Core 9000 series

[jigger]

I don't think they will struggle at all, that German retailer that shares it's sales data will show this.
People who want the absolute fastest no matter the cost go to Intel.
Apart from the HEDT, that's where AMD have the upper hand I reckon. X299 is meh

Cool, maybe Intel shouldn't fix it's CPU's and see how far they can push performance buy removing more (all?) security restraints on the system.

I disagree BTW. Intel will need to price this chip right for it to have any impact.

 

[gavinh87]

Cool, maybe Intel shouldn't fix it's CPU's and see how far they can push performance buy removing more (all?) security restraints on the system.

I disagree BTW. Intel will need to price this chip right for it to have any impact.

I don't know how long it would take for them to implement design changes but these floors but I'm guessing it would have pushed these back considerably.
We shall see, I'm fully expecting these 9000 series to sell like hot cakes

 

[jigger]

I don't know how long it would take for them to implement design changes but these floors but I'm guessing it would have pushed these back considerably.
We shall see, I'm fully expecting these 9000 series to sell like hot cakes

New flaws are coming to light all the time. You can't work out the bugs until they are all known.

I'm not sure why you ask though... as you are not interested in anything past what gives you the highest possible graphics output at 1080p when benchmarking.

 

[gavinh87]

New flaws are coming to light all the time. You can't work out the bugs until they are all known.

I'm not sure why you ask though... as you are not interested in anything past what gives you the highest possible graphics output at 1080p when benchmarking.

1440p 165hz*

 

[AndreiD]

I mean, the CPUs are patched, the only reason they need to move those fixes to hardware is because the firmware/software patches they have impact performance more.

But I actually agree with @jigger on a point for once, Intel does need to price the chip well for it to have an impact, reason why I think the 500~600GBP price speculation floating around is fud.

 

[Doobedoo]

1440p 165hz*

Interesting that Techspot notes that performance difference at 1440p is almost indistinguishable.

Then finally at 1440p the 8700K was a mere 4% faster on average. Removing the older titles where Ryzen got served, CS:GO and SC2, reduces the margin by just a percent. Of course, we are mostly GPU limited at this resolution but what this means there's very little difference between these two CPUs for gamers.

We also see a 4% margin when comparing frame time performance though I should point out that the 8700K was slower in a handful of titles while performance was identical in 5 titles.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

Splitting hairs between the 2 in seems but let’s see if the 9th generation can restore a bit more a lead for Intel.

 

[gavinh87]

Interesting that Techspot notes that performance difference at 1440p is almost indistinguishable.



https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

Splitting hairs between the 2 in seems but let’s see if the 9th generation can restore a bit more a lead for Intel.

In the games tested yeah, there are many, many that even at 1440p where Intel take a decent lead.
Though I will say when I got this 8700k I was using a 1080p 200hz screen.

 

[Doobedoo]

In the games tested yeah, there are many, many that even at 1440p where Intel take a decent lead.
Though I will say when I got this 8700k I was using a 1080p 200hz screen.

No you are quite right as they do say when removing some outliers the difference reduces from 4% to 1%on average, although they are just using the normal suite of games used to compare performance as opposed to all games. I’ve seen you refer to Techspot not to long ago so I thought it would be of more interest to you than a publication or person you didn’t respect.

Yes I think I remember you saying you were 1080p high refresh although I’m sure you were also aware of lesser performance difference above 1080p at the time.

 

[gavinh87]

No you are quite right as they do say when removing some outliers the difference reduces from 4% to 1%on average, although they are just using the normal suite of games used to compare performance as opposed to all games. I’ve seen you refer to Techspot not to long ago so I thought it would be of more interest to you than a publication or person you didn’t respect.

Yes I think I remember you saying you were 1080p high refresh although I’m sure you were also aware of lesser performance difference above 1080p at the time.

I do like techspot, I'm a patreon of the sister channel hardware unboxed. Indeed I was aware of the 2 cpus giving very similar framerates at higher than 1080p. Older games, poorly coded games and early access games swayed me, along with the minimums being considerably lower in some titles. I upgraded the monitor because my VA panel was doing my head in with smeary blacks. Then I changed the 1070 for a 1080ti. God I waste money!

 

[Doobedoo]

No such thing as wasted money I suppose if those extra few FPS make it worthwhile. Nothing better than being at the cutting edge.

 

[gavinh87]

No such thing as wasted money I suppose if those extra few FPS make it worthwhile. Nothing better than being at the cutting edge.

I won't be at the cutting edge for much longer, nvidia can do one this gen!

 

[Doobedoo]

I won't be at the cutting edge for much longer, nvidia can do one this gen!

Never a truer word said. If or when I decide to upgrade I’ll probably just go 2nd hand again. Better to have the money in my pocket than another’s is my motto .

 

[gavinh87]

Never a truer word said. If or when I decide to upgrade I’ll probably just go 2nd hand again. Better to have the money in my pocket than another’s is my motto .

Some bargains to be had, I've just bought a rx580. Oh the controversy!!!

 

[Jamie Archer]

I mean, the CPUs are patched, the only reason they need to move those fixes to hardware is because the firmware/software patches they have impact performance more.

But I actually agree with @jigger on a point for once, Intel does need to price the chip well for it to have an impact, reason why I think the 500~600GBP price speculation floating around is fud.

The thing is, the 8700k sold well on release and ran out of pre orders until the new year (where a lot were sold for well above the £500 mark), the price has dropped significantly since then of course, but now they have the tweaked 8086k and that is £419.99 on ocuk now and i presume this must be selling at this price point (not that i'd personally buy one over an 8700k for the premium).

Do you honestly think theyre going to add 2 more cores and 4 extra threads and give it the high end i9 branding then charge any less than £500 when their 8086k is £420 with 2cores /4 threads less? i Really highly doubt it and i personally cant see it being less than £500 myself (i hope im wrong of course). I am going to put it out there and guess at a £519.99 price on ocuk, i wonder how far i will be out?

 

[IT Troll]

I think Linus summed it up quite succinctly in a recent video. If you mostly game, buy Intel; if you mostly do productivity, buy AMD and save a few quid. It is pointless to keep endlessly repeating the same old arguments which focus on the minutiae of one thing or another under very specific circumstances.

Once Zen 2 is release the story might be different. But until then, that is the headline.

 

[Jamie Archer]

I think Linus summed it up quite succinctly in a recent video. If you mostly game, buy Intel; if you mostly do productivity, buy AMD and save a few quid. It is pointless to keep endlessly repeating the same old arguments.

Once Zen 2 is release the story might be different. But until then that is the headline.

I'd have to say that sum up is probably about right in most cases, however...this thread is about the 9000 series intel chips and i feel the 9900k will be top gamer but it now also brings 8 cores and 16 threads to equation. This basically makes everything possible with top performance no matter what it is you do and all on a single chip...
Some people like to do both tasks with the least sacrifices possible and a lot can't justify or afford 2 separate high end systems, this is where I feel the 9900k has everything going for it, and also why it won't be too cheap.

 

[Troezar]

I'd have to say that sum up is probably about right in most cases, however...this thread is about the 9000 series intel chips and i feel the 9900k will be top gamer but it now also brings 8 cores and 16 threads to equation. This basically makes everything possible with top performance no matter what it is you do and all on a single chip...
Some people like to do both tasks with the least sacrifices possible and a lot can't justify or afford 2 separate high end systems, this is where I feel the 9900k has everything going for it, and also why it won't be too cheap.

Aso the saying goes "feelz aren't realz" we have no idea what the perfperformance or cost or power usage will be yet... I agree most need a good all rounder and will never notice +-10% fps. Then it's all down to cost and whose platform you like the best You obviously like Intel. Buyers really can't go wrong today.

 

[Jamie Archer]

Aso the saying goes "feelz aren't realz" we have no idea what the perfperformance or cost or power usage will be yet... I agree most need a good all rounder and will never notice +-10% fps. Then it's all down to cost and whose platform you like the best You obviously like Intel. Buyers really can't go wrong today.

I do like Intel having been purchasing their stuff for many many years but I always maintain that I go with whoever builds the fastest chip with a fairly reasonable core count. I buy intel because they consistently suit my personal needs more than the competition each year, however they are often never the greatest bang for buck or the best value for money and the competition does this well whilst also offering massive performance for people in need of multiple cores for large workloads/rendering etc.

I think someone's already said that amd beats Intel on their hedt x299 platform and I'd have to agree here as Intel is overpriced and the x299 platform doesn't seem to know what it wants to be or who it's aiming at and it is also not the greatest at any of it, especially when amd offers what they do for the price that they do.

This mainstream 9900k though seems to be aimed at being the fastest gamer on the market and still offers decent work performance all on a single chip that most likely wont be out of reach for many (in terms of cost).

I do like intel, but not always their practices, ive nothing against amd and appreciate their push and hope that they maintain this...
If my main use for a pc (or my main job) was rendering, modelling, animating editing and so on and gaming wasnt priority then I'd very much be excited for tr4 and I'd be sat behind an amd machine.

For people needing cpus with high core counts and multicore workloads, nobody can argue that what amd offers isnt seriously good value and performance for the price they are on offer for

 

[Troezar]

I do like Intel having been purchasing their stuff for many many years but I always maintain that I go with whoever builds the fastest chip with a fairly reasonable core count. I buy intel because they consistently suit my personal needs more than the competition each year, however they are often never the greatest bang for buck or the best value for money and the competition does this well whilst also offering massive performance for people in need of multiple cores for large workloads/rendering etc.

I think someone's already said that amd beats Intel on their hedt x299 platform and I'd have to agree here as Intel is overpriced and the x299 platform doesn't seem to know what it wants to be or who it's aiming at and it is also not the greatest at any of it, especially when amd offers what they do for the price that they do.

This mainstream 9900k though seems to be aimed at being the fastest gamer on the market and still offers decent work performance all on a single chip that most likely wont be out of reach for many (in terms of cost).

I do like intel, but not always their practices, ive nothing against amd and appreciate their push and hope that they maintain this...
If my main use for a pc (or my main job) was rendering, modelling, animating editing and so on and gaming wasnt priority then I'd very much be excited for tr4 and I'd be sat behind an amd machine.

For people needing cpus with high core counts and multicore workloads, nobody can argue that what amd offers isnt seriously good value and performance for the price they are on offer for

I'd love to think that the 9900K will be within reach of many people but going by the current 6 core prices this is looking like a £500 chip. That's well into HEDT territory and makes no sense on a £150 motherboard which would get you a decent mainstream board. Add in some serious cooling and a GPU to do it justice a decent PSU and this is going to be premium system for someone with a decent income. Your average Steam gamers dream set up. In 2011 high end mainstream was £230 for a 2600K, how times have changed!

 

[jigger]

1440p 165hz*

Graphics card that can run at that speed X number off people able to notice <3