Intel Desktop launch is exactly as we thought

[porina]

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

 

If it turns out right, great. More performance. It still sounds like a big jump unless Intel are really binning the 9900k. Looking back to the 8086k, I haven't looked at Silicon Lottery stats recently but all core 5.2 was attainable with delid, maybe 5.3 or more on the best samples. Say maybe +0.1 for any updates to process, then I guess 5.4 isn't much of a stretch for a good OC sample, but certainly don't look that as 100% turn a knob on the mobo and everyone gets it without trying.

4 minutes ago, Deli said:

The prices of 8700K and other 8th gen SKUs also goes up here in the Netherlands, 499 euro now compares to 359 euro a few weeks early. Don't know what's going on.

Intel are having a shortage as their manufacturing facilities are at capacity. Guess it is hitting pricing harder than I thought.

[IsaacThePooper]

Will the i9-9900k be compatible with the Z370 chipset?

[Curufinwe_wins]

8 minutes ago, IsaacThePooper said:

Will the i9-9900k be compatible with the Z370 chipset?

yep

[Curufinwe_wins]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

If it turns out right, great. More performance. It still sounds like a big jump unless Intel are really binning the 9900k. Looking back to the 8086k, I haven't looked at Silicon Lottery stats recently but all core 5.2 was attainable with delid, maybe 5.3 or more on the best samples. Say maybe +0.1 for any updates to process, then I guess 5.4 isn't much of a stretch for a good OC sample, but certainly don't look that as 100% turn a knob on the mobo and everyone gets it without trying.

Intel are having a shortage as their manufacturing facilities are at capacity. Guess it is hitting pricing harder than I thought.

well it's just repeating what was said. Obviously time will tell, but it seems within the realms of possibility. They did imply that the 9700k is notably lower binned in the following 10 seconds or so, so that might be part of it as well.

[mr moose]

I just have to know LTT, why do some of you keep comparing core count to $?  There are has always been a difference in specific end use performance between lesser faster cores and more slower cores.    I don't think I have ever seen a time when  1 AMD core = 1 Intel core (maybe back in 1996 when they were all socket compatible and single core).

[Fasterthannothing]

Hopefully the performance is on par with the price. Unfortunately if you thought you'd get a better value from the i7 8700k or 8086 your wrong the prices on those are going up no thanks to shortages. And let's be real the AMD CPU is not a better value because you loose out on performance for games and anything else that uses single core performance. So basically we are all stuck with high priced CPUs unfortunately.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I just have to know LTT, why do some of you keep comparing core count to $?  There are has always been a difference in specific end use performance between lesser faster cores and more slower cores.    I don't think I have ever seen a time when  1 AMD core = 1 Intel core (maybe back in 1996 when they were all socket compatible and single core).

P4 era and Core2 vs Athlon X4 were the two last times. 2008? Mind you, by then Core2 was already displaced by Nephelem at the top of the chart, but Core2 was still actively being sold and marketed.

[Tristerin]

Hello

 

I just wanted to post that

 

My AMD FX

 

8350

 

Is 8 core

 

and

 

8 threads

 

lol - Intel be trollin!

[ZacoAttaco]

I'm still rocking my i7 4790K, solid chip and I see no reason to upgrade my whole system yet. The market prices are still a little inflated and I want to see what AMD has to offer next. It seems Intel is a little all over the place at the moment, we'll have to wait and see for benchmarks though.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Deli said:

Same for RTX2080Ti, 25% faster than GTX1080Ti. The faster most powerful gaming GPU ever. I'm sure gamers are rushing to buy them.

At 4k it's more like 30% on average. That 30% is huge for 4k when the fps is fairly low. Take that and compare it to this cpu and you see that it doesn't really offer that much more if you are mostly gaming. I guess it would be useful for other tasks but I am unsure if it is as worth it. 

[Deli]

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

At 4k it's more like 30% on average. That 30% is huge for 4k when the fps is fairly low. Take that and compare it to this cpu and you see that it doesn't really offer that much more if you are mostly gaming. I guess it would be useful for other tasks but I am unsure if it is as worth it. 

At these price points, $1200 for 2080Ti and $530 for 9900k, both aren't good value to say the least. Although you will find people coming out defending them for whatever reasons. "Just buy it." " Life is too short without XXXX."

 

Using 8700K as a reference, I think $450 for 9900K is more reasonable price. Whatever, I really have no intention to buy either the 9900K or 2080Ti.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Deli said:

At these price points, $1200 for 2080Ti and $530 for 9900k, both aren't good value to say the least. Although you will find people coming out defending them for whatever reasons. "Just buy it." " Life is too short without XXXX."

 

Using 8700K as a reference, I think $450 for 9900K is more reasonable price. Whatever, I really have no intention to both either the 9900K or 2080Ti.

If you want to hit those really good frame rates at 4k then the 2080ti is worth it. The 30% increased performance is really nice. The gpu is objectively a beast when it comes to performance in games while the 9900k likely does squat compared to the 9700k or the 8700k. Is the price to performance of the rtx 2080ti great? Absolutely not but it is still a good margin better than the 1080ti. For gaming I don't think you can say the same for the 9900k. 

[Deli]

15 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you want to hit those really good frame rates at 4k then the 2080ti is worth it. The 30% increased performance is really nice. The gpu is objectively a beast when it comes to performance in games while the 9900k likely does squat compared to the 9700k or the 8700k. Is the price to performance of the rtx 2080ti great? Absolutely not but it is still a good margin better than the 1080ti. For gaming I don't think you can say the same for the 9900k. 

Never deny the 2080Ti is a beast. Sure not everyone has the same standard of what is "worth it". I personally will not pay that much for 25-30% improvement, while new 1080Ti can found for $650-700.

[Curufinwe_wins]

41 minutes ago, Deli said:

At these price points, $1200 for 2080Ti and $530 for 9900k, both aren't good value to say the least. Although you will find people coming out defending them for whatever reasons. "Just buy it." " Life is too short without XXXX."

 

Using 8700K as a reference, I think $450 for 9900K is more reasonable price. Whatever, I really have no intention to buy either the 9900K or 2080Ti.

The official MSRP is $488 btw. So still expensive, but not that much gouging tbh.

 

[Deli]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The official MSRP is $488 btw. So still expensive, but not that much gouging tbh.

 

If Intel has problem to supply enough CPUs to the market is true. We may not see MSRP at the shop for quite sometime.

 

Locally, 8700k has shot up from 359 euro just a couple of weeks ago, to 499 euro now. Same for other 8th gen Intel CPUs. I don't know what is the shop price here for the 9900K yet.

[MMKing]

3 hours ago, cj09beira said:

intel has been lying about tdps ever since they introduced boost clocks, they set the tdp at base clock, which until they introduced boost was the all core frequency but now they have much much higher all core frequencies than what the base clock would imply, so those cpus have a 95w tdp at 3.6ghz so their tdp at the 4.5+ghz all core boost will be insane, 

I know, and i've spoken out about the issue with boost clocking in the past. Reading through the technical specifications of individual products, the Intel® Turbo Boost Technology specifications or the Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost specifications. Intel offers no actual guarantee that their products will achieve these boost clocks, only that the cited boost clock represent the absolute maximum, and that the boost clock signify only a single core boost.

 

The technologies only state what they (Turbo Boost and Thermal Velocity Boost) will theoretically boost the CPU to. Provided there is sufficient power available, which the motherboard could reliably and cleanly provide and that there is sufficient cooling.

 

Yet we have seen very little actual testing going on in the tech press. What we do see is the testing of CPUs, using motherboards and cooling solutions sometimes exceeding the cost of the components being tested.

 

Here is an example from Gamersnexus review of the 8600K

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400

Cost of CPU - 258USD Intel product page

Cost of motherboard - 176USD Newegg product page

Cost of cooler - 190USD Newegg product page

Total cost - 624

Cost of mobo + cooler - 366

% of total cost - 58.6%

 

Granted, the tech press is not bringing out phase coolers or liquid nitrogen. Intel's claims are not being challenged or properly tested, even under these ideal conditions. With the 9900k boosting single core to a whooping 5GHZ, we are looking at a 1.4GHZ automatic overclock. I hope that this time, the tech press will properly test these increasingly bold claims coming out of Intel. Also, while this thread and post is primarily discussing Intel. I am aware that AMD is just as guilty, and that they don't offer any guarantees regarding boost clocks either.

[Rune]

So I can definitely tell you they won't be $488 at Microcenter....;)

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The official MSRP is $488 btw. So still expensive, but not that much gouging tbh.

 

Those are 1k Unit price expectations. Prices normally end up around 20 USD higher in a normal supply environment. 520USD is probably where this will launch at, though maybe retailers will want to keep it at 499. 

[Tellos]

ALmost 500 bucks or an i9 so it's what i7 should have been but more money. Yeah I aint paying the intel tax next year.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Hello

 

I just wanted to post that

 

My AMD FX

 

8350

 

Is 8 core

 

and

 

8 threads

 

lol - Intel be trollin!

who be trollin'?

7 hours ago, cj09beira said:

if you are really doing production then having 10 fps more wont matter to you and you will probably want to go either x299 or threadripper

intel has been lying about tdps ever since they introduced boost clocks, they set the tdp at base clock, which until they introduced boost was the all core frequency but now they have much much higher all core frequencies than what the base clock would imply, so those cpus have a 95w tdp at 3.6ghz so their tdp at the 4.5+ghz all core boost will be insane, 

If by lying you mean explaining in detail  how they measure TDP and what it pertains to so cooling solution designers can implement their products properly, then yes they have been lying.  If you mean they are lying because the TDP isn't measured with all cores on boost, then I am afraid that is just ignorance on tech user forums bleeding through.

 

The amount of times people try to associate TDP with power draw and completely ignore the reason it exists is astounding.   People not understanding TDP is not the same as Intel lying. 

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

dang, I was wrong with the price translation ._. probably means it's going to cost a boatload more in my area ,_,

prediction: the i9 is going to be like $900 in Australia 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

P4 era and Core2 vs Athlon X4 were the two last times. 2008? Mind you, by then Core2 was already displaced by Nephelem at the top of the chart, but Core2 was still actively being sold and marketed.

Of course, still that was like a decade ago.

[porina]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13450/intels-new-core-and-xeon-w-processors-fixes-for-spectre-meltdown

 

For those that care, the currently announced 9000 series apparently has hardware fixes for some variants of Meltdown and Spectre.

[ryao]

18 hours ago, KendoSapion said:

I'm EU,thanks for the help though

http://opas.com/

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

If by lying you mean explaining in detail  how they measure TDP and what it pertains to so cooling solution designers can implement their products properly, then yes they have been lying.  If you mean they are lying because the TDP isn't measured with all cores on boost, then I am afraid that is just ignorance on tech user forums bleeding through.

 

The amount of times people try to associate TDP with power draw and completely ignore the reason it exists is astounding.   People not understanding TDP is not the same as Intel lying. 

if you think that throttling back to base clocks if pushing the cpu for long periods of time is the normal behaviour then sure they aren't lying, but if you think that maintaining the clocks is the correct behaviour then they are lying