Sunday, May 26th 2019

Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS

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.
Add your own comment

170 Comments on Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS

#26
dicktracy
Nkd
really? 12 core at less power to match IPC and kick ass in productivity is not enough? While AMD brings you more core 15% IPC lift in 2 years, dont tell me you think that is nothing while intel sat on its ass. Zen 2 doesnt look like a candidate to you? Yea 4 more cores than competition for same price is nothing I guess. Atleast thank AMD for bringing some competition and giving intel a run



pentium 4
That's the problem. It only "matches" the old and milked out Skylake. Zen 2 is practically a Coffee Lake 2.0 but with moar cores and less power consumption (still questionable gaming performance and overclockabiliy). It's hard to get excited about yesterday's performance... Zen 2 is a pretty good performer for those jumping in this late in the game (I would even get the 3900x if I was buying a CPU today), but you could've gotten those gaming performance years ago with an overclocked 6700k in 2015... so yeah still nothing better than ancient Skylake in 2019 unless you need moar cores.
Posted on Reply
#27
R0H1T
Zen 2 likely exceeds SKL's IPC & if SKL is ancient in 2019 what do you suppose Comet or Rocket lake are?
Posted on Reply
#28
Tsukiyomi91
so this is basically the i9 processor they wanted to release; 4GHz on all 8 cores with an all-core boost of 5GHz? ok...
Posted on Reply
#29
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
So you don't know what you're talking about :confused:


Why?I quoted tpus numbers.you picked torture tests only.
Posted on Reply
#30
R0H1T
You said 143W (total system power consumption) & compared it against 65W TDP. Do you want me to show 9900k torture test results?
Posted on Reply
#31
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
You said 143W, total system power consumption, & compared it against TDP. Do you want me to show 9900k torture test results?
What? I said multithreaded.
Posted on Reply
#32
R0H1T
Even is it is Multi threaded, it's still total system power. Stop your disinformation!



Posted on Reply
#33
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
Even is it is Multi threaded, it's still total system power. Stop your disinformation!




LOL
Posted on Reply
#34
R0H1T
Yeah clearly, you're putting TDP & total system power in the same sentence liberally :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#35
lynx29
chaosmassive
lowering price is sign of weakness, lack of confidence in their product, and its the last thing they want to do
Which is why I was criticizing the use of the word panic... what is your point? Thanks for helping me prove mine? mmk.
Posted on Reply
#36
R0H1T
I think the word CB, no not Maxon's benchmark, come to mind :toast:
Posted on Reply
#37
zlobby
cucker tarlson
What? I said multithreaded.
Hon, hon, hon! RIDL, Smeltdown and the rest want their HT back!

I smell bad damage control when I see one.
Posted on Reply
#38
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
Yeah clearly, you're putting TDP & total system power in the same sentence liberally :rolleyes:
yes,my bad.
thank you for your measured reaction.
it's like your head didn't catch fire at all.
Posted on Reply
#39
R0H1T
I pointed out your mistake twice & yet you doubled down, surely you can cut me some slack?
Posted on Reply
#40
Tsukiyomi91
all i know is that AMD has yet again successfully shaken Intel's fruit-bearing trees, after their (AMD's) rather long 5+ years of barely-innovating "hiatus".
Posted on Reply
#41
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
I pointed out your mistake twice & yet you doubled down, surely you can cut me some slack?
"pointed out" is a fancy word for snarky remarks you made.
btw the methoology is same for intel and amd.the point I was making was to nkd and it still stands,both manufacurers' tdp number is bogus.
MT power draw is 199w for 9900k and 198w for 2700x.Let's say 1080ti and the rest of the system takes 50-60W.It's still around 40-50W more for 9900K and over 50W more for 2700x.
Posted on Reply
#42
Tsukiyomi91
the TDP that the processors advertise isn't really accurate anyways... coz in the end, users wants to use 'em for many reasons. let the total system power draw be the deciding factor here.
Posted on Reply
#43
R0H1T
And how do you count for PSU losses or motherboard, I'm sure my comments didn't cover that? The difference in power consumption can only be measured when you're actually counting just the CPU power draw, not guesstimating what it's consuming from the rest of the system. The point about max power draw, over 95W or 105W TDP, is valid though.
Posted on Reply
#44
Vayra86


He's like "I know, I know, its not really that interesting is it"
or
"Yeah its the same box, so what"

By the way, is Intel going to keep adding letters now that they've run out of numbers? What's next, a 9900KFS?!
Posted on Reply
#45
cucker tarlson
9900k still manages to draw 40w less in gaming while beating the crap out of amd's flagship 8c/16t.



ryzen is a workstation cpu and that's where it shines,beating intel both in value and efficiency.
Vayra86


He's like "I know, I know, its not really that interesting is it"
or
"Yeah its the same box, so what"

By the way, is Intel going to keep adding letters now that they've run out of numbers? What's next, a 9900KFS?!
9900KFC with edram like 5775C.It'll fry your chickens too.
Posted on Reply
#46
Vayra86
cucker tarlson
9900k still manages to draw 40w less in gaming while beating the crap out of amd's flagship 8c/16t.



ryzen is a workstation cpu and that's where it shines,beating intel both in value and efficiency.
With the minor caveat that it tops the charts the moment you look a bit funny at the Vcore value and want to all-core your turbo ;) Ryzen OTOH does not.
cucker tarlson
9900KFC with edram like 5775C.It'll fry your chickens too.
Thanks for my new sig. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Posted on Reply
#47
Tsukiyomi91
put it simple; gaming & general use = Intel, workstation/CPU-intensive workloads = AMD.
Posted on Reply
#48
cucker tarlson
Vayra86
With the minor caveat that it tops the charts the moment you look a bit funny at the Vcore value and want to all-core your turbo ;) Ryzen OTOH does not.
14nm,even mature and really good,is 14nm.There's so much you can do without throwing away efficiency at some point.9900K is still very efficient for gaming if you look at perf/wat,just waaaay too expensive.
Vayra86
thanks for my new sig. :roll: :roll: :roll:
was gonna use another word for a male chicken but didn't want do push it too far.
Posted on Reply
#49
R0H1T
Tsukiyomi91
put it simple; gaming & general use = Intel, workstation/CPU-intensive workloads = AMD.
With zen 2 you're better off buying AMD, unless you're chasing that last 1% or 0.1% especially in gaming. Though as I've said repeatedly, Intel's IGP gives them an edge in lots of segments where AMD is missing.
Posted on Reply
#50
cucker tarlson
R0H1T
With zen 2 you're better off buying AMD, unless you're chasing that last 1% or 0.1% especially in gaming.


Posted on Reply
Add your own comment