Intel References 9000-Series Chips Under 8th Gen Branding on Microcode Guidance Page

[PaulAlcorn]

Intel listed several new 9000-series generation processors in its Microcode Update Guidance and 8th generation processor documents.

Intel References 9000-Series Chips Under 8th Gen Branding on Microcode Guidance Page : Read more

 

[WINTERLORD]

9700k is a 8core chip 9900k 12core

 

[hannibal]

Most likely the patch to those i9 prosssors just is not ready yet. The architecture is same so the silicon repair should be in all of them or none of them.
One year / architecture more Until we see fixed versions... maybe. Depending on how much They have to change the cpu...

 

[dimar]

I wanted to upgrade my i7-7700K, but I guess I'll wait for AMD 3rd gen or Intel's 10nm new architecture depending on benchmarks/TDP.

 

[stdragon]

It's irritating that practically a new chipset is required for every other CPU Intel releases. At least you can get some life out of an older AMD PC via a simple BIOS update and CPU swap.

Sometimes you just don't need the fancy new IO options.

 

[Brian_R170]

The i5-9400T is likely a 35W part, not 65W as shown in the table.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

The i5-9400T is likely a 35W part, not 65W as shown in the table.

Good eye, that is in error. Fixed!

 

[cryoburner]

It is possible that Intel has made other adjustments, such as adding Indium solder between the heat spreader and die.

Considering Intel wasn't willing to use solder on even their recently released, limited edition i7-8086K, it seems rather unlikely that they will be using it on a bunch of mid-range processors at half the price, that don't even really push the architecture's thermal limits. I even doubt that they will use it on their upcoming consumer i9, considering they haven't used it on processors with far more cores that they sell for around $2000.

9700k is a 8core chip 9900k 12core

Probably not. They're still going to be on a 14nm manufacturing process, and the 1151 socket is a lot smaller than the 2066 socket that their current higher-core count processors use. So, we probably won't see more than 8 cores.

Plus, Intel's current 12-core CPU is still priced over $1000, and they aren't going to undercut themselves by selling its successor for less than half as much. More likely the i7 will continue to have six cores, and the i9 eight cores.

 

[hotaru251]

If I am not in dire need of a CPU upgrade...should I just wait a few years until they make a chip w/o all the spectre type risks that can slow down performance when they fix?

also I know old i3 had HT, but will the newer i3 have HT?

 

[cryoburner]

If I am not in dire need of a CPU upgrade...should I just wait a few years until they make a chip w/o all the spectre type risks that can slow down performance when they fix?

Supposedly, the 10nm CPUs launching next year will be natively fixed to not be affected by at least the original Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities. I'm not sure whether they will be immune to the other similar vulnerabilities that have since surfaced though. As for whether you should upgrade, if you find the performance of your existing CPU to still be suitable enough, then there probably isn't much of a pressing need to.

also I know old i3 had HT, but will the newer i3 have HT?

The previous-generation i3s had two cores with hyperthreading. The current generation Coffee Lake (8000-series) i3s have four cores without hyperthreading, while the lower-cost Pentiums have now taken over the role of being hyperthreaded dual-cores. They've basically shifted their entire consumer lineup by one performance tier over the last year or so. For the 9000-series CPUs coming later this year, I doubt they'll make any major changes to this formula, aside from adding an 8-core i9 to the higher-end.

As for next year, they will be moving to the new 10nm process node, so it's possible they could mix things up a bit. I'm not entirely convinced they would do that quite so soon though, as a quad-core i3 with hyperthreading would likely steal more sales from higher-priced i5s than they do already. Sure, they could add hyperthreading to the six core i5s as well to keep them ahead, and make the i7s 8 cores and give the i9s a higher core count still, but most people currently don't have any real need for so many processor threads, and would end up going with lower tier processors, which is clearly something Intel would want to avoid. For most people, there just isn't a pressing need for tons of cores and threads right now on the software side of things, so I don't see Intel increasing thread counts substantially for a while still, at least as long as they remain slightly ahead of AMD on per-core performance.

 

[photonboy]

8 and 12-core Intel CPU's:
Just FYI but the GPU portion does take up a big amount of the die space. I believe it was almost FOUR CORES worth, so it's theoretically possible to remove the GPU like AMD does for its CPU's (AMD CPU + GPU is an APU).

So in theory they can add four cores for at least TEN cores at current process node.


I've seen NO indication they'd do that, but on the other hand it's been a long time since AMD was this much competition (and this time they can't do illegal practices as easily as they did in the past which was the main reason AMD fell behind... such as pricing its CPU's lower if companies did NOT buy from AMD).

 

[phobicsq]

I really don't know why people would buy Intel at the moment. Their security holes, heat issues, and lies deserve for them to lose a lot. Sadly it seems they haven't had any real fallout.

 

[JamesSneed]

I wanted to upgrade my i7-7700K, but I guess I'll wait for AMD 3rd gen or Intel's 10nm new architecture depending on benchmarks/TDP.

That's a sound plan as that should be when the big performance jumps occur. Everything since your 7700k has been incremental.

 

[photonboy]

I really don't know why people would buy Intel at the moment. Their security holes, heat issues, and lies deserve for them to lose a lot. Sadly it seems they haven't had any real fallout.

First off, you are assuming that a large percentage of buyers do research. That's just not the case.

Secondly, the security holes issue is far from resolved. The AMD Ryzen platform is young so it's possible we'll see that get hacked more as time goes on and market share increases. Hopefully it's relatively secure but we'll see.

The heat issues isn't clear. It doesn't matter much for most CPU's anyway, but there are arguments that the TIM used by Intel is based around LONGEVITY of the product so that it can last for 10+ years without the potential cracking of solder. That's NOT my area of expertise and I'm not sure many people have any good, reliable data though why would Intel bother NOT using solder at least on the higher Wattage parts since the profit loss would be insignificant with those margins.

Lies sure, though I doubt most people with all the facts would choose an inferior product for that alone. Not saying Intel is superior just making a point. I think BOTH companies have great products right now depending on your needs.

*having said all that, AMD was where it was almost solely due to Intel's illegal practices of rewarding companies to NOT buy AMD products. AMD had little money for R&D so the fact that Ryzen appeared at all is incredible.

Now that AMD has far less to fear, has a great product lineup, and seems to be superior (hopefully) at the moment for security concerns the Intel Monopoly is breaking which is great for consumers.

There are also software improvements with compilers and the OS (such as thread management), and program-specific thread improvements that will start to see gains to Ryzen specifically and higher-core CPU's in general.

Finally, the low-hanging fruit is disappearing such as big gains in frequency or architecture for CPU's. AMD and Intel should get closer and closer to the same performance thus PRICE will be the primary purchase motivator which again is great for consumers.