Core 9000 series

[Panos]

If security was not a big issue you could always stay with the older Bios for your motherboard and avoiding some of the slow downs but you will not be able to with the Z390 boards.

Also cannot use 9xxx chips on Z370 boards without patching the motherboard bios, which will include all the microcode patches.
The issue is if reviewers going to use the latest windows with the Intel security patches or not some windows 10 disk image they did few years back.

 

[BTVA]

new leak, 9700K on air, 5.3Ghz, 1.215v
things that are curious to me with this leak:
1. 4 pin cpu power attached.
2. No stress test or benchmark?
3. why 1.215v but not 1.216v?
4. Judging by the choke + mosfet setup, is it a mid-range Gigabye board?

source: https://www.techpowerup.com/247337/...-core-overclocked-to-5-30-ghz-on-air#comments

 

[gavinh87]

If remotely true, that is impressive.
Though I'm suspicious of anyone that can get their hands on an unreleased CPU but doesn't have an half decent camera :/

 

[BTVA]

If remotely true, that is impressive.
Though I'm suspicious of anyone that can get their hands on an unreleased CPU but doesn't have an half decent camera :/

probably quick picture with a crappy phone and being shared a few times causing the quality of the picture to degrade? Not the first time, China is like Japan, they like pixelated stuff

 

[gavinh87]

probably quick picture with a crappy phone and being shared a few times causing the quality of the picture to degrade? Not the first time, China is like Japan, they like pixelated stuff

I laughed a little too much at that!

 

[DragonQ]

If remotely true, that is impressive

Well it's kind of impressive if it's stable, which we don't know.

 

[NMBlack]

Though I'm suspicious of anyone that can get their hands on an unreleased CPU but doesn't have an half decent camera :/

....or the ability to use "print screen"?

 

[gavinh87]

....or the ability to use "print screen"?

And that!

 

[Jamie Archer]

It can be extremely impressive to me, but unfortunately it wont be impressive to everyone even if it did 7ghz out of the box.

If it doesnt have an overkill amount of pcie lanes most of us will never likely use, or it cant utilise higher than 64gb of the fastest ram on the market, hasnt got quad channel memory bandwidth for those 0.01% performance increases on multicore benchmarking software or it does indeed come with any type of security patch, it's simply just not good enough or impressive enough, no matter how fast it is over the competition.

Personally, im amazed there are so many people interested and commenting in an intel mainstream cpu thread that require so much memory/bandwidth with so many pcie lanes. Intel mainstream is renowned for having dual channel memory and without the need for something like a server then i feel most of the features on offer with the i9-9900k are overkill for the majority. If people really want/need these kinds of features (that would likely go unused by the majority) and it is what keeps them enthused, then surely there are threads that would be more interesting, such as server threads or HEDT/TR4 threads with more cores of slower speeds and higher memory/pcie lane features?

For the majority of domestic pc enthusiasts, this is looking extremely impressive and there's going to be nothing coming close to these speeds for quite some time, and lets be honest......even if you do multitask, render, video edit or utilise multiple cores/threads....8/16 of cores with over 5ghz of clockspeed with the IPC of an intel refined 14nm++, is that not enough?

I don't even know what real world software outside of benchmarking utilities that will even see or utilise more than 8 cores and 16 threads efficiently.

Given that an i7-8700k could pretty much go toe to toe with 2 cores and 4 threads less than amds 1800x (from pretty much the same release period/generation) using multicore benchmarking, i really dont know what more anyone could want or dream of with this latest iteration.

 

[BTVA]

....or the ability to use "print screen"?

you have to understand China's current dominant culture of using smart phone and wechat (their facebook/twitter/messenger service), the image was probably shared on wechat rather than a conventional forums like ours. Plus, with a new pc setup it's just not than convenience to take proper pictures and then copy it into the new pc, log in to the appropriated social service, and sharing them formally. These kind of leak was probably internal or some tester has early access and was just trying to figure out the thing.

 

[SiDeards73]

It can be extremely impressive to me, but unfortunately it wont be impressive to everyone even if it did 7ghz out of the box.

If it doesnt have an overkill amount of pcie lanes most of us will never likely use, or it cant utilise higher than 64gb of the fastest ram on the market, hasnt got quad channel memory bandwidth for those 0.01% performance increases on multicore benchmarking software or it does indeed come with any type of security patch, it's simply just not good enough or impressive enough, no matter how fast it is over the competition.

Personally, im amazed there are so many people interested and commenting in an intel mainstream cpu thread that require so much memory/bandwidth with so many pcie lanes. Intel mainstream is renowned for having dual channel memory and without the need for something like a server then i feel most of the features on offer with the i9-9900k are overkill for the majority. If people really want/need these kinds of features (that would likely go unused by the majority) and it is what keeps them enthused, then surely there are threads that would be more interesting, such as server threads or HEDT/TR4 threads with more cores of slower speeds and higher memory/pcie lane features?

For the majority of domestic pc enthusiasts, this is looking extremely impressive and there's going to be nothing coming close to these speeds for quite some time, and lets be honest......even if you do multitask, render, video edit or utilise multiple cores/threads....8/16 of cores with over 5ghz of clockspeed with the IPC of an intel refined 14nm++, is that not enough?

I don't even know what real world software outside of benchmarking utilities that will even see or utilise more than 8 cores and 16 threads efficiently.

Given that an i7-8700k could pretty much go toe to toe with 2 cores and 4 threads less than amds 1800x (from pretty much the same release period/generation) using multicore benchmarking, i really dont know what more anyone could want or dream of with this latest iteration.

Jesus christ son, could you have your tongue any further up Intels rear end? hahaha

Make no mistake, the 9900K will be a really good chip, Intel has been forced to do this by AMD, especially given they know whats coming with 7nm, they'll get *a lot* of people to switch across and are probably hoping for another 2500k moment where people sit on that same chip until something really remarkable from Intel comes along. That sounds counter intuative, as you will say "Why will intel not want to compete and will be happy to let users not buy more of their products?" well, Intel probably realise themselves the only way they can beat AMD going forwards is with a node shrink and give that 10nm is giving them all sorts of issues, and they will probably need a few refinements before 10nm surpasses 14nm++++++++++ it will be a case of make hay while the sun shines.

Not to mention people buying the 9900k will likely not upgrade again for a good few years, so you may aswell capture as many people now willing to upgrade as they are not likely to do so again for a few years...

Its a really smart move from Intel, they are basically playing their ace up their sleeve, its a bit of a gamble but it should pay off for them. Bring out a cracking 8/16 that makes the competitions look massively weak in comparison, but they know AMD has their refined version coming, im guessing Intel think or hope AMD wont get near that performance with the first iteration of 7nm.

 

[DragonQ]

It can be extremely impressive to me, but unfortunately it wont be impressive to everyone even if it did 7ghz out of the box.

If you find a 100 MHz bump "extremely impressive" then that's your business.

If it doesnt have an overkill amount of pcie lanes most of us will never likely use, or it cant utilise higher than 64gb of the fastest ram on the market, hasnt got quad channel memory bandwidth for those 0.01% performance increases on multicore benchmarking software or it does indeed come with any type of security patch, it's simply just not good enough or impressive enough, no matter how fast it is over the competition.

Personally, im amazed there are so many people interested and commenting in an intel mainstream cpu thread that require so much memory/bandwidth with so many pcie lanes. Intel mainstream is renowned for having dual channel memory and without the need for something like a server then i feel most of the features on offer with the i9-9900k are overkill for the majority. If people really want/need these kinds of features (that would likely go unused by the majority) and it is what keeps them enthused, then surely there are threads that would be more interesting, such as server threads or HEDT/TR4 threads with more cores of slower speeds and higher memory/pcie lane features?

Obviously there are various different markets. If the i9-9900K does end up being £500+ then it is not competing with mainstream products, it is competing with HEDT. It essentially ends up being a "trade HEDT features for raw single threaded speed" kind of deal.

For the majority of domestic pc enthusiasts, this is looking extremely impressive and there's going to be nothing coming close to these speeds for quite some time, and lets be honest......even if you do multitask, render, video edit or utilise multiple cores/threads....8/16 of cores with over 5ghz of clockspeed with the IPC of an intel refined 14nm++, is that not enough? I don't even know what real world software outside of benchmarking utilities that will even see or utilise more than 8 cores and 16 threads efficiently.

I'm sure there's plenty, given that until the Skylake-X's mesh architecture, plenty of people on this board were using HEDT chips. Maybe you're right when talking about Windows though.

Given that an i7-8700k could pretty much go toe to toe with 2 cores and 4 threads less than amds 1800x (from pretty much the same release period/generation) using multicore benchmarking, i really dont know what more anyone could want or dream of with this latest iteration.

All those paragraphs and not a single mention of price.

The technology itself is impressive, sure (security issues aside). I still am not convinced who the market is though. Anyone into serious rendering/editing/transcoding will go HEDT, anyone into serious gaming will go i7-9700K. If this is a "mix of both" type of product then it's directly competing against the R7 2700X, which seems like it's going to offer much better value. But hey, if the rumours are wrong and it's like £350-400 instead of £500+ then I guess Intel is onto a winner - 10-20% faster than an R7 2700X for a small price premium.

 

[SiDeards73]

If the 9900k is £400 or cheaper I'm selling my Ryzen rig and going back to Intel, but I'm fairly certain it will be £500-£600 price range as to avoid completely voding the 7900X. Intel already suffered once before with their 6900k being made irrelevant, pretty sure they won't want that again.

 

[chroniclard]

What's likely release date? Before Christmas?

Will be tempted to donate 2700x to son for Christmas, if price is competitive and clocks well.

 

[NinjaCool]

It's supposed to be start of October but according to pcgamesn, we might be in for a 2-3 months paper launch.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-14nm-supply-shortfall

 

[Jamie Archer]

If you find a 100 MHz bump "extremely impressive" then that's your business.


Obviously there are various different markets. If the i9-9900K does end up being £500+ then it is not competing with mainstream products, it is competing with HEDT. It essentially ends up being a "trade HEDT features for raw single threaded speed" kind of deal.


I'm sure there's plenty, given that until the Skylake-X's mesh architecture, plenty of people on this board were using HEDT chips. Maybe you're right when talking about Windows though.


All those paragraphs and not a single mention of price.

The technology itself is impressive, sure (security issues aside). I still am not convinced who the market is though. Anyone into serious rendering/editing/transcoding will go HEDT, anyone into serious gaming will go i7-9700K. If this is a "mix of both" type of product then it's directly competing against the R7 2700X, which seems like it's going to offer much better value. But hey, if the rumours are wrong and it's like £350-400 instead of £500+ then I guess Intel is onto a winner - 10-20% faster than an R7 2700X for a small price premium.

The i7-8700k had an out the box turbo clockspeed of 4.7ghz, the i9-9900k has an out the box turbo clockspeed of 5ghz with 2 more cores and 4 more threads with lesser themral limitations as it has a soldered IHS, thus most likely overclocks better. That's not just a 100mhz jump is it?

The speed and IPC of the chip will make it the fastest gaming cpu at any resolution on the planet, it will also come with 8 cores and 16 threads of power which appears will go well above 5ghz on all cores, this is also a very mighty mainstream renderer/multicore cpu, it offers probably the best all round performance on a single chip. No matter what it is you do, this single chip solution is going to be fast at it all.

Price is something i am persoanally waiting on, i am going to estimate it will be £500-550 but why wouldnt it be when it offers all the above?
I understand to many that price is important and getting value for money certainly matters, but to other people, paying that extra as a hobbyist/enthusiast matters less when its to have every ounce of performance.

 

[DragonQ]

The i7-8700k had an out the box turbo clockspeed of 4.7ghz, the i9-9900k has an out the box turbo clockspeed of 5ghz with 2 more cores and 4 more threads with lesser themral limitations as it has a soldered IHS, thus most likely overclocks better. That's not just a 100mhz jump is it?

I assumed you were talking about the overclocking potential rather than stock speeds, given that your post was just after the 5.3 GHz "screenshot" was posted. After all, who buys these chips and doesn't overclock them?

I do not consider soldered heatspreaders "extremely impressive" given they were par for the course until Intel got rid of them for some and then most of their products a few years ago.

The speed and IPC of the chip will make it the fastest gaming cpu at any resolution on the planet, it will also come with 8 cores and 16 threads of power which appears will go well above 5ghz on all cores, this is also a very mighty mainstream renderer/multicore cpu, it offers probably the best all round performance on a single chip. No matter what it is you do, this single chip solution is going to be fast at it all.

Very true. In terms of performance it'll be an impressive technical achievement. That doesn't necessarily make it a great product in the market though. Like I said, it seems to be positioned as a premium all-rounder (faster than the R7 2700X and more expensive obviously).

Price is something i am persoanally waiting on, i am going to estimate it will be £500-550 but why wouldnt it be when it offers all the above?
I understand to many that price is important and getting value for money certainly matters, but to other people, paying that extra as a hobbyist/enthusiast matters less when its to have every ounce of performance.

Yep. If it was a grand some people would still buy it.

 

[Jamie Archer]

Jesus christ son, could you have your tongue any further up Intels rear end? hahaha

Make no mistake, the 9900K will be a really good chip, Intel has been forced to do this by AMD, especially given they know whats coming with 7nm, they'll get *a lot* of people to switch across and are probably hoping for another 2500k moment where people sit on that same chip until something really remarkable from Intel comes along. That sounds counter intuative, as you will say "Why will intel not want to compete and will be happy to let users not buy more of their products?" well, Intel probably realise themselves the only way they can beat AMD going forwards is with a node shrink and give that 10nm is giving them all sorts of issues, and they will probably need a few refinements before 10nm surpasses 14nm++++++++++ it will be a case of make hay while the sun shines.

Not to mention people buying the 9900k will likely not upgrade again for a good few years, so you may aswell capture as many people now willing to upgrade as they are not likely to do so again for a few years...

Its a really smart move from Intel, they are basically playing their ace up their sleeve, its a bit of a gamble but it should pay off for them. Bring out a cracking 8/16 that makes the competitions look massively weak in comparison, but they know AMD has their refined version coming, im guessing Intel think or hope AMD wont get near that performance with the first iteration of 7nm.

I've not got my tongue anywhere, i have no loyalties to either AMD or Intel, i am just a performance enthusiast (mostly for speed rather than slower core counts) and for the last decade, Intel have consistently took that crown (perhaps sometimes at inflated prices).

I don't see the competition getting close to this i9-9900k once again, AMD may shrink nodes, but i still dont personally think they will even outperfrom Intels 14nm, however, if they did and Amd came and took the speed, perfomance and ipc crown away from Intel, then i would suspect their prices will also raise as it would warrant the top performance figures and I would also imagine many (like myself) would jump ship and buy an Amd chip. As i say, i'm not a fanboy of a manufacturing brand, I am a fanboy of performance/speed and i will be enthused and stick up and support the facts and figures that prove whichever competitor holds the current trophy.

Value for money is irrelevent to some people and a debate about bang for buck is a totally different subject entireley, here i am talking about the current pinnacle of performance regardless of values.

 

[Jamie Archer]

I assumed you were talking about the overclocking potential rather than stock speeds, given that your post was just after the 5.3 GHz "screenshot" was posted. After all, who buys these chips and doesn't overclock them?

I do not consider soldered heatspreaders "extremely impressive" given they were par for the course until Intel got rid of them for some and then most of their products a few years ago.


Very true. In terms of performance it'll be an impressive technical achievement. That doesn't necessarily make it a great product in the market though. Like I said, it seems to be positioned as a premium all-rounder (faster than the R7 2700X and more expensive obviously).


Yep. If it was a grand some people would still buy it.

Even if it is stock clocks or potential OC, the 8700k probably averaged about 5ghz OC on all cores, where as as we have just seen in a screenshot, the 9000 series is being seen at 5.3ghz OC, this still isnt a 100mhz difference.

Sure, i totally agree that a soldered IHS isnt 'extremely impressive' from a technological standpoint and as i've stated, i'm not a pro Intel fanboy, both Intels prices and their inability to previously solder the IHS and instead opt for the pigeon poop TIM has been frustrating to say the least.
It isn't the Soldering of an IHS that is impressive, it is what it represents in terms of improvements over the 8700k.
The 8700k has all these crowns and could already overclock quite impressively (all be it with requiring some decent heat dissipation), what is impressive is what the simple soldered IHS adds to what was an already impressive cpu. In terms of thermal limits and potential overclocks, this basic IHS soldering may see huge benefits in terms of pushing those overclocks and hitting those record clockspeed figures. Those users who didnt delid their 8700k's (the majority), often hit thermal limitations before they hit the ceiling and many havent ever seen the full potential of their chips. This now should be a thing of the past (as you have relatively decent cooling). It may even see that extra 200 mhz over what would have already been a bit of a generational clokspeed increase, this is an impressive thought.

If Intel do charge a grand for it, then i can be as enthusiast as i like but i simply will not be able afford one and wont be buying one. I clearly want one but i'm goin to put a limit on what i am prepared to invest in it, this is not about me saving money for the sake of it, it is about what i can realistically afford and if i cant afford one then i will just have go to the next best performer for my needs (likely the 8700k/8086k).

 

[DragonQ]

Even if it is stock clocks or potential OC, the 8700k probably averaged about 5ghz OC on all cores, where as as we have just seen in a screenshot, the 9000 series is being seen at 5.3ghz OC, this still isnt a 100mhz difference.

Oh please, a single screenshot of a single chip showing it can boot 5.3 GHz means all the chips will hit 5.3 GHz stable on air cooling with those voltage levels? Silicon lottery stats indicate over 50% of i7-8700Ks can hit 5.1 GHz on whatever they deem to be acceptable voltage levels. So if over 50% of i7-9700Ks can hit 5.3 GHz stable then it's a 200 MHz (4%) bump, I shall concede that.

I mean, 4% isn't nothing, but as this is a refresh release let's compare it to another refresh: Ryzen 2. They increased potential clocks by about 300 MHz (8%) and also marginally improved IPC via latency reductions, so maybe 10% in total. However, they also decreased prices (significantly for the 8 core variants). Intel clearly aren't doing that, they are just moving from 6C/12T to 8C/8T (an improvement in most cases) whilst charging more in the process and then whacking a new tier on top.

If Intel do charge a grand for it, then i can be as enthusiast as i like but i simply will not be able afford one and wont be buying one. I clearly want one but i'm goin to put a limit on what i am prepared to invest in it, this is not about me saving money for the sake of it, it is about what i can realistically afford and if i cant afford one then i will just have go to the next best performer for my needs (likely the 8700k/8086k).

Of course, everyone has limits. I'm not against spending cash for fun technology when it isn't necessarily "worth it" - I bought a 1st generation HEDT Core i7 when I didn't need one, I bought an early 120 GB SSD when I didn't need one, I built an HTPC when I didn't need one, etc.