Intel 9th Gen vs 8th Gen ~= 100-200 MHz boost

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
814
4
136
#1
I9 9900k(8C16T)?
i7 9700k(6C12T)?


https://videocardz.com/76720/intel-reveals-9000-series-coffee-lake-s-specifications

The new series discovered in Intel’s official files currently lack Core i7-9000 series, which are rumored to be 8-core and up to 16-thread SKUs. The new processors added to Intel’s Coffee Lake S lineup feature Core i5 and Core i3 9000 series, which are six-core and quad-core in configuration.

We are observing a frequency boost up to 200 MHz in Max Turbo state while preserving 8th Gen successor’s TDP.

The new series were not added to Intel’s Ark, which is considered a confirmation of a product launch. The new SKUs can only be found in Microcode Update and June 2018 8th Gen Core Family update. What this means is that the products are not yet *released*. They are however present in official documents, thus they are confirmed.

The full 9000 series lineup is likely to be officially introduced with 8-core SKUs, which are not present in the same documents yet.

Interestingly, the 9th Gen Core series are listed as 8th Gen Core parts, which might be found confusing.

 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
650
173
96
#2
Intel - decimating the overclocking headroom every year since 2015. What else is new?
 

jimbotronics

Junior Member
Jul 4, 2018
9
0
41
#3
so no hyperthreading added to the i5's for at least another year.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
#4
Intel - decimating the overclocking headroom every year since 2015. What else is new?
Actually, my 6700K topped out at 4.7GHz while my 8700K runs happily at 5.0GHz using the same air cooler (Hyper 212) despite having 50% more cores and using a budget cooler than a lot of people here will say has no right running a 5.0GHz 8700K...
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#5
Quite a few chips are missing from that list, though.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
72
106
#6
Listing the base clock of Intel CPUs is pointless, as the CPU never runs at that speed unless Turbo is manually disabled from the bios.
All-core turbo clock is what matters and that info is missing.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#7

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,997
299
136
#9
Listing the base clock of Intel CPUs is pointless, as the CPU never runs at that speed unless Turbo is manually disabled from the bios.
All-core turbo clock is what matters and that info is missing.
Intel doesn't list that anymore, though.
All hail Wikichip, clock info will find a way! :D
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#11
Intel - decimating the overclocking headroom every year since 2015. What else is new?
I have no problems with Intel getting better at selling us chips which are closer to the theoretical maximum clocks their silicon can support.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#13
I'm still wondering why we need the 8650K/9600K and other such pairs which seem to have identical specs.
8650/9600
8550/9500
8420/9400

Etc.

I was thinking it's for earlier chipset compatibility?
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#14
Intel 9000 series?!
Yes, Wikichip had the 9000 chips all bumped up a level before this latest info came out. i5 was 6C/12T. They have now changed the page.
They also had the 9700K as 8C/16T, now it's just blank.
 

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,997
299
136
#15
Yes, Wikichip had the 9000 chips all bumped up a level before this latest info came out. They have now changed the page.
They also had the 9700K as 8C/16T, now it's just blank.
The 9000 series isn't launched yet. Why would you evaluate their reliability based on that?
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#16
The 9000 series isn't launched yet. Why would you evaluate their reliability based on that?
Because I have been touting their site and using their list of "Coffee Lake R" chips as a source of preliminary info.

Unfortunately, it turned out that their list was very optimistic, even though it matched most of the speculation that was going around.
 

coercitiv

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2014
2,997
299
136
#17
Because I have been touting their site and using their list of "Coffee Lake R" chips as a source of preliminary info.
Nevertheless, if we were to judge Intel's listing by the same standard, they would always be wrong (they don't list upcoming SKUs) :)

Unfortunately, it turned out that their list was very optimistic, even though it matched most of the speculation that was going around.
I would assume they use publicly available info - including rumors, and only become truly reliable after products end up in consumer hands.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#18
Nevertheless, if we were to judge Intel's listing by the same standard, they would always be wrong (they don't list upcoming SKUs) :)


I would assume they use publicly available info - including rumors, and only become truly reliable after products end up in consumer hands.
Wikichip very clearly labels the stuff as preliminary info.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#19
I9 9900k(8C16T)?
i7 9700k(6C12T)?


https://videocardz.com/76720/intel-reveals-9000-series-coffee-lake-s-specifications

The new series discovered in Intel’s official files currently lack Core i7-9000 series, which are rumored to be 8-core and up to 16-thread SKUs. The new processors added to Intel’s Coffee Lake S lineup feature Core i5 and Core i3 9000 series, which are six-core and quad-core in configuration.

We are observing a frequency boost up to 200 MHz in Max Turbo state while preserving 8th Gen successor’s TDP.

The new series were not added to Intel’s Ark, which is considered a confirmation of a product launch. The new SKUs can only be found in Microcode Update and June 2018 8th Gen Core Family update. What this means is that the products are not yet *released*. They are however present in official documents, thus they are confirmed.

The full 9000 series lineup is likely to be officially introduced with 8-core SKUs, which are not present in the same documents yet.

Interestingly, the 9th Gen Core series are listed as 8th Gen Core parts, which might be found confusing.

What I find even more funny, is that the 9xxxx 4 core parts, are rebranded 8xxx parts, which themselves were actually rebranded 7xxx parts. Progress?
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#20
Logically the 9700K would be 3.7/4.9 but that would put it behind the 8086K.

I hope they are not all just 200mhz bumps in the single core turbo, with the only new chip being the 8 core.

But I'm afraid that's what they are, with equivalent 8000 versions for older chipsets thrown in.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,259
176
126
#21
I notice a B-0 and a U-0 i3-8100 stepping.

Also G5420
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
650
173
96
#22
I have no problems with Intel getting better at selling us chips which are closer to the theoretical maximum clocks their silicon can support.
Defeats the premium they command for the K models though.

What I find even more funny, is that the 9xxxx 4 core parts, are rebranded 8xxx parts, which themselves were actually rebranded 7xxx parts. Progress?
Less headroom for overclocking, progress yay!
 

Thala

Senior member
Nov 12, 2014
618
14
116
#23
Defeats the premium they command for the K models though.
Less headroom for overclocking, progress yay!
Less headroom for overclocking is actually something positive, since Intel is leaving less potential un-used on the table.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#24
Defeats the premium they command for the K models though.
Suddenly you don't need to buy the top trim to get all of the features, and you're complaining? ;)

I get it though. Intel is better utilizing their silicon, and it's causing our hobby to disappear.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
650
173
96
#25
I'm not complaining, it's just showing that in the last couple years Intel had nothing to offer aside chipping away at the overclocking headroom that was already there.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY