Intel's 9th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (Refresh)

psyclist said:
Jeezus, yeah id be going for the 2700X and using that extra money for a upgraded GPU, for $200-250 more in the budget for a GPU, which one do you think games better? I know where id place my bets...

If you were to go with a 2700 instead, its a full $300 price difference lol. Huge jump in GPU performance at that level of pricing disparity, allowing you to go from a 580 to Vega 64 or 1080 to 1080ti

If pricing were closer I can see the CPU performance uplift might make sense, but from what it looks like currently, the 9900k is a definite pass.
Click to expand...

At 1080p you probably would see a difference, but anything above that gets pretty even. The Intel is still going to have a slight fps advantage, but unless you're going for 144hz it won't be noticeable. You're probably right in the fact that the $300ish going toward a better gpu would probably end up being the way to go. That puts you in a whole new tier of cards.
 
Nightfire said:
$150 for 2 more cores; $8 for 2 more cores and 4 less threads... a year later.

Compare this to the performance imcrease and price drop of the 1700x to 2700x at launch.
Click to expand...
You get four less threads that aren’t HT threads. The CPU threads are much more useful especially if you are a gamer. The i5 being 6 cores is a bigger boon to the low-mid range workstation segment then the old i7 4core8thread parts.

The really interesting part is the lower latencies with cache.
 
Nightfire said:
$150 for 2 more cores; $8 for 2 more cores and 4 less threads... a year later.

Compare this to the performance imcrease and price drop of the 1700x to 2700x at launch.
Click to expand...
That's great and all but the 2700x is competing with the i7-8700k, which at the time the 2700x launched was going for $330-350. It couldn't exactly come in at a higher price given its performance. People would have laughed if it launched at $400 like the 1700x.
 
These things are going to run as hot as fuck at 5ghz. They basically haven't progressed at all but just bumped up the clockspeeds and threw on more cores.
 
Trimlock said:
You get four less threads that aren’t HT threads. The CPU threads are much more useful especially if you are a gamer. The i5 being 6 cores is a bigger boon to the low-mid range workstation segment then the old i7 4core8thread parts.

The really interesting part is the lower latencies with cache.
Click to expand...

Do we know this for sure? 4/8 is definately better than 4/4 for gaming as you shows, and 6/6 is usually slightly better than 4/8. I am not so sure that 8/8 will be better than 6/12 in any gaming scenario.

There are a few non gaming programs that make better use of the cores.
 
obs said:
That's great and all but the 2700x is competing with the i7-8700k, which at the time the 2700x launched was going for $330-350. It couldn't exactly come in at a higher price given its performance. People would have laughed if it launched at $400 like the 1700x.
Click to expand...

So it seems that we always have to wait on AMD to move the price/performance ratio forward.

Christ, just look at the Basin Falls refresh prices if you still have any doubts.
 
Nightfire said:
Do we know this for sure? 4/8 is definately better than 4/4 for gaming as you shows, and 6/6 is usually slightly better than 4/8. I am not so sure that 8/8 will be better than 6/12 in any gaming scenario.

There are a few non gaming programs that make better use of the cores.
Click to expand...
Well, at least they have solder this time.
 
pavel said:
Well, at least they have solder this time.
Click to expand...

I love how they tried to sell it in the live stream, promoting it as some sort of valued added new thing...Idiots took it away and finally realized they screwed up, so they added it back...we all know what you did, own it and be done with it, dont brag about adding it in for gamers.
 
I will probably skip the 9900K sadly. $500 isn't going to improve my 5GHz delidded 8086K experience. Maybe I'll swap things around in the Spring if I get the itch to do something on the PC.
 
When are the reviewers allowed to release benchmarks for the 9900k?
 
Thinking about either this or a Ryzen 3rd generation product just because I have the itch. So hard not to spend money even if the difference will be imperceptible at 1080p. =/
 
Still have to wait for the parts to actually come in for some of them, but pre-ordered the 9900K, ordered 32 GB of RAM, and went with the ASUS Hero Z390 MB. (Also picked up a 1TB 960 EVO M.2) Depending on availability or anything new coming out, i'll either pick up a 2080Ti a few months down the road or wait and see if anything is in the pipeline.
 
Nightfire said:
So it seems that we always have to wait on AMD to move the price/performance ratio forward.

Christ, just look at the Basin Falls refresh prices if you still have any doubts.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, AMD having an excellent high end product is certainly driving prices down. When there isn't a competitor you get NVIDIA pricing. But the 8700k was already priced at $330-$350 when the 2700x launched at $330.
 
The hardcore OC'er in me wants this, since I have dreamed of a 8c+ cpu @ 5.2+ Ghz all core OC every since I got my 3770K @ launch week stable @ 5.2Ghz all core (but settled @ 5Ghz for less Vcore since I planned to keep it for at least a few years)....My issue with this is the cost...The $500 for the top end CPU is kind of high. I know many will argue but "5Ghz+" but the fact is Intel has had this ability for a while, and has just sat on it in order to reap massive profits @ the 4c/8t level.

I could swallow the 500 for the chip, since I can reuse my 16GB 3200 kit, but the sticking point is the price of high end boards...I would push this chip to 5.5Ghz+ all core if the silicon allows it, and it would be running a 100% load 24/7...That kind of setup means I want a very robust board with plenty of heavy duty power phases since we are talking about 275w+ depending on the Vcore needed...So now we are looking at $350~500 for a board at this level (I used the excellent high end MSI Z77 MPower for my last Intel build) in order to have the peace of mind I am not going to burn a board.

That is extremely hard to swallow since I was able to get a high end X470 board that easily took my 2700 to 4.3Ghz all core 24/7, and had all the features you could ask for (dual M.2 NVME support, 3 PCI-E 16x slots since I run triple VEGAs, tons of USB 3.1/.2 with type C etc etc) and direct drop in Zen 2 support in 4~5 months without buying another $300~500 board like Intel requires.

I give them a lot of credit for finally allowing the chips to run on the current 370 boards, but that is thanks SOLELY to AMD's performance and guarantee of 3 full CPU tiers. I also believe there will be no upgrade path for Z370/390 boards, but that may be a moot point since 8c SKUs at these speeds are going to last a LONG time...

So to go from a very fast 4.3Ghz 8c/16t cpu with no Meltdown issues to a 5+Ghz 8c/16t cpu that has quite the list of expolits with little to no HW fixes possibe (which means CPU performance hits no matter what the IDF claims) we are spending $1000+...For that price we could go with X399 and a 12c/24t Ryzen setup (albiet with only dual channel ram for now) and the possibility to go to a 32c or 48c+ once Zen2 drops or even spend the crazy 1K needed (plus a bit more) to get a 2080ti..

It is a very interesting time for CPUs! This reminds me of the launch of the AMD k7 Athalons and then the infamous K8 introduction and the ensuring battles...IT is a great time to be a CPU fan/OC'er, that's for sure! Goodluck to all you 370 guys that take the plunge, I cannot wait to see your 24/7 OCs, and then cannot wait to see what I can answer with when Zen 2 launches this winter/early spring!!!
 
Nightfire said:
So it seems that we always have to wait on AMD to move the price/performance ratio forward.

Christ, just look at the Basin Falls refresh prices if you still have any doubts.
Click to expand...

If AMD takes the performance crown they aren't going to do you any favors. I don't get how people think AMD is some kind of hero for low pricing. They are doing it because they have to and not because they want to.

I expect that Ryzen 2 will have nice high (or = Intel) prices if it catches up and passes Intel in single thread performance. They'd be stupid not to.

With that said, I'd gladly pay their higher prices for a superior chip. My X370 board should accept it nicely.

Edit: I just realized this is in the Intel subforum and all this talk about AMD is OT in a CFL-9xxxK thread. How about we get back on-topic?
 
i just did the amazon pre order for the 9900k, here comes 3 weeks of wait time. Just hoping I didnt over pay to much compared to my local microcenter... i called microcenter and they couldnt tell me when they will have them or their pricing.. so i said fuck it, just ordered it
 
newls1 said:
i just did the amazon pre order for the 9900k, here comes 3 weeks of wait time. Just hoping I didnt over pay to much compared to my local microcenter... i called microcenter and they couldnt tell me when they will have them or their pricing.. so i said fuck it, just ordered it
Click to expand...

Yeah you can always cancel if you see it at microcenter so it's probably a good idea.
 
Montu said:
If AMD takes the performance crown they aren't going to do you any favors. I don't get how people think AMD is some kind of hero for low pricing. They are doing it because they have to and not because they want to.

I expect that Ryzen 2 will have nice high (or = Intel) prices if it catches up and passes Intel in single thread performance. They'd be stupid not to.

With that said, I'd gladly pay their higher prices for a superior chip. My X370 board should accept it nicely.

Edit: I just realized this is in the Intel subforum and all this talk about AMD is OT in a CFL-9xxxK thread. How about we get back on-topic?
Click to expand...

AMD didn't have to launch some of their r7 1700 parts at i7 prices when i7s were still quad core.

AMD didnt have to launch a 16 core at $1k and now $900.

AMD didnt have to drop the price of R5s well below $200 while still being competitive with a cheap B-350.

Intel didnt have to release a celeron at $80 or their new x299 lineup at these prices. But they did because, you know, superior.
 
If I didn't already have a 2700X, I'd be all in for this 9900k. Either that, or a TR 2950X. The 9900k going to be an absolute beast. Intel finally went all in. About damned time.

I imagine the 9700k will have some curious scenarios where 8 physical cores beats out the 6c/12t of the 8700k and 8086k, but scenarios where the 9700k loses too. That'll be interesting. Noting that Zen with SMT is close-ish to Skylake/Kaby/CFL without SMT, the 9700k vs 2700X battle will also be fun.
 
Newegg has it for $579? Seriously...
Montu said:
If AMD takes the performance crown they aren't going to do you any favors. I don't get how people think AMD is some kind of hero for low pricing. They are doing it because they have to and not because they want to.
Click to expand...
Finally someone makes such comment. I find it so ridiculous how some people feel AMD is the benevolent Angelical company and Intel the tyrant evil company. Of course they had to push with lower prices and bang for buck because they had to catch up with the market share Intel had. Perrformance is not just as fast so what did you expect, for them to price similar to Intel and magically be able to compete? They had to be aggressive. Common sense.
Now of course I am happy we have competition so prices are more acceptable so hope they continue to fight this war so we all win.
 
Last edited:
When i pre-ordered yesterday it was at $529 on the B+H Photo website. (Now it's listed at $579 also) Seems they tacked on an extra $50 for those who didn't order early?
 
kamxam said:
When i pre-ordered yesterday it was at $529 on the B+H Photo website. (Now it's listed at $579 also) Seems they tacked on an extra $50 for those who didn't order early?
Click to expand...
They changed yesterday shortly after the $529 price. I buy a LOT from B&H but they lost me as a customer for this kind of greed. Adorama for me from now on.
 
newls1 said:
i just did the amazon pre order for the 9900k, here comes 3 weeks of wait time. Just hoping I didnt over pay to much compared to my local microcenter... i called microcenter and they couldnt tell me when they will have them or their pricing.. so i said fuck it, just ordered it
Click to expand...
Given a plentiful supply chain MC will have them cheaper than anywhere else I'm thinking. Whether that's at start or not is hard to say.
 
DID contact B+H and was told I get it at the original $529 instead of the new price. Already figured I would, but just wanted to be safe. (And more for peace of mind...lol)
 
I agree that in most benchmarks the 9700k will be equal or faster than the 8700k. Livestreaming games might be an exception and important to some. It will be an interesting comparison.
 
I went with the Z390 since my current MB is over 4 years old. Be rather safe than sorry. As long as it works either way, you shouldn't have to worry i'd think.
 
Alright, my Maximus Hero X is all BIOS updated and ready. It also updated the intel ME to 11.8.55.3510.

Good to go, bring on the i9-9900K.

Edit: I've never paid much attention to the Intel ME stuff, so I don't know what it was before. The BIOS update was lengthier than usual and went thru the ME update screen. That's why I checked the revision after.
 
I'm a proponent of using voltages higher than 1.4 as needed but even I don't think there is ANY way that >1.5V is safe for long term usage, haha. 5.2ghz with no avx offset is pretty good if that's stable in AIDA64 though.
 
1.4v is my cutoff - hoping my 9900K will live with that for 5.0/5.0...
 
i dont even dare to go over 1.3 for long. i'd like to stay under 1.3 at all time
 
Brahmzy said:
I’ve managed to have multiple 8700Ks and 8086Ks 5.0/5.0 stable @ 1.36v on AIO water.
Click to expand...

I have not tried to see how low I can get 5ghz.. but I run 5.2ghz at 1.45v.. 5.3ghz is somewhat stable but I need close to 1.5v and I didint feel like blowing the cpu.

But if people run them at 1.5v, I might try again but really is that last 100mhz that important?
 
Kenjiwing said:
what is the recommended mobo for a 9900k? do we want a flashed 370 or a 390?
Click to expand...

If money is not a concern I would say go with the 390. No flashing needed plus it has features the 370 doesn't have.
 
eclypse said:
But if people run them at 1.5v, I might try again but really is that last 100mhz that important?
Click to expand...

You can run 1.5V, but every single report of degradation I've ever seen involves voltages of 1.5V or higher. Generally speaking it takes 12+ months to happen but I remember one Sky Lake report of instability at 1.5V in ~6 months. Silicon Lottery went up to 1.437V on Coffee Lake(5.3ghz 8700K) and I consider their voltage recommendations to be the gold standard, after all they are selling thousands of CPUs, offer a 1 year warranty, and have been doing it for several years now. If their voltage recs caused degradation, they would know.

No guarantees, but evidence indicates that any voltage under 1.45 is very safe for long term(3+ years) usage, beyond that you start getting into "maybe issues?" and past 1.5V you will probably see issues within 3 years, maybe even sooner.

Of course, degradation isn't the end of the world anyway, you can just run the CPU at stock clocks or a much more conservative overclock even after it happens. But it is difficult to find credible, specific information to base your risk decisions on and the above is the best information I've been able to find in the past 2 years.
 
Last edited:
Brahmzy said:
You’re not going to get much stable overclock under 1.3v...
Click to expand...

i know man, sux which is why im willing to buy the best of the best chip. for 1.3v hoping a 5ghz or 5.1ghz. back then sandy 6c had some real nice chips could do 5ghz at 1.31v those are hella rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top