Anandtech: Intel Announces 8 Core i9-9900KS: Every Core at 5.0 GHz, All The Time

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,262
Intel has a new tweak on the 9900K, the 9900KS - All core 5GHz - all the time. Are they trying to preempt something?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14402/intel-announces-5-ghz-all-core-turbo-cpu

Last year, Intel showcased a CPU during its keynote a processor with all of its cores at 5 GHz. Today, that becomes a reality – Intel is set to launch a processor that promises that frequency in any scenario. The new Core i9-9900KS is an 8-core processor that will run at 5.0 GHz during single core workloads and multi-core workloads.
 
What kind of cooling is it going to require to make that possible out of the box?

Heats your entire house in winter... for sure
I'm not even sure water cooling would be enough to keep it from melting your motherboard
 
So they changed the turbo table for the 9900K. That's is all Intel has in store as "upgrade" ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
So they changed the turbo table for the 9900K. That's is all Intel has in store as "upgrade" ?

Chances are they have a bit of inside knowledge about the new ryzen chips and their hand got forced. Funny how the single core boost is also 5ghz, at least they aren't pushing the voltage too high :p

We all know there is no new lineup from intel yet, were barely 9 months out since the 9900k launched..
 
seems u need copper ihs and proper solder xD if it is the same they use on 9900k it will be some sort of flop right.
 
The desperate calls begs for a new video with this guy, hope someone makes one:



Intel really milks every cent out of that 5GHz clock frequency.


And why wouldn't they? One of the biggest complaints about AMD every single generation is the clock speed. I know, as well as you do, that clock speed is equally important as other factors, but the world has the clock speed on a pedestal.

So, clockspeed sells. It's an easy way to bring more people to the table, or keep them there. They have highest IPC (currently) AND the fastest clocks... Really the only thing killing them is their prices compares to Ryzen and even then people are STILL buying Intel, so they are doing something right.
 
Should we expect to see price drops on the "old" 9900k or 9700k?

I want an upgrade for gaming from my I5-8400/1080Ti combo @ 1440p but I just can't find anything worth buying that would make a huge difference. My monitor is 144hz as well so anything that gives me significantly better minumums would be appreciated.

I think in the short term I"m in the "Wait & See" camp on Ryzen 2. Maybe 12 or 16 core Ryzen2 would do it?
 
And why wouldn't they? One of the biggest complaints about AMD every single generation is the clock speed. I know, as well as you do, that clock speed is equally important as other factors, but the world has the clock speed on a pedestal.

So, clockspeed sells. It's an easy way to bring more people to the table, or keep them there. They have highest IPC (currently) AND the fastest clocks... Really the only thing killing them is their prices compares to Ryzen and even then people are STILL buying Intel, so they are doing something right.

But what is the market for this thing? Its not even going to be guaranteed to hit 5Ghz. I joked about it above, but you need some serious cooling for a 9900K to reach 5Ghz not to mention a motherboard with solid VRMs and VRM cooling. If someone was in the market for a 5Ghz 9900K I would think they would have already bought a 9900K and the stuff required to make it possible.

Uhhhhh correct me if I'm wrong, but the HT issue was patched before it was even announced, wasn't it?

Zombieload still needs BIOS updates to fully fix it and those are not out, yet.

Should we expect to see price drops on the "old" 9900k or 9700k?

Don't hold your breath. These will probably come out a higher price than the standard 9900K.
 
Should we expect to see price drops on the "old" 9900k or 9700k?

I want an upgrade for gaming from my I5-8400/1080Ti combo @ 1440p but I just can't find anything worth buying that would make a huge difference. My monitor is 144hz as well so anything that gives me significantly better minumums would be appreciated.

I think in the short term I"m in the "Wait & See" camp on Ryzen 2. Maybe 12 or 16 core Ryzen2 would do it?
same here, i honestly dont think i need a better cpu atm(5820k). but if amd can do something like 9900k i might reconsider. but amd does worse per NM, did like the post in this forum highlighting that. so when intel do new node they will probs stomp amd hard :p amd is 2 generations of node shrink ahead compare to intel and still couldnt match their performance yet.
 
Intel is shitting their pants. 5ghz, great. What about the security holes?
I'd like to know about this as well.

Been doing gaming on my linux box recently (i7-4770k+GTX 1070 + 1080p/144hz) as I just recently re-assembled my windows box and the Borderlands2/Pre-sequel characters saves are "per OS" it seems. Before I play I ,reboot with "mitigations=off" on my kernel command line, and then when done reboot again to turn all the protection(s) back on.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know about this as well.

Been doing gaming on my linux box recently (i7-4770k+GTX 1070 + 1080p/144hz) as I just recently re-assembled my windows box and the Borderlands2/Pre-sequel characters aves are "per OS" it seems. Before I play I ,reboot with "mitigations=off" on my kernel command line, and then when done reboot again to turn all the protection(s) back on.

That would annoy me to no end. You shouldn't have to take those steps to use your machine.
 
That would annoy me to no end. You shouldn't have to take those steps to use your machine.
Agreed. It doesn't seem to make all that much difference, but I'll take any performance I can get under Linux. There may be a way to do it without rebooting, but I haven't researched it all that much yet. If anyone knows how to share saves between Windows/Linux on BL2/TPS, I'm all ears :)
 
Intel is shitting their pants. 5ghz, great. What about the security holes?

More than security holes I think there is an issue of trust here..... can you really trust a company that had this go on for a decade without a peep from anyone?

Also, if something this big has been going on for a decade...... what else could be out there?

Not saying AMD is perfect but they seem to take security much more seriously?

Also I wonder how older gen Sandy/ivy bridge CPU's perform with all of these mitigations in place and/or hyperthreading turned off compared to old Opterons and AMD FX CPU's?
 
Not exactly. There are patches to mitigate the risk already and BIOS updates can help further mitigate the risk (none exist yet) but the only way to block the exploit entirely is to disable Hyperthreading.

"Mitigate the risk"... It's either a risk or it isn't. If it can be exploited, it's a risk.
 
"Mitigate the risk"... It's either a risk or it isn't. If it can be exploited, it's a risk.

That's simply not true. You can reduce a risk and still not eliminate it entirely. In the corporate world, this is a far bigger issue than it is for home users. We have people panicking about side channel exploits like MDS as if people are going to actively attack their gaming PC. Its unlikely that someone would target you, your neighborhood or your area to make use of such an exploit. Therefore, the risk to you personally is much smaller than it would be to say Bank of America or Equifax.
 
That's simply not true. You can reduce a risk and still not eliminate it entirely. In the corporate world, this is a far bigger issue than it is for home users. We have people panicking about side channel exploits like MDS as if people are going to actively attack their gaming PC. Its unlikely that someone would target you, your neighborhood or your area to make use of such an exploit. Therefore, the risk to you personally is much smaller than it would be to say Bank of America or Equifax.

Tracking you there. I haven't installed any updates for any of the risks.. the craziness I've seen here over IB and SB sometimes not getting patches is hilarious.. no one wants your midget porn and MMO gaming data
 
Pretty desperate move but what else can they do? They aren't ready with 10nm parts so they have to sit and wait for Ryzen 2 to steal their performance crown. As someone who owns a 9900k@5ghz on all cores, I hope they hand picked some really golden low voltage samples because this thing won't cut it on air.

I think 2019 is a very odd year for AMD because they will finally beat Intel and one would hope it would give them a lot of sales but unfortunately with Intels marketing budget and lock on enterprise, I don't see them making enough of a dent. Intel will return to enterprise at 10nm by late 2020 so this gives them about a years worth of time to convince the world to pick them which I think will be extremely difficult. At the consumer level they might get more time until intel is ready with 7 nm but that might not last longer than early 2021.
 
Last edited:
Intel Computex 2019 Preview 5GHz All Core i9-9900KS and Ice Lake
https://www.servethehome.com/intel-computex-2019-preview-5ghz-all-core-i9-9900ks-and-ice-lake/

During the pre-briefing Intel shared a perspective around PC application usage that focused on what applications consumers actually use. It shared a dataset from 2015 to today and highlighted a number of applications:

Computex-2019-Intel-Common-Client-Applications.jpg

Computex 2019 Intel Common Client Applications

The key to this is that it says the benchmarks being run (e.g. Cinebench) are not necessarily representative of real world usage. Instead, Intel is focusing on the developer community to push optimizations into the software stack to make its CPUs perform better in real application workloads.

We requested a more complete list from the exercise, but the data set encompasses over 1.8M users and shows what applications they have run at least once.
 
And why wouldn't they? One of the biggest complaints about AMD every single generation is the clock speed. I know, as well as you do, that clock speed is equally important as other factors, but the world has the clock speed on a pedestal.

So, clockspeed sells. It's an easy way to bring more people to the table, or keep them there. They have highest IPC (currently) AND the fastest clocks... Really the only thing killing them is their prices compares to Ryzen and even then people are STILL buying Intel, so they are doing something right.

The truth is, once you hit a minimum threshold core count (at one point that was two, for the longest time it's been four, and just recently - IMHO - that figure has crept up to six) you still gain from higher clocks, but you gain next to nothing from adding cores.

At that point the only people who gain from more cores are doing semi unusual stuff, like frequently encoding video, or rendering things, or running large quantities of VM's. Still a very small minority of even enthusiast users.

So yeah per core performance, the combination of clock speed and performance per clock (or IPC) is still king and always will be. You can't just solve a problem by throwing more cores at it, just like how you can't make a baby in one month with 9 women.

It's not irrational. It's pure plain unadulterated fact.
 
I wonder if this thing has any head room to overclock beyond 5GHz.

I'd be surprised if it had any more headroom than a standard 9900K. This is probably just binned 9900K chips that they know can reliably run at 5Ghz all core.
 
The truth is, once you hit a minimum threshold core count (at one point that was two, for the longest time it's been four, and just recently - IMHO - that figure has crept up to six) you still gain from higher clocks, but you gain next to nothing from adding cores.

At that point the only people who gain from more cores are doing semi unusual stuff, like frequently encoding video, or rendering things, or running large quantities of VM's. Still a very small minority of even enthusiast users.

So yeah per core performance, the combination of clock speed and performance per clock (or IPC) is still king and always will be. You can't just solve a problem by throwing more cores at it, just like how you can't make a baby in one month with 9 women.

It's not irrational. It's pure plain unadulterated fact.

I think you just havent thrown enough cores at it :p
 
Back
Top