Intel Outs New 9th Gen Processors: Six New 'K' and 'F' Models

[Paul Alcorn]

We found the new Intel Core i9-9900KF, Core i7-9700KF, Core i5-9600KF, Core i5-9400F, and Core i3-9350KF listed on the company's official site.

Intel Outs New 9th Gen Processors: Six New 'K' and 'F' Models : Read more

 

[charleyed]

You wrote: "Intel also brought its new Core i5-9500 to bear", but your chart shows a Core i5-9400.

 

[Zlatko Flajpan]

Intel is so lost and now the table overturn in the favor of AMD.Intel now must disable gpu in the APU to compete in power consumption with AMD.That movie we seen couple years ago but the sides are being diffrent.

 

[rantoc]

@ZLATKO FLAJPAN: More likely they recycle chips with failed gpu's, they can't even keep up with their 14nm demand so its a logical step. One that should been made along time ago considering many who buys those chips attach an discrete gpu anyway. Why pay extra for something that just wastes silicon space

 

[Co BIY]

I suspect that there will be be little price difference with the KF chips but they may be available when the IGP chips are not.

"What's the most important CPU ability when building a machine"? = Availability

 

[Olle P]

... Intel now must disable gpu in the APU to compete in power consumption with AMD.

More likely they recycle chips with failed gpu's, they can't even keep up with their 14nm demand so its a logical step. One that should been made along time ago considering many who buys those chips attach an discrete gpu anyway. Why pay extra for something that just wastes silicon space

I Think you're both correct, but power consumption is less of an issue (as seen in previous reviews where the TDP is a very limiting factor even when the iGPU isn't used). Disabling the iGPU makes effectively no difference.

I suspect that there will be be little price difference with the KF chips but they may be available when the IGP chips are not.

Availability will be the selling point. The release MSRP could be lower than the counterparts with iGPUs, but actual pricing will depend more on demand and fighting what AMD has to offer.

 

[TerryLaze]

You wrote: "Intel also brought its new Core i5-9500 to bear", but your chart shows a Core i5-9400.

He also wrote

that jumps up to 4.1 GHz on a single core

Although turbo behavior has changed 2 generations ago.
https://www.intel.com.tr/content/www/tr/tr/support/articles/000005647/processors.html
Up to the 7th gen we had pre determined single core boosts, after that turbo just boosts as many cores as far as possible without any specific numbers, it should read 4.1 on AT LEAST one core since that is guaranteed.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

Processors with the same model number running under the same operating conditions may see some frequency or power variance. This is a natural characteristic of silicon driven by variances in voltages, power and leakage during the production process. Contact your local Intel sales office or your distributor to obtain the latest specifications.

 

[Marlin Schwanke]

Chart shows Core i9-9700K, think it’s supposed to be i7-9700K.

 

[charleyed]

Marlin, you are right and I missed that when I was looking for errors. It is shown as 8 cores and 8 threads and that is correct for an i7-9700, etc, processor.

 

[valeman2012]

https://ark.intel.com/products/190883/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-Processor-9M-Cache-up-to-4-10-GHz-
i5 9400F recommended price is $182

 

[bigdragon]

Intel's 9th gen lineup appears disappointing in contrast to AMD's 3rd gen Ryzen. AMD's core count increase is impressive. Intel appears to just be doing a rehash of last generation. =/

 

[spdragoo]

You wrote: "Intel also brought its new Core i5-9500 to bear", but your chart shows a Core i5-9400.

He also wrote

that jumps up to 4.1 GHz on a single core

Although turbo behavior has changed 2 generations ago.
https://www.intel.com.tr/content/www/tr/tr/support/articles/000005647/processors.html
Up to the 7th gen we had pre determined single core boosts, after that turbo just boosts as many cores as far as possible without any specific numbers, it should read 4.1 on AT LEAST one core since that is guaranteed.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

Processors with the same model number running under the same operating conditions may see some frequency or power variance. This is a natural characteristic of silicon driven by variances in voltages, power and leakage during the production process. Contact your local Intel sales office or your distributor to obtain the latest specifications.

I think you misinterpreted their information. As Intel clearly states on the page for the i5-9400F (see here[/url, as originally referenced by @valeman2012):

Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

In other words, Intel is saying, "Hey, if you're still running some ancient legacy program that only uses 1 thread/core, you should be able to get up to a maximum speed of 4.1GHz; adding more cores will drop the per-core performance down, but we'll "guarantee" at least 2.9GHz per core when up to 6 of the cores are in use".

 

[iankphone]

You need to put "9th gen" in quotes because 9th gen is just soldered/binned 8th gen and you know it.

 

[rabbit4me1]

It's all fun and games till Intel loses control. Now it's time for the rise of green

 

[shmoochie]

These are underwhelming as hell. They are almost exactly the same as the last generation. This is one of the saddest selling points I have ever read about a new generation of chips: "It also features a 65W TDP, meaning this processor serves as the replacement for the popular Core i5-8400, but it comes with an extra 100 MHz of base and boost clock overhead."

 

[logainofhades]

Selling new SKU's, which are just inventory with failed IGP disabled, is one way to solve their supply issues. From a business perspective, it make sense, and really isn't anything new. Why scrap something that can potentially be sold, to recoup some cost?

 

[shmoochie]

Selling new SKU's, which are just inventory with failed IGP disabled, is one way to solve their supply issues. From a business perspective, it make sense, and really isn't anything new. Why scrap something that can potentially be sold, to recoup some cost?

I agree that it is a smart business decision to sell them, but pitching them like they are a new generation of chips is misleading and unethical.

 

[logainofhades]

Given 9th gen is same arch, with solder, I have to kinda agree. Not really any different than AMD and the FX 9xxx vs 8xxx series cpu's. The GTX 770 just being an overclocked GTX 680 also comes to mind. The practice, of rebranding/rebadging, is quite common.

These are probably all 9900k, 9700k, and 9600k with failed IGP. The 9400 is probably a 9600k that didn't bin as well, with the 9400f being failed IGP, on a lower binned chip. The 9300kf is probably a soldered 8350k, with disabled IGP. The 8100F is obvious on what it is.

 

[urbanman2004]

I understand Intel's premise for selling mainstream CPU's w/o integrated graphics, but if they're gonna still mark up the prices as if it had integrated graphics then that's bad business practice, and is indeed ripping off the consumer

 

[logainofhades]

The 9400F showed up, on Amazon, for $203. That's still at least $40 more than an R5 2600.

 

[shmoochie]

The 9400F showed up, on Amazon, for $203. That's still at least $40 more than an R5 2600.

That seems like shockingly bad value. It's also an interesting markup from MSRP considering that it is direct from the manufacturer.

 

[logainofhades]

Intel chips have failed to sell, @ MSRP, for awhile now.