Intel i7 9700K and i9 9900K Leaks Showcase “Insane” Core Turbo Speeds

Esstee said:
I've been running at 5Ghz for nearly 5 years now - seriously intel, this is just sad to see
Click to expand...

Why is it sad? Intels first mainstream ( keyword here.. mainstream ) 8 core CPU based on lake IPC.. Sorry but you don't have a 5 year old CPU that even comes close to this lol. Heck even a skylake CPU is way better then yours.
 
Let me get this correct:

Intel's front page news is that their upcoming 8 core processor stock turbo is almost 10% higher than AMD's 16 core CPU?

Call me unimpressed.
 
geok1ng said:
Let me get this correct:

Intel's front page news is that their upcoming 8 core processor stock turbo is almost 10% higher than AMD's 16 core CPU?

Call me unimpressed.
Click to expand...

Well it has a GPU as well. AMD doesn't have anything more than a 4 core processor with a GPU, much easier to go higher core count if you don't have a GPU taking up die space.
 
Verado said:
None of us wants that gpu though..
Click to expand...

Yeah the only purpose the intel igpu (on a desktop) has ever served for me was getting into bios and initial config. But I understand why they do that, it's in the chip design which they use for both desktop/laptop.
 
Verado said:
None of us wants that gpu though..
Click to expand...

I don't just want it, I need it.

geok1ng said:
So its main appeal is targeting people that want game using an iGPU, but need 8 cores?
Click to expand...

No, it's there for people who don't need or want to use PCIe GPU in the computer. My Plex box is a mITX system and the only PCIe slot is used by my LSI card. With Intel, I can now have an 8 core mITX box, with AMD I'm stuck with a 4 core. Not to mention, Plex can use the onboard GPU's Quick Sync for hardware transcoding.
 
ND40oz said:
I don't just want it, I need it.

No, it's there for people who don't need or want to use PCIe GPU in the computer. My Plex box is a mITX system and the only PCIe slot is used by my LSI card. With Intel, I can now have an 8 core mITX box, with AMD I'm stuck with a 4 core. Not to mention, Plex can use the onboard GPU's Quick Sync for hardware transcoding.
Click to expand...

If it's just a Plex server why does it need a GPU at all?

It might make more sense in laptops where you an expect an iGPU, but then you'll run into thermal limits that make the 8 core slower than a lower-core-count product in many workloads.
 
ND40oz said:
I don't just want it, I need it.



No, it's there for people who don't need or want to use PCIe GPU in the computer. My Plex box is a mITX system and the only PCIe slot is used by my LSI card. With Intel, I can now have an 8 core mITX box, with AMD I'm stuck with a 4 core. Not to mention, Plex can use the onboard GPU's Quick Sync for hardware transcoding.
Click to expand...


In other words: you need 8 cores and an iGPU, like i said :angelic:

i bet there is a yuge market for that kind of build.

Intel uses a good TIM, so you will have no problems cooling that thing with a 1U heatsink inside a mITX box.

sarcasm: off
 
Speaking of delidding; I'm wondering if this 'next gen' of intel cpus are just mainly cpus with better thermal packaging and just slightly tweaked architecture improvements.

As it is well documented that coffee lake can overclock extremely well -however- the bad thermal packaging makes thermal throttling a factor no matter how good of a heatsink or water cooler you put on the cpu.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
If it's just a Plex server why does it need a GPU at all?

It might make more sense in laptops where you an expect an iGPU, but then you'll run into thermal limits that make the 8 core slower than a lower-core-count product in many workloads.
Click to expand...

Console access is nice to have, especially if you ever need to troubleshoot or install an OS. Like I previously mentioned, Plex uses the Intel GPU for hardware transcoding as well, Kaby Lake and newer can use Quick Sync for HEVC 10-bit decoding.

geok1ng said:
In other words: you need 8 cores and an iGPU, like i said :angelic:

i bet there is a yuge market for that kind of build.

Intel uses a good TIM, so you will have no problems cooling that thing with a 1U heatsink inside a mITX box.

sarcasm: off
Click to expand...

For my setup, I need as powerful a CPU with an iGPU as I can get, Intel just happens to have the best one on the market and it's been that way since they've integrated them into the CPU. Maybe AMD will care about that at some point, but currently they're still only making them for the lower-end of the market. The market is just as large for people who want a powerful cpu without needing a separate GPU for other aspects of computing as there are for someone who just wants a high-end gaming system.

Typically if you're building a system with some hard drives, it isn't a 1U box either, the stock Intel heatsink works fine in my PC-Q25B.
 
I'm still wondering what the point of the 8 core i9 9900K is when it's pretty clear it's not going to beat out the Threadripper 2990WX. It just doesn't have enough cores to compete with AMD's flagship.

Unless Intel is planning to have this chip compete against AMD's low end 2920X (12 core 24 thread cpu)??
 
vjhawk said:
I'm still wondering what the point of the 8 core i9 9900K is when it's pretty clear it's not going to beat out the Threadripper 2990WX. It just doesn't have enough cores to compete with AMD's flagship.

Unless Intel is planning to have this chip compete against AMD's low end 2920X (12 core 24 thread cpu)??
Click to expand...
I had a long reply but figured I could just sum it up with this: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So Intel is basicly doing what AMD has done regarding turbo/XFR clocks. Dynamically push the CPU to the limit.

AMD's is 4.4ghz. Intel's is 5.0ghz.

I will say Intel still has some headroom left if they ever needed to release a new Devil's Canyon like refresh. I could see them releasing a 5.2ghz variant if need be. (Like the 8086k was vs 8700k)

Hell Intel could spec a 5.4ghz single core boost if they wanted. It might never reach that though unless you had a chip that could handle it.
 
dgingeri said:
I'm not impressed. My 8700k does 5GHz on all cores with no issues. If I were to delid it and replace the TIM, I could probably get 5.2. (I haven't tried to do either yet.) Even with 2 more cores, the 9900k isn't that special. That's just scaling up. I would be impressed with something new.
Click to expand...
Your 8700K does 5 GHz after overclocking. The 9900K will do it out of the box. Imagine how far you can push all 8 cores if it can do 4.7 GHz out of the box on all of them.
vjhawk said:
I'm still wondering what the point of the 8 core i9 9900K is when it's pretty clear it's not going to beat out the Threadripper 2990WX. It just doesn't have enough cores to compete with AMD's flagship.

Unless Intel is planning to have this chip compete against AMD's low end 2920X (12 core 24 thread cpu)??
Click to expand...
The 9900K is an -S desktop part, so it's not competing with the HEDT 2990WX. Whatever the -X refresh is will be competing the 2990WX. Leaked roadmaps showed a new 22-core part to be offered in Intel's refreshed HEDT lineup.
 
Armenius said:
Your 8700K does 5 GHz after overclocking.
Click to expand...

and delidding:rolleyes:

Armenius said:
Imagine how far you can push all 8 cores if it can do 4.7 GHz out of the box on all of them.
Click to expand...

If the last Intel's presentation is any hint, not very far without a phase changing cooling setup.:LOL:

The 9900k would be at best a luckwarm CPU if Intel fixed the TIM issue. As it stands, all overclocking potential hysteria must include delliding and high end cooling solution costs.

Compare that to Ryzen 2, where even [H] review suggested turbo works so well that there are very few usage scenarios that could benefit from overclocking.
 
Last edited:
geok1ng said:
Good for you.
I suppose you did not run them inside a mITX case with stock heatsink, like ND40oz is planning to do with the 9900K
Click to expand...

When you don't have a high wattage video card sitting in the PCIe slot, cooling isn't as big of an issue, even with a 20.4L case. If it can't run at stock speeds on a stock cooler, then there's something seriously wrong with the cpu.
 
Here what I’m reading: (hint: It’s like the twilight zone...)


That’s a crap product from Intel!!! 4.9-5.0Ghz across 8 cores? Who would want that? Boring!!! My 6 core and 4 core Intel can already hit 4.5Ghz, why would I want an 8 core Intel at 5Ghz? Is Spectre and Meltdown fixed? I don’t even know what it is, but Intel sure sucks and can’t bring the competition. They are stuck in those old crappy architectures. I want a new shiny architecture.

Then...

I’m going with AMD. I just ordered my Ryzen 2700x. It too has 8 cores and is just >20% slower in IPC, and I get to order even more overpriced faster RAM to make sure it’s not >25% slower. Yes, I’m sure glad AMD is finally competitive, aren’t you. This new architecture rocks! I’ll never notice it’s slower in the things I do. We’re really sticking it to Intel by not buying the 9 series chip. yeeeha!!!
 
I think you will throttle back on the sarcasm when the price and cooling requirements are revealed. 25% less Ipc? Not even Juangra is good enough at cherry picking those claims.
 
Archaea said:
Here what I’m reading: (hint: It’s like the twilight zone...)


That’s a crap product from Intel!!! 4.9-5.0Ghz across 8 cores? Who would want that? Boring!!! My 6 core and 4 core Intel can already hit 4.5Ghz, why would I want an 8 core Intel at 5Ghz? Is Spectre and Meltdown fixed? I don’t even know what it is, but Intel sure sucks and can’t bring the competition. They are stuck in those old crappy architectures. I want a new shiny architecture.

Then...

I’m going with AMD. I just ordered my Ryzen 2700x. It too has 8 cores and is just >20% slower in IPC, and I get to order even more overpriced faster RAM to make sure it’s not >25% slower. Yes, I’m sure glad AMD is finally competitive, aren’t you. This new architecture rocks! I’ll never notice it’s slower in the things I do. We’re really sticking it to Intel by not buying the 9 series chip. yeeeha!!!
Click to expand...

They were competitive enough for me to build my first PC in over 20 years with a Ryzen 7 2700x. Many, many others too. Note the DECLINING market share at Intel. Think that's coincidence? The performance is JUST FINE, by the way. Among the best PCs out there right now...no, it's not QUITE as fast as Intel on specific applications (games)...but it's also FASTER than Intel's comparably priced chip in others. Fanboism alone, nor heavy sarcasm, isn't going to change the situation that Intel finds itself in right now. For the first time in a DECADE they are being forced to compete...and next year? Well, next year it starts getting REAL UGLY for them! Have fun watching. I am sure you will enjoy the show!
 
I can't really even get excited for new cpus regardless of core counts and clock speeds. Aside from the few people with crazy workloads, it really doesn't matter anymore.

I haven't played a single game my i5-6600k and gtx 1080 couldn't play just fine on high settings. I miss having a reason to upgrade other than newer and better.
 
jnemesh said:
They were competitive enough for me to build my first PC in over 20 years with a Ryzen 7 2700x. Many, many others too. Note the DECLINING market share at Intel. Think that's coincidence? The performance is JUST FINE, by the way. Among the best PCs out there right now...no, it's not QUITE as fast as Intel on specific applications (games)...but it's also FASTER than Intel's comparably priced chip in others. Fanboism alone, nor heavy sarcasm, isn't going to change the situation that Intel finds itself in right now. For the first time in a DECADE they are being forced to compete...and next year? Well, next year it starts getting REAL UGLY for them! Have fun watching. I am sure you will enjoy the show!
Click to expand...

I've recommended a Ryzen 1700 over a Intel 7700K all day long and twice on sundays.

An 8700K vs. a Ryzen flips the recommendation slightly towards Intel (IMO) or is more or less a draw. The extra clock speed on the Intel overcomes the extra core advantage on the AMD for most enthusiast mixed workloads, and Intel comes out slightly ahead.

Once you get to 8 core Intel at 4.8Ghz-5ghz, vs. 8 core AMD at 4.0 - 4.4ghz -- if the prices are anywhere in the same ballpark - it's gotta be Intel all the way as far as my personal recommendation would go.

More than 8 cores won't significantly benefit most people in mixed enthusiast PC/gaming use for quite a few years to come. If more than 8 cores benefits you, then you know who you are and you have some VERY specific use case workloads.



Finally, in regards to AMD, you still see occasional weird oddball stuff like the other day when my buddy and I wanted to try Carmageddon Max Damage and it wouldn't work on his AMD Ryzen 1700, and apparently it's a known issue, unqiue to Ryzen processors for whatever reason.

Or when big, well known, content creators open up and say they've experience weird issues over the course of time with Ryzen on well known product suites like Adobe Premiere. Not that these little idiosyncrasies can't be ironed out --- just that you know there might be some minor speed bumps going in, and are accepting of that.
 
Last edited:
Archaea said:
I've recommended a Ryzen 1700 over a Intel 7700K all day long and twice on sundays.

An 8700K vs. a Ryzen flips the recommendation slightly towards Intel (IMO) or is more or less a draw. The extra clock speed on the Intel overcomes the extra core advantage on the AMD for most enthusiast mixed workloads, and Intel comes out slightly ahead.

Once you get to 8 core Intel at 4.8Ghz-5ghz, vs. 8 core AMD at 4.0 - 4.4ghz -- if the prices are anywhere in the same ballpark - it's gotta be Intel all the way as far as my personal recommendation would go.

More than 8 cores won't significantly benefit most people in mixed enthusiast PC/gaming use for quite a few years to come. If more than 8 cores benefits you, then you know who you are and you have some VERY specific use case workloads.



Finally, in regards to AMD, you still see occasional weird oddball stuff like the other day when my buddy and I wanted to try Carmageddon Max Damage and it wouldn't work on his AMD Ryzen 1700, and apparently it's a known issue, unqiue to Ryzen processors for whatever reason.

Or when big, well known, content creators open up and say they've experience weird issues over the course of time with Ryzen on well known product suites like Adobe Premiere. Not that these little idiosyncrasies can't be ironed out --- just that you know there might be some minor speed bumps going in, and are accepting of that.
Click to expand...


That's why I waited for the 2nd Gen Ryzen and 2nd Gen X470 chipsets. Most of the bugs have been ironed out already, the ones that are left will get dealt with sooner rather than later, as sales are skyrocketing for Ryzen. This puts more pressure on even diehard Intel developers (like Adobe) to issue patches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top