Top Three Intel 9th Generation Core Parts Detailed

[btarunr]

Intel is giving finishing touches to its 9th generation Core processor family, which will see the introduction of an 8-core part to the company's LGA115x mainstream desktop (MSDT) platform. The company is also making certain branding changes. The Core i9 brand, which is being introduced to MSDT, symbolizes 8-core/16-thread processors. The Core i7 brand is relegated to 8-core/8-thread (more cores but fewer threads than the current Core i7 parts). The Core i5 brand is unchanged at 6-core/6-thread. The three will be based on the new 14 nm+++ "Whiskey Lake" silicon, which is yet another "Skylake" refinement, and hence one can't expect per-core IPC improvements.

Leading the pack is the Core i9-9900K. This chip is endowed with 8 cores, and HyperThreading enabling 16 threads. It features the full 16 MB of shared L3 cache available on the silicon. It also has some stellar clock speeds - 3.60 GHz nominal, with 5.00 GHz maximum Turbo Boost. You get the 5.00 GHz across 1 to 2 cores, 4.80 GHz across 4 cores, 4.70 GHz across 6 to 8 cores. Interestingly, the TDP of this chip remains unchanged from its predecessor, at 95 W. Next up, is the Core i7-9700K. This chip apparently succeeds the i7-8700K. It has 8 cores, but lacks HyperThreading.



The Core i7-9700K is an 8-core/8-thread chip clocked at 3.60 GHz, but its Turbo Boost states are a touch lower than those of the i9-9900K. You get 4.90 GHz single-core boost, 4.80 GHz 2-core, 4.70 GHz 4-core, and 4.60 GHz across 6 to 8 cores. The L3 cache amount is reduced to the 1.5 MB per core scheme reminiscent of previous-generation Core i5 chips, as opposed to 2 MB per core of the i9-9900K. You only get 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Lastly, there's the Core i5-9600K. There's far too little changed from the current 8th generation Core i5 parts. These are still 6-core/6-thread parts. The nominal clock is the highest of the lot, at 3.70 GHz. You get 4.60 GHz 1-core boost, 4.50 GHz 2-core boost, 4.40 GHz 4-core boost, and 4.30 GHz all-core. The L3 cache amount is still 9 MB.

The three chips are backwards-compatible with existing motherboards based on the 300-series chipset with BIOS updates. Intel is expected to launch these chips towards the end of Q3-2018.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[ppn]

Hyperthreading is now limited to the i9 only, and pentiums. Yay. Solder 95 watt 5.0ghz a dream for real for real.

 

[xkm1948]

What about pricing?

 

[btarunr]

What about pricing?

I expect unchanged pricing for Core i5 and i7. Core i9 could be $400-500.

 

[Darksword]

If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.

 

[darn0163]

If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.

Nah they’re switching to Colgate

 

[S4BRE]

If the table is true, I'm surprised that 6c/12t only lasted for one release in the 8700K. But it is what it is I suppose.

 

[Hood]

These are decent clock speeds for 8 cores. Intel needs at least these specs to counter the Ryzen threat.

I expect unchanged pricing for Core i5 and i7. Core i9 could be $400-500.

The Ryzen 7 2700x is selling briskly for $320, so Intel has to be very careful with pricing these. People would be willing to pay more for the nearly 1 GHz clock speed advantage (both OC'ed), maybe $400. Much more than that, they risk losing customers to AMD. I can't wait to see launch prices, and see if they let the price wars begin.

If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.

Let the toothpaste wars begin!

 

[Stephen.]

What's wrong with Intel!!!!??? i9 really for what its just i7 we know this.

They should have made everything simple by bumping uo existing naming eg

i7 8c/16t
i5 6c/12t
i3 4c/8t

Chips that dont make the grade to be in between the naming scheme cut down i7 remain in i7, cudt down i5s to remain in i5s and so on.

Intel should stop the confusion

Or they just come up with a new naming scheme when they get to the next nanometer

 

[GoldenX]

That looks very nice. I still don't understand why do they limit HT like that, thou.

 

[btarunr]

The Ryzen 7 2700x is selling briskly for $320, so Intel has to be very careful with pricing these. People would be willing to pay more for the nearly 1 GHz clock speed advantage (both OC'ed), maybe $400. Much more than that, they risk losing customers to AMD. I can't wait to see launch prices, and see if they let the price wars begin.

AMD still needs more cores to the Dollar to compete with Intel since Zen+ per-core IPC is still less than that of Intel. The 2700X still competes with only the i7-8700K (which is selling briskly, too).

Maybe (for the lack of HyperThreading and lesser L3c/core than previous generation), Intel could price the i7-9700K at $299. But since AMD priced the 1800X liberally at $499, Intel could grab the opportunity to price the i9-9900K at $400~500.

 

[R0H1T]

What's wrong with Intel!!!!??? i9 really for what its just i7 we know this.

They should have made everything simple by bumping uo existing naming eg

i7 8c/16t
i5 6c/12t
i3 4c/8t

Chips that dont make the grade to be in between the naming scheme cut down i7 remain in i7, cudt down i5s to remain in i5s and so on.

Intel should stop the confusion

Or they just come up with a new naming scheme when they get to the next nanometer

Why would they do that, their whole business is built around fleecing customers maximizing profits!

These are decent clock speeds for 8 cores. Intel needs at least these specs to counter the Ryzen threat.


The Ryzen 7 2700x is selling briskly for $320, so Intel has to be very careful with pricing these. People would be willing to pay more for the nearly 1 GHz clock speed advantage (both OC'ed), maybe $400. Much more than that, they risk losing customers to AMD. I can't wait to see launch prices, and see if they let the price wars begin.

Let the toothpaste wars begin!

I don't believe the i9 will be commonly OCable to 5.x GHz or above. At that clocks the power consumption will be ridiculous as well, outside of HEDT parts.

If the table is true, I'm surprised that 6c/12t only lasted for one release in the 8700K. But it is what it is I suppose.

Take this with a bucketful of salt.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Wish they would have a lineup made for MSDT without iGPU taking up space that was unlocked, don't need HT either. More space for cache? Is that even possible? I remember the 3550P but she was locked up iirc.

 

[R0H1T]

Wish they would have a lineup made for MSDT without iGPU taking up space that was unlocked, don't need HT either. More space for cache? Is that even possible? I remember the 3550P but she was locked up iirc.

They'll have to make a separate chip for that, so definitely possible, but knowing Intel they won't, also it'd overlap with HEDT.

 

[Hood]

But since AMD priced the 1800X liberally at $499, Intel could grab the opportunity to price the i9-9900K at $400~500.

I forgot about their high launch price, since now they go for $239 on Newegg. I don't remember any Intel CPU that ever dropped to half price in it's first year or so, Intel's MSRP price is close to what most people end up paying, and that doesn't happen so much with AMD.

I don't believe the i9 will be commonly OCable to 5.x GHz or above.

Why not? If 1 core can turbo to 5 GHz, an OC with decent cooling can almost always hit the same or more on all cores. For example, my i7-4790K is 4.0 nominal, 4.4 max single core turbo, and easily runs a stable 4.6 on all cores, 24-7. On Intel CPUs anyway.

 

[PLSG08]

I wonder how big of a Performance difference would the 9700k see from the 8700k. the 9700k has less threads, but more cores w/o HT.

 

[RejZoR]

If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.

This. No matter how high they clock and whatever, the fact you have that cheap useless goo under IHS which basically negates any super expensive best of the best thermal paste on top is a pass for me as well. I specifically went with HEDT again because of this with 5820K and because AMD didn't really have viable options at the time. But with Ryzen on the ryze (hihi) you have to be an idiot to support this cheap ass bullshit cost cutting nonsense from Intel. And no, I'm not going to delid a +500€ CPU ffs. Stick god damn solder on it and charge me extra 20€ for all I care just so that quality paste I put on top actually makes sense. Thermal paste under IHS may not make a difference on cheap ass 50€ Pentiums, but it has no place on 10x more expensive parts.

It's also stupid on Intel's part. Good thermal conductivity means CPU's would stay at 5GHz boost point more and for longer because coolers are actually capable of pulling the heat off the chip.

So, unless they change this dumb practice, I'm buying a Ryzen.

Also, Skylake refresh... I bet they didn't fix any of the vulnerabilities either...

 

[UrbanCamper]

Who was it that first said the 8 cores would most likely be compatible with the 370 chipset? And who was it that got argued with about it? And who was right? ME. just saying.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...l-new-generation-support.245967/#post-3870227

 

[eidairaman1]

AMD still needs more cores to the Dollar to compete with Intel since Zen+ per-core IPC is still less than that of Intel. The 2700X still competes with only the i7-8700K (which is selling briskly, too).

Maybe (for the lack of HyperThreading and lesser L3c/core than previous generation), Intel could price the i7-9700K at $299. But since AMD priced the 1800X liberally at $499, Intel could grab the opportunity to price the i9-9900K at $400~500.

Zen+ is not a major refinement though.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Why not? If 1 core can turbo to 5 GHz, an OC with decent cooling can almost always hit the same or more on all cores. For example, my i7-4790K is 4.0 nominal, 4.4 max single core turbo, and easily runs a stable 4.6 on all cores, 24-7. On Intel CPUs anyway.

You forget that your CPU is a quad core and now we're talking twice as many cores. You're also only overclocking your CPU a mere 600MHz from bar clock, whereas this would be 1.4 GHz. Quite a difference, no? The 8086K is struggling with 5GHz and this has another two cores. I can see maybe 2-4 cores hitting 5GHz stable across the board, but not all eight.

 

[Fabio]

This. No matter how high they clock and whatever, the fact you have that cheap useless goo under IHS which basically negates any super expensive best of the best thermal paste on top is a pass for me as well. I specifically went with HEDT again because of this with 5820K and because AMD didn't really have viable options at the time. But with Ryzen on the ryze (hihi) you have to be an idiot to support this cheap ass bullshit cost cutting nonsense from Intel. And no, I'm not going to delid a +500€ CPU ffs. Stick god damn solder on it and charge me extra 20€ for all I care just so that quality paste I put on top actually makes sense. Thermal paste under IHS may not make a difference on cheap ass 50€ Pentiums, but it has no place on 10x more expensive parts.

It's also stupid on Intel's part. Good thermal conductivity means CPU's would stay at 5GHz boost point more and for longer because coolers are actually capable of pulling the heat off the chip.

So, unless they change this dumb practice, I'm buying a Ryzen.

Also, Skylake refresh... I bet they didn't fix any of the vulnerabilities either...

i think the problem is that soldering can bring to many chip damagend and a different past with bettet perf could have shorther durabilit

 

[GoldenX]

i think the problem is that soldering can bring to many chip damagend and a different past with bettet perf could have shorther durabilit

There are thousands of soldered chips still working, electromigration kills CPUs, not soldering the IHS.

 

[dj-electric]

Top three first wave* CPUs detailed


:X

 

[Midland Dog]

ideal lineup
i9 9900k 8/16
i7 9700k 6/12
i5 9600k 4/8
i3 9___ 4/4
Pentium 2/4

 

[Outback Bronze]

Anybody mention the 16 PCI-E lanes. What gives??