Intel 10th Generation Core Case-badges Revealed

[efikkan]

No surprise seeing Intel focus 10nm chips on laptops first!

This market is much bigger than desktop PCs and it is where AMD has less representation.

Intel is still waiting for "10nm+" to be ready, and all 10nm products released this year will be produced on the first generation 10nm node ("10nm").

The first generation 10nm is not good enough for highly clocked chips and high yields, so it makes sense to use it for low power chips. And as you say, in terms of quantities, these low-powered mobile chips will ship in high volumes.

10nm+ has been delayed to next year, with Intel promising Ice Lake-SP shipping in Q2 2020.

10 NM. About dam time intel got something new out. But they are still behind as amd is on 7 NM. but i guess its better than nothing.

Intel "10nm" is comparable to TSMC's "7nm", these are just marketing names.
Intel were the first to ship products on this generation of high-power nodes; low volumes of Cannon Lake since April 2018 and I believe some FPGAs. In this quarter they will ship larger volumes of Ice Lake-U and Ice Lake-Y, but still only relative small chips. To date, AMD have shipped the largest chips on this new generation of nodes, but still no larger volume until Zen 2 starts to ship in Q3.

TSMC "7nm" seems to be in better shape than Intel's "10nm", so in that regard Intel is "behind", but not because of the naming.

But it still nothing i am impressed by. Still quad-core yawn. Wake up intel, its 2019 and not 2012. Quad-core cant really impresse any one these days.

A quad core with this performance level and low TDP is unmatched and quite impressive.

 

[EarthDog]

Do you really believe the 9900k consumes only 18 watts more than the 9700k, 100% multithreading?

Yes I do. Because of the variance between chips. If the 9700K was good enough to be a 9900K, it would be. But because it can't, it slides down a bin and drops HT. HT yields a few C increase in temps so I wouldn't doubt the validity in THAT test. Now, you are banging on your unrelated drum about a freakin stress test which isn't a real world situation in the first place. You go with your bad self.

 

[Metroid]

Yes I do. Because of the variance between chips. If the 9700K was good enough to be a 9900K, it would be. But because it can't, it slides down a bin and drops HT. HT yields a few C increase in temps so I wouldn't doubt the validity in THAT test. Now, you are banging on your unrelated drum about a freakin stress test which isn't a real world situation in the first place. You go with your bad self.

I would agree with you if the 9900k had more cores and had to be a better bin, difference is only 100mhz between them and price wise like I said intel charges more for the 9900k because of the hyperthreading, not the bin itself, there are 9700k that uses much less watts than the 9700k in that review, so your point about the 9900k to have a better bin is irrelevant and by the way if I had a 9700k, it would consume much less watts than in that review but i would not say much about the 9900k because of the hyperthreading on it.

 

[EarthDog]

I would agree with you if the 9900k had more cores and had to be a better bin, difference is only 100mhz between them and price wise like I said intel charges more for the 9900k because of the hyperthreading, not the bin itself, there are 9700k that uses much less watts than the 9700k in that review, so your point about the 9900k to have a better bin is irrelevant and by the way if I had a 9700k, it would consume much less watts than in that review but i would not say much about the 9900k because of the hyperthreading on it.

Longest. (run on) Sentence. EVER.


The bin and the HT fetch more money, yes. There are bins that go either way, some leaky, some not so results will vary between CPUs. The 9900K is a better binned CPU than a 9700K in most cases. There will always be exceptions as no two CPUs are the same. If you disable HT on the 9900K it will look more like a 9700K....................................................because that's what it is (for all intents and purposes).

 

[Metroid]

Longest. (run on) Sentence. EVER.


The bin and the HT fetch more money, yes. There are bins that go either way, some leaky, some not so results will vary between CPUs. The 9900K is a better binned CPU than a 9700K in most cases. There will always be exceptions as no two CPUs are the same. If you disable HT on the 9900K it will look more like a 9700K....................................................because that's what it is (for all intents and purposes).

Lets forget the bin, take a 9900k and test yourself with and without hyperthreading and then you will get the result on how much power the hyperthreading uses like I did with my i7 920 few years ago. There are no reviews on that, I wish it had. I believe that 9900k would use much less volts without hyperthreading.

 

[EarthDog]

Lets forget the bin, take a 9900k and test yourself with and without hyperthreading and then you will get the result on how much power the hyperthreading uses like I did with my i7 920 few years ago. There are no reviews on that, I wish it had. I believe that 9900k would use much less volts without hyperthreading.

Ive done the testing... for generations. I'm also (was) an extreme overclocker so I know how to play with my chips with and without HT and what (generally) happens.

Of course the 9900k (any CPU with HT) can use a bit less volts with (much seems a bit, well, much, lol) HT disabled... this is common knowledge. There are many factors which go into the power results .

Point is, I fully believe those results listed in real world applications and could give two hoots about response in a stress testing application's power use considering most are above and beyond real world activities. Im sure it uses a lot more power in stress tests... nobody would disagree. That said, I believe those results with real world apps. I've literally done that kind of testing for years.

test it on intelburntest and see yourself your house burn together hehe

Please do not confuse temperature in degrees with the wattage its putting out. Ive burned my finger on a 5W IC in a built-for-purpose mining rig...

Remember, a bonfire with yellow flames is just as hot temperature wise as a lighter with a yellow flame... but which has more energy behind it?

 

[TheGuruStud]

Intel will only keep the one fab on 10nm and have reverted the others back to 14. They will lose money on every chip sold probably for the life of 10nm lol. It's only in production to say they have it. Purely, a technicality. Incredibly embarrassing.

 

[Metroid]

Ive done the testing... for generations. I'm also (was) an extreme overclocker so I know how to play with my chips with and without HT and what (generally) happens.

Of course the 9900k (any CPU with HT) can use a bit less volts with (much seems a bit, well, much, lol) HT disabled... this is common knowledge. There are many factors which go into the power results .

I said my i7 920 used 1.18v hyperthreading off and 1.40v when was on, manual overclocking and as i stated it used more than half on stress tests. So if you are " an extreme overclocker " then I really dont understand what you tried to imply. What I said is 18 watts only on the 9900k more x 9700k i said that while might be correct stock wise and different bins, i implied that is not entirely true in most cases.

 

[TheGuruStud]

I said my i7 920 used 1.18v hyperthreading off and 1.40v when was on, manual overclocking and as i stated it used more than half on stress tests. So if you are " an extreme overclocker " then I really dont understand what you tried to imply. What I said is 18 watts only on the 9900k more x 9700k i said that while might be correct stock wise and different bins, i implied that is not entirely true in most cases.

Reviews say 30 watts.

 

[Metroid]

Reviews say 30 watts.

review here at tpu says 18 watts in multithread tests but yeah I agree with you, 30 or more watts is the normal x 9700k, here at tpu might have had a better bin on stock voltage.

review here at tpu says 18 watts in multithread tests but yeah I agree with you, 30 or more watts is the normal x 9700k, here at tpu might have had a better bin on stock voltage.

Here on anandtech says a lot more, 44 watts.

 

[EarthDog]

I said my i7 920 used 1.18v hyperthreading off and 1.40v when was on, manual overclocking and as i stated it used more than half on stress tests. So if you are " an extreme overclocker " then I really dont understand what you tried to imply. What I said is 18 watts only on the 9900k more x 9700k i said that while might be correct stock wise and different bins, i implied that is not entirely true in most cases.

If that is actually true (....) that would be the most voltage I have ever seen between HT enabled and disabled for the same clock speed. Typically its around .05-/1V in my experience and/or yields 100-300 Mhz more at the same voltage. I don't ever recall there being a .2V difference just for HT in any of the chips I have done that with, including an i7 920.

Anyway, just know its believable, that result you think isn't...mmkay? There are different results from different tests.

The Anandtech power is also a stress testing application, btw (P95).

 

[Metroid]

If that is actually true (....) that would be the most voltage I have ever seen between HT enabled and disabled for the same clock speed. Typically its around .05-/1V in my experience and/or yields 100-300 Mhz more at the same voltage. I don't ever recall there being a .2V difference just for HT in any of the chips I have done that with, including an i7 920.

Anyway, just know its believable, that result you think isn't...mmkay?

Well that is how it was with my chip, not sure if i can find the screenshot, I posted on xtremesystems in 2009. I have been aside from xtreme overclocking so I have no idea how is today.

Well, data previous than 2010 cant be found, I found this, many images could not be loaded, it has been a long time.

Core i7/X58 Overclocking Thread - Page 108

As the title says post your experiences and recommendations for OC'ing Intel's new high end processors. Here's mine: We finally got hold of a CPU cooler (Akasa Nero) with LGA 1366 mounts today, so we put the Ci7 and P6T together. We tried every type of DDR3 we had available but it would...

www.xtremesystems.org

Could you pros check a n00bs work?

I have the system in my sig, I over clocked my system but things went a little too easy. I disabled all the speedstep and energy saving stuff in BIOS, left the voltages at 'AUTO' and moved the bclk up from 133->166->180->200, the only thing I adjusted was my memory divider to keep speeds...

www.xtremesystems.org

Core i7/X58 Overclocking Thread - Page 138

As the title says post your experiences and recommendations for OC'ing Intel's new high end processors. Here's mine: We finally got hold of a CPU cooler (Akasa Nero) with LGA 1366 mounts today, so we put the Ci7 and P6T together. We tried every type of DDR3 we had available but it would...

www.xtremesystems.org

These images could be loaded, the others no.

Anyway, I tried but you get my point.

 

[Xzibit]

If that is actually true (....) that would be the most voltage I have ever seen between HT enabled and disabled for the same clock speed. Typically its around .05-/1V in my experience and/or yields 100-300 Mhz more at the same voltage. I don't ever recall there being a .2V difference just for HT in any of the chips I have done that with, including an i7 920.

Anyway, just know its believable, that result you think isn't...mmkay? There are different results from different tests.

The Anandtech power is also a stress testing application, btw (P95).

They use POV-Ray. In P95 its closer to 200w and with AVX its 250w when OC at 5ghz

For our testing, we use POV-Ray as our load generator then take the register values for CPU power.

Unless the board settings sticks to spec its going to suck up juice.

 

[EarthDog]

That must be an updated test suite (or the CPU tesrs?). P95 is what I recall using on z370 when writing for them. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[xorbe]

> These will also feature DLBoost, a fixed-function maxtrix-multiplication hardware that
> speeds up deep-neural net building and training by 5x, as well as certain AVX-512 instructions.

then

> The first of these chips will target mobile computing platforms

rip desktop users, none of that sounds interesting.

 

[timta2]

This is not the first time they put out a broken 10nm product just as a smoke screen for investors. The first one was i3-8121U - a dual-core processor that was so broken it had to have the iGPU disabled. According to rumors the yields for this model were below 1%. It cost Intel millions to make at most thousands of "full functioning" ones.

You're telling us what the majority of TPU users already know and you're just repeating old news. The rest is just dishonesty and rumor, on your part, in an effort to support a fellow member of your "side".

 

[rtwjunkie]

I said my i7 920 used 1.18v hyperthreading off and 1.40v when was on, manual overclocking and as i stated it used more than half on stress tests. So if you are " an extreme overclocker " then I really dont understand what you tried to imply. What I said is 18 watts only on the 9900k more x 9700k i said that while might be correct stock wise and different bins, i implied that is not entirely true in most cases.

I’m confused as to what your tests on the thoroughly ancient i7-920 have to do with disproving as you say, the 18 watt difference between the 9700k and 9900k.

 

[Metroid]

I’m confused as to what your tests on the thoroughly ancient i7-920 have to do with disproving as you say, the 18 watt difference between the 9700k and 9900k.

I pointed the 18 watts is not real, it's a lot more than that. I do respect the test procedure though but that is not the reality of how much power consumption hyperthreading uses, comparing 9700k x 9900k is not right as well, just test the 9900k with and without hyperthreading and you will have an answer like i did when had the opportunity few years ago. I do not have a cpu with hyperthreading here, so I cant test it. Basically in my view 9900k is a failed product because it has hyperthreading and lots of cores, too much heat, is time for amd follow intel and give the choice if you want hyperthreading/smt or not, so users can decide about it and that is why I think the 9700k is a step in the right direction, there are enough cores already, most people dont need hyperthreading anymore and charging $100 for it is too much, however only you can decide if is a good deal, in my case i dont see, everything works better with hyperthreading off or not having hyperthreading in my applications.

If you are an overclocker you can reduce the power consumption a lot by reducing cpu vcore but the catch is you will need to disable hyperthreading and if you disable hyperthreading on a 9900k then why haven't bought a 9700k then? see, okay so 9900k might have a better bin, so disable ht and enjoy, hyperthreading uses too much electricity and it gets worse if people dont have an adequate cooling solution, at that time i had an amazing watercooling solution, custom made with 2 pumps 18 watts each, triple radiator. Was it worth? at that time it was hehe but today I see is not worth for me. I rather have something that can be used on air cooling and cpus with tdp lower than 95 watts is good to go, my i7 920 was130 watts but 130 watts was at 2.4 ghz hehe, at 4.2ghz used around 350watts.

 

[r.h.p]

how do they come up with these names "sunny cove" "icy lake" and so on

 

[TheGuruStud]

how do they come up with these names "sunny cove" "icy lake" and so on

Well, they were sailing on their 10 million dollar yachts and saw a nice cove in the sun. Then they were sitting in their 5 mil vacation home in the mountains next to a lake.

They spent so much time using 100s to light cigars that the retards forgot how to make CPUs. Now, they're going to burn in hell and make VIA look good.

Whiskey lake should be pretty self-explanatory.

 

[hat]

Can we expect a TPU review of the case badge, including overclocking results and temperature results with a few popular coolers? Maybe even some delidding?

 

[Tomorrow]

Intel is not worried at all. It would be as simple as dropping prices. Imagine dropping 9900k to 400€ and 9700k to 300€. They dont do it because they dont need to. They have the best performance.

Of course they're not worried - the incompetent and bullish ones never are. Until it's too late that is. Nokia was also not worried btw and we all know how that went.
Intel will NEVER drop their prices. That's wishful fanboy dreaming.

 

[EarthDog]

Intel will NEVER drop their prices. That's wishful fanboy dreaming.

Want to bet?

I pointed the 18 watts is not real, it's a lot more than that. I do respect the test procedure though but that is not the reality of how much power consumption hyperthreading uses, comparing 9700k x 9900k is not right as well, just test the 9900k with and without hyperthreading and you will have an answer like i did when had the opportunity few years ago. I do not have a cpu with hyperthreading here, so I cant test it. Basically in my view 9900k is a failed product because it has hyperthreading and lots of cores, too much heat, is time for amd follow intel and give the choice if you want hyperthreading/smt or not, so users can decide about it and that is why I think the 9700k is a step in the right direction, there are enough cores already, most people dont need hyperthreading anymore and charging $100 for it is too much, however only you can decide if is a good deal, in my case i dont see, everything works better with hyperthreading off or not having hyperthreading in my applications.

If you are an overclocker you can reduce the power consumption a lot by reducing cpu vcore but the catch is you will need to disable hyperthreading and if you disable hyperthreading on a 9900k then why haven't bought a 9700k then? see, okay so 9900k might have a better bin, so disable ht and enjoy, hyperthreading uses too much electricity and it gets worse if people dont have an adequate cooling solution, at that time i had an amazing watercooling solution, custom made with 2 pumps 18 watts each, triple radiator. Was it worth? at that time it was hehe but today I see is not worth for me. I rather have something that can be used on air cooling and cpus with tdp lower than 95 watts is good to go, my i7 920 was130 watts but 130 watts was at 2.4 ghz hehe, at 4.2ghz used around 350watts.

I'd test this, but only have a 16c/32t CPU. The last time I did this, the 8800k could go up 200 hz or I could lower voltage 0.7xV.

There are several generations between your testing (which I never saw back then) and today's reality.

9900k is not a failure, btw. Not even close.

Anyway..OT. I digress.

 

[HwGeek]

On Servers parts they do drop prices, they have no other choice since 32C EPYCS are around + all the security problems, this is why we gonna see their margins getting lower every quarter.

Intel is Serving Major Xeon Discounts to Combat AMD EPYC

There is a buzz among customers and the channel that Intel Xeon Scalable deals are seeing more discounting activity when AMD EPYC is quoted as well. If you are buying a few dozen servers or more, it may pay to quote AMD EPYC and turn the process competitive.

www.servethehome.com

 

[efikkan]

Whil
Intel will only keep the one fab on 10nm and have reverted the others back to 14. They will lose money on every chip sold probably for the life of 10nm lol. It's only in production to say they have it. Purely, a technicality. Incredibly embarrassing.

10nm and 14nm doesn't share production lines, and share very little equipment.
Intel have reserved more 14nm production capacity for CPUs than ever before, and will not go full-scale on 10nm, but they are not "reverting" production lines back to 14nm.