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

[bartekowca666]

Hey, I'd actually upgrade to 10600k if it worked on Z170... Oh, Intel..

[Arika]

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.

[redbread123]

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...

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'm trying to see where people are getting the "8 extra pins" from when the new socket has 1200 contacts.

[Falkentyne]

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.

[imreloadin]

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.

[Windows95]

imagine the propietary nsaware inside that thing

[jasonc_01]

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

[Elisis]

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.

[amdorintel]

9 hours ago, OlympicAssEater said:

Who knows, but we know it is not going to be affordable.

Still going with Ryzen!

[SeriousDad69]

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

[BigRom]

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

[Rolling2405]

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.

[Drak3]

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.

[amdorintel]

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!

[BigRom]

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.

[SeriousDad69]

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.

[porina]

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

[pas008]

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)

 

[Zando_]

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. 

[pas008]

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,

 

 

 

[Sauron]

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

[williamcll]

I mean if they can beat AMD to the price I might just consider it.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Tony Tony Chopper said:

Intel should just do what AMD did and solder 2 cpu chips onto 1 cpu like they started doing with thread ripper if cant beat them copy them.

you should read up on who actually "glued" first

[pas008]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

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

mainstream really doesnt need it though

everywhere else I agree