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

[Dayman1225]

I9 9900K on GB4
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

 

[JoeRambo]

I9 9900K on GB4
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

Kinda interesting to compare to 8700K@5Ghz 3200CL13 tight mem system:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/9742328?baseline=9753150

8C seems to be slowed down by memory speed big time, some of MT results just can't be explained by turbo running several hundred mhz less

 

[Dayman1225]

Kinda interesting to compare to 8700K@5Ghz 3200CL13 tight mem system:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/9742328?baseline=9753150

8C seems to be slowed down by memory speed big time, some of MT results just can't be explained by turbo running several hundred mhz less

Yeah not so surprising, gonna be interesting to see how it performs with tuned ram.

 

[RichUK]

When is it due out?

 

[mikk]

Launch is in October, last rumour says 8th October.

 

[TheELF]

Does geekbench pick up actual clocks? 3.6 should be impossible unless this is a engineering sample.

 

[IEC]

Does geekbench pick up actual clocks? 3.6 should be impossible unless this is a engineering sample.

The i7-8700K is 3.7 base on 6c/12t @ 95W TDP.

3.6 base on the i9-9900K appears within the range of reasonable if they are sticking to their 95W TDP at base clocks.

 

[jpiniero]

Does geekbench pick up actual clocks? 3.6 should be impossible unless this is a engineering sample.

It does, if you add .gb4 to a result you can see the raw data. Recent versions of GB4 will put sampling of the processor frequency although I am not sure if it's the single core test, multi core test or both.

 

[skaertus]

Only the 8 core, and they are also effectively charging more. Plus it's basically a marketing gimmick, considering they are selling Skylake for the fourth time now.

Yes, this is true.

Only the 8 core, and they are also effectively charging more. Plus it's basically a marketing gimmick, considering they are selling Skylake for the fourth time now.

Glad I am not the only one disappointed with Intel's 9th gen line-up.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, this is true.


Glad I am not the only one disappointed with Intel's 9th gen line-up.

Well, unless the 9900k performs much worse than anyone expects, it will still be the fastest mainstream desktop chip in both multi-threaded and single threaded applications. What a disappointment.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, this is true.


Glad I am not the only one disappointed with Intel's 9th gen line-up.

Which 9th gen chip(s) do you have?

 

[french toast]

Well, unless the 9900k performs much worse than anyone expects, it will still be the fastest mainstream desktop chip in both multi-threaded and single threaded applications. What a disappointment.

I9 looks really good, he might be talking about the rumoured prices...i9 should really be the i7 9700k for ~$360.
Ignoring that, yes looks the best intel CPU since skylake.

 

[skaertus]

Well, unless the 9900k performs much worse than anyone expects, it will still be the fastest mainstream desktop chip in both multi-threaded and single threaded applications. What a disappointment.

Which 9th gen chip(s) do you have?

While none of these processors have launched so far, I can see how the future line-up is going to be, based, of course, on the current knowledge (https://wccftech.com/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k-8-core-cpu-preorder/).

• The 9th gen seems like a beefed-up version of the 8th gen (so much that it is called Coffee Lake Refresh). It is the 4th generation of Intel chips using the same architecture of Skylake (released in 2015) and using the same 14nm process of Broadwell (released in 2014). This is a significant setback from what we have seen all the years before. At least Intel made it up adding more cores in the 8th generation, but that is due to competition from AMD.
• The i9-9900K is the only processor in the line up so far that uses HyperThreading. Intel owns patents for HT since the days of Pentium 4, some 18 years ago. It is just sad that Intel is limiting this old tech to its most expensive processor (the i9), while AMD allows everyone to have access to it.
• The i9-9900K seems to be really powerful, but at a cost. It reached 10,719 in 3DMark, according to sources (https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...rk-leaks-roughly-25-faster-than-i7-8700k.html), which is 35% more than the i7-8700K. However, it will also be 25% more expensive than the i7-8700K (in the range of USD 450, while the i7-8700K launched for USD 359), so they do not compete in the same category.
• The i9-9900K is only 17% faster than the Ryzen 2700X, according to those benchmarks, but it is 36% more expensive than its price at launch (USD 450 versus USD 329).
• On Geekbench (https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k-core-i5-9600k-cpu-performance-leak/), the i9-9900K performed 6248 in single core, and 33037 in multicore. The i7-9700K shows more modest results. Compared to the previous generation i7-8700K (https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/121925-heres-intel-core-i7-9700k-scores-geekbench/), the i7-9700K will be 4.7% faster in single core, and 9.8% faster on multi-core. Intel clearly chose to limit speed gains by adding two cores but removing HT, to give consumers no too much. Both chips will cost the same at launch, so expect gains of less than 10% in performance.
• The i5-9600K has a base clock of only 100 MHz faster than the i5-8600K. The i5-9600 and the i5-8500 will have the same base clock of i5-8600 and i5-8500, and only a slight increase in the boost clock. The Core i5-9400 will have an increase of only 100 MHz. And the and the Core i-8300 seems to have simply rebranded i3-9100.

So, once again, I see no real gains in terms of speed from one generation to the other. Of course there are improvements, but only if the price is increased as well. The expected improvement from one generation to the other at the same price point is close to zero. Very disappointing.

 

[PeterScott]

the i7-9700K will be 4.7% faster in single core, and 9.8% faster on multi-core. Intel clearly chose to limit speed gains by adding two cores but removing HT, to give consumers no too much. Both chips will cost the same at launch, so expect gains of less than 10% in performance

It's called product segmentation. If the 9700K had HT, then what point would there be for a 9900K?

Performance really looks like it will be going up quite nicely with the 9900K. It will be the undisputed best CPU on a mainstream desktop socket. Intel will charge more for that top end performance, which seems to be the real crux of the issue.

If you want the top chip you will have to pay more. Some people are upset that they will have to pay more for higher performance. They expect performance advances for free.

Even AMD tried to sell the 1800X for $500 when they thought they had the top chip. It's the nature of business, you price your product at what you think the market will bear, to maximize your profit.

If everyone thinks like you, that it's disappointing and too expensive, then it won't sell and there will be oversupply and discounts.

If OTOH, many people think the improved performance is quite good, and are willing to pay the price, then there will be short supply and even price increases.

If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really 689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.

 

[mikk]

• The i9-9900K seems to be really powerful, but at a cost. It reached 10,719 in 3DMark, according to sources (https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...rk-leaks-roughly-25-faster-than-i7-8700k.html), which is 35% more than the i7-8700K. However, it will also be 25% more expensive than the i7-8700K (in the range of USD 450, while the i7-8700K launched for USD 359), so they do not compete in the same category

There is no rule for a linear price increase in regards to performance, if you are looking for the best price/performance ratio you should look for a sub 100 USD CPU. i9-9900k will be the new mainstream king, and not even the most expensive models will be able to beat 9900k in many workloads such as gaming. Intel is able to ask for more, this is the big difference to AMD which is really sad for them.

 

[JoeRambo]

If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really 689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.

These prices would make little sense, as 7920x is like 580 euros or so. Still it is legendary management of Intel, known for retarded KabyLake-X goodwill destroying exercises, anything is possible.

 

[Topweasel]

It's called product segmentation. If the 9700K had HT, then what point would there be for a 9900K?

Performance really looks like it will be going up quite nicely with the 9900K. It will be the undisputed best CPU on a mainstream desktop socket. Intel will charge more for that top end performance, which seems to be the real crux of the issue.

If you want the top chip you will have to pay more. Some people are upset that they will have to pay more for higher performance. They expect performance advances for free.

Even AMD tried to sell the 1800X for $500 when they thought they had the top chip. It's the nature of business, you price your product at what you think the market will bear, to maximize your profit.

If everyone thinks like you, that it's disappointing and too expensive, then it won't sell and there will be oversupply and discounts.

If OTOH, many people think the improved performance is quite good, and are willing to pay the price, then there will be short supply and even price increases.

If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really 689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.

There was a difference between the 1800x and the 9900k. When AMD was offering the 1800x for $500 it's nearest competitor in terms of computer power was the 6900k. That was a $1000 CPU AMD was offering 95% of that for half the price. AMD was obviously trying to up margins by increasing the price over what they would normally offered the CPU at. But it's was still a value at the time at $500.

The market has changed since then AMD has offered 7 different 8 core CPUs. Intel has lowered the price in their enthusiast lineup due to stretching out their hdet lineup to match/beat AMD. It puts a 8c/16c CPU at nearly $500 in a really poor slot. The sole reason to make this purchase over a 7820x is if you have to have the Intel clockspeed but want cores and don't want to make the investment into the x299 platform. Now that covers a lot of users with the enthusiast community. But that doesn't make it a great buy or an ok price.

 

[maddie]

It's called product segmentation. If the 9700K had HT, then what point would there be for a 9900K?

Performance really looks like it will be going up quite nicely with the 9900K. It will be the undisputed best CPU on a mainstream desktop socket. Intel will charge more for that top end performance, which seems to be the real crux of the issue.

If you want the top chip you will have to pay more. Some people are upset that they will have to pay more for higher performance. They expect performance advances for free.

Even AMD tried to sell the 1800X for $500 when they thought they had the top chip. It's the nature of business, you price your product at what you think the market will bear, to maximize your profit.

If everyone thinks like you, that it's disappointing and too expensive, then it won't sell and there will be oversupply and discounts.

If OTOH, many people think the improved performance is quite good, and are willing to pay the price, then there will be short supply and even price increases.

If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really 689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.

Forgive me for my stupid understanding, but I thought the ENTIRE history of the computer age embodies this exact same understanding. You loudly repeatedly rewrite history, to what end, I admittedly haven't a clue.

 

[The Stilt]

Based on the more sane pre-order prices in europe (512 - 560€, incl. 20-21% tax), the 9900K most likely is going to have 499$ RCP.
It make very little sense to price it above the 7820X, which belongs to HEDT segment. I guess it is possible, but I personally find it pretty unlikely.

 

[PeterScott]

It puts a 8c/16c CPU at nearly $500 in a really poor slot.

That is your opinion. Sales will determine how well they hit the segment. As I said before, if they hit the $450 price point with the 9900K, I think they will do VERY well.

If it is significantly higher, they probably will flounder a bit.

 

[The Stilt]

2700X sells for ~330$ and considering the 9900K is supposed to be >= 30% faster on average, anything below 600$ is IMO pretty reasonable.
The 9900K is also expected to have additional overclocking headroom, which the 2700X does not have (unless you are willing to decrease the ST performance).

 

[skaertus]

It's called product segmentation. If the 9700K had HT, then what point would there be for a 9900K?

Performance really looks like it will be going up quite nicely with the 9900K. It will be the undisputed best CPU on a mainstream desktop socket. Intel will charge more for that top end performance, which seems to be the real crux of the issue.

If you want the top chip you will have to pay more. Some people are upset that they will have to pay more for higher performance. They expect performance advances for free.

Even AMD tried to sell the 1800X for $500 when they thought they had the top chip. It's the nature of business, you price your product at what you think the market will bear, to maximize your profit.

If everyone thinks like you, that it's disappointing and too expensive, then it won't sell and there will be oversupply and discounts.

If OTOH, many people think the improved performance is quite good, and are willing to pay the price, then there will be short supply and even price increases.

If the 9900K is really $450, I expect the later. Though if it's really 689 Euros, that might have gone too far, and expect slower sales.

Yes, it is product segmentation.

But up to this year, Intel's only i9 desktop processors were the i9-7900X line, which was meant to be really powerful, with at least 10 cores and 20 threads. In the 8th gen, there was an i9 on the mobile sector (the i9-8950HK), but that did not prevent Intel from having 6 cores and 12 threads in i7 processors as well.

Now, in the 9th gen, Intel decided to create a new segment of desktop processors, just to put the i9-9900K there, the only one with HT. Two years ago, the i9 was the processor for enthusiasts, and now it's the mainstream. Intel is downgrading the i9 while at the same time imposing a price premium to i7 customers.

The i9-7980XE is still 20% faster than the i9-9900K, despite having a 2-year old architecture. As there are no rumors of an i9-9950X or i9-9980X, I guess we will not see more cores/threads this generation. How could I not be disappointed? The top dog of the upcoming generation is still slower than the best one from two generations behind. You can say that i9-7980XE had 18 cores, and the i9-9900K has 8. Well, then Intel should put more cores in the i9-9900K.

I do not expect performance advances for free. I just expect to pay the same price for the technology of today that I was paying yesterday for the technology of yesterday.

Intel was not like this in the past. When it released the 80486 DX back in 1989, it was clocked at 20 and 25 MHz. A year later, in 1990, Intel introduced the 33 MHz version. In 1991, Intel introduced the 50 MHz version. And the 80486 DX2, clocked at 66 MHz, was released in 1992. In 1993, the Pentium was released, clocked at 60 and 66 MHz; and in 1994, a 100 MHz version hit the market.

Intel used to deliver real performance increases every year, of more than 30% year after year, and that is what moves the computer industry. It is not increase in performance for free; you are paying for this every time you buy a new processor. You cannot ugrade your current processor; you have to buy another one, and pay the full price.

It happens in every tech sector. The iPhone 8 is 77% faster than the iPhone 7, which is 47% faster than the iPhone 6s, which is 65% faster than the iPhone 6, which is 10% faster than the iPhone 5s, which is 77% faster than the iPhone 5. And they all sold at about the same price points. Everybody expects technology at the same price level to increase every year.

Intel is not delivering this anymore. Intel is charging a premium for advances that should be at the same price level, while offering a mere 5% of performance increase at the same price point. Very disappointing. Should Apple behave like Intel, the iPhone should be selling at USD 4,500 or more these days.

If the i9-9900K sells for USD 450, it may sell well and meet Intel's expectations. But again, Intel is failing to see the big picture here. This strategy of underdelivering has a cost to Intel.

AMD's processors are clearly weaker in single-core processing. However, AMD impressed, and gained market share, with the Ryzen, because it delivering what Intel wouldn't. AMD put more cores in the processors, and allowed for multi-threading even at the lower-cost ones. Intel has the chance to destroy AMD, and it is throwing it away. Should Intel deliver HT in all i5 and i7 processors, it would be a killer. And if it launched a 12 or 16-core i9, it could have the potential of topping the AMD Threadripper. Intel is just giving the chance to AMD to gain market share and to improve its own processors.

Intel is also facing competition from Qualcomm, which is putting its Snapdragon processor inside laptops. They are still weak, but the ARM architecture is improving a lot year after year. Intel is threatening Qualcomm with lawsuits, as it wants to keep behaving as a monopolist. Intel is only giving Qualcomm the chance to best it at its own game.

So, good short-term strategy for Intel. As for the long-term, we'll see.

 

[Dayman1225]

As there are no rumors of an i9-9950X or i9-9980X, I guess we will not see more cores/threads this generation

Intel said there would be a new Core X generation by the end of the year + that 28c thingy

 

[TheGiant]

So, once again, I see no real gains in terms of speed from one generation to the other. Of course there are improvements, but only if the price is increased as well. The expected improvement from one generation to the other at the same price point is close to zero. Very disappointing.

IMO there are the biggest gains in like 3 years. We had 6900K the MT king (before the zens came out) and 6700k/7700K for gaming/ST. Then now we have 8700K as ST/gaming king, but not the MT king.
When I am considering a triangle- ST, gaming, MT performance, 9900K is the first CPU in years which does best in everything. Hell even the 9700K oced to 5GHz will be IMO close to the 2700X, which we consider as the mainstream MT king of the hill.
For 450 EUR its worth every cent....

 

[PeterScott]

< snipped multiple paragraphs of naive complaining about pricing>

Intel has the chance to destroy AMD, and it is throwing it away. Should Intel deliver HT in all i5 and i7 processors, it would be a killer. And if it launched a 12 or 16-core i9, it could have the potential of topping the AMD Threadripper. Intel is just giving the chance to AMD to gain market share and to improve its own processors.

Really now? You want Intel to destroy AMD? How would that be helpful?

Talk about short term thinking.