https://www.anandtech.com/show/13401/intel-9th-gen-cpus-9900k-9700k-9600k
The only real takeaway is that Intel announced that they are ramping up the 10nm production line finally through 2019.
Fucking finally
We'll see if they can actually push 10nm out, I'm still doubtful with how much of a dumpster fire it's been.
Im more flabbergasted hyperthreading is now locked to the $500 tier. My I7-6700k has it and its the same price as the i9 equivalent.
Fucking really? They moved HT to the i9? That's skeevy as fuck. Now people who are used to the current layout are going to assume the i7 is better than it is and thus worth the price.
AMD is kicking Intel's ass up and down theblock.
The i7 dosen't have hyperthreading anymore? What
This isn't how you're suppose to compete Intel
"95W TDP"
Yeah it's insane that a $375 processor in 2018 doesn't have HT.
This product launch is the death-knell of 14nm.
And destroy their own xeon lineup? Thats the problem.
Just in time for AMD to roll out 7nm
Intel and TSMC/glofo have different definitions for nm meaning that amd's chips and intel's may not be as far apart even with the two nm difference.
in other words: intel continue to shit themselves as AMD are still competitive
I think this is the chip generation where Intel wanted to get patches into Linux where all the Spectre and Meltdown mitigations were disabled by default because the performance sucked, and they wanted the users to manually enabled the mitigations.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109818/432f8fef-a43f-4045-b000-b11241a87414/chrome_2018-10-08_22-43-34.png
Yeah, you have hardware design changes to account for the vulnerabilities, but the question is are the mitigations actually active.
I'm kinda flabbergasted. How in the actual hell, how can Intel justify doing that. Besides the moral requirement to make money.
Intel still crushes AMD in anything where threading isn't great.
Also why would Intel want to crush AMD further? AMD has a long road of being profitable, Intel still rules the market.
HT is i9 only? Are you fucking kidding me?
Honest to god it's like they're asking you to go buy a Ryzen 7 2700X.
Epyc has proved pretty potent multithreading considerations aside,
Why bring up Epyc when we're discussing consumer chips?
Ryzen wins yet again (unless you need pure single core performance)
As I understand it (please someone correct me if Im wrong) from what is know about intel 10nm, it is as dense as TSMC's denser 7nm (used in the iphone) but able to higher power like TSMC's 7nm high powered process. There is a good chance that intel will regain the best node crown for performance with their 10nm.
according to leaks i've been reading the i9-9700k is still less powerful than the r5 2700x
I dunno, looks to me that this thread has moved more onto the manufacturing process and products as a whole?
That'd be pretty interesting, considering Intel's already got chips that beat the 2700X, and there's no such product as a Ryzen 5 2700X.
3rd party benchmarks commisioned by Intel.
http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf
TL:DR, the 9900k is the fastest gaming processor. Slight caveat: they used the X370 motherboard for the 2700x, not the X470 which features better XFR, and used the stock cooler included (which is the prism) instead of a noctura cooler. This would not have made the 2700x faster than it though.
Seems to me most of the hyperthreading desire is on the consumer side iX series chips. Xeon has so many SKU's you can find one with the same specs but with HT. Which is why the topic of Epyc seems a bit besides the point.
if we're talking enterprise/servers, obviously Epyc is a huge deal and Intel has plenty of room to lose market.
Whats even funnier, they left out the 9700K series entirely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
