Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Flying Sausages

Intel Core i9-10900K 10-core Processor and Z490 Chipset Arrive April 2020

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Froody129 said:

New socket AGAIN? That’s rubbish. AMD is winning consumer hearts by doing things which the customer wants. Blatant anti-consumer crap like this will get you nowhere.

Most customers don't actually care whether or not they can upgrade their CPU though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like people forget Intel is a business. Why are they releasing this product? Because their stakeholders would be absolutely furious if they didn't. They are only doing what they are physically able to at this point to keep investors happy.

 

I guarantee Intel are aware of their reputation at this point, but there's nothing they can do about it until 7nm is ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao, i think not 14nm smh, pci 3... bruh moment for intel 14+++++++++ headass. come on like is it gonna be the same thing with the 9900k? it's just gonna generate more heat and become an hedt chip at this point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big news for Z490 is if "Rocket Lake" is going to be compatible with it, as rumors point to AVX512 support and substantial IPC improvement.

Even if you lose 2 cores (8/16 instead of 10/20), that will still make a lot of people happy for the AVX 512 and IPC boost.  That's what I'm wondering about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Intel keep doing this? Because to the average Joe on the street larger number > better, they're not going to understand ANY of the technical aspects of it so that's why Intel keeps pumping them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously another fucking chipset plus a new socket to justify making forcing another motherboard purchase.  

 

Do they even get it or do they have theirs heads so far in the sand they can't hear consumers saying asking for at least 2 generations on a single chipset.

 

Wtf


CPU | Intel i7-7700K | GPU | EVGA 1080ti Founders Edition | CASE | Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX | PSU | Seasonic X850 80 Plus Gold | RAM | 2x8GB G.skill Trident RGB 3000MHz | MOTHERBOARD | Asus Z270E Strix | STORAGE | Adata XPG 256GB NVME + Kingston 120GB SSD + WD Blue 1TB + Adata 480GB SSD | COOLING | Hard Line Custom Loop + 7 Corsair 120 Air Series QE Fans | MONITOR | Acer Predator XB271HU | OS | Windows 10 |

                                   

                                   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OlympicAssEater said:

It does? I thought it doesn't.

It's "solder". It's quite literally a fancy name for a new TIM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think AMD is going to take the FPS lead for the first time in over a decade next year unless you can consistently get 5.5GHz Overclocks on these new chips.

AMD doesn't even need to release a new architecture, just boost the IFclock up so you can get 4000-4200MHz RAM in 1:1 mode and raise clock speeds on the eight core CPUs to 4.4GHz base and 4.8GHz boost and I don't think Intel can compete with that in gaming.

This might be Intel's Bulldozer moment where they can't do anything except throw thermals and power efficiency out the window and jack the frequency up and hope for the best lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

clock speed (intels going to get the heater name)

Intel becoming the very thing they destroyed (the AMD FX-series)

 

Oh how the turntables


CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600  Heatsink: ID-Cooling Frostflow X GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 Mini 6GB RAM: G.Skill Flare X 2400Mhz (2x8GB) Mobo: ASRock B450M-Pro4  Case: Phanteks P300 PSU: Superflower Silver ECO 600W

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, porina said:

I kinda wish they backported Ice Lake to 14nm as it would be more interesting

I don't understand why Intel just doesn't do it already. Been wondering why Intel hasn't designed a new CPU architecture just because of 10nm issues. If they did enthusiast desktops CPUs would have bigger improvements. I am pretty sure architecture is more important and has a bigger impact on performance than process node.


  • My system specs
  • View 91 Tempered Glass RGB Edition, No PSU, XL-ATX, Black, Full Tower Case
  • ROG MAXIMUS XI EXTREME, Intel Z390 Chipset, LGA 1151, HDMI, E-ATX Motherboard
  • Core™ i9-9900K 8-Core 3.6 - 5.0GHz Turbo, LGA 1151, 95W TDP, Processor
  • GeForce RTX™ 2080 Ti OC ROG-STRIX-RTX2080TI-O11G-GAMING, 1350 - 1665MHz, 11GB GDDR6, Graphics Card
  • ROG RYUJIN 360, 360mm Radiator, Liquid Cooling System
  • 32GB Kit (2 x 16GB) Trident Z DDR4 3200MHz, CL14, Silver-Red DIMM Memory
  • AX1600i Digital, 80 PLUS Titanium 1600W, Fanless Mode, Fully Modular, ATX Power Supply
  • Formula 7, 4g, 8.3 (W/m-K), Nano Diamond, Thermal Compound
  • On AIO cooler 6 x NF-F12 IPPC 3000 PWM 120x120x25mm 4Pin Fibre-glass SSO2 Heptaperf Retail
  • 6 x NF-A14 IPPC-3000 PWM 140mm, 3000 RPM, 158.5 CFM, 41.3 dBA, Cooling Fan
  • 1TB 970 PRO 2280, 3500 / 2700 MB/s, V-NAND 2-bit MLC, PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe, M.2 SSD
  • Beyerdynamic MMX 300 (2nd Generation) Premium Gaming Headset
  • Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elisis said:

It's "solder". It's quite literally a fancy name for a new TIM.

Seeing as solder is used as a thermal interface material, yes.

 

22 minutes ago, BigRom said:

Intel becoming the very thing they destroyed (the AMD FX-series)

 

Oh how the turntables

Except that for the vast majority of tasks, the FX lineup couldn't compete with Intel chips' performance.

 

Whereas Intel's 8 cores and AMD's 8 cores are pretty close to each other. And, unlike AMD, Intel has a large enough bank account that they can advertise to the masses, who don't know how to compare CPUs outside of GHz.


Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Except that for the vast majority of tasks, the FX lineup couldn't compete with Intel chips' performance.

 

Whereas Intel's 8 cores and AMD's 8 cores are pretty close to each other. And, unlike AMD, Intel has a large enough bank account that they can advertise to the masses, who don't know how to compare CPUs outside of GHz.

you nailed it, because advertising is everything, absolutely everything!

the FX lineup was a joke!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Seeing as solder is used as a thermal interface material, yes.

 

Except that for the vast majority of tasks, the FX lineup couldn't compete with Intel chips' performance.

 

Whereas Intel's 8 cores and AMD's 8 cores are pretty close to each other. And, unlike AMD, Intel has a large enough bank account that they can advertise to the masses, who don't know how to compare CPUs outside of GHz.

Obviously the performance was a huge letdown for the FX-series

But Intel right now is going the same path that AMD did in trying to cram as much cores and clock speed into their chips, at what point would it just become almost impossible to cool when its overclocked.

 

The 9900K is already a hot boi as it is, cramming more cores and boosting the clock speed isn't exactly gonna help with temperature now is it? Sure people will still buy it, its ****ing Intel after all and they can probably sell it off brand recognition alone.


CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600  Heatsink: ID-Cooling Frostflow X GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 Mini 6GB RAM: G.Skill Flare X 2400Mhz (2x8GB) Mobo: ASRock B450M-Pro4  Case: Phanteks P300 PSU: Superflower Silver ECO 600W

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, amdorintel said:

you nailed it, because advertising is everything, absolutely everything!

the FX lineup was a joke!

At the time FX was a joke, but the FX-8350 aged a lot better than the 4 thread intel CPUs of the era. These days the FX-8350 probably gives better frame rate consistency in new games than even the 7600k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thomas001 said:

I don't understand why Intel just doesn't do it already. Been wondering why Intel hasn't designed a new CPU architecture just because of 10nm issues. If they did enthusiast desktops CPUs would have bigger improvements. I am pretty sure architecture is more important and has a bigger impact on performance than process node.

I'd guess it is two factors:

1, the belief they can fix 10nm in a timely manner

2, it would take a LONG time, during which #1 would happen


Main rig: Asus Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700k stock, Noctua D14, G.Skill Ripjaws V 3200 2x8GB, Gigabyte GTX 1650, Corsair HX750i, In Win 303 NVIDIA, Samsung SM951 512GB, WD Blue 1TB, HP LP2475W 1200p wide gamut

Gaming system: Asrock Z370 Pro4, i7-8086k stock, Noctua D15, Corsair Vengeance LPX RGB 3000 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Fractal Edison 550W PSU, Corsair 600C, Optane 900p 280GB, Crucial MX200 1TB, Sandisk 960GB, Acer Predator XB241YU 1440p 144Hz G-sync

Ryzen rig: Asrock B450 ITX, R5 3600, Noctua D9L, G.SKill TridentZ 3000C14 2x8GB, Gigabyte RTX 2070, Corsair CX450M, NZXT Manta, WD Green 240GB SSD, LG OLED55B9PLA

VR rig: Asus Z170I Pro Gaming, i7-6700T stock, Scythe Kozuti, Kingston Hyper-X 2666 2x8GB, Zotac 1070 FE, Corsair CX450M, Silverstone SG13, Samsung PM951 256GB, Crucial BX500 1TB, HTC Vive

Gaming laptop: Asus FX503VD, i5-7300HQ, 2x8GB DDR4, GTX 1050, Sandisk 256GB + 480GB SSD

Total CPU heating: i7-8086k, i3-8350k, i7-7920X, 2x i7-6700k, i7-6700T, i5-6600k, i3-6100, i7-5930k, i7-5820k, i7-5775C, i5-5675C, 2x i7-4590, i5-4570S, 2x i3-4150T, E5-2683v3, 2x E5-2650, E5-2667, R7 3700X, R5 3600, R5 2600, R7 1700

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wow comparing intels chips to fx chips lol not even close comparison

 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/

 

and thats all chips at 4ghz might have got tighter though with other variables but not much changed

and we all know intel can do all core way higher or even more boosting higher

amd needs to get this part right, before intel does the chiplet design

and these big multicore scores are kinda not as big as a deal as everyone makes out to be

wasnt the fx line multicore monsters but then not as much utilized cores(not to mention other things) but software is still limiting this area also

because they dont want to alienate users (hate it but its a slow process)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh wow comparing intels chips to fx chips lol not even close comparison

 

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/

 

and thats all chips at 4ghz might have got tighter though with other variables but not much changed

and we all know intel can do all core way higher or even more boosting higher

amd needs to get this part right, before intel does the chiplet design

and these big multicore scores are kinda not as big as a deal as everyone makes out to be

wasnt the fx line multicore monsters but then not as much utilized cores but software is still limiting this area also

because they dont want to alienate users (hate it but its a slow process)

 

FX is very, very, very different to Ryzen lol. FX was beaten in actual use by i5s, whereas Zen and Zen+ competed with older HEDT chips (Haswell-E 6c and 8c i7s) and only lost out due to lower clock headroom, and Zen 2 competes with current gen Intel, only losing out in straight gaming due to again, lower clock headroom. Zen 2's IPC is actually better than Intel's now IIRC, Intel chips just clock high enough to barely overcome that. Unless you need every last frame or are building a gaming specific rig, AMD's Ryzen platform usually brings much better perf/$, both in games and multitasking/multicore workloads. HEDT gets tricky, due to the massive price of new TR chips compared to Intel's price slashed X299. But in mainstream, Ryzen is fighting Intel real damn hard and winning in a lot of use cases. 

Although yes, people doing not-multicore stuff love to quote massive multicore scores even though that doesn't really mean much in actual use (same as how under normal everyday gaming/web browsing the difference between a 6c and 8c CPU at the same clocks/IPC isn't really noticeable). More clock headroom would be nicer on Ryzen, but AMD focuses on pulling the absolute most out of the CPUs already, their PBO boost is very good if you're more casual about your hardware. It only sucks for specific enthusiasts like me, who want to pull a clean all-core OC with a satisfying number, vs tweaking RAM and OCing individual CCXs. Haven't had hands-on with Zen 2 yet though, but back on Zen+, PBO made for better gaming perf than actually manually OCing, which was disappointing and the reason I moved back to Intel. 


X58-X79-X99-X299 lads: Intel HEDT Xeon/i7 Megathread

 

Big Rig (Completed) - (Current) - i7 5960X - 4.7Ghz/3.7Ghz ~ 1.3v/1.1v core/uncore - 76-78C under RealBench load- Custom Loop: 2x 360GTS with EK-ZMT/Stubbies and EK D5 pump/res combo - EVGA X99 Classified - 32GB (4x8GB) HyperX Predator DDR4 - 3200MHz CL16 - AMD Radeon VII (best TimeSpy so far: here) - 1TB 970 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG - 6x iPPC NF-F12 2000 - 45" 4K LG TV

 

Planned Desk Rig - i7 5820K - Noctua NH-L12S - EVGA X99 Micro 2 - 16GB (4x4GB) EVGA SSC DDR4 - EVGA XC Ultra 1660 Ti - 250GB 960 Evo - Seagate Firecuda 2TB - Seagate BarraCuda Pro 1TB - Corsair CX550 - Fractal Design Meshify C Mini - LG 25UM56-P - 25" 2560x1080 at 75Hz

X79 (waiting on mobo/CPU/RAM) - i7 4930K - EVGA CLC 280 - EVGA X79 Dark - 16GBGB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 - 2x EVGA Classified 780s - MX500 1TB - EVGA 1600W T2 - Corsair Air 540 - 3x NF-P12 Redux 

 

Planned X58 rig - Xeon X5670 - NH-D15S - EVGA X58 Classified SLI 4-Way - 24GB (3x8GB) HyperX Savage Red DDR3 - Undecided GPUS - probably a basic SSD - EVGA 1000W G3 - Undecided Case

 

I lowkey enjoy HEDT

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

FX is very, very, very different to Ryzen lol. FX was beaten in actual use by i5s, whereas Zen and Zen+ competed with older HEDT chips (Haswell-E 6c and 8c i7s) and only lost out due to lower clock headroom, and Zen 2 competes with current gen Intel, only losing out in straight gaming due to again, lower clock headroom. Zen 2's IPC is actually better than Intel's now IIRC, Intel chips just clock high enough to barely overcome that. Unless you need every last frame or are building a gaming specific rig, AMD's Ryzen platform usually brings much better perf/$, both in games and multitasking/multicore workloads. HEDT gets tricky, due to the massive price of new TR chips compared to Intel's price slashed X299. But in mainstream, Ryzen is fighting Intel real damn hard and winning in a lot of use cases. 

Although yes, people doing not-multicore stuff love to quote massive multicore scores even though that doesn't really mean much in actual use (same as how under normal everyday gaming/web browsing the difference between a 6c and 8c CPU at the same clocks/IPC isn't really noticeable). More clock headroom would be nicer on Ryzen, but AMD focuses on pulling the absolute most out of the CPUs already, their PBO boost is very good if you're more casual about your hardware. It only sucks for specific enthusiasts like me, who want to pull a clean all-core OC with a satisfying number, vs tweaking RAM and OCing individual CCXs. Haven't had hands-on with Zen 2 yet though, but back on Zen+, PBO made for better gaming perf than actually manually OCing, which was disappointing and the reason I moved back to Intel. 

of course its very different to ryzen also by far

i'm just stating these comments comparing intel to fx line

me personally I would take 9900k over 3700x or 3800x but over the 3900x or 3950x i'd be in a pickle because i'd be trading small performance in certain areas to gain more performance in an area I really dont need to utilize all those cores often,

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the core count by 2 every year isn't going to cut it when AMD looks to be doubling it every 18 months


...is there a question here? 🤔

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×