Core 9000 series

[LePhuronn]

I guess 16Gb would be plenty if literally ALL you did was install a fresh copy of windows, get steam on it, and every time you boot up you go straight to steam and double click a game, and that's ALL you do - then in essence you have a glorified console, just with a keyboard and mouse attached.

My 2-year old install of Windows 10 on my Adobe Creative Suite, Visual Studio and gaming machine would take its 8GB RAM and laugh heartily at your statement.

What an utterly ludicrous thing to say. You got some serious bloatware running, my chappie.

 

[andy_mk3]

My 2-year old install of Windows 10 on my Adobe Creative Suite, Visual Studio and gaming machine would take its 8GB RAM and laugh heartily at your statement.

What an utterly ludicrous thing to say. You got some serious bloatware running, my chappie.

I agree. 16GB on my system and rarely use more than 8-10GB while gaming or a ton of things open.

 

[Nickolp1974]

Keep checking here for updates on the new 9000 series and the posts are nearly anything but that. If I wanted to learn about ryzen or memory i'd got to those threads.

 

[SiDeards73]

Keep checking here for updates on the new 9000 series and the posts are nearly anything but that. If I wanted to learn about ryzen or memory i'd got to those threads.

Thas because there has been little news other than

Z390 new motherboard but they will also work on Z370
Its got Soldered HS (not confirmed if this is across all chips or just the high end ones)
Its ludicrously expensive.. circa £550 according to leaks
It will clock to 5GHZ out of the box.
Ryzen is arguably a better option per £ Spent

 

[VincentHanna]

And rumoured to be 'launched' on 8th October and reviewed/on sale from 19th October.

 

[SiDeards73]

And rumoured to be 'launched' on 8th October and on sale from 19th October.

I think its Motherboard launch also on the 8th?

 

[VincentHanna]

Probably...bit pointless without the CPU though.

 

[orbitalwalsh]

And rumoured to be 'launched' on 8th October and reviewed/on sale from 19th October.

I think its Motherboard launch also on the 8th?

pre-order is the work your looking for on the 8th

 

[Defiant306]

Thas because there has been little news other than

Z390 new motherboard but they will also work on Z370
Its got Soldered HS (not confirmed if this is across all chips or just the high end ones)
Its ludicrously expensive.. circa £550 according to leaks
It will clock to 5GHZ out of the box.
Ryzen is arguably a better option per £ Spent

Considering the 8700k is up at £450 now!!! £100 more for 25% more cores isn't a direct 25% increase in price, this being said its a damn lot of money for a CPU. But then again I wont be upgrading my CPU, Motherboard and Ram for another 5 years after this due to the inability of OS and software still not utilizing multi core CPU's effectively.
If it wasn't for Nvidia being out outrageous with the RTX 2000 series pricing I seriously wouldn't have bothered with the upgrade of this side of my PC.

I would like to make the jump to 4k gaming from 1440p at sometime in the future and my 4770k starts to limit at times the GPU from the graphs I've seen. Mind you getting near my 144Hz monitor limit would also be nice at some point as my current 1070 AIB card can only managed around 50-75fps in some games.

 

[IT Troll]

Who realistically plays on a 1080 at 720p though? come on, put these things into perspective... its pointless basing any discussion on GPU's and CPU's at unrealistic resolutions. I think the largets user base now is 1080p right? anything above that is still a minority however it is slowly moving up. <snip>

I agree, for the most part. Your chosen CPU, GPU and monitor should be well balanced so that they compliment each other well and perform together optimally. However, presenting a GPU limited benchmark chart as "evidence" for CPU performance is simply flawed. According to that chart the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 5% faster than a Ryzen 3 1200!

Low resolution benchmarks on high-end cards do not represent real world usage. But the intended purpose is to remove any GPU bottleneck from the equation so that your are only comparing the performance of CPUs. This is useful for projecting future performance; e.g. games which may be more CPU demanding and new GPU hardware which can take advantage of the the additional CPU performance. It's not just about getting insane frame rates in e-sport games.

 

[SiDeards73]

I agree, for the most part. Your chosen CPU, GPU and monitor should be well balanced so that they compliment each other well and perform together optimally. However, presenting a GPU limited benchmark chart as "evidence" for CPU performance is simple flawed. According to that chart the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 5% faster than a Ryzen 3 1200!

Low resolution benchmarks on high-end cards do not represent real world usage. But the intended purpose is to remove any GPU bottleneck from the equation so that your are only comparing the performance of CPUs. This is useful for projecting future performance; e.g. games which may be more CPU demanding and new GPU hardware which can take advantage of the the additional CPU performance.

Oh i agree and understand why they bottleneck the CPU instead of the GPU.. and you are correct it is an indication of what is left in the tank, but it is kinda skewed when you have a quad non hyperthreaded up against an 8c/16 ryzen, sure the Intel chip might be faster but once you move into the area of more cores required, that Intel chip taps out a lot faster than the chip with more cores does.

This is another reason the i9 9900k is going to be such a monster of a chip, 5ghz across 16 threads is going to be something quite monstrous, as you get the here and now single threaded perf and then as more and more stuff comes along requiring more threads you just add more of your threads into play and keep the performance going.

The only negative for Intel 9900k against Zen is AMD's HT implementation is actually a lot better than Intels, once we start seeing stuff using many many cores, i expect Zen2 at similar clocks to Intel to be faster and then even more so once HT is thrown into the mix. a lot of that will be node advantage, I think Intels 14nm revision is now so strong, that it may take them a revision or 2 on 10nm to bypass it. If AMD match intels 14nm with their 7nm off the bat, or even surpass it, Intel will have work cut out to make up that ground. Especially as i fully expect a refresh of Zen2 within a year or so like they did Ryzen1

 

[Distracted]

Oh i agree and understand why they bottleneck the CPU instead of the GPU.. and you are correct it is an indication of what is left in the tank, but it is kinda skewed when you have a quad non hyperthreaded up against an 8c/16 ryzen, sure the Intel chip might be faster but once you move into the area of more cores required, that Intel chip taps out a lot faster than the chip with more cores does.

This is another reason the i9 9900k is going to be such a monster of a chip, 5ghz across 16 threads is going to be something quite monstrous, as you get the here and now single threaded perf and then as more and more stuff comes along requiring more threads you just add more of your threads into play and keep the performance going.

The only negative for Intel 9900k against Zen is AMD's HT implementation is actually a lot better than Intels, once we start seeing stuff using many many cores, i expect Zen2 at similar clocks to Intel to be faster and then even more so once HT is thrown into the mix. a lot of that will be node advantage, I think Intels 14nm revision is now so strong, that it may take them a revision or 2 on 10nm to bypass it. If AMD match intels 14nm with their 7nm off the bat, or even surpass it, Intel will have work cut out to make up that ground. Especially as i fully expect a refresh of Zen2 within a year or so like they did Ryzen1

I would argue that the current and future speculated asking price for intel is also a large negative.

Hopefully AMD will continue putting pressure on them and the competition will make the market more consumer friendly.

 

[chroniclard]

Is it 5ghz all core/multicore?

 

[orbitalwalsh]

9900k at 5.3ghz will be a beat i must admit but not worth the pricing, i7 9700k looks to be a gamers choice.

Is it 5ghz all core/multicore?

you'll see media marketing soon with 5.3ghz and 4333hz being loaded , ITX boards pushing 5000hz odd . all vendors have them primed, whilst they leaked the same media pictures to sites like Videocardz - use the term leaked very loosely there , they keep the hard core details for product launch

seen a few snaps, very light bench work with 5ghz and basic cooler can pass cinebench r15 but once you start price you need water

have feeling AMD may have to go another way with Zen2 - if they can get CCX to 6 cores, allow 12 core chips but allow one CCX to be turned off allowing interconnect weakness to be removed and hopefully a larger overclock to one core/better stability... just a theory - and naturally keeping it cheaper then intel!

 

[IT Troll]

I think Intels 14nm revision is now so strong, that it may take them a revision or 2 on 10nm to bypass it.

Agreed, I think it will be a long time before we see a 9900K equivalent from Intel on 10nm. By which time AMD could run away with the market. Their long term socket support is great, but they need to work with vendors on getting more quality motherboard options to market.

 

[SiDeards73]

I would argue that the current and future speculated asking price for intel is also a large negative.

Hopefully AMD will continue putting pressure on them and the competition will make the market more consumer friendly.

No one really knows why the price is what is it is right now, some people say its due to Intels bottleneck on 14nm supplies, that has pushed the price up, which i would think is the logical reason, some cynical people also think Intels price has artificially risen so they can drop the 9 series in at a higher price point and blame current pricing for it lol.. whatever happens, a higher price 9900k (something i said would happen, ie it would be £500-600) makes sense for them, as if it was any lower there would be tears over the 7900X pricing, and they would cannibalise its sales in a big way.

Intel really should be lowering their prices, but their arrogance, size and stature and investor demands means unfortunately they cannot, they are in effect a victim of their own success, they sold so little for so long their Investors loved the gravy train as there was no competition and Intel had the market to themselves and held it ransom. Now AMD are back in town, Intel have very little avenues to turn to, soon their IPC lead (which is basically the only thing they had left as an advantage over AMD) will be gone, leaving them with just ever diminishing mindshare as their only asset.

You only need to see how they are trying to branch out in to many other markets as they understand they need a bigger portfolio to counter the losses they are now having in Desktop and Enterprise markets.

Intel has fallen foul of the typical problem large companies fall foul of, sititing on their laurels and not progressing their products significantly, now their adversary enters the field with a slightly weaker but better priced product offering 90% of the performance for 50% of the price, all those people who would have just gone Intel anyway are now looking at AMD and just moving over.

 

[SiDeards73]

Agreed, I think it will be a long time before we see a 9900K equivalent from Intel on 10nm. By which time AMD could run away with the market. Their long term socket support is great, but they need to work with vendors on getting more quality motherboard options to market.

I have a theory that with Ryzen 1, the motherboard manufacturers thought that the CPU would not be anywhere near as successful as it is / was, so hedged bets and put little investment into the products. However with the refresh and sales so far, im pretty certain that come X570 or whatever it will be called and the B550 etc, that we may well see a lot more options from the vendors as there is already a massive following now behind AMD, they have gone from a curiosity to an actual competitor and are taking sales.

If i manufacturer for 2 people and one of those only sells 1 unit for 10 of the other, then my focus is going to be on the one with the most sales, however once i see an uptake in sales for the smaller vendor, im going to want a slice of that pie and try and keep current etc.

 

[Troezar]

I would argue that the current and future speculated asking price for intel is also a large negative.

Hopefully AMD will continue putting pressure on them and the competition will make the market more consumer friendly.

I think it is already consumer friendly if you're prepared to buy AMD. Good performance at great prices, long socket life, upgradeable. It's now up to consumers to support this more "friendly" offering

 

[SiDeards73]

I think it is already consumer friendly if you're prepared to buy AMD. Good performance at great prices, long socket life, upgradeable. It's now up to consumers to support this more "friendly" offering

I think the average joe is already doing so, the price concious buyer is also doing so, its mainly the "must have the best" mindset people who are still clinging on to Intel. AMD should spend a ton of cash on advertising though, in my opinion, this is another thing that they can learn a lot from Intel on. Everyone knows that Intel Inside Jingle, their logo is everywhere, go into the high street PC stores and their advertising is everywhere. AMD should get some of this, promote their products.

 

[Robert896r1]

Is there anyway to avoid a Win10 install when I upgrade my CPU/Mobo/RAM?

Confession time. my current sandy bridge setup has gone through a Win 7>Win 8>Win 10 in place upgrade without issues. I'm a brave soul.