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

[ratirt]

We are talking about chips under 200mm^2. Yield is not an issue at 14nm. 10/7nm, it might be but I would not expect it to be a big one.
Bottom line, if both solutions are at the same price and with otherwise comparable properties, monolithic will almost certainly be inherently advantaged. Chiplet design is a workaround to get around the yield (and scaling?) issues.

What are you talking about. The bigger the die then more you have. If you go from 14nm to 7nm yields are better but of course you need some time for it to happen and wait for the process to mature a bit. The bigger the die the yields are lower. The smaller the node the yields are higher. It is a shrink so more dies on the wafer which means better yields.

Anybody noticed the dollar sign behind the prices? Totally not how Intel does it. Also I dought they would brag about 14nm+++ especially since they didn´ t on Coffee Lake refresh slides.
A new socket is also a shot in their own foot.
I´m sceptical that this is legit.

Weren't Intel doing new sockets with each gen of CPUs? If Intel will not go with new socket this time that would mean they are not going for more money from customers but rather focusing to keep up with AMD and be more price competitive. Because what they are asking for the products is just ridiculous.
This may not be true (especially if you look at the prices listed).

 

[phill]

The question I have is, is anyone surprised by this at all?? As I'm not.... Oh look, another socket as well.... (@TheLostSwede Are you at all surprised by it??)

I do however like the 65, 95 and 105w versions.. I wonder where they got that from.... Lets hope they solder this one.....

 

[londiste]

What are you talking about. The bigger the die then more you have. If you go from 14nm to 7nm yields are better but of course you need some time for it to happen and wait for the process to mature a bit. The bigger the die the yields are lower. The smaller the node the yields are higher. It is a shrink so more dies on the wafer which means better yields.

In addition to yields being lower on larger dies, yields are also lower on newer (usually smaller) process nodes.
200mm^2 is not a big die on an old, mature node. It isn't even that big of a die on 7nm apparently, judged by Navi.

My point was, AMD has been shipping 200mm^2 dies for a couple years now. I seriously doubt Intel would be unable to do the same, probably with better margins as they have foundry margins to play with in addition to CPU section of the company.

edit:
Oh, I think I misread your post. Yield generally means percentage of dies from a wafer that are good, not the net amount of dies. Whether good means fully intact chips or usable (with some disabled sections) is largely a matter of perspective.

 

[racer243l]

I have my doubts too, intel has been so messed up that we dont know if is really intel or not eheh

Maybe the vooodoooo white black mages witches cursed intel few years ago, intel needs a kick on the back to wake up.

That´ s the thing, they change their own roadmaps like every event.

Weren't Intel doing new sockets with each gen of CPUs? If Intel will not go with new socket this time that would mean they are not going for more money from customers but rather focusing to keep up with AMD and be more price competitive. Because what they are asking for the products is just ridiculous.
This may not be true (especially if you look at the prices listed).

Sandy and Ivy were the same, but then again just a refresh like Coffee Lake refresh or Kabylake was to Skylake. Keeping 1151 v2 would be a small plus on the consumer side. But then again we are talking about Intel.

 

[Tomgang]

Yawn. We al ready know what will happen. Intels win when it comes pure gaming, but amd wins when it comes to workstation, video converting load and so on.

And thank to intels 14++++++++++, these chips will only have little or none ipc gain over 9000 series, properly run hot and be more power hungry as well.

Its realy a pain in the ass to chose cpu right now. I feel no matter what ever i chose intel or amd its a compromise as i want a cpu that overclock well and run games at its best (intel wins here), but i also want a good amount of cpu cores, a cpu that dosent consume power as a maniac and dosent run hot (amd clearly wins here).

I will have to make a compromise, as i cant get it all in one package. It feels like chosing between plague or cholera.

 

[StrayKAT]

Yawn. We al ready know what will happen. Intels win when it comes pure gaming, but amd wins when it comes to workstation, video converting load and so on.

And thank to intels 14++++++++++, these chips will only have little or none ipc gain over 9000 series, properly run hot and be more power hungry as well.

Its realy a pain in the ass to chose cpu right now. I feel no matter what ever i chose intel or amd its a compromise as i want a cpu that overclock well and run games at its best (intel wins here), but i also want a good amount of cpu cores, a cpu that dosent consume power as a maniac and dosent run hot (amd clearly wins here).

I will have to make a compromise, as i cant get it all in one package. It feels like chosing between plague or cholera.

Just get a Core-X and delid as I did. Or be happy with Coffee Lake/6 cores and delid one of those (I wouldn't recommend 9900k or any other of Intel's latest foray into soldering. It's not as good as it could be, and much more dangerous to delid if you want to improve them).

 

[Metroid]

Yawn. We al ready know what will happen. Intels win when it comes pure gaming, but amd wins when it comes to workstation, video converting load and so on.

And thank to intels 14++++++++++, these chips will only have little or none ipc gain over 9000 series, properly run hot and be more power hungry as well.

Its realy a pain in the ass to chose cpu right now. I feel no matter what ever i chose intel or amd its a compromise as i want a cpu that overclock well and run games at its best (intel wins here), but i also want a good amount of cpu cores, a cpu that dosent consume power as a maniac and dosent run hot (amd clearly wins here).

I will have to make a compromise, as i cant get it all in one package. It feels like chosing between plague or cholera.

AMD could have won here if amd wanted, I'm still trying to figure out why amd played their cards like this, probably they wanted to release these cpus fast and they decide to go this road.

The main reason why they are not winning here in games is Latency, chiplets is the problem here. AMD wins in some games in some don't.

Some may say "hey is frequency" but is not frequency, somebody did an ipc test with 3700x, 3900x, 3600, 9700k, 9900k,9600k with 4ghz each and intel still won at 4ghz in some games. That test was apples to apples and intel still lead in games, so i guess is, the only thing remains is latency.

 

[white phantom]

Yawn. We al ready know what will happen. Intels win when it comes pure gaming, but amd wins when it comes to workstation, video converting load and so on.

And thank to intels 14++++++++++, these chips will only have little or none ipc gain over 9000 series, properly run hot and be more power hungry as well.

Its realy a pain in the ass to chose cpu right now. I feel no matter what ever i chose intel or amd its a compromise as i want a cpu that overclock well and run games at its best (intel wins here), but i also want a good amount of cpu cores, a cpu that dosent consume power as a maniac and dosent run hot (amd clearly wins here).

I will have to make a compromise, as i cant get it all in one package. It feels like chosing between plague or cholera.

I'm the exact same just now trying to upgrade from. Sandybridge (anythings an upgrade) but my force of habits and gaming are saying 9700k or 9900k. My curiosity, reading and budgets telling me 3700 or 3900x for a try. Driving me nuts

 

[HUSKIE]

Well Intel strategy i would say. Taking money out of wallet..

I'm still sticking with my 6950x even he is getting older and older. No need to upgrade until it dies...

 

[Tomgang]

Just get a Core-X and delid as I did. Or be happy with Coffee Lake/6 cores and delid one of those (I wouldn't recommend 9900k or any other of Intel's latest foray into soldering. It's not as good as it could be, and much more dangerous to delid if you want to improve them).

I already have a 6 core cpu. An old one, but its 6 core and i for sure want more than 6 cores, infact i want a bit load of cores this time around. So no i will not even look at a 6 or 8 core intel cpu and neither from amd. I want 10 or more cores to play with. Hornestly i'm waiting for amd's ryzen 9 3950X 16 core cpu and see if that is any better. That will still be a compromise throw.

AMD could have won here if amd wanted, I'm still trying to figure out why amd played their cards like this, probably they wanted to release these cpus fast and they decide to go this road.

The main reason why they are not winning here in games is Latency, chiplets is the problem here. AMD wins in some games in some don't.

Some may say "hey is frequency" but is not frequency, somebody did an ipc test with 3700x, 3900x, 3600, 9700k, 9900k,9600k with 4ghz each and intel still won at 4ghz in some games. That test was apples to apples and intel still lead in games, so i guess is, the only thing remains is latency.

Yes i agreed on the latency as amd cpu' s has to comunicate over severel die's and that cause latency, while intel has it all in one die.

I'm the exact same just now trying to upgrade from. Sandybridge (anythings an upgrade) but my force of habits and gaming are saying 9700k or 9900k. My curiosity, reading and budgets telling me 3700 or 3900x for a try. Driving me nuts

Glad i am not the only one confused what to get. Yeah gaming screams intel but these chips aso runs hot as intels is realy pushing 14 nm very high and and that cost on the power usesage, but they also win's the overclock round but not by much.

Amd runs cooler thanks to 7nm and consume less power and has the strong lead when it comes to multithread load, while they lose in gaming and overclock.

No matter what we chose, its a compromise sadly. I will wait and see with amd's 16 core part as i think that cpu will be the most fun to have throw it will lose to intel in gaming and overclock. But will win in al most any other part. In the other hand coming from an old i7 980X to a new intel or amd cpu will still be a major upgrade in gaming performance over the old cpu. Its just intel would be a bit better, but i also want a but load of cores this time. So i think i will go with amd 16 core, knowing it will lose in game performance over intel. As i said, no matter the choise, its a compromise as it is right now. It whas so much easy'er to chose a cpu back then X58 whas the king of the hill.

 

[Metroid]

Yawn. We al ready know what will happen. Intels win when it comes pure gaming, but amd wins when it comes to workstation, video converting load and so on.

And thank to intels 14++++++++++, these chips will only have little or none ipc gain over 9000 series, properly run hot and be more power hungry as well.

Its realy a pain in the ass to chose cpu right now. I feel no matter what ever i chose intel or amd its a compromise as i want a cpu that overclock well and run games at its best (intel wins here), but i also want a good amount of cpu cores, a cpu that dosent consume power as a maniac and dosent run hot (amd clearly wins here).

I will have to make a compromise, as i cant get it all in one package. It feels like chosing between plague or cholera.

I found the video to prove my point at 4ghz it clearly shows intel still lead in some games. So frequency is not the only reason amd is losing in games.

Hardware unboxed, they only have a youtube channel. Very very interesting review. One of the best reviews i have seen so far.

 

[londiste]

HardwareUnboxed reviews end up at Techspot: https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/
Sweclockers did a couple same-frequency tests: https://www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse/28#content

 

[Tomgang]

Well Intel strategy i would say. Taking money out of wallet..

I'm still sticking with my 6950x even he is getting older and older. No need to upgrade until it dies...

If you wait for it to die, based on my exsperince with X58/i7 980X, you cut be in for a long wait then. I have been on X58 for 10 years now and abused my cpu severel times now like put 1.55 volts throw it for benchmark runs and let it run pretty hot as well. And yet still after all these years cpu as well as my asus motherboard gives me he finger and likes saying: fuck you, we are not ready to die just yet. I have as well been waiting for it to die so i had a reason to upgrade and thats why i also abused it the last 2-3 years. But even throw i dit that, i still failed to kill it. So you might be in for a long wait as well before it dies.

I found the video to prove my point at 4ghz it clearly shows intel still lead in some games. So frequency is not the only reason amd is losing in games.

Hardware unboxed, they only have a youtube channel. Very very interesting review. One of the best reviews i have seen so far.

There is not douts that intels wins in gaming. Reviews clearly shows that. Intels cpu desing is more efficient for gaming.

 

[trog100]

gaming dosnt matter here.. both teams produce more than enough frames rates for real world use with a decent graphics card and only half the cores get used so heat isnt a problem..

high core counts matter for productivity loads.. intel has to add more just to keep up but then again you cant keep adding more cores without adding more heat.. currently heat (and price) is intels main problem..

they can lower the price but its gonna cost them to lower the heat.. binning for low voltages on the high core count chips will lower usable yields by a fair amount..

trog

 

[londiste]

Lack of HT is Intel's main problem when we are talking about productivity. There is no other factor that is even remotely close to that.

 

[P4-630]

I'm sold...Who else is getting a 10 core 20 thread i9-10900KF for $499 very soon!!?.....

@Knoxx29

 

[ratirt]

AMD could have won here if amd wanted, I'm still trying to figure out why amd played their cards like this, probably they wanted to release these cpus fast and they decide to go this road.

The main reason why they are not winning here in games is Latency, chiplets is the problem here. AMD wins in some games in some don't.

Some may say "hey is frequency" but is not frequency, somebody did an ipc test with 3700x, 3900x, 3600, 9700k, 9900k,9600k with 4ghz each and intel still won at 4ghz in some games. That test was apples to apples and intel still lead in games, so i guess is, the only thing remains is latency.

Yes i agreed on the latency as amd cpu' s has to comunicate over severel die's and that cause latency, while intel has it all in one die.

HardwareUnboxed reviews end up at Techspot: https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/
Sweclockers did a couple same-frequency tests: https://www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse/28#content

Sure Intel is faster. Probably because of the latency. On the other hand we have to remember when we turns to gaming, developers are building their products to a current best. They have been making games with Intel's chips in their hands. This is a huge advantage if you have software support which Intel has till this day. Of course there are already titles that AMD is in the lead. Few maybe just one even but there are. I'm not so convinced that this is only about the latency. Maybe latency is one of the reasons and fixing this would boost performance but I'd go with the software development more than just the latency. Even though AMD is keeping up with Intel still and this new Ryzen is a good example for this. This will change probably turning AMD the most desirable CPU producer. I take this from my conclusions about the vulnerabilities Intel struggles with, and console market AMD has support from.
Also more and more games support more than 4 cores now and it will increase over time. I'm sure of it. You can no longer rely on frequency to boost performance in games and it has been said already, that shrinking dies will not boost frequency. It will degrade frequency. So, the only way for developers now is to increase multicore support to mitigate lower frequencies and yet still boost performance. We all know that Intel has a problem with more core die (due to monolithic structure of the die) unless they will start lowering costs and still get more cores.
If Intel goes 7nm or 10nm whatever they are trying to do, you can kiss the 5Ghz CPUs bye bye. Maybe that's also the reason why Intel is still manufacturing on 14nm++.

I'm sold...Who else is getting a 10 core 20 thread i9-10900KF for $499 very soon!!?.....

@Knoxx29

I might give it a go since I live in Norway now so it would keep me warm on a lonely, cold, winter nights well, that's not happening

 

[Metroid]

Sure Intel is faster. Probably because of the latency. On the other hand we have to remember when we turns to gaming, developers are building their products to a current best. They have been making games with Intel's chips in their hands. This is a huge advantage if you have software support which Intel has till this day. Of course there are already titles that AMD is in the lead. Few maybe just one even but there are. I'm not so convinced that this is only about the latency. Maybe latency is one of the reasons and fixing this would boost performance but I'd go with the software development more than just the latency. Even though AMD is keeping up with Intel still and this new Ryzen is a good example for this. This will change probably turning AMD the most desirable CPU producer. I take this from my conclusions about the vulnerabilities Intel struggles with, and console market AMD has support from.
Also more and more games support more than 4 cores now and it will increase over time. I'm sure of it. You can no longer rely on frequency to boost performance in games and it has been said already, that shrinking dies will not boost frequency. It will degrade frequency. So, the only way for developers now is to increase multicore support to mitigate lower frequencies and yet still boost performance. We all know that Intel has a problem with more core die (due to monolithic structure of the die) unless they will start lowering costs and still get more cores.
If Intel goes 7nm or 10nm whatever they are trying to do, you can kiss the 5Ghz CPUs bye bye. Maybe that's also the reason why Intel is still manufacturing on 14nm++.

This has to do too with instructions and codes that only intel processors support. For example tsx, only intel processors support that and that make a huge impact when done properly.

 

[Assimilator]

Intel Core i9-10900KF - 10C/20T @ 5.2GHz for $499 on 14nm+++

Oh, would you look at that: Intel's next-gen 10th-gen CPU roadmap leaks.

www.tweaktown.com

ryzen 3900x already ancient history if the 5.2 is all 10 cores no downclocking...

Man, I wish that the people who posted this stuff weren't functionally illiterate. From the damn slide:

i9-10900KF
Maximum single core turbo: 5.2GHz
Maximum all cores turbo: 4.6GHz

 

[Aquinus]

Just get a Core-X and delid as I did. Or be happy with Coffee Lake/6 cores and delid one of those (I wouldn't recommend 9900k or any other of Intel's latest foray into soldering. It's not as good as it could be, and much more dangerous to delid if you want to improve them).

That's not a great plan considering that the 3900x keeps up with the 7960x, at least in Linux. The difference in price between those two chips is so large it makes literally zero sense to get the 7960x and why get something lesser when you know the 3900x will outperform it?

 

[Eskimonster]

Now theres a bargain, i blame the great competition, thx AMD.
I want that 10 cores 20 threads monster badly.
If it aint bullsheit this leaks ofc.

 

[ratirt]

This has to do too with instructions and codes that only intel processors support. For example tsx, only intel processors support that and that make a huge impact when done properly.

AMD proposed something equivalent but since Intel was on the pedestal with development TSX was used not AMD's ASF (if I'm not wrong). So that only concludes my previous statement that developers support is very crucial. Besides, I thought Intel disables TSX.

 

[Metroid]

AMD proposed something equivalent but since Intel was on the pedestal with development TSX was used not AMD's ASF (if I'm not wrong). So that only concludes my previous statement that developers support is very crucial. Besides, I thought Intel disables TSX.

Yes very, Intel has been sneaking no stopping inside everything to add lines of instructions to games and applications for years. Intel sneaking habits is everywhere hehe

 

[SL2]

Ok, so it's 10 cores, but it's still Skylake, and HOT RUNNING. It's faster than Matisse in many games, but I believe Intel can do better than that in terms of IPC and heat.

Buying this now is a bit like (but obviously not the same as) buying the last Pentium D Presler right before Core 2 Duo Conroe showed up, back in the day.
I know, Comet Lake is a lot more competitive than Presler ever was.

On the other hand, I can't blame those who can't wait anymore... 14 nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++^+

 

[londiste]

AMD proposed something equivalent but since Intel was on the pedestal with development TSX was used not AMD's ASF (if I'm not wrong). So that only concludes my previous statement that developers support is very crucial. Besides, I thought Intel disables TSX.

Intel implemented TSX in Haswell (and it was broken), it is implemented in a fixed way in Skylake - and used in one of the KASLR-breaking vulnerabilities which again prompts for disabling it. AMD has (proposed) ASF extension as counterpart that have not actually been implemented in anything so far.

It is not about prefering Intel's extension but using what CPU manufacturer has implemented in actual products (= can be used). TSX exists and works in an actual product, ASF does not.