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

I have a few questions if you all don't mind since I need to do an upgrade... just how far I don't know. My current motherboard has been having fits for months (half my HD's won't load when I boot, so I have to reboot several times, and 4 USB ports have permanently failed). I really hate Asus as I didn't even OC this board. And me previous Asus board was also troublesome after just a year.

1. Are the spectre and meltdown fixes not baked in?
2. Someone mentioned they had a 4000k series processor and that it was unaffected by those issues. Is that true? I have a 4790k right now.
3. Do you think the 9700k will have decently upgraded performance vs. the 4790k? My current bottleneck is cpu-based gaming performance.
4. Power draw and heat are a concern. I'm not seeing any good data yet, but would the power draw and heat output of a 4790k, 8700k, and 9700k all be similar in turbo mode?
5. Can you get a good overclocking motherboard for less than $300?

And thanks :)
 
jpinard said:
I have a few questions if you all don't mind since I need to do an upgrade... just how far I don't know. My current motherboard has been having fits for months (half my HD's won't load when I boot, so I have to reboot several times, and 4 USB ports have permanently failed). I really hate Asus as I didn't even OC this board. And me previous Asus board was also troublesome after just a year.

1. Are the spectre and meltdown fixes not baked in?
2. Someone mentioned they had a 4000k series processor and that it was unaffected by those issues. Is that true? I have a 4790k right now.
3. Do you think the 9700k will have decently upgraded performance vs. the 4790k? My current bottleneck is cpu-based gaming performance.
4. Power draw and heat are a concern. I'm not seeing any good data yet, but would the power draw and heat output of a 4790k, 8700k, and 9700k all be similar in turbo mode?
5. Can you get a good overclocking motherboard for less than $300?

And thanks :)
Click to expand...

1. Since 9th gen is just CFL-Refresh and CFL didn't have them, no.
2. Spectre/Meltdown do affect the 4000 series CPUs.
3. Upgraded performance, yes due to higher clock speeds and a little IPC improvement. If your apps use 4 or less threads, you won't notice much. If the apps heavily load more than 4 threads, you will see some better scaling.
4. Power draw and heat... All the CPUs are rated for almost the same TDP. I'm guessing they all won't be far off enough to offset the cost of buying a totally new platform.
5. Sure you can. Most of the midrange boards already overclock very well (it's up to you if you want that last 100mhz offered by the top end boards). It's just that the CPUs themselves are all nearing the limit anyway. 5.1-5.2ghz for a CPU that single core turbos to 5k isn't really that much of a feat anymore.
 
Part of me wants to be done with Intel just for nostalgia sake and as a bit of a statement about the whole misleading benchmarks. But my X99 system has cold/warm boot issues and I'm going to rebuild soon. Problem is I have 64GB of DDR4 2400 in my rig now and I can just migrate that to a i9 9900k and not have to worry about compatibility and lost performance of slower RAM in a Ryzen based system.

I feel like I lose either way, I'd like to go the X399 threadripper route but buying 64GB of ram for that system puts it way out of my price range, even if I try to flip the current ram in the EE. Most likely 9900k here I come.
 
mda said:
1. Since 9th gen is just CFL-Refresh and CFL didn't have them, no.
2. Spectre/Meltdown do affect the 4000 series CPUs.
3. Upgraded performance, yes due to higher clock speeds and a little IPC improvement. If your apps use 4 or less threads, you won't notice much. If the apps heavily load more than 4 threads, you will see some better scaling.
4. Power draw and heat... All the CPUs are rated for almost the same TDP. I'm guessing they all won't be far off enough to offset the cost of buying a totally new platform.
5. Sure you can. Most of the midrange boards already overclock very well (it's up to you if you want that last 100mhz offered by the top end boards). It's just that the CPUs themselves are all nearing the limit anyway. 5.1-5.2ghz for a CPU that single core turbos to 5k isn't really that much of a feat anymore.
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the answers. The games that Inplay that are having cpu bottlenecks are primary single dual core threaded, with just a smattering of extra cores for some. Disappointing to see the answers are what I feared.
 
mda said:
4. Power draw and heat... All the CPUs are rated for almost the same TDP. I'm guessing they all won't be far off enough to offset the cost of buying a totally new platform.
Click to expand...

At stock that's true, but overclocked definitely not true. The power and temp shown in the Gigabyte guide is absolutely insane. Under water at ~1.29V they are hitting 245W with peak temps in the upper 90s! For reference, an 8700K @ 5ghz and 1.3V generally does not exceed 200W in prime95 small ffts. The heat output of the 9900K is at least 25% higher than 8700K, and should be about 33% higher purely based on core count.
 
jpinard said:
Thanks for all the answers. The games that Inplay that are having cpu bottlenecks are primary single dual core threaded, with just a smattering of extra cores for some. Disappointing to see the answers are what I feared.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm also still on a 4770K mildly OCed to 4.2ghz. After 5 years, the itch is growing strong, but I don't have money still burning a hole in my pocket, and recent games really don't appeal much to me just yet...
 
Sancus said:
At stock that's true, but overclocked definitely not true. The power and temp shown in the Gigabyte guide is absolutely insane. Under water at ~1.29V they are hitting 245W with peak temps in the upper 90s! For reference, an 8700K @ 5ghz and 1.3V generally does not exceed 200W in prime95 small ffts. The heat output of the 9900K is at least 25% higher than 8700K, and should be about 33% higher purely based on core count.
Click to expand...

Glad I decided to go with 2 radiators instead of one... rofl
 
Sancus said:
At stock that's true, but overclocked definitely not true. The power and temp shown in the Gigabyte guide is absolutely insane. Under water at ~1.29V they are hitting 245W with peak temps in the upper 90s! For reference, an 8700K @ 5ghz and 1.3V generally does not exceed 200W in prime95 small ffts. The heat output of the 9900K is at least 25% higher than 8700K, and should be about 33% higher purely based on core count.
Click to expand...
Why is this surprising? DId people think 2 extra cores running at the same 5GHz were going to not require any more power or produce anymore heat?
 
From the Intel hate i'd figure most people think they were from Hell and would need some major cooling for their CPU's...:rage:
 
TahoeDust said:
Why is this surprising? DId people think 2 extra cores running at the same 5GHz were going to not require any more power or produce anymore heat?
Click to expand...

It's not surprising to me but it seems to be to some. Some people think TDP and overclocked heat generation have anything to do with eachother when they don't, and some think Intel can do magic power optimizations or that solder somehow decreases heat output. Like I said, the baseline expectation of an 8 core on the same process and architecture would be 33% increased heat generation at a minimum... it seems like it might be a bit less so Intel may have done magic! But it's not going to defeat the laws of physics.
 
TahoeDust said:
Why is this surprising? DId people think 2 extra cores running at the same 5GHz were going to not require any more power or produce anymore heat?
Click to expand...

Sancus said:
It's not surprising to me but it seems to be to some. Some people think TDP and overclocked heat generation have anything to do with eachother when they don't, and some think Intel can do magic power optimizations or that solder somehow decreases heat output. Like I said, the baseline expectation of an 8 core on the same process and architecture would be 33% increased heat generation at a minimum... it seems like it might be a bit less so Intel may have done magic! But it's not going to defeat the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

i think what people are hoping is that the new cpu will be better binned than the 8700k/8086k counter part.

if they can get +1 binn, they be able to run same frequency on 9900k as it is now on their 6 cores while getting 2 more cores only for like 10% more power rather than the 33% more power.
 
oleNBR said:
i think what people are hoping is that the new cpu will be better binned than the 8700k/8086k counter part.

if they can get +1 binn, they be able to run same frequency on 9900k as it is now on their 6 cores while getting 2 more cores only for like 10% more power rather than the 33% more power
Click to expand...

Yep, this.
 
Sancus said:
It's not surprising to me but it seems to be to some. Some people think TDP and overclocked heat generation have anything to do with eachother when they don't, and some think Intel can do magic power optimizations or that solder somehow decreases heat output. Like I said, the baseline expectation of an 8 core on the same process and architecture would be 33% increased heat generation at a minimum... it seems like it might be a bit less so Intel may have done magic! But it's not going to defeat the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Silly question maybe, but would the increased die size due to the extra cores not facilitate the cooling as there is more surface area to dissipate the heat, not that the cores are that big iirc the biggest thing on those dies is the iGPU.
 
mda said:
1. Since 9th gen is just CFL-Refresh and CFL didn't have them, no.
2. Spectre/Meltdown do affect the 4000 series CPUs.
3. Upgraded performance, yes due to higher clock speeds and a little IPC improvement. If your apps use 4 or less threads, you won't notice much. If the apps heavily load more than 4 threads, you will see some better scaling.
4. Power draw and heat... All the CPUs are rated for almost the same TDP. I'm guessing they all won't be far off enough to offset the cost of buying a totally new platform.
5. Sure you can. Most of the midrange boards already overclock very well (it's up to you if you want that last 100mhz offered by the top end boards). It's just that the CPUs themselves are all nearing the limit anyway. 5.1-5.2ghz for a CPU that single core turbos to 5k isn't really that much of a feat anymore.
Click to expand...

MDA, #1 is incorrect. There is hardware level fixes in the 9900/9700k cpus for a few versions of the security flaws. Even though the 9 gen cpus are CFL refreshes, they are built using a new refined process with included fixes. let me find the link that i read a few days ago, stand by.....

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...pus_contain_spectre_meltdown_hardware_fixes/1
 
No assumptions about performance can be made at this point regarding the”fixes”. There is nothing to compare to..
 
Denpepe said:
Silly question maybe, but would the increased die size due to the extra cores not facilitate the cooling as there is more surface area to dissipate the heat, not that the cores are that big iirc the biggest thing on those dies is the iGPU.
Click to expand...

Sure but that doesn't affect the heat generated. Your cooler still needs to be able to dissipate 250W. It's also not much larger than the 8700K. I haven't seen a 100% confirmed source, but Anandtech estimated it to be ~17% bigger than the 8700K at ~177 mm^2, which is still pretty darn small. Sky Lake-X is much larger at, for example, 322 mm^2 for the 10-core... couldn't find a number for the 8-core.
 
brentsg said:
So is anyone shipping these yet?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. I figured Amazon would be a safe bet so I preordered from them. Some B&M stores are saying "when the truck arrives today" but the sources are sketchy at best.
 
Derbauer's video is very good.

"Did we play ourselves because we asked for [solder] and now the die is thicker? I'm really not sure."

Turns out the 9900K is a lot thicker than the 8700K and that might be because it needs to be sturdier to support the size and soldering process, or maybe not, who knows? Regardless, solder turns out not to be the magic make-everything-better solution, and that the CPU might have been much better for overclocks if it used paste and you could simply delid and apply LM without having to worry about *lapping* lmao.
KJWTGhK.png
 
Sancus said:
Derbauer's video is very good.

"Did we play ourselves because we asked for [solder] and now the die is thicker? I'm really not sure."

Turns out the 9900K is a lot thicker than the 8700K and that might be because it needs to be sturdier to support the size and soldering process, or maybe not, who knows? Regardless, solder turns out not to be the magic make-everything-better solution, and that the CPU might have been much better for overclocks if it used paste and you could simply delid and apply LM without having to worry about *lapping* lmao.
View attachment 113278
Click to expand...


god damn
 
I wish we had some reasoning from Intel- doesn't make sense to limit top performance right now, at least it doesn't to me. I'd really like to know if there's any danger beyond the obvious when considering lapping the die and then swapping in liquid metal.
 
For the 9900k reviews - 5.14, 5.1, 5.1, and 5.0 ghz were the overclocks I saw.

The 9700k does alot better from what I saw. 5.3 ghz from the one review I saw.
 
Nightfire said:
For the 9900k reviews - 5.14, 5.1, 5.1, and 5.0 ghz were the overclocks I saw.

The 9700k does alot better from what I saw. 5.3 ghz from the one review I saw.
Click to expand...

those extra 8 threads brings a lot of heat. on a 4c8t sandy bridge cpu, if i turn off HT and become 4c/4t, underload it drops between 8-10 degrees so this kinda make sense. higher temp = higher power consumption, which is stupid cause physics
 
Anyone find reviews that overclocked the 9600k yet?

The 9600k or the 8600k are going to be closer to my price point (I've got a z370 motherboard already) and I'm curious about the 9th gen having solder and dead silicon contact to IHS but also thicker silicon, apparently.

I found this one, hitting 5.2 ghz at 1.32 (CPUz Vcore) and temps below 70 C with a Corsair H110 and wPrime, Cinebench, and TimeSpy as their loads/stability tests. It's a pretty weak overclock attempt and doesn't compare to a 8600k that's delidded, but it's what's out there.

edit: There's also the post earlier and der8auer's video goes into 9600k temps and delidding/lapping at 8:30.

edit2: There's Adrenaline in brazil (fire up chrome for translation) that hit 5 ghz at 1.32 (vcore) and a Noctua NH-U12S helped it hit 79 C under wPrime load. They do compare with the stock 8700k, 8700, and 8600k at stock.

edit3: Realized Vcore is in CPUz window, not VID as previously written.
 
Last edited:
so what's the verdict on these new chips?...is the 9700K the best price/performance chip?...for 1440p gaming with no content creation/little multitasking?
 
polonyc2 said:
so what's the verdict on these new chips?...is the 9700K the best price/performance chip?...for 1440p gaming with no content creation/little multitasking?
Click to expand...

Dunno- theoretically it should be, and if it is just a 9900K with HT disabled, then it would be. It should be faster than an 8700k nearly all the time, perhaps in anything that matters, and it'd be a hard case for it to be appreciably slower in gaming than the 9900K.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Dunno- theoretically it should be, and if it is just a 9900K with HT disabled, then it would be. It should be faster than an 8700k nearly all the time, perhaps in anything that matters, and it'd be a hard case for it to be appreciably slower in gaming than the 9900K.
Click to expand...

the 8700K has more threads while the 9700K has more cores...seems like a tradeoff
 
Intel is on the ropes and AMD has a chance to do some real damage with 7nm Zen 2...I think the 8700K is the better upgrade for most right now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top