Intel to Paper-launch 9th Gen Core on August 14, Availability in Q4-2018

[Tomorrow]

9900K & 9700K are going to be amazing CPUs!

Do you think AMD will now release the 2800X?

The gap between the 9900K and 2700X is huge. And Q2 2019 is a long long ways away till Ryzen 3000 series.

Could be. Tho they usually save the best dies for Threadripper. Then again i fail to see what they would do with it. Maybe push for 4,4-4,5Ghz XFR in lightly threaded workloads and 150W TDP but that's about it.

Intel will likely still have ~1Ghz clock advantage tho not so much at multicore workloads as HT is less efficienct compared to SMT.

 

[oxidized]

You keep on saying that and yet you have ZERO evidence to support it. That's usually called "a lie" or a "baseless claim". Just because you're "certain you've seen it somewhere" that doesn't make it true. No matter how hard and desperately you want it to be true. You just look like an idiot trying to paint me in a certain way but failing to provide any evidence for it. But do go on how "certain" you are about it. XD

I on the other hand can claim that for a fact because I post the messages and my memory goes very far back and know I never said that. I damn well know what I say and I'm consistent about it. And only thing that speaks about anything is my wallet (apart from few rare times when I buy something stupid out of curiosity, like the current GTX 1080Ti even though GTX 1080 would serve me just fine all the same, but I sometimes just say fuck it and buy something stupidly expensive). Only thing one may call me of being a fanboy is sticking with brands I had good experience with. Like ASUS for motherboards or Gigabyte for graphic cards. But don't we all when it comes to brands? That doesn't make you a fanboy, it just makes you someone who sticks with products they had generally good experience with. It's what most of us do. But that's no metric for that, you're doing it by good faith the maker will continue the trend and that doesn't apply to a processor where you buy one in good faith it'll have a good performance. We do that based on performance metrics that are easily and scientifically measured. People don't buy Ryzen's and Threadrippers in good faith they'll perform well. They buy them because measurable metrics state that with absolute certainty.

I don't remember that because i've seen it somewhere, i remember that because you were arguing with me, and other people was also noticing your behaviour towards AMD, and at some point you had some kind of a rage burst, you made a post, where, after all the insults (just a few), you said something like that. You may or may not remember it, but you wouldn't certainly admit that again here and now. But again, that's not needed, everyone can see your bias if they examine your past and present and probably future posts.

Yeah that's a form of fanboyism, which it's not necessarily a bad thing always, for example you can give your opinion on a certain fact, but not talk about it like it's all facts. Facts on the other hand are in tests and benchmarks, and everything else related - If a certain card from asus or gigabyte or whatever you want is better than another one and costs about the same (more or less), logic will push you towards the one that's better - that's how logic works, buying the worse card, for about the same price, is just the opposite of logic, it's not like they'll be let down by you or anything if you don't buy their card anyway, they don't give a sh** about you, that's why being a fan or loyal to something like this is completely stupid, goes the opposite way of logic, it's like a sentiment, but sentiments don't have space in capitalism, surely not from corporations. But then you feel like being magnanimous at least say that instead of inventing excuses about imaginary performance and other technical stuff, say "Yes i've bought that because i don't like the other brand, and no matter how good or bad their products are, i'll never buy anything from them" This doesn't not necessarily applies to you now, but i think it generally does.
You have a 1080Ti because you had no choice, if you think you'd be cool with a 1080, then you could've bought a Vega 64 since you favor the brand, but a Vega 64 cost (maybe still does i'm not sure) as much as a 1080TI, so that would really look completely stupid to do, even from a fanboy standpoint, since the 1080Ti has better performance, better consumption, and temperatures, it's like a no brainer in that situation. You're not the worst kind of fanboy i've seen, but you still are, and when difference is closer (CPUs) you favor the other even if the opponent is slightly better after all, that's when your fanboyism enters the game.

 

[ToxicTaZ]

It still is if you have 144Hz monitor and you're trying to push really high framerates to use it tho. So, it kinda makes sense even if you're not using 4K.

Even if you don't have G-Sync HDR or FreeSync 2 and stuck with stock 60Hz, your gaming base always should be 60fps minimal for all PC gaming.

Thus is why they make frame counters and every game can be turned down from Ultra, High, Medium, Low settings just for the reason to achieve minimal solid 60fps buttery smooth frame rates.

I personally love 60fps Ultra modes in any Resolution of choice 2K, 3K, 4K, 5K!

 

[oxidized]

Even if you don't have G-Sync HDR or FreeSync 2 and stuck with stock 60Hz, your gaming base always should be 60fps minimal for all PC gaming.

Thus is why they make frame counters and every game can be turned down from Ultra, High, Medium, Low settings just for the reason to achieve minimal solid 60fps buttery smooth frame rates.

I personally love 60fps Ultra modes in any Resolution of choice 2K, 3K, 4K, 5K!

For the record, your fanboyism is even worse.

Or maybe yours isn't fanboyism, maybe something more serious.

 

[ToxicTaZ]

For the record, your fanboyism is even worse.

I'm a PC Gamer & Overclocker!

I buy on the numbers, It's unfortunate other side competitors have nothing to offer since 2700K to 9900K.

I failed to see years over PR Hype over nothing.

Real world benchmarks in gaming from meany reviews can't all be wrong.

Others base there buy on PR Hype.

Witch are you?

As this thread is about the upcoming 9900K, its very important future builds or 8700K swop outs...so guys like me sell off their 8700K and pickup 9900K on last year's Z370 board.

I'm crazy interested to see 9900K @5GHz all cores o/c.

Happy benchmarks viewing!

 

[oxidized]

I'm a PC Gamer & Overclocker!

I buy on the numbers, It's unfortunate other side competitors have nothing to offer since 2700K to 9900K.

I failed to see years over PR Hype over nothing.

Real world benchmarks in gaming from meany reviews can't all be wrong.

Others base there buy on PR Hype.

Witch are you?

As this thread is about the upcoming 9900K, its very important future builds or 8700K swop outs...so guys like me sell off their 8700K and pickup 9900K on last year's Z370 board.

I'm crazy interested to see 9900K @5GHz all cores o/c.

Happy benchmarks viewing!

The "Coffeelake the Zen Destroyer " thing says much about you too. Don't try and talk yourself out of it.

 

[RejZoR]

Even if you don't have G-Sync HDR or FreeSync 2 and stuck with stock 60Hz, your gaming base always should be 60fps minimal for all PC gaming.

Thus is why they make frame counters and every game can be turned down from Ultra, High, Medium, Low settings just for the reason to achieve minimal solid 60fps buttery smooth frame rates.

I personally love 60fps Ultra modes in any Resolution of choice 2K, 3K, 4K, 5K!

60fps is nowhere near "buttery smooth" once you taste 144fps at 144Hz. And it's hard to play things on low once you're used to play everything on Ultra. Although games these days don't look as bad on Low as they used to 15 or 20 years back...

 

[ToxicTaZ]

The "Coffeelake the Zen Destroyer " thing says much about you too. Don't try and talk yourself out of it.

8700K witch is Coffeelake and 1800X is Zen is it not?

Yes as all reviews say! The 8700K hands down best gaming CPU for 2017 over the 1800X end of Story.

How you feel about the 1800X gaming performance is a you thing.

As I said before many times before I base my RIG builds based apon best overall gaming as I'm a PC Gamer and Overclocker.

Why would I'd got an underperformed gaming 1800X that maxed o/c @4.1GHz??

My 8700K @5.1GHz o/c fantastic gaming CPU so far and so glad never picked up an 1800X CPU... as back on topic this thread with the upcoming 9900K / 9700K.

Has nothing to do with brand name or PR Hype or what brain washed individuals. The 9900K / 9700K is the new top gaming CPUs for 2018.... Leaves the 2700X in 3rd place.

The upcoming Benchmarks will speak for themselves.

 

[oxidized]

8700K witch is Coffeelake and 1800X is Zen is it not?

Yes as all reviews say! The 8700K hands down best gaming CPU for 2017 over the 1800X end of Story.

How you feel about the 1800X gaming performance is a you thing.

As I said before many times before I base my RIG builds based apon best overall gaming as I'm a PC Gamer and Overclocker.

Why would I'd got an underperformed gaming 1800X that maxed o/c @4.1GHz??

My 8700K @5.1GHz o/c fantastic gaming CPU so far and so glad never picked up an 1800X CPU... as back on topic this thread with the upcoming 9900K / 9700K.

Has nothing to do with brand name or PR Hype or what brain washed individuals. The 9900K / 9700K is the new top gaming CPUs for 2018.... Leaves the 2700X in 3rd place.

The upcoming Benchmarks will speak for themselves.

Stop writing you don't make sense. Besides the fact the 8700K is better doesn't mean you have to go around sounding that stupid.

 

[ToxicTaZ]

Stop writing you don't make sense. Besides the fact the 8700K is better doesn't mean you have to go around sounding that stupid.

If you "Quoted" me to explain my thoughts on your Quote you should never quoted me.

I'm In an Intel information update thread so me speaking about updating from 8700K to 9700K or 9900K is responsible.

Telling people there "Stupid" is childish and pretty sure not aloud in this forums rule books?

Are you not excited about the 9900K and 9700K best CPUs for 2018?

I'm curious how much the 9900K power draw with overclocked @5GHz all 8 cores?

Do you think there will be 2800X to fill the huge gaping gap between 9900K/9700K and 2700X? Or they just waited out till Q2 2019.

 

[StrayKAT]

60fps is nowhere near "buttery smooth" once you taste 144fps at 144Hz. And it's hard to play things on low once you're used to play everything on Ultra. Although games these days don't look as bad on Low as they used to 15 or 20 years back...

For me it is, since I do a great deal of gaming on a 4K TV, about 8-10 feet away. Even less than 60 fps is often acceptable, with Freesync on. This is why I'm a "Freesync fanboy" myself. It enables me to comfortably game 4k ghetto style.

 

[ToxicTaZ]

As I said before. For those without overclocking Hz devices (Freesync 2 or G-Sync HDR) there stuck @60Hz witch is good if you're running everything at a rock solid 60fps. Unfortunately most likely most aren't.

For me running oder games like Diablo III @165fps is very fun! Once I pick up my next 200Hz monitor I'll be able to see 200fps Diablo III for example.

Frames per second is so important to us PC gamers! More the better is the golden rule?

I don't have a new card yet, especially one for new games like Anthem, Rage 2, The Division, GTA6, FF15 etc etc....

1180/1170 both on the way, I was really hoping to hold off till 1180Ti next February... I'll end up getting 1180+....add EK wb once they release to my loop should be good enough.

Once this is done 3K/90fps+ Ultra mode HDR in new games.

4K HDR PC Gaming is out of my reach especially there's no video cards that drive 4K FPS very well yet... Barely 4K/60fps

35" 3K HDR 21:9 Ultra-Wide FOV is my next PC Gaming road.

Yes I do own 16:9 LG 65" OLED HDR 60Hz UHDTV for my Ultra Blueray movies.

The upcoming 9900K/9700K should help in 3K & 4K gaming as most are aged. Wait too see performance on older Z370 boards.

 

[StrayKAT]

As I said before. For those without overclocking Hz devices (Freesync 2 or G-Sync HDR) there stuck @60Hz witch is good if you're running everything at a rock solid 60fps. Unfortunately most likely most aren't.

For me running oder games like Diablo III @165fps is very fun! Once I pick up my next 200Hz monitor I'll be able to see 200fps Diablo III for example.

Frames per second is so important to us PC gamers! More the better is the golden rule?

I don't have a new card yet, especially one for new games like Anthem, Rage 2, The Division, GTA6, FF15 etc etc....

1180/1170 both on the way, I was really hoping to hold off till 1180Ti next February... I'll end up getting 1180+....add EK wb once they release to my loop should be good enough.

Once this is done 3K/90fps+ Ultra mode HDR in new games.

4K HDR PC Gaming is out of my reach especially there's no video cards that drive 4K FPS very well yet... Barely 4K/60fps

35" 3K HDR 21:9 Ultra-Wide FOV is my next PC Gaming road.

Yes I do own 16:9 LG 65" OLED HDR 60Hz UHDTV for my Ultra Blueray movies.

9900K should help in 3K & 4K gaming as most are aged.

FF15 is the only thing I have on that list. Definitely not one of the games I run at 4K.

You couldn't pay me to buy Anthem... but I digress.

 

[B-Real]

I'm a PC Gamer!

I built 8700K RIG November 2017

2017
The 8700K is the fast PC gaming CPU of 2017..... All reviews are available with 8700K vs 1800X. I was sold by all winning 8700K gaming scores.

2018
Same thing going to happen this year! ((Guaranteed)) the 9900K will be the best PC gaming CPU for 2018! 9700K is second then 2700X in 3rd place depending on if theirs an 2800X.

Why are people still arguing about performance?

2019
Same thing will happen again October 2019 with 10nm+ Icelake will woop 7nm Ryzen 3000 no problem. Intel had 4 years for new Icelake architecture.

Intel worth $200 Billion
AMD worth $4 Billion

Who has to try very hard?

So you buy a 8700K because it's 0,4% faster than a 8600K? And no, the 9900K will not be the fastest gaming CPU for sure. Quote me later.

As I said before. For those without overclocking Hz devices (Freesync 2 or G-Sync HDR) there stuck @60Hz witch is good if you're running everything at a rock solid 60fps. Unfortunately most likely most aren't.

So you say most of the PC gamers are beyond the 60 Hz displays. You are absolutely NOT right.

The upcoming 9900K/9700K should help in 3K & 4K gaming as most are aged.

Saying that 9900K/9700K in 3K-4K gaming shows how absolutely "unprofessional" you are. Unprofessionality is also shown by the fact that you buy the most expensive consumer CPU and don't buy a more balanced config. You say

I'm a PC Gamer!

and have a 780 Ti paired with the 8700K, and speak of 165-200 Hz gaming, really?

They will get maximum the same, the 9900K likely worse performance than a 8700K in games.

At the end of the day old Intel has superior IPC with 1GHz+ o/c capabilities with all cores no problems.

Nobody cares how many cores AMD needs to get a better multithread CPU than Intel if it's cheaper than an Intel with less cores. And in terms of single core performance, Intel's lead reduced to around 10% with the fastest GPU. A pure fanboy you are. Fact.

Sorry, but if we talk about value race we talk about i5 8400. One of the best performance vs price CPUs in history. You can find it as low as 140 in some places. This thing is a beast.

Worth mentioning G5400 for 60 bucks.

Amd has good chips too, but people tend to forget the Intel lower end/mid end offer and only focus on the super expensive i7 x700k and its awful paste on the die.

Against the 8400, you have the 2600 for the same price with better CPU performance. And CL Pentiums are a piece of crap for that price. 2 core CPUs? Meh.

This is a good example of a constructive, unbiased post. It quotes real facts and figures that anyone can verify, and acknowledges AMD's virtues, while noting why Intel has seemed to be less progressive than they could have been, and are now moving forward, not "panicking" as some like to say.


This one is an example of a biased post, claiming inside knowledge of the minds of Intel execs, calling them childish, and having nefarious or panic-driven reasons for everything they do. He doesn't give them any credit for anything, only pointing to the past as somehow proving the motives behind present actions.

Panicking is meant in the way that they raised core count after the release and success of Zen. Yep, I know, they didn't make CL in half a year, but you should be aware that their engineers knew what Zen will be capable of and a simple usual frequency boost as in the last 3-4 generations won't be enough. That's why they released higher core count CPUs, and raise it again in their next gen CPUs.

 

[ToxicTaZ]

So you buy a 8700K because it's 0,4% faster than a 8600K? And no, the 9900K will not be the fastest gaming CPU for sure. Quote me later.


So you say most of the PC gamers are beyond the 60 Hz displays. You are absolutely NOT right.




Saying that 9900K/9700K in 3K-4K gaming shows how absolutely "unprofessional" you are. Unprofessionality is also shown by the fact that you buy the most expensive consumer CPU and don't buy a more balanced config. You say and have a 780 Ti paired with the 8700K, and speak of 165-200 Hz gaming, really?

They will get maximum the same, the 9900K likely worse performance than a 8700K in games.





Nobody cares how many cores AMD needs to get a better multithread CPU than Intel if it's cheaper than an Intel with less cores. And in terms of single core performance, Intel's lead reduced to around 10% with the fastest GPU. A pure fanboy you are. Fact.


Against the 8400, you have the 2600 for the same price with better CPU performance. And CL Pentiums are a piece of crap for that price. 2 core CPUs? Meh.


Panicking is meant in the way that they raised core count after the release and success of Zen. Yep, I know, they didn't make CL in half a year, but you should be aware that their engineers knew what Zen will be capable of and a simple usual frequency boost as in the last 3-4 generations won't be enough. That's why they released higher core count CPUs, and raise it again in their next gen CPUs.

Are you done yet or your going to edit 5 more times lol

Read before you PR rant.

"So you say most of the PC gamers are beyond the 60 Hz displays. You are absolutely NOT right."

Absolutely the opposite of what I said!

The Fanboyism is truly strong in this one mmm.

Do you hear your self? "They will get maximum the same, the 9900K likely worse performance than a 8700K in games." lol

I love it when people are lost for words...have a great day mate!

 

[oxidized]

I think this guy is a fkin troll, care to do something mods?

 

[Hood]

Panicking is meant in the way that they raised core count after the release and success of Zen. Yep, I know, they didn't make CL in half a year, but you should be aware that their engineers knew what Zen will be capable of and a simple usual frequency boost as in the last 3-4 generations won't be enough. That's why they released higher core count CPUs, and raise it again in their next gen CPUs.

Intel hesitated to raise core counts for years, and concentrated on what mattered (IPC, higher clocks, stronger IMC) Intel only raised core counts after AMD convinced some people it was better to have more, slower cores. AMD only went this way because they couldn't get the IPC and high clocks, and the only way to "beat" Intel was to offer more cores for less money. So Intel had to counter with more cores and still keep higher clocks (and cost more). The i9-9900K should widen the gap even more. Nothing has really changed, except performance is better from both camps. Intel still wins the top performance crown if you can afford it, and AMD still wins the "best bang for buck" category for the budget-conscious. But AMD came a bit closer this time, and Intel finally had to worry about the competition a bit. No panic involved.

 

[cadaveca]

I think this guy is a fkin troll, care to do something mods?

I seem to disagree with you. It's simply easier to accept that your opinions on a subject differ... or I guess not.

Intel hesitated to raise core counts for years, and concentrated on what mattered (IPC, higher clocks, stronger IMC) Intel only raised core counts after AMD convinced some people it was better to have more, slower cores. AMD only went this way because they couldn't get the IPC and high clocks, and the only way to "beat" Intel was to offer more cores for less money. So Intel had to counter with more cores and still keep higher clocks (and cost more). The i9-9900K should widen the gap even more. Nothing has really changed, except performance is better from both camps. Intel still wins the top performance crown if you can afford it, and AMD still wins the "best bang for buck" category for the budget-conscious. But AMD came a bit closer this time, and Intel finally had to worry about the competition a bit. No panic involved.

Hmm, it might seem that way for sure. I've always seen AMD at the forefront of tech advancement, then Intel capitalizes on it. We can also look at sale numbers... AMD has like 1/8th the income that Intel has during 1st quarter this year. Although we use their products for the same purpose, there is no way that AMD can really directly compete with Intel, because they simply cannot make enough CPUs to be able to. I've mentioned this many many times over the years. Marketing would have you think that they are competing directly, but then things like the Intel CPU with VEGA cores and similar IP sharing.. that just blows such ideas out of the water. You could infer that since Intel has much more money, they also have the ability to easily beat AMD at anything... they can just throw money at the problems till they find a fix. That's what led to the anti-competitive fines against Intel in the past... they were simply throwing money at the problem of creating a larger market share. They could afford to.

 

[oxidized]

I seem to disagree with you. It's simply easier to accept that your opinions on a subject differ... or I guess not.

I'm not questioning his opinions, of which i don't care about, but actually his way to write and behave.

 

[trparky]

Intel hesitated to raise core counts for years, and concentrated on what mattered (IPC, higher clocks, stronger IMC) Intel only raised core counts after AMD convinced some people it was better to have more, slower cores.

They hesitated on releasing a chip with two extra cores? WTF! The 8700K is probably the best damn processor Intel has released in six years. I mean seriously, you get six cores with Hyperthreading which means you effectively get twelve "cores" and not only that but some seriously fast clock speeds too. It's a real beast of a chip, more damn computing power than most of us have any reason to have in our computer cases. I have no doubt that if it weren't for AMD's Ryzen the 8700K would still be a 4C/8T processor unlike the 6C/12T beast that it is today.

 

[Dr_b_]

Soldered IHS, if true = they were using toothpaste for cost reasons, even though they were selling to enthusiast market, were unlocked, and overheated like a nuclear reactor core meltdown. That thermal cycling bullshit reason is bogus, if there was some reason not to use solder, they wouldn't have used it on their Xeon CPUs.

Also why say you have new CPU's when no one can buy them, other than to take the wind out of the sales of AMD real and purchasable products?

But will that really work?

Comparing products based on price:
Why pay the same or more for an 8C/16T CPU, even if it has better IPC, vs getting a TR 16C/32T that has comparable and decent perf that you wouldn't notice in real world usage?
Plus you get 2x cores for other workloads, more PCIe lanes (RAID NVMe off CPU, with full 16lanes for GPU, etc), and also can use ECC DIMMs if you so choose if the motherboard supports it, all of which are a no go with intel on socket 115X

If its priced the same as regular Ryzen, then maybe its a compelling argument, but who thinks the top tier 9XXX part is going to be the same price as 2700X

 

[ToxicTaZ]

Soldered IHS, if true = they were using toothpaste for cost reasons, even though they were selling to enthusiast market, were unlocked, and overheated like a nuclear reactor core meltdown. That thermal cycling bullshit reason is bogus, if there was some reason not to use solder, they wouldn't have used it on their Xeon CPUs.

Also why say you have new CPU's when no one can buy them, other than to take the wind out of the sales of AMD real and purchasable products?

But will that really work?

Comparing products based on price:
Why pay the same or more for an 8C/16T CPU, even if it has better IPC, vs getting a TR 16C/32T that has comparable and decent perf that you wouldn't notice in real world usage?
Plus you get 2x cores for other workloads, more PCIe lanes (RAID NVMe off CPU, with full 16lanes for GPU, etc), and also can use ECC DIMMs if you so choose if the motherboard supports it, all of which are a no go with intel on socket 115X

If its priced the same as regular Ryzen, then maybe its a compelling argument, but who thinks the top tier 9XXX part is going to be the same price as 2700X

I would expect the 9900K to be priced similar to last years 1800X and (2800X if they had released it)

I would also expect the same price for the 9700K as 8700K and the 8700K should get reduced. 9700K vs 2700X

9900K/9700K on Z300 series have 40 Lanes total (16+24=40) witch is plenty for Dual Ch setup.

 

[trparky]

Many of those here would argue that that's not enough PCI Express lanes, especially the number of lanes directly from the processor. While not specifically stating, many think that the lanes coming off of the chipset are inferior to those that come directly from the processor since you have to compete for bandwidth.

I myself would wish that there were at least 24 lanes directly from the processor. Sixteen for the GPU and eight more lanes for two 4x NVMe SSDs for direct connection to the processor.

 

[Dr_b_]

I would expect the 9900K to be priced similar to last years 1800X and (2800X if they had released it)

I would also expect the same price for the 9700K as 8700K and the 8700K should get reduced. 9700K vs 2700X

9900K/9700K on Z300 series have 40 Lanes total (16+24=40) witch is plenty for Dual Ch setup.

There's a pretty big different between that and what you can get direct through the lanes to the CPU vs going over DMI

 

[trparky]

24 PCI Express lanes from the processor and another 24 lanes from the chipset would be nice for a total of 48.