Hmm, actually now that more and more builds are mini itx/cube style, I think thermal conductivity is more important than ever.....
This site explains it in more detail then me...
Maybe links and picture should of been given with all the intel bashing this forum has lately...
So yeah, after the many thermal cycles, or so eventually it leads to micro cracks.
My honest take on it...
Solder is nice as it did improve thermal performance.
Lets be realistic here, the Thermal Conductivity for metal is in a factor of at least 10x greater then that of any oil or paste..
But to a non overclocker, i dont think that thermal conductivity is important.
Infact to most non overclocker, which tends to be either basic consumer machines, or office machines, i think longivity and more robust engineering is probably preferred.
To an overclocker tho, a moderate one at the least, that thermal conductivity can spell anywhere near 15-20% headroom.
So, i honestly feel, all "K"'s should of been soldered. A overclocker is not looking to keep the chip long term, and would rather want that thermal performance.
However putting back solder on the cpu to me is honestly mixed as we got easy methods of deliding a cpu. There are kits now to make it easy, and the razor with silicon wedges like how i did my old Opty's back in the days are no longer needed.
If i was going to overclock the chip to hell, i would most likely delid it, skip putting the IHS back on completely, slap a flat waterblock on it with a direct die kit like these:
Because the IHS is to me another thermal barrier which i would want to get rid of.
And a Soldered CPU would make it more difficult to do so....
But *shrug* that is just me....
Dont want to get sidetracked to zen again, but since it has taken multiple refinements of 14 nm to reach even a reasonable chance of all core 5ghz, i am still skeptical that zen 2 will reach it just like that, right out of the box.Intel will release the 9900k at a pretty hefty price imo, but will drop it once Zen 2 hits the market. As that is what they are using this CPU to compete against. They need a CPU in 2019 to compete on the high end and the 9900k will be it.
Hard to tell how t14he AMD 3700X will do, but I'm thinking probably 10 cores at 4.5 so 8 cores at 5 should be within scope for most use cases.
You can still delid, just desolder first.They moved away from solder not because it was cheaper, which is the soap box myth most people tout.
It was because as the waffer got thinner, and the node process smaller, the chip became more fragile.
They noticed the metal solder had a higher instance of damaging the die from the constant phase change stress (going from liquid state to solid ... on and off on a PC), and hence changed to paste.
Although it came at a cost of performance, to intel's eyes, the performance prices was enough merit over the longevity.
This is why they changed to paste.
And now i will see a lot of people start ranting because they can no longer delid the cpu, and run the die naked.
So you don't really know what you're talking about then? It's just your opinion mixed with sketchy articles and questionable benchmarks.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/).
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.
- 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/intel-core-i9-9900k-benchmark-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.
It's Coffee Lake, it's not new. It has no such fixes. It's a desktop chip, and typical desktop users shouldn't be concerned with Meltdown or Spectre.I hope at least the 8-core die has partial hardware fixes for meltdown and spectre like whiskey lake. I mean they did put in the work and the 8-core is a new die. 6-core and lower will most likely just be rebrands of the existing dies.
It's a new 8-core die so for sure it needed a new layout / design and hence fixing meltdown like in whiskey lake isn't out of the question since well they already did the work with whiskey lake. A hardware fix would be a compelling reason to go with the 8-core instead of the 6-core.It's Coffee Lake, it's not new. It has no such fixes. It's a desktop chip, and typical desktop users shouldn't be concerned with Meltdown or Spectre
I hope at least the 8-core die has partial hardware fixes for meltdown and spectre like whiskey lake. I mean they did put in the work and the 8-core is a new die. 6-core and lower will most likely just be rebrands of the existing dies.
that would be at least some good thing about this 9th series at least if this is the hardware fix that solves the ssd performance issues.Even the 6 core could have hardware fixes because it's a new stepping apparently, at least from the i5-9600K we have a valid reason.
Intel Core i5-9600K
GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 158 Stepping 12
8th Gen Coffeelake is based on Stepping 10 and therefore 6C i5-9600k is not just a renaming.
Against a bone stock 2700X, ~ 37% in MT and > 31% in ST.What kind of lead do you see the 9900K having then? At 5GHz that is
That is actually a very big lead if true, I don't believe Intel has had this kind of performance advantage since perhaps Skylake vs Excavator?Against a bone stock 2700X, ~ 37% in MT and > 31% in ST.
Based on the average IPC difference of ~14% and the known average frequencies of the 2700X (=< 4.35GHz ST, ~ 4.05GHz MT).
Naturally if the IPC or the SMT yield has changed in CFL-S8 (which is unlikely), then that will throw off the figures.
Practically the ST difference will most likely be even larger, because a chip which can run at 5GHz on all eight cores should have no issues in reaching 5.2GHz+ on 1-2 cores.
There is some exaggeration there. First the IPC difference was closer to 11% for Zen 1. Improved memory and CCX latency and a few minor changes has brought it closer to 7-8% IPC difference. Also It seems wrong to use 2700x turbo settings vs. Overclocked imaginary 9900k clocks. You are looking closer to 4.3GHz for both MT and ST there. That's also on un-patched launch Zen + against Zen 1/Coffelake info. There was drop in performance on Intel CPU's. not great but still a percent or two. The difference is significant though. Hard to see in any given application (the 20-25% difference will probably equal to 5% in low res gaming and 10% in Productivity tools) but regardless significant. Though there is a near zero chance that that consumer non-APU Zen 2 has an 8c limit.That is actually a very big lead if true, I don't believe Intel has had this kind of performance advantage since perhaps Skylake vs Excavator?
Gotta give Intel credit for squeezing every last iota of performance out of the ageing 14nm process / architecture, it actually will be interesting to see if AMD can exceed this level of performance with Zen 2, especially if they are still topping out at 8C for the Ryzen 7 SKUs. Of course more cores will even the ledger (or exceed the 9900K) in terms of MT performance, but I have my doubts that the ST performance gap can be totally bridged as that will require a very significant IPC / fmax uplift, very exciting times ahead either way though for PC enthusiasts, just need Intel to sort out their 10nm mess now so we can have continued competition beyond 2020
The IPC difference between Pinnacle Ridge and Coffee Lake (GPZ patched) is 14.4% on average, unless you omit all workloads which take advantage from wider than 128-bit instruction.There is some exaggeration there. First the IPC difference was closer to 11% for Zen 1. Improved memory and CCX latency and a few minor changes has brought it closer to 7-8% IPC difference. Also It seems wrong to use 2700x turbo settings vs. Overclocked imaginary 9900k clocks. You are looking closer to 4.3GHz for both MT and ST there. That's also on un-patched launch Zen + against Zen 1/Coffelake info. There was drop in performance on Intel CPU's. not great but still a percent or two. The difference is significant though. Hard to see in any given application (the 20-25% difference will probably equal to 5% in low res gaming and 10% in Productivity tools) but regardless significant. Though there is a near zero chance that that consumer non-APU Zen 2 has an 8c limit.
I think the odds are significantly above zero, that Desktop Ryzen 3000 series is still 8 core. I am close to 50:50 on 3000 series desktop Ryzen having more than 8 cores. I certainly wouldn't be the least bit surprised in either case.Though there is a near zero chance that that consumer non-APU Zen 2 has an 8c limit.
I am at work and don't have time to search for any competing pints so if you say so, I'll take the word of a single benchmark.The IPC difference between Pinnacle Ridge and Coffee Lake (GPZ patched) is 14.4% on average, unless you omit all workloads which take advantage from wider than 128-bit instruction.
2700X is also unable to reach 4.3GHz on all cores. 4.2GHz is the typical best case scenario, but that means you will lose 150MHz worth of ST performance.
At stock the typical clocks are 4.35GHz for ST workloads and 4.05GHz for all-core workloads.
Its the average of 30 workloads.I'll take the word of a single benchmark.
No there isn't, we have a decent idea of what Rome/Starship is. We also know that EPYC can't stay at 32c for very long. The fact they aren't doing a Zen+ EPYC and that they are doing a Zen 2 EPYC tells even more. There is a near zero chance that AMD will be using an 8c die for EPYC 8k, TR3 or Ryzen 3. Now obviously there is a chance of a change of numbers, with Intels move to i9 in mainstream the 10+ core Ryzen's maybe Ryzen 9's or something but 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.I think the odds are significantly above zero, that Desktop Ryzen 3000 series is still 8 core. I am close to 50:50 on 3000 series desktop Ryzen having more than 8 cores. I certainly wouldn't be the least bit surprised in either case.
Some enthusiasts are quick to leap to the conclusion that: everything possible will arrive in the next iteration.
The thinking is: More cores are possible at 7nm, therefore it must have more cores.
But business doesn't necessarily work that way. They may want to stretch out the arrival of benefits over multiple generations, to give greater reason to upgrade on future generations, and in this case a smaller, more profitable die on fledgling 7nm process.
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.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|B||Question Is my processor soldered on?||CPUs and Overclocking||3|
|Question 9900K upgrade to 5800X||CPUs and Overclocking||9|
|Question For gaming only, would a 9900k be notably better than a 3900x?||CPUs and Overclocking||27|
|Discussion [Video]Ryzen 7 3800X 5GHz vs. Core i9 9900K 5 GHz||CPUs and Overclocking||55|
|I||Question 9900K 5.4 ghz question||CPUs and Overclocking||12|