Intel Releasing 10 core 20 thread i9-10900KF for $499 very soon... 5.2 Ghz boost

[Bones]

Worth noting AMD also had the Athlon X2 4800 for Socket 939 that sold for $1,000 when first introduced.

Can't blame AMD for the current price range, it's actually competitive and will give them some much needed capital to continue with. With yields from the 7nm process improving as time goes it's going to get better for AMD which in turn means better for us too.

Believe me, if I were able I'd be all over a 3900/3950 chip but for now will have to settle for the 3600x I have now - May not be the biggest but it's still good.
The 2700x I'm running in this build now isn't bad either and getting it done.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

- History shows Intel getting stupid high margins. AMD has gone lower in price but usually not because they wanted to.
- Intel has larger company but they also compete in many markets. Foundry is very capital-heavy one at that.
- AMD cannot cease production with TSMC. This is their risk. If something should happen in/to TSMC that sets them back, AMD would be quite out of luck.
- Situation is Intel's nightmare alright but what are you bringing HDET into it? Desktop CPUs were the topic here. Intel's manycore Xeons are screwed in most places, HDET is a niche market and has a lot more to do with marketing rather than profit.
- When it comes to production and cost, dies can be compared fairly well. When it comes to that, having multi-die packages for CPUs is more complex, more costly and more likely to bottleneck somewhere.

Sure they have. Athlon 64 FX-53 was over $700, FX-55 was over $800 and FX-57 was little over $1000.

This CPU we are talking about probably won’t be on the consumer socket, but the HEDT socket. That is why I bring it up. 8 cores at 14nm is probably already a strain on the current consumer board, as Intel was counting on 10nm chips to be mainstream years ago. The HEDT socket is more complex and therefore more expensive. As for the rest, AMD can drop one semi fab for another if the current one fails or another has better advancements. Intel has to develop this themselves—historically, that’s been an advantage (one that Intel has paid dearly for), until something like 10nm fails to qualify. Intel has lost tons of money investing capital into a node that has failed to reach production goals. Now, AMD can obviously not go on without a fab contract, but they can chose from any fab outside of Intel for their production needs, and that market has clearly advanced since the days of Athlon64. And I know that AMD obviously doesn’t want to go low, what company does? My point is they have shown the ability and willingness to do so. The GPU division is a prime but sad example of that.

 

[londiste]

10900KF or whatever its final name will be? It will definitely by in desktop socket.
Original post here is a leak and details might be wrong. Socket is said to be s1159, other roadmap slides say s1200.
10-core Comet Lake itself has been on roadmaps for a while and we do know it is in the works.

There are two fabs for 7nm today - TSMC and Samsung. Samsung is so far unproven. Intel's 10nm goal is to be at the same level.
Intel, Samsung and TSMC have all spent tens of billions of dollars on research and fabs.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Well, it's gonna be a faster than previous chip with more cores. People are going to buy this product. The price isn't really that bad, and far lower than Intel traditional pricing.

Gotta say, I'm impressed with Intel actually. They've stretched the current 14nm just about as far as they could possibly go, and then.... release yet another!!! Awesome.

H. highly
E. extended
D. dangerous
T. temperatures

I mean, High end desktop.... sorry for the confusion.
meaning always a new socket.. lol forgot that part sry.

edit: fixed type 10nm to 14nm

 

[ratirt]

if only a general consumer and enthusiast can utilize more than half that....

You don't need to buy it. Intel offers 8c for lower price so you can go with that or 12c Ryzen. If this is still too much for you go 6c older CPU or just buy PS4 or wait for PS5 or Xbox and call it a day.
Besides it is not about how much you can utilize but what you can get for your money.

I am not one of those people that feel the price for those CDPUs are too high. I was just going based on comments I have seen here and other places about people lamenting on how AMD used to be the value king and now isn't. I do not disagree that if AMD had never gone past 4 or 8 cores we would not ever have seen anything like this from Intel for the price being quoted.

Isn't? The price is higher but the performance is as well. I don't think you see the bigger picture here. Maybe watch some reviews about the 3900 and 3950? It's not just price but what you get for the money. Price to performance is what you should be after here.

 

[AsRock]

I'm playing the waiting game.
I want either 3700X to drop to former 2700X price (around 1250pln,it's 1500 now) and I'll get it with x570 then (800 for the asus prime) or 9700k drops to current 3700x price (it's 1700 now) and I'll get it with a z390 gaming x (550).

Waiting here too even more so with AMD's new socket on it's way soon, other wise i would of opted for a 3900X.

 

[Zach_01]

Waiting here too even more so with AMD's new socket on it's way soon, other wise i would of opted for a 3900X.

New mainstream desktop socket (AM4 successor) does not coming until 2021~22 (AM5???). The next Ryzen 4000 series will be AM4 also.
IMHO for the next 5 years at least, the waiting game will have minimum ROI, because AMD will keep releasing newer and faster products almost every year and though Intel is now between rock and hard place (regurgitating same things) will eventually (in 1 or 2 years) join AMD in this game with competitive products.

 

[ratirt]

New mainstream desktop socket (AM4 successor) does not coming until 2021~22 (AM5???). The next Ryzen 4000 series will be AM4 also.
IMHO for the next 5 years at least, the waiting game will have minimum ROI, because AMD will keep releasing newer and faster products almost every year and though Intel is now between rock and hard place (regurgitating same things) will eventually (in 1 or 2 years) join AMD in this game with competitive products.

Are you sure about this? What I've read is the new 4000 series Ryzen might be on a different socket and add DDR5 to that?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Are you sure about this? What I've read is the new 4000 series Ryzen might be on a different socket and add DDR5 to that?

No, Ryzen 4000 will use the same socket and it's the last CPU to use the socket. No DDR5 for consumer PCs in 2020.

 

[Zach_01]

Are you sure about this? What I've read is the new 4000 series Ryzen might be on a different socket and add DDR5 to that?

Way too soon for DDR5 either. Yes I read a lot and watch a lot about the subject and all info by inference leads to this.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Waiting here too even more so with AMD's new socket on it's way soon, other wise i would of opted for a 3900X.

Imo no reason for amd to go with a new socket.
They're not Intel.I'm glad my Z97 was compatible with haswell,refresh and broadwell but what they've been doing since z170 is ridiculous.

 

[londiste]

No, Ryzen 4000 will use the same socket and it's the last CPU to use the socket. No DDR5 for consumer PCs in 2020.

I do not think this has been confirmed either way. We assume Ryzen 4000 will work because of "AM4 support until 2020" statement and the fact that Ryzen 4000 is expected next year.

AMD will switch socket - presumably to AM5 - when DDR5 is out. SK Hynix has said they will come out with DDR5 modules by end of 2019 and DDR5 modules should be fully available in 2020. Micron and Samsung have seconded this to some degree. By all indications, DDR5 should be a thing in 2020. Whether either Intel or AMD will embrace it remains to be seen.

 

[ratirt]

Way too soon for DDR5 either. Yes I read a lot and watch a lot about the subject and all info by inference leads to this.

Well I'm waiting for the new Ryzen to change my 2700x. I was certain that the socket is changing as well that is why I didn't go for 3000 series to avoid the incompatibility with the next years' Ryzen. Maybe I should have gone for 3000 series after all. With the rumors it is hard to keep up

 

[Zach_01]

Well I'm waiting for the new Ryzen to change my 2700x. I was certain that the socket is changing as well that is why I didn't go for 3000 series to avoid the incompatibility with the next years' Ryzen. Maybe I should have gone for 3000 series after all. With the rumors it is hard to keep up

Your CPU/board are still very nice, performance/features wise. Of course you can wait and still stick a 4000 series in that board. Does not really have major differences from my 3600.
In about ~8 months (mid 2020) probably going to be out.

I get the feeling we are far aside from this thread tho...

 

[95Viper]

Yep, keep the thread on topic.
Thank You.

 

[EarthDog]

You don't need to buy it. Intel offers 8c for lower price so you can go with that or 12c Ryzen. If this is still too much for you go 6c older CPU or just buy PS4 or wait for PS5 or Xbox and call it a day.
Besides it is not about how much you can utilize but what you can get for your money.

Wait? Those are my choices? Oh, thank you!! I was unware...lol..........wasn't my point though, lol.

It's clear to me that AMD cannot compete with clocks using Ryzen arch. They knew it and went modular/wide instead. The benefits of that, today, aren't much for the average user and even most enthusiasts. With the PS5 ro Xbox or w/e has AMD hardware in it coming out late next year, perhaps we will FINALLY see width and more cores and threads utilized for most users. But that will take TIME... remember hex cores have been in the market for at least what, 8 years, and just today, 4c/8t would be considered a 'minimum' for most. More than 10c/20t on the mainstream platform, either side, is just too much. AMD blurred the lines, and speaking strictly from a core count perspective, brought out products we don't need. The good about this the cheap pricing... otherwise, yes, today, for someone buying a PC, unless you are a content creator etc, 6c/12 is the sweetspot while 8c/16t is enthusiast level, 10c/20t is just nuts for most... I just don't like seeing that many cores/threads in mainstream when the reality is very few can use it.

 

[ratirt]

Wait? Those are my choices? Oh, thank you!! I was unware..........wasn't my point though, lol.

It wasn't my point to tell you about your choices but a sincere suggestion to think about them.
It is clear to me that intel can't compete in core count with either of its arch with AMD. It is a good move and for me only one. Intel can't up clocks every new gen and you know that. So clocks are pointless in this case as an argument. Unless you have different? At least try to understand this.
Number of cores and threads that are the sweet-spot is your opinion and you are clearly referring to games. So, buy a console if you want to play games and stay away from computers since they can do way more than run Minecraft or CS:GO.
Since you point out cores and threads utilization. Remember, first you need resources, afterwards somebody will utilize them. If you are stuck for so long with 4c (in a mainstream like desktop) then nobody sane will develop anything beyond what is being given to cripple his own product. Now we have more resources, lets see what developers will do with it.
BTW, I'm sure you have already noticed that some new titles require more than 4c since you are into gaming so much.

 

[kapone32]

You don't need to buy it. Intel offers 8c for lower price so you can go with that or 12c Ryzen. If this is still too much for you go 6c older CPU or just buy PS4 or wait for PS5 or Xbox and call it a day.
Besides it is not about how much you can utilize but what you can get for your money.


Isn't? The price is higher but the performance is as well. I don't think you see the bigger picture here. Maybe watch some reviews about the 3900 and 3950? It's not just price but what you get for the money. Price to performance is what you should be after here.

I totally understand that the 3900 and 3950 are not even marginally over priced for AMD offerings (the Intel 10 core was $1999 in every issue of CPU magazine I read) . They are the best for price performance but I will give you this. The 2920X is $474 Canadian right now and the 1920X is as low as $300 even though the 3900X is 10 to 15% faster would those not be the price/performance leaders for 12 core CPUs?

 

[juiseman]

Wait? Those are my choices? Oh, thank you!! I was unware...lol..........wasn't my point though, lol.

It's clear to me that AMD cannot compete with clocks using Ryzen arch. They knew it and went modular/wide instead. The benefits of that, today, aren't much for the average user and even most enthusiasts. With the PS5 ro Xbox or w/e has AMD hardware in it coming out late next year, perhaps we will FINALLY see width and more cores and threads utilized for most users. But that will take TIME... remember hex cores have been in the market for at least what, 8 years, and just today, 4c/8t would be considered a 'minimum' for most. More than 10c/20t on the mainstream platform, either side, is just too much. AMD blurred the lines, and speaking strictly from a core count perspective, brought out products we don't need. The good about this the cheap pricing... otherwise, yes, today, for someone buying a PC, unless you are a content creator etc, 6c/12 is the sweetspot while 8c/16t is enthusiast level, 10c/20t is just nuts for most... I just don't like seeing that many cores/threads in mainstream when the reality is very few can use it.

Well; the IPC improvements make up for most of that. The goal is too not push the clock to high. Efficiency goes way down.

 

[ratirt]

I totally understand that the 3900 and 3950 are not even marginally over priced for AMD offerings (the Intel 10 core was $1999 in every issue of CPU magazine I read) . They are the best for price performance but I will give you this. The 2920X is $474 Canadian right now and the 1920X is as low as $300 even though the 3900X is 10 to 15% faster would those not be the price/performance leaders for 12 core CPUs?

Well you do realize the prices for the 2920x and 1920x are cut-down to make room for new Ryzens? Of course if you want performance for the money, better to go with older gen. If you go with used you can go even lower and have a decent performance but is this what it really is all about when you compare newly released products? You compare them to older CPU gens with cut prices or to competition and new processors that are counterparts?

 

[kapone32]

Well you do realize the prices for the 2920x and 1920x are cut-down to make room for new Ryzens? Of course if you want performance for the money, better to go with older gen. If you go with used you can go even lower and have a decent performance but is this what it really is all about when you compare newly released products? You compare them to older CPU gens with cut prices or to competition and new processors that are counterparts?

Of course I realize that, I have said this before and I stand by it. All of these are Ryzen processors. Yes you could get better deals from the used market (for sure). You are expressing my thought process in the fact there are no counterparts to those 12 core CPUs that use DDR4 except for the 1920X and 2920x (which were both more than the 3950x at launch). When Intel releases this 10 core CPU it might be the closest direct competitor to AMD's 12 core monsters from team blue.

 

[Frick]

I just don't like seeing that many cores/threads in mainstream when the reality is very few can use it.

That's part of why it's good though: raising the lowest common denominator.

 

[EarthDog]

It wasn't my point to tell you about your choices but a sincere suggestion to think about them.
It is clear to me that intel can't compete in core count with either of its arch with AMD. It is a good move and for me only one. Intel can't up clocks every new gen and you know that. So clocks are pointless in this case as an argument. Unless you have different? At least try to understand this.
Number of cores and threads that are the sweet-spot is your opinion and you are clearly referring to games. So, buy a console if you want to play games and stay away from computers since they can do way more than run Minecraft or CS:GO.
Since you point out cores and threads utilization. Remember, first you need resources, afterwards somebody will utilize them. If you are stuck for so long with 4c (in a mainstream like desktop) then nobody sane will develop anything beyond what is being given to cripple his own product. Now we have more resources, lets see what developers will do with it.
BTW, I'm sure you have already noticed that some new titles require more than 4c since you are into gaming so much.

1. I have thought about them. That much should be clear.
2. Their clocks are higher... especially dual core and all core boost. Clocks are not pointless. Clearly.
3. Yep. I am talking about games and also made a distinction about content creation and users that can actually UTILIZE the cores and threads.
4. I pointed out that hex cores have been in the market for nearly a decade and most things, including games, don't utilize them. Adaptation is slow. But make no mistake about it, the resources have been there for several years already and devs haven't done much in that time.
5. I have noticed that a couple of new titles can run more than 4c. And you may notice I covered that point as well... I clearly stated that a MINIMUM for gaming would be 4c/8t where a sweetspot is 6c/12t today.

Intel's new CPU is really on the edge for me of mainstream and HEDT...

Let me quote myself for clarity.....

... remember hex cores have been in the market for at least what, 8 years, and just today, 4c/8t would be considered a 'minimum' for most.

... otherwise, yes, today, for someone buying a PC, unless you are a content creator etc, 6c/12 is the sweetspot while 8c/16t is enthusiast level, 10c/20t is just nuts for most... I just don't like seeing that many cores/threads in mainstream when the reality is very few can use it.

Capeesh?

Well; the IPC improvements make up for most of that. The goal is too not push the clock to high. Efficiency goes way down.

They are on par with Intel or slightly ahead... that is awesome but has little to do with the obnoxious core count on the news Intel chip here and AMD's mainstream offerings.

That's part of why it's good though: raising the lowest common denominator.

Again, we've had hex cores out for almost a decade already. So I agree with this, but to what end today when devs had a chance for several years already. I think the new consoles will grease the wheels... but the resources have been there and outside of power users, few can utilize the large core counts.




In the end, we'll all have to agree to disagree. I simply wish that we are NOT in a core war and Intel followed suit... I wish there was more of a black and white line between Mainstream and HEDT core count instead of shoe horning in 16/c32t in mianstream (or anything 10c+ honestly).

 

[Frick]

Again, we've had hex cores out for almost a decade already. So I agree with this, but to what end today when devs had a chance for several years already. I think the new consoles will grease the wheels... but the resources have been there and outside of power users, few can utilize the large core counts.

That's the same point, isn't it? Moar people have moar cores, meaning devs also have moar cores to play against. Consoles have a big impact for sure.

 

[EarthDog]

That's the same point, isn't it? Moar people have moar cores, meaning devs also have moar cores to play against. Consoles have a big impact for sure.

A hex core (or greater) CPU has been out for at least 8 years (AMD Phenom, so it was cheap and available) and we've barely gotten anywhere in gaming (again content creators and such yes, but that is few and far between for home users). I do believe consoles will be the lubricant, but 12-16c on mainstream is just ridiculous the consoles are 8c/16t CPUs, right???), at this time, to me. Maybe in 2021 in my feeble little brain would this have been better.... again, since the resources have been there for a while...

It's only a name, mainstream, I get it... but the way that cores are paraded around, it makes those who have no clue (99% of users) think it means more than it does for an overwhelming majority of them.