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

#126
EarthDog
BlueBirdCharm
Ok, I literally made an account to go "haha"
Its too bad that's the court jester. ;)

Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.
Posted on Reply
#128
lynx29
EarthDog
Its too bad that's the court jester. ;)

Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.
well intel did announce they are lowering prices by 15% as of a couple days ago. so I guess they did hit the panic button a little bit :) I'm just sad that ryzen 3000 does not beat Intel at every game at 1080p... only beats them in about half of games at 1080p, nice improvement, but still just I am sad... was hoping 7nm was going to be a true leap forward.
Posted on Reply
#129
EarthDog
It's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market. Nothing you've said supported it was in a panic. Lol.

We havent seen any legit benchmarks yet on the new cpus...so let's not make a rush to judgement my hilarious friend. :)
Posted on Reply
#130
lexluthermiester
EarthDog
It's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market.
This. It's not surprising, it's something that has happened many times in the past and will not be the last time.
Posted on Reply
#131
Valantar
I agree that it's no panic (the half-assed launch of a 9900K with the most negligible OC is more among those lines, but more of a flailing counterpunch after being jumped in a proverbial dark alley), but it's still a more or less unprecedented move for Intel, and while one could say they've been padding their margins for years and that this is a "natural correction", reading it as "Intel is worried" is just as correct.
Posted on Reply
#133
mouacyk
Mindshare retention
News relevancy

The cost (in time and resources) for Intel to bin this SKU is hardly worth the ROI, especially with such competitively priced AMD CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#137
EarthDog
lexluthermiester
What's wrong with 3DMark?
More cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.
Posted on Reply
#138
lexluthermiester
EarthDog
More cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.
That argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited in addition too the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.
Posted on Reply
#139
EarthDog
lexluthermiester
That argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited as well as the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.
I wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.
Posted on Reply
#140
lexluthermiester
EarthDog
I wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.
Fair enough.
Posted on Reply
#141
trog100
more than six cores dosnt really count in gaming performance..

nether do temps because most of the cores/thread are not being used..

my 9900k only runs around 70 C playing a game but running something that loads all its cores/threads it will easily hit 100C...

a 9900k will not produce more fps than a 9700k at the same clock speeds ether.. i am currently running my 9900k at 5 ghz 1.216 core voltage with hyper threading off..

my system runs better and cooler this way.. nothing i do needs more than 8 cores at 5 ghz..

trog
Posted on Reply
#142
ToxicTaZ
lexluthermiester
What's wrong with 3DMark?

That depends greatly on the game. As TPU's own testing shows the 3700x trading blows with the with the 9700K in gaming, the 3900X is more than a match for the 9700K in most processes and at a lower price.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/
9900KS is faster than the 3800X

The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance!

Both 8086K and 9900KS remain the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs for now.

It's all about the Base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo

I can't wait to get my 9900KS CPU upgrade...

Isn't the 3800X single core performance faster than the 3900X as well?
Posted on Reply
#143
Melvis
ToxicTaZ
9900KS is faster than the 3800X

The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance!

Both 8086K and 9900KS remain the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs for now.

It's all about the Base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo

I can't wait to get my 9900KS CPU upgrade...

Isn't the 3800X single core performance faster than the 3900X as well?
At Games, and thats about it.
Posted on Reply
#144
trog100
Melvis
At Games, and thats about it.
i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..

trog
Posted on Reply
#145
Melvis
trog100
i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..

trog
Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.
Posted on Reply
#146
lexluthermiester
Melvis
Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.
Exactly! Clock for clock, AMD is king. Intel's advantage is clock speed. Even though Ryzen3 can do more per clock, Intel CPU's can be pushed to higher clock speed to compensate but that only makes a difference in certain situations, which is why AMD's top tier CPU's are trading blows with Intel's.
Posted on Reply
#147
EarthDog
Melvis
Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.
????
amp.hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-core-i9-9900k-ipc-shootout?page=3

Here too.. intel mostly wins...: www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6

Literary the first two things I looked at... 3900x IPC and then ju.ped to AT as I know they test IPC.

I dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup. But true IPC it looks like that are, on average, still a bit behind.

The problem with YT reviews (and forums, lol) is every slack jawed yokel has a voice...and because it's on the web, its the truuuuuf.
Posted on Reply
#148
lexluthermiester
EarthDog
I dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup.
That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(Instructions Per Clock) performance win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering were the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.
Power users will be best served by a Ryzen CPU, even those who do a great deal of gaming because the GPU is the more important variable in that equation.
Posted on Reply
#149
ToxicTaZ
lexluthermiester
That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(Instructions Per Clock) performance win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering are the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.
Power users will be best served by a Ryzen CPU, even those who do a great deal of gaming because the GPU is the more important variable in that equation.
Stock vs stock....or If you're talking about OC then the 3.6GHz 9900K OC to 5.1GHz is crazy fast!

3800X is faster than 3700X.
9900KS is faster than the 3800X.

9900KS factory super binned can OC too Intel top Coffeelake/Coffeelake Refresh GHz barrier of 5.3GHz with good aftermarket cooling. EK Swiftech etc etc...9900KS hole sol purpose is to keep the fastest 8 cores Gaming CPU for this year.

Just as good old factory super binned 8086K blow away 3600X... the 9900KS will do the same to the 3800X.

But Bravo AMD on cheaper 6&8 cores CPUs and bring those stupid Intel prices down. Intel been riding on the no competition train since 2700K till 3900X/3950X release. 3900X is definitely AMD best Ryzen 3000 series CPU Right now till Intel 10th generation.

Love to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2
Posted on Reply
#150
lexluthermiester
ToxicTaZ
Love to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The limitation, and this is only a theory currently, is that the limiting factor of Ryzen going beyond 4.5ghz is the CCX and the way it interacts with the cores. The CCX is part of what makes Ryzen amazing, but also what's holding it back from the OC's that the cores should be able to do. Kinda like BCLK overclocking for Intel CPU's. Used to be a great thing, but now it's impossible.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment