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

[Zucker2k]

Isn't Intel's DMI 3.0 maxing out at 8GB/s speeds?

Edit2:
Actually 8.0 GTs is 3.93GB/s

 

[Insert_Nickname]

If your single M2.0 drive can reach the Intel DMI 3.0 throughput , using a USB 3.0 and or SATA drives at the same time will limit your total bandwidth to the DMI 3.0. Thus your M2.0 drive will get a bottleneck and will not reach full speed.
If your single M2.0 drive doesnt reach the Intel DMI 3.0 bandwidth then you will not have a problem even copying from 2x M2.0 drives.

Don't forget PCIe is full duplex, so you'll get full performance both ways simultaneously. So if you read from one drive to write to another, there won't be any bottlenecks. Now if you read from, or write to, two drives at the same time, it'll bottleneck.

A single NVMe drive can easily saturate the DMI link, and it has to share that with everything else hanging off the PCH. That would include Ethernet, SATA, USB, audio etc.

AMDs solution is simply superior in that regard. The only issue is the FCH only has PCIe 2.0 support, but since there aren't a lot of PCIe 3.0 expansion cards, apart from NVMe drives, it's not really too much of an issue. Most expansion cards use more PCIe lanes for additional bandwidth rather then move to PCIe 3.0.

 

[JoeRambo]

Don't forget PCIe is full duplex, so you'll get full performance both ways simultaneously. So if you read from one drive to write to another, there won't be any bottlenecks. Now if you read from, or write to, two drives at the same time, it'll bottleneck.

A single NVMe drive can easily saturate the DMI link, and it has to share that with everything else hanging off the PCH. That would include Ethernet, SATA, USB, audio etc.

AMDs solution is simply superior in that regard. The only issue is the FCH only has PCIe 2.0 support, but since there aren't a lot of PCIe 3.0 expansion cards, apart from NVMe drives, it's not really too much of an issue. Most expansion cards use more PCIe lanes for additional bandwidth rather then move to PCIe 3.0.

WOW... and just when i thought we have dispelled BS a new misinformed guy jumps in.

Except this time DMI is limiting single drive, cause is "unidirectional" lol.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

WOW... and just when i thought we have dispelled BS a new misinformed guy jumps in.

Except this time DMI is limiting single drive, cause is "unidirectional" lol.

I'm sorry, but you clearly didn't read a word I wrote.

If you f.x. have an NVMe drive that can do reads at 3500MB/s, which is the practical maximum of a PCIe 3.0 x4 link, and simultaneously have to access f.x. a USB drive that can do f.x. 550MB/s or a secondary NVMe drive that can also do 3500MB/s, how is that going to fit simultaneously through the 3500MB/s availible?

Now in practice, FIFO buffers will kick in to ensure QoS, but the limit is still there. There was an article some years ago on the topic, if you don't believe me:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-xp941-z97-pci-express,3826-3.html

Does it matter for regular desktop users or gamers? No, not a bit. But since this is an entusiast forum, it does matter to some of us. Because some of us run unusual configurations for unusual workloads...

 

[PeterScott]

Does it matter for regular desktop users or gamers? No, not a bit. But since this is an entusiast forum, it does matter to some of us. Because some of us run unusual configurations for unusual workloads...

Then Ryzen wouldn't be suitable either. Since it's second NVMe drive is limited to about 1300MB/s all the time, even if it is the only thing accessed in your system.

If I had two 970Pro drives, I'd rather have Intels solution than AMDs because most likely, most of the time I am accessing one of those drives a time, and either one would run full speed on Intel x370, and even if copying between them, the speed cut in half still isn't that bad.

On AMD x470 one drives is permanently running less than half speed, and if copying between them, you are limited to the speed of the slower driver.

You really have to work at creating an edge case where x470 solution is better.

If you really need multiple NVMe drives accessed at full speed simultaneously you will have to step up to actual HEDT platforms.

 

[Markfw]

Then Ryzen wouldn't be suitable either. Since it's second NVMe drive is limited to about 1300MB/s all the time, even if it is the only thing accessed in your system.

If I had two 970Pro drives, I'd rather have Intels solution than AMDs because most likely, most of the time I am accessing one of those drives a time, and either one would run full speed on Intel x370, and even if copying between them, the speed cut in half still isn't that bad.

On AMD x470 one drives is permanently running less than half speed, and if copying between them, you are limited to the speed of the slower driver.

You really have to work at creating an edge case where x470 solution is better.

If you really need multiple NVMe drives accessed at full speed simultaneously you will have to step up to actual HEDT platforms.

If I were doing that much IO, I would be on the TR platform, not AM4. Then its no problem at all even with 3 nvme drives, all at full speed.

 

[PeterScott]

If I were doing that much IO, I would be on the TR platform, not AM4. Then its no problem at all even with 3 nvme drives, all at full speed.

Which is what the final sentence of my post says to do.

 

[Markfw]

Which is what the final sentence of my post says to do.

Does Intels HEDT platform have the same problem as its desktop ? I thought TR was way better. That why I said TR, not HEDT. But I could be wrong, its just what I remember.

 

[PeterScott]

Intel has 44 CPU PCI lanes on their HEDT platform, which is significantly more than desktop, less than threadripper, but not inadequate.

Though Intel has some crappy partitioning on lower end CPUs that limits PCI lane count artificially, which was discussed previously:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...8-core-i9-9900k.2549874/page-14#post-39524648

Basically, you need to go above the 7820x to get full PCI lane count, though these days going for HEDT, you probably want more than 8 cores anyway.

But really. TR vs Intel HEDT arguments belong elsewhere. AMD has a clear Cores/$ advantage that is winning many converts in that space.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Then Ryzen wouldn't be suitable either. Since it's second NVMe drive is limited to about 1300MB/s all the time, even if it is the only thing accessed in your system.

If I had two 970Pro drives, I'd rather have Intels solution than AMDs because most likely, most of the time I am accessing one of those drives a time, and either one would run full speed on Intel x370, and even if copying between them, the speed cut in half still isn't that bad.

On AMD x470 one drives is permanently running less than half speed, and if copying between them, you are limited to the speed of the slower driver.

You really have to work at creating an edge case where x470 solution is better.

If you really need multiple NVMe drives accessed at full speed simultaneously you will have to step up to actual HEDT platforms.

Almost completely agree about HEDT platforms*. No question. But...

AMD boards using X-series chipsets usually have a secondary PCIe 3.0 x8 slot, which you can use for an M.2 adaptor, thus allowing two full speed NVMe drives directly from the CPU. At the cost of some graphics performance (1-2%). This goes for LGA-115x platforms too BTW. We'll return to that shortly. However, some X370/X470 (f.x. my own Crosshair VI) have bifurcation support on the secondary PCIe slot from the CPU, thus allowing three NVMe drives from the CPU. You could theoretically add a fourth PCIe 3.0 x2 slot from the CPU formed from the GPP lanes, but I haven't seen that implemented anywhere.

Intel's LGA-115x platforms only allow the x16 graphics complex to be split in an x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4 fashion, but boards implementing the last are few and far between, and you'd have to rely on integrated graphics to get three drives.

Over in the AMD camp, SR/PR requires a graphics card since they don't have an IGP. So you can't use all PCIe slots for NVMe drives. RR is limited to a single x16 root complex + the dedicated x4 link, so you'd have to settle for two drives when using the IGP.

I should perhaps have used "more elegant" instead of "superior", I like having a dedicated link between CPU and NVMe drive.

*unless you're on a budget.

 

[swilli89]

Question.. What actual generation are these 9000 series intel parts? Seems like 6th gen was rebranded 7th gen, 7th gen was rebranded 8th gen with more cores, and now 8th gen is rebranded 9th gen with yet again more cores.

When is the actual next gen Intel?

 

[jpiniero]

Question.. What actual generation are these 9000 series intel parts? Seems like 6th gen was rebranded 7th gen, 7th gen was rebranded 8th gen with more cores, and now 8th gen is rebranded 9th gen with yet again more cores.

The CPU core is basically unchanged since Skylake and GPU since Kaby Lake. I don't think the 8 core even has the Spectre/Meltdown fixes.

 

[swilli89]

The CPU core is basically unchanged since Skylake and GPU since Kaby Lake. I don't think the 8 core even has the Spectre/Meltdown fixes.

Seriously just expressing my amazement here.. but its incredible that Skylake launched three years ago last week and we basically have Skylake + 4 cores in the form of a 9900k, something Intel could have very easily done in 2015, as the next processors that could still be six months away.

We haven't had a tick (node shrink) or a tock (new architecture) in over three years from a company with resources as great as Intel.

This huge 10nm delay has really screwed them - and us along with it.

 

[ub4ty]

Question.. What actual generation are these 9000 series intel parts? Seems like 6th gen was rebranded 7th gen, 7th gen was rebranded 8th gen with more cores, and now 8th gen is rebranded 9th gen with yet again more cores.

When is the actual next gen Intel?

That's been the game intel has played for years.
I suffered through it and am thankful I no longer have to.
I don't have a grudge to hold against them. It's just business... Everybody does this : New name, gimmicky features, new product, new profits.
As an educated and disciplined consumer, I just don't fall for it.

 

[swilli89]

That's been the game intel has played for years.
I suffered through it and am thankful I no longer have to.
I don't have a grudge to hold against them. It's just business... Everybody does this : New name, gimmicky features, new product, new profits.
As an educated and disciplined consumer, I just don't fall for it.

I didn't follow anything CPU for nearly a year and just stunned to find just how bad it is Icelake is literally 2020 now. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-roadmap-cooper_lake-ice_lake,37574.html.

Considering 7nm EPYC is sampling to customers.. I expect Ryzen 2 7nm by Summer 2019..

 

[Dayman1225]

I didn't follow anything CPU for nearly a year and just stunned to find just how bad it is Icelake is literally 2020 now. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-roadmap-cooper_lake-ice_lake,37574.html.

Considering 7nm EPYC is sampling to customers.. I expect Ryzen 2 7nm by Summer 2019..

That's a server roadmap, Intel claims 10nm client products on shelves by holiday 2019(didn't say what kind of client products though) also there is a thread for 10nm products like Icelake, TigerLake, etc

 

[ub4ty]

Seriously just expressing my amazement here.. but its incredible that Skylake launched three years ago last week and we basically have Skylake + 4 cores in the form of a 9900k, something Intel could have very easily done in 2015, as the next processors that could still be six months away.

We haven't had a tick (node shrink) or a tock (new architecture) in over three years from a company with resources as great as Intel.

This huge 10nm delay has really screwed them - and us along with it.

This too is just business. It's why my Intel gear maxes on a much older 4 core than clocks north of 4Ghz.
I have no clue why anyone would have bought a 'newer' version of 4 core processor if they already owned one..
I went from single to dual, from dual to 4, from 4 to 8, from 8 to 16.
I never reinvested in the same core count except back in the day when single core was all about increased clocks and a time of frequent transistor shrinks.

Why didn't intel just add 4 more cores?
Because they didn't have to and they needed to protect their ridiculous Xeon enterprise ecosystem.
People fail to realize it seems that an 8 core processor is essentially enterprise level compute capacity.
Intel was selling 8 core Xeons for a grand a pop back in 14'/15' @ 2.6GHz or so.

Nvidia has milked in a similar manner when competition fell off from AMD.

 

[ub4ty]

I didn't follow anything CPU for nearly a year and just stunned to find just how bad it is Icelake is literally 2020 now. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-roadmap-cooper_lake-ice_lake,37574.html.

Considering 7nm EPYC is sampling to customers.. I expect Ryzen 2 7nm by Summer 2019..

Ice lake.. poop lake... a,b,c,d,e,f,g Lake.
Yeah, I have no clue what's going on w/ Intel's ridiculous product roll out.
Until they figure out a single socket or two for desktop, one socket for HEDT, and one socket for enterprise, get their stupid prices sorted, I literally just pan every headline that comes out. Reading through their alphabet soup of product offerings, chipsets, etc is just nauseating.

They really need to come up w/ a better nickname for their product lines because _____ Lake is disorienting.
ICE, COFFEE, timbuktu, Kalamanzu, iknowwhatiambutwhatRU.

They've become a painful joke.
Need to clean house in their business/marketing/sales team. Get back to serious engineering and add some life back to their products.
Starting to come off as boring suits channeling the IBM era.

EDIT : Oh, i forgot about tigerlake.. How could I forget a lake named tiger.. Tiger lake.
totally a must have.

 

[french toast]

This too is just business. It's why my Intel gear maxes on a much older 4 core than clocks north of 4Ghz.
I have no clue why anyone would have bought a 'newer' version of 4 core processor if they already owned one..
I went from single to dual, from dual to 4, from 4 to 8, from 8 to 16.
I never reinvested in the same core count except back in the day when single core was all about increased clocks and a time of frequent transistor shrinks.

Why didn't intel just add 4 more cores?
Because they didn't have to and they needed to protect their ridiculous Xeon enterprise ecosystem.
People fail to realize it seems that an 8 core processor is essentially enterprise level compute capacity.
Intel was selling 8 core Xeons for a grand a pop back in 14'/15' @ 2.6GHz or so.

Nvidia has milked in a similar manner when competition fell off from AMD.

Intel was selling 8 core Haswell E for a grand in early 2017!
Still, 9900k is going to be a solid step up from what we have now, if the price is right it will be a solid long term investment.

 

[ub4ty]

Intel was selling 8 core Haswell E for a grand in early 2017!
Still, 9900k is going to be a solid step up from what we have now, if the price is right it will be a solid long term investment.

$1,000 ... that's why I don't remember it. The same price as an 8 core Xeon.
Essentially still protecting their Enterprise product line margins many years after an 8 core Xeon was offered.
Thanks for reinforcing my prior point.

Meanwhile, some months later I bought my first Ryzen 8 core for $280.
$1000 .... $280.
Going from literal meme prices to something any average bloke can afford.

9900k wont be a solid step up for me because I'm already on 16 core. Meanwhile, AMD has already pushed to 32 core.
I bought my 8 core. I bought my 16 core machine.
I then bought another 8 core and will probably buy another next year (AMD).
I'm invested long term already. 7nm + PCIE 4.0 + big changes in I/O will be my next investment.

Intel's busy trying to deliver an 8 core and AMD has gone from 8/16/32...
The train left the station and Intel wasn't around.

Once they get to their 10nm process, have a cohesive scalable architecture from 8 to 16 and possibly 32 for the desktop and get pricing under control, they'll have my eye. As they likely won't in the next 5-8 years, they're essentially dead to me.

So, AMD doesn't need to respond to 9900k... They already defined the standard for 8 core and beyond on the desktop. Intel is responding and they're quite late to the party. My eyes gloss over past 4Ghz on 8 core. This will change with a transistor shrink.

 

[french toast]

I agree, but if you have a 1800x or a 7700k...9900k is a solid worthwhile upgrade, it will last you 3 years comfortably for general desktop use and gaming.
I will be surprised is even zen2 will offer more than 5-10% more FPS than a 9900k..ditto icelake.
Like I said, depends on price, nearly every CPU is a great CPU if priced right

 

[ub4ty]

I agree, but if you have a 1800x or a 7700k...9900k is a solid worthwhile upgrade, it will last you 3 years comfortably for general desktop use and gaming.
I will be surprised is even zen2 will offer more than 5-10% more FPS than a 9900k..ditto icelake.
Like I said, depends on price, nearly every CPU is a great CPU if priced right

I never do upgrades in the same core count family unless transistor size shrinks by half/ram bumps from DDRX to DDRX+1, PCIE bumps from X.0 to X+1.0, or there is a new I/O interface introduced. I center on 5 year ownership on avg. I will be conducting no upgrades for some time. I have no computational need to do so. I understand its America and the masses consume things like crazy, but I'm not a consumerist. I'm an enthusiast in so much as amazing new compute capabilities make me enthusiastic. This enthusiasm ends when I pull my wallet.

Ryzen 2xxx series is of no interest to me.
Zen2 on 7nm is only of interest if there are significant improvements and an increase in I/O. PCIE 4.0 needs to become reality in the desktop as well.

I give AMD the same treatment that I give Intel... They have to earn/win my $$$ with something of value.
5-10% FPS... I game on a 4 core Intel from some time back on a busted nvidia video card. I have multiple 1080s but they are compute only cards used in my 8 core rig... I play all of the intense titles and have no complaints about the experience.
I've been gaming for well over a decade dating all the way back to DOOM/QUAKE/counterstrike. You really don't need much GPU power to have a fun experience.

Some time ago, computer building, overclocking, gaming, and the whole ecosystem went mainstream. Everything went full-retard... People are treating builds like status symbols and the quality/genuine nature of the pursuit fell off. I'm not caught up in the mainstream current of computing. I stick to a disciplined purchase/upgrade mindset.

5-10-15% improvements mean nothing to me... Goes for AMD, INTEL, NVIDIA
50% or more improvements catch me eye. Everything else is noise.

The new Threadripper has 32 more cores but no increase in I/O, still 128GB mem ceiling, 2 cores have no direct I/O access.. Double the price of my 16 core. Conclusion : Bad value. Not being considered.
Thought process is simple.

 

[JoeRambo]

I'm sorry, but you clearly didn't read a word I wrote.
If you f.x. have an NVMe drive that can do reads at 3500MB/s, which is the practical maximum of a PCIe 3.0 x4 link, and simultaneously have to access f.x. a USB drive that can do f.x. 550MB/s or a secondary NVMe drive that can also do 3500MB/s, how is that going to fit simultaneously through the 3500MB/s availible?

The irony here, is that in previous pages I did exactly this testing, and You are the one not reading the word. I have 1TB sam 970 PRO, sam 512GB 960 oem pro variant and 500GB external USB3. Intel is not limiting one drive, is not saturating m.2 to usb copy, is probably at least 500MB/s faster M.2 to m.2 than AMD desktop solution, and yet You somehow manage to spread urban bs about DMI being a limiting factor on desktop?

Kinda sad, that that there is no AMD guy with 2 m.2 drives in these forums, willing to repeat the M.2 copy tests

AMD boards using X-series chipsets usually have a secondary PCIe 3.0 x8 slot, which you can use for an M.2 adaptor, thus allowing two full speed NVMe drives directly from the CPU. At the cost of some graphics performance (1-2%). This goes for LGA-115x platforms too BTW. We'll return to that shortly. However, some X370/X470 (f.x. my own Crosshair VI) have bifurcation support on the secondary PCIe slot from the CPU, thus allowing three NVMe drives from the CPU. You could theoretically add a fourth PCIe 3.0 x2 slot from the CPU formed from the GPP lanes, but I haven't seen that implemented anywhere.

Intel's LGA-115x platforms only allow the x16 graphics complex to be split in an x8/x8 or x8/x4/x4 fashion, but boards implementing the last are few and far between, and you'd have to rely on integrated graphics to get three drives.

So we allow AMD to loose 8x on graphics and use PCI-E to M.2 adapter and do not allow using that same adapter on Intel? There are plenty of boards with 8 + 8 mode, including my low end Asus Z370-A, no need to sell a kidney for high end MB. This low end mobo allow 3 M.2 from CPU (and keeping GPU at 8x) and 2 more from chipset. All in full 4x glory mode and only disabling 2 sata slots.

 

[maddie]

I agree, but if you have a 1800x or a 7700k...9900k is a solid worthwhile upgrade, it will last you 3 years comfortably for general desktop use and gaming.
I will be surprised is even zen2 will offer more than 5-10% more FPS than a 9900k..ditto icelake.
Like I said, depends on price, nearly every CPU is a great CPU if priced right

Why would any Ryzen owner upgrade to Intel. They would have to be insane.

AM4 will take Zen2 & Zen3. In exchange for a few months premium, mostly expressed in benchmarks, you give up the ability to stay current with only a CPU purchase? Insanity.

 

[french toast]

Why would any Ryzen owner upgrade to Intel. They would have to be insane.

AM4 will take Zen2 & Zen3. In exchange for a few months premium, mostly expressed in benchmarks, you give up the ability to stay current with only a CPU purchase? Insanity.

I get that, I'm just saying if you couldn't wait a 9900k will serve you well for a few years.
If you have AM4 and some patience then waiting for 3xxx Ryzen is best bet, which is what I would do, 9900k would be good 8 months earlier either way...so long as it is priced right...$400 seems about right imo.