Intel Launches New Desktop Processors

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Intel launched a flurry of new processors on their livestream today. But for many, the refreshed Coffee Lake lineup is probably the highlight. The Core i9 9900k is Intel's first high volume "5Ghz" CPU, with a 3.6ghz base clock, a 5.0Ghz 2 core boost and a 4.7Ghz all-core boost speed. It also features 8 cores with 16 threads, 16MB of L3 cache, and a $488 MSRP. The i7 9700k features 8 cores without hyperthreading, 12MB of cache, and a 4.9ghz single core turbo speed as well as a 3.6ghz base clock and a $374 MSRP. The i5 9600k has 6 cores without hyperthreading, 9MB of L3, a 3.7ghz base clock, a 4.6ghz turbo speed, and a more modest $262 MSRP. All these processors have a 95W TDP, come in a dodecahedron-shaped box, and are compatible with existing Z370 motherboards.


To realize the full potential of the new 9th Gen Intel Core processor, Intel is introducing the new Intel Z390 chipset. The Intel Z390 chipset includes high-speed integrated USB 3.1 Gen 2 and integrated Intel Wireless-AC with support for Gigabit Wi-Fi speed. The 9th Gen Intel Core processors are also compatible with all Intel 300 Series chipset motherboards for more consumer options. Preorders for the 9th Gen Intel Core processors and Intel Z390 chipset motherboards begin today from a variety of global vendors and retailers.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,791
Is the 9700k soldered too?

That I am not sure of. Maybe someone else here can tell us. I do know the 9900K will have solder. Which is very exciting. Delidding is not that hard to do but it helps we don't have to.
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,024
Wait, that says the 9900k is 3.6 base, 4.7 turbo and 2 core 5GHz.

Why is the "base" so low at 3.6? How hard is it already being pushed to go 4.7 all core turbo? Sounds suspiciously like the numbers we can all reach now with just about any 8700k.

Typically 4.7 is just about every 8700k, 4.8 requires a little thought on voltages and temps and going for 5+ requires substantial extra voltage, huge cooling and can almost never run AVX with all cores at that speed.

Admittedly, it's doing it with 2 more cores, which is great but how much headroom is left? I guess if almost all the chips will do 5GHz on all 8 cores with AVX on then it'll be a winner. Anything short of that and it'll be right on top of the 8700k on performance and not worth the extra price.

By extra price I mean the price the 8700k SHOULD be going for, $360 vs $488.

The 9700k is hard to get excited about at all. The price is good but the loss of HT makes it a lot less desirable flagship for both desktop responsiveness and games.
 

cyberguyz

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
710
The only thing I have against the 9900k & Z390 is the fact that it is dual channel and has only 24 pcie3 3.0 lanes. But at least it is faster than the AMD 2700X and does manage to give you 3x PCIe 3.0 M.2 x4 slots. Not sure what you would have to give up to use them all though. Cost wise it looks a bit pricey for a socket 1151 chip.

That I am not sure of. Maybe someone else here can tell us. I do know the 9900K will have solder. Which is very exciting. Delidding is not that hard to do but it helps we don't have to.

All of the 9th gen chips so far are soldered. I wouldn't attempt delidding them - there is no real benefit for those.
 

capnstabn

Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
534
Its basically the 7820x except the cores are a little faster? About the same price point too.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,025
Dumb question, if they are all rated for 95 watts, how is one faster than the other? Shouldnt the I5 be 65 watts and the 9900k be 95 watts?
 

Dahkoht

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
450
Wait, that says the 9900k is 3.6 base, 4.7 turbo and 2 core 5GHz.

Why is the "base" so low at 3.6? How hard is it already being pushed to go 4.7 all core turbo? Sounds suspiciously like the numbers we can all reach now with just about any 8700k.

Typically 4.7 is just about every 8700k, 4.8 requires a little thought on voltages and temps and going for 5+ requires substantial extra voltage, huge cooling and can almost never run AVX with all cores at that speed.

Admittedly, it's doing it with 2 more cores, which is great but how much headroom is left? I guess if almost all the chips will do 5GHz on all 8 cores with AVX on then it'll be a winner. Anything short of that and it'll be right on top of the 8700k on performance and not worth the extra price.

By extra price I mean the price the 8700k SHOULD be going for, $360 vs $488.

The 9700k is hard to get excited about at all. The price is good but the loss of HT makes it a lot less desirable flagship for both desktop responsiveness and games.


What ? Less desirable for games ? A 9700k is perfect for a pure gaming machine. There’s a lot of games that don’t take full advantage of 4 cores much less 8 , and I don’t foresee any games taking advantage of more than 8 in any time soon.

No HT means chance of pushing the OC even more and no odd stuttering for some games or other issues.
 

cyberguyz

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
710
Yawn. Expensive, no ECC support and neutered PCIE lanes. Great for an all out gaming box but AMD still wins overall IMO.
IINM Ryzen + X370/X470 has less PCIe 3.0 lanes. For your multi-use desktop I wouldn't really be fussy about ECC. I personally have never found a need for it. If you are building a workstation or server, then yeah, ECC is pretty much a must. But for a desktop socket 1151 box, not so much.
 

Gigantopithecus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,564
Between a $1,200 2080 Ti and $500 9900K, a top-end gaming PC this generation is a lot more expensive than the previous generation (i.e., $300 8700K/2700X + $700 1080 Ti). An increase of $700 to go from solid 1440p gaming to solid 4K gaming, not even including the cost of the monitor? Yikes!
 

Soulmetzger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
1,322
I find it strange that now the I7 doesn't have hyperthreading. I was thinking the 9600 was going to be 8/8, the 9700 8/16. Now you have to step up to the I9 for hyperhreading.
 

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
Well I did drop a bunch on my 6850kat launch. But does sound like an OC 7820.... So why would I want this?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Between a $1,200 2080 Ti and $500 9900K, a top-end gaming PC this generation is a lot more expensive than the previous generation (i.e., $300 8700K/2700X + $700 1080 Ti). An increase of $700 to go from solid 1440p gaming to solid 4K gaming, not even including the cost of the monitor? Yikes!

In fairness, at the same clockspeeds, the difference in the majority of games between a 6700K on up isn't going to be huge.

In many cases the difference is that the higher clockspeeds are not just attainable but also sustainable; but really, even the 8600k with six hardware threads is hard to beat. The extra cores/threads above that point are mostly for doing stuff other than gaming.

Further, when talking about the cost at the 'high end', one thing to remember is that we can now do things that we couldn't before!
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
I find it strange that now the I7 doesn't have hyperthreading. I was thinking the 9600 was going to be 8/8, the 9700 8/16. Now you have to step up to the I9 for hyperhreading.

Something to keep in mind is that hyperthreading became a bigger deal for the quad-core CPUs; in CPU-intensive workloads it helped to smooth things out. Now that we're seeing six and eight cores it's less useful for many/most consumer applications. Also, the i9 9900k potentially gets you more clockspeed too. That higher bin has always remained lucrative.
 

Soulmetzger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
1,322
Something to keep in mind is that hyperthreading became a bigger deal for the quad-core CPUs; in CPU-intensive workloads it helped to smooth things out. Now that we're seeing six and eight cores it's less useful for many/most consumer applications. Also, the i9 9900k potentially gets you more clockspeed too. That higher bin has always remained lucrative.

I see where you're coming from but at a comparing price vs performance to the 8 series I would lean towards an 8700K vs 9700K since I think the hyperthreading will net you greater performance at the same price point. At this moment it's real vs paper but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I feel we have something similar to the boat nvidia is in with people not buying the new but the highest performer from last gen. Granted the price difference is alot more in the nvidia case.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,821
Yawn. Expensive, no ECC support and neutered PCIE lanes. Great for an all out gaming box but AMD still wins overall IMO.

I really hate how Intel keeps advertising an extra 24 or more lanes as running off the chip set. The DMI 3.0 connection has about the same bandwidth as 4 PCIE lanes. Intel could say there's 24 lanes or "eleventy bajillion" extra lanes, but it doesn't matter because DMI caps it at 4.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Dumb question, if they are all rated for 95 watts, how is one faster than the other? Shouldnt the I5 be 65 watts and the 9900k be 95 watts?

It's been this way for years between the i3, i5, and i7. Same TDP even though the former are a lot less powerful.

They are built on the same imaging pattern. If you crack open an i5, you'll discover it's an i9 on the inside, but has internal fuses blown on the extra cores/threads so that they are disabled. This way they don't have to junk a semi-defective i9. It keeps cost down.

However the likelihood if an i5 reaching i9 temps is small to none.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,821
In fairness, at the same clockspeeds, the difference in the majority of games between a 6700K on up isn't going to be huge.

In many cases the difference is that the higher clockspeeds are not just attainable but also sustainable; but really, even the 8600k with six hardware threads is hard to beat. The extra cores/threads above that point are mostly for doing stuff other than gaming.

Further, when talking about the cost at the 'high end', one thing to remember is that we can now do things that we couldn't before!

At the same 5.0GHz clock speed there won't be much difference in games between the newest chips and a Sandy Bridge 2700K (that still somehow hasn't degraded from being moderately overclocked for so many years).
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
I see where you're coming from but at a comparing price vs performance to the 8 series I would lean towards an 8700K vs 9700K since I think the hyperthreading will net you greater performance at the same price point. At this moment it's real vs paper but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I feel we have something similar to the boat nvidia is in with people not buying the new but the highest performer from last gen. Granted the price difference is alot more in the nvidia case.

I think that the 9700k would be slower in thread-bound loads, but it's always a question for the user as to what matters more.

My bet is that having eight physical cores is going to be a more performant solution for most consumer and many workstation workloads, simply because you have enough threads to handle everything while having eight real cores with eight FPUs etc.
 

RiPpLeeFFecT

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
369
At the same 5.0GHz clock speed there won't be much difference in games between the newest chips and a Sandy Bridge 2700K (that still somehow hasn't degraded from being moderately overclocked for so many years).
Sandy Bridge @ 4.5 to 4.8 here.

I'll be upgrading this winter to the 9900k. Its very much time
 

Formula.350

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,102
AlphaAtlas (and everyone else quoting him)

Small error in your post, resulting in a bigger impact on opinion (at least, for me).

You state the 9900K has 2-core 5GHz Turbo speed, but it's actually only One core that will boost that high according to Intel's PR that you linked to...
"...with up to 8 cores and 16 threads, up to 5.0 GHz single-core turbo frequency, and 16 MB Intel Smart Cache."
"...Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 delivering up to 5.0 GHz single-core frequency"
upload_2018-10-8_14-42-28.png

Also, just to head-off anyone, the $488 price there is the "1000 Units Bulk Order" pricing. At least that's how I interpreted it as meaning.


But yea, what happened to the promised 5GHz-on-all-cores chip they demoed to the world just a few months ago? (Computex IIRC)
We've gone from getting... well I don't even remember what the demo machine had, but I thought it was a 16C/32T chip at 5GHz on all cores, down to an 8C/16T chip with a paltry 5GHz on a single core.

5GHz (5.0GHz) was mentioned 4 times on that page, all dealing with the 9900K. I think we all knew there was no chance of a chip like they were showing off months back, but I still say shame on them for not even delivering a part capable of 5GHz on even 4 core. I'm interested in [H] seeing if they can reproduce Intel's claims of:
"gamers can enjoy their favorite games with up to 10 percent more FPS across popular gaming titles compared
with the previous generation, as well as up to 37 percent more FPS compared to a 3-year-old PC."

10%: As measured by World of Tanks enCore Demo App, Hitman 2 FPS and Conqueror’s Blade FPS workloads
comparing 9th Gen Intel® Core™ i9-9900K Processor vs. 8th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-8700K Processor

37%: As measured by World of Tanks enCore Demo App, Hitman 2 FPS and Conqueror’s Blade FPS workloads
comparing 9th Gen Intel® Core™ i9-9900K Processor vs. 6th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor
I mean I'm not really interested, I just found it funny since Hitman 2 is probably the only one people care much about. (I'd never heard of Conqueror’s Blade, which is apparently an unreleased $15 MMO, but in fairness it looks pretty.)
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,821
It should have been time years ago, but Intel's been resting on its laurels while AMD spent so long struggling with Bulldozer.

Formula: you should be able to overclock the 9900 to run all cores at 5 fairly easily.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
I noticed that too- Intel does not typically quote two-core boost speeds.

However, with respect to the 5.0GHz issue, I have read that as regarding the overclock potential given that it is a K part.

If it were a non-K part, I think it'd be fair to call foul.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
but Intel's been resting on its laurels

I can't say that I would accuse them of 'resting', when the 10nm delays cost the CEO his job ;).

[difference of opinion and/or perspective of course, not fact- fact we can agree on here, Intel has spent far too much time on 14nm and it's showing]
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,821
Except that we should have had access to mainstream 8 core chips with the release of Broadwell. After all, everything is still at 14nm so it's not like more space was freed up on the same size die.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
Intel launched a flurry of new processors on their livestream today. But for many, the refreshed Coffee Lake lineup is probably the highlight. The Core i9 9900k is Intel's first high volume "5Ghz" CPU, with a 3.6ghz base clock, a 5.0Ghz 2 core boost and a 4.7Ghz all-core boost speed. It also features 8 cores with 16 threads, 16MB of L3 cache, and a $488 MSRP. The i7 9700k features 8 cores without hyperthreading, 12MB of cache, and a 4.9ghz single core turbo speed as well as a 3.6ghz base clock and a $374 MSRP. The i5 9600k has 6 cores without hyperthreading, 9MB of L3, a 3.7ghz base clock, a 4.6ghz turbo speed, and a more modest $262 MSRP. All these processors have a 95W TDP, come in a dodecahedron-shaped box, and are compatible with existing Z370 motherboards.


To realize the full potential of the new 9th Gen Intel Core processor, Intel is introducing the new Intel Z390 chipset. The Intel Z390 chipset includes high-speed integrated USB 3.1 Gen 2 and integrated Intel Wireless-AC with support for Gigabit Wi-Fi speed. The 9th Gen Intel Core processors are also compatible with all Intel 300 Series chipset motherboards for more consumer options. Preorders for the 9th Gen Intel Core processors and Intel Z390 chipset motherboards begin today from a variety of global vendors and retailers.

And Zero mention of Meltdown or Specter. Sigh....
 

LostMF1

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
48
The only thing I have against the 9900k & Z390 is the fact that it is dual channel and has only 24 pcie3 3.0 lanes. But at least it is faster than the AMD 2700X and does manage to give you 3x PCIe 3.0 M.2 x4 slots. Not sure what you would have to give up to use them all though. Cost wise it looks a bit pricey for a socket 1151 chip.



All of the 9th gen chips so far are soldered. I wouldn't attempt delidding them - there is no real benefit for those.
only 16 PCIe lanes from what i'm seeing.
https://ark.intel.com/products/186605/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-Processor-16M-Cache-up-to-5-00-GHz-
 

hmz

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
3,218
Booo.. What is this 14nm from 2014? Intel needs to get with the times..
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
I thought the i9 series was supposed to bet the extreme / enthusiast series of CPUs and I7 was the high end mainstream? WTF is this ? Single core boost and base clock of 3.6gHz, my i7 5830k is base clock on 3.2gHz.....:eek::confused: its 4 genereations old now.....
I'm confused of the strategy here.....besides making money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmz
like this

ssnyder28

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
3,701
This cpu is being launched to match the 2700x. Not sure how it does though since it costs twice as much. Gj Intel!
 

Formula.350

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,102
Formula: you should be able to overclock the 9900 to run all cores at 5 fairly easily.
However, with respect to the 5.0GHz issue, I have read that as regarding the overclock potential given that it is a K part.

If it were a non-K part, I think it'd be fair to call foul.
I went and checked what the Computex machine had, it was a 28C chip. So alright, that's not at all a consumer-space part, I'll admit but... and I quote Gregory Bryant in the Keynote (@58m58s):
"So, you guys want to see us productize this thing? *minimal applause* Yea? Alright, I'll tell you what. We're going to take that product to market in Q4 this year, you'll be able to
get it, so stay tuned for that. I think we're really really excited to drive the best kind of boundary again for these kind of highly intensive workloads that we had on stage today."

*cough... CineBench was all that was shown*

In fairness, we're still in Q4 for another 2-3/4 months, but ehh... This seems like the point in time that he was implying where it'd be released; however, if people think that they may have another launch for a specialty product, I'll accept that it's still possible. I know they did it with the 8086K, but I figured it wasn't something they'd normally do, just that in this case it was a special anniversary and merited it.

We all know my distaste for Intel on the whole, so I know I'm being overly critical here. I just feel like they went through the effort to demo something like that, and then claim it'll be available, that I'm just a bit let down that there isn't anything even close to that launched today; even if it wasn't actually expected to be possible.

My point is, basically, that they said they'd bring that to market. It's not here. I don't recall them even mentioning in that video the word "overclocked". He just said it was "running at 5GHz across all cores" (paraphrased). Which is the important part, as it doesn't really matter if you can overclock to 5GHz since that sounds like it has been a capability since the 7th Gen (I think, right?). This was supposed to be there already.

I dunno, I'll just be quiet lol :sorry:
 
Top