Monday, March 18th 2019
Intel Core i9-9900F Makes an Appearance in SiSoft Sandra: No iGPU, No Unlocked Multiplier
Intel has been playing with the release of multiple of their 14 nm ++ processors without any integrated graphics tech, such as the Intel Core i5-9400F, or the iGPU-less, unlocked Core i9-9900KF. However, as strange as it may seem, a quick look online still shows the i9-9900KF selling for more ($582.50) than its complete i9-9900 sibling.
The Core i9-9900F, as caught in SiSoft's Sandra, is likely simply a locked-down version of Intel's Core i9-9900, since delidding of Intel's Core i5-9400F has shown that the silicon real-estate for the iGPU is still there - as such, this likely isn't an effort from Intel to reduce the silicon used for graphics and pass on the savings to customers. At the most, this is Intel launching products that may carry defective iGPUs from the production process and still be able to sell them - though Intel does seem to be looking not to budge on its profit margin, even on these "crippled" CPUs.
The 9900F should feature the same eight-core, 16-thread design and 16 MB L3 cache and a locked multiplier, but as reported by SiSoftware, its clockspeeds could have taken a hit as well: according to the software, the i9-9900F features a 3.1 GHz base clock speed, some 500 MHz lower than the "K" and "KF" variants. However, the chip does seem to be able to reach 5 GHz on two cores and 4.8 GHz on four cores. Either that or incorrect reporting from the software itself - or even the fact that the CPU is being run at non-final clockspeeds. Anyway, it seems that Intel really is looking to expand its CPU offerings without any iGPU - though the fact that this seems to have no effect on the price-tag whatsoever is slightly bemusing.
Source:
Tom's Hardware
The Core i9-9900F, as caught in SiSoft's Sandra, is likely simply a locked-down version of Intel's Core i9-9900, since delidding of Intel's Core i5-9400F has shown that the silicon real-estate for the iGPU is still there - as such, this likely isn't an effort from Intel to reduce the silicon used for graphics and pass on the savings to customers. At the most, this is Intel launching products that may carry defective iGPUs from the production process and still be able to sell them - though Intel does seem to be looking not to budge on its profit margin, even on these "crippled" CPUs.
22 Comments on Intel Core i9-9900F Makes an Appearance in SiSoft Sandra: No iGPU, No Unlocked Multiplier
Intel is doing this because of AMD. Because until Zen came out no one thought that so many people would be willing to pay for a high-end consumer CPU without an IGP.
Anyone remember LucidLogix Virtu? I think what this really stems back to is hybrid graphics that Intel envisioned would be the future. Instead, new GPUs started pulling off tricks like near zero idle power, hardware encoding (e.g. Nvidia NVENC), etc.
The criticism comes from the pricing of these F-series CPU's. The 9400F & 9600KF are the same price as their IGP'd counterparts, so you get less but pay the same price. Seems like a valid criticism from a consumer standpoint to me.
If by "consumers" we mean people that buy these CPUs for private use, than yes - most will be used with a graphics card. A powerful GPU is the main reason to own a desktop.
But if we mean "consumer CPUs" (LGA1151) then no, a big chunk of these CPUs will be put into business workstations and almost all will need an IGP.
These -F CPUs are made precisely to compete with Ryzens in the consumer market. Until now Intel didn't offer them, because there was no need. CPUs with bad IGP where called Xeons. Now they're moved to consumer platform to make it more affordable.
8400 costs $200, but 9400F is $170, so it can compete with Ryzen 5 2600 ($165).Mentioned above. "Consumer" == "home user" vs "consumer" == "consumer platform". A big chunk of i5/i7 are bought by offices, schools etc.The same MSRP - yes (I've checked on Intel ARK). The same price on the market? No. 9400F is 20% cheaper.
Is it able to OC better or has lower temps? Can anyone clarify?
Thanks.
My i5 9600k cost $292
2700x costs 357$ in my country.
Also, 9600k beats 2700x pretty bad, is less power hungry, less heat and more compatible with RAM
8 cores is a gimmick too, I'm not rendering nor streaming so why get a meme AMD processor?
Tools like you are what's wrong with the entire PC hardware market.
But that's off topic.