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

[Brooksie359]

22 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?

 

The nvidia equivalent of what Intel is doing is if they just increased the cuda core count and priced them the way they did. But is that what nvidia did? No because they added new 2 new types of cores as well as increased cuda cores and upgraded to ddr6. Your comparison is just bad. 

[yian88]

=)))))))))

no HT i7

16 pcie lanes i9

700Euro prices :)))

 

r7 1700x = 280$ with 16 thread 24 lanes, intel sucks.

 

No bias, just intel sucks donkey ass.

 

[RobbinM]

Running NVME through chipset has negative effect on latency.

Also, VROC is not possible through chipset.

[suits]

As much as I love fast processors I'll stick with the 8700k, $425ish would be the absolute max I'd pay for that 9700k. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, yian88 said:

=)))))))))

no HT i7

16 pcie lanes i9

700Euro prices :)))

 

r7 1700x = 280$ with 16 thread 24 lanes, intel sucks.

 

No bias, just intel sucks donkey ass.

 

We should probably wait for official pricing but yeah it's not looking good. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

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

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/

NVIDIA cards not running at x4 doesn't make sense to me when this article exists: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/

 

And again, NVMe has no appreciable benefit for consumer workloads.

 

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

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

M.2 slots route to the chipset, not the CPU. And depending on where the accessory card is installed and how the slot is wired up, that may also be running to the chipset.

[Brooksie359]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

NVIDIA cards not running at x4 doesn't make sense to me when this article exists: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/

 

And again, NVMe has no appreciable benefit for consumer workloads.

 

M.2 slots route to the chipset, not the CPU. And depending on where the accessory card is installed and how the slot is wired up, that may also be running to the chipset.

Nvme makes the boot times feel amazing though. Just click and it's on and ready to go.

[RobbinM]

Some boards have at least one M.2 routed to CPU, still VROC is a no-go then. Only way then is to use an x16 expansion card, which would take up, say, all of the lanes.

[DrMacintosh]

Really sad, but this should help Ryzen gain more Marketshare. 

[S w a t s o n]

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

NVIDIA cards not running at x4 doesn't make sense to me when this article exists: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/

 

And again, NVMe has no appreciable benefit for consumer workloads.

 

M.2 slots route to the chipset, not the CPU. And depending on where the accessory card is installed and how the slot is wired up, that may also be running to the chipset.

I mean it does, my SSD still takes time to load games and to even write files. It may not be as extreme cause it's SSD vs faster SSD but it is appreciable.

 

There was a time when Nvidia locked out 4x slots either in driver or firmware. This could have been removed after pcie 3.0 became the norm and to better support e-gpus but it was a thing.

 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1035280/can-a-gtx-1050-function-in-a-4x-pci-e-slot-/

[pas008]

22 minutes ago, yian88 said:

=)))))))))

no HT i7

16 pcie lanes i9

700Euro prices :)))

 

r7 1700x = 280$ with 16 thread 24 lanes, intel sucks.

 

No bias, just intel sucks donkey ass.

 

chipset lanes are less though I think only 8 i think?

21 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

Running NVME through chipset has negative effect on latency.

Also, VROC is not possible through chipset.

you are describing yourself as non mainstream user then

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

NVIDIA cards not running at x4 doesn't make sense to me when this article exists: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/

 

And again, NVMe has no appreciable benefit for consumer workloads.

 

M.2 slots route to the chipset, not the CPU. And depending on where the accessory card is installed and how the slot is wired up, that may also be running to the chipset.

yes i know

I was buying ws boards before too

I make sure how its wired

make sure pcie1x is to chipset same with 3rd full pcie slot but running low

 

on my old ws boards I'd run 16x 16x 1x for gpus but after tinkering around I seen no differences on haswell platform compared to 8x 8x 4x

 

and chances of you using up all the dmi link or whatever it is at once for mainstream user is telling yourself you arent mainstream user either

[RobbinM]

I'm just stating a fact... It doesn't have anything to do with me personally.

The only thing that it causes, is that it makes me kind of sad. I feel Intel isn't pushing it to the limit on these consumer chips anymore.

Multithreaded workloads are it's cause.

If your R&D budget is focused towards 10.000USD chips, you wouldn't be bothered about some enthousiasts that may or not may buy your 500USD 'flagship'.

 

This is genetics in progress. PC, WS, Server all had the same roots. The specimen have become species to a point where they can't crossbreed anymore.

In that sense, I can understand where you are going with labeling my user type.

I just feel that it shouldn't be the case at all. 

I want the best of all, combined. But it can't happen. Babies are born dead.

Dammit Darwin..

[porina]

23 minutes ago, yian88 said:

=)))))))))

no HT i7

16 pcie lanes i9

700Euro prices :)))

 

r7 1700x = 280$ with 16 thread 24 lanes, intel sucks.

Intel consumer CPUs have 16 PCIe lanes that a user can use, typically 16x to one GPU, or 2 of 8x for SLI or if you use another PCIe device alongside the GPU.

 

Ryzen CPUs have 20 PCIe lanes that a user can use, but from memory 4 of them are intended for storage. For consumer applications you're unlikely to detect any difference running NVMe off CPU or chipset. The remain 16 are just like on Intel.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

I'm just stating a fact... It doesn't have anything to do with me personally.

The only thing that it causes, is that it makes me kind of sad. I feel Intel isn't pushing it to the limit on these consumer chips anymore.

Multithreaded workloads are it's cause.

If your R&D budget is focused towards 10.000USD chips, you wouldn't be bothered about some enthousiasts that may or not may buy your 500USD 'flagship'.

 

This is genetics in progress. PC, WS, Server all had the same roots. The specimen have become species to a point where they can't crossbreed anymore.

In that sense, I can understand where you are going with labeling my user type.

I just feel that it shouldn't be the case at all. 

I want the best of all, combined. But it can't happen. Babies are born dead.

Dammit Darwin..

Higher core count means clock speeds will eventually suffer for more cores so it's impossible to have the best multithreaded and single threaded cpu in one chip. I had actually thought about getting the i9 if it was good but not if it's above 500. That's just dumb. 

[laminutederire]

56 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

 

Nvidia shill much? You keep telling everyone it's normal without a clue of anything.

First of all my argument was that people aren't smart with money so they'll keep buying badly priced products. In no world the 2080 is worth more than 100€ right now. You know why? Because no one knows its perfs.

 

Because of that, preordering those above msrp like people have done is crazy. Those same people can put 700€on an i9 just because they do not do research or worse for brand loyalty.

 

This is my argument so stop your pro Nvidia propaganda and accept arguments for what they are instead of trying to persuade people reordering those cards is acceptable and something we should do because that's acceptable.

 

If you take at face value what Intel tells you, then that i9 is worth such an insane price. Same goes if you take Nvidia at face value. Even sometimes with amd even though they're not that much the type to do pricing that bad usually because they don't have the position to do it.

[Spongy141]

i7 blows now, like is intel trying to make AMD look better?

 

[Coaxialgamer]

5 hours ago, SupremeGOAT said:

pish posh in the bucket bro! think about what you can accomplish with this new i9 that we were unable to do before! 9900k+2080ti = 4k 144 fps RTX VR shmoogly

The 8700k wasn't a bottleneck already . The 9900k likely won't be any faster .

And given existing reports , Ray traced games will not be running anywhere close to 4K , let alone 144fps ( even on a 2080ti ) . Given RTX and denoising is run on the GPU , a faster GPU won't change that.

[Coaxialgamer]

46 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

I'm just stating a fact... It doesn't have anything to do with me personally.

The only thing that it causes, is that it makes me kind of sad. I feel Intel isn't pushing it to the limit on these consumer chips anymore.

Multithreaded workloads are it's cause.

If your R&D budget is focused towards 10.000USD chips, you wouldn't be bothered about some enthousiasts that may or not may buy your 500USD 'flagship'.

 

This is genetics in progress. PC, WS, Server all had the same roots. The specimen have become species to a point where they can't crossbreed anymore.

In that sense, I can understand where you are going with labeling my user type.

I just feel that it shouldn't be the case at all. 

I want the best of all, combined. But it can't happen. Babies are born dead.

Dammit Darwin..

To be honest though , the i9 likely won't be any faster than the 8700k or even the 9700k for gaming an Single threaded workloads.

If you want cheap multi-core , just buy a 1920X , they are 399$ now.

[MrRavens]

Dang, the lanes really let me down. I was hoping for more.

[Brooksie359]

57 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Nvidia shill much? You keep telling everyone it's normal without a clue of anything.

First of all my argument was that people aren't smart with money so they'll keep buying badly priced products. In no world the 2080 is worth more than 100€ right now. You know why? Because no one knows its perfs.

 

Because of that, preordering those above msrp like people have done is crazy. Those same people can put 700€on an i9 just because they do not do research or worse for brand loyalty.

 

This is my argument so stop your pro Nvidia propaganda and accept arguments for what they are instead of trying to persuade people reordering those cards is acceptable and something we should do because that's acceptable.

 

If you take at face value what Intel tells you, then that i9 is worth such an insane price. Same goes if you take Nvidia at face value. Even sometimes with amd even though they're not that much the type to do pricing that bad usually because they don't have the position to do it.

I am not advocating preordering by any means. I was just saying your comparison is bad. They are just adding 2 extra cores on the i9 so it's pretty obvious what the performance will be and the pricing is not justified. The nvidia cards have more cuda cores than their 10 series counterparts so objectively they will perform better. We just aren't sure by what margin. I was just talking about how the there is a reason to the price increase with generations gpus versus previous as the price to manufacture the new gpus is higher. For Intel having their 8 9900k to be priced higher than the 8 core high end desktop parts is just dumb. Because we see the 8 core high end desktop gpu going for sub 500 we know they can price the i9 at that price as well. The price jump from 6 to 8 cores will be too high to justify it. I am not saying the new nvidia gpus are worth their MSRP but rather that the pricing is reflecting on the increase in manufacturing cost. 

[mrthuvi]

9700k could be interesting for games. Not every game benefits from smt and 8 threads should be enough except for some rts titles. 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The 8700k wasn't a bottleneck already . The 9900k likely won't be any faster .

And given existing reports , Ray traced games will not be running anywhere close to 4K , let alone 144fps ( even on a 2080ti ) . Given RTX and denoising is run on the GPU , a faster GPU won't change that.

Well if the bottlenwck is the RTX cores it could be that increase resolution won't affect fps kinda like a cpu bottleneck would. I mean if the RTX cores are limiting the fps then maybe when you increase the resolution the cuda cores will be able to be more fully utilized. I mean based on the diagram they showed the RTX cores work to do their job while the cuda cores do theirs and once both are done they are sent to the tensor cores for the final step. So if the cuda cores finish and the RTX cores do not then they have to wait to for them to finish limiting the fps. Now you up it to 4k and the cuda cores take longer to render but still render at 4k within the time it takes the RTX cores to finish it's job then the fps would essentially be the same. This is of course assuming the amount of rays in 4k is similar to 1080p. I do wonder if there is a setting for how many rays are traced. Anyways this is pure speculation but it is just interesting to think about. 

[Taf the Ghost]

AMD moved the 1920X, the 12 core HEDT part, to 399USD, officially.

 

Then 9900k pricing is starting to leak. Intel is going to want over 500USD for the 9900k, it seems. Which means this'll need to be benchmarked against HEDT platforms. This should be interesting.

[RobbinM]

Prices are starting to fluctuate.

 

I have calculated the prices to what I've seen on the webshops the CPU has popped up, compared with what that webshop has te 8700k listed for. Then rounded it up a little.

 

Price on the i7 9700k should be rounded up to €299,-

Price on the i9 9900k should be rounded up to €499,-

Just put a dollar sign in front of it if you want to know expected USD pricing.

 

Also interesting: AMD is dropping prices as we speak.

[flipped_bit]

I have no interest in the 9900K.  If I needed that many threads, AMD has by far the best bang for the buck out there.

 

The 9700K on the other hand is very intriguing.  As rumoured it will have eight full Intel cores, potentially with solder and hardware fixes for Spectre, Meltdown, and related other vulnerabilities.  I expect that would give you the best IPC and overclocking potential around, yet still have enough threads to zoom through the vast majority of consumer/prosumer workloads.  Hyper-threading is great for some workloads, but it can actually lead to performance decreases in some applications (e.g. some games recommend disabling HT).

 

All that said if I were to upgrade now, I'd want to spend my dollars on the red team.  Ryzen is a very competitive product and I don't want to reward Intel for milking us all these years.  Oh, and give us more than 16 PCI-E lanes already!