Speculation: AMD's response to Intel's 8-core i9-9900K

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

How will AMD respond to the release of Intel's 8-core processor?

  • Ride it out with the current line-up until 7nm in 2019

    Votes: 129 72.1%
  • Release Ryzen 7 2800X, using harvested chips based on the current version of the die

    Votes: 30 16.8%
  • Release Ryzen 7 2800X, based on a revision of the die, taking full advantage of the 12LP process

    Votes: 17 9.5%
  • Something else (specify below)

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • Total voters
    179

Batboy88

Member
Jul 17, 2018
72
2
11
Yeah...but do you actually use it? Probably not lol..So yeah just continue with Clocked Quad Core and IPC improvements somehow. That will still work too.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
By 1.5 - 2%. Total win indeed. Are you even looking at the numbers?
That's only Cinebench.

It's ~12% on Y-Cruncher
It's ~16% faster AES 256 encryption
It's ~91% faster on AVX2 hashing.

And the post I was replying claimed that it suffered IPC deficits vs the 6950x.

So yeah it seems like a total win to show ZERO deficits plus significant wins.

6950X was a great chip, but the 7900x is better in just about every way, including costing less to manufacture, so delivering more to the customer for $700 less.

It may not be a massive improvement of 20%+ at everything clock for clock, but Intel has only shown incremental improvements for many years.

This is a solid set of improvements along with a nice price reduction.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
640
126
so in essence, Intel will have been refreshing Skylake architecture from 2015 until 2H 2019? Process improvements aside
 

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,770
1,940
136
Yeah. By 2019-Q1, assuming AMD is aiming for 2019-Q2 for the launch of the Ryzen 3000 series, they should be able to do a paper launch and/or public performance demos to take the limelight from i9-9900K, should they see the need to. However, they might just stick with Threadripper and pricing.
AMD has stuck with a yearly cadence for their desktop CPUs. I expect a full launch in early-mid April starting with with a 3700x or 3800x. I would be surprised if this this not happen. Rumors of a 10% IPC increase (at least) have been floating around, such an increase along with an increase in clockspeed due to the 7nm process would make Ryzen more than competitive with Intel offerings, even as Intel moves to 8 core.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
Which is Q4 :eek:
So there's three roadmaps, and each has a different release date.
One of them must be right, surely. :tearsofjoy:
The Q1-2019 was just wrong.
I think the Q3 one was a production roadmap. Q4 (October) is the Launch roadmap.

October makes a lot of sense, since they launched 8700K in October last year.
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
748
353
106
where can I preorder 9900K ?

it is not a bad buy when I consider total system cost. with 9900K I don't need such a expensive low latency memory as with ryzen so for like 50 USD higher I get 10-15% ipc, 20% more frequency. 50 USD when considering mobo+RAM+CPU cost in this price category is a no brainer.

This time good one intel. Even on the price side-I though I would never give a like to intel for price :)
 
Last edited:

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,138
318
136
where can I preorder 9900K ?

it is not a bad buy when I consider total system cost. with 9900K I don't need such a expensive low latency memory as with ryzen so for like 50 USD higher I get 10-15% ipc, 20% more frequency. 50 USD when considering mobo+RAM+CPU cost in this price category is a no brainer.

This time good one intel. Even on the price side-I though I would never give a like to intel for price :)
Are you talking about the i9 9900K? That's going to be at least $100 more.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,500
1,554
136
it is not a bad buy when I consider total system cost. with 9900K I don't need such a expensive low latency memory as with ryzen so for like 50 USD higher I get 10-15% ipc, 20% more frequency. 50 USD when considering mobo+RAM+CPU cost in this price category is a no brainer.
Yeah, and since Z370 is mature now, board prices are cheaper than at launch, some good deals too. The problem i guess is getting one ready for 8C, with the right (new bios) or having a CPU to borrow.
I really hope Intel won't screw this launch by pricing 9900K out of reach.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,776
11,175
136
where can I preorder 9900K ?

it is not a bad buy when I consider total system cost. with 9900K I don't need such a expensive low latency memory as with ryzen so for like 50 USD higher I get 10-15% ipc, 20% more frequency. 50 USD when considering mobo+RAM+CPU cost in this price category is a no brainer.

This time good one intel. Even on the price side-I though I would never give a like to intel for price :)
2700x is $330 WITH a good HSF. 9900k will most likely be at least $500 and no HSF, so like $200 more for 10% IPC or less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,500
1,554
136
2700x is $330 WITH a good HSF. 9900k will most likely be at least $500 and no HSF, so like $200 more for 10% IPC or less.
$200 more for ~10% IPC and ~20% higher max clocks does sound fair to me. AMD simply does not have offerings in that performance class. And i the past forum crowd jumped to spending hundreds on new systems that offered maybe 5% performance increase gen over gen.
Having top dog desktop system has value in itself + i am certain that Intel will have a strong 8C/8T for less $$$, that will offer same mid ( 8 Skylake cores is now mid??? lol ) threaded performance, while retaining 95+% of advatages in desktop use.
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
748
353
106
2700x is $330 WITH a good HSF. 9900k will most likely be at least $500 and no HSF, so like $200 more for 10% IPC or less.
You definitely buy a new HSF for 2700X for overlocking. The same of choice as for 9900K.
As for the memory, with current prices the high end desktops are really close with price cause other components.

For the price/perf category (~300 USD and ~200 USD) I think AMD will still be the winner, but it will be closer than ever (last 2 years)

It is nice that the monopoly times of 6900K for 1000USD are gone :)
 

Charlie22911

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
613
228
116
Yes, I held on to my FX 8350 for as long as I could before giving in and trading a kidney for a 6900k. If only I’d been more patient.

I’m genuinely glad things are changing.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
2700x is $330 WITH a good HSF. 9900k will most likely be at least $500 and no HSF, so like $200 more for 10% IPC or less.
It's 'good' for stock frequencies and turbo boosts, but also a bit noisy under load. It's actually a very decent stock HSF but not that suitable for overclocking, not that you can overclock a 2700X much even with upgraded cooling.

Also, how many enthusiasts (the type that would buy a 9900K) actually don't own a half decent HSF or AIO? I have about 3 spare heatsinks that I can run on my 8700K...

Im not sure why you adjusted the 9900K price upwards $50 to 'over $500' when it's been rumoured to cost $450.

You also rounded down AMDs IPC deficit to '10% or less' when stilts testing puts it close to 15%, though without AVX included it is around 10% so I'll give you that.

Ultimately, for enthusiasts at least, what sets the 9900K apart from the 2700X is the clockspeed ceiling. The 2700X averages around 4.2GHz overclocked - the 9900K, with a soldered IHS, could conceivably clock a full 1GHz higher... that's probably worth more for overall performance than the IPC advantage.

This is also the reason I struggle to see how AMD can really counter the 9900K with a '2800X' unless they have drastically improved the 12nm process. It is already running close to its limits even on the 2700X.

It's akin to AMD trying to clock an already power hungry Vega 64 even higher to try to compete with the 1080 Ti - at some point, the power curve just makes it unfeasible to keep adding clockspeed. I think the 2700X is already at that point. Is a 150W+ 2800X possible? Technically, it is. AMD can cherry pick the best dies and add an extra 200MHz perhaps , but it still won't really come close to a 9900K, so what is the point, really?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY