News Intel Unveils Full Desktop Coffee Lake Refresh Lineup

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ingtar33

ingtar33

Glorious
Dec 17, 2012
9,075
301
46,040
reminder, this refresh is a refresh of a refresh of a refresh.

the last substantive change to the intel chip design was when they went from broadwell to skylake (and that was mostly to the memory subsystems, the overall design was so close as to almost qualify as a refresh). Every update since has been a "refresh" or a "refresh with more cores". zero progress on node shrink, or design update in almost 4 whole years now, this is like the Pentium 4 days when intel would release revision after revision of the same chip with slightly higher clock speeds or more cores.

Unlike with the p4 I don't see a new chip design like the core design coming down the pike to break them out of this nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenballs
salgado18

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
978
434
19,370
ingtar33 said:
reminder, this refresh is a refresh of a refresh of a refresh.

the last substantive change to the intel chip design was when they went from broadwell to skylake (and that was mostly to the memory subsystems, the overall design was so close as to almost qualify as a refresh). Every update since has been a "refresh" or a "refresh with more cores". zero progress on node shrink, or design update in almost 4 whole years now, this is like the Pentium 4 days when intel would release revision after revision of the same chip with slightly higher clock speeds or more cores.

Unlike with the p4 I don't see a new chip design like the core design coming down the pike to break them out of this nonsense.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the conclusion. Intel is not dumb. As soon as the first Ryzen models came to market, and caught everyone (including them) by surprise, they probably started development of a new chip architecture. We don't see anything because it takes years to come out with a complete redesign, but I'm sure they are hard at work to come back to the top. If they aren't doing this, the future battles are already lost, because Zen is a very modular, powerful and cool architecture. They need something completely new to stop AMD's growth.
 
B

Brian_R170

Honorable
Jun 24, 2014
288
2
10,785
Intel website shows the TDP of the Core i9-9900 as 65W. Your table currently shows 95W.

Edit: I see the table is fixed now, but I wondering if the comment that it will still need "a beefy cooler and motherboard" is valid given that it's locked and limited to 65W.
 
Last edited:
NightHawkRMX

NightHawkRMX

Titan
Ambassador
Jan 1, 2018
18,518
3,985
73,540
I would say I'm still holding out on AMD and Intel.
AMD was well behind Intel, not releasing 14nm zen chips until 2017. The times have changed. AMD has already launched a couple of 7nm GPUs including the gaming-focused Radeon Vii and other data crunching Instinct GPUs. AMD's current gaming CPUs are based on 12nm and are soon getting an upgrade to 7nm. AMD has already announced 7nm EPYC ROME (what a stupid name) server CPUs.

Intel has been based on 14nm for ages and these new CPUs are rather uninteresting and quite similar to Skylake chips from 5 years ago.
It has been 55 months since the 5th of September, 2014 when Intel first announced 14nm CPUs. That is nearly 5 years! Intel has been delaying 10nm ( roughly = to AMD 7nm) for a while with no 10nm CPUs in sight for anytime soon.
I really hope we have some friendly competition from both teams red and blue.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/2014090701_Intel_launches_first_Broadwell_processors.html
 
J

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
617
239
19,390
Brian_R170 said:
Intel website shows the TDP of the Core i9-9900 as 65W. Your table currently shows 95W.

Edit: I see the table is fixed now, but I wondering if the comment that it will still need "a beefy cooler and motherboard" is valid given that it's locked and limited to 65W.
Click to expand...

Well, if it is a "65w" part like the 9900k is a "95w" part then the "beefy cooler and motherboard" comment is valid.
 
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,812
5,269
108,890
salgado18 said:
I disagree on the conclusion. Intel is not dumb. As soon as the first Ryzen models came to market, and caught everyone (including them) by surprise, they probably started development of a new chip architecture.
Click to expand...
There has been no fundamental breakthroughs in CPU architecture in over 25 years, just go look at a the Alpha 21264's block diagram and compare it to modern CPUs, all fundamentally the same apart from ISA-specific overhead and back-end organization.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Intel's current architecture, Intel's main problem is simply hitting the limits of what is possible on 14nm and a new architecture won't change that. Going to 10nm on the other hand should afford Intel a little more timing margin to make the scheduler a little deeper and wider, which is why Intel can add extra execution ports to Icelake to nudge its IPC and SMT performance up. AMD is likely doing the same with Zen 2, keep fundamentally the same architecture apart from splitting it between chiplets and make the execution back-end slightly wider to accommodate whatever extra ILP the upgraded scheduler may be able to squeeze out of code.

Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with a given CPU design, such as stupid latency in the pipeline for the sake of higher clocks that end up causing more harm than good (Netburst, driver/dozer/etc.), it does not make sense to start from scratch when a scheduler and back-end upgrade (basically what Intel has been doing since Nehalem/Core iX-nnn) can already get you most of the IPC benefits a new process can provide. Unless AMD hits a brick wall with its Zen core design, it will likely end up reusing the same foundation for the next 10+ years too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alextheblue and chickenballs
C

chickenballs

Honorable
Dec 18, 2016
504
20
11,215
www.deviantart.com
Can you actually buy these cpus at their msrps?
also do we gamers actually need to upgrade from 7th or even 4th gen i7?
Well I do understand if a professional CS player may want to push past 200fps with the newer higher clocked i7 and i9s but pretty sure the majority of us are not into competitive fps games. You know the millions of gamers who mainly play rpg and mmorpg which mostly are locked to 60fps anyway...
So resolution and visuals may be more important than 200+ fps
So why not keep our i7 4790K or 7700k and save the money on a better gpu instead??
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 14196

Guest
I wonder if the coffee in coffee lake is any good
 
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,812
5,269
108,890
chickenballs said:
also do we gamers actually need to upgrade from 7th or even 4th gen i7?
Click to expand...
Depends on whether you play games that scale beyond 4C8T and care about whatever extra performance this yields. I'm still fine with my i5-3470 in the few games I play, not in any specific hurry to upgrade but I may still get tempted by a Ryzen 3600 if it turns out as good as the more optimistic alleged leaks and rumors suggest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenballs
rigg42

rigg42

Honorable
Oct 17, 2018
639
233
11,390
TJ Hooker said:
By "predecessors" are you referring to the 8600/8500? Because both of those are available for retail purchase. Availability may be a bit spotty, but that could be due to the general Intel CPU shortage.
Click to expand...
Upon further inspection it looks like you're correct. I didn't remember seeing those available in anything but oem systems. Disregard my previous post. The 9600 could actually be interesting at that price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom