Intel i7-9700K Appears on SiSoftware Database: 8 Cores, No Hyper-Threading

WOW guess I won't pick this up no matter what.......already have a 8700K from Retail Edge program which I no longer belong to.
 
hopefully they will at least use a proper solder instead of cheap ass thermal paste crap, wonder why they did that in the first place, they charge the most for their various cpu and to add a proper "solder" instead of thermal paste under heatspreader seems very skimpy when it probably costs them very very little per cpu (which they end up charging for anyways)

I still do not get why people "deal with it" pay the extra to remove the heatspreader to lap or whatever to place what Intel should have done in the first place, I guess Intel wants "more prone to fail" over the last couple of years by reducing the pcb thickness, hobbling cooling factor etc....pretty bad IMHO.

I can "fully" understand the cpu that are very low wattage (say 65 actual watt or below) but above this is just being chincy as hell.
 
This just seems like the logical evolution for Intel. Their naming convention is a complete clusterfuck and this just brings that to the desktop. Their 8th Gen mobile consists of 4 and 6 core chips all with hyperthreading. The 7th had 2 or 4 cores, again with hyperthreading. Yes, the 2 core variants were low power but that still doesn't really make sense.
Why isn't it like a car? The even numbers are the cores, no HT, and work up from entry to mid to flagship. Odd numbers use the lesser even numbers core count but have HT enabled.

In practice this would make the entry models i3 as always - unless they didn't have HT, in that case they'd be i2. The historic i5 would be an i6 with the i7 remaining unchanged. i8 and i9 would be the enthusiast variants - assuming the core count was higher or if they're just denoting greater performance. This would be an i8 product denoting more cores than the i6 or i7 but also because HT was disabled.
 
Master_shake_ said:
but that numbering goes against every single i7 sku. being a hyperthreaded quad or hex core.
Click to expand...
Yes it will bite them in the ass when people compare it to the 8700k so they also better make it cheaper with the loss of ht but who knows.
 
Comixbooks said:
WOW guess I won't pick this up no matter what.......already have a 8700K from Retail Edge program which I no longer belong to.
Click to expand...
Ah, I remember the days of Intel's retail propaganda machine that allowed their humble servants to pick up a piece of hardware after full and complete indoctrination.

I would buy everything I could for cheap and resell it since I was a poor college student at that time.
 
While I have always been an extreme 24/7 OC'er going back to the P100 days, I will pass on intel yet again. The Ryzen offerings are wonderfully fast CPUs (as are the 8700Ks) but not having to deal with Intel's cluster of a fix for Meltdown/Spectre is icing on the cake. @ 4.3Ghz the Ryzen offerings are as fast as they "need" to be to offer a wonderful gaming/multi-tasking experience. I would love for a 5Ghz refresh, who wouldn't? But AMD's offerings, coupled with the guaranteed upgrade to Zen2 makes them a better buy.
 
ccityinstaller said:
While I have always been an extreme 24/7 OC'er going back to the P100 days, I will pass on intel yet again. The Ryzen offerings are wonderfully fast CPUs (as are the 8700Ks) but not having to deal with Intel's cluster of a fix for Meltdown/Spectre is icing on the cake. @ 4.3Ghz the Ryzen offerings are as fast as they "need" to be to offer a wonderful gaming/multi-tasking experience. I would love for a 5Ghz refresh, who wouldn't? But AMD's offerings, coupled with the guaranteed upgrade to Zen2 makes them a better buy.
Click to expand...
I may finally have a reason to upgrade my ol' 4790k when Zen2 hits. After bumping my ram up to 32GB a couple months ago, the urge to build a new rig has faded for now. (On 16GB, I was running out of memory constantly).
 
ccityinstaller said:
I will pass on intel yet again.
Click to expand...

Truth. In addition to what you listed, I grew tired of buying a new motherboard every single time I wanted to upgrade my Intel CPU. Was there truly a need for a new socket design that many times over the past ten years? I went with Ryzen and AM4 knowing that Zen 2 will drop right into it.
 
thinking about this most people even gamers dont NEED 16 threads 8 real cores with more clock speed will be fine for them

and the people that NEED 16 you know who you are and just buy the i9
 
bugleyman said:
WTF, Intel? 4/8 -> 6/6 made sense for i5, but 6/12 -> 8/8 for i7? Not so much. Better for 7 or 8 threads (but possibly worse for 9+) seems pretty murky as a point of differentiation.
Click to expand...

6/12 ~ 7.5 core. So 8/8 configuration gives more throughput.
 
Donald Bell said:
Are i9 parts going to be the new HT enabled line for consumers?
Click to expand...

Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
Clever observation. Or, HT will end up being reserved for Xeon "Threadernator" or someshit.

Does anyone know how much % die space the HT Gubbins takes?
Click to expand...

Elf_Boy said:
I am guessing HT was dropped to help push the clock speed and ICP/thread. The two places Intel seems to have a lead.
Click to expand...

MV75 said:
I was thinking more along these lines for the reason; https://www.itnews.com.au/news/intel-hyperthreading-causes-spectre-worries-494830
Click to expand...

Master_shake_ said:
no hyper-threading?

trying to stay in a thermal envelope or a new architecture?
Click to expand...

Gideon said:
Perhaps power draw was why they kept HT off this chip, it sure is making their lineup damn confusing tho.
Click to expand...

HT is available in the top SKU, which is now i9

intel_i9_9900k-png.png
 
Ehh. First and foremost intel competes with itself. Their biggest mistake is putting the 8/16 at i9-9900k. That's basically the end of naming wall. What comes next the i10-10000k aka the "i ten ten k k" ???
 
craigdt said:
So will the 9700k be better for Handbrake than my current 8700k?
Click to expand...

Kabylake has SMT yields of about 23% and 20% for x264 and x265 respectively. Average is 21%, so

Base clocks

8C8T * 3.6GHz = 28.8

6C12T * 3.6GHz ~ 7.3C7.3T * 3.7GHz = 27.0

All-core boost

8C8T * 4.6GHz = 36.8

6C12T * 4.3GHz ~ 7.3C7.3T * 4.3GHz = 31.4


The 9700k would be about 7--17% faster than 8700k on Handbrake.
 
Man, Intel's naming scheme right now is so shit. I definitely think I fall in the "computer enthusiast" circle and I only had some idea of what anything meant, and now it's even less.

AMD is better but not hugely so, mostly because their chipset naming is so close to Intel's.
 
I'll take my completely un nerfed CPUs with quad way ht and let all you keep your gimped high end chips
 
schmide said:
Ehh. First and foremost intel competes with itself. Their biggest mistake is putting the 8/16 at i9-9900k. That's basically the end of naming wall. What comes next the i10-10000k aka the "i ten ten k k" ???
Click to expand...

look at intel compete with itself when it drops and then retracts a 5ghz industrially cooled xeon that will never see the light of day.
 
Elios said:
thinking about this most people even gamers dont NEED 16 threads 8 real cores with more clock speed will be fine for them

and the people that NEED 16 you know who you are and just buy the i9
Click to expand...

With the past decade of Intel CPU's, I may not NEED 16 threads/8 real cores now, but in 5 years when I'm still running the same CPU and a different GPU, would I? I know that 2600K that lasted me a good 5-6 years did a great job. I didn't NEED the i7 at the time. Last year when I upgraded to the 7700K, yea I needed it.

Some people build for longevity. So, while I may not really NEED it now, I might in a few years when more software could take advantage of it.
 
Elf_Boy said:
I am guessing HT was dropped to help push the clock speed and ICP/thread. The two places Intel seems to have a lead.
Click to expand...

This was my exact thought when I first read the article title. I still remember quite a few people back in the day disabling hyperthreading in order to lower heat output and increase clockspeed for the actual cores. Depending on the workload the extra clockspeed and the avoidance of throttling allowed for better performance.
 
I could never understand why people, especially gamers, bought into the whole HT bullshit.

There was this Intel fanboi here on [H] who repeatedly posted benchmarks where HT was somehow producing better results than actual cores. On the same fucking CPUs.
 
Ur_Mom said:
With the past decade of Intel CPU's, I may not NEED 16 threads/8 real cores now, but in 5 years when I'm still running the same CPU and a different GPU, would I? I know that 2600K that lasted me a good 5-6 years did a great job. I didn't NEED the i7 at the time. Last year when I upgraded to the 7700K, yea I needed it.

Some people build for longevity. So, while I may not really NEED it now, I might in a few years when more software could take advantage of it.
Click to expand...


if you need more threads 5 years later get a new CPU.... the new one likely will have better IPC any way too
OR spend more and get the i9 or spend the same and get a Ryzen/ Threadripper

im talking about your avg gamer not people that post here
 
dgz said:
I could never understand why people, especially gamers, bought into the whole HT bullshit.

There was this Intel fanboi here on [H] who repeatedly posted benchmarks where HT was somehow producing better results than actual cores. On the same fucking CPUs.
Click to expand...
With well managed threads and code that scales well, it's possible. With an 8c/16t cpu, you probably wouldn't see much of an advantage in any gaming workload, and may even see worse perf.
 
Elder Scrolls Online runs 65 threads when I load it up.

One of my cores does get hit harder then the other 15, still it is spreading out the love enough even for a TR2 system.

Path of Exile is running 48 threads.


Yes, I agree the work isnt not perfectly symmetrical, still it is a good start.

Tell me, all of you in [H] land what does windows report your favorite games and apps use?
 
This is a huge marketing fail from intel. Had they called this CPU an I5, and the HT one an I7, everything would be fine. They'd be praised for it. And now they're getting even more shit, if the past few months weren't enough. Heads need to start rolling there I think.
 
dgz said:
I could never understand why people, especially gamers, bought into the whole HT bullshit.
Click to expand...
What the heck does that even mean? Are you really ignorant enough to think HT does not help in gaming? Of course its not as good as having real cores but the less cores you have then the more it helps. Now having it on 6 or more cores does little or nothing at this time but on 4 and especially 2 cores it is absolutely essential for most modern games.
 
Last edited:
lostin3d said:
They probably figured since NV's been doing it, it would work for them too.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is working for them...look at their latest earnings report. I think they are about ready for a fall though...people who aren't [H]ard don't really know that Intel is falling behind AMD in the technology arms race...but this will change over the next couple years. Remember also that it took quite a number of years for IBM to lose their dominance in the PC space, but that also accelerated with their push for their PS/2 platform. 10nm could be Intel's "PS/2 Moment".
 
jnemesh said:
Unfortunately, it is working for them...look at their latest earnings report. I think they are about ready for a fall though...people who aren't [H]ard don't really know that Intel is falling behind AMD in the technology arms race...but this will change over the next couple years. Remember also that it took quite a number of years for IBM to lose their dominance in the PC space, but that also accelerated with their push for their PS/2 platform. 10nm could be Intel's "PS/2 Moment".
Click to expand...
From an uneducated consumer perspective, the only way AMD becomes household knowledge is through design wins, products on store shelves, and a offerings ranging from low to high end. Until recently, AMD's design wins for many years were low end/bargain products only.
 
Ur_Mom said:
With the past decade of Intel CPU's, I may not NEED 16 threads/8 real cores now, but in 5 years when I'm still running the same CPU and a different GPU, would I? I know that 2600K that lasted me a good 5-6 years did a great job. I didn't NEED the i7 at the time. Last year when I upgraded to the 7700K, yea I needed it.

Some people build for longevity. So, while I may not really NEED it now, I might in a few years when more software could take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I paid $110 more for my i7-3770K on release day than the i5-3570K. Still doing the job adequately today, and I probably would have needed an upgrade a couple years back had I saved the money to opt for the i5 back then...
 
Lmao if this is true intel simply gimped the i7 and moved the i7 tier to i9. People saying "just buy the i9" aren't considering the massive price gap, or just aren't consideting anything in general.

Mainstream is getting 8c/16t now thanks to AMD. The "enthusiast" segment should be getting 10-12 cores by now.

Riding out my 4790k for another year for sure.
 
misterbobby said:
What the heck does that even mean? Are you really ignorant enough to think HT does not help in gaming? Of course its not as good as having real cores but the less cores you have then the more it helps. Now having it on 6 or more cores does little or nothing at this time but on 4 and especially 2 cores it is absolutely essential for most modern games.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize gaming on two cores is a challenge in itself unless you're running some pretty lean OS there. What kind of argument is that? You're welcome to prove just how ignorant I am by pointing me to some high performance (like 100+ fps) games benefiting from many cores. I don't want to hear about sub 60 FPS experiences where latency is not an issue
 
dgz said:
I hope you realize gaming on two cores is a challenge in itself unless you're running some pretty lean OS there. What kind of argument is that? You're welcome to prove just how ignorant I am by pointing me to some high performance (like 100+ fps) games benefiting from many cores. I don't want to hear about sub 60 FPS experiences where latency is not an issue
Click to expand...
You really are quite ignorant about CPU usage in PC gaming. You are the one that said that hyper-threading was just a gimmick as if it didn't do anything. I'm telling you on two or four cores it is a night and day difference. Don't start trying to twist your argument or move the goalposts. And I already made it perfectly clear that it does little to nothing once you have 6 cores.
 
misterbobby said:
You really are quite ignorant about CPU usage in PC gaming. You are the one that said that hyper-threading was just a gimmick as if it didn't do anything. I'm telling you on two or four cores it is a night and day difference. Don't start trying to twist your argument or move the goalposts. And I already made it perfectly clear that it does little to nothing once you have 6 cores.
Click to expand...

Fine. Maybe I was. To me dual core, HT or not, gaming is a lost proposition. I mean, it's technically possible but totally not worth it. My dual core Haswell HTPC is only good for Steam streaming at best. Never tried running windows on it but I doubt it would make much of a difference.

Still not sure why you jumped on me like that. Don't hate me for hating on HT pls
 
Adding "two more cores" each iteration means the performance improvement falls off. 4 to 6 = 50%, but 6 to 8 = 33%.

At that point the performance improvement is the same as adding HT, so Core i7-9700K = Core i7 8700k in most benchmarks.

This is just an excuse for Intel to add another overpriced top-end segment in the i9 "Emergency Edition" to raise profits after the Coffee Lake rush job last year.
 
M76 said:
This is a huge marketing fail from intel. Had they called this CPU an I5, and the HT one an I7, everything would be fine. They'd be praised for it. And now they're getting even more shit, if the past few months weren't enough. Heads need to start rolling there I think.
Click to expand...

If the price is right, I won't mind. I doubt it will be under $300 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top