• 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

Yes but without HT you can clock the little monster higher, yet still claim it as an 8 core, as indeed it has 8 cores.
Heat transfer and generation should be much easier to tolerate and cope and voltages kept down unless something utterly depressing happens.

i wonder if they are gimped 8/16 chips which failed QC but with an easy gimp pass when HT not involved, so intel increase their yields.
We'll probably only know after release.
 
SiDeards73 said:
They are saying €440, which is roughly £400 for this model... OCUK has raised prices on the 8700k to £390 and the 8086K to £420...the 8600K is £120 less at £270... so even if you was to say the difference between the HT and non HT variants was £100 being generous, that would put the 9900k at £500, again i wouldnt be surprised to see it £550+
Click to expand...

If we take this review seriously, since the chip is working at 4.8Ghz

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/spanish-website-posts-core-i7-9700k-benchmarks.html

and given the current price is £282 for 2700X and £252 for 2700 it makes absolutely not a fricking bit sense to buy the 9700K at it's rumoured price, let alone the 9900K.
And if we go to power consumption, already the 8700K burns 33% more power than the 2700X for what? 1fps at 1080p which is 0 at higher resolutions? In addition to a chip running at 12% higher speed! (Intel having better IPC my a**)

And truly believe that posted benchmark is sound, on fully patched Z370 board which shows also how the security patches affected the performance of the CFL CPUs (namely 8700K) since last year benchmarks. Because you see, reviewers cannot escape now without fully patching the Z370 boards if they want to run the 9700/9900K on them, like they did with unpatched boards on the last time of the reviews in April with the 2700X...
 
Destination said:
Yes but without HT you can clock the little monster higher, yet still claim it as an 8 core, as indeed it has 8 cores.
Heat transfer and generation should be much easier to tolerate and cope and voltages kept down unless something utterly depressing happens.

i wonder if they are gimped 8/16 chips which failed QC but with an easy gimp pass when HT not involved, so intel increase their yields.
We'll probably only know after release.
Click to expand...

Higher than what? the 8600K does not clock any higher than the 8700K.

Losing HT = higher clocks is a bit of a myth, i think, no HT'less CPU has ever clocked higher than one with.
 
humbug said:
Higher than what? the 8600K does not clock any higher than the 8700K.

Losing HT = higher clocks is a bit of a myth, i think, no HT'less CPU has ever clocked higher than one with.
Click to expand...
on average 8600K does overclocking higher, SL used to put up the % data and 8600K was around 17% higher at 5Ghz compared to 8700K
 
humbug said:
Higher than what? the 8600K does not clock any higher than the 8700K.
Losing HT = higher clocks is a bit of a myth, i think, no HT'less CPU has ever clocked higher than one with.
Click to expand...

Well we shall see what happens. Intel have done this for a reason.
Either they are salvaging broken 9900s and gimping them making them 9700 that work, or they have found a way to dump out more heat by using the broken bits of the chip as heatsink.
Neither sounds great tbh, but they must have done this for a reason.
Unless they are preying upon the discerning public seeing 8 cores and assuming it means 8 cores good, 6 cores worse, HT or not.

Hopefully when those chaps do their xray analysis of the chips we'll know one way or the other.
 
@BTVA

Buy how much? i have spent a lot of time looking around user benchmarking threads and they are all give or take around 5Ghz. ^^^^ I can accept that some may clock 100Mhz or so higher on more limited cooling because the thermal stress is lower but beyond that i don't think there is a fundamental difference between them, we see some 5.2Ghz 8700K's we don't see the same number of 5.6Ghz 8600K's do we? we don't see any.

BTVA said:
@Panos from what review did you read 8700K consume 33% more power than 2700X? Now you are claiming Ryzen has the same IPC as coffeelake :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Give or take there about's it does (IPC)
 
Last edited:
BTVA said:
@Panos from what review did you read 8700K consume 33% more power than 2700X? Now you are claiming Ryzen has the same IPC as coffeelake :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why you do not look at the reviews around the 2700X period when they compared the 8700K with the 2700X on power consumption.
Ahh forgot, google is the great unknown.....
 
humbug said:
Buy how much? i have spent a lot of time looking around user benchmarking threads and they are all give or take around 5Ghz. ^^^^ I can accept that some may clock 100Mhz or so higher on more limited cooling because the thermal stress is lower but beyond that i don't think there is a fundamental difference between them, we see some 5.2Ghz 8700K's we don't see the same number of 5.6Ghz 8600K's do we? we don't see any.



Give or take there about's it does
Click to expand...
by 17% I mean this stat "As of 6/08/18, the top 50% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater." For 8600K it was 67% if I recall correctly. Enthusiasts tend to buy the i7 rather than i5 and they also have bigger budget to run with better cooling than people buying i5 which I think care most about Price/Performance, and pro-clocker bin i7 becaue on hwbot they are treated the same as 6 core cpu, that's why you see 8700Ks doing 5.2Ghz+ popularly
 
Panos said:
Why you do not look at the reviews around the 2700X period when they compared the 8700K with the 2700X on power consumption.
Ahh forgot, google is the great unknown.....
Click to expand...
yeah I did google and I couldn't find anywhere that 8700K consumes 33% more power than 2700X. That's why I ask you. I understand you have your bias, but cmon man this thing is so easy to find out

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/18.html
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,7.html
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...w-2nd-gen-ryzen-breaks-4ghz-out-of-the-box/4/
 
gavinh87 said:
Nobody, literally nobody runs them at stock? Bold statement........
Click to expand...

Show us a man who runs one at stock and you will be showing us a fool. You would probably say the same thing about 8700k would you not? Nobody runs one of those at stock right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom