Intel readies the 9th generation low-power CPUs - a 35W i9?

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

They are probably no good for laptops unless the laptops have really good thermal solutions.  The base clock is rather low except on the lower core count CPU's. Which makes them low end desktop parts/utility parts rather than mobile solutions.

Well, my thiccpad has a 35W cpu and while it isn't very cool it also doesn't throttle like laptop i9 chips...

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Well, my thiccpad has a 35W cpu and while it isn't very cool it also doesn't throttle like laptop i9 chips...

That indicates that your thinkpad has a well designed cooling solution for the CPU. 

[RejZoR]

35W at 2.1GHz. Don't even want to know how much power it chugs at anything more than that...

[Princess Luna]

10 hours ago, williamcll said:

I wonder would the 9900T beat the 2700X in efficency.

Technically the i9 9900K when at full stock already is more efficient than the Ryzen 7 2700X....

[Turtle Rig]

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my OP.  I love LTT, you guys are soo kind and nice and helpful unlike some other forums I had joined, but I strictly only use LTT and I love it here.  Thanks all 

[pyrojoe34]

Can intel stop with this artificial weakening of their chips by disabling hyperthreading on anything but the flagships chips? Why is there not a 6c/12t or 4C/8t option??

 

Maybe continued pressure by AMD will finally force them to include unlocked multipliers and HT on all their chips. Arbitrarily disabling features that are already built into the chips is just devious. It’s like buying a car that has a radio but it’s disabled in the base model and they just plug it in if you pay extra.

[schwellmo92]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Technically the i9 9900K when at full stock already is more efficient than the Ryzen 7 2700X....

IIRC the 9900K is 15% faster in Cinebench for 40-50% more power - this is when running in turbo-boost 4.7GHz on all-cores. I would be interested to see the performance comparison if the 9900K was limited to 95w. Ryzen is actually more power efficient in that example.

[schwellmo92]

3 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

IIRC the 9900K is 15% faster in Cinebench for 40-50% more power - this is when running in turbo-boost 4.7GHz on all-cores. I would be interested to see the performance comparison if the 9900K was limited to 95w. Ryzen is actually more power efficient in that example.

I actually found some results where the 9900K was limited to 95w and it was on-par performance-wise with the 2700X (when all-cores are loaded, non-AVX), but the 2700X TDP is 105w so roughly 10% more power draw for the Ryzen at equivalent performance.

[JoeCoke]

Okay, I definitely live on the red side of life, but come on. If this was AMD releasing lower powered Ryzen CPUs everyone here would have a much more positive reaction.

 

(It's hilarious how just about 2 years ago it was the opposite way, damn things change quick!)

[Mira Yurizaki]

According to AnandTech, Intel's TDP is based on the base frequency, not the turbo frequency (which makes sense because remember: Turbo is not a guarantee). So for something like the i7-8700T which turbos to 3.8GHz fully loaded, assuming it's really a 35W part at 2.4GHz, it'll be somewhere around 55W at fully loaded turbo.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Can intel stop with this artificial weakening of their chips by disabling hyperthreading on anything but the flagships chips? Why is there not a 6c/12t or 4C/8t option??

 

Maybe continued pressure by AMD will finally force them to include unlocked multipliers and HT on all their chips. Arbitrarily disabling features that are already built into the chips is just devious. It’s like buying a car that has a radio but it’s disabled in the base model and they just plug it in if you pay extra.

Maybe they are reject chips that don't work with HT enabled, at any rate, why would they enable HT and make all chips higher performing but sell some cheaper? 

 

As a scale of sales go, a company must provide options for all levels of consumer demand, some consumers can't afford top of the line, but if they make top of the line cheaper, then they'll need more sales than they have customers in order to maintain revenue.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 hours ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Can intel stop with this artificial weakening of their chips by disabling hyperthreading on anything but the flagships chips? Why is there not a 6c/12t or 4C/8t option??

 

Maybe continued pressure by AMD will finally force them to include unlocked multipliers and HT on all their chips. Arbitrarily disabling features that are already built into the chips is just devious. It’s like buying a car that has a radio but it’s disabled in the base model and they just plug it in if you pay extra.

To add what @mr moose says, believe it or not, what drives Intel and I daresay many other hardware manufacturers isn't us, the DIYer. It's large system building companies.

 

If the system builder wants something stupid and they have the cash to pay for it, the manufacturer will build it.

[ZacoAttaco]

2 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

To add what @mr moose says, believe it or not, what drives Intel and I daresay many other hardware manufacturers isn't us, the DIYer. It's large system building companies.

 

If the system builder wants something stupid and they have the cash to pay for it, the manufacturer will build it.

Agreed, DIY market is a relatively small fry compared to your bigger laptop and desktop manufacturers. In the end, on the PC side of things at least, the real money is in enterprise. That's been Microsoft's focus for a long time and companies like Dell and Lenovo try and secure contracts will large organisations because that's where the biggest gains are.

 

Sometimes we can get a little caught up in our custom PC and custom hardware bubble but we're really not the priority. I mean look at NVIDIA, most of their developments these days are not strictly around gaming but machine learning and their data centre efforts, both aimed at enterprise markets.