• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Core 9000 series

Wow, way to blow off topic.

For regular users these exploits are not currently a big deal. It is possible they might be in the future, but not likely. It is something I expect to hurt Intel when it comes to Epyc amd corporate and government contracts that do take this stuff seriously, but those guys can be seriously slow to change.

On the 9900k it isn't competing against the 2700x. It will compete against the 2950x on TR4. Just like Intel users went to the X99 platform back in the day that is where full on PC enthusiasts should surely be comparing TR4 with the new line up. Unless the rumours are wrong and it comes in priced within $50 of the 8700k, but it is a big chip for intel to price that low.

The 9900k is absolutely going to be the single fastest processor for gaming on release, I expect it to beat the 2700x or 2950x in gaming by 10-15%, but there have been limited reviews of the 2950x so far and it will be interesting to see if the 2080ti starts to saturate the PCIe bus in SLi on the 9900k. Likewise it will be interesting to see the actual difference in gaming between everything once released.
 
Frankly I'm still not touching any of these chips considering Meltdown and Spectre variants are still being found, patched and baked into silicon. I think it will be late 2019 before I consider looking again considering the PC parts market is off its collective rocker regarding pricing.

CPU, Memory, NVMe, Graphics parts are all running away with themselves, considering the best part of the western markets have been in recession for the last 10 years you would think that maybe price gouging at this time wouldn't be the best idea. But of course that's not the case.
 
SiDeards73 said:
So there is hope that they can push microcodes delivered via WU / WSUS via UEFI in the future
Click to expand...
Vince said:
You can, you say - so long as its vendor supported! Yet the only vendor that actually supports this is MS... golden :) I haven't seen a single microde update for any of our 100's of hp desktops, laptops etc etc. In fact of the several hundred devices we have a total of zero, nada, none got any microde through windows update. What is actually possible is clearly not what is actually happening.
Click to expand...
A microcode update doesn’t need vendor support and doesn’t have to delivered through a BIOS/UEFI update. Windows will just load the updated Intel microcode during the boot process. Microsoft have released microcode updates in March, April, May and July. So I don’t know what is going on with your machines. Here is one of the updates detailing which CPUs are covered. As a system admin you can easily deploy this to your machines.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4346084/kb4346084-intel-microcode-updates

A BIOS update is arguably better as it will protect even when not running Windows. But for most people these microcode updates provide a simple way to obtain protection even when the motherboard manufacturer hasn’t released a BIOS update.
 
Last edited:
It's actually hilarious that Intel seem to think they are in a position to raise prices. AMD are bearing down on them like a rabid dog. Intel should be slashing prices!
 
jigger said:
10nm seems to have been a costly mistake.
Click to expand...

yep , think ARM now powering incoming Windows Laptops or incoming is going to hurt . Smart for AMD to focus 7nm on server first to really small and break the server market for the big $$$


beany_bot said:
It's actually hilarious that Intel seem to think they are in a position to raise prices. AMD are bearing down on them like a rabid dog. Intel should be slashing prices!
Click to expand...

to be honest, makes it possible for AMD to raise prices and make a little more profit from CPUs
 
beany_bot said:
It's actually hilarious that Intel seem to think they are in a position to raise prices. AMD are bearing down on them like a rabid dog. Intel should be slashing prices!
Click to expand...

It's equally hilarious that some people here think they understand business better than those who work for these companies.
 
I've said this several times before in the thread, but prices haven't been confirmed yet and there isn't even 1 source of credible information to current rumours.
 
price of the 8 series seems to be going up all the time, looks like my cheap 8600k build when 9 series is out is off the cards.
Better grab a ryzen 5 before they put up prices too.
 
AndreiD said:
I've said this several times before in the thread, but prices haven't been confirmed yet and there isn't even 1 source of credible information to current rumours.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it stands to reason it is going to be more expensive than the current 6 core stuff... also supply and demand at work here now too, Intels not got enough production capacity, so shipments of some chips will slow down, which creates demand, which in turn creates price inflation.

If we look at the cost of extra 2 cores going from the 7700k to the 8700k at release it was a difference of around £50-£70 iirc? right now you have to compare it to the 8086k which is roughly £400, so if you are generous and say its only a £50 increase for 2 more cores, that puts it at £450, pretty sure that its not going to be that cheap, as its 2 cores shy of the 7900X at almost £900, that extra speed on the chip if it does indeed hit 5ghz is going to close the gap on Multicore to the 7900X, yeah it wont beat it in MT apps, but it will beat it in Single threaded stuff...

Anyhow, Intel are not releasing a £450 chip that basically makes its 7900X worthless at twice the price... they'll drop it in around the £550 or even £600 mark as it fills a niche there perfectly without them having to adjust the prices of their product stack, and still gives a reason to splash another £250-£300 on the 7900X etc
 
Why compare it with the 8086K? That's a special anniversary edition that's always going to get a higher price tag and the 8700K inflated prices were due to shortages since you could barely find the chips for a few months. Remains to be seen if it holds true for the 9000 series since this part of the market isn't exactly high volume, not in the way their mobile or server CPUs sell. The main point is that 8700K MSRP was still only ~$10 higher than the 7700K MSRP even though the die size increased by ~21%. Their margins on these consumer parts are fairly obscene already, actually having competition means they will have to eat into their margins.
Skylake-X is a different market segment and the dies are significantly larger than what a consumer 8 core would end up as.

4 core Kaby Lake die size is ~123mm2, 6 core Coffee Lake is about ~149mm2, 8 core Coffee Lake Refresh should end up ~180mm2. Skylake-X LCC die (up to 10 cores) is 326mm2, in a whole different league, reason why those CPUs are also more expensive, but I figure the margins Intel practices for those parts are very high anyway. Additionally Skylake-X is on the way out since Cascade Lake HEDT CPUs are coming this autumn too, making the performance comparison a moot point.

The i9 9900K is probably going to be more expensive than the 8700K but I highly doubt it's going to be that inflated price wise, unless there is a severe shortage like with the 8700K, but in that scenario it's always best to wait until the shortage subsides and buy closer to MSRP.
 
I'm expecting unless HT is disabled on the i9 by the end user, for the next 12-24 months it would actually make for a worse pure gaming chip compared with the new i7 as there's simply no need for 16 threads leaving less room for overclocking due to temperatures. Only a minor difference though. The i7 should fairly comfortably do 5 all core on a good 240mm+ aio with good thermal paste. The difference in temperature with only 4 extra threads is noticeable on 4 core, let alone 8 core with 8 extra. Will easily be 10c+ all loaded up.
 
Last edited:
Drollic said:
I'm expecting unless HT is disabled on the i9 by the end user, for the next 12-24 months it would actually make for a worse pure gaming chip compared with the new i7 as there's simply no need for 16 threads leaving less room for overclocking due to temperatures. Only a minor difference though. The i7 should fairly comfortably do 5 all core on a good 240mm+ aio with good thermal paste. The difference in temperature with only 4 extra threads is noticeable on 4 core, let alone 8 core with 8 extra. Will easily be 10c+ all loaded up.
Click to expand...

The gaming aspect of the chip is forgone conclusion. It will be about as fast as everything else we've seen over the years. -ring bus limitations/memory.

Some games seem to make use of 16 threads and if we see a push toward Ray Tracing then I'd expect the demand for more parallel CPU performance to increase over the next year.
 
jigger said:
The gaming aspect of the chip is forgone conclusion. It will be about as fast as everything else we've seen over the years. -ring bus limitations/memory.

Some games seem to make use of 16 threads and if we see a push toward Ray Tracing then I'd expect the demand for more parallel CPU performance to increase over the next year.
Click to expand...

Some games will use them, but it's a case of if they're actually required to impact performance on what will be a very fast 8 core. The answer will most likely be no and you'll probably end up with a lot of i9s at 4.6-5 with the i7s at 4.8-5.2 outperforming. Can you imagine how gimped a game would be sales wise should the recommended spec require 8/16 in the next 12 months, just won't happen due to limiting their market. Nothing console wise to drive this either as they're years behind now - 30fps 1080p by default, yikes.

Going i7 to i9 in years to come on the new platform will be like i5 to i7 sandy, ivy, haswell except this time you'll get double the thread count for not a lot extra than the old upgrade cost.
 
Ring bus won't be limited by 8 cores, it should top out at around 12 cores, but even then latency should be lower than with Mesh or IF.

I can definitely see the non-HT 8 core 9700K as being a really good gaming chip if it can overclock higher than the 9900K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom