• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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

Page 2 - 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

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,163
2,211
136
I have a question. Where do you think this 8 Core CF part will land on these hardware.fr charts?
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/974-19/indices-performance.html

Note that 8700K has super high all core turbo clock and it scores 281.4pts on desktop workloads average chart. On average, going from Ryzen 2600X to 2700X (normalized for slight difference in clocks) we gain ~22.8% more performance. Similar should go for CF 6->8C part. Unless intel somehow magically can force the same aggressive all-core Turbo clocks on new 8C part(s) I don't see a reason why AMD should do anything at all, even price could remain the same. 8C CF should be be scoring around 2700X/7820X or slightly above. On gaming chart nothing will change, 8700K will still be the top dog and 8C CF part could be on that level or maybe slightly lower on the chart- for AMD this changes nothing.

AMD is now price competitive with 8700K while clearly being superior value for the money(except for having slightly lower low-res. fps when paired with highest end cards, but even that can be mitigated with high clocked DDR4 memory to some extent). I'd say AMD is good to go as Pinnacle Ridge is well positioned against any CF part.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
What's the anti-intel mindshare like?

Just askin'...
Sure there are some who root for the "underdog". And other's who dislike certain companies from a moral standpoint or on principle from their practices. I would put most of the anti-intel mindshare in those categories. But it's been a long time since AMD has been the top dog in mindshare with regards to performance. Even when AMD does have the performance lead in some areas, like multicore on a mainstream platform, there are still plenty of people who think intel always wins in "absolute performance". See below:
For the last decade or so Intel has had AMD beat on absolute performance, so nothing will change in that regard when Intel releases its 8 core mainstream part. I also doubt Intel will adjust pricing of existing product stack, making this new 8 core part quite expensive.

AMD will continue to do what it has done with Zen based products, which is disrupting Intel with a superior price to performance offering.
AMD is the performance leader in many multicore workloads, specifically on mainstream platforms at the moment. But that will change when intel releases their 8-core mainstream chip. That tipping point is what this thread is all about. So if you don't already understand AMD is currently better in some segments then I don't think your input in this thread is usefull...

But I agree with regards to AM4 it makes more sense for AMD to keep their current designs and compete in price for the short term. Longer term plans all hinge on developing for 7nm. Which is why I think AMD might drop prices and introduce a 2800X just to get some media coverage when they don't really have anything new (a ploy they're fond of). I guess they can redirect to 32 core Threadripper 2 as their halo product in the HEDT segment to build performance mindshare.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kawi6rr and Vattila

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
AMD's CPU lead is what one would expect when there are more cores, though.

We would expect an 8 core chip to defeat a 6 or 4 core chip in a multi-core workload.
It would be unusual if it did not.

The only time that didn't happen was with those Bulldozer/Piledriver/Vishera chips.

As far as price, AMD has always been the price leader. I've said before that I actually think that's one of their
problems, image wise.

What we are really looking for is an AMD chip to beat an Intel chip with the core count being equal.

Then we will have more serious competition for Intel.
Then the CPU war will be hot.
 

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
654
874
136
AMD is the performance leader in many multicore workloads, specifically on mainstream platforms at the moment. But that will change when intel releases their 8-core mainstream chip. That tipping point is what this thread is all about.
Very well put. Thanks for steering the thread back on topic. I hate it when topics derail.

So, if pricing is AMD's response, is something like this what we may look forward to?
  • $400: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X (12-core) vs Intel Core i9-9900K (8-core).
  • $300: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X/2800X (8-core) vs Intel Core i7-8700K (6-core).
In this case, for $100 you will get 33% more cores with Intel and 50% more cores from AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
Odd reply. Yes, obviously AMD hasn't reached core for core parity. I don't see anyone claiming as such. Good point?

But AMD has reached chip for chip lead in many workloads, let alone chip for chip parity. Which is why the pricing is as it is at the moment.

And as I gave an easy example of above, there are plenty of people blinded by brand loyalty which don't even accept that. But this is the reason this whole thread exists. AMD currently has the performance lead in certain segments and they will loose this lead when intel 8-core mainstream chips come along. So the discussion is what will happen in the situation when AMD loses the performance lead in all mainstream metrics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
Very well put. Thanks for steering the thread back on topic. I hate it when topics derail.

So, if pricing is AMD's response, is something like this what we may look forward to?
  • $400: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X (12-core) vs Intel Core i9-9900K (8-core).
  • $300: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X/2800X (8-core) vs Intel Core i7-8700K (6-core).
In this case, for $100 you will get 33% more cores with Intel and 50% more cores from AMD.
Personally I doubt the X399 platform chips will marketed as alternatives, those motherboards are super pricey.. I think the Threadripper line will have to takeover the halo status until Ryzen 2 comes along.

But I do think the 8C/16T Ryzen chips will be priced to be much more appealing to people considering a 6C/12T intel.
 

bsp2020

Member
Dec 29, 2015
90
76
91
Personally I doubt the X399 platform chips will marketed as alternatives, those motherboards are super pricey.. I think the Threadripper line will have to takeover the halo status until Ryzen 2 comes along.

But I do think the 8C/16T Ryzen chips will be priced to be much more appealing to people considering a 6C/12T intel.
I'm rooting for AMD to release dual die 12 core chip for AM4. They can do it if they want to (https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/AMD-EPYC-Embedded-3000-Series-Introduced-by-Scott-Aylor.jpg).
 

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
654
874
136
I'm rooting for AMD to release dual die 12 core chip for AM4.
Ha ha. That would be brutal — just as Intel releases their monolithic 8-core, AMD slaps another die on the package and jumps to 16. :)

Well, ThreadRipper was equally surprising.
 

Charlie22911

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
613
228
116
Even when AMD does have the performance lead in some areas, like multicore on a mainstream platform, there are still plenty of people who think intel always wins in "absolute performance". See below:
Don’t bend my post to fit your narrative, because I most certainly don’t think that as you say I do.
My interest in a brand is strictly technical regardless of cost and my purchases reflect that at the time they were made. Most people probably won’t have that luxury, and that is where AMD will win mindshare; in both the server space and consumer space they offer superior performance for the price.
Intel will release this i9-whatever and it will be overpriced with marginally effective TIM between the IHS and die, it will run hot and be disproportionately expensive relative to whatever gains it has over the 8 core Ryzen. That really is all there is to it.

This whole topic is nothing but troll fodder IMO.
 

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
353
266
136
The OP has it completely backwards. This 9900K is a defensive move by Intel in anticipation of Zen2 on 7nm, with competitive clocks & IPC, probably up to 12 cores and better performance per watt than anything Intel can offer on 14nm.

I think even a year ago nobody could have imagined AMD actually accomplish a process lead over Intel, but it's looking increasingly likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
Don’t bend my post to fit your narrative, because I most certainly don’t think that as you say I do.
Slow down cowboy. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. You said:
For the last decade or so Intel has had AMD beat on absolute performance
Which is a sweeping generalization and it's simply wrong. Even a single case will negate your statement and there are plenty of situations where AMD has superior performance.

I don't think you should get salty for someone correcting your generalization. Mostly because readers need someone to correct these incorrect statements; I feel it's just wrong to let that sort of thinking go unchallenged because people come to this site to learn.

What you said was wrong. Deal with it.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,134
10,368
136
Slow down cowboy. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. You said:

Which is a sweeping generalization and it's simply wrong. Even a single case will negate your statement and there are plenty of situations where AMD has superior performance.

I don't think you should get salty for someone correcting your generalization. Mostly because readers need someone to correct these incorrect statements; I feel it's just wrong to let that sort of thinking go unchallenged because people come to this site to learn.

What you said was wrong. Deal with it.
I think what he meant, was before Ryzen Intel had AMD beat. Since then we all know its a mixed bad.

I certainly think AMD was badly beaten for the last 10-11 years until Ryzen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
654
874
136
This whole topic is nothing but troll fodder IMO.
Don't let it irk you. I can assure you this was not my intention. I find the current competition in the CPU space immensely interesting, and I invest a lot of time (and money) in trying to understand the dynamics of the industry, the main players' next moves, and how it will play out in the long run.

So I value your input. When I started this topic, I was of the view that AMD would have to respond by increasing the performance at the top of their mainstream offerings. However, having read the replies and reflected, I am coming around to the view that AMD's simple and sufficient response will be pricing. They can be disruptive simply by bringing down the cost of entry to the HEDT segment.

Your generalisation about Intel's superior performance triggered a need for correction from Richaron, which is understandable. But I can see where you are coming from — especially on a tech forum, which I guess is mainly frequented by gamers and overclockers, who value IPC and clock frequency more than an abundance of cores. The Intel mindshare in this group of users can only be properly overturned if AMD can win on single-thread performance, by increasing IPC and frequency scaling. This may happen next year.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
I think what he meant, was before Ryzen Intel had AMD beat. Since then we all know its a mixed bad.

I certainly think AMD was badly beaten for the last 10-11 years until Ryzen.
Oh no doubt.

Apologies if I read wrong. But I can't apologize for correcting generalizations which might falsely influence readers, it's simply wrong to claim intel has AMD beaten in all metrics at the moment.

Edit: And I kinda consider the situation when AMD looses multithreaded lead in mainstream platforms (to an 8 core intel) is the point of this thread. Imho the denial of any lead completely derails the discussion.
 
Last edited:

UsandThem

Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
15,310
6,091
146
I think what he meant, was before Ryzen Intel had AMD beat. Since then we all know its a mixed bad.

I certainly think AMD was badly beaten for the last 10-11 years until Ryzen.
I don't see why there is really any debate on this. From around the Core2 Duo years until Ryzen, there was hardly what any average person would consider true "competition". There's a reason Intel had close to 90+ % of the CPU market by the time Ryzen launched. Once Sandy Bridge hit in 2011, it was just that much worse for AMD.

That said, Ryzen is a wonderful CPU, and works wonders in my son's PC where he multitasks like no other. If I were building a new PC today, I would personally go with the Ryzen 2700X. However, AMD Bulldozer was also released in 2011, and it was not anywhere near in the same league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indus

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,958
2,479
136
I don't see why there is really any debate on this. From around the Core2 Duo years until Ryzen, there was hardly what any average person would consider true "competition". There's a reason Intel had close to 90+ % of the CPU market by the time Ryzen launched. Once Sandy Bridge hit in 2011, it was just that much worse for AMD.

That said, Ryzen is a wonderful CPU, and works wonders in my son's PC where he multitasks like no other. If I were building a new PC today, I would personally go with the Ryzen 2700X. However, AMD Bulldozer was also released in 2011, and it was not anywhere near in the same league.
Not just that, I'm surprised that Ryzen is amazing for gaming. I can't find a game where I'm not getting 144 fps average.

Now if I had a 240 hz monitor, I might tilt towards intel but I'm quite happy with my ryzen and nvidia combo.
 

Charlie22911

Senior member
Mar 19, 2005
613
228
116
Oh no doubt.

Apologies if I read wrong. But I can't apologize for correcting generalizations which might falsely influence readers, it's simply wrong to claim intel has AMD beaten in all metrics at the moment.

Edit: And I kinda consider the situation when AMD looses multithreaded lead in mainstream platforms (to an 8 core intel) is the point of this thread. Imho the denial of any lead completely derails the discussion.
I seem to have worded my original post rather poorly, I can accept and apologize for that. What I intended to convey is that on a technical level, Intel has absolute performance in regards to the design of its core. I realize this isn't the case though when you consider the end product as a whole.

The CPU landscape is very interesting, it is a moment I've been looking forward to since my old Opteron 165 + DFI LanParty SLI-DR setup; very happy I bought some AMD stock in '08 now. As a smaller and leaner company I think AMD can afford to be far more aggressive in its pricing without adversely affecting its bottom line than Intel can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vattila

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
654
874
136
Where do you think this 8 Core CF part will land on these hardware.fr charts?
I guess it should fall somewhere between the 8-core i7-7820X (a 140W part) and the 6-core i7-8700K (a 95W part).

Unless intel somehow magically can force the same aggressive all-core Turbo clocks on new 8C part(s) I don't see a reason why AMD should do anything at all, even price could remain the same.
You make good points. Unless Intel makes material improvements in process or architecture, the i9-9900K will be limited by power. It may overclock well, though. That said, yielding 8 good cores is harder than 6, so an all-core overclock to 5GHz+ may become less commonplace.
 

webeindustry

Junior Member
Dec 9, 2017
1
0
6
They're going to solder the CPU again. Look at the 7800x vs 8700k. 8700k improved IPC. 9900k will be ~10% better than 7820x with more reasonable temps on a 120 aio cooler.

I bet 4.8ghz all core on most chips without hardcore cooling solutions will be attainable. 5ghz+ all core for lottery winners with the cooling to support the potential. It's the logical upgrade to my 3770. I will purchase as soon as they're available
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
They're going to solder the CPU again. Look at the 7800x vs 8700k. 8700k improved IPC. 9900k will be ~10% better than 7820x with more reasonable temps on a 120 aio cooler.

I bet 4.8ghz all core on most chips without hardcore cooling solutions will be attainable. 5ghz+ all core for lottery winners with the cooling to support the potential. It's the logical upgrade to my 3770. I will purchase as soon as they're available

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
7800X is different from the 8700K in design, though. 8700K is not exactly related to the 7800X design. 8700K isn't an improved 7800X at all. Same with comparing 7820X and 9700/9900K.

Core X HEDT chips like the 7800X>7980XE use a different cache arrangement and design, and use the mesh interconnect. Core desktop like the 8700K use the standard cache design and the ring bus interconnect that previous desktop chips used.

The 7800X>7980XE successor line has not been released yet.

I doubt Intel goes to solder any time soon. Would really be surprised if they soldered a Coffee Lake chip like the 9700/9900K. I don't see it happening.
 
Last edited:

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
214
116
I doubt Intel goes to solder any time soon. Would really be surprised if they soldered a Coffee Lake chip like the 9700/9900K. I don't see it happening.
From what I recall, right now the only chips they're soldering at all are their LGA3647 Xeons. All their LGA1151 and LGA2066 chips have to make do with paste (unless the Xeon-W is being soldered, though I haven't heard anything to suggest it is).
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
10,559
2,662
136
From what I recall, right now the only chips they're soldering at all are their LGA3647 Xeons. All their LGA1151 and LGA2066 chips have to make do with paste (unless the Xeon-W is being soldered, though I haven't heard anything to suggest it is).
Pretty sure everything right now, even the current 3647 Skylake-SP Xeons is using TIM. Cascade Lake 3647 might use solder.
 

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,007
146
106
7800X is different from the 8700K in design, though. 8700K is not exactly related to the 7800X design. 8700K isn't an improved 7800X at all. Same with comparing 7820X and 9700/9900K.

Core X HEDT chips like the 7800X>7980XE use a different cache arrangement and design, and use the mesh interconnect. Core desktop like the 8700K use the standard cache design and the ring bus interconnect that previous desktop chips used.

The 7800X>7980XE successor line has not been released yet.

I doubt Intel goes to solder any time soon. Would really be surprised if they soldered a Coffee Lake chip like the 9700/9900K. I don't see it happening.
Tbh i don't understand why intel go for mesh design in their LCC. it's even slower than broadwell in certain task and have lower IPC than zen+.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY