Intel Announces 9th Generation Core CPUs, Eight-Core Core i9-9900K

[PaulAlcorn]

Intel finally unveiled its new 9th Generation Core processors here at its Fall Desktop Launch Event here in New York.

Intel Announces 9th Generation Core CPUs, Eight-Core Core i9-9900K : Read more

 

[Thall3]

"The processors are available for pre-order on November 19. " - Wrong, Tom.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

"1st Mainstream 8-core/16-thread CPU" TOTAL BS INTEL! STOP LYING TO CONSUMERS! AMD beat you to the punch by over a year. To make matters worse, all of the new 9th gen CPUs are way overpriced compared to the competition. If you ever have questions about how NOT to run a CPU business, just ask Intel. They are the masters of stupidity ;-)

 

[jimmysmitty]

"1st Mainstream 8-core/16-thread CPU" TOTAL BS INTEL! STOP LYING TO CONSUMERS! AMD beat you to the punch by over a year. To make matters worse, all of the new 9th gen CPUs are way overpriced compared to the competition. If you ever have questions about how NOT to run a CPU business, just ask Intel. They are the masters of stupidity ;-)

I took that as a mention of their 1st mainstream 8/16 CPU not industry. Normally if they are saying 1st of everyone they put industry.

And while I agree they need to drop their pricing a bit, I would prefer sub $400, for such a poorly run company they for years had market domination. Sure they have made a few poor choices recently but every company does. nVidia, AMD, Samsung on and on. I can;t think of one company that has not made poor choices at some point in time.

 

[levijonesm]

"1st Mainstream 8-core/16-thread CPU" --> this caught my eye too. Seriously?

 

[Peter Martin]

"1st Mainstream 8-core/16-thread CPU" TOTAL BS INTEL! STOP LYING TO CONSUMERS! AMD beat you to the punch by over a year. To make matters worse, all of the new 9th gen CPUs are way overpriced compared to the competition. If you ever have questions about how NOT to run a CPU business, just ask Intel. They are the masters of stupidity ;-)

no, they mean it's THEIR first, see how far behind AMD they are? it's ludicrous people buy their hardware.

 

[Brian_R170]

Disappointed at the lack of a non-overclockable i9-9900 and i7-9700 with 65W TDP.

 

[David_326]

This is main reason there is a shortage on Intel 8th Gen Processor. Focus on new Intel 9th Gen Processors.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

$488 is just too expensive for that chip with the 2700x sitting out there. It would have to be $399 or less to make sense considering what is available right now.

 

[mlee 2500]

Disappointed at the lack of a non-overclockable i9-9900 and i7-9700 with 65W TDP.

Yeah...I would have liked to seen that too, for those of us that value quiet and lower power and heat rather than overclocking.

 

[johnrob]

The i5 9600k is the only chip here that really stands out as a possible purchase for me.

Performance per dollar still means something to some of us, and this would help me eek out a few more FPS @1080p on my aging gtx 980.

I like the specs on the i7 9700K, especially for gaming, but that price is just insane.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

i9 9900k = 8c/16t ==> 488$
r7 2700 = 8c/16t ==> 299$

Is the i9 9900k performance increase worth 60% increase in price over r7 2700?
Only time and benchmarks will tell.

 

[InvalidError]

no, they mean it's THEIR first, see how far behind AMD they are? it's ludicrous people buy their hardware.

While Intel may be behind AMD on core count, Intel is still ahead on performance in games and applications that don't scale enough to make use of AMD's extra cores and benefit more from Intel's higher IPC and clocks. If you average game benchmarks, Intel is about 10% faster than similarly priced AMD CPUs despite Intel's CPUs having 2-4 fewer cores for the price.

With EPYC2 rocking up to 64 cores per socket, it is possible the Zen 2 die will bring up to 16 cores to AM4. I'd very much like to see Intel's response to a $400 4.5GHz 12C24T 3800X.

 

[mikebabigian]

All Spectre variants patched? Saying Spectre mitigations means nothing. Also, impossible to exploit or we made it harder to exploit. The first is real, the second is marketing lies. More info please.

 

[jimmysmitty]

no, they mean it's THEIR first, see how far behind AMD they are? it's ludicrous people buy their hardware.

While Intel may be behind AMD on core count, Intel is still ahead on performance in games and applications that don't scale enough to make use of AMD's extra cores and benefit more from Intel's higher IPC and clocks. If you average game benchmarks, Intel is about 10% faster than similarly priced AMD CPUs despite Intel's CPUs having 2-4 fewer cores for the price.

With EPYC2 rocking up to 64 cores per socket, it is possible the Zen 2 die will bring up to 16 cores to AM4. I'd very much like to see Intel's response to a $400 4.5GHz 12C24T 3800X.

Do you think they plan a MCM design? Is AM4 even designed for MCM Chips? I can't see many ways to put 16 cores on AM4 unless they plan a monolithic die which is something that will push their TDP much higher like Intels 16/18 core CPUs and lower clocks.

I guess we will have to wait and see how AMD plans to push that out but if it comes down to it and they can match performance as well, not just throw more cores at it, I can see Intel dropping prices to compete.

 

[sr13798]

Come on AMD, show me the 2800x. Got a boxed Crosshair VII ready.

 

[eli_singer]

I don't understand the logic here.
The 9900k semms to be beating the 7820x, for less money, while the 9800x that is suppused to replace the 7820x shows pretty much no improvement which begs the question, why pay more for the 9800x when you can get the same if not better performance from the 9900k?
I'm confused.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't understand the logic here.
The 9900k semms to be beating the 7820x, for less money, while the 9800x that is suppused to replace the 7820x shows pretty much no improvement which begs the question, why pay more for the 9800x when you can get the same if not better performance from the 9900k?
I'm confused.

The platform. The LGA2066 is geared with more than just gaming in mind. It has quad channel DDR4 and 44 CPU PCIe lanes vs dual channel DDR4 and 16 CPU PCIe lanes. It also uses a different connection interface thats quite a bit faster.

 

[bit_user]

They didn't answer my biggest question: does it have integrated graphics?

Fortunately, the specs are already up on ark.intel.com

https://ark.intel.com/products/186605/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-Processor-16M-Cache-up-to-5-00-GHz-


The answer is yes: it features the same UHD 630 iGPU as previous desktop i7's.

 

[bit_user]

"1st Mainstream 8-core/16-thread CPU" --> this caught my eye too. Seriously?

They will probably reply by saying that proper mainstream processors should have integrated GPUs.

Not that it's a very meaningful distinction, in this price range, but it's one they could successfully make against 8-core Ryzens.

 

[eli_singer]

I don't understand the logic here.
The 9900k semms to be beating the 7820x, for less money, while the 9800x that is suppused to replace the 7820x shows pretty much no improvement which begs the question, why pay more for the 9800x when you can get the same if not better performance from the 9900k?
I'm confused.

The platform. The LGA2066 is geared with more than just gaming in mind. It has quad channel DDR4 and 44 CPU PCIe lanes vs dual channel DDR4 and 16 CPU PCIe lanes. It also uses a different connection interface thats quite a bit faster.

Well having a 7820x rig with 64gb of ram i can't see any benefit going with the new 9800x.
I can actually sell my current MB and CPU and get the best z390 board with the 9900k for less money and better performance.
I'm not talking about the higher end of their lineup, but looking at the lower end it seems really wierd to me.
I thought upgrading to the new x lineup butt can't see any benefit on the lower end (and affordable) of the lineup.

Am i right that if I'm not planning going with more than 64gb of ram and utilizing more than 28 lanes i rather go z390&9900k route instead of 9800x route?

 

[feelinfroggy777]

I don't understand the logic here.
The 9900k semms to be beating the 7820x, for less money, while the 9800x that is suppused to replace the 7820x shows pretty much no improvement which begs the question, why pay more for the 9800x when you can get the same if not better performance from the 9900k?
I'm confused.

The platform. The LGA2066 is geared with more than just gaming in mind. It has quad channel DDR4 and 44 CPU PCIe lanes vs dual channel DDR4 and 16 CPU PCIe lanes. It also uses a different connection interface thats quite a bit faster.

Well having a 7820x rig with 64gb of ram i can't see any benefit going with the new 9800x.
I can actually sell my current MB and CPU and get the best z390 board with the 9900k for less money and better performance.
I'm not talking about the higher end of their lineup, but looking at the lower end it seems really wierd to me.
I thought upgrading to the new x lineup butt can't see any benefit on the lower end (and affordable) of the lineup.

Am i right that if I'm not planning going with more than 64gb of ram and utilizing more than 28 lanes i rather go z390&9900k route instead of 9800x route?

Yes, if you dont have need for the extra PCIe lanes or memory, then you should not have a HEDT system.

 

[jabliese]

Is STIM going to be ubiquitous on the 9th gen, or just on select CPU's?

 

[InvalidError]

Do you think they plan a MCM design? Is AM4 even designed for MCM Chips? I can't see many ways to put 16 cores on AM4 unless they plan a monolithic die which is something that will push their TDP much higher like Intels 16/18 core CPUs and lower clocks.

EPYC2 is on 7nm and to offer a 64C128T model assuming the same quad-die arrangement would mean 16C32T dies. Rumors peg that hypothetical EPYC at 240W, which would be 60W apiece. At 7nm, a single higher-clocked die could easily fit under 100W.

AMD used the same die from Ryzen 1xxx to EPYC the first time around, it would make sense to expect the same thing again - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't understand the logic here.
The 9900k semms to be beating the 7820x, for less money, while the 9800x that is suppused to replace the 7820x shows pretty much no improvement which begs the question, why pay more for the 9800x when you can get the same if not better performance from the 9900k?
I'm confused.

The platform. The LGA2066 is geared with more than just gaming in mind. It has quad channel DDR4 and 44 CPU PCIe lanes vs dual channel DDR4 and 16 CPU PCIe lanes. It also uses a different connection interface thats quite a bit faster.

Well having a 7820x rig with 64gb of ram i can't see any benefit going with the new 9800x.
I can actually sell my current MB and CPU and get the best z390 board with the 9900k for less money and better performance.
I'm not talking about the higher end of their lineup, but looking at the lower end it seems really wierd to me.
I thought upgrading to the new x lineup butt can't see any benefit on the lower end (and affordable) of the lineup.

Am i right that if I'm not planning going with more than 64gb of ram and utilizing more than 28 lanes i rather go z390&9900k route instead of 9800x route?

Yes. Thats why I said it depends on the platform more than just the CPU. LGA 1151 is the best option for the majority of enthusiasts, gamers and average people. LGA 2066 is best for professionals and enthusiasts that just must have/want it.

The thing with CPus though is that the generation after yours is normally not beneficial at all. 2-3 or more is. If someone has a Z300 or X299 setup then this new CPU and the Z390 probably wont offer any performance gains. The only benefit over either of the 9th gen is the STIM vs TIM. That will allow for better temps and better clocks but thats pretty much it.

In your case if you do have a 7820X then you shouldn't consider either CPU. There is nothing out there right now that would cause you any performance gains. Your best upgrade option is a GPU.