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

Page 22 - 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

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
At this point, I think it's safe to say that Intel's 14nm++ is more efficient than their current 10nm efforts.
I expect that will prevail for a while. The 2019 holiday parts will probably be laptop parts, not desktop parts.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,003
522
126
At this point, I think it's safe to say that Intel's 14nm++ is more efficient than their current 10nm efforts.
It's been known for quite awhile even before 2nd gen CFL that it would take 10nm++ to overtake 1st gen Coffee Lake transistor performance. Absolutely nothing new except Intel making their 10nm team do even better to overtake the latest 14nm process. Which it seems, their 10nm in any form, will probably fail to overtake.

Either way, it is very impressive how well they have done with 14nm. The very best 14nm process for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartak

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
353
266
136
I still think Intel is essentially skipping 10nm and the first volume releases will be 10nm+, or possibly even ++.

I recall hearing long ago that 14nm++ was actually better than the first 10nm.
They already have a chip in production on 10nm, so the question is will volume production be on the same process, an improved process, or even a slightly altered node.

For the first two its mostly semantics as they have internal guidelines when they deem the process improved enough for a + moniker. In most cases that + is guided by marketing considerations as the process improves gradually all the time.
 
Last edited:

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
700
106
What have they got in production already on 10nm?
I recall some feeble attempt some months back, but for all intents and purposes it was an insult to call it a consumer-ready CPU.
 

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
353
266
136
Correct probably in the hundreds per month right now, that's why I said 'with volume production'. They seem to ramp up production slightly though by offering a few NUC's with the chip. I guess sales are really slow on that Lenovo :)

On a related topic, they increased fin height and contacted poly pitch (from 70 to 84) with 14nm+ IIRC, I can see them doing the same with the M2P on 10nm as this seems to be the area they are struggling with, using SAQP. If they relax it slightly from 36 to 40nm they can use SADP instead.
 

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
923
620
136
AMD's response will be price cuts. Possibly a 2800X, but it will only be 200MHz faster. Don't think that will help much, the 9900K could be up to 20-25% faster than the 2700X, what good would another 5% do against that?
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,768
2,916
136
If i9 9900K is at 400-450$ there is no need to even consider a price.
And 8C 8T 9700K at $330-360 will not make the 2700X to drop significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,552
496
126

Wow the i7-8700k even though it was dropping to 4.3 on 8 cores was matching the 2700x when comparing on a wide variety of software, although the 2700 has 33% more cores/threads,the 9900k also has 33% more cores/threads and never drops below 4,7?Damn... That's 33% more from cores and 10% more from clocks even if IPC hasn't changed at all.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/19.html
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,065
4,791
136
If that all core turbo is confirmed, either intel had a very big improvement on their 14 nm++ tech (14 nm+++?) or the 95 W TDP is a unicorn's daydream. Very impressive clocks (and performance I'm sure) if true. Impressive price as well. Still holding out to see what AMD's 7nm looks like before I make my upgrade decision. Intel's feeling the burn for sure, they are throwing everything they got at this Ryzen "problem".
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,661
609
126
Interesting that they have potentially down-clocked the graphics. Not that it matters since no one uses it, but I wonder if there is anything to read into that.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,805
11,227
136
That's kind of an understatement, if that pricing is true.. It's as if Intel is completely oblivious of the competition. So much for competition.
Well, you don't have to buy their stuff, and buy the competition. That is how consumers regulate the prices. If its too high, buy from the other guy. They have not needed to do that for 10 years, I guess they have no clue.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
That's kind of an understatement, if that pricing is true.. It's as if Intel is completely oblivious of the competition. So much for competition.
So much for the wallets of the consumers who don't realize there's competition.
Their $$$ their choice on who to support.
AMD doesn't have to mount a response to this as they currently have far better value.
There's no pressing need for me to get higher performance/clocks out of my 8 core processor use case. There's not enough I/O to feed it properly.

My next step was into 16 core territory which has scaled I/O. Hilarious that's what $200 more than Intel's 8 core? Up to the consumer ultimately. Watching people gobble down gaming monitors that cost $1,500 and $1,200 video cards shows that there's a sizable number of people who form the 'take my money' luxury segment. I'm not upset by it. They feed the machine and keep me employed in tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
Well, you don't have to buy their stuff, and buy the competition. That is how consumers regulate the prices. If its too high, buy from the other guy. They have not needed to do that for 10 years, I guess they have no clue.
It reminds me of struggles of AMD on video cards. Nvidia has been riding on a high from the Geforce256 days when they killed 3dfx and became the GPU kings. There was this quote on the front page with the 2k series from Nvidia. Someone stated that they needed AMD to increase their competition so Nvidia would be forced to lower their prices. A person responded "No AMD should compete at the mid high level that they are and not push for top performance. All people want from that is for Nvidia to lower prices to make Nvidia purchases more affordable, not to purchase AMD products".

I think that exists here as well. During the BD days all people ever wanted was AMD back in competition. Everyone recognizes even the biggest fanboys of either side that competition is good for the market. But that doesn't mean they are willing to change their buying habits. Just changes how often they upgrade or replace current hardware. Intel is kind of shooting themselves in the foot, but maybe for the time being while AMD is laying their groundwork for the future, that they ignore AMD as a credible threat for now. Otherwise if Intel was forced to price competitively, AMD would surely lose out, not just because Intel could easily out price AMD and still make bundles of money. But all things equal most people would default to Intel without a second thought because they think of Intel as superior product.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
898
96
It reminds me of struggles of AMD on video cards. Nvidia has been riding on a high from the Geforce256 days when they killed 3dfx and became the GPU kings. There was this quote on the front page with the 2k series from Nvidia. Someone stated that they needed AMD to increase their competition so Nvidia would be forced to lower their prices. A person responded "No AMD should compete at the mid high level that they are and not push for top performance. All people want from that is for Nvidia to lower prices to make Nvidia purchases more affordable, not to purchase AMD products".

I think that exists here as well. During the BD days all people ever wanted was AMD back in competition. Everyone recognizes even the biggest fanboys of either side that competition is good for the market. But that doesn't mean they are willing to change their buying habits. Just changes how often they upgrade or replace current hardware. Intel is kind of shooting themselves in the foot, but maybe for the time being while AMD is laying their groundwork for the future, that they ignore AMD as a credible threat for now. Otherwise if Intel was forced to price competitively, AMD would surely lose out, not just because Intel could easily out price AMD and still make bundles of money. But all things equal most people would default to Intel without a second thought because they think of Intel as superior product.
That window of opportunity and ship has sailed for intel unfortunately. Even if they price things down to AMD, they would not win my money because their brand has already lost the premium it previously maintained. AMD beat them on price and performance and are the king in my mind. Intel thus has to counter them in both regards to win me back. Coupled with the absolute gutter tier shortcuts they conducted to achieve their performance which is resulting in security flaws by the way, there's no way I'm touching a single one of their processors until they fix the issues for a generation or two. Intel's missteps are what classically befall arrogant companies that stay in the lead for too long and it usually only becomes clear to the masses in retrospect. The minute AMD delivered Ryzen, i knew it was going to be over for intel for some time. This later became clear over the course of a year to everyone else and still doesn't seem to be something people believe. AMD is the new premium brand. The masses and headlines catch on much later.

Nvidia has just recently put itself in Intel's shoes also with the pricing of its latest launch.
In the coming years, I look forward to X86 being disrupted, Risc-V, new accelerator card companies with focused/fixed task acceleration off of PCIE 4.0, A renaissance in FPGAs, and DSPs and a totally reshaping of the industry. I predict a great deal of commoditization which is already beginning and a see a rise in Linux to the forefront over winblows (microsoft has also become a hot mess). I look forward to standardization of the web vs the joke it has become via a basket of meme frameworks. I see vulkan taking off and I foresee HSA taking shape. Margins will get crushed and there will be true competition. Brands of a former age wont be the brands of a new. If you want to be a premium brand, you'll have to fight it out and prove it.
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,066
718
136
Nvidia has just recently put itself in Intel's shoes also with the pricing of its latest launch.
In the coming years, I look forward to X86 being disrupted, Risc-V, new accelerator card companies with focused/fixed task acceleration off of PCIE 4.0, A renaissance in FPGAs, and DSPs and a totally reshaping of the industry. I predict a great deal of commoditization which is already beginning and a see a rise in Linux to the forefront over winblows (microsoft has also become a hot mess). I look forward to standardization of the web vs the joke it has become via a basket of meme frameworks. I see vulkan taking off and I foresee HSA taking shape. Margins will get crushed and there will be true competition. Brands of a former age wont be the brands of a new. If you want to be a premium brand, you'll have to fight it out and prove it.
I hope you also look forward to literally everything you predicted, not happening.

The rise of Linux was probably my favourite prediction, I mean I must have only heard that being said 1,000 times over the last 20+ years. LOL
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
824
136
I9 9900k looks awesome, should be the i7 9700k for $350, but still looking good.

Roll on next year when we will have a price war.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,552
496
126
Well, you don't have to buy their stuff, and buy the competition. That is how consumers regulate the prices. If its too high, buy from the other guy. They have not needed to do that for 10 years, I guess they have no clue.
But the other guys halo product will be ~40% behind...if someone is ok with 40% less they can get the i7-8700K or just wait for the i5s to drop,those are going to be cheaper.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
22,805
11,227
136
But the other guys halo product will be ~40% behind...if someone is ok with 40% less they can get the i7-8700K or just wait for the i5s to drop,those are going to be cheaper.
I don't think 40%, its only 10% behind in games now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,414
1,606
136
I don't think 40%, its only 10% behind in games now.
Ha. Anyone using a number like that has like one game in mind when they say that. All it takes is one poorly optimized game for them to prove their point.

That said. Some people just look at certain statements. How far behind on IPC. Clock speed lead. Then make that into some kind of real life performance stat like it is a 1:1 ratio. Completely blind to actual results.

That window of opportunity and ship has sailed for intel unfortunately. Even if they price things down to AMD, they would not win my money because their brand has already lost the premium it previously maintained. AMD beat them on price and performance and are the king in my mind. Intel thus has to counter them in both regards to win me back. Coupled with the absolute gutter tier shortcuts they conducted to achieve their performance which is resulting in security flaws by the way, there's no way I'm touching a single one of their processors until they fix the issues for a generation or two. Intel's missteps are what classically befall arrogant companies that stay in the lead for too long and it usually only becomes clear to the masses in retrospect. The minute AMD delivered Ryzen, i knew it was going to be over for intel for some time. This later became clear over the course of a year to everyone else and still doesn't seem to be something people believe. AMD is the new premium brand. The masses and headlines catch on much later.

Nvidia has just recently put itself in Intel's shoes also with the pricing of its latest launch.
In the coming years, I look forward to X86 being disrupted, Risc-V, new accelerator card companies with focused/fixed task acceleration off of PCIE 4.0, A renaissance in FPGAs, and DSPs and a totally reshaping of the industry. I predict a great deal of commoditization which is already beginning and a see a rise in Linux to the forefront over winblows (microsoft has also become a hot mess). I look forward to standardization of the web vs the joke it has become via a basket of meme frameworks. I see vulkan taking off and I foresee HSA taking shape. Margins will get crushed and there will be true competition. Brands of a former age wont be the brands of a new. If you want to be a premium brand, you'll have to fight it out and prove it.
Ship has sailed with me as well. I have always leaned AMD, even without they typical AMD value, I tend to get their CPU's over Intel when they are close enough in performance if for no other reason then AMD doing well is good for computing as a whole. But we aren't the inflexible, I still have a 4770k and a 3930k I use. I'll get Intel products when they make sense. I get AMD products when they make sense. I skew to AMD, but I know that is my personal Bias there, but its not a super strong bias.

But we are the few. As even enthusiast purchases in 2000-2006 has shown. Even when price, performance, features, power usage, and just about every other measurement, AMD was the superior product. They bought in Intel though happy they got the fastest Pentium 4 for cheaper than a PIII Katmai cost at launch. All they needed was one stat to show that Intel was better (at the time it was all about the GHz).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY