Read more.Quote:
Flagship HEDT Intel Core i9-9900K is an 8C/16T chip with base / boost of 3.6GHz/5GHz.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Flagship HEDT Intel Core i9-9900K is an 8C/16T chip with base / boost of 3.6GHz/5GHz.
OMG what is Intel doing?
The table listing is for an i5 9600k. The comparable i5 8600k also has a 95W TDP...Quote:
Lastly, on paper, the new Core i5-9600 looks only a baby step up from the similar 6C/6T Core i5-8600. Furthermore, one hopes that Coolaler has got the TDP data wrong for this part - its 8th gen predecessor is 65W.
https://ark.intel.com/products/126685/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz
Soo SMT is now only available on the top-tier CPUs? I wonder why.
Wait, am I reading that correct? They're removing HT from the i7 line up to push it to the i9 line up? What the shizzle my dizzle?
Only reason I'd be interested is if they chose to stop being conmen and support 100 + 200 boards with them. Or, you know, let the board manufacturers support them. I refuse to buy another of the same thing when mine functions fine; just because they want to line pockets. Zen 2, or more accurately another IPC buff on Zen can't come fast enough..
So basically it's a 'rebrand' where each thing is 'up one step'.
I'm expecting the only real improvements will be the spectre/meltdown fixes (sure these are ones featuring that) and the difference in performance from that and the clock increases....so basically performance back to where it was before the spectre/meltdown fixes plus a little bump due to clock speeds.
I'm also really struggling to see how the entire lineup from 8/16 down to 6/6 will have a 95w TDP. Unless the i9 has a 95w TDP and they just slapped that number on all of them as a safety buffer/marketing gimmick.
Yeah... unless you enable variant 3/4 spectre patches also. Then it's just straight up regression.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
Top and Bottom tier. And it's not new; Coffee Lake does the same thing, with 6C/12T i7, 6C/6T i5, 4C/4T i3, and 2C/4T Pentium Gold. The only difference here is that they're bumping the numbering to i9 being the top tier so they can expand the product stack.Quote:
Originally Posted by afiretruck
In general, it's obviously done to simplify the product stack and maintain clear and coherent relative performance between levels (if you mess with both core counts and SMT then you've got to balance whether, e.g., 6C/6T is better or worse than 4C/8T). Specifically, I'd assume disabling SMT first (rather than reducing core count) improves Intel's profit margins. Perhaps the silicon that enables SMT is more prone to fab errors than the rest of the core...? *shrug*
Props for shizzling my dizzling with an astute observation. How is this competitive with zen? I genuinely thought they were gonna put HT on everything and wack another couple of cores on for good measure. How is having a taller product stack gonna help mainstream sales. "Oh I know the r5 is way more powerful and cheaper than an i5 but intel do an i7/i9 so I bought the i5 so i have the same brand that does the i7/i9" wait crap that's actually been working for them for a decade... then why change I guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Have to add the obligatory pinch of salt here, this is not official. It probably is bs as it does kinda look like a list of previous processors with names and little details changed... oh wait it must be a new product series, it's 2018 after all! In all seriousness I wonder if their monolithic chip design and it's inherently low yield is limiting product development at the low end now as well, it's not like they have a 32 core consumer part out soon...
Oh dear intel... oh dear, oh dear.
Agreed, a lot of salt pinch needs to be done. I never think it's a good idea have a tall product stack because they're not getting rid of the Pentiums or the Celery sticks (or even Atoms) so they literally now have:Quote:
Originally Posted by EN1R0PY
-i9 = HEDT with all the best gubbins
-i7 = Prosumer, Lost the premium of having the best gubbins and being relegated to a similar placement as the i5 but with more cores
-i5 = Consumer, still an i5, not much change
-i3 = Entry Level
-Pentium Bronze/Silver/Gold = Erm, yes?
-Celery = Uhhhh...
-Atom = Tablet/microPC?
I don't mind them having i3-i9 but to remove HT from the i7 lineup is a bit miffing but it would fracture their HEDT lineup like when they panic released the i9s anyway where you had i7s creeping over to i9 and i9s literally sat just behind the i7s.
It is interesting to say the least.
I also never expected them to put HT across their entire product lineup because if they have a defect in one of the (two) architectural cores needed for HT then it becomes a non-HT part. Putting HT on all parts would mean they would have to have a dramatically higher silicon perfection which on a monolithic design is ridiculously difficult.
We shall see..
It might be interesting if the Core i3 becomes 4C/8T though!
That might be my go to processor if the R3s are similarly priced but can't perform as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
HT is implemented by duplicating certain areas of the CPU but somehow AMD does it at no extra cost
Can't see it, for the reasons I highlighted above (what's the segmentation between 6C/6T and 4C/8T?). Intel seems determined to keep HT out of the middle of their product stack.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Also, intrigued that a lot of people are assuming the i9 listed here is HEDT. If this leak is accurate it looks a lot more like they're feeding 8C/16T into the mainstream stack and branding it i9. I think it's also quite telling on what Intel thinks of its own HT implementation if they do make i7 an 8C/8T part to replace 6C/12T …. i.e. they think 8C without HT is at least comparable to 6C with HT....
Are they trying to make room for AMD?
Meh ill wait for the 16 core 32 thread Ryzen 3700 thanks
lol they're really gonna try put up at 8/8 part and try to tout it as the top-end i7 ? You gotta give it to em, that takes humongous balls
At no extra cost? That doesn't sound right, why doesn't it, if i wasn't melting I'd actually bother finding out why that doesn't sound right. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
I always thought hyperthreading was purely a firmware thing that was disabled on some chips but enabled on others. Is there a hardware element to it then and if there is, does that mean that Intel made all chips with HT and then disabled it on ones destined for certain price points?
Is the $1000 cooling solution an optional extra - as per their recent 'demo' of 5ghz on all cores?
I'm not up to speed with SMT and HT, and stuff.
Say between an identically clocked 8C8T and 8C16T CPU with the same core.
For modern games, say coupled with a reasonably powerful graphics card, what sort of performance difference are we looking at?
No, the top end chip is clearly the i9. ;) If the rumour is true it suggests they're fiddling the product stack. Now, whether the i9 will come in at a higher price point than the current i7, or if it will come in at i7 prices and everything else will shuffle down (i.e. the new i7 will actually cost nearer i5 money), only time will tell...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
That's because it's not. Any form of SMT requires a certain amount of additional silicon to handle dispatching multiple threads to a single physical core, retrieving the right data out of caches etc. Intel's Core i hardware is all capable of HT, with some parts having it disabled to handle market segmentation, in the same way that AMD's Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 quad cores are all baked from the same silicon but the Ryzen 3 has SMT turned off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
AMD's implementation of SMT is more efficient than Intel's (i.e. they get a higher percentage increase in throughput by enabling SMT), but I have no idea what proportion of the silicon area is devoted to making SMT/HT work...
Hate to hedge, but there's actually too many factors to give a definitive answer. SMT helps some games and actually reduces performance on others. And the extent to which it impacts them also depends on which processor you're looking at, so a game that benefits from HT on Intel might suffer under SMT on Ryzen, because of the differences in architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDY
That said, if you look at the dGPU results from most CPU reviews, you'll note that once you play at high resolutions and IQ settings there's minimal difference between CPUs anyway. If you want more detail look for some reviews comparing the i7 8700k to the i5 8600k - beyond a small clock speed difference they're the same CPU just with HT turned off on the i5....
Well, Intel are good at fragmenting their product stack at least. However, the problem with this approach is that AMD is pretty straightforward in their product stack, which makes it simpler for me to choose a product as they haven't fragmented it like Intel seems to want to do (and no doubt charge the earth for those little "extras").
Alongside the issue with which motherboard allows which features to work and multiple chipsets abound, I honestly think I'd choose AMD purely for simplicity, regardless of the small difference between them and Intel in terms of performance. How many people are Intel trying to confuse if this is accurate information?
I run a lot of virtual machines. Therefore I need cores/threads.
I'm willing to bet the i9 8/16 won't be anywhere near as VFM as a Ryzen 7 8/16. Built a Ryzen 7 /32GB machine, at the start of this year, and I'm very happy with it. Can run multiple VMs, simultaneously, without it getting bogged down.
This does seem like a made up (fake) Chinese blog thing.
Genuine question: when you have 8 cores already does it actually matter if you don't have 16HT?
Isn't it true that at most some games could use 3 or 4 cores?
There is a hardware element but it is not talked about at great lengths or even has that much documentation about the hardware principles. From what I managed to find, each processor core has within it two "architectural cores" which share everything around them. The architectural cores are used to run the physical thread and the logical thread with shared cache etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by philehidiot
That is why there is not HT across the whole line up. Take the 8700k for instance, if they produce a wafer with a 100 dies on and there is a 60% failure rate that one of the architectural cores has a flaw then those 60 dies have the architectural cores fused off (or left there and snipped) and the entire die is binned as an 8600k part.
That is verrrry high level, so if someone with more knowledge about how the hardware of HT works, please step in.
F**k you intel!!!
It looks like Intel will be using solder at least for the Core i9 CPUs:
https://videocardz.com/newz/golem-in...ll-be-soldered