Core i9 9900k, i7 9700k and i5 9600k show up as preorder on Dutch site.

[pas008]

51 minutes ago, Aetheria said:

The 9700k will have 8 threads and the best IPC + clock speeds available for the foreseeable future. It'll be a gaming beast, provided it doesn't thermal-throttle by the second splash screen.

 

SMT/HT doesn't provide any gaming benefit unless you're severely limited in thread count. In the days of dual-core i3 budget gaming builds, HT mattered, but it'll be a long time before you see games begin to saturate 8 threads.

 

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You forget the limitations if the ring bus architecture. 6 cores is likely going to be better than 8 for latency unless they made some latency improvement with the 9th gen. 

I think the 9700k and 9900k will trade blows in gaming right next to 8700k

based on average overall performances

some games ht hurts, not enough real cores 6 is enough but there are few games that benefit from more but other system resources always trying to dip in on shit too, latency of ring bus and do these newer chips have hardware security at what cost?

[AngryBeaver]

Well that price translates to about $800 USD for the I9. If you are going to spend that amount you are better off just going to the enthusiast line up. I mean the 7820x is an 8 core 16t chip for $450. It might not come with those huge stock clocks and it might not even clock to 5ghz, but the abillity to hit 5ghz shouldn't be worth double. I mean you can get a 16 core AMD for that price.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, Sampsy said:

Hah. People can't possibly buy into Intel's marketing bs. There is no way a cpu on the mainstream platform should be retailing for 700 euros. Changing the name from i7 to i9 doesn't make it a better product. 

Just look at rtx 2080s at 1000€ being sold out and lose hope...

Am I the only one concerned about the two and clocks? It seems like i7 are just shitty i9 with worse clocks for the same tdp and without hyperthreading because of defects..?

[pas008]

24 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Well that price translates to about $800 USD for the I9. If you are going to spend that amount you are better off just going to the enthusiast line up. I mean the 7820x is an 8 core 16t chip for $450. It might not come with those huge stock clocks and it might not even clock to 5ghz, but the abillity to hit 5ghz shouldn't be worth double. I mean you can get a 16 core AMD for that price.

they pay alot higher prices as is

so you cant do straight up currency exchange

[AngryBeaver]

22 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Just look at rtx 2080s at 1000€ being sold out and lose hope...

Am I the only one concerned about the two and clocks? It seems like i7 are just shitty i9 with worse clocks for the same tdp and without hyperthreading because of defects..?

The Nvidia cards though are because after seeing people still buying cards at those levels when stock was low... they know they can now get away with it. They also were not getting any of those inflation prices as that was happening from the card retailers. So I have a feeling they are trying to make sure they don't end up being the ones losing out this time.

 

I have a feeling they will have a 1200 msrp like we see on the 2080ti, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them doing some good deals off and on to drive sales.... we don't even know what they are selling them to the 3rd party manufacturers for either.

 

I just have a feeling the new prices are a way to make more money in the event we have another mining craze. Maybe they are extremely good at crunching numbers too? So they are counting on the initial miner business on day one.

[Brooksie359]

31 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Well that price translates to about $800 USD for the I9. If you are going to spend that amount you are better off just going to the enthusiast line up. I mean the 7820x is an 8 core 16t chip for $450. It might not come with those huge stock clocks and it might not even clock to 5ghz, but the abillity to hit 5ghz shouldn't be worth double. I mean you can get a 16 core AMD for that price.

Or just get the 8700k if they need the multithreaded there are much better options and if they need high single threaded with decent multithreaded the 8700k is a way better value if these prices are even remotely accurate. 

[Aetheria]

35 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The 8700k will likely beat it in many areas and have the same if not better gaming performance because of the nature of the ring bus architecture not scaling well so the less cores the better. This means the 6 core is going to have less latency in all likelihood. 

Ring Bus only seems to encounter scaling issues on many-core server and enthusiast platform chips, when you begin needing multiple interconnects and you edge closer to essentially having multiple dies, and Intel have had no issue sticking up to 8 cores on a single interconnect before. Do we have any data suggesting that 6 cores in an inflection point, and a significant one?

[S w a t s o n]

Meanwhile my fucking 3770k from TWENTY TWELVE has the same number of pcie lanes and same amount of cache per core.

[AngryBeaver]

10 minutes ago, Aetheria said:

Ring Bus only seems to encounter scaling issues on many-core server and enthusiast platform chips, when you begin needing multiple interconnects and you edge closer to essentially having multiple dies, and Intel have had no issue sticking up to 8 cores on a single interconnect before. Do we have any data suggesting that 6 cores in an inflection point, and a significant one?

Also in the past the ring bus speed is also clocked around the same as the turbo boost. So maybe they are planning to run the ring bus as 5ghz as well. I am pretty sure it should be fine for 8 cores especially if they are going to up the ring speed to be closer to the 5ghz boost on these.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

Just look at rtx 2080s at 1000€ being sold out and lose hope...

Am I the only one concerned about the two and clocks? It seems like i7 are just shitty i9 with worse clocks for the same tdp and without hyperthreading because of defects..?

The new nvidia cards have new technology with raytracing and have a huge die size. To compare them charging more for that and what Intel is doing is kinda dumb. If Intel was offering something new and innovative then yeah they would get away with higher prices and people would buy into it. 

[RobbinM]

A couple of thoughts I have on the i9...

 

First, I've been waiting for this chip a long time, here's what I like:

- In benchmarks it will probably have the highest single core speeds of all of Intels line-up (and highest overclocking speeds).

- Therefore it will perform the best in day-to-day use (Windows itself, browsing, gaming)

- It will not need the more expensive motherboards as with HEDT (save on the board, upgrade the CPU)

- It still can perform workstation tasks

 

Here's what I would have liked to be on this chip

- More PCI-e lanes. Come on. 16 threads, 16 lanes? I want SLI, a sound card, capture card and some optane drives please.

- More memory channels. 4 DIMM 4 Channel would suffice, 8 DIMM 4 Channel would be nice, 8 channel would be something groundbreaking.

 

Here's what I really miss on this chip

- VROC that works on all brands of SSD's.

 

In other words: this should have been a HEDT chip. But that platform is old.

 

Here's what is possible with this chip...

Now, what would happen if they go the AMD way?

4x this chip: 32 Cores, 64 Threads.

64 PCI-e lanes

8 Memory channels

Still great single core performance. Copy SenseMI and have cores throttle/disable as the load requires it, would be great.

 

If they can sort the interconnects between the chips, they could manage it. Configure 1 RAM channel per chip as interconnect, you would still have quad channel memory.

[Phentos]

If this ends up being even somewhat accurate for the final price, I'm going with the TR 2920X. My build budget requires the 9900K being under $500, and if it's over then I'm just going to go HEDT by stretching the budget for the 2920X, because the extra cores will outweigh the moderate speed uplift in Adobe software for me as I also stream. Stretching the budget would delay my build by another month, but that's okay. 

 

I have absolutely no interest in non-soldered CPUs after the nightmare that was delidding my old 7700K (did not have the tool), so I'm ruling out X299.

[RobbinM]

Soldering, forgot about that one.

Keeping warranty and reasonable temps at the same time could save me from buying a second one.

[cj09beira]

i thought we would have intel winning until Q2 when ryzen 3 launches but i guess i worried for nothing at this prices amd will keep selling loads of cpus 

[RobbinM]

To people who care about the best multi-threaded performance per dollar maybe.

I'm just looking for the fastest thing to browse the internet with and it seems that that might end up being an eight core chip.

I would choose a quadcore if it had faster core speeds.

[S w a t s o n]

33 minutes ago, Phentos said:

If this ends up being even somewhat accurate for the final price, I'm going with the TR 2920X. My build budget requires the 9900K being under $500, and if it's over then I'm just going to go HEDT by stretching the budget for the 2920X, because the extra cores will outweigh the moderate speed uplift in Adobe software for me as I also stream. Stretching the budget would delay my build by another month, but that's okay. 

 

I have absolutely no interest in non-soldered CPUs after the nightmare that was delidding my old 7700K (did not have the tool), so I'm ruling out X299.

1920x for $399 though, same cores just a bit less efficient

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

 

Sure  my point was that if someone is ready to pay that much for a product never benchmarked, why not buy a 700€ i9 just because?

Of course Nvidia is maximizing profits big time with those (and so does Intel with many of its products).

47 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

 

They're overpriced and probably overhyped as well, o it's easy to compare. Because you don't think i9 cost more to produce than the usual quadcores they used to make at the usual prices we'd expect the new products to be?

 

[Phentos]

16 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

1920x for $399 though, same cores just a bit less efficient

Yea I forgot about the price cuts on the 1920X. That one has been on my list for months.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Seeing the comments about PCIe lanes I'm wondering what exactly would you gain from having more?

• High-end cards don't suffer appreciably in performance until you go down below PCIe 3.0 x4 (this might change, but not going to consider it until there's evidence)
• Other expansion cards go through the chipset anyway and most of them are, on average, comparatively low bandwidth
• NVMe drives don't do much for most consumer workloads.

[porina]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You forget the limitations if the ring bus architecture. 6 cores is likely going to be better than 8 for latency unless they made some latency improvement with the 9th gen. 

While I've heard user references to this before, I have yet to see any evidence, credible or otherwise on this. Xeons have it scaling to far higher core counts already, and personally I think it only starts to get questionable once core counts are high enough to require multiple rings. Something that wont be a consumer problem, as the majority of those are not that bandwidth or latency sensitive.

 

Ring bus just seems to work better in consumer loads and more predictably than either the mesh bus or CCX arrangement.

[S w a t s o n]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Seeing the comments about PCIe lanes I'm wondering what exactly would you gain from having more?

• High-end cards don't suffer appreciably in performance until you go down below PCIe 3.0 x4 (this might change, but not going to consider it until there's evidence)
• Other expansion cards go through the chipset anyway and most of them are, on average, comparatively low bandwidth
• NVMe drives don't do much for most consumer workloads.

Nvidia cards wont even run at 4x, must be 8x.

NVMe raid cards tho https://www.asus.com/ca-en/Motherboard-Accessory/HYPER-M-2-X16-CARD/

[Brooksie359]

40 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

To people who care about the best multi-threaded performance per dollar maybe.

I'm just looking for the fastest thing to browse the internet with and it seems that that might end up being an eight core chip.

I would choose a quadcore if it had faster core speeds.

You might as well get an i5 8600k or a 8700k if all you care about is single threaded performance. It's much cheaper. 

[pas008]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Seeing the comments about PCIe lanes I'm wondering what exactly would you gain from having more?

• High-end cards don't suffer appreciably in performance until you go down below PCIe 3.0 x4 (this might change, but not going to consider it until there's evidence)
• Other expansion cards go through the chipset anyway and most of them are, on average, comparatively low bandwidth
• NVMe drives don't do much for most consumer workloads.

running 3 cards here on z370 along with m2

8x 8x sli 4x accessory display card

could use my zxr but use x7 on usb

[Brooksie359]

16 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Sure  my point was that if someone is ready to pay that much for a product never benchmarked, why not buy a 700€ i9 just because?

Of course Nvidia is maximizing profits big time with those (and so does Intel with many of its products).

They're overpriced and probably overhyped as well, o it's easy to compare. Because you don't think i9 cost more to produce than the usual quadcores they used to make at the usual prices we'd expect the new products to be?

 

They are selling their other 8 cores for less than 500. It's obvious that they could price the i9 under 500 as well. The new nvidia gpus on the other hand have a significantly larger die size ( almost 2x on the 1080ti vs 2080ti) on a new process node with new ddr6 ram which costs more. No shit the new gpus are going to have a higher MSRP as a result. I feel like everyone I just ignoring these facts when seeing the new gpus prices and don't realize there are legitimate reasons for them increasing the prices like they did. 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are selling their other 8 cores for less than 500. It's obvious that they could price the i9 under 500 as well. The new nvidia gpus on the other hand have a significantly larger die size ( almost 2x on the 1080ti vs 2080ti) on a new process node with new ddr6 ram which costs more. No shit the new gpus are going to have a higher MSRP as a result. I feel like everyone I just ignoring these facts when seeing the new gpus prices and don't realize there are legitimate reasons for them increasing the prices like they did. 

and possible tier change by eliminating the titan

 

but we will see price to performance soon enough too

and visuals is performance