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

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
coercitiv

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
7,467
17,842
136
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun, IEC and moonbogg
moonbogg

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,734
3,454
136
LTC8K6 said:
We all know that's a sign of love and he's trying to pre-order like mad. :D
Click to expand...

A couple years ago, my F5 finger would have fallen off by now trying to preorder this thing. Those days are gone. I have certain expectations now for a $500 CPU thanks to AMD's innovation and epic market breakthrough with Ryzen. For me personally, a $500 CPU needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...needs to...oh crap something broke...$500 CPU make no sense anymore...needs to...needs to...
 
  • Like
Reactions: krumme
J

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
17,145
7,530
136
By branding Skylake-X Refresh as 9xxx I think it confirms that Cascade Lake-X has been cancelled.
 
frozentundra123456

frozentundra123456

Lifer
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
arandomguy said:
I see this reasoning brought up but I don't understand it.

Zen, 6 months CFL, 6 months Zen+, 6 months CFL-R, 6 months? Zen 2, 6 months? Intel whatever.

So why is the viewpoint that Zen 2 is very close? Seems like whatever the next side releases is very close based on that logic.
Click to expand...
Yea, I agree. What is intel supposed to do, roll over and die because Zen 2 is coming out? They will certainly have the mainstream desktop lead in both single and multi-threaded performance until Zen 2 comes out, but I guess that is not enough somehow. And I am waiting for real benchmarks to see if Zen 2 matches or beats the 9900k, in contrast to the premature assumptions from the AMD camp.
 
S

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
218
28
91
Head1985 said:
Zen will be at 7nm + new architecture.Thats huge.
intel is stuck with skylake architecture and 14nm more than 3 years by now.
6700k,7700k,8700k,9900k all are same cpus(acrhitecture).Intel only add more cores and like 10% better oc.
Click to expand...

It’s weird how things change.

In the past, Intel would launch a new architecture and sell its products based on its cutting-edge technology. AMD, the runner-up, would try to increase the number of cores to be competitive.

Now the roles seem to have reversed. AMD is launching a new 7nm architecture, and Intel is again increasing the core count of its old 14nm process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryan20fun and scannall
S

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,076
440
126
"The other angle, I suspect, is one of the side-channel attacks that can occur when HyperThreading is in action. By disabling HyperThreading on the volume production chips, this security issue is no longer present."

I find this argument quite odd, since I think most laptops are still HT enabled, all Xeons pretty much are HT enabled...

it's imo pure and simple the way to segment/limit performance to explore more price points and position against AMD/their older products and absolutely nothing else.



in any case, 9900K looks like crtl+c, crtl+v a couple of cores! it will probably still work on Z170 even with DDR3 with the right hacks!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilds and coercitiv
S

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
218
28
91
arandomguy said:
$16 price increase for 8700k -> 9700k.

$5 price increase for 8600k -> 9600k.

36% price increase for 8700k-> 9900k (33% more cores).
Click to expand...

I wonder if these price increases mirror the performance increases. One year later, it seems that the advances in technology were zero.

I am somewhat disappointed at these prices. Living in Brazil, in the middle of political uncertainty and a huge economic crisis, a very unfavorable exchange rate, and abusive taxes of over 100%, I would of course prefer to settle with something cheaper than the i9-9900K.

But I am struggling to see any real benefit of the i5-9600K over the i5-8600K, for instance. And I am not sure if the i7-9700K is really so much better than the i7-8700K.

It seems to me Intel is (again) trying to increase prices, even though it shouldn’t as it is once again failing to deliver the advances in technology that the world is expecting it to.
 
looper

looper

Golden Member
Oct 22, 1999
1,655
10
81
Also, UK website listing for sale the Asus Z390 MB's as of about an hour ago... all of them EXCEPT the Maximus 'Extreme' model... Nothing on Amazon yet with the Asus Z390's...

Will be interesting to see what takes longer to receive, the EVGA 2080ti or the ROG Asus Maximus MB's. Asus implying the Z390 MB's will be available 'soon', but it seems NOT the Maximus 'Extreme' model.

I'm concerned w/ trade issues/tariff on comp components starting @ January 1st... If 25%, just WOW. I didn't plan on getting my parts for the new build until Jan/Feb '19, but rushing a bit to do it now.
 
Last edited:
S

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
218
28
91
RichUK said:
488 bucks for the 9900k. Dayum, that's not bad.
Click to expand...

This is not bad, considering that it is the new flagship (even though Intel increased significantly the price of its flagship).

What is really bad is that Intel is increasing again the prices of the whole line-up. The i5-9600K and the i7-9700K are more expensive than their 8th generation counterparts, even though I see them adding very little benefit.
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
skaertus said:
I wonder if these price increases mirror the performance increases. One year later, it seems that the advances in technology were zero.

I am somewhat disappointed at these prices. Living in Brazil, in the middle of political uncertainty and a huge economic crisis, a very unfavorable exchange rate, and abusive taxes of over 100%, I would of course prefer to settle with something cheaper than the i9-9900K.

But I am struggling to see any real benefit of the i5-9600K over the i5-8600K, for instance. And I am not sure if the i7-9700K is really so much better than the i7-8700K.

It seems to me Intel is (again) trying to increase prices, even though it shouldn’t as it is once again failing to deliver the advances in technology that the world is expecting it to.
Click to expand...

I can't recall even the suggestion of any advances in technology in CPUs any time soon for Intel or AMD.

9600K should be faster than the 8600K at stock and overclocked given the clocks and the solder.

https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13401/9thGenTurbos.png
 
LTC8K6

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
skaertus said:
This is not bad, considering that it is the new flagship (even though Intel increased significantly the price of its flagship).

What is really bad is that Intel is increasing again the prices of the whole line-up. The i5-9600K and the i7-9700K are more expensive than their 8th generation counterparts, even though I see them adding very little benefit.
Click to expand...
9700K really has no 8th gen counterpart. The 8700K might keep up in some multi thread benches, but I kind of doubt it. I think overall the true 8 cores will probably stay ahead of 6 cores plus HT.
Also the 9000 series have some hardware fixes for meltdown and spectre.
 
AtenRa

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
RichUK said:
488 bucks for the 9900k. Dayum, that's not bad.
Click to expand...

In a time with very good competition in the CPU landscape, this is the first time a mainstream CPU cost close to $500.
I dont know about you guys but it looks to me that something is wrong with the world we are living lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix
D

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
AtenRa said:
In a time with very good competition in the CPU landscape, this is the first time a mainstream CPU cost close to $500.
I dont know about you guys but it looks to me that something is wrong with the world we are living lately.
Click to expand...

i7-9700K is the mainstream replacement for the 7700 and 8700. 8 real intel cores @ 4.6 GHz all-core-turbo and with a 95 watt TDP for under $400 tells me the CPU world is doing just fine. (Thanks Ryzen!)
 
Dayman1225

Dayman1225

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2017
1,160
996
146
DpAVlaRXkAEOmKy.jpg


I count roughly 33 dies across and 16 down (including some cut off), that would give us a die size of 170.4375mm^2 ~ or 9.09 x 18.75
 
  • Like
Reactions: krumme, coercitiv, ryan20fun and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom