Article Tom's Hardware Core i9 9900KS Preview

[Zucker2k]

Power efficiency is incredible for 14nm.
Edit: Consumes 50 watts less than the i9 9900K @ 5GHz.



Link

 

[Zucker2k]

Where did you hear that? AVX offset is a feature of the micro-architecture, AFAIK.

From the article:

Intel's current flagship Core i9-9900K can hit 5.0 GHz on two of its cores at stock settings, but the Core i9-9900KS is designed to hit 5.0 GHz on all of its cores. That's an improvement of 300 MHz when all cores are active, and our chip does it with with all instruction types (AVX included) at stock settings.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If that's true, even more impressive!

 

[Kocicak]

I wonder how many things Intel learned with that intensive long term polishing of one process. It may be useful in development of future processes.

Concerning this product, it seems to me as futile as polishing an aluminium foil ball when others are selling golden balls for less.

But just for itself, it is surely nice to have highly polished perfect aluminium foil ball.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'm impressed with the improvements on the consumption front but the price should be around $450 and they could lower the K version at around $400.

As it is right now, the 3900X makes more sense

 

[ehume]

Where did you hear that? AVX offset is a feature of the micro-architecture, AFAIK.

With the 8700k with its MB, there was a separate setting for AVX. But with AVX2 and AVX set to 0, the 8700k could run 5 GHz on air and still not throttle.

 

[jpiniero]

I'm impressed with the improvements on the consumption front but the price should be around $450 and they could lower the K version at around $400.

As it is right now, the 3900X makes more sense

If your workload is low-threaded (read: games) it does make sense.

 

[amrnuke]

Let's wait for a full review and benchmarks BUT this is a really solid achievement in efficiency if true -- while also bumping clocks higher.

 

[TheGiant]

I'm impressed with the improvements on the consumption front but the price should be around $450 and they could lower the K version at around $400.

As it is right now, the 3900X makes more sense

today everything from AMD makes more sense than Intels lineup except mobile or ultra high fps gaming or Xeon W Cascade lake, which is good

but the Comet Lake lineup (6/12T K for 249EUR etc) leak with this power optimisation can create a problem for current AMD lineup and especially income
Intel can afford to lose some income, AMD cannot they have been starving for years

I suspect Intel will price the 10C comet lake with 490EUR, 400 for 8C top model, etc

If those power numbers are true, we may get 10C comet lake at 5GHz with 140/8*10=175W minumum CPU power, which with all the losses can lead to pretty much the same as mine 3900X - 240-250W wall power handbraking
and that is crazy stuff considering its still 14nm more + node

 

[JoeRambo]

It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.

 

[Ajay]

It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.

@mikk nailed down the three options - hopefully Intel will share the actual technique They used to achieve this result. We need Ian to get on this

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.

Well, remember, BullDozer and PileDriver (Vishera) were 32nm (28nm?), and AMD got them to clock as high as 5Ghz, didn't they? What was the stock/boost clock of the FX-9590?

 

[Abwx]

Basically it clocks apparently 6% higher than a regular 9900K at a 9% higher power, wich say that it use 1.5% higher voltage at 5GHz than the 9900K at 4.7, so this could have been done with a very good sample.

Also THG state with AVX workloads, wich is different from AVX2, not counting that Y-Cruncher and Aida are not as punishing as Prime 95 using small FFTs, wich is usually the method at THG, but seems that for this test they declined using their usual protocol...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Good gamer chip. Looks like it'll cost too much, though.

@Abwx

y-cruncher is really close to Prime95. It has pauses, but it does use AVX2 and AVX512 if your CPU support them. It can be really intense.

 

[guachi]

It's (even) better at gaming but unless I have a 2080Ti I'd probably be better served (in gaming) to spend whatever extra money I have on a GPU.

If I had $1000 to spend on CPU + GPU + mobo I could get a 3600 and a mobo for, what, $300. I'd have $700 for a GPU and I could get a 2070 Super and have money left over. Or I could get 9900KS and have about $150 left over and buy a 570.

And if I'm not really concerned about gaming I should just get a 3900X.

It's a good CPU. It just seems rather niche.

 

[Markfw]

Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.

I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@guachi

Even with a $2000 budget, 9900KS only has some niche use cases. People were already hitting clocks like that with the 9900K. 9900KS just lets you do it "at stock" which is mostly irrelevant for the 1080p gaming crowd anyway. Because those are the only ones that will see major benefit. If you are 4K gaming then the 9900KS isn't going to do much for you that you couldn't already get from the 9900K or 3900x. And the 9900KS has maybe 6-7 months of shelf life before it has to face off against Zen3.

 

[jpiniero]

The practical gaming chip is actually the 9700K. 5 Ghz is mostly achievable and you should basically get the same performance as the 9900KS in games once overclocked.

 

[Markfw]

The practical gaming chip is actually the 9700K. 5 Ghz is mostly achievable and you should basically get the same performance as the 9900KS in games once overclocked.

Well, that sort of makes sense. Except no heatsink. And now in that price range, you are competing with the 3700x, that does come with a heatsink, and is very close in games.

Again, this is a niche of a niche, and Intel just wants to say they are the best in games, and I give them that.
At the moment AMD rules in everything else.

 

[Ajay]

Well, that sort of makes sense. Except no heatsink. And now in that price range, you are competing with the 3700x, that does come with a heatsink, and is very close in games.

Again, this is a niche of a niche, and Intel just wants to say they are the best in games, and I give them that.
At the moment AMD rules in everything else.

Well, if someone wants an all core 5GHz overclock, the stock heat sink is pointless.
And, in all honesty, first thing I’d do with a 3700X is toss the hearsink. I don’t think I've used a stock HSF since Intel’s Slot 1 cpus.

 

[ondma]

I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.

Your crapping on the chip in this thread certainly does not sound like a recommendation.

 

[Arkaign]

This is going to be my new gaming CPU replacing my 8086k, my general multipurpose PC just moved from 2700X to 2950X. I gave a run at 3700X but it was a downgrade from the 8086k for gaming, pretty awesome otherwise though. But found someone willing to trade me the 2950X + Mobo for the 3700X + Mobo + one of my spare Traxxas trucks lol. Weirdly, both with Taichis.

Now to actually find a place to buy this damned thing. I'm slightly worried about the availability of it.

 

[mopardude87]

I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.

If history repeats itself, i rather have a few more slower cores then fewer faster cores. I remember all the E8400 vs Q6600 threads. When next gen is in full swing people on a 9900K/9900KS might be wishing they sat on a 3900x. Could be wrong but i got a feeling i might be right.

 

[Zucker2k]

If history repeats itself, i rather have a few more slower cores then fewer faster cores. I remember all the E8400 vs Q6600 threads. When next gen is in full swing people on a 9900K/9900KS might be wishing they sat on a 3900x. Could be wrong but i got a feeling i might be right.

These chips that everyone loves to crap on are doing 5.2GHz+ with 16 threads on competitive ipc. Newer nodes will certainly be married to higher ipcs but these clocks are going to be next to impossible to match in the newer nodes. These octacores are going to enjoy greater shelf-life than the dual-cores from 10 years ago.

Intel has done a fine job here, and I hope they don't give up entirely on 10nm because 14nm gave them issues too until they worked out the kinks, and I feel 10nm still holds promise to be a better overclocker than 7nm simply because of the laws of physics. Hotspotting is a real thing.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Now to actually find a place to buy this damned thing. I'm slightly worried about the availability of it.

Intel allegedly began binning for this product months ago. I wouldn't be too worried since it is (so far as anyone knows) 100% the same product as the 9900K. All the lines that were producing the K can (and have been) continue producing the KS. Sadly, I don't think they'll be available at all until December.

If history repeats itself, i rather have a few more slower cores then fewer faster cores. I remember all the E8400 vs Q6600 threads. When next gen is in full swing people on a 9900K/9900KS might be wishing they sat on a 3900x. Could be wrong but i got a feeling i might be right.

Depends on how many games start needing 12c instead of 8c. The people feeling the squeeze first will be those on 6c/6t machines. But really, Zen3 will make things worse for those 9900K owners than anything else.

 

[gdansk]

It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.

If these are normal results for the 9900KS then there is really no need for Intel to make 10nm chips. It's not like the microarch changed, for this increase in efficiency they basically made a bigger improvement than most other companies new nodes. If that was the case Intel would be talking it up, so I am more inclined to attribute this to measurement difficulties or a lucky sample.