Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 24, 2018.
Oh that 9900K looks juicy sweet. Maybe finally I'll upgrade my aging 5820K.
Fox2232 is just mad, cuz his AMD cpu is bad (slow)
Just edit your first post
So much fail in these posts, spoken like a true diehard fanboy.
Hardly a war with 8 cores. Not to mention how much it will cost.
Still could be interesting as a "highest end gaming CPU"
Yes, you are right there. But that's what Warlord does not get. He considers intel's future chips as holy grail. But in meanwhile intel is losing that clock advantage. We will see what clocks intel can have on 8C/16T under full load even with solder.
And then we will see Zen2 around same time. There AMD is likely to gain 5~10% IPC as they promised since Zen/Zen+ is new architecture with a lot of low hanging fruits. And we can expect 8C/16T max auto clock moving from 4.0GHz to 4.4GHz while max auto clock from 4.35GHz to 4.8GHz. Basically making AMD's solution equal to intel's in performance while AMD is likely going to keep prices as they have them now.
That's price where AMD's 8C/16T costs about same as intel's 6C12T.
Please note that I do not call intel's chip bad, they are good by all means. But AMD is good option in almost entire price spectrum. AMD just does not have Zen in lowest part of spectrum. And AMD is definitely better value in HEDT spectrum. (With budget for intel system, you can get 1.5x performance from AMD's side. Or get same while clocking it so low that it becomes extremely power efficient.)
Which brings us to main AMD's disadvantage with current Zen. That's pretty poor power efficiency at last 100~200MHz they can reach easily.
IIRC: In my tests 8C/16T @4.25GHz easily reached 200W+. While 4.15GHz kept under 150W. And 4GHz under 100W. 3.8GHz under 65W. If Zen2 on 7nm gains additional power efficiency...
I think it's misleading to show "5GHz" when it's only for 1 core.
Be warned, I have 2400G too. I intentionally limit it to 3.6GHz. It is excellent system in tiny box.
Go enthusiastically with same box on intel's side. I wonder if you can get higher CPU and iGPU performance while keeping it as cool.
5.0 GHz (1-2 Cores)
4.8 GHz (4 Cores)
4.7 GHz (6-8 Cores)
Thanks for the clarification (AMD also does it) but still very confusing to say the least.
Very salty mate, if you got ur head outta ya ass you might think objectively.
If I were you I will hold on tiny bit longer, and if you plan to stick with intel then IceLake 9th gen.
That would be a worthy upgrade, not this. It's still Coffelake after all.
And by games there isn't much of a difference, both get way over 100fps, at higher reso the gap is basically none.
Elaborate on that saltines. But before you do, please understand that intel's 6C/12T was already an option at time I went for AMD's 8C/16T 2700x. I made choice based on knowing. My budget did allow for TR4 1950x. I just did not have use for it. (That includes need to show ePeen.)
So please elaborate
I'm in the same boat as him, having the 5820K for 3.5~ years now. While I do plan to stick to it for as long as I can, I got a bit frustrated some days ago, as apparently my 5820K can't handle its 4.4 OC anymore with the voltages it had for years, it started crashing in some CPU intensive games like AC:Origins or BF1 and I was forced to lower it to 4.3... that's why the 9900K is incredibly tempting with 4.7 on stock on 8 cores!
I'm at 1440p 140Hz gaming wise, so CPU shouldn't really be a problem, but as it happens, some games, AC:Origins in particular made me reconsider things.
Wow, i7-9700K looks like a really beastly gaming CPU considering it's got a whole 8 cores without hyperthreading! Hyperthreading has been shown to slow down some games (but is beneficial in others if you don't have enough real cores), and there's a whole 8 real cores at high clocks - could be the best gaming CPU ever, even better than the i9 9900K perhaps!
So Intel is going to catch up to AMD in terms of core number that together with higher clocks should give them a comfortable lead in the mainstream market. The problem is at what cost for the consumers?... Not to mention the temps of those things.
And like someone has already said, no 6 core version with HT, why??? Intel makes such dumb moves...
Wait, so will this new Core i9 require a X299 board? If so, that's a pretty costly alternative to a 2700X. Will the Core i7 really be limited to a 8c/8t chip? I somehow doubt this - Intel needs to release a 8c/16t mainstream product, not a HEDT product.
New bios is out already for most z370 MB, that support 9series cpu's
That doesn't answer my question. Will this new Core i9 require a X299 board like all the other i9 chips? If I had to take a guess, my answer would be yes, which means it will not be supported on Z370. Like I said, I doubt the veracity of these specs.
This CPU should be the whole point of the upcoming Z390 motherboards, so I highly doubt they would work on current Z370, regardless of bios.