19.html


Lower latency only helps the 7820x and 7800x to a certain point, but they ultimately suffer from deficient amount of L3 cache. 7900x often beats the 7820x at the same clock speed, and vice versa the 7960x beats the 7900x. Skylake-X is a viable option for gaming if you gun for the higher core models, otherwise the 9900k will smoke everything due to good amount of L3 cache and low latency out of the box.


----------



## Lass3

chessmyantidrug said:


> In what world would shortages (less supply) mean lower pricing? If anything, that would lead to higher pricing. I anticipate these new CPU's won't be available for MSRP for about a month or two. Hopefully I'm wrong and supply is higher than expected out the gate.
> 
> The i5-9600K won't be in the same price tier as the R7 2700X. The unlocked i5 has historically been priced around $250. I expect a small price bump like we saw with the i5-7600K over the i5-6600K. The only interesting processors from the refresh will be the i7's and i9's. I'm not at all worried about i7-9700K pricing. It's safe to assume it will stay in the $350 to $370 range. I expect the price gap between the i9-9900K and i7-9700K to be similar to the gap between the i7-9700K and i5-9600K.


There is shortage on 8th gen chips now, because Intel focus on 9th gen production


----------



## Lass3

zGunBLADEz said:


> my latency is in the 50ns i doubt my 8700k is any faster lol XD in the 40ns its very very negligible at best
> 
> did i mention i also have a 52x 8700k?
> 
> I did put the 7820x to match the 2700x latency wise for that sole reason.. My 7820x its in the 50ns in regular usage 32x mesh XD in quad channel
> 
> Have to use the same kit of ram and same timings to make it legit.
> 
> 
> DX12
> Very high Quality mode
> FXAA/HBAO+ enabled
> 16x AF enabled
> Pure Hair Normal (on)
> Tessellation On
> 
> need a baseline on what exactly was used for comparisson. Not many websites give you this info
> https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i7-8700k-processor-review,19.html


That game is bad for CPU testing, it does not represent general CPU performance and you're probably not even that CPU bound with those settings.
The 8700K at 5.2 will smoke that 7820X at 4.9 and 2700X at 4.2-4.3 in the majority of games when goal is 120+ fps / CPU bound

Low latency does not magically make Intel HEDT good for gaming. Ring bus + high clocks are superior.


----------



## rdr09

Lass3 said:


> That game is bad for CPU testing, it does not represent general CPU performance and you're probably not even that CPU bound with those settings.
> The 8700K at 5.2 will smoke that 7820X at 4.9 and 2700X at 4.2-4.3 in the majority of games when goal is 120+ fps / CPU bound
> 
> Low latency does not magically make Intel HEDT good for gaming. Ring bus + high clocks are superior.


1080 120+ fps/ CPU bound. Yes! 8700K is King. Prolly beat the 9900K as well.

Actually, just less than a year ago, the 7700K was beating the 8700K as well, iirc.


----------



## Lass3

rdr09 said:


> 1080 120+ fps/ CPU bound. Yes! 8700K is King. Prolly beat the 9900K as well.
> 
> Actually, just less than a year ago, the 7700K was beating the 8700K as well, iirc.


The 7700K might have beaten the 8700K in a few older titles with higher clocks, not in new ones. 8700K is much better than 7700K.

I don't expect 8700K to beat 9700K or 9900K, especially not when all are running stock speeds.

8700K needs delidding, 9700K and 9900K does not. I expect same end-clocks so I doubt 8700K is going to beat them. I expect 9700K to beat 8700K and 9900K in most games because of no HT tho.

8700K performs worse in CPU bound gaming with HT ON. Tons of videos on YouTube about this. HT/SMT does lower performance in 99% of games by 5-10%. Same happends happends with Ryzen 6-8C. Gamers Nexus often includes SMT ON and OFF. OFF pretty much always win. Higher min, max and avg fps (unless we're talking dual and quad cores in newer AAA games...).

i7-9700K at ~5.2 GHz is going to be an absolute beast in high fps gaming.


----------



## bigjdubb

Lass3 said:


> There is shortage on 8th gen chips now, because Intel focus on 9th gen production


I have been holding on to a secret hope that the reason behind all these 14nm supply shortages is because Intel shifted 9th gen production into overdrive.

In an ideal world I will be able to walk into microcenter on release day and buy the motherboard I want and a 9900k for msrp or better. Reality will probably be quite a bit different, the desirable motherboards will take weeks or more before they are available and the 9900k's will be selling above msrp because stock is limited.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Lass3 said:


> There is shortage on 8th gen chips now, because Intel focus on 9th gen production


Do you think those shortages have had a positive or negative impact on pricing? I need you to think critically here.


----------



## Lass3

chessmyantidrug said:


> Do you think those shortages have had a positive or negative impact on pricing? I need you to think critically here.


Intel has 9th gen production in overdrive, so CPU's are available on launch. This is the reason behind 8th gen shortages.

Not rocket science.


----------



## Vlada011

Intel is not aware how their decision to change thermal paste and launch first mainstream CPU after SB soldered properly as all processor should be influence on me and I believe on other people... Immediately picture of i9-9900K is different, plus his performance, capability to look UHD Blu Rays, gaming performance, influence on me to look him as interesting option.

Even they success to hide information about future socket and we don't have nothing specific to wait and find reason why to delay uprade.
It's last in generation, but what... only economic situation or strong platform could be reason for delay.


----------



## Nizzen

Is this guru3d.com now?

Looks like it when I reading some of the posts here...


----------



## doom26464

Also I hear rumours of a launch on october 9th with a 480USD price for the 9900k


----------



## jonny27

doom26464 said:


> Also I hear rumours of a launch on october 9th with a 480USD price for the 9900k


I already said it in a couple of places before, the problem with the 9900k at that price is that it falls into a bit of a no man's land. If you need all the threads you can get on a mainstream platform, a Ryzen 7 should be right on its heels for a way more attractive price. And if you want high fps gaming instead, the (again) cheaper non-hyperthreaded 9700k provides nearly the same for less. Its only market is anyone who requires both situations at once.


----------



## doom26464

jonny27 said:


> doom26464 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also I hear rumours of a launch on october 9th with a 480USD price for the 9900k
> 
> 
> 
> I already said it in a couple of places before, the problem with the 9900k at that price is that it falls into a bit of a no man's land. If you need all the threads you can get on a mainstream platform, a Ryzen 7 should be right on its heels for a way more attractive price. And if you want high fps gaming instead, the (again) cheaper non-hyperthreaded 9700k provides nearly the same for less. Its only market is anyone who requires both situations at once.
Click to expand...

Game streamers, which in itself is a big market.


----------



## Raghar

doom26464 said:


> Game streamers, which in itself is a big market.


Game streamers should get a capture card, and plug it into a spare motherboard. In fact game streamers are better with second less powerful PC which allows them to chat and use second monitor without problems.

But frankly how many people are streaming? It's pittance in comparison to total buyers.


----------



## ku4eto

Raghar said:


> Game streamers should get a capture card, and plug it into a spare motherboard. In fact game streamers are better with second less powerful PC which allows them to chat and use second monitor without problems.
> 
> But frankly how many people are streaming? It's pittance in comparison to total buyers.


Managing a 2nd PC aint easy stuff. Also, thats extra space and whole another rig. Its cheaper to have a better CPU, that can do more than 1 thing at the same time.


----------



## PedalMonk

I am personally looking forward to buying the 9900K. At $480, it's not that expensive. I paid $340 or something like that for my 4770K almost 5.5 years ago. I'll gladly pay a little more for twice the cores at a guaranteed 5GHz(let's hope they can all overclock to 5Ghz). I also do a lot of photo and video editing so every core and MHz counts.

The only sad thing is, I don't think 10Gb NICs will be on the Z390 motherboards. I have been waiting for 10Gb NICs(onboard) for a long time. It will be interesting to see how the 9900K does vs. my 4770K at 4.7Ghz

BTW, what speed memory should I run with a 9900K? Or do we have to wait for everything to be announced first? What are people running with 8700K?


----------



## doom26464

ku4eto said:


> Raghar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game streamers should get a capture card, and plug it into a spare motherboard. In fact game streamers are better with second less powerful PC which allows them to chat and use second monitor without problems.
> 
> But frankly how many people are streaming? It's pittance in comparison to total buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> Managing a 2nd PC aint easy stuff. Also, thats extra space and whole another rig. Its cheaper to have a better CPU, that can do more than 1 thing at the same time.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

And where nearing a point where mainstream hardware will have the power to do such things with ease.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Lass3 said:


> That game is bad for CPU testing, it does not represent general CPU performance and you're probably not even that CPU bound with those settings.
> The 8700K at 5.2 will smoke that 7820X at 4.9 and 2700X at 4.2-4.3 in the majority of games when goal is 120+ fps / CPU bound
> 
> Low latency does not magically make Intel HEDT good for gaming. Ring bus + high clocks are superior.


Yet i put tests and i see none from nobody..

Have 7820x/2700x & 8700k that CLOCKS at 52x.


----------



## empyr

I thought this thread was to discuss the 9th Gen :thinking:


----------



## empyr

On a side note to the 9th Gen, just seen Z390 Formula, Hero and Code pop up on a site, expected delivery date is 4/10/2018. I seriously hope Intel is releasing the 9900k before the 19th.


----------



## jonny27

empyr said:


> On a side note to the 9th Gen, just seen Z390 Formula, Hero and Code pop up on a site, expected delivery date is 4/10/2018. I seriously hope Intel is releasing the 9900k before the 19th.


I think I read somewhere the release is scheduled 2 weeks after the MB's. So it's possible if that date is true.


----------



## empyr

jonny27 said:


> I think I read somewhere the release is scheduled 2 weeks after the MB's. So it's possible if that date is true.



Yeah, I have seen that date thrown around. I just hope it ain't true, whats the point of releasing the motherboards 2 weeks earlier than the CPUs that they're technically "designed" for? :-/


----------



## doom26464

great read

z390 board leaks and everyone is ignorant/has no sense of pride. 



but not too feed the troll anymore, anyone know if any of the z390 boards will be using for realtek audio chips on them?


----------



## SuperZan

empyr said:


> Yeah, I have seen that date thrown around. I just hope it ain't true, whats the point of releasing the motherboards 2 weeks earlier than the CPUs that they're technically "designed" for? :-/



Yeah, that'd be sub-optimal. It's never fun to have 90% of your new build in a pile of boxes in the corner waiting for that last component, especially if that component is essential to function.


----------



## EastCoast

doom26464 said:


> great read
> 
> z390 board leaks and everyone is ignorant/has no sense of pride.
> 
> 
> 
> but not too feed the troll anymore, anyone know if any of the z390 boards will be using for realtek audio chips on them?


It's not clear for certain but I would assume so. But I've noticed that they would use SupremeFX in their upper tier boards while using Realtek in their lower tier.


----------



## empyr

SuperZan said:


> Yeah, that'd be sub-optimal. It's never fun to have 90% of your new build in a pile of boxes in the corner waiting for that last component, especially if that component is essential to function.



Yup.. :-(


----------



## EastCoast

I have to wonder what the 9700k/9900k will offer in performance over a 6700k/7700k/8700k at 1440p and higher. 
Sure, I expect to see good gains at 1080p but if you game at resolutions higher then that then will it's price point be worth it.
For creator content and other non gaming scenarios it goes without saying.


----------



## empyr

Few model numbers for Asus boards that had them:

Maximus XI Hero: 90MB0XS0-M0EAY0
Maximus XI Hero (Wi-Fi): 90MB0XR0-M0EAY0
Maximus XI Formula: 90MB0XU0-M0EAY0
Strix F: 90MB0YG0-M0EAY0
Strix H: 90MB0YU0-M0EAY0
Prime M Plus: 90MB0Z60-M0EAY0
TUF Pro: 90MB0YA0-M0EAY0
TUF Pro (Wi-Fi): 90MB0Y00-M0EAY0
TUF Plus: 90MB0XW0-M0EAY0


----------



## Raghar

EastCoast said:


> It's not clear for certain but I would assume so. But I've noticed that they would use SupremeFX in their upper tier boards while using Realtek in their lower tier.


SupremeFX is Realtek.
SupremeFX ALC1150.

When you are using optical output, it's quite nice.



SuperZan said:


> Yeah, that'd be sub-optimal. It's never fun to have 90% of your new build in a pile of boxes in the corner waiting for that last component, especially if that component is essential to function.


MB should be released one month before CPU release, to allow proper distribution and stockpiling. Especially when you buy MB from different supplier than CPU, synchronization can be a problem.

Buying at release always risks massive delays (and in some situations you shouldn't expect manufacturer would have MB replacement anytime soon), it's better when it's CPU than to wait for MB, and then discover you have one of few problems you find only when you unpack your MB.


----------



## Defoler

EastCoast said:


> I have to wonder what the 9700k/9900k will offer in performance over a 6700k/7700k/8700k at 1440p and higher.
> Sure, I expect to see good gains at 1080p but if you game at resolutions higher then that then will it's price point be worth it.
> For creator content and other non gaming scenarios it goes without saying.


We will have to wait and see, but tbh, if you can OC them to a similar level, for most games, the performance gain will not be that high. We have seen in the past how higher core count doesn't add that much the performance, and clock speeds is usually what matters as there usually very little increase in IPC.


----------



## ViTosS

Guys can anyone tell me if the i9 9900k will be 40 PCIEX lanes? I saw a while ago a chart showing that even the i5 would have 40 lanes...


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Guys, please stay on topic. This is about Intel's new CPUs, remember. :thumb:




ViTosS said:


> Guys can anyone tell me if the i9 9900k will be 40 PCIEX lanes? I saw a while ago a chart showing that even the i5 would have 40 lanes...


Ah, good ol' Intel marketing muddying the waters.

The answer is close enough to yes that they won't get sued for false advertisement. The CPU has a system agent with 16 PCIe lanes hooked up to it directly, normally in a single x16 link. With a Z chipset or server chipset they can be split into two x8 links or an x8 link and two x4 links. This is where you plug in your GPU.

The _other_ 24 PCIe lanes come from the chipset, which got overhauled with Z170. Its lanes can be arranged as x1, x2, or x4 links, but no larger. Additionally, all of those lanes are crammed through the DMI link - itself a modified PCIe x4 link - to get to the CPU. So sure, it _has_ 24 PCIe lanes, but each lane is contending with 5 others on average for the CPU's attention.

EDIT: Made a picture to maybe explain better:










Each line represents a PCIe x4 link. Any link that attaches a device to the chipset must go through the single contended link between the chipset and CPU. The four links coming off the CPU meanwhile do not need to share.


----------



## Recipe7

The itch to get me to upgrade from my 5820k is getting unbearable. 

Will going from a [email protected] to a [email protected] on a 1080ti be worthwhile on 1440p? I'm already on a loop which would utilize the crosschill doodad on the Maximus Formula.

I'm figuring a 20% increase in fps with those numbers, am I assuming correctly?


----------



## EastCoast

Recipe7 said:


> The itch to get me to upgrade from my 5820k is getting unbearable.
> 
> Will going from a [email protected] to a [email protected] on a 1080ti be worthwhile on 1440p? I'm already on a loop which would utilize the crosschill doodad on the Maximus Formula.
> 
> I'm figuring a 20% increase in fps with those numbers, am I assuming correctly?


Hmm, hard to say. However, do you experience 100% or close it it on one of the cores at 1080p while gaming on the 5820k?




Raghar said:


> SupremeFX is Realtek.
> SupremeFX ALC1150.


Thanks for that.


----------



## Recipe7

EastCoast said:


> Hmm, hard to say. However, do you experience 100% or close it it on one of the cores at 1080p while gaming on the 5820k?


I really don't know to be honest. I haven't had a 1080p run on my 5820k.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

ViTosS said:


> Guys can anyone tell me if the i9 9900k will be 40 PCIEX lanes? I saw a while ago a chart showing that even the i5 would have 40 lanes...


Intel's mainstream processors only offer 16 PCI-e 3.0 lanes. The Z390 chipset will provide the equivalent to another 24.


----------



## white owl

Recipe7 said:


> The itch to get me to upgrade from my 5820k is getting unbearable.
> 
> Will going from a [email protected] to a [email protected] on a 1080ti be worthwhile on 1440p? I'm already on a loop which would utilize the crosschill doodad on the Maximus Formula.
> 
> I'm figuring a 20% increase in fps with those numbers, am I assuming correctly?


 Depends on what you play and what FPS you're trying to get. If you game at 1440p/144+ I'd say you'll get a good boost out if upgrading. 4k would certainly get better in games that are starting to use more cores like BFV but in many cases it won't be as drastic.
I think you should do it assuming you have the money to burn, it's a good upgrade all around. Guys like me will have to take advantage of the used 8700ks lol.


BTW You really can't calculate an FPS increase that way. If your GPU is always pegged at 100% in a given game a faster CPU will likely get you more FPS but just because a new CPU might be 20% faster than yours in every way (plus 2 more cores) doesn't mean you'll get 20% more FPS. You can do a CPU bench this way and probably get pretty close but games just have too many variables.
I can say that it would be a great upgrade though.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Recipe7 said:


> The itch to get me to upgrade from my 5820k is getting unbearable.
> 
> Will going from a [email protected] to a [email protected] on a 1080ti be worthwhile on 1440p? I'm already on a loop which would utilize the crosschill doodad on the Maximus Formula.
> 
> I'm figuring a 20% increase in fps with those numbers, am I assuming correctly?


You get 20-30 getting 2080 Ti. You will not get that from a CPU upgrade.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

ZealotKi11er said:


> You get 20-30 getting 2080 Ti. You will not get that from a CPU upgrade.


This. Unless the i7-5820K is the bottleneck. And even if it is, it's unlikely to be holding back a GTX 1080 Ti very much. An i9-9900K should be a superior gaming CPU thanks to higher clocks and likely better IMC. Average FPS might not increase 20-30%, but 1% and 0.1% lows will go up for a smoother gaming experience.

I'm only waiting to see Microcenter pricing at this point. My X58 system is really showing its age. I'm leaning toward an i7-9700K in an ASUS Maximus XI Gene.


----------



## steelbom

Man I really want a 6-core or 8-core CPU. The price of the former is pretty good at the moment, hopefully the later isn't too much more


----------



## ku4eto

steelbom said:


> Man I really want a 6-core or 8-core CPU. The price of the former is pretty good at the moment, hopefully the later isn't too much more


Well, there have been Ryzen CPUs out for a year already... If you truly wanted, you could have gotten one.


----------



## Nizzen

ku4eto said:


> Well, there have been Ryzen CPUs out for a year already... If you truly wanted, you could have gotten one.


Or 4 years ago with 5960x 8 core.


----------



## rdr09

steelbom said:


> Man I really want a 6-core or 8-core CPU. The price of the former is pretty good at the moment, hopefully the later isn't too much more


Just my 2cents. Always go with the one with HT. Turn it off when not needed. Makes the cpu temp much easier to manage. There might be a possibility an 8 core with no HT to do this . . .


----------



## steelbom

ku4eto said:


> Well, there have been Ryzen CPUs out for a year already... If you truly wanted, you could have gotten one.


Nah I'm talking about Intel, and at an affordable price.


rdr09 said:


> Just my 2cents. Always go with the one with HT. Turn it off when not needed. Makes the cpu temp much easier to manage. There might be a possibility an 8 core with no HT to do this . . .


Hmm, personally I prefer physical cores rather than virtual ones. Heat shouldn't be much of a problem with my cooler.


----------



## Recipe7

white owl said:


> Depends on what you play and what FPS you're trying to get. If you game at 1440p/144+ I'd say you'll get a good boost out if upgrading. 4k would certainly get better in games that are starting to use more cores like BFV but in many cases it won't be as drastic.
> I think you should do it assuming you have the money to burn, it's a good upgrade all around. Guys like me will have to take advantage of the used 8700ks lol.
> 
> 
> BTW You really can't calculate an FPS increase that way. If your GPU is always pegged at 100% in a given game a faster CPU will likely get you more FPS but just because a new CPU might be 20% faster than yours in every way (plus 2 more cores) doesn't mean you'll get 20% more FPS. You can do a CPU bench this way and probably get pretty close but games just have too many variables.
> I can say that it would be a great upgrade though.





ZealotKi11er said:


> You get 20-30 getting 2080 Ti. You will not get that from a CPU upgrade.


Yes, I'm trying to reach 144+ on my 1440p. I was thinking of going 2080ti + Z390, but I was willing to drop max 1200 on a gpu and block. It's looking to be atleast 1400, maybe 1500 for the hydrocopper. I know I will get more out of a 2080ti upgrade than a Z390 upgrade, but I'm certain a 5.2ghz across all cores will keep me satisfied for atleast 5 years, plus I am waiting yet again for the next round of 7nm gpus.




chessmyantidrug said:


> This. Unless the i7-5820K is the bottleneck. And even if it is, it's unlikely to be holding back a GTX 1080 Ti very much. An i9-9900K should be a superior gaming CPU thanks to higher clocks and likely better IMC. Average FPS might not increase 20-30%, but 1% and 0.1% lows will go up for a smoother gaming experience.
> 
> I'm only waiting to see Microcenter pricing at this point. My X58 system is really showing its age. I'm leaning toward an i7-9700K in an ASUS Maximus XI Gene.


I myself went from X58 to X99 and was not dissapointed. I can imagine going from an X58 to Z390 would be amazing.


----------



## ku4eto

steelbom said:


> Nah I'm talking about Intel, and at an affordable price.
> 
> Hmm, personally I prefer physical cores rather than virtual ones. Heat shouldn't be much of a problem with my cooler.


Lol, unless you needed really much that ST, you could have upgraded long ago. And the Intel 8 cores arent going to be anywhere affordable (well, compared to the previous 7820X, sure, its 100$ cheaper). A 2700X goes for 320$ on NewEgg right now. This makes the upcoming 9900K 50% more expensive. Not really justified if you ask me, but with certain glasses, maybe it is...


----------



## muels7

So unfortunately my gaming days are starting to slip behind me now that I have a family of my own. I am now switching to be more media focused and am looking to upgrade in the next 6 months to a better CPU for video transcoding. Would I see a significant increase in transcoding performance with one of these modern CPUs over my current 3930k?


----------



## chessmyantidrug

ku4eto said:


> Lol, unless you needed really much that ST, you could have upgraded long ago. And the Intel 8 cores arent going to be anywhere affordable (well, compared to the previous 7820X, sure, its 100$ cheaper). A 2700X goes for 320$ on NewEgg right now. This makes the upcoming 9900K 50% more expensive. Not really justified if you ask me, but with certain glasses, maybe it is...


Infinity Fabric places a premium on RAM speed and timings. It's also more necessary to get a premium AM4 motherboard to eke out as much performance as possible. The money you're saving on the processor is possibly going to those two components. When making a build list of comparable components across the board, a difference of $160 is going to matter less the higher the build cost gets. Once you're up around $1500, it's generally not unreasonable to justify moving the needle to $1650. While the price difference in a vacuum is a tough pill to swallow, it's much easier when taking everything else into account.



muels7 said:


> So unfortunately my gaming days are starting to slip behind me now that I have a family of my own. I am now switching to be more media focused and am looking to upgrade in the next 6 months to a better CPU for video transcoding. Would I see a significant increase in transcoding performance with one of these modern CPUs over my current 3930k?


I would wait until Q1 next year for Zen 2 news. You would see a reasonable increase in performance with an R7 2700X, i9-9900K, or i7-7820X from just having more cores and threads. The increase in IPC would add an additional bump. If you had to buy something today, there's several options for you to consider already that wouldn't disappoint, but you might as well wait.


----------



## SuperZan

chessmyantidrug said:


> Infinity Fabric places a premium on RAM speed and timings. It's also more necessary to get a premium AM4 motherboard to eke out as much performance as possible. The money you're saving on the processor is possibly going to those two components. When making a build list of comparable components across the board, a difference of $160 is going to matter less the higher the build cost gets. Once you're up around $1500, it's generally not unreasonable to justify moving the needle to $1650. While the price difference in a vacuum is a tough pill to swallow, it's much easier when taking everything else into account.



To be fair, overclocking the 9700k and 9900k is going to require very solid cooling, solder or no, and a higher-end motherboard, and to get memory performance advantages over AMD you're going to want a 3200+ kit which is right back to what you need with AMD. I agree with your example of $1,500 to $1,650 (though budget strictness is subjective), but on average Intel processors cost more, high-end Intel motherboards cost more, and RAM kits better than 3200 (which are mostly B-die, just like the ideal Ryzen kit) also cost more than 3200 kits which is really the sweet spot for Ryzen. For cooling, pushing a 5GHz octacore is going to require high-end air or water, whilst a 2700x can do just fine with a solid single-tower cooler in push/pull.

You can do the Intel system on a strict budget, but you won't be min-maxing the performance differential which is really the primary reason to choose the Intel system over the AMD one. Every percentage-point of performance you leave on the table pushes the price-performance advantage further into AMD's corner.

To be clear here, there are very good reasons to pursue an Intel build and the 9700k/9900k will no doubt be fantastic performers, but total platform cost is not an advantage I'd trot out.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

SuperZan said:


> To be fair, overclocking the 9700k and 9900k is going to require very solid cooling, solder or no, and a higher-end motherboard, and to get memory performance advantages over AMD you're going to want a 3200+ kit which is right back to what you need with AMD. I agree with your example of $1,500 to $1,650 (though budget strictness is subjective), but on average Intel processors cost more, high-end Intel motherboards cost more, and RAM kits better than 3200 (which are mostly B-die, just like the ideal Ryzen kit) also cost more than 3200 kits which is really the sweet spot for Ryzen. For cooling, pushing a 5GHz octacore is going to require high-end air or water, whilst a 2700x can do just fine with a solid single-tower cooler in push/pull.
> 
> You can do the Intel system on a strict budget, but you won't be min-maxing the performance differential which is really the primary reason to choose the Intel system over the AMD one. Every percentage-point of performance you leave on the table pushes the price-performance advantage further into AMD's corner.
> 
> To be clear here, there are very good reasons to pursue an Intel build and the 9700k/9900k will no doubt be fantastic performers, but total platform cost is not an advantage I'd trot out.


It's a bit difficult to predict how difficult these new processors will be to cool, but they won't _need_ to be overclocked. The same arguments can be made for Ryzen since they can run a bit warm and XFR 2.0 does a good job giving one almost as much performance from their processor as they're likely to get overclocking manually. I don't think an i9-9900K will have any problem being cooled by a be quiet! Dark Rock 4 or similar heatsink. It's interesting you think AMD's eight cores are easier to cool than Intel's eight cores.

From stock, Intel offers more performance core for core. With that said, it's easier to get by with a mid-range motherboard for Intel processors since the need to overclock isn't quite as high. As for RAM, it's easier to justify tighter timings on a Ryzen system because of Infinity Fabric. The money you're saving on the processor allows you spend that little bit extra on RAM. Of course you can buy the same RAM for a Coffee Lake system, but there's less benefit.

There's not as much min-maxing to do with an Intel system. You have to be thoughtful about the components you purchase for a Ryzen system.

I'm not calling total platform cost an advantage at all. I'm saying the platform cost _difference_ matters less once total cost starts to climb in excess of $1500. Since this point doesn't seem clear enough for you, the difference between $800 and $960 is a greater percentage than the difference between $1500 and $1660. If your total cost exceeds $2000, the price difference of the CPUs begins to become irrelevant. I didn't think I would have to elaborate on such a simple concept.


----------



## SuperZan

I understand the point you're making and stated as much that in the first paragraph that you've quoted. It was an error to state that you'd implied platform cost as an advantage to the Intel system. I do think that use-case and practically experienced benefit as well as total expected performance increase necessarily colour the price argument, be it differential or percentage.

AMD's current octacores _are_ easier to cool than Intel's. Intel's hex-core uses more power and generates more heat than does the 2700x. Reviews bear this out. There is not a massive difference between 8700k and the 9700k architecturally, so I fully expect the 9700k and 9900k to run hotter than the 2700x, especially at the higher frequencies they'll no doubt reach. Solder will help, but a 5GHz octacore is what it is.


----------



## steelbom

ku4eto said:


> Lol, unless you needed really much that ST, you could have upgraded long ago. And the Intel 8 cores arent going to be anywhere affordable (well, compared to the previous 7820X, sure, its 100$ cheaper). A 2700X goes for 320$ on NewEgg right now. This makes the upcoming 9900K 50% more expensive. Not really justified if you ask me, but with certain glasses, maybe it is...


I've actually always thought single threaded performance is most important, so I've always stuck with Intel. Have been happy overall, so no reason to switch and try AMD.

I actually built my rig a year and a half ago, so it isn't actually that old, however I've noticed my i5 6600K (4.3GHz) often gets maxed out with my workload - and I find if I game, I need to close chrome and a few other programs else I may get a few FPS dips.

That said, the i7 7820X (LGA 2066) is $829 (AUD) and is 8-cores w/ HT, and the i5 8600K is $389. So if the new 8-core falls somewhere between the two, I would be quite happy.


----------



## 113802

steelbom said:


> I've actually always thought single threaded performance is most important, so I've always stuck with Intel. Have been happy overall, so no reason to switch and try AMD.
> 
> I actually built my rig a year and a half ago, so it isn't actually that old, however I've noticed my i5 6600K (4.3GHz) often gets maxed out with my workload - and I find if I game, I need to close chrome and a few other programs else I may get a few FPS dips.
> 
> That said, the i7 7820X (LGA 2066) is $829 (AUD) and is 8-cores w/ HT, and the i5 8600K is $389. So if the new 8-core falls somewhere between the two, I would be quite happy.


I would stay away from any Intel's mesh and AMD's multi-chip module architectures. Stick with Intel's mainstream chips which are monolithic until Intel releases their heterogeneous chips. Unless you need more threads there isn't a reason to get a chip with higher latency.


----------



## jdstock76

SystemTech said:


> I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.
> 
> 
> 
> Who will win....
> 
> Exciting times indeed at the moment
> 
> Thank you AMD for finally making Intel squirm.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like the CPU race is back on. Each company pushing their technologies and process to make faster processors.
> 
> Finally the standard 10% improvements are done for a while and 2500K users have a decent reason to upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> Now if only AMD could pull another rabbit out the hat, and compete with Nvidia for GPU's.
> 
> Then things would really be as they were in the mid 2000's where each company was pushing the limits, not sitting idle just raking in cash.




2500K users had a reason to upgrade with the 3770K. Smh ????*♂ 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## steelbom

WannaBeOCer said:


> I would stay away from any Intel's mesh and AMD's multi-chip module architectures. Stick with Intel's mainstream chips which are monolithic until Intel releases their heterogeneous chips. Unless you need more threads there isn't a reason to get a chip with higher latency.


Oh I wasn't aware of that - Is that what the i7 7820X is? Will the i5 9600K also be that kind of chip?
I don't really want more latency, but I would like at least 6 cores but preferably 8.


----------



## 113802

steelbom said:


> Oh I wasn't aware of that - Is that what the i7 7820X is? Will the i5 9600K also be that kind of chip?
> I don't really want more latency, but I would like at least 6 cores but preferably 8.


The 7820x is a mesh architecture. All of the Skylake-X chips are mesh chips. Intel's monolithic designs have much faster intercore communication such as the 8700k. AMD's Infinity fabric approach was a cost saving measure since it reduces design complexity.


----------



## steelbom

WannaBeOCer said:


> The 7820x is a mesh architecture. All of the Skylake-X chips are mesh chips. Intel's monolithic designs have much faster intercore communication such as the 8700k. AMD's Infinity fabric approach was a cost saving measure since it reduces design complexity.


Ahhh right, so I guess I'll stay away from the X chips. Thanks for the info - good to know!


----------



## Lass3

ku4eto said:


> Managing a 2nd PC aint easy stuff. Also, thats extra space and whole another rig. Its cheaper to have a better CPU, that can do more than 1 thing at the same time.


You will not be able to get the same performance while streaming on the same rig regardless how fast that system is.

Most streamers with succes are using 144-240 Hz monitors and aim for 144 fps or more. They are not going to want lower fps because of streaming, they are cpu bound in all games, most use capture cards or 2nd pc from what I've seen.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

A streamer's fps has nothing to do with their stream quality or success. There's absolutely no correlation whatsoever. I've seen streaming setups use everything from locked i5s to i9s on the blue side and Piledriver to Ryzen on the red side. Most streamers I watch use a single-PC setup. I actually can't think of a single one who uses a dual-PC setup.


----------



## tconroy135

What would be the temperature difference with a NH-D15 using Kryonaut VS. Conductonaut?


----------



## Raghar

CPUs would be out at the end of next week, or 14 days from now. I'd probably take 2 months to satisfy initial demand, if it would be as high as last year. 8700K availability would be fine however. And lower price than 9700K.



LobosJR is using dual PC setup, which was reason why we could hear his SSD failure after electricity blackout in real time. Basically when streamer has MB and is competent they typically do. Elich is using NVidia shadowplay encoding on high end card.

But frankly. Streaming is niche by definition. Capture card is cheaper than larger CPU. Encoding on CPU has additional problem of memory bandwidth is shared between capture software and actual game. Some streamers are just 14 years old, who seen streamer popularity and do it as well. (With number of viewers between 0 and 15.) They typically don't have previous PC to use. Some other streamers, earned money decided to drop theirs job and do some streaming full time, even when they would be lower income. They use what they used for part time streaming during theirs job. 



tconroy135 said:


> What would be the temperature difference with a NH-D15 using Kryonaut VS. Conductonaut?


HOT HOT HOT. I'm planning one of these two CPU as my disability aid update, and I'm planning on underclocking to ensure reliability and longetivity.
I'd expect Prime would get my NH-U14S to 79-83C. I also plan to return to my dual CPU fan configuration. I kinda changed my current setup to cool stuff by natural convection, and keep only PSU fan, and CPU fan.


----------



## aDyerSituation

chessmyantidrug said:


> A streamer's fps has nothing to do with their stream quality or success. There's absolutely no correlation whatsoever. I've seen streaming setups use everything from locked i5s to i9s on the blue side and Piledriver to Ryzen on the red side. Most streamers I watch use a single-PC setup. I actually can't think of a single one who uses a dual-PC setup.


There's little reason to use two pc's to stream IMO. You'll reach Twitch's bit rate and quality limits way before you'll max out an cpu in most cases. Especially since the games people like to stream only use a few cores anyway.

I stream Fortnite at around 5k bitrate(limit 6k) at medium cpu preset WHILE recording at a higher quality and my cpu peaks at like 70% usage. I don't doubt I'd get a few more fps streaming from a second PC but not sure that's really worth it to most people.


----------



## rdr09

Prolly the most streamed games.


----------



## empyr

Just in case people haven't gotten the information yet: https://i.imgur.com/oSSgdsE.png


----------



## PwrSuprUsr

empyr said:


> Just in case people haven't gotten the information yet: https://i.imgur.com/oSSgdsE.png


I wonder if this only applies to Coffee Lake-S Refresh or if it also applies to some information for Skylake-X Refresh as well. I wonder if SKL-X Refresh is going to be tied closely with CFL-S Refresh or if it's on its own timetable.


----------



## empyr

PwrSuprUsr said:


> I wonder if this only applies to Coffee Lake-S Refresh or if it also applies to some information for Skylake-X Refresh as well. I wonder if SKL-X Refresh is going to be tied closely with CFL-S Refresh or if it's on its own timetable.



Most likely just Coffee (Never know though). Either way, i hope the dates are correct, not that long till we find out.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Ryzen streaming better than an 8700k? Those must not be real world examples. Ryzen's dip super low in Fortnite even without streaming. Just watch Myth stream with his 1700, he dips into the 70's fairly often.


----------



## JedixJarf

tconroy135 said:


> What would be the temperature difference with a NH-D15 using Kryonaut VS. Conductonaut?


I'm sure there are charts out there, maybe a few C, but is that worth having liquid metal waiting to kill your components if you use a little too much?


----------



## tconroy135

JedixJarf said:


> I'm sure there are charts out there, maybe a few C, but is that worth having liquid metal waiting to kill your components if you use a little too much?


You might be right, I am trying to get the best performance, this is the first time I will ever be using an air cooler for my CPU. Building it out with a Streacom BC1 test bench and active air conditioning flowing over the board.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

aDyerSituation said:


> Ryzen streaming better than an 8700k? Those must not be real world examples. Ryzen's dip super low in Fortnite even without streaming. Just watch Myth stream with his 1700, he dips into the 70's fairly often.


Is his 1700 OCed? If not the difference between 1700 and 2700X is quite large.

I think people should not rush into these CPUs. Zen 2 is around the corner and really this is same architecture as 6700K from 2015. It's like AMD releasing Ryzen 3 one year, Ryzen 5 the next year and Ryzen 7 [Selling it to you 3 times]. In gaming, I do not think this will have an advantage over 8700K for now.


----------



## tconroy135

ZealotKi11er said:


> I think people should not rush into these CPUs. Zen 2 is around the corner and really this is same architecture as 6700K from 2015. It's like AMD releasing Ryzen 3 one year, Ryzen 5 the next year and Ryzen 7 [Selling it to you 3 times]. In gaming, I do not think this will have an advantage over 8700K for now.


I wonder if there will be any difference between Z370 and Z390. I was sold on the upgrade because of the soldered IHS and my CPU is from 2014.


----------



## Glerox

ZealotKi11er said:


> I think people should not rush into these CPUs. Zen 2 is around the corner and really this is same architecture as 6700K from 2015. It's like AMD releasing Ryzen 3 one year, Ryzen 5 the next year and Ryzen 7 [Selling it to you 3 times]. In gaming, I do not think this will have an advantage over 8700K for now.


I have a six core 6850K OC to 4.2 Ghz.

A eight core 9900K OC to 5 Ghz will be a huge upgrade!


----------



## JedixJarf

tconroy135 said:


> You might be right, I am trying to get the best performance, this is the first time I will ever be using an air cooler for my CPU. Building it out with a Streacom BC1 test bench and active air conditioning flowing over the board.


I personally run a primochill wetbench with WC.


----------



## Shademaster

SystemTech said:


> I bet its still bird poo but yes, AMD cores+IPC vs intel clock + IPC.
> 
> Who will win....
> Exciting times indeed at the moment
> Thank you AMD for finally making Intel squirm.
> 
> I feel like the CPU race is back on. Each company pushing their technologies and process to make faster processors.
> Finally the standard 10% improvements are done for a while and 2500K users have a decent reason to upgrade.
> 
> Now if only AMD could pull another rabbit out the hat, and compete with Nvidia for GPU's.
> Then things would really be as they were in the mid 2000's where each company was pushing the limits, not sitting idle just raking in cash.


Exactly this.

I am so happy there is a price war going on.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Glerox said:


> I have a six core 6850K OC to 4.2 Ghz.
> 
> A eight core 9900K OC to 5 Ghz will be a huge upgrade!


Plus ring instead of mesh.


----------



## Lass3

ZealotKi11er said:


> I think people should not rush into these CPUs. Zen 2 is around the corner and really this is same architecture as 6700K from 2015.


I use my homerig for high fps gaming, in combination with 1080p/240Hz and 1440p/165Hz. Ryzen is not an option for me at this point.
I've already tested Ryzen 2700X @ 4.25 with 16GB B-die at 3466/C14, performance is much lower than my 8700K at 5.2 GHz in CPU bound gaming. Minimum, average and max fps, all lower.

Is this important for everyone? No. For me it is. I want overall good (aka best) gaming performance. Ryzen can do "high fps" in a few games (still trailing Intel tho, Overwatch comes to mind here, but in tons of others, Intel is far ahead.) Performance with Ryzen is hit and miss, depends on game. Intel delivers good performance across the board.

9700K or 9900K at 5+ GHz will still beat Zen 2 in CPU bound gaming. Ring bus + High clocks + Solder + 8C. Nobrainer for me. Intel HEDT is not an option either. Much worse for gaming than MSDT lineup. I have a buyer ready for this delidded 8700K anyway.

I might pick the 9700K because no HT performs better in pretty much all games.
Just like SMT OFF on Ryzen. Depends on availability at launch. Might get both. I don't expect better gaming performance than the 8700K (yet), but I like new tech.

HT/SMT only helps "alot" when there's too few physical cores. On 6C+ it typically lowers performance. Tons of video's on youtube about this or check out Gamers Nexus, he includes HT/SMT OFF in most tests. He also does high fps tests instead of GPU bound or semi GPU bound benching like most do these days.

Getting 150+ fps minimum and ~200 fps average is not easy, but it's doable in most games when using a high clocked Intel chip.


----------



## rdr09

Lass3 said:


> I might pick the 9700K because no HT performs better in pretty much all games.
> Just like SMT OFF on Ryzen. Depends on availability at launch. Might get both. I don't expect better gaming performance than the 8700K (yet), but I like new tech.


Fork out the extra 100$ and don't count out the HT. If all of sudden you need it, then you don't have it with the 9700K. Unless you are not into multi-threaded games like Battlefield.

Like i said in another thread this might happen. Will find out soon.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Lass3 said:


> I might pick the 9700K because no HT performs better in pretty much all games.
> Just like SMT OFF on Ryzen.


9900K with HT off will perform better than 9700K with similar OC because of the extra cache. Of course, the differential might be negligible to some.


----------



## Lass3

I'm probably getting the 9900K but I expect 9700K to be a serious gaming chip anyway, for years to come. I don't keep my CPU's for more than 2-3 years (sig rig is not my main rig).

8C/8T will fare much better than 4C/8T in those multi threaded games. I also bet it will beat 8700K 6C/12T.
Yeah the 9900K will do better in the long run. Just like 2500k vs 2600k and 8600k vs 8700k etc. Generally 6C/6T is enough these days. Very few exceptions and 8600K at 5+ GHz usually fixes this.

Next gen consoles in 2020-2022 will probably get Zen 8C/16T tho, so this should affect PC games too. It will take a few years after next gen launch before dev's focus completely on the new consoles tho. They don't leave 100+ million PS4/XB1 behind, so they won't do serious AI or huge changes right away. 9900K might start to pull from 9700K in 2022+

And yeah 9900K HT OFF should beat 9700K in some games clock for clock because of the cache. This happends with 8700K HT OFF vs 8600K clock for clock, but the difference is not that big, a few fps.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

ToTheSun! said:


> Plus ring instead of mesh.


6850K is not Mesh.



Lass3 said:


> I use my homerig for high fps gaming, in combination with 1080p/240Hz and 1440p/165Hz. Ryzen is not an option for me at this point.
> I've already tested Ryzen 2700X @ 4.25 with 16GB B-die at 3466/C14, performance is much lower than my 8700K at 5.2 GHz in CPU bound gaming. Minimum, average and max fps, all lower.
> 
> Is this important for everyone? No. For me it is. I want overall good (aka best) gaming performance. Ryzen can do "high fps" in a few games (still trailing Intel tho, Overwatch comes to mind here, but in tons of others, Intel is far ahead.) Performance with Ryzen is hit and miss, depends on game. Intel delivers good performance across the board.
> 
> 9700K or 9900K at 5+ GHz will still beat Zen 2 in CPU bound gaming. Ring bus + High clocks + Solder + 8C. Nobrainer for me. Intel HEDT is not an option either. Much worse for gaming than MSDT lineup. I have a buyer ready for this delidded 8700K anyway.
> 
> I might pick the 9700K because no HT performs better in pretty much all games.
> Just like SMT OFF on Ryzen. Depends on availability at launch. Might get both. I don't expect better gaming performance than the 8700K (yet), but I like new tech.
> 
> HT/SMT only helps "alot" when there's too few physical cores. On 6C+ it typically lowers performance. Tons of video's on youtube about this or check out Gamers Nexus, he includes HT/SMT OFF in most tests. He also does high fps tests instead of GPU bound or semi GPU bound benching like most do these days.
> 
> Getting 150+ fps minimum and ~200 fps average is not easy, but it's doable in most games when using a high clocked Intel chip.



I get it in a technical level but practical and required? Who care about 150 fps mins. Its just playing with a number because I can tell you if you got the right setup you are simply experiencing a placebo. I get trying to have the faster GPU for gaming but the CPU side just does not make any sense because 8700K vs 9900K will be identical until games start to use more core. For someone coming from a 4 Core system its a nice option. I am not saying Ryzen is the way to go. All I am saying is to wait for Zen 2 considering 9900K is a CPU that will be bought for the indent it will last a bit longer than your average CPU.


----------



## Lass3

ZealotKi11er said:


> 6850K is not Mesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it in a technical level but practical and required? Who care about 150 fps mins. Its just playing with a number because I can tell you if you got the right setup you are simply experiencing a placebo. I get trying to have the faster GPU for gaming but the CPU side just does not make any sense because 8700K vs 9900K will be identical until games start to use more core. For someone coming from a 4 Core system its a nice option. I am not saying Ryzen is the way to go. All I am saying is to wait for Zen 2 considering 9900K is a CPU that will be bought for the indent it will last a bit longer than your average CPU.


Nah I'm not experiencing palcebo haha. I can easily see and feel the difference between 100 and 200 fps. I care, because I'm using 165 and 240 Hz.

I know Ryzen is not the way to go, because I tested Ryzen with tweaked B-die memory which is as good as gaming perf gets with Ryzen.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Lass3 said:


> Nah I'm not experiencing palcebo haha. I can easily see and feel the difference between 100 and 200 fps. I care, because I'm using 165 and 240 Hz.
> 
> I know Ryzen is not the way to go, because I tested Ryzen with tweaked B-die memory which is as good as gaming perf gets with Ryzen.


I have been fine with 3770K @ 4.6GHz for years. Got me over 100 fps in most games and really have been GPU bund every time even with 1080 Ti for the games I play. Never really felt CPU upgrades like I do GPU. I got a 6770K and 6850K and still cant tell them apart.


----------



## ToTheSun!

ZealotKi11er said:


> 6850K is not Mesh.


Yeah, that's right. I was thinking of the following generation.


----------



## bigjdubb

ZealotKi11er said:


> I have been fine with 3770K @ 4.6GHz for years. Got me over 100 fps in most games and really have been GPU bund every time even with 1080 Ti for the games I play. Never really felt CPU upgrades like I do GPU. I got a 6770K and 6850K and still cant tell them apart.


I think it's very game dependent. I have been playing Assassins Creed Origins for the last few weeks and I am limited by the 2700x to about 110 fps max. Using 1440p I can get a max of 110 fps on medium settings (the lowest I'm willing to go) or crank everything to the max including AA and get 95fps. 

Games like Battlefield 1 are a different story all together. As I lower settings in BF1 the FPS just keeps going up.

I got this fancy 144hz G-Sync monitor and battlefield is pretty much the only game I play (and only rarely) that can get those frame rates with my 1080ti and 2700x. I'm probably better off not being able to get 144fps though, if I had more games that I could test it with I might be disappointed with my conclusion of whether or not 144hz is worthwhile.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

bigjdubb said:


> I think it's very game dependent. I have been playing Assassins Creed Origins for the last few weeks and I am limited by the 2700x to about 110 fps max. Using 1440p I can get a max of 110 fps on medium settings (the lowest I'm willing to go) or crank everything to the max including AA and get 95fps.
> 
> Games like Battlefield 1 are a different story all together. As I lower settings in BF1 the FPS just keeps going up.
> 
> I got this fancy 144hz G-Sync monitor and battlefield is pretty much the only game I play (and only rarely) that can get those frame rates with my 1080ti and 2700x. I'm probably better off not being able to get 144fps though, if I had more games that I could test it with I might be disappointed with my conclusion of whether or not 144hz is worthwhile.


I played all BF games and fps was always high with my 3770K. I just do not get why people need 144 fps +. It is really hard to tell the difference but they go out of their way to spend a lot of money because something feels a bit quicker. Also not all games require or need over 60 fps. Sure BF but AC? I bet if you play normally without swinging the mouse you cant tell if its running over 60 fps.


----------



## bigjdubb

I honestly don't even see much of a difference in BF1. I need to set my old 60hz monitor up so that I can try them back to back but so far 144hz has not delivered any sort of wow factor for me. Variable refresh rate is a nice improvement though.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

bigjdubb said:


> I honestly don't even see much of a difference in BF1. I need to set my old 60hz monitor up so that I can try them back to back but so far 144hz has not delivered any sort of wow factor for me. Variable refresh rate is a nice improvement though.


BF1 and BF5 are too slow. I tried 120Hz and it does not feel that much faster. There are some games that I want 120 Hz but they only support 60 Hz and it really sucks. Stuff like Sonic, Bayonetta.


----------



## white owl

I can tell an immediate difference between 60 and 120fps in any game and again with 60 vs 120hz. 120fps vs 144fps isn't as drastic. Either way not all games benefit from 144fps but FPS games especially if they are competitive benefit a lot.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

High fps only helps fast multiplayer games where reaction time can make a difference. Single-player games typically don't benefit as much outside of perceptibly smoother gameplay. Battlefield titles wouldn't benefit from high fps as much as Call of Duty, for example.


----------



## mouacyk

Are we forgetting the 120 - 144hz light strobing crowd?


----------



## Ultracarpet

bigjdubb said:


> I honestly don't even see much of a difference in BF1. I need to set my old 60hz monitor up so that I can try them back to back but so far 144hz has not delivered any sort of wow factor for me. Variable refresh rate is a nice improvement though.


different strokes for different folks... when I play games on my roommates computer the 60hz looks and feels terrible compared to my 144hz. Actually, it even feels terrible just navigating around windows.


----------



## tconroy135

mouacyk said:


> Are we forgetting the 120 - 144hz light strobing crowd?


You mean ULMB?


----------



## mouacyk

tconroy135 said:


> You mean ULMB?


That's only one of the light strobing tech.


----------



## Vlada011

i7-9700K is just little stronger than overclocked Haswell-E and Broadwell-E with 6 cores, weaker than 8 core models.
i9-9900K will be great CPU but I think it's not enough big upgrade or better to say it's to early to change i7-5820K OC to 4.5GHz to i9-9900K.
Anyway i9-9900K i would keep on 5.0GHz boost for all cores, overclocked.
Maybe other people not agree and maybe I would upgrade under different circumstances but my plan is to wait new socket.
Than I will decide what is better successor of X299 or successor of 1151 V4.
My intention is 8 core higher frequency as possible, HT offcourse, rather than 10 4.5GHz.
If something not change and new core become faster on 4.0GHz than old Intel Core one on 5.0GHz.

It would be very nice for my budget if X99 RIG could hold me for gaming until DDR5.
But probably I'm such luck to spend money on last DDR4 platform.


----------



## Lass3

ZealotKi11er said:


> I played all BF games and fps was always high with my 3770K. I just do not get why people need 144 fps +. It is really hard to tell the difference but they go out of their way to spend a lot of money because something feels a bit quicker. Also not all games require or need over 60 fps. Sure BF but AC? I bet if you play normally without swinging the mouse you cant tell if its running over 60 fps.


Just stop. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps like black and white.
I can also easily tell the difference between 120 fps and 240 fps on 240 Hz monitor.

You sound just like some console guys claiming 30 fps is as smooth as it gets and 60 fps is not making any difference.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Lass3 said:


> Just stop. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps like black and white.
> I can also easily tell the difference between 120 fps and 240 fps on 240 Hz monitor.
> 
> You sound just like some console guys claiming 30 fps is as smooth as it gets and 60 fps is not making any difference.


I wouldn't play at 60 FPS, regardless of setting. You can say it's fine for single player games all you want, but that doesn't get rid of input latency and lack of smoothness in motion. It's hard to imagine it being comfortable for some people.


----------



## Lass3

ToTheSun! said:


> I wouldn't play at 60 FPS, regardless of setting. You can say it's fine for single player games all you want, but that doesn't get rid of input latency and lack of smoothness in motion. It's hard to imagine it being comfortable for some people.


60 fps and 60 Hz was never enough for smooth motion to begin with. People just got used to it.

120 fps/Hz is a big step up.

240 fps/Hz is an even bigger step up. Not many have tried this tho. It's insane for fast paced MP shooters. In SP games I prefer my 1440p/165 Hz IPS.

Some games can't do 200+ fps. Most people don't have the hardware to push that high fps either. You're severely CPU bound here. So 240 Hz is a niche market atm.


----------



## EniGma1987

mouacyk said:


> Are we forgetting the 120 - 144hz light strobing crowd?





That is really the only way to go for high Hz when you want actual motion quality, not just the low input lag. Sadly LCD panels are just too slow to make any use of refresh rates above 100Hz without strobing or scanning. Even TN's, there is just way too much smearing from slow transition times. Going 240-480Hz is just completely pointless for motion clarity if you don't have strobing. Though even on a TN panel with strobing, running 360Hz+360fps is only the slightest bit different from 240Hz. The panels are just too slow.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Lass3 said:


> Just stop. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps like black and white.
> I can also easily tell the difference between 120 fps and 240 fps on 240 Hz monitor.
> 
> You sound just like some console guys claiming 30 fps is as smooth as it gets and 60 fps is not making any difference.


So you got a special skill for telling the difference. Never said it not different. Also, 120 to 240 Hz is very hard to spot. There have been tests to prove this point. You can talk big game all you want but unless you do pass 60Hz vs 120Hz vs 240Hz for every game every time your point of black and white fails hard. Black and white is 30 to 60 Hz.


----------



## Raghar

EniGma1987 said:


> That is really the only way to go for high Hz when you want actual motion quality, not just the low input lag. Sadly LCD panels are just too slow to make any use of refresh rates above 100Hz without strobing or scanning. Even TN's, there is just way too much smearing from slow transition times. Going 240-480Hz is just completely pointless for motion clarity if you don't have strobing. Though even on a TN panel with strobing, running 360Hz+360fps is only the slightest bit different from 240Hz. The panels are just too slow.


Strobing kills eyes, at least for epileptics and these with sensitive eyes (or chronic eye disease/born in vulnerability). DC dimming, wide spectrum LED (or multispectral LED), and A-PVA/AH-IPS are better than 120 Hz LCD for general use. 

Just to return back to topic. I managed to find expected release prices. So if these EMEA distributor prices are correct, then distributors would add about 70-90 $ on top of that. Which actually correlates with that stuff I found one month ago. (BTW JAN code is 0735858392426, in case someone have Internet backup and wanna to check something on Japanese sites.)

Funnily sellers emptied stocks of 7820X completely, thus I can't compare directly, but Walmart was selling 7820X in July for nearly the same price as 9900K release price. 

Now, considering low cost of awesome X299 MB. It actually rises a question. What's better for these prices?
7820X vs 9900K
28 lanes vs 16
pigeon poop vs solder
AVX512 vs nothing (aka we don't wanna burn the CPU by AVX512)
exclusive cache vs inclusive cache
quad channel DDR4 vs dual channel DDR4
11 MB L3 vs 16 MB L3
MB with fins and without unnecessary port covers vs MBs that looks like parrots and competes on who would block heatsinks more by a random block of plastic cover
clock to 4.5 without delid vs single core clock to 5.


----------



## bigjdubb

There must be something wrong with my eyes, or my brain. I thought I did something wrong when I first got my 144hz monitor because I heard about how earth shattering the difference was and I couldn't tell a difference. I know it's working properly now but I still don't notice much of a difference between my old 60hz monitor and the 144hz monitor if g-sync is turned off. I can definitely see a difference between having g-sync on and off though.


----------



## bigjdubb

Raghar said:


> Now, considering low cost of awesome X299 MB. It actually rises a question. What's better for these prices?
> 7820X vs 9900K
> 28 lanes vs 16
> pigeon poop vs solder
> AVX512 vs nothing (aka we don't wanna burn the CPU by AVX512)
> exclusive cache vs inclusive cache
> quad channel DDR4 vs dual channel DDR4
> 11 MB L3 vs 16 MB L3
> MB with fins and without unnecessary port covers vs MBs that looks like parrots and competes on who would block heatsinks more by a random block of plastic cover
> clock to 4.5 without delid vs single core clock to 5.


I'm fairly certain it's been confirmed that the 9900k is soldered. I think which one is better will come down to the workload you intend to use it for. The iGPU on the 9900k allows the use of quick sync which is more of a benefit than quad channel memory and AVX 512 for me.


----------



## mouacyk

How....?


----------



## EniGma1987

bigjdubb said:


> The iGPU on the 9900k allows the use of quick sync which is more of a benefit than quad channel memory and AVX 512 for me.



So with QuickSync, lets say for example you have a 6 core non-HT processor with UHD 630 graphics. If you are using QS for encoding/decoding video files, you really wouldnt even have a speed difference if you upgraded to a 9900K with 8cores and 16 threads if it still had UHD 630 iGPU right? Since it isnt even using the CPU threads, right?
Im just making sure because the 8600K with its 6 cores does have UHD 630, and it is reported that this new i9 9900K still retains the exact same UHD 630 iGPU. SO really performance for QuickSync capabilities wont have any benefit on the new CPU



Another thought since you brought up quad channel vs dual. We know that extra RAM bandwidth has great effect on iGPU gaming performance, but does it also matter when you are using the iGPU for QuickSync?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Lass3 said:


> Just stop. I can tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps like black and white.
> I can also easily tell the difference between 120 fps and 240 fps on 240 Hz monitor.
> 
> You sound just like some console guys claiming 30 fps is as smooth as it gets and 60 fps is not making any difference.


still waiting for those tests XD


----------



## bigjdubb

EniGma1987 said:


> So with QuickSync, lets say for example you have a 6 core non-HT processor with UHD 630 graphics. If you are using QS for encoding/decoding video files, you really wouldnt even have a speed difference if you upgraded to a 9900K with 8cores and 16 threads if it still had UHD 630 iGPU right? Since it isnt even using the CPU threads, right?
> Im just making sure because the 8600K with its 6 cores does have UHD 630, and it is reported that this new i9 9900K still retains the exact same UHD 630 iGPU. SO really performance for QuickSync capabilities wont have any benefit on the new CPU
> 
> Another thought since you brought up quad channel vs dual. We know that extra RAM bandwidth has great effect on iGPU gaming performance, but does it also matter when you are using the iGPU for QuickSync?


I am pretty sure that is correct. Quick sync performance will be similar for all cpu's with the same iGPU, there may be some variation with clock speeds between chips. There could be other differences that effect iGPU performance (like cache etc..) but I'm not very well versed in iGPU's. I have only started to pay attention to them recently when adobe added iGPU functionality into their software.

There are plenty of other performance benefits with the 9900k over the 8600k, but they will probably have fairly equal iGPU performance.

The comparison earlier in the thread was between two 8 core chips, one with iGPU and one without.


----------



## rdr09

aDyerSituation said:


> Ryzen streaming better than an 8700k? Those must not be real world examples. Ryzen's dip super low in Fortnite even without streaming. Just watch Myth stream with his 1700, he dips into the 70's fairly often.


The 2000 is a tad faster than the 1000 series. Based on computerbase test.


----------



## tostitobandito

bigjdubb said:


> I'm fairly certain it's been confirmed that the 9900k is soldered. I think which one is better will come down to the workload you intend to use it for. The iGPU on the 9900k allows the use of quick sync which is more of a benefit than quad channel memory and AVX 512 for me.



Yes, it's been confirmed that at the very least both the 9900K and the 9700K have a soldered IHS. Saves us all some time/money on de-lidding. One of the reasons I'm willing to pay more for a 9900K for my new build is because I won't be spending that time/money getting an 8700K or 8086K de-lidded.


----------



## ViTosS

Since it will be compatible with Z370, I might upgrade from 8700k depending of the price


----------



## tconroy135

ViTosS said:


> Since it will be compatible with Z370, I might upgrade from 8700k depending of the price


I understand wanting a soldered IHS, but upgrading from an 8700K seems like a waste of money.


----------



## ViTosS

tconroy135 said:


> I understand wanting a soldered IHS, but upgrading from an 8700K seems like a waste of money.


Not after playing AC Origins, AC Odyssey and Battlefiled 1 and 5 MP, and that is because I use a delided 8700k at 5.1Ghz and play at 1440p with an GTX 1080Ti, now imagine the bottleneck if I change to RTX 2080Ti or future cards.


----------



## tostitobandito

Bottleneck for what? Benchmark scores? Going from an OC'd delidded 8700K to a 9900K is like a 10% upgrade in pure CPU performance, and much less than that in actual frame rates in real-world games. If you've got the money and want to spend it go for it, but it does seem sort of premature.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Some things can't be measured strictly with fps. Going from an i7-8700K to an i9-9900K should result in a smoother gameplay experience thanks to more cores, threads, and on-die cache. Call it a placebo if you want, but a smoother gameplay experience is almost always going to be worth the extra money.


----------



## Lass3

ZealotKi11er said:


> So you got a special skill for telling the difference. Never said it not different. Also, 120 to 240 Hz is very hard to spot. There have been tests to prove this point. You can talk big game all you want but unless you do pass 60Hz vs 120Hz vs 240Hz for every game every time your point of black and white fails hard. Black and white is 30 to 60 Hz.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBWp436vSw


No 120 vs 240 is not hard to spot. Why do you link a random youtube. Check out blurbusters.com or 144hzmonitors.net for proper info about high refresh rate gaming.

Have you even tried 240 Hz.


----------



## Lass3

tostitobandito said:


> Bottleneck for what? Benchmark scores? Going from an OC'd delidded 8700K to a 9900K is like a 10% upgrade in pure CPU performance, and much less than that in actual frame rates in real-world games. If you've got the money and want to spend it go for it, but it does seem sort of premature.


33% more cores and threads is 10% more "pure CPU" performance?


----------



## aDyerSituation

I let my friend who doesn't even play games that often try my 144hz monitor and he was blown away at how smooth it felt. We are both young though, early twenties. When I first got my 144hz monitor I was motion sick after playing. Didn't get use to it for a week. If you can't notice the difference I wonder if the monitor's refresh rate is set correctly in Windows or if you should get your eyes checked tbh. The difference is huge. But like I said I'm young. Maybe some of us just perceive motion differently. idk


----------



## Vlada011

Lass3 said:


> 33% more cores and threads is 10% more "pure CPU" performance?


i7-8700K will not be bottleneck next 5 years for anything.
If we talk from perspective of new generation than everything is bottleneck.
Do you hear self 10% performance. Put 10% more water in glass and drink can you feel bigger quantity of water or not.
When CPU core become 50-60% stronger than worth of upgrade.


----------



## Lass3

Vlada011 said:


> i7-8700K will not be bottleneck next 5 years for anything.
> If we talk from perspective of new generation than everything is bottleneck.
> Do you hear self 10% performance. Put 10% more water in glass and drink can you feel bigger quantity of water or not.
> When CPU core become 50-60% stronger than worth of upgrade.


Yes it will. i5-8600K is already bottlenecking 1080 Ti in BF1/BF5 64MP, and will also bottleneck 2080 Ti, I bet even 2080/2070 to some degree.
8600K needs 5.2 GHz or more not to bottleneck in these games. 




In 5 years there will be way more powerful GPU's than these. Games will be way more multi threaded. HT won't save the 8700K. 
Next gen consoles will launch around 2020-2021 timeframe with Zen 8C/16T minimum. AAA Games will instantly be more multithreaded when this happends.

Crysis 3 from ~5 years ago, performs better on 8C/16T than 6C/12T clock for clock.

While it might not be smart to upgrade from 8700K to 9900K in terms of performance/value I'm sure the 9900K will pull ahead sooner than later especially when paired with a powerful GPU.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Vlada011 said:


> i7-8700K will not be bottleneck next 5 years for anything.
> If we talk from perspective of new generation than everything is bottleneck.
> Do you hear self 10% performance. Put 10% more water in glass and drink can you feel bigger quantity of water or not.
> When CPU core become 50-60% stronger than worth of upgrade.


It's impossible to say if/when the i7-8700K will be a bottleneck. It also depends on the use case.

Your water analogy makes no sense.

More than just IPC should be taken into consideration when looking at potential upgrades. Adding cores is a legitimate reason to upgrade. As for whether or not i7-8700K users should upgrade to the i9-9900K depends on what they do with their systems and how much they can get for their i7-8700K. Streamers should 100% upgrade. Content creators should upgrade as well, but the Intel's mainstream platform should have been a stopgap solution more than long-term anyway. If one plans on playing Battlefield V, or any game that likes more cores, quite a bit, they should consider upgrading as well.


----------



## steelbom

Everyone's usage varies. I'm keen for an 8-core... I've got a 4-core right now but even a 6-core can't handle the number of browser tabs I have open.


----------



## rdr09

steelbom said:


> Everyone's usage varies. I'm keen for an 8-core... I've got a 4-core right now but even a 6-core can't handle the number of browser tabs I have open.


Ten tabs only uses 30% of my Phenom Quad and about 3.5Gb of ram out of 8. You have 100 tabs open at a time?


----------



## Greg121986

Can I buy this thing yet? What is the hold up? I don't want to see rumors, leaks, or speculation anymore. Give me a number and take my money. My i7-4770K needs to go into retirement.


----------



## empyr

Greg121986 said:


> Can I buy this thing yet? What is the hold up? I don't want to see rumors, leaks, or speculation anymore. Give me a number and take my money. My i7-4770K needs to go into retirement.



Time will tell on monday, pre-orders are supposed to be opening then. This is per the "leaked information" about the NDA.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Lass3 said:


> No 120 vs 240 is not hard to spot. Why do you link a random youtube. Check out blurbusters.com or 144hzmonitors.net for proper info about high refresh rate gaming.
> 
> Have you even tried 240 Hz.


I have tried almost every display. I use for work a 1440p 144Hz G-Sync monitor. I got all the advantages. I just don't feel these advantages and improves are even close to the importance and emphasis some of you put on high refresh rates. The brain it is a very mysteries thing. It can spot differences easily but can adjust to almost anything.


----------



## ku4eto

Greg121986 said:


> Can I buy this thing yet? What is the hold up? I don't want to see rumors, leaks, or speculation anymore. Give me a number and take my money. My i7-4770K needs to go into retirement.


Just buy an AMD one and save yourself a ton of money.


----------



## empyr

Just got a reply to my email regarding the 9900K and Z390 Maximus XI Formula from Komplett (Large Nordic Retailer)


"We expect to have both products on our website on monday, not sure at what time during the day"


----------



## ToTheSun!

ku4eto said:


> Just buy an AMD one and save yourself a ton of money.


Can't argue with this logic. Why wait for the 9900K when you can buy something cheaper now?


----------



## tconroy135

ku4eto said:


> Just buy an AMD one and save yourself a ton of money.





ToTheSun! said:


> Can't argue with this logic. Why wait for the 9900K when you can buy something cheaper now?


If they could hit 5Ghz without a problem I would buy an AMD Chip.


----------



## EniGma1987

Sadly it is looking like even Zen2 coming out next year wont be able to hit 5GHz  Hopefully there is a good amount of IPC gain to make up for the measly 100-200MHZ clock bump.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

There's a leak referring to a Zen 2 engineering sample that boosted up to 4.5 GHz. Depending on how early the sample is, this is quite encouraging. My reluctance to switch to AMD has everything to do with latency related to Infinity Fabric.


----------



## bigjdubb

They also need to improve compatibility with higher speed ram. I get a noticeable increase in performance (2700x system) when I run my ram at it's rated 3200mhz, but even though my ram is on the qvl list it's not 100% stable at 3200mhz. I have more ram on the way to see if I can get it stable but I really hate digging deep into ram settings, I got very spoiled by XMP profiles. This is my first DDR4 system but quite a few people are having decent success running the 4000mhz and higher ram on Intel. This is one of the big reasons why I want the 9900k, Zen 2 really needs to be able to do this.


----------



## tyvar

To put the Zen 2 ES leaks in perspective, The original Zen ES leaks had clock speeds of 2.8ghz and 3.2 boost in the summer of 2016, later ES samples in the fall of 2016 raised that upto about 3.2 base and 3.4 boost.

As we all know the 1800x launched April 2017 with 3.6 base and 4.0 boost. thats a 400mhz increase in base and 600mhz increase in boost. If AMD can achieve just half of that increase this time around you would still be looking at 4.2ghz base and 4.8ghz boost.


----------



## SuperZan

bigjdubb said:


> They also need to improve compatibility with higher speed ram. I get a noticeable increase in performance (2700x system) when I run my ram at it's rated 3200mhz, but even though my ram is on the qvl list it's not 100% stable at 3200mhz. I have more ram on the way to see if I can get it stable but I really hate digging deep into ram settings, I got very spoiled by XMP profiles. This is my first DDR4 system but quite a few people are having decent success running the 4000mhz and higher ram on Intel. This is one of the big reasons why I want the 9900k, Zen 2 really needs to be able to do this.


Depends on the board too, but that can also be true of Intel (albeit at higher frequency differentials). My x370 Taichi takes my Trident Z kit's XMP settings without issue and passes my stress battery (which is quite strict as I use my system for work as well as play). My x370 GT7 from Biostar, which was a fantastic board in every other respect, had to have manually dialed-in timings to run at 3200. I've seen similar results from people running C6H/C7H versus Strix or Prime Pro, the latter two requiring more manual adjustment. 

I expect significant improvements from Zen 2. We all want competition, so we tend to forget that AMD had to make up for a half-decade of abject failure just to catch up to Haswell. I remember people prior to the launch agreeing that Ivy Bridge-level performance would be impressive, and instead we got IPC almost caught up to Intel's latest. IPS, ram compatibility, and intercore latency are big issues to be sure, but they're very obvious issues and I'd be absolutely shocked if they weren't the big targets for Zen 2.


----------



## tconroy135

I wonder if the 9900k and 9700k will have any difference in gaming performance.


----------



## doom26464

tconroy135 said:


> I wonder if the 9900k and 9700k will have any difference in gaming performance.


Most likely zip. 

And besides maybe 1 or 2 titles will have zero difference from the 9600k at the same clocks. 


People tend to forget more threads and cores doesnt scale with 95% of games


----------



## tostitobandito

Will highly depend on the game and how much it utilizes additional CPU threads, but the 9900K should be faster by at least some small but consistent amount across the board due to the larger cache if nothing else. In some games the gap may be wider. We'll need to wait for benchmarks.


----------



## Subby

tconroy135 said:


> I wonder if the 9900k and 9700k will have any difference in gaming performance.


considering the 8600k does better than the 8700k in gaming (most games don't like HT), my money is on the 9700k...literally...I will be buying one


----------



## steelbom

rdr09 said:


> Ten tabs only uses 30% of my Phenom Quad and about 3.5Gb of ram out of 8. You have 100 tabs open at a time?


Right now, I have 46 but that's less than normal -- and just in Chrome, as soon as I open Firefox we can add at least another 20 and Opera has around 40.

I have like 700 tabs saved in OneTab too, a rapidly growing number... I think I've had several crashes from Chrome because it's using like 8-10GB of RAM.

need dat 8-core so I don't have to close stuff to play games.


----------



## lolredy

does ht help for streaming+gaming?


----------



## Kana Chan

doom26464 said:


> Most likely zip.
> 
> And besides maybe 1 or 2 titles will have zero difference from the 9600k at the same clocks.
> 
> 
> People tend to forget more threads and cores doesnt scale with 95% of games


Depends on what they're doing with the computer. It'd help in multitasking with the added L3 and HT.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

steelbom said:


> Right now, I have 46 but that's less than normal -- and just in Chrome, as soon as I open Firefox we can add at least another 20 and Opera has around 40.
> 
> I have like 700 tabs saved in OneTab too, a rapidly growing number... I think I've had several crashes from Chrome because it's using like 8-10GB of RAM.
> 
> need dat 8-core so I don't have to close stuff to play games.


The problem you're describing is lack of RAM, not lack of cores.


----------



## Lass3

doom26464 said:


> Most likely zip.
> 
> And besides maybe 1 or 2 titles will have zero difference from the 9600k at the same clocks.
> 
> 
> People tend to forget more threads and cores doesnt scale with 95% of games


Depends on game, GPU used, fps target etc. Six core i5's already have issues in a few games when paired with 1080 Ti or better.

Going forward, especially considering next gen consoles will get 8C/16T zen cores, 6C/6T won't last long for AAA games.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Subby said:


> considering the 8600k does better than the 8700k in gaming (most games don't like HT), my money is on the 9700k...literally...I will be buying one


It's the exact opposite - the 8700K does better than the 8600K in the vast majority of games. There are a few exceptions, but they're not the norm. Even for the outliers, the performance delta is slight.
If a small increase in framerate in a select few titles is encouraging your claims, then, perhaps, a 9900K with more cache and HT off would be a better fit for you.


----------



## Lass3

ToTheSun! said:


> It's the exact opposite - the 8700K does better than the 8600K in the vast majority of games. There are a few exceptions, but they're not the norm. Even for the outliers, the performance delta is slight.
> If a small increase in framerate in a select few titles is encouraging your claims, then, perhaps, a 9900K with more cache and HT off would be a better fit for you.


The extra cache is not that important.
8700K with HT off beats 8600K in very very few games at same clocks. Very small difference and within margin of error most of the time.
HT improves performance on the 8700K in some games, like BF1/BFV/ACO when using a high-end GPU (1080 Ti or better).

I'd never pay for 8700K or 9900K just to turn HT off because of the 3-4MB more cache.

The money are better spent on higher-end memory or better GPU. 9700K will be a very good gaming chip. 5 GHz on all cores is going to be easy.
Asus Z390 boards will have one-click 5 GHz option, so pretty much all chips will be able to reach this.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...able_of_using_5_ghz_cpus_and_4266mhz_memory/1

I wouldn't be surprised if we see 9700K/9900K hit 5.2 on average like 8086K.. And 9600K obviously, but I'm not that excited about this chip. 6C/6T does not have a bright future in AAA gaming when paired with a high-end GPU. 8C/8T will fare much better here.


----------



## tconroy135

Subby said:


> considering the 8600k does better than the 8700k in gaming (most games don't like HT), my money is on the 9700k...literally...I will be buying one


My choice will come down to price or the difference in price, if it is less than $100 I will go with 9900k, if the difference is more then the 9700k. You can always disable HT.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Lass3 said:


> The extra cache is not that important.


1 or 2 FPS in very few titles isn't, either. That was the whole point.

Value, on the other hand, is a different topic.


----------



## tconroy135

I read somewhere the pre-orders would start on Monday, has anyone else hear that was the case?


----------



## tostitobandito

It's possible. The street date is rumored to be sometime on or after 10/20 for the CPU's, but I've heard all the Z390 mobos will be officially announced and show up for sale sometime early next week. I wouldn't be shocked if some places start selling CPU preorders at the same time or in bundles.


----------



## ozlay

Hopefully the 2920x and 2970wx drop the same day. AMD should make the 2920x the same price as the 9900k.


----------



## ku4eto

ozlay said:


> Hopefully the 2920x and 2970wx drop the same day. AMD should make the 2920x the same price as the 9900k.


To be fair, they can even underprice it. The 1900X is now at 320$ on NewEgg. The 1920X is 550$. If the 9900K is 500$, that is by far the worse value high-core CPU than the previous gen ones.


----------



## steelbom

chessmyantidrug said:


> The problem you're describing is lack of RAM, not lack of cores.


Nah I have 32GB of RAM, and I've never seen more than 24GB utilised even with a game open. For some reason, Chrome just crashes after 8-10GB of RAM worth of tabs stored in it.


----------



## EniGma1987

steelbom said:


> Nah I have 32GB of RAM, and I've never seen more than 24GB utilised even with a game open. For some reason, Chrome just crashes after 8-10GB of RAM worth of tabs stored in it.


Most programs start running really slow when they use that much RAM regardless of how much you have free. Not really sure why but Im guessing the program just doesnt handle all the adresses it has to keep track of very well.


----------



## SharpShoot3r07

Didn't the 8000 series JUST come out? When and why are the 9000 coming out so early?


----------



## steelbom

EniGma1987 said:


> Most programs start running really slow when they use that much RAM regardless of how much you have free. Not really sure why but Im guessing the program just doesnt handle all the adresses it has to keep track of very well.


Yeah, probably something like that. It's easily manageable though with OneTab.

It randomly uses a bunch of CPU though every now and then which is my problem. Wonder when these might be released... I am very excited.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

SharpShoot3r07 said:


> Didn't the 8000 series JUST come out? When and why are the 9000 coming out so early?


The 8th "generation" released about a year ago, less than a year after the 7th "generation" released. Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake were both refreshes. This upcoming "generation" is another refresh. Not sure why Intel calls them new generations. Devil's Canyon was a refresh, but still 4th gen. The purpose of Coffee Lake was to make Intel more competitive with core count. This refresh catches them up completely. I would have rather seen i5 receive hyper-threading and i7 add two cores and retain hyper-threading, but at least we have more options. Looking forward to seeing MSRP.


----------



## PCSarge

chessmyantidrug said:


> The 8th "generation" released about a year ago, less than a year after the 7th "generation" released. Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake were both refreshes. This upcoming "generation" is another refresh. Not sure why Intel calls them new generations. Devil's Canyon was a refresh, but still 4th gen. The purpose of Coffee Lake was to make Intel more competitive with core count. This refresh catches them up completely. I would have rather seen i5 receive hyper-threading and i7 add two cores and retain hyper-threading, but at least we have more options. Looking forward to seeing MSRP.


yes, but if intel HTs an i5, i7 sales will drop because the i5 is cheaper and has HT

intel is all about how can we milk our consumers, not "how can we do something that makes sense"


----------



## chessmyantidrug

PCSarge said:


> yes, but if intel HTs an i5, i7 sales will drop because the i5 is cheaper and has HT
> 
> intel is all about how can we milk our consumers, not "how can we do something that makes sense"


Pentiums have hyper-threading. Core i3 processors had hyper-threading until Coffee Lake. If Intel made i5s hyper-threaded six-core processors, people would still consider hyper-threaded eight-core processors. If you disagree, explain why people are still buying R7 processors.


----------



## ku4eto

chessmyantidrug said:


> Pentiums have hyper-threading. Core i3 processors had hyper-threading until Coffee Lake. If Intel made i5s hyper-threaded six-core processors, people would still consider hyper-threaded eight-core processors. If you disagree, explain why people are still buying R7 processors.


Because the R7s are good CPU's? Intel are just making stuff really confusing. In case you havent noticed, ALL of the RyZen CPUs have SMT, unlike the Intel lineup.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

ku4eto said:


> Because the R7s are good CPU's? Intel are just making stuff really confusing. In case you havent noticed, ALL of the RyZen CPUs have SMT, unlike the Intel lineup.


So if Intel made i5s hyper-threaded six-core processors, hyper-threaded eight-core processors wouldn't be good? The only confusing thing with Intel is how they've changed core count with Coffee Lake, and it's hardly confusing. The refresh adds two more cores, removed hyper-threading from i7 processors, and adds i9 processors that feature hyper-threading. This is considerably less confusing than Ryzen 5 processors which are either four- or six-core processors, even in the same series (R5 1500X vs R5 1600X, R5 2400G vs R5 2600).

In case you haven't noticed, Ryzen 3 processors do not have SMT.


----------



## Vlada011

Very small reason to upgrade from X99 to Z390.
I compared Geekbench results.

i7-9700K - 6200-30.000
i9-9900K - 6300-3xxxxx

i7-5820K 4.5GHz 5300-28000

That's difference, not small, but not reason for upgrade.
Or even owners of i7-8700K, OC they are almost same as i7-9700K without HT Link.
i9-9900K have HT Link but again not worth.


----------



## chessmyantidrug

Vlada011 said:


> Very small reason to upgrade from X99 to Z390.
> I compared Geekbench results.
> 
> i7-9700K - 6200-30.000
> i9-9900K - 6300-3xxxxx
> 
> i7-5820K 4.5GHz 5300-28000
> 
> That's difference, not small, but not reason for upgrade.
> Or even owners of i7-8700K, OC they are almost same as i7-9700K without HT Link.
> i9-9900K have HT Link but again not worth.


No idea why you're comparing X99 and Z390. X99 owners would be looking at X299 for an upgrade. If they're looking at an upgrade for gaming, they shouldn't be looking at their CPU anyway.

As for i7-8700K owners, it depends on their needs. Believe it or not, there's people who would benefit from having more cores. The i7-9700K would be more of a side grade for them so chances are they aren't even looking at it. Streamers who game and stream on one system would benefit from upgrading to the i9-9900K.


----------



## DrFPS

https://twitter.com/i/status/1048632180845379585



> Intel News
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> @intelnews
> 1h1 hour ago
> More
> There has never been a better time to own a desktop PC! Tune into our livestream on October 8 at 10 am EST


https://newsroom.intel.com/articles/learn-about-intels-latest-pc-developments/

I maybe could have made a new thread. This is probably the launch of the new 9xxx series, 9th gen. About time.


----------



## Contiusa

So the i7-9700K is out and, as I was expecting, it seems that pure core is dead and HT rules (I noticed it when the i5-8600K came out). Taking into consideration that the refresh has a higher clock (300mhz IIRC), both CPUs (i7-8700K) are basically tied, and in some tests the i7-8700K will open a considerable lead (for already being ahead in stock settings). 

Plus, it seems that the refresh came with a thicker die and solder and the temperatures are on the high side. Is that correct? This is funny. I read somewhere a guy saying that overclockers asked for solder for so many years, then, when Intel finally listened, the solder requires the overclockers to delid a soldered CPU, which is even more risky than TIM paste.

This is great. Intel is on the ropes. I particularly don't like it, because I use some software's that are not mainstream and I always had trouble with AMD cards (poor drivers support). So I really avoid anything from them. Let's hope the next generation yields better results?


----------



## EastCoast

After watching the Hardware Unboxed vide I've learned something new. Not all z390 boards have the power delivery needed to properly overclock the 9900K to get the higher end performance. You need a top of the line motherboard from Asrock, Asus, MSI, etc in order to get that. As other z390 MB (as high as $200+ still have 4-phase vrm).
LOL
How many knew this? 

https://youtu.be/NGHiRrQ2AAo?t=198
@3:18 mark​
So, if you see a review stating that the 9900K is at 50C-65C OC you better know that it's using a z390 MB with a lower phase vrm. Which will have lower performance vs top end MB that has 11+ phase vrm. The author indicates there are z390 MB rated for 95watts. You can increase it but you will run the MB out of spec. Here are some of the MB's I've found that have at least 11 phase or more vrm:
EVGA Z390 FTW: 11-phase vrm
Asrock Taichi Ultimate: 12-phase vrm
Gigabyte Aorus Master: 12-phase vrm
EVGA Z390 Dark: 17-phase vrm
MSI Godlike: 18-phase vrm
ROG MAXIMUS XI EXTREME: ???



> The ASUS ROG Maximus XI Hero (Z390) represents the lowest of the higher tier Maximus range of motherboards and since their introduction to ASUS's motherboard arsenal back on the Z87 chipset, the ROG Maximus VI Hero.
> 
> Also similar is that each of the ROG Maximus XI Hero, Code and Formula all have an 8-pin + 4-pin ATX 12 V CPU power inputs with a similar looking power delivery on the surface
> The power delivery from the surface looks like it may be a 10-phase setup operating at 8+2 or 6+4, with a nice sized black colored finned heatsink.


https://www.anandtech.com/show/13407/intel-z390-motherboard-overview-every-motherboard-analyzed/15


----------



## Contiusa

After this release, I'm almost buying an i7-8700K (I will stay away from the refresh, and the i7 with only 8 threads sounds almost like a downgrade), but then I'm not inclined to part ways with Windows 7, which has been super stable since I started using it (I had to wait for more than a year with the CD shelved to get all the support for my content). 

So then I might wait for Ice Lake or whatever comes next.

--


----------



## EastCoast

I cannot find any info on Asus's z390 vrm configuration nor info. They use to provide this on their advert page. Now, after looking inside the manual there is no mention that I can find of number of vrms they use. Can anyone find this info on any of the Asus z390 MBs?


----------



## bigjdubb

You will probably have to check reviews to see if they mention it. I know the WS Pro Z390 board is an 8+2 design but I'm not sure about all the others.


----------



## Raghar

EastCoast said:


> I cannot find any info on Asus's z390 vrm configuration nor info. They use to provide this on their advert page. Now, after looking inside the manual there is no mention that I can find of number of vrms they use. Can anyone find this info on any of the Asus z390 MBs?


It's easy. Hero Z370 had 4 phases with doubler. Hero Z390 has 4 phases with doubler. (Thus they are likely similar. Possibly different chips and bigger heatsinks.) There is no reliable info about temperatures on MOSFET surface after 5 minutes of prime stress test. I think 6 phases with durable and temperature resistant components with proper finned heatsinks and without plastic port covers would work fine, and MB would be 50-100$ cheaper. But throwing plastic on MB, LED on MB, pretending stuff about phases become new norm. Not supporting Linux on some HEDP MB was new low as well.



bigjdubb said:


> You will probably have to check reviews to see if they mention it. I know the WS Pro Z390 board is an 8+2 design but I'm not sure about all the others.


It has bad heatsinks. IIRC previous Z270 WS was somehow limited during overclocking. Dunno if by VRM overheating or by something else.


----------



## EastCoast

Hardware Unbox Update from the same video I posted earlier:










Also, there is a pretty big uproar over at Asus forum asking for transparency regarding the vrm design for the z390. 
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthre...formation-on-the-Z390-XI-Hero-s-power-phasing


What's also interesting that the Asus z390 Hero is reported as having 8-phase vrm according to Newegg:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813119150


But this still begs the question what is the proper phase vrm required for the 9900k for OC and headroom? 


@Raghar
Yeah it's being said that Asus is using 4 phases with doubler. However, it's puzzling that Asus hasn't stepped up and said what it's using since their own forum has people asking. 
Also, looking at the motherboard itself won't tell you what's being used though. At least not 100% for example configurations like 8, 10, 4+4, 6+4, 4+2+2, 6+2+2, 8+4, etc. All power delivery info should come from the manufacture which leaves no confusion. 

However, if it's exactly the same as z370 phase vrm that is cause for concern because I would have to ask what really differentiates the z370 from the z390 when using the 9900k/9700k CPUs? 
IMHO, we need a reviewer to test z370 Hero vs z390 Hero using a 9700k and 9900K just to see thermal, voltages and performance data. Because this is really getting unnecessarily convoluted. And, I'm puzzled that Asus hasn't provided this since all other MB's I checked (posted earlier in this thread) provided this info on their own webpages for the products. Furthermore, Asus use to provide this with older MBs up to the z97 series. 

It seems that Asus's power delivery info became hard to find around the z170 series.
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z97AUSB_31/
In the above you can clearly see Asus providing the power delivery of the z97 MB of 8-phases right in the diagram itself. No text reading required. So what happened since then? Why is the info so hard to find without creating a thread on Asus's forum or having to scour retail outlets online to get the info?


----------



## tostitobandito

The Z390 Hero/Code/Formula doesn't have doublers. It has 8 full power stages for vcore and groups them into pairs for 4 phases, so instead of doubling the number of phases they doubled the stages per phase. They didn't use doublers because they thought this was better. There's more detail in the this thread:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...us-master-vrs-asus-rog-hero.html#post27683206




AlphaC said:


> There's a driver IC in each of the powerstages and each has a high side, low side, and inductor. Additionally the implementation likely has tri-state PWM support (high/low/off) and current detection such that phases are turned off completely when unused. Given the efficiency and shoot through protection of the SiC639 powerstages it really is a nitpick.
> 
> 
> 
> _Tech Yes City_ tested the Hero and had it was cooler than the z390 Taichi that uses doublers with 10x TI NexFETs, so the implementation acts more like an 8 phase.
> 
> Additionally elmor explained it is due to the design choice of avoiding propagation delay from doublers. https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-in...l#post27680702
> 
> It's like the difference between the Z370 Taichi and the Z370 K6. The Taichi had 10 drivers and the K6 had 5. Taichi ran cooler though the difference wasn't as dramatic since the i7 hexcores didn't consume as much power with Intel's specced 138A limit vs the octocores' 193A.
> 
> See Z370 Taichi driver: https://www.intersil.com/content/dam...l6/isl6596.pdf







elmor said:


> On M10H/C/F, there are 4x PWM signals driving 8x power stages (package with driver, high-side and low-side MOSFET). A doubler will interleave a single PWM signal into two power stages, alternatively switching between them. As long as you still have one driver per power stage, the output current capability is roughly the same in both scenarios. What you should watch out for are VRMs where a single driver is used for multiple high-side/low-side MOSFET pairs, which severely increases switching losses.
> 
> When using a doubler, much of the behavior is the same as a real 8-phase PWM solution. At any given time only a single power stage will be activated which has benefits like lower input and output ripple. That allows you to use fewer components for input/output filtering. Depending on the specific doubler used, it may still be possible to do current balancing which allows for better thermals.
> 
> The primary benefit of using double components is faster response time. When you use a doubler, the PWM signal has to go through an additional IC which slightly delays the signal. For example IR3599 has a typical propagation delay of ~10-30 ns.



TLDR - Yes the Hero technically has 4 phases and no it doesn't matter. It still overclocks as well or better than a similar 8+ phase board. The people lynching Asus at hardware unboxed and elsewhere for this board's VRM supposedly causing low power limits are morons.


----------



## bucdan

Can somebody answer this,

Why are there even "heatspreaders" on the CPU anyway? Can't we get CPUs without it like the old CPUs such as the Athlon XP? I mean, they can print the info directly on the board the CPU sits on.


----------



## tostitobandito

bucdan said:


> Can somebody answer this,
> 
> Why are there even "heatspreaders" on the CPU anyway? Can't we get CPUs without it like the old CPUs such as the Athlon XP? I mean, they can print the info directly on the board the CPU sits on.



For a couple reasons. First and most obviously, the silicon dies are pretty small so the IHS spreads that out over a much larger contact area the size of the whole socket for much better heat dissipation.


You could theoretically eliminate the middleman and just make heatsinks/coolers contoured to drop right on the die and accomplish the same thing, but this has a few problems. One, without an IHS the die is exposed and very vulnerable to damage as heatsinks are added, removed, moved around, and so forth. Also, it would complicate cooler compatibility since the size and shape of the actual die can vary within the same socket family. The new 9000 series are a good example of this, as they have a thicker/taller die than the 8000 series which would necessitate a different heatsink design to properly fit on it. Contrast that with the current system where CPU cooler makers just have to make it fit the standard socket 1151 package.

You do see bare dies in other applications where it's soldered directly onto the PCB, like GPU's and laptops. In those cases it's mainly done to save space and/or improve thermals in applications where you can't exactly get a massive cooler on the die.

Basically, it's not worth the extra expense and risk for what would be a relatively small thermal improvement, at least in the desktop CPU market.


----------



## EastCoast

It would be nice for Asus to give an official response about this. For me, they use to give this info all the time back in the day.


----------



## tostitobandito

EastCoast said:


> It would be nice for Asus to give an official response about this. For me, they use to give this info all the time back in the day.



A response about what, the Maximus VRM? All the details have been pretty much laid out in previous posts. 4 phase with two full sets of powerstages per phase, fast response time and good thermals on the mosfets. Power delivery seems comparable to many of the competing Z390 8-10 phase boards using doublers based on the component specs and the OC benchmarks we've seen.


----------



## Raghar

tostitobandito said:


> TLDR - Yes the Hero technically has 4 phases and no it doesn't matter. It still overclocks as well or better than a similar 8+ phase board. The people lynching Asus at hardware unboxed and elsewhere for this board's VRM supposedly causing low power limits are morons.


Asus used doubler on Z370 Hero, and 4x2 phases without doubler on cheaper boards. 

I assumed there is doubler, and I just don't see the correct chip, because what for would be two coils per phase? Isn't one high quality one better? One coil can have less interference from neighboring coils because of longer distance to nearest coil. (Z390 WS however do have underwhelming VRM heatsink. PLX heatsink looks fine.)

Honestly, I'd rather have cheaper CPUs and cheap (in price) MBs with proper phases, than integrated graphics and various shenanigans. MB like X99M-WS were just nearly perfect. Getting stuff like that for mainstream, 50-100$ cheaper because of volume production would work better than 19 different boards filled by LED like parrots.



EastCoast said:


> It seems that Asus's power delivery info became hard to find around the z170 series.
> https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z97AUSB_31/
> In the above you can clearly see Asus providing the power delivery of the z97 MB of 8-phases right in the diagram itself. No text reading required. So what happened since then? Why is the info so hard to find without creating a thread on Asus's forum or having to scour retail outlets online to get the info?


Yup. Info is becoming more and more scarce. When I was deciding between Asus MB, I downloaded manuals and looked at VRM frequency. They don't list VRM frequency ranges in Z390 manual anymore.


----------



## 113802

EastCoast said:


> After watching the Hardware Unboxed vide I've learned something new. Not all z390 boards have the power delivery needed to properly overclock the 9900K to get the higher end performance. You need a top of the line motherboard from Asrock, Asus, MSI, etc in order to get that. As other z390 MB (as high as $200+ still have 4-phase vrm).
> LOL
> How many knew this?
> 
> So, if you see a review stating that the 9900K is at 50C-65C OC you better know that it's using a z390 MB with a lower phase vrm. Which will have lower performance vs top end MB that has 11+ phase vrm. The author indicates there are z390 MB rated for 95watts. You can increase it but you will run the MB out of spec. Here are some of the MB's I've found that have at least 11 phase or more vrm:
> EVGA Z390 FTW: 11-phase vrm
> Asrock Taichi Ultimate: 12-phase vrm
> Gigabyte Aorus Master: 12-phase vrm
> EVGA Z390 Dark: 17-phase vrm
> MSI Godlike: 18-phase vrm
> ROG MAXIMUS XI EXTREME: ???


Mostly incorrect, if you see a review that has 50c-65c temps it's because they did a proper review with the manufacturer's MCE disabled. By default with MCE disabled the 9900ks TDP is 95w causing it to run at 4.2-4.3Ghz on all 8 cores. I suggest not looking at the number of phases but on phase quailty just like we've always done. The Asus Maximus XI Hero and Formula are 8+2 just like every generation. Too many high end boards have MCE set to Auto ever since the z77 series by default causing every single processor to overclock right out of the box. Low end boards will most likely not have MCE or MCE disabled by default. Linus confirmed he had MCE disabled in his review.

Gigabyte z390 UD has 10+2 and it's a cheap $130 board.


----------



## tostitobandito

Raghar said:


> Asus used doubler on Z370 Hero, and 4x2 phases without doubler on cheaper boards.
> 
> I assumed there is doubler, and I just don't see the correct chip, because what for would be two coils per phase? Isn't one high quality one better? One coil can have less interference from neighboring coils because of longer distance to nearest coil. (Z390 WS however do have underwhelming VRM heatsink. PLX heatsink looks fine.)



No, not necessarily. Go read the feedback from AlphaC and Elmor that I referenced several posts back. Asus deliberately did it this way because they think it's an improvement on the 4x2 design with doublers which they used on the Maximus X. In this case on the Maximus XI they have two complete power stages per phase, and the elimination of doublers significantly improves response time. Additionally the components in the phases have been upgraded and are more capable. This is why we're seeing the real-world performance that we are from the Maximus XI boards, with it performing at least on par with many other high end 8-10+ phase boards (in terms of frequency and VRM temps).


----------



## blackhole2013

I got my 9700k to 5.2 ghz all cores but it hits 1.47 volts on Aida64 It hits about 75c max . Do you think at that voltage its good for a every day overclock or should i bring it back to 5.0 ghz 1.35 v 60c max stress test for 24/7 usage


----------



## ToTheSun!

blackhole2013 said:


> I got my 9700k to 5.2 ghz all cores but it hits 1.47 volts on Aida64 It hits about 75c max . Do you think at that voltage its good for a every day overclock or should i bring it back to 5.0 ghz 1.35 v 60c max stress test for 24/7 usage


Wouldn't that depend on what kind of longevity you're expecting? I mean, people talk of degradation very loosely, mostly because there aren't concrete metrics to determine its extent and its effect on a CPU's life.


----------



## Barefooter

blackhole2013 said:


> I got my 9700k to 5.2 ghz all cores but it hits 1.47 volts on Aida64 It hits about 75c max . Do you think at that voltage its good for a every day overclock or should i bring it back to 5.0 ghz 1.35 v 60c max stress test for 24/7 usage


I would keep the 5.2 GHz profile for benchmarks, and the 5.0 GHz @ 1.35v as your 24/7 profile. The CPU should last a good long time at 1.35v.


----------



## bigjdubb

I have always run my processors with maximum overclock in a 24/7 environment (watercooled) and have never had one die on me. I used to upgrade pretty often but my 4790k lasted 4 years in a 24/7 environment without any sort of idle states or power saving enabled. Most people running maxed out overclocks will probably upgrade every couple of years, if not every year, so I don't think it's much of a concern. It will increase your chances of killing it but that's the nature of overclocking.


----------



## blackhole2013

Barefooter said:


> I would keep the 5.2 GHz profile for benchmarks, and the 5.0 GHz @ 1.35v as your 24/7 profile. The CPU should last a good long time at 1.35v.


Well I was messing with it and got 5.1 on all cores at 1.394 volts I think that should be safe 24/7 plus I have speed stepping on so it dont always run at 5.1 so it saves electricity and keeps it cool and lasting longer ..


----------



## EastCoast

tostitobandito said:


> No, not necessarily. Go read the feedback from AlphaC and Elmor that I referenced several posts back. Asus deliberately did it this way because they think it's an improvement on the 4x2 design with doublers which they used on the Maximus X. In this case on the Maximus XI they have two complete power stages per phase, and the elimination of doublers significantly improves response time. Additionally the components in the phases have been upgraded and are more capable. This is why we're seeing the real-world performance that we are from the Maximus XI boards, with it performing at least on par with many other high end 8-10+ phase boards (in terms of frequency and VRM temps).


Even if the information is correct, one would need to know which forum to visit and which poster post to read. That's way to convoluted. Transparency is needed and it should come directly from Asus, not "just" from a poster on a forum. 





How hard it is for Asus to do what they use to do? Transparency man, Transparency. Even if it's "more involved then before" a simple "*" with caption at the bottom is more then suffice. A lot of us are confused because you have many bickering back and forth about "how phase power works, etc". You got a youtuber providing a lot of false info and no input from Asus about it as of yet. This isn't helping me choice them as a motherboard and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that.




Raghar said:


> Yup. Info is becoming more and more scarce. When I was deciding between Asus MB, I downloaded manuals and looked at VRM frequency. They don't list VRM frequency ranges in Z390 manual anymore.


Yeah, it was common knowledge back then from Asus. It's funny too because other MB manufactures still provided this info.

After looking at a few more reviews it looks like there is a option to adjust the 95 watt limit of the motherboard called "Turbo Power Limit". Although I'm not sure if that name is used across all MB manufacture bios. This controls the TDP of the processor. Also, I'm reading that the bios may default to 95watt as per spec. Since finding out about that I would suspect that the vrm setup should be ample to provide the power needed for OC'ing. Although I would still suggest research the MB 1st to see what kind of performance it offers.

Edit:
It would seem that both "Turbo Power Limit" and "CPU Current Capacity" may share similar theme in the power delivery to the CPU from it's spec'd default.


Edit 2: This is where this started, at least for me. 





*4:55 - 8:46*​


----------



## tostitobandito

I could be wrong, but I believe Elmor is from Asus. Sure seems like it in his posts. I see no reason to not believe what he's posting.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...cussion-thread-post27680702.html#post27680702
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...cussion-thread-post27685780.html#post27685780
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...cussion-thread-post27685836.html#post27685836
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...cussion-thread-post27686004.html#post27686004

In one of these he reveals that the Maximus XI Apex is coming and that it has basically double the VRM of the Hero, "Twin 16-phase (8 PWM signals, each connected to two power stages)."


----------



## Recipe7

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-MAXIMUS-XI-APEX/


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Threx said:


> Always pleasantly amused to see how a little competition can go a long way. We went from 4c/4t and 4c/8t being the top mainstream chips to 6c/6t and 6c/12t to 8c/8t and 8c/16t in under 12 months.


This is why intelligent individuals consider fanboys idiots. Competition is good for everyone. You WANT AMD to do good so Intel will strive to do better and vice versa.


----------



## EniGma1987

tostitobandito said:


> In one of these he reveals that the Maximus XI Apex is coming and that it has basically double the VRM of the Hero, "Twin 16-phase (8 PWM signals, each connected to two power stages)."



His statement makes it sound like it is a true 8 phase running through a doubler for 16 phases. That would be quite something, but I doubt that is true. I would bet you they have a 4 phase VRM through a doubles, and then wire those 8 phases at half the frequency into double components each. lol.


----------



## tostitobandito

EniGma1987 said:


> His statement makes it sound like it is a true 8 phase running through a doubler for 16 phases. That would be quite something, but I doubt that is true. I would bet you they have a 4 phase VRM through a doubles, and then wire those 8 phases at half the frequency into double components each. lol.



No, it's an 8 phase controller controlling 16 power stages, 2 per phase. It's the same configuration as the Hero but with twice the phases and stages. They use the term "twin 8 phase" for the Hero and "twin 16 phase" for the Apex. The terms are a little confusing, but they are being consistent in how they use them. They describe a non-doubler configuration using twin parallel stages at each phase, and the number refers to the number of total power stages.


----------



## GBT-MatthewH

WannaBeOCer said:


> Mostly incorrect, if you see a review that has 50c-65c temps it's because they did a proper review with the manufacturer's MCE disabled. By default with MCE disabled the 9900ks TDP is 95w causing it to run at 4.2-4.3Ghz on all 8 cores.


This is incorrect when it comes to MCE. MCE would be running all the cores at the max 1-2 core turbo of 5.0. Intel spec is 4.7 all core - That's not MCE that's the turbo spec. All AORUS boards for instance have MCE off by default, and they run at Intel Turbo spec of 4.7 all core.


----------



## 113802

GBT-MatthewH said:


> This is incorrect when it comes to MCE. MCE would be running all the cores at the max 1-2 core turbo of 5.0. Intel spec is 4.7 all core - That's not MCE that's the turbo spec. All AORUS boards for instance have MCE off by default, and they run at Intel Turbo spec of 4.7 all core.


Would surprise me if Intel released a CPU that ran at 4.7Ghz on all the cores considering their TDP target. All the Asus board reviews show the 9900k running at 4.3Ghz when MCE is disabled. Was this a change for Z390 Gigabyte boards? The Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming board I tested had it set to Auto by default.


----------



## GBT-MatthewH

WannaBeOCer said:


> Would surprise me if Intel released a CPU that ran at 4.7Ghz on all the cores considering their TDP target. All the Asus board reviews show the 9900k running at 4.3Ghz when MCE is disabled. Was this a change for Z390 Gigabyte boards? The Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming board I tested had it set to Auto by default.


By default, AUTO = OFF for MCE on Gigabyte boards. 4.7 is not an arbitrary number, its literally the spec directly from Intel - Ironically quoted in the link that started this thread: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...700ki5-9600k-specifications-also-exposed.html

My point was simply that running at below 4.7 all core is lower than Intel Turbo spec, additionally any board running at the (correct) 4.7 all core is not using MCE, its simply adhering to the Turbo spec. Again MCE would be if the board ran all the cores @ 5Ghz (highest turbo spec for single core).


----------



## blackhole2013

Well its my first time with an Asus Maximus period I always had mid level boards and i got the XI hero and wow I got to say im a novice on all the settings but messing with some of the so many settings so many i still dont know. I got the overclock to 5.2 1.4 volts on my 9700k . I bet I can hit 5.3 if I can figure out all the settings .. I really believe this motherboard is helping me hit such high overclocks .. I wish there was a thread on how to mess with this board to go for more ...


----------



## tostitobandito

blackhole2013 said:


> Well its my first time with an Asus Maximus period I always had mid level boards and i got the XI hero and wow I got to say im a novice on all the settings but messing with some of the so many settings so many i still dont know. I got the overclock to 5.2 1.4 volts on my 9700k . I bet I can hit 5.3 if I can figure out all the settings .. I really believe this motherboard is helping me hit such high overclocks .. I wish there was a thread on how to mess with this board to go for more ...



Look for the Gamers Nexus livestream where he was overclocking a 9900K, also using a Hero XI. A lot of the settings he was using can transfer to you. I'm sure there are other more concise 9900K/Asus overclocking videos floating around by now as well.


----------



## sdch

GBT-MatthewH said:


> By default, AUTO = OFF for MCE on Gigabyte boards. 4.7 is not an arbitrary number, its literally the spec directly from Intel - Ironically quoted in the link that started this thread: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...700ki5-9600k-specifications-also-exposed.html
> 
> My point was simply that running at below 4.7 all core is lower than Intel Turbo spec, additionally any board running at the (correct) 4.7 all core is not using MCE, its simply adhering to the Turbo spec. Again MCE would be if the board ran all the cores @ 5Ghz (highest turbo spec for single core).


Intel turbo spec has the all core 4.7 only running for τ=1 second before PL2 limit kicks in, punting the cores down to ~4.2GHz @ 95W. But it looks like you and other vendors have set τ to 28 seconds, sometimes juicing PL2 (>200W) and max current (>193A), and other values we haven't learned about yet. This confuses everyone because what is "default spec" is now "sorta default spec as long as we look better than our competition".

On top of that, all core 4.7 is not intel turbo spec. Sure the CPUs have been programmed to that and they've shared documents with vendors (but not the public), but there's no way they run at that, sustained, at <=95W. That's why only 3.6 base, 5.0 max have actually been advertised.


----------



## AlphaC

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/18.html


i7-9700K Blender (AVX) clocks are 4.7GHz at power limit ~140W




https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/18.html

For i9-9900K it's ~4.8GHz at 180W apparently


edit: per their test setup a ASUS Z390 Maximus XI Extreme was used


----------



## pompss

I dont seen any benchmark of i9 9900k vs amd 2950x in 1440p or 4k


----------



## GBT-MatthewH

sdch said:


> Intel turbo spec has the all core 4.7 only running for τ=1 second before PL2 limit kicks in, punting the cores down to ~4.2GHz @ 95W. But it looks like you and other vendors have set τ to 28 seconds, sometimes juicing PL2 (>200W) and max current (>193A), and other values we haven't learned about yet. This confuses everyone because what is "default spec" is now "sorta default spec as long as we look better than our competition".
> 
> On top of that, all core 4.7 is not intel turbo spec. Sure the CPUs have been programmed to that and they've shared documents with vendors (but not the public), but there's no way they run at that, sustained, at <=95W. That's why only 3.6 base, 5.0 max have actually been advertised.


Again my comment was directed to "multicore enhancement" not power or tdp. My only statement was 4.7 is not "mce" enabled, it's Intels turbo spec for all cores. Obviously 8 core / 16 thread at 4.7 exceeds 95w, but that's a different discussion.


----------



## tpi2007

WannaBeOCer said:


> *Would surprise me if Intel released a CPU that ran at 4.7Ghz on all the cores considering their TDP target.* All the Asus board reviews show the 9900k running at 4.3Ghz when MCE is disabled. Was this a change for Z390 Gigabyte boards? The Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming board I tested had it set to Auto by default.



Bold for emphasis. They wouldn't and don't. They specifically say that the TDP is measured at 3.6 Ghz on the 9900K on all eight cores, that is the only thing you are assured (that and single core Turbo being 5 Ghz, although in practice this time it works on two, but they don't acknowledge that part officially).





sdch said:


> Intel turbo spec has the all core 4.7 only running for τ=1 second *before PL2 limit kicks in, punting the cores down to ~4.2GHz @ 95W*. But it looks like you and other vendors have set τ to 28 seconds, sometimes juicing PL2 (>200W) and max current (>193A), and other values we haven't learned about yet. This confuses everyone because what is "default spec" is now "sorta default spec as long as we look better than our competition".
> 
> On top of that, all core 4.7 is not intel turbo spec. Sure the CPUs have been programmed to that and they've shared documents with vendors (but not the public), but there's no way they run at that, sustained, at <=95W. That's why only 3.6 base, 5.0 max have actually been advertised.



Bold for emphasis. Where did you read that the PL2 limit is 95w? It's 210w, according to Intel's recommended value:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21



AnandTech said:


> The bottom line, the cooling limit, is effectively the TDP value. Here the power (and frequency) is limited by the cooling at hand. It is the lowest sustainable frequency for the cooling, so for the most part TDP = PL1. This is our ‘95W’ value.
> 
> The PL2 value, or sustained power delivery, is what amounts to the turbo. This is the maximum sustainable power that the processor can take until we start to hit thermal issues. When a chip goes into a turbo mode, sometimes briefly, this is the part that is relied upon. The value of PL2 can be set by the system manufacturer, however Intel has its own recommended PL2 values.
> 
> In this case, for the new 9th Generation Core processors, Intel has set the PL2 value to 210W. This is essentially the power required to hit the peak turbo on all cores, such as 4.7 GHz on the eight-core Core i9-9900K. So users can completely forget the 95W TDP when it comes to cooling. If a user wants those peak frequencies, it’s time to invest in something capable and serious.






GBT-MatthewH said:


> By default, AUTO = OFF for MCE on Gigabyte boards. 4.7 is not an arbitrary number, its literally the spec directly from Intel - Ironically quoted in the link that started this thread: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...700ki5-9600k-specifications-also-exposed.html
> 
> My point was simply that running at below 4.7 all core is lower than Intel Turbo spec, additionally any board running at the (correct) 4.7 all core is not using MCE, its simply adhering to the Turbo spec. Again MCE would be if the board ran all the cores @ 5Ghz (highest turbo spec for single core).





GBT-MatthewH said:


> Again my comment was directed to "multicore enhancement" not power or tdp. My only statement was 4.7 is not "mce" enabled, it's Intels turbo spec for all cores. Obviously 8 core / 16 thread at 4.7 exceeds 95w, but that's a different discussion.



Thanks for the insights. :thumb:


----------



## sdch

tpi2007 said:


> Bold for emphasis. Where did you read that the PL2 limit is 95w? It's 210w, according to Intel's recommended value:
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21



https://mobile.twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1054305509296275456

https://mobile.twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1055028181365735424

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...heets/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.pdf



















And scope out AlphaC's post and link (one page back in the review).


----------



## tpi2007

sdch said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1054305509296275456
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1055028181365735424
> 
> https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...heets/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And scope out AlphaC's post and link (one page back in the review).



Very interesting, thanks! And virtual Rep+.

So, this is all a big mess right now, we don't even know exactly what the PL2 value actually is. Intel says to the public that it's 1.25x PL1, or 118.75W, but to motherboard OEMs it's saying that it's 210w.


----------



## sdch

tpi2007 said:


> Very interesting, thanks! And virtual Rep+.
> 
> So, this is all a big mess right now, we don't even know exactly what the PL2 value actually is. Intel says to the public that it's 1.25x PL1, or 118.75W, but to motherboard OEMs it's saying that it's 210w.


You got it. Virtual rep+ back at you.


----------



## ku4eto

pompss said:


> I dont seen any benchmark of i9 9900k vs amd 2950x in 1440p or 4k


Obviously, since the 2950X is not gaming oriented CPU. 
The 2700X performs the same in 1440p and 4K compared to the Intel CPUs. At those resolutions, you are GPU bound.


----------



## betam4x

ku4eto said:


> Obviously, since the 2950X is not gaming oriented CPU.
> The 2700X performs the same in 1440p and 4K compared to the Intel CPUs. At those resolutions, you are GPU bound.


Threadripper 1950X and the 2950X is a damn good gaming chip. I mean, I game at 4k and all...I can even have my PC upstairs and my Samsung TV downstairs and use steamlink (app built into Samsung smart TVs) stream at 4k30 or 4k60 on a 1080ti....over 802.11ac (though I don't do that often, i have a 4k TV in my office I usually game on, the samsung is usually for when friends are over).

Regardless, this is why reviewers should really focus on stock specs and ignore TDP as specified by vendors. If my PC is pulling 95watts from the wall, it will be close to 95 watts of TDP. The 9900k can't do that (nor can most of AMD's chips, however, AMD is pretty damn good at hitting power targets, where as Intel has been constantly fudging the numbers lately).

I'd personally like to see AMD kill turbo boost altogether and start targeting Intel's attempt at 'marketing'. Sure they can hit 4.8 on all cores...at 300 watts! <insert per per watt ad here>. I'm not against Intel at all, but the 9900k seems like a desperate attempt to remain relevant. This is the first time since the Athlon 64 x2 that I've purchased AMD. Sure it's not the single threaded IPC king, but it's damn close, and I get 2-4x as many cores to boot....WITH SMT. Oh and I have no issues gaming, encoding videos, running VMs, or even just writing code and compiling on an HEDT platform running 4k. The latest Forza, Final Fantasy, etc. all run at max settings at > my monitors' refresh rates. Because of this I really don't care.


----------



## pompss

ku4eto said:


> Obviously, since the 2950X is not gaming oriented CPU.
> The 2700X performs the same in 1440p and 4K compared to the Intel CPUs. At those resolutions, you are GPU bound.


Well if there is no performance difference in 1440p and 4k gaming why should i buy Intel?Any performance reasons to not take Amd 2950x or 2920x ?Bc price its pretty much the same if you go with intel z390 MB and i9 9900k. 

As i see even then 2950x its not gaming oriented a motherboard Like Asrock x399m and Amd 2950x bring the price up to $800 to $1000 and when the 2920x its coming out monday the combo (MB and Amd cpu) will cost $799 to $899 while A good z390 MB and the i9 9900k price go up to $879.

Like for $20 dollars more you get more lines, more cores , more m2 slots and more overall general performance with Threadripper 2

Any reason why someone would start a new build with z390 and i9 9900k if there is no real difference on 1440p/4k resolutions? Why pay more or the same if you can get a better And faster Cpu like the 2920x?

Make no sense spending $899 to play 1080p when you have a ps4 pro and xbox one x for under $399.


----------



## SuperZan

pompss said:


> Well if there is no performance difference in 1440p and 4k gaming why should i buy Intel?Any performance reasons to not take Amd 2950x or 2920x ?Bc price its pretty much the same if you go with intel z390 MB and i9 9900k.
> 
> As i see even then 2950x its not gaming oriented a motherboard Like Asrock x399m and Amd 2950x bring the price up to $800 to $1000 and when the 2920x its coming out monday the combo (MB and Amd cpu) will cost $799 to $899 while A good z390 MB and the i9 9900k price go up to $879.
> 
> Like for $20 dollars more you get more lines, more cores , more m2 slots and more overall general performance with Threadripper 2
> 
> Any reason why someone would start a new build with z390 and i9 9900k if there is no real difference on 1440p/4k resolutions? Why pay more or the same if you can get a better And faster Cpu like the 2920x?
> 
> Make no sense spending $899 to play 1080p when you have a ps4 pro and xbox one x for under $399.


That's the general idea. If your tasks include those for which single-threaded performance is at a premium, or if you prefer to toggle settings down to maintain 144+FPS at all times for a VHRR display, then Intel is your best bet. If the competition can provide the performance you need for your use-case, the price-performance part is the logical choice. It's not so complicated if you take the fandom religiosity out of it.


----------



## pompss

SuperZan said:


> That's the general idea. If your tasks include those for which single-threaded performance is at a premium, or if you prefer to toggle settings down to maintain 144+FPS at all times for a VHRR display, then Intel is your best bet. If the competition can provide the performance you need for your use-case, the price-performance part is the logical choice. It's not so complicated if you take the fandom religiosity out of it.


I thing its time we all start considering buying AMD bc intel pricing its going to the roof and honestly we need competition to keep pricing down . See what happen with rtx 2080ti for $1200.
For like 2-3 fps i think its time to let intel Know that those pricing are not ok. I hope also AMD catch up on nvidia to stop those crazy price increase.

I Just bought the new threadripper 2920x today . After seen some reviews i think its the best cpu price-perfomance on the market today.


----------



## tpi2007

pompss said:


> I thing its time we all start considering buying AMD bc intel pricing its going to the roof and honestly we need competition to keep pricing down . See what happen with rtx 2080ti for $1200.
> For like 2-3 fps i think its time to let intel Know that those pricing are not ok. I hope also AMD catch up on nvidia to stop those crazy price increase.
> 
> I Just bought the new threadripper 2920x today . After seen some reviews i think its the best cpu price-perfomance on the market today.



I saw the Intel prices two weeks ago and they were high, but holy guacamole, I just checked them again and where I am Intel CPUs are mindbogglingly priced at this moment. An i5-8400 is at ~285€, the new i5-9600K is at almost 350€, and then because the prices are so high interestingly the difference between an 8700K and an 8086K is only ~20€ now, from ~450€ to ~470€. Then the 9700K is at ~500€ and the 9900K at ~630€. I don't see how these prices will get any better during the holiday season.


----------



## ToTheSun!

tpi2007 said:


> I saw the Intel prices two weeks ago and they were high, but holy guacamole, I just checked them again and where I am Intel CPUs are mindbogglingly priced at this moment. An i5-8400 is at ~285€, the new i5-9600K is at almost 350€, and then because the prices are so high interestingly the difference between an 8700K and an 8086K is only ~20€ now, from ~450€ to ~470€. Then the 9700K is at ~500€ and the 9900K at ~630€. I don't see how these prices will get any better during the holiday season.


It's kind of crazy to stand here and realize that, considering the current market, buying an 8700K a few weeks before the 9900K arrived was a better decision.

Unless BF changes things, I don't see how I can stomach spending upwards of €600 for it.


----------



## blackhole2013

Is there an official Intel 9 series overclocking thread yet that maybe I can pick up some useful overclocking information for my 9700k ?


----------



## Subby

blackhole2013 said:


> Is there an official Intel 9 series overclocking thread yet that maybe I can pick up some useful overclocking information for my 9700k ?


Not that I have seen, just some individuals in the Intel CPUs section asking specifics about their setup. Get one started, I will join in on it when mine arrives on Tues


----------



## Contiusa

I'm even considering buying an i7-8086K on Black Friday. O even an i7-8700K. I don't think I can wait until 2020. The 9th generation is already looking like a huge flop.

---


----------



## EastCoast

*Hero XI discussion starts at 8:16 and he calls it a 4 phase VRM board (Twin 8 phase design)*


This video is a review of 4 high end z390 power deliver. the Hero XI is the only 4 phase VRM board between MSI, Gigabyte and Asrock.


----------



## EniGma1987

tostitobandito said:


> No, it's an 8 phase controller controlling 16 power stages, 2 per phase. It's the same configuration as the Hero but with twice the phases and stages. They use the term "twin 8 phase" for the Hero and "twin 16 phase" for the Apex. The terms are a little confusing, but they are being consistent in how they use them. They describe a non-doubler configuration using twin parallel stages at each phase, and the number refers to the number of total power stages.


Do you know what controller they are using? That would be one of the first true 8 phase boards to be released as a mass market board so it is quite something.


----------



## EastCoast

From video in my previous post


----------



## 113802

EastCoast said:


> From video in my previous post


Odd Guru3D had different results.

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_z390_aorus_master_review,20.html
Asus Maximus XI Hero: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_maximum_xi_hero_review,20.html
MSI MEG Z390 ACE: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_meg_z390_ace_review,20.html


----------



## Raghar

WannaBeOCer said:


> Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_z390_aorus_master_review,20.html


5.1 GHz 42.3C


> Asus Maximus XI Hero: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_maximum_xi_hero_review,20.html


5.0 GHz 49.7C


> MSI MEG Z390 ACE: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_meg_z390_ace_review,20.html


5.2 GHz 59.2C

Well, Asus was tested with slowest speed, and isn't the best.


----------



## 113802

Raghar said:


> 5.1 GHz 42.3C
> 
> 5.0 GHz 49.7C
> 
> 5.2 GHz 59.2C
> 
> Well, Asus was tested with slowest speed, and isn't the best.


Thanks for pointing that out, odd why they didn't keep the Maximus XI Hero at 5.2Ghz. In their overclocking review the MSI MEG Z390 ACE board and Maximus XI Hero board both were able to clock at 5.2Ghz while the Gigabyte only could hit 5.1Ghz.

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_z390_aorus_master_review,19.html
Asus Maximus XI Hero: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_maximum_xi_hero_review,19.html


----------

