Sunday, July 23rd 2017

Top Three Intel 9th Generation Core Parts Detailed

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. Source: Coolaler
Add your own comment

121 Comments on Top Three Intel 9th Generation Core Parts Detailed

#1
ppn
Hyperthreading is now limited to the i9 only, and pentiums. Yay. Solder 95 watt 5.0ghz a dream for real for real.
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
xkm1948 said:
What about pricing?
I expect unchanged pricing for Core i5 and i7. Core i9 could be $400-500.
Posted on Reply
#4
Darksword
If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.
Posted on Reply
#5
darn0163
Darksword said:
If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.
Nah they’re switching to Colgate
Posted on Reply
#6
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.
Posted on Reply
#7
Hood
These are decent clock speeds for 8 cores. Intel needs at least these specs to counter the Ryzen threat.

btarunr said:
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.
Darksword said:
If they're still using Nutella in between the die and IHS then I'll pass.
Let the toothpaste wars begin!
Posted on Reply
#8
Protagonist
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
Posted on Reply
#9
GoldenX
That looks very nice. I still don't understand why do they limit HT like that, thou.
Posted on Reply
#10
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Hood said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#11
R0H1T
Protagonist said:
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!
Hood said:
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.
S4BRE said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#12
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.
Posted on Reply
#13
R0H1T
Upgrayedd said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#14
Hood
btarunr said:
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.

R0H1T said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#15
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.
Posted on Reply
#16
RejZoR
Darksword said:
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...
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
btarunr said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#19
TheLostSwede
Hood said:

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.
Posted on Reply
#20
Fabio
RejZoR said:
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
Posted on Reply
#21
GoldenX
Fabio said:
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.
Posted on Reply
#23
Midland Dog
ideal lineup
i9 9900k 8/16
i7 9700k 6/12
i5 9600k 4/8
i3 9___ 4/4
Pentium 2/4
Posted on Reply
#25
RejZoR
Fabio said:
i think the problem is that soldering can bring to many chip damagend and a different past with bettet perf could have shorther durabilit
Who gives a crap, that's like having Ferrari that can go 300km/h but you drive it only 50km/h out of durability concerns. May just as well buy a Celeron then to be sure it'll work for 30 years because it won't get even warm either way...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment