• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Confirmed - i9 9900k will have soldered IHS, no more toothpaste TIM

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
... AMD would be silly not use the dies with increased cores with those cores unlocked on the desktop to one up Intel on the consumer core count.
Again, not the way business operates. It isn't the epic fan battle that we see in forums. It's all spreadsheets for profit maximization.

So I guess you will be shocked if Desktop Ryzen 3000 series has only 8 cores. Lets put a pin in that and see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
And less than Anandtech's finding. Linking that makes me need to take even more salt with it. I don't want to question your testing methodology, but I couldn't anyways because you don't actually post it. I know that sounds rough and it's not really an attack on your work so much of my distrust of single sources. "Random" Forum user with under defined benchmark as a single source. Consensus in 2017 was about 11 percent and 3 percent gain with Zen+. That's what I am going off of and will continue to.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
Again, not the way business operates. It isn't the epic fan battle that we see in forums. It's all spreadsheets for profit maximization.

So I guess you will be shocked if Desktop Ryzen 3000 series has only 8 cores. Lets put a pin in that and see what happens.
Just look at how the market has developed and AMD's approach to these releases. Unless AMD is the defacto leader and even then they are unlikely to leave anything on the table. Zen 2 dies will have more cores. There isn't a debate in that discussion. It's also where AMD's consistent volume has been going. Now if AMD was selling every fully capable die through EPYC and maybe Threadripper you might be on to something. But that isn't happening and keeping Margins up on their true volume products would be a necessity. They also don't do the segmentation that Intel does. Haven't ever. Even when they for a short while had superior CPU's.

There is almost no reason to keep core parity and drive down margins on their desktop sales if they have a product ready and willing to compete. Ryzen sold and sells well for being a great value. That goes away with core parity with Intel. Why do you think they released a 32c Threadripper with it's wierd memory config. To battle against the X299 18 and probably up to 28c options Intel has at their disposal.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
Sorry this is getting way off topic again as it usually does. The end point was that AMD has an uphill battle against a 8c16t (heck even 8c8t) 5GHz coffeelake. Maybe less than mentioned here. But there is a significant difference. I and a lot of people expect that at minimum the MT workload will get closer with Zen 2 (Ryzen 3k). But that is based on rumors and is at minimum 6 months from now.
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
700
106
Where does Intel go after the 9900k at 5GHz?
Intel clearly wins the current battle with the 9900k, but winning a battle does not equate to winning the war.
The ball is in AMD's court. What they do with it is anyone's guess really, though I'm at a loss to think what a consumer would need more than 8 cores for if I'm honest.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,189
535
136
What I'm worried about at stock frequencies is how those powerful cores are going to be fed by the memory sub-system. I want to see 4200Mhz memory overclocks with these beasts. What absolute weapons these 9xxx chips are going to be. We heard a lot in this forum about how much Ryzen "loves fast ram," it's time to see how much Intel loves fast ram as well.
 

Hitman928

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2012
2,788
2,151
136
So Zen 2, may rely on real promised architecture IPC improvements, along with clock speed improvements, on an otherwise tried and tested topology of two 4C-CXXs .

Perhaps Zen3 with more cores also arrives with the next advance in memory bandwidth to feed all those cores.

Definitely a decent chance of another 8 core series IMO.
This is my prediction as well. For the desktop market, If AMD can manage a 10-15% IPC uplift with even a 15% uplift in clocks from 7 nm, you're looking at essentially a performance parity with intel's best chip. Along with performance parity, AMD's chip should come in with significantly lower power usage and AMD should be able to offer it at a significantly lower price while maintaining desirable margins (2x4 cores on 7nm should be much cheaper to make than 1x8 cores on 14 nm).

Even if AMD does have an 8-core ccx planned for the next gen (I'm sure it's planned at some point, just not sure it is 1 gen away), we also have to ask if there is even really a market for more than 8 core /16 thread CPUs on the desktop. I mean, threadripper/skylake-x are beasts, but represent a tiny fraction of sales volume. Part of that will be platform cost, but I'm sure part of that is the lack of demand for such high core count CPUs on desktop, not yet at least.

If AMD does have an 8-core ccx ready for the next gen, I still would expect the desktop offering to be 8 cores, at least initially until wafer costs come down, intel forces a response (which I don't see happening), or some combination of the two.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,374
5,283
136
This is the point where the manufacturing process really starts hurting AMD.
Previously AMD has been able to exceed or match in MT performance by having more cores, but now when that advantage is gone it will be pretty much suffering until the 7nm parts arrive.
In all fairness to AMD, that's going to last for maybe 5 months? Assuming April 2019 launch for Matisse? Pinnacle Ridge is April 2018's CPU, against Oct (realistically Nov) 2018 i9-9900k. I don't see them being too worried.

Plus once the 9900k is out, it's basically nothing until Ice Lake-S. Which as I said, is going to be a long wait. Unless some of the speculators are correct and we'll see even more Coffee Lake on 14nm+++(+?)
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,374
5,283
136
If Matisse launches in 5 months i'll eat a hat.
Not 5 months from NOW. I mean, April 2019, which would be 5 months after broad availability for the 9900k, which (if it follows the 8700k) will be early Nov 2018, with spotty availability between Oct. 8th (9900k projected launch) and broad availability.

Remember, the 9900k isn't even out yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dayman1225

Dayman1225

Senior member
Aug 14, 2017
993
565
106
Not 5 months from NOW. I mean, April 2019, which would be 5 months after broad availability for the 9900k, which (if it follows the 8700k) will be early Nov 2018, with spotty availability between Oct. 8th (9900k projected launch) and broad availability.

Remember, the 9900k isn't even out yet.
OK. I'll eat a hat if it launches in April.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
3,057
106
In all fairness to AMD, that's going to last for maybe 5 months? Assuming April 2019 launch for Matisse? Pinnacle Ridge is April 2018's CPU, against Oct (realistically Nov) 2018 i9-9900k. I don't see them being too worried.

Plus once the 9900k is out, it's basically nothing until Ice Lake-S. Which as I said, is going to be a long wait. Unless some of the speculators are correct and we'll see even more Coffee Lake on 14nm+++(+?)
Has AMD given more accurate release date for Zen 2 parts?
AFAIK they have only stated that Rome will launch in 2019 and the consumer Ryzen parts after EPYCs.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
211
28
91
450-500 bucks for the 9900k would be a sweet deal.

Just think, Intel has gone from releasing the 7700k quad core to a higher frequency octa core on the mainstream platform in less than 2 years.
In 2016, Intel released the Core i7-7700K, a 4-core, 8-thread processor, running at a base clock of 4.2 GHz, with a maximum turbo clock of 4.5 GHz, selling for USD 350.

Now, in 2018, the equivalent to that would be the Core i7-9700K, an 8-core, 8-thread processor, running at a base clock of 3.6 GHz, with a maximum turbo clock of 4.9 GHz, also selling for USD 350.

Intel is doubling the number of cores, but keeping the same number of threads. While the base clock is lower, the turbo clock is higher. But then it's a 2-year difference between them.

The Core i9-9900K has 8 cores and 16 threads, but it is not a successor to the i7-7700K. It is a new product, in a new segment, which Intel is creating to be able to charge more (USD 450).

What I did not see in the new line-up is a successor to the i7-7700 and the i7-8700. The higher "non-K" processor would be the i5-9600, and I have not seen an i7-9700. The leaked line-up may be incomplete, or Intel may have chosen to intentionally scrap the "non-K" i7, to be able to compel consumers wishing for a higher core count to jump into the more expensive i7-9700K instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insert_Nickname

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
211
28
91
So you don't really know what you're talking about then? It's just your opinion mixed with sketchy articles and questionable benchmarks.
Well, I don't have any scientific evidence of any of this, but this is just an Internet forum. As I already said, it is based on the information known so far, and which is not final.

The benchmarks may be questionable, but they are also credible, given the specifications that have leaked so far.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
In 2016, Intel released the Core i7-7700K, a 4-core, 8-thread processor, running at a base clock of 4.2 GHz, with a maximum turbo clock of 4.5 GHz, selling for USD 350.

Now, in 2018, the equivalent to that would be the Core i7-9700K, an 8-core, 8-thread processor, running at a base clock of 3.6 GHz, with a maximum turbo clock of 4.9 GHz, also selling for USD 350.

Intel is doubling the number of cores, but keeping the same number of threads. While the base clock is lower, the turbo clock is higher. But then it's a 2-year difference between them.

The Core i9-9900K has 8 cores and 16 threads, but it is not a successor to the i7-7700K. It is a new product, in a new segment, which Intel is creating to be able to charge more (USD 450).

What I did not see in the new line-up is a successor to the i7-7700 and the i7-8700. The higher "non-K" processor would be the i5-9600, and I have not seen an i7-9700. The leaked line-up may be incomplete, or Intel may have chosen to intentionally scrap the "non-K" i7, to be able to compel consumers wishing for a higher core count to jump into the more expensive i7-9700K instead.
I dont follow any of what you are saying except you are determined to find a way to criticize intel.

Yes, there is no direct comparison to the 7700k. The closest comparison is the i3-8100 with somewhat lower clocks and no hyperthreading, *but* at 1/3 the price. Let me repeat that for you: 1/3 the price. The next step up is the i5 8400 with very slightly lower turbo, but 2 more cores, for ...wait for it, 150.00 less. And if you want to spend the same 350.00, you get: 2 more cores, with hyperthreading, plus very similar turbo. What a rip off./s
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
211
28
91
I dont follow any of what you are saying except you are determined to find a way to criticize intel.

Yes, there is no direct comparison to the 7700k. The closest comparison is the i3-8100 with somewhat lower clocks and no hyperthreading, *but* at 1/3 the price. Let me repeat that for you: 1/3 the price. The next step up is the i5 8400 with very slightly lower turbo, but 2 more cores, for ...wait for it, 150.00 less. And if you want to spend the same 350.00, you get: 2 more cores, with hyperthreading, plus very similar turbo. What a rip off./s
I am not finding a way to criticize Intel. I am just disappointed at the new line-up of the 9th gen chips, as they were leaked so far.

The 8th gen indeed provided a great update to Intel’s chips, with 6-core chips instead of 4-core. And it sold at the same price levels as the 7th gen chips. It was the greatest upgrade in years. Really great. But it was about time. We got used somehow to Intel upgrading processors at a very slow pace. This great upgrade somehow made up for some lost time.

I recognize that research may be more expensive now than it was ten or twenty years ago, and that Intel jumped ahead of AMD a few years back then. But in this 9th generation, Intel is looking particularly greedy, creating a new market segment to increase prices, and trying to up-sell its processors. It is absolutely nothing like the 8th gen processors.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,289
1,355
126
I think between the shortages and the increased cost of the bigger die+solder, they increased the price to maintain margins.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,569
126
I am not finding a way to criticize Intel. I am just disappointed at the new line-up of the 9th gen chips, as they were leaked so far.

The 8th gen indeed provided a great update to Intel’s chips, with 6-core chips instead of 4-core. And it sold at the same price levels as the 7th gen chips. It was the greatest upgrade in years. Really great. But it was about time. We got used somehow to Intel upgrading processors at a very slow pace. This great upgrade somehow made up for some lost time.

I recognize that research may be more expensive now than it was ten or twenty years ago, and that Intel jumped ahead of AMD a few years back then. But in this 9th generation, Intel is looking particularly greedy, creating a new market segment to increase prices, and trying to up-sell its processors. It is absolutely nothing like the 8th gen processors.
So don't buy Intel then. Just don't make up any weak excuses for it before the chips have even hit the shelves.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,598
962
136
So I guess you will be shocked if Desktop Ryzen 3000 series has only 8 cores. Lets put a pin in that and see what happens.
I say you both have valid points. As CEO of AMD I would prefer to stay at 8-cores and make gains with IPC and clockspeed. The later however depends on TSMC which is out of my control, so a risk to bet on this. Also there is the future server CPUs core-count. I doubt they will make an MCM consisting of more than 4 dies so each die will need to have more than 8 cores. So for a consumer 8-core max this only leaves the option of a separate die (unlikely since we now know it's all TSMC) or consumer parts using cut-down dies. I suspect the later. Consumers get all the partially broken server dies and hence 8-core max. because AMD will need all full dies to fullfill demand on servers CPUs. Then Zen2+ (4000-series) would get one with full-core count as yields are up.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,152
265
126
I am not finding a way to criticize Intel. I am just disappointed at the new line-up of the 9th gen chips, as they were leaked so far.

The 8th gen indeed provided a great update to Intel’s chips, with 6-core chips instead of 4-core. And it sold at the same price levels as the 7th gen chips. It was the greatest upgrade in years. Really great. But it was about time. We got used somehow to Intel upgrading processors at a very slow pace. This great upgrade somehow made up for some lost time.

I recognize that research may be more expensive now than it was ten or twenty years ago, and that Intel jumped ahead of AMD a few years back then. But in this 9th generation, Intel is looking particularly greedy, creating a new market segment to increase prices, and trying to up-sell its processors. It is absolutely nothing like the 8th gen processors.
I think that's why they opted to go with solder. They couldn't offer as much in terms of pure performance (they still have the lead either way) but this way they can please enthusiasts and you don't have to invalidate your warranty just to get the most of out of the chips.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
211
28
91
So don't buy Intel then. Just don't make up any weak excuses for it before the chips have even hit the shelves.
I may or may not buy Intel. This is not as simple when you have only two manufacturers of desktop processors. Nothing to do with the fact that I am disappointed by the line-up revealed so far.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,374
5,283
136
OK. I'll eat a hat if it launches in April.
Has AMD given more accurate release date for Zen 2 parts?
AFAIK they have only stated that Rome will launch in 2019 and the consumer Ryzen parts after EPYCs.
Last I heard, Rome is Q1 2019 and Matisse is Q2 2019. I have no insider information, this is just stuff kicking around in public. And honestly I have no bearings when it comes to "guesstimating" when Rome will actually launch. February sounds about right, January . . . too optimistic

As for Matisse, AMD has done an excellent job of launching their Ryzen desktop CPUs on schedule. The only major hiccup was availability of X370 boards which may or may not have been AMD's fault in some way. So if they're saying Q2 2019 for Matisse, I'm inclined to believe that history will repeat itself, and that they'll hit an April launch. Worst-case is June which really isn't THAT much worse. Either way, the 9900k winds up with a relatively short time as the top-dawg non-HEDT desktop CPU. What happens after that, for Intel, is anyone's guess.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,327
1,525
136
We also need to remember what Rome is. It makes sense for AMD to start production of Rome and have volume for validation as a server CPU and seed stock. They can do that first and still not even announce it until months after Ryzen 3k is released. So Server first can still not really affect the release window of Ryzen 3k very much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
I may or may not buy Intel. This is not as simple when you have only two manufacturers of desktop processors. Nothing to do with the fact that I am disappointed by the line-up revealed so far.
So be specific. What are you "disappointed" about? What do you want from this release? 10 cores, 12, 50? 6 ghz turbo? 300.00 price? Yes, the price is higher than AMD, but by all expectations, so is the performance. And just look at the other components of a build. You think 450.00 is expensive for a cpu? How about 1200.00 for a top end gpu? Honestly for a top end build, another hundred dollars for the cpu over Ryzen is a drop in the bucket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

ASK THE COMMUNITY