With
7 nm AMD Ryzen 3000 processor family expected to make landfall early-July, and "Ice Lake" nowhere in sight, a panicked Intel announced the development of the Core i9-9900KS 8-core/16-thread LGA1151 processor. Based on the 14 nm "Coffee Lake Refresh" silicon, this processor has a base-frequency of 4.00 GHz, up from 3.60 GHz of the original; and an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, identical to the original i9-9900K, which has its max-turbo set at 5.00 GHZ, too. A revamped Turbo Boost algorithm is expected to yield significant gains in multi-core performance. The company didn't reveal TDP, pricing, or availability.
170 Comments on Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS
Edit: I tried re-reading that. Still don't have the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Is it at all related to the topic? It certainly doesn't look that way, though frankly I can't tell. Also, please stop putting every second word in quotes. It makes no sense.
LTT: I need to buy AMD stock. NOW.
If that's the case, no thanks. Intel get your ass together and release some 10 or 7 nm chips. 14 nm is so last season now. What is it now 14 nm++++ or some thing like that:shadedshu:
Today they are worth ~30x that in market capitalization, and causing significant competition and disruption in the market (as can be seen by the arguements in this thread) versus a 200 billion + dollar market cap company with a processor market share at 90% just 4 years ago.
Granted none of this would be possible if they weren’t fabless, but being in the fab business seems to be what is holding Intel back. Makes everyone come to a moment of Zen (play on words) when thinking about why Apple hasn’t purchased a fab.
"The second proc announced is the Ryzen 7 3800X. This processor has 8 Cores, 16 threads 4.5 GHz Boost and 3.9 GHz base clock frequencies. It has 36 MB total cache. It has been compared to a Core i9 9900K on stage. The proc ran the same perf as the 9900K in game. This proc will have a 105 Watt TDP. "
Although, I continue to believe that Intel 14nm++ and TSMC 7nm are company defined. 7nm Intel is different than 7 nm TSMC. The valleys are defined and measure differently.
I’m an engineer in my profession and education. I have worked at 2 different companies. I have always found that companies which rely on engineering where the rubber meets the road are better off when they have engineers running the business side as well.
AMD just brought its newest and most narly Ryzen 3000 series 16 core/32 thread CPUs into its "mainstream" lineup, lol and only thing Intel has at that level, costs $2000.
AMD Ryzen 9 CPU With 16 Zen 2 Cores is faster than i9-9980XE
If you can sit there with a straight face and say that and yet cannot see AMD tearing Intel a new Ahole this time around with its Ryzen 3000 series, then you are indeed lost into Intel oblivion.
Not only will this particular Ryzen 9 3000 series chip allow for some amazing gaming perf but damn, gone are the days of saying "multi-core" CPUs are not needed for gaming, those 16 cores will sure be welcomed come next generation of consoles (PS5/Xbox Next), I bring this up because all these upcoming next-gen games will be built around Ryzen 3000 series CPUs...and we all know 99.999% of all PC games are "Ports" from the console versions. And unlike this generation of games where multi-core CPUs were pretty much underutilized besides 4 cores or so in most games, next gen will be a whole different story as they will be using up 8 cores at minimum and PC gamers will most definitely benefit by having "MORE" than 8 cores, make no mistake about it.
Try harder, dude
4k:
Yeah, baby. Perhaps going to 1080p and lower would help? Or, maybe, 480p? I mean, after all, tests were done using entry range 1080Ti. Try it. Perf wise, sure.
Marker share wise, Intel will still be the dominant player after all the dust settles, even if this situation will stay for more than 12 month.
Shilling is a bad thing, on both sides.
Plus anyone can see that this is as bad of a joke as those FX 9590.