Intel 2019 Roadmap Leaked [Rumor]

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,086
A new and very detailed Intel rumor has surfaced from the Hong Kong XFASTEST website as they leak the entire 2018 and 2019 Intel road-map. According to the leak, the i9-9900K, i7-9700K, and i5-9600K will not show up until Q1 2019. They also detail the new chipsets and features. As always take these rumors with a grain of salt, but there are a lot more salty images in the article!

AMD's new CPU will be launched soon. According to AMD official information, the new Ryzen processor will be released on the morning of August 1st in Hong Kong time. However, two days before the lifting of the ban, there is an outflow of data from INTEL's next-generation Core processor. And the information is very detailed.
 
We're getting a lot of leaks about the 9900k and 9700k CPUs... seems to me the release is imminent. This many leaks points to a release in the near future, not two quarters from now.

Could be wrong, though, rumors being rumors and all.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
We're getting a lot of leaks about the 9900k and 9700k CPUs... seems to me the release is imminent. This many leaks points to a release in the near future, not two quarters from now.

Could be wrong, though, rumors being rumors and all.
Click to expand...
Or there, there are this many leaks precisely to keep you talking about intel and their CPUs, and not threadripper which is actually being released soon.
 
M76 said:
Or there, there are this many leaks precisely to keep you talking about intel and their CPUs, and not threadripper which is actually being released soon.
Click to expand...

Could be. Wouldn't put it past them, I suppose.
 
That is pretty late; by that time AMD will likely have its 7nm Ryzens close to launch. Which look like they will add a nice bit of clock speed + more cores, in addition to whatever architecture refinements AMD manages in that time frame. The 9900k might have to end up competing with a 12 core chip that turbos above 4.5ghz, or a 16 core one that turbos a bit below.
 
dreadcthulhu said:
That is pretty late; by that time AMD will likely have its 7nm Ryzens close to launch. Which look like they will add a nice bit of clock speed + more cores, in addition to whatever architecture refinements AMD manages in that time frame. The 9900k might have to end up competing with a 12 core chip that turbos above 4.5ghz, or a 16 core one that turbos a bit below.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it's true, Intel is missing the boat. They need the chip this year if they want to push out Ryzen sales. I mean, from the description of the 9900k in these leaks, it's a beastly chip. If it's competing against a 2700X, a lot of people will go 9900k (even if it's more expensive). But if it's competing against a 12 core AM4 chip that made up more of the IPC and frequency gap... totally different game.
 
I'm still running an i7 920 (OC to 4ghz). It's 10 years old now and the newer chips are still underwhelming (~30% better performance at best). I think I'm gonna go with a 2nd gen Threadripper since Ice Lake isn't going to arrive until 2025 at this rate.
 
nthexwn said:
I'm still running an i7 920 (OC to 4ghz). It's 10 years old now and the newer chips are still underwhelming (~30% better performance at best). I think I'm gonna go with a 2nd gen Threadripper since Ice Lake isn't going to arrive until 2025 at this rate.
Click to expand...

In 2025, Intel releases the SewageLake i11-18700k on the 14+++++++++++++ process.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.
 
dreadcthulhu said:
That is pretty late; by that time AMD will likely have its 7nm Ryzens close to launch.
Click to expand...


Everything we've seen suggests the Zen server CPUs will be the first to launch. Desktop Zen 2 seemingly has to wait for GloFo 7nm, which puts it waaay after January 2019.
 
are you kidding me Intel your going to keep X299 alive for ANOTHER year fuck off
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
He is. Here's a link comparing it to an 8700k: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8700K/1981vs3937

Single core performance has roughly doubled. Plus you get two more cores with the 8700k. Total CPU throughput on all cores is around 3 times as fast.
Click to expand...

According to that link, the difference between single core performance (IE: a lot of the games I play) if you reach peak overclocks with both processors is around 73%. The best bench on the 8700K is 5.3ghz over a 3.7ghz base. That's a 43% overclock. If you don't overclock the 8700K then we can divide that 1.73 relative performance by 1.43 to get a 21% improvement from my overclocked i7 920 to a stock-clocked 8700k.

I suppose what I'm not accounting for is:
  • I would probably overclock a new processor after I bought one.
  • There are still several applications (including some games) that take advantage of all 6 cores versus the 4 that I've got.
 
Has the core architecture changed much since the i7 series started?

Is i9 just a modified i7?
 
nthexwn said:
According to that link, the difference between single core performance (IE: a lot of the games I play) if you reach peak overclocks with both processors is around 73%. The best bench on the 8700K is 5.3ghz over a 3.7ghz base. That's a 43% overclock. If you don't overclock the 8700K then we can divide that 1.73 relative performance by 1.43 to get a 21% improvement from my overclocked i7 920 to a stock-clocked 8700k.
Click to expand...

Your math is wrong. Look at the scores next to the percentages. If you compare a stock clocked 8700k, single core, the score is 137 points. Peak overclocked 920 (also at 4GHz, you will note) is 89.1. This represents an improvement of 53.76% for a stock 8700k vs a 920 @ 4GHz. Of course, why you would OC the hell out of your 920 and then NOT OC an 8700k, I cannot fathom.

nthexwn said:
I suppose what I'm not accounting for is:
  • I would probably overclock a new processor after I bought one.
  • There are still several applications (including some games) that take advantage of all 6 cores versus the 4 that I've got.
Click to expand...

If you overclock both and compare this way, the improvement is 73%. Stock vs. Stock, the improvement is 103%.

And that's just for single core. In 4 threads, the improvement is greater. Many games can and do leverage at least a FEW threads, now. Obviously for more than 4 threads, the improvement is far greater due to more cores.
 
Got a 6850k and 64 gigs of quad channel ram.

8700k wasn't much of a pull for me.

2700x was sort of attractive.

Looking for probably a ThreadRipper2
 
Keep it real Intel and AMD. I'm planning on upgrade sometime next year...it will last me a while so I went to get something good. I'm still using my 2600k (and not really unhappy with it, but it's starting to shows its age. It will live a good life in my furnace run running vm's or something.)
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
We're getting a lot of leaks about the 9900k and 9700k CPUs... seems to me the release is imminent. This many leaks points to a release in the near future, not two quarters from now.

Could be wrong, though, rumors being rumors and all.
Click to expand...

Could also be them trying to step on amds threadripper release. Hard to tell though.
 
steakman1971 said:
Keep it real Intel and AMD. I'm planning on upgrade sometime next year...it will last me a while so I went to get something good. I'm still using my 2600k (and not really unhappy with it, but it's starting to shows its age. It will live a good life in my furnace run running vm's or something.)
Click to expand...

I don't know man, going from a 2600k to a 2600x is kinda magical, might be worth a shot. Then get the 12 or 16 core Zen 2 when they come out.
 
Rauelius said:
I don't know man, going from a 2600k to a 2600x is kinda magical, might be worth a shot. Then get the 12 or 16 core Zen 2 when they come out.
Click to expand...

yeah i went from the phenom II 940 @3.9Ghz to my 1600x it was beyond magical. actually being able to have 2 games open at the same time plus watching streams on my tv all at the same time was beautiful.
 
Rauelius said:
I don't know man, going from a 2600k to a 2600x is kinda magical, might be worth a shot. Then get the 12 or 16 core Zen 2 when they come out.
Click to expand...

Its not a bad play and what I actually just set up over the last few days. Although I came off of Haswell back to AMD.

Just built a R5 2600 on a Crosshair vii and will run that till 7nm or even Zen3. TR2 is SOOO tempting but went a fair bit less spendy and hopfully can double the core count on this socket before its all said and done. I mean even the 2700x is a nice all around cpu that can game and do some workstation duties for super cheap compared to HEDT.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Your math is wrong. Look at the scores next to the percentages. If you compare a stock clocked 8700k, single core, the score is 137 points. Peak overclocked 920 (also at 4GHz, you will note) is 89.1. This represents an improvement of 53.76% for a stock 8700k vs a 920 @ 4GHz. Of course, why you would OC the hell out of your 920 and then NOT OC an 8700k, I cannot fathom.



If you overclock both and compare this way, the improvement is 73%. Stock vs. Stock, the improvement is 103%.

And that's just for single core. In 4 threads, the improvement is greater. Many games can and do leverage at least a FEW threads, now. Obviously for more than 4 threads, the improvement is far greater due to more cores.
Click to expand...

You're looking at the averaged out numbers up top. I'm talking specifically about "SC Mixed" under "Peak Overclocked Benched" (the 73% one), and then I'm comparing it with the 8700K reduced to base speed. The 21% math is correct, but it's a very specific scenario. It just happens to be the one which I care about right now. My thinking is:
  • I've been running this thing OC'd for a decade now and it's been a major pain in the ass keeping it stable. The exact settings which I have to use keep varying from year to year. For my next processor I very well might just buy something which is fast enough at stock speeds that I can leave it there and not have to worry about it, especially now that "turbo mode" is a thing.
  • A very large number of games out there still do most of their processing on a single thread. There are lots of small tasks in games which have to be performed quickly and then joined back to the main thread. Oftentimes the operational overhead of branching threads off for these tasks and dealing with concurrency issues actually hurts performance in the main thread more than it would for that thread to do the work itself. Factorio, for instance, is a game where the developers are very open about their engine architecture and have come up against this hurdle. I happen to play a lot of that.
Most people here are probably in different shoes.
 
Intel tossing smoke. Hmmm....that Ryzen build is looking better.
 
cageymaru said:
A new and very detailed Intel rumor has surfaced from the Hong Kong XFASTEST website as they leak the entire 2018 and 2019 Intel road-map. According to the leak, the i9-9900K, i7-9700K, and i5-9600K will not show up until Q1 2019. They also detail the new chipsets and features. As always take these rumors with a grain of salt, but there are a lot more salty images in the article!
Click to expand...

That is the older roadmap. The new roadmap is this

intel-2019-cpu-roadmap-1000x520-jpg.jpg


with 9th series launching in Q3 this year.
 
I really hope someone can mod support into Z170 / Z270 boards, otherwise if I'm looking at a new mobo + CPU I'll wait on AMD's 7nm offerings.
 
Hey dude, you have to stop posting these blurry ass Chinese links on the front page.
 
Maybe a rumor subforum? I don't really mind it being in the news forum proper, long as it's clear it's rumor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top