Intel claims Core i9 9900K is the “best gaming processor”

[Corky34]

Ryzen has both CPU complexes on the same die, that is just a detail about how the cores talk to each other and the world around them. So both are a single die and you are wrong, happy to help
In case you are interested, Intel's design suffers at large core counts so this is just another example of AMD designing their CPUs primarily for server use.

I know i always get confused with CCX's but IIRC that's not correct, a single die consists of 4 cores and associated controllers/hubs, anything above that uses two (or more) physically separate four core dies.

Although none of that changes the inaccuracy of Intel's claim as a CPU is, as you say, the entire package IMO.

Intel do seem to be playing very fast and loose with their marketing of late, first it was showing the world they had a 28 core CPU running at 5Ghz on all cores only to get rumbled that they were using a chiller, and now they're trying to lay claim to the first 'mainstream' eight core CPU, one could almost say their trying to mislead investors.

Wow so much hate in this thread. The AMD bias on Hexus is crazy whether its GPU's or CPUs...I assume this is again based on price.

I can't speak for everyone else but IMO the hate towards Intel has very little to do with price, it's because I'm fed up with them constantly lying and insulting my intelligence.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I just realised this launch is Intel doing a Turing but with less innovation but a similar type of effect.

The top end Intel consumer CPU tended to be under £400 and now it is £500 to £600.

They are testing the water to start slowly making all their consumer CPUs cost more.

Hilarious when the 6 core i7 5820K was under £300 at one point. So 2 more cores and a few 100mhz more and double the price. LOL.

Edit!!

I looked at the Intel website,the top consumer SKU has always been $305 to $370.

So the $499 RRP,is the biggest Intel price rise for a consumer CPU for a decade.

[MrJim]

Intel is taking dodgy marketing to whole new level...

[DanceswithUnix]

I know i always get confused with CCX's but IIRC that's not correct, a single die consists of 4 cores and associated controllers/hubs, anything above that uses two (or more) physically separate four core dies.

Although none of that changes the inaccuracy of Intel's claim as a CPU is, as you say, the entire package IMO.

Intel do seem to be playing very fast and loose with their marketing of late, first it was showing the world they had a 28 core CPU running at 5Ghz on all cores only to get rumbled that they were using a chiller, and now they're trying to lay claim to the first 'mainstream' eight core CPU, one could almost say their trying to mislead investors.

No (and I don't get confused ), the die is the entire lump of silicon, and the entire lump of silicon has two CCX's and hence 8 cores on it on the Ryzen. Maybe you are thinking about Threadripper and Epyc which have multiple dies on a package, but they also have more than 8 cores and we aren't talking about those.

The point of being on die is that you have to go through big slow power transistors to go off-die. So products like the original dual core Pentium 4 which was really just two P4 die in a single package acting like a compact dual socket system, that's a bodge.

You can argue either way whether Intel's or AMD's method of connecting cores together is the best because quite simply there isn't a perfect way of connecting up more than 4 cores. People seem to stress over the way that AMD have tightly coupled their cores in groups of 4, but you could argue that Intel with a ring bus stop for every core have *none* of their cpus tightly coupled so it's like an 8 core CPU has 8 single core CCXs.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well mainstream also means mainstream platforms and price-points,and an 8C/16T AMD CPU fits in a consumer platform and can be had for under £200.

I thought Intel called Ryzen "mainstream" and "glued together" and indicated it was a poor product for commercial usage.



So are they now hinting Ryzen is a server product shoehorned into mainstream?? Seems like Intel marketing is contradicting itself.

[philehidiot]

Wow so much hate in this thread. The AMD bias on Hexus is crazy whether its GPU's or CPUs...I assume this is again based on price.

Personally I am looking forward to the benchmarks on this when we see them in a few weeks,and then I can decide what to upgrade to. My motherboard is having issues and needs replacing, so at some point soon my 6700k is going to get swapped out.

I'll take a look at the benchmarks of these chips and make a choice from there. It likely will be between a (hopefully slightly discounted?) 8700k or the overpriced 9700k...unless AMD release a Ryzen chip in the meantime that is faster. Unlikely but I wouldn't shut the door on Ryzen chips if AMD decide to release one thats as good as the Intel offerings.

I think Intel "hate" is a little unfair. I think people are rejecting the value proposition in the face of competition and also their advertising slogans which are an outright lie and insulting the intelligence of the audience. I currently have an Intel CPU because it represented the best value / performance proposition at the time. I do take into account the attitude of a company towards its customers as that's the attitude you have to face when you need support. For example I think Intel's resources would have been far better spent properly testing the mitigations for Spectre, et al than seemingly employing a sketchy company to dig up bugs in AMD processors and then advertise them when the severity was nowhere near as bad as Intel's. Are AMD squeaky clean? No but Intel act like the big bully, treat their customers like idiots (5GHz!!) and that makes an investment in their kit more risky, especially when it's far more expensive than the competition.

I will almost always buy whatever gives the best price / performance but the way Nvidia have treated their customers recently I simply refuse to give them my money and bought an AMD card with identical price / performance metrics. If you're going to treat me like a prat, you won't get my money unless you're really offering me something far better in the way of performance for the budget I have.

[Corky34]

No (and I don't get confused ), the die is the entire lump of silicon, and the entire lump of silicon has two CCX's and hence 8 cores on it on the Ryzen. Maybe you are thinking about Threadripper and Epyc which have multiple dies on a package, but they also have more than 8 cores and we aren't talking about those.

No, i got my CCX confused with my die, i should have said each CCX has four cores and each die has two CCX's, i mean the CCX's may as well be on separate dies as they talk to each other over the same fabric as if they were talking to another core on another die but that's beside the point, i was wrong, apologies.

The point of being on die is that you have to go through big slow power transistors to go off-die. So products like the original dual core Pentium 4 which was really just two P4 die in a single package acting like a compact dual socket system, that's a bodge.

You can argue either way whether Intel's or AMD's method of connecting cores together is the best because quite simply there isn't a perfect way of connecting up more than 4 cores. People seem to stress over the way that AMD have tightly coupled their cores in groups of 4, but you could argue that Intel with a ring bus stop for every core have *none* of their cpus tightly coupled so it's like an 8 core CPU has 8 single core CCXs.

Yea it's a matter of horses for courses, although I'd say there is a perfect way of connecting four cores, unfortunately that same perfect way may not apply to eight, sixteen, or more cores. IMO the ring bus has the advantage in lower core count scenarios but as you increase cores that advantage tails off and eventually vanishes entirely.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So 18 cores is out and 8 cores is in?

[Tabbykatze]

Are Intel more noticeably trying to detriment the competition than normal through Marketing or has it always been like this and I wasn't paying attention?

I know AMD does it too but this recent rung of crap from Intel seems far more perjurous

[philehidiot]

I think they're being more aggressive about it given they now have real competition. I just find it insulting, really.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel is taking dodgy marketing to whole new level...

Yeah,but they used a company called Principled Technologies to do the benchmarks which sounded familar.

Then I realised 6 years ago I saw this when it was talking about the use of Intel using a certain benchmark suite from them to show X86 being better than ARM with regards to power effiency:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5150663
https://www.prweb.com/releases/hdxpr...web4699694.htm

They are closely aligned with Intel,and then look at the Intel chap commenting in that article.

Now look at BAPCo who were behind Sysmark and was founded by the same Intel employee mentioned in those links(who is VP, Sales & Marketing Group & GM, Platform Evaluation & Competitive Assessment):

https://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...-Joint-Venture
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/sh...radpir#/entity
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/0...pco_just_good/

[quantasm]

It's cheaper to buy this from Amazon.com and have it shipped

Order Summary
Items: $529.99
Shipping & handling: $5.33
Total before tax: $535.32
Estimated tax to be collected: $0.00
Import Fees Deposit: $112.20
Order total: $647.52

Which equates to roughly £496.00

[silk186]

Intel is trying to justify the inflated prices they are asking.

[watercooled]

There is nothing correct, whether that be factual, opinion or otherwise, about Intel's 'first 8 core' statement. It's utter nonsense plain and simple.

It's not the first mainstream 8c/16t CPU
Nor is it the first monolithic example of such

The 1800X is a MONOLITHIC, MAINSTREAM CPU using a SINGLE DIE. There is literally no room for debate, that is fact.

The only way they could justify it is by saying it's Intel's first one...

[Corky34]

There's undoubtedly going to be an earlier eight core CPU but the oldest 'mainstream' one that springs to my mind is the FX-8150.

[kalniel]

There's undoubtedly going to be an earlier eight core CPU but the oldest 'mainstream' one that springs to my mind is the FX-8150.

Did that have SMT though?