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

[zinfamous]

Yea I hope RTG is given some love for 2020, R&D has gone up in the last 18 months and it will take a few years to see the fruits of it.
Has Epyc sales been picking up?..thought they only had about 2% market share?

I could have the timing wrong, but some large orders from Baidu and Tencent have come in after the most recent data, so they are definitely gaining chunks here and there. I'm not sure how often that industry adoption data is available, but hell, Krzanich was already signaling concern that AMD could be grabbing up to 20% during this generation.

 

[french toast]

I could have the timing wrong, but some large orders from Baidu and Tencent have come in after the most recent data, so they are definitely gaining chunks here and there. I'm not sure how often that industry adoption data is available, but hell, Krzanich was already signaling concern that AMD could be grabbing up to 20% during this generation.

Yea that 20% comment to investors is what got him sacked imo, that was the realisation that they were going to lose the performance leadership after cruising for so long.
Hopefully AMD picks up some good market share, they need all the R&D they can get.

 

[Spartak]

I'm expecting the 9900K to be around the 500 euro ballpark, but who knows. Maybe Intel wants to milk it until Zen2. We'll see in a few weeks.

 

[bobhumplick]

amd didnt use 14nm libraries on the 12nm lp parts. they used the 12nm lp libraries and left blank space between the parts of the cpu. they did this for 2 reasons. 1 is the most important and that is so they can keep everything else the same. they can use the same equipment and the same package without any adjustments to be made on the equipment. the difference in density is small any way so it wouldnt be that much smaller. the second reason is that the spaces between the parts of the cpu spreads the heat out a bit more and can give higher clocks with less hot spots.

 

[TheELF]

That 1% was the techpowerup overall score. I only saw one multithreaded benchmark - Cinebench R15. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700/9.html

It doesn't have to say multi-threaded next to it to be multi-threaded,you think blender on the same page you linked (with ryzen being quite a bit faster then intel, with less clocks) is a single thread result?
wPrime,all the video encoding and file de- and com- pression,excel and powerpoint,java and mysql and machine learning these are all heavily multi threaded.

 

[PeterScott]

amd didnt use 14nm libraries on the 12nm lp parts. they used the 12nm lp libraries and left blank space between the parts of the cpu. they did this for 2 reasons. 1 is the most important and that is so they can keep everything else the same. they can use the same equipment and the same package without any adjustments to be made on the equipment. the difference in density is small any way so it wouldnt be that much smaller. the second reason is that the spaces between the parts of the cpu spreads the heat out a bit more and can give higher clocks with less hot spots.

Sorry, but no that isn't the way it works. PR is exactly the same size a SR, because all the features are exactly the same size. There was an interview with someone from GF a while back and they there were two options, you could do a new design tapeout, and masks to get slightly smaller feature sizes, or you could just use the same mask and get the exact same features sizes, and that is what some customers were going to do, mainly AMD.

It wasn't because doing the same features size was better in any technical way, it was because it saved them tens of millions of dollars, of not doing new tapeouts/mask.

Pinnacle Ridge is just getting a mild process refresh at the same features size.

 

[CHADBOGA]

One thing to remember with Intel's supposed pricing of the 9900K, Intel is currently verging on being capacity constrained, maybe even worse than verging, so for that reason alone they have less incentive to price their CPU's lower than what is being reported for now.

If and when they get their 10+xxx process sorted out, their next gen may be introduced at a cheaper price than the 9900K.

 

[coercitiv]

Speaking of capacity constraints... turns out GF won't be doing 7nm at all.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13277/globalfoundries-stops-all-7nm-development

Along with the cancellation of the 7LP, GlobalFoundries essentially canned all pathfinding and research operations for 5 nm and 3 nm nodes.

This means every 7nm product AMD plans to bring to the market will be made at TSMC.

 

[Vattila]

It is time to wrap this one up as well. Thanks for all the replies! As of time of writing, the poll shows 67% votes for "ride it out", with a combined 31% for Ryzen 2800X, and the remaining 2% for other hypotheses. Congrats to those who got it right!

Intel's 8-core i9-9900K has now been released, and indeed, there was no 2800X in response from AMD. It now looks like AMD will ride it out with their current line-up and lower pricing until Ryzen 3000 is ready.

With the latest EPYC 2 rumours pointing to an 8+1 chiplet design, the old speculations about a seemingly obvious progression to 12-core for Zen 2 and 16-core for Zen 3, by simply adding CCXs to the die, are all out the window. With all the focus on server, and little demand and need for more than 8 cores in the mainstream, the developments in the client space may look less exciting than before — although power, IPC and frequency improvements in 7nm Zen 2 may still get AMD in front. On the other hand, if Ryzen 3000 is based on reuse of the server chiplet with a separate IO chiplet in an MCM configuration, it may have compromises that keep it trailing Intel in areas where Skylake/CFL currently dominates, in particular games, Adobe software, CAD, database.

An interesting fact is that the prior SVP of AMD's client business, Jim Anderson, has left AMD since the launch of 2700X. This may be totally unrelated, and probably mostly is. But I have a feeling that he wasn't much inspired by the immediate future in the client space. The big splash for AMD was the return to high-end competition with the introduction of Ryzen. From here on forward, it will be less exciting, considering Intel and AMD more or less stay on par with 8 cores — especially if AMD continues to lose in gaming, which is the number one workload in the PC enthusiast space. Also, it must have been depressing to see the glacially slow adoption of AMD products with OEMs, despite very competitive offerings.

 

[LTC8K6]

A bit early to say AMD won't respond, imo.

9900K is basically MIA so far.

 

[rbk123]

A bit early to say AMD won't respond, imo.

9900K is basically MIA so far.

Agree. Due to shortages and the 9900k's very high price, there's no real need for AMD to respond at this time. They're simply in wait/monitor mode.

 

[LTC8K6]

I should say that if I were AMD, I would respond if I could, while Intel is stuck.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Agree. Due to shortages and the 9900k's very high price, there's no real need for AMD to respond at this time. They're simply in wait/monitor mode.

This would be the best time to respond, though; when the price/performance is at its worst and there is unsatisfied demand to snap up. A response to a widely available, MSRP i9 9900k is going to look so weak as to be nothing considering at MSRP it's already priced well against the AMD lineup considering its vastly superior performance. Their response would then have to be a 2800X at lower than the current 2700X price to look intriguing vs Intel's offerings.

 

[LTC8K6]

2700X Black Edition - Golden chips that clock higher for a $50 price premium. 3.9/4.5 stock.

 

[Vattila]

A bit early to say AMD won't respond, imo.

Well, they won't respond this year, unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat. If there was a 2800X coming this soon, I presume we would have heard about it (bios preparations, leaked benchmarks, etc.). If a 2800X comes next year, it doesn't bode well for a timely introduction of Ryzen 3000 — which I am still hoping will arrive by April (mid-year or back-to-school at worst). If Ryzen 3000 doesn't arrive before 2019-Q4, perhaps aligned with the next Intel refresh, it may make sense to squeeze out a 2800X in the meantime.

 

[LTC8K6]

They can pull a 2700XBE right out of a hat.

 

[dlerious]

They can pull a 2700XBE right out of a hat.

I don't see them selling a binned 2700X as 2800X. I have my doubts about them being able to hit 4.5Ghz turbo (let alone all core) with their current process - especially if they want to keep power and thermals reasonable. They're already binning 2700X for Threadripper, I don't see them giving up the margins in HEDT. They're better off focusing development on 7nm where they can get more improvement with the clockspeed along with power/thermals on the smaller node.

 

[Abwx]

They can pull a 2700XBE right out of a hat.

Or a DDR3 compatible MB to reduce the costs even further, lol, :

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/gigabyte-h310m-ds2v-ddr3-intel-core-i9/

 

[LTC8K6]

H310M DS2V DDR3

Board doesn't seem to support the new chips, according to the GB website.

Sounds like a China directed board.

But as far as I know, nothing past SKL supports DDR3?

 

[LTC8K6]

H310 must actually be H110 then.

Not sure I'd mind a cheap board that will take an 8700 and DDR3...

 

[AtenRa]

So, AMDs TR2 2920X @ $649 is currently a direct competitor even if 9900K is "using a mainstream platform".


And this is why the i9 9900K is not suited for workstation/professional workloads. It is better to invest in TR2 or Intel 2066 socket.

From AT TR2 2920X review,
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13516/the-amd-threadripper-2-cpu-review-pt2-2970wx-2920x

Pov-Ray perf/watt

Core i9 9900K = 5542 / 168,48W = 32,89
Core i9 7920X = 5861 / 140,02 = 41,85

7920X has 27% higher perf/watt than 9900K in this application. It also shows that i9 9900K is way higher than 140W TDP with those aggressive turbo clocks. This CPU is clearly not a mainstream SKU, you cannot get the same performance using a H310/B360 vs Z390 motherboards.

 

[PeterScott]

So, AMDs TR2 2920X @ $649 is currently a direct competitor even if 9900K is "using a mainstream platform".


And this is why the i9 9900K is not suited for workstation/professional workloads. It is better to invest in TR2 or Intel 2066 socket.

From AT TR2 2920X review,
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13516/the-amd-threadripper-2-cpu-review-pt2-2970wx-2920x

Pov-Ray perf/watt

Core i9 9900K = 5542 / 168,48W = 32,89
Core i9 7920X = 5861 / 140,02 = 41,85

7920X has 27% higher perf/watt than 9900K in this application. It also shows that i9 9900K is way higher than 140W TDP with those aggressive turbo clocks. This CPU is clearly not a mainstream SKU, you cannot get the same performance using a H310/B360 vs Z390 motherboards.

Sure, if you are looking to build a pov-ray render farm, you wouldn't choose 9900k, but for a multi use desktop the 9900k is top of the heap.

 

[Zucker2k]

So, AMDs TR2 2920X @ $649 is currently a direct competitor even if 9900K is "using a mainstream platform".


And this is why the i9 9900K is not suited for workstation/professional workloads. It is better to invest in TR2 or Intel 2066 socket.

From AT TR2 2920X review,
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13516/the-amd-threadripper-2-cpu-review-pt2-2970wx-2920x

Pov-Ray perf/watt

Core i9 9900K = 5542 / 168,48W = 32,89
Core i9 7920X = 5861 / 140,02 = 41,85

7920X has 27% higher perf/watt than 9900K in this application. It also shows that i9 9900K is way higher than 140W TDP with those aggressive turbo clocks. This CPU is clearly not a mainstream SKU, you cannot get the same performance using a H310/B360 vs Z390 motherboards.

I don't get your post. Are you comparing the 9900k to the $649 TR2 2920x or the i9 7920x, which is $1189? Against the TR2 2920x, the 9900k actually does very well indeed. This is in contrast to speculation by some well known pro AMD posters on this forum who believe the 12 core AMD destroys the 9900k in multithreaded in the vast majority of cases.

 

[AtenRa]

Sure, if you are looking to build a pov-ray render farm, you wouldn't choose 9900k, but for a multi use desktop the 9900k is top of the heap.

Every review is using only a single application and everyone is taken this as a general power usage indication for each CPU. Now suddenly this power usage only matters if we build a Pov-Ray farm ??

I don't get your post. Are you comparing the 9900k to the $649 TR2 2920x or the i9 7920x, which is $1189? Against the TR2 2920x, the 9900k actually does very well indeed. This is in contrast to speculation by some well known pro AMD posters on this forum who believe the 12 core AMD destroys the 9900k in multithreaded in the vast majority of cases.

Let me explain,

I believe you have noticed that Intel promoted Core i9 9900K as the best Gaming CPU, they didnt communicated anything about professional work. Intel considers this CPU as a mainstream gaming SKU, nothing more nothing else. But because of its technical characteristics (210W Turbo TDP) and its higher price ($449 , actual price is more than $550-600) , this SKU is not a mainstream CPU.
So if you want hardware for professional use this CPU at its current pricing and its limited platform features (1151 vs sTR4 and 2066) is not suited for this segment. Also its perf/watt in highly threaded workloads is sub-par to last years 2066 SKUs and TR2 SKUs currently available. Not to mention the upgradability path that TR and 2066 has over the 1151 platform.

So we are left only with Gaming, and currently the performance difference vs 8700K and 9700K is negligible.

So at the end , this CPU is DOA for its indented market segment and today there are other much better products at close the same price point but with better perf/watt, higher platform features, better upgradability etc etc.

ps. As for the comparison of 9900K to 2920X, today with current 9900K prices, the combo of Motherboard + CPU setup between the two is not more than 100 usd because you really need a very good and expensive Z390 to get 100% of the 9900K performance due to 210W TDP of its Turbo mode. If you pair this CPU with a B360 motherboard, then it will only work at 95W TDP and its performance in professional long time running applications will get very low.

ps2. Ohh and between you and me, the 12 Threaded TR2 2920X completely destroys the 9900K in perf/watt at highly threaded applications. This perf/watt and high efficiency is something the Intel boys were tutting for the last 4-5 years but it seems recently its not that important anymore.

 

[Abwx]

I don't get your post. Are you comparing the 9900k to the $649 TR2 2920x or the i9 7920x, which is $1189? Against the TR2 2920x, the 9900k actually does very well indeed. This is in contrast to speculation by some well known pro AMD posters on this forum who believe the 12 core AMD destroys the 9900k in multithreaded in the vast majority of cases.

Vast majority of cases the 9900K is irrelevant, AtenRa is right since he lives in the EU, 678€ for a 9900K, 410/650€ for a 1920X/2920x and 750/880€ for the 1950X/2950X.

Only thing he s not accurate is that not only the 1920X/2920X is price competitive with Intel 8C/16T but the 1950X as well is a much better buy.

https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i9-9900k-bx80684i99900k-a1870092.html#offerlist

https://geizhals.de/?cat=cpuamdam4&xf=12099_Desktop~820_TR4

Now if your raison d'etre is to be milked by Intel that s another story...