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

[Space Lynx]

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...

 

[Bones]

Meh - I consider the source on this one.

I seriously doubt 3900x will be "History" over it, would still be a good chip even with this around performing as promised..... Which I'm taking with a grain of saltyness here.

TBH if it does deliver that's good.
The recent history with AMD has forced Intel to drop prices vs what it could have gone for, something the Intel guys should be happy about.

 

[Divide Overflow]

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...

Have you read it yourself? Max frequency for all cores is 4.6.

 

[StrayKAT]

Is it me or is that kind of cheap?

 

[sam_86314]

*yawn*

At least the market has competition again. No more $400 4 core 8 thread chips. AMD is finally forcing Intel to innovate, even if that just means pushing clocks higher.

That'll only go so far. Remember the old Pentium 4's and the FX 9590?

 

[ador250]

Still will be slower in productivity than the 3900X. This r skylake ipc, 12~13% slower than Zen 2. And AMD is now controlling the price of processor market. They can slash price of 3000 series with this intel new launch.

 

[Metroid]

Base frequency will be reduced to 3.4 to accommodate the 200mhz increase and the 105w. A furnace will be seen from miles when those 20 threads start working here. Amazing, intel 14+++.

Year 2030 and intel will still be 14+++++++, core i9 16900 at base frequency of 1.2ghz and maximum frequency at 5.8ghz, tdp 105w, 60 cores, 120 threads. A full load will take it to 2000w hehe, only the first core will be 5.8, all other cores will be at 1.2ghz or less.

Still will be slower in productivity than the 3900X. This r skylake ipc, 12~13% slower than Zen 2. And AMD is now controlling the price of processor market. They can slash price of 3000 series with this intel new launch.

There won't be any ipc, ipc is taken on single thread performance. They can't put more transistors in there 14+++. This is just an attempt to fight x ryzen 3xxx until 10nm or 7nm is ready to go or even 5nm. Intel will come back from this and will be a huge performance improvement from all this and in the end their 14+++ era will be called = nightmare stage / time hehe

 

[TheLostSwede]

A yes, new socket, new boards... For those that care
The socket is the real deal, for the rest, I don't really know.
It's still the same size as LGA-115x.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

If it could help drop the price of the 16 core 3950x a bit I'll be happy, otherwise meh for the 10 core chip itself.

 

[ratirt]

OMG. Never seen Intel so desperate and the price if true is just ridiculous knowing Intel pricing for so many years Look what AMD has done to Intel. Finally some good behavior and respecting the customers Never thought I'd see it

 

[HTC]

As Forrest Norrod said in that Oil and Gas presentation (skip to around 16:10), new nodes have issues keeping and / or increasing the clocks VS older nodes. AMD has succeeded in this only because of chiplet design or they would have the same sort of problem Intel is facing with 10nm, as far as clock speeds goes. Worse still for Intel is the fact that, on top of clock issues, they're also having yields issues, which only aggravates the problem.

As for this topic specifically, a CPU with fewer cores (same price VS 3900X but less cores), forcing a new board on top ... it's getting worse for Intel ...

 

[ShurikN]

Still monolithic
Still hot
Still power hungry
Still 14nm
Nothing to write home about.

 

[ratirt]

As Forrest Norrod said in that Oil and Gas presentation (skip to around 16:10), new nodes have issues keeping and / or increasing the clocks VS older nodes. AMD has succeeded in this only because of chiplet design or they would have the same sort of problem Intel is facing with 10nm, as far as clock speeds goes. Worse still for Intel is the fact that, on top of clock issues, they're also having yields issues, which only aggravates the problem.

As for this topic specifically, a CPU with fewer cores (same price VS 3900X but less cores), forcing a new board on top ... it's getting worse for Intel ...

Worse it is. I bet intel will be losing money on 10th gen for sure since AMD forced it to go beyond 6 cores. 10 cores from 500$ for intel? The 10 core cpus don't have graphics so it means they are going to be extremely large.

 

[AsRock]

Screw buying intel, even if true and was a better chip AMD are the ones who forced it and if you go and buy intel your stabbing AMD in the back by not buying from them, like i said if it wasn't for them you know the price would be higher.

Remember if AMD goes down there isn't any competition for Intel.

Support those who made this happen.

 

[StrayKAT]

*yawn*

At least the market has competition again. No more $400 4 core 8 thread chips. AMD is finally forcing Intel to innovate, even if that just means pushing clocks higher.

That'll only go so far. Remember the old Pentium 4's and the FX 9590?

4 Cores haven't been $400 for awhile tbh.

 

[londiste]

That slide is more than likely fake.

Still monolithic

Monolithic is not a bad thing.

They can't put more transistors in there 14+++.

Why not? Of course they can. Whether they will is a different story.

As Forrest Norrod said in that Oil and Gas presentation (skip to around 16:10), new nodes have issues keeping and / or increasing the clocks VS older nodes. AMD has succeeded in this only because of chiplet design or they would have the same sort of problem Intel is facing with 10nm, as far as clock speeds goes.

AMD succeeded in keeping the clock speeds and even increasing them a bit - if we count 1-2 cores at 4.5-4.6 at 1.5V(!) an increase - because 14/12nm did not clock high either. The sudden downturn in efficiency is still around 4.1-4.3GHz.

Worse it is. I bet intel will be losing money on 10th gen for sure since AMD forced it to go beyond 6 cores. 10 cores from 500$ for intel? The 10 core cpus don't have graphics so it means they are going to be extremely large.

Why? 4 cores are 125mm^2, 6 cores are 150mm^2, 8 cores are 175mm^2. Add two cores and do nothing else is a 200mm^2 chip, comparable to Zen/Zen+. This is not extremely large. Get rid of iGPU and it's back down to 175mm^2 or less. They might take a hit on the margin but it would still be very-very far from losing money.

 

[Totally]

Dear Intel, let's talk branding. Your naming scheme is nearing it's limits and needs a bit of a rethink. Just to be constructive, I'd like to suggest i9-X900CF, i9-A900CF(best) or simply i9-900CF as good options instead of i9-10900CF(worst).

 

[StrayKAT]

Dear Intel, let's talk branding. Your naming scheme is nearing it's limits and needs a bit of a rethink. Just to be constructive, I'd like to suggest i9-X900CF, i9-A900CF(best) or simply i9-900CF as good options instead of i9-10900CF(worst).

Definitely agree there. But what is up with Ryzen taking similar sounding chipset names themselves (x399, x570, etc). It's like they're trolling, limiting Intel's naming schemes even more.

 

[Totally]

Monolithic is not a bad thing.

If they want to remain competitive then yes it is. When yield isn't an issue or it's impact reduced you are right.

 

[londiste]

If they want to remain competitive then yes it is. When yield isn't an issue or it's impact reduced you are right.

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.

 

[StrayKAT]

FYI, as long as things are roughly comparable, these details don't matter in the end. I lived through the PowerPC (clearly superior) vs Pentium wars and Intel still wiped the floor with not just one but 3 companies (Apple/IBM/Motorola). Perhaps more if you want to count all of the other RISC/UNIX chips they made obsolete too. It's a bit strange to think AMD is going to do better than them. Hell, AMD has had these great moments where they came out swinging before... and Intel is still here.

 

[londiste]

@StrayKAT AMD currently is doing better than Intel and it is not the first time either
Pronouncing Intel dead is premature. Intel won't go anywhere. Neither will AMD for that matter.

 

[StrayKAT]

@StrayKAT AMD currently is doing better than Intel and it is not the first time either
Pronouncing Intel dead is premature. Intel won't go anywhere. Neither will AMD for that matter.

I know.. but I mentioned that AMD has done this before. It seems to see-saw between the two (at least on the tech front.. I don't think Intel has ever been hurt financially by a competitor. In that respect, they do themselves more harm than anyone else).

 

[racer243l]

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.

 

[Metroid]

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.

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.