• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Intel Core i9-10900K to boost up to 5.3 GHz. Hyper Threading across the board.

LordOfChaos

Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,771
7,169
985
It really seems like backporting architectures is a good idea at this point with 10nm's clock issues.

This clock speed plus taking Willow Cove's architecture and IPC gains would be dominant. Hence Rocket Lake.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixTank

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
14,862
21,541
615
Why? 10900k has the same IPC as your cpu, just with more cores and higher default clock.
Because it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)

And we all know that console are the base for 99% of games today...

I fear some suffering for 6 core cpu next gen...
 

Armorian

Member
Jan 17, 2018
2,490
3,660
465
Because it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)

And we all know that console are the base for 99% of games today...

I fear some suffering for 6 core cpu next gen...

If it's overclocked it should be enough for first wave of games. Next gen consoles will reserve some threads to os and multithreading in games is still years behind cpus in many cases, there are still games using only 4 threads in 2019 (despite consoles having 8 for last 6 years).
 

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
14,862
21,541
615
If it's overclocked it should be enough for first wave of games. Next gen consoles will reserve some threads to os and multithreading in games is still years behind cpus in many cases, there are still games using only 4 threads in 2019 (despite consoles having 8 for last 6 years).
It's not overcloked unfortunately...

I can only hope you are right, i don't wanna change cpu after 2 fucking years :lollipop_grinning_sweat:
 
Last edited:

Armorian

Member
Jan 17, 2018
2,490
3,660
465
It's not overcloked unfortunately...

I can only hope you are right, i don't wanna change cpu after 2 fucking years :lollipop_grinning_sweat:

I think you're in much better position than 9700k owners with 4 more threads. My 2600k cpu only has ~12 months of life left :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kenpachii

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Jan 20, 2014
11,810
7,328
1,035
Even good ole Paul from Paul's Hardware is raging on Intel continiung their 14nm products.

"Their 14nm products are kind of lackluster and fading fast in light of AMDs 7nm products."
 
Last edited:

VGEsoterica

Member
Oct 5, 2019
1,270
1,964
535
Sounds fast, but honestly my i7 4690K with an overclock is still holding strong. I think i'll build a new system around 2021 though
 

Al3x1s

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Nov 24, 2018
5,361
4,831
675
How come GHz haven't increased much the last decade or whatever (the first 4+GHz consumer model was the 4 core AMD FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz in 2012 but others were boosted or oced prior)? I get efficiency increased in other ways, with more cores, parallel processing, etc., but why not the GHz?
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,470
6,138
860
most people are gonna bottleneck their GPU unless they're doing a ton of rendering/post processing anyway. the average person doesn't need this.
 
Last edited:

billyxci

Formerly 'billyjoexci'
Aug 3, 2014
13,815
8,709
970
AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
intel only really wins when it comes to playing at 1080p or high refresh rates. if you're playing at 1440/2160p at 60hz then the difference is negligible.

i say this as someone who owns a 9900K. it's a great CPU but there is no denying AMD are kicking intel's ass and i'm so happy even if i don't own an AMD cpu.

if it weren't for AMD we'd probably still be on 4 cores. it was only when Ryzen appeared did we get 6 and 8 core cpus. they also tried to make HT exclusive to i9 but have back tracked on that.
 

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
16,626
17,331
920
Because it's a 6 core cpu and new consoles are 8 core\16 threads (i know that jaguar are 8 cores too but ryzen is a modern cpu with decent power this time)

And we all know that console are the base for 99% of games today...

I fear some suffering for 6 core cpu next gen...
You def will, sucks man better save up for that upgrade
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a

PocoJoe

Banned
Jul 9, 2018
946
1,766
360
FINLAND
Intel CPUs are much better positioned in 2020 with 10th Gen than they were after zen2 launch. AMD is no longer competing against HT-less CPUs.

30% from HT in Cine-bench is bigger than the rumored 17% from zen3. And it still remains to be seen if AMD can beat Intel in gaming...

zen3 also isn't launching any time soon.

This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.

When results are +-5% or something similar, it doesnt matter at all for majority of people.

And not many play with some stupid 240hz setups or even 144hz.

Games are more GPU bound anyway.

Gamers should think about the price of the setup and other things, not just few fps here and there.

It just makes PC gamers look like crybaby idiots if/when they care about few fps drops or anything like that.

They arent gamers, they are benchmarkers then.

If 30 fps games would be unplayable, nobody would buy consoles. And then crybaby pc master race rages 120 vs 144hz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
AMD is still chasing Intel 14nm CPU gaming performance.
More like Intel is chasing after AMD for performance gains. Tell me, how is Intel’s 10nm process going again?

The one weakness the Ryzen chips have is the L3 cache latency as they use multiple CCX’es on one die. Intel’s chips don’t have this weakness because they are on a monolithic design, not a chiplet design like with AMD.

However, Zen 3 will solve the L3 cache latency issue as all the cores will be on one CCX, sharing one L3 pool. Add the supposed 7+% IPC gains and 100-200 MHz boost on top of that, Zen 3 should turn out to be a good architecture.

Oh and Zen 3 will be compatible with AM4. What’s that? You need to get yet another motherboard for a different Intel chip?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,895
17,286
1,770
Best Coast
Since AMD focuses on cores, why doesn't Intel try and aim for an even higher clockspeed?

Give us a 10Ghz CPU.
How come GHz haven't increased much the last decade or whatever (the first 4+GHz consumer model was the 4 core AMD FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz in 2012 but others were boosted or oced prior)? I get efficiency increased in other ways, with more cores, parallel processing, etc., but why not the GHz?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guilhermegrg

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,902
1,820
This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.

It's a fact whether you like it or not.

The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead, people stuck in an expensive AM4 upgrade path from Zen1 who now can get close to 2017 Intel gaming performance, or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600, which has close to the same raw gaming performance as the 3900x.
 
Last edited:

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,197
1,067
765
Germany
The lead isn't as big as it once was but it's a meaningful gap in a number of instances, and when faster GPUs release the gap will widen a bit more than it is now.

I'm waiting for ryzen 4000 and you can't stop me with your twisted snake tongue!!
Most people I know have a setup that consists of at least 2 screens. One for gaming and one for like social stuff like discord, or YouTube etc. I gain way more from actual physical cores than from HT.
 

ChrisB

Member
May 19, 2019
73
44
190
It's a fact whether you like it or not.

The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead, people stuck in an expensive AM4 upgrade path from Zen1 who now can get close to 2017 Intel gaming performance, or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600, which has close to the same raw gaming performance as the 3900x.

The lead isn't as big as it once was but it's a meaningful gap in a number of instances, and when faster GPUs release the gap will widen a bit more than it is now.

You're a weird chap, one post you accused AMD users/enthusiasts of being foolish or broke and then the next post you elude to gaming at 1080p... cause at higher resolutions it's a wash. I'm not sure about your setup but at 1080p my GPU can't even stretch it's legs.

The only thing saving Intel at the moment is it's ability to get higher clocks, AMD has it beat in IPC which I think is important. I look forward to their advances.

Competition is good though I'm not sure why you're so vested in any one company.
 

Ivellios

Member
Mar 26, 2015
1,657
1,133
655
Brazil
This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.

When results are +-5% or something similar, it doesnt matter at all for majority of people.

And not many play with some stupid 240hz setups or even 144hz.

Games are more GPU bound anyway.

Gamers should think about the price of the setup and other things, not just few fps here and there.


It just makes PC gamers look like crybaby idiots if/when they care about few fps drops or anything like that.

They arent gamers, they are benchmarkers then.

If 30 fps games would be unplayable, nobody would buy consoles. And then crybaby pc master race rages 120 vs 144hz

Yeah, i always find it weird when some people say 60 FPS feels sluggish and unplayable. Even 30 FPS on consoles is perfectly fine imo. I just dont care that much about perfect graphics, only story, gameplay and soundtrack.

It's a fact whether you like it or not.

The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead, people stuck in an expensive AM4 upgrade path from Zen1 who now can get close to 2017 Intel gaming performance, or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600, which has close to the same raw gaming performance as the 3900x.

Expensive AM4 upgrade? Even a 3900x upgrade is cheaper than a 9900k, and people who go AMD dont need to upgrade their entire setup every couple of years if they want the latest CPU.

If you want the new i9 10900k you like so much you need to buy a entire nw system for it, while people on AMD just upgrade their CPU and nothing else if they have a decent AM4 mobo.
 
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
Expensive AM4 upgrade? Even a 3900x upgrade is cheaper than a 9900k, and people who go AMD dont need to upgrade their entire setup every couple of years if they want the latest CPU.

If you want the new i9 10900k you like so much you need to buy a entire nw system for it, while people on AMD just upgrade their CPU and nothing else if they have a decent AM4 mobo.
Yeah, I was confused as everyone else with his weird "expensive AM4 upgrade". That B450 motherboard you used for Zen 1 can be used for Zen 2 and Zen 3. The real expensive motherboard upgrade is when you have to upgrade to Zen 4.

Not sure if that's a major oversight or if he's being disingenuous. Either way, the "expensive AM4 upgrade" claim is completely dumb.
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,902
1,820
Expensive AM4 upgrade? Even a 3900x upgrade is cheaper than a 9900k

If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.

$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.

Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.

Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.


people who go AMD dont need to upgrade their entire setup every couple of years if they want the latest CPU.

People who bought 8700K, 9700K, 9900K don't need to buy a new CPU every couple of years because they already have a top tier gaming CPU.

People stuck on AM4 may never reach 9900K levels of gaming performance.

IPC they are even. Intel has the higher clockspeeds.

Even when you set 9900K vs 3900X at 4 GHz all core, which is a severe under-clock for Intel, Intel is still ahead in gaming.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Guilhermegrg

SantaC

Member
Jun 11, 2004
21,307
3,808
2,020
If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.

$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.

Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.

Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.




People who bought 8700K, 9700K, 9900K don't need to buy a new CPU every couple of years because they already have a top tier gaming CPU.

People stuck on AM4 may never reach 9900K levels of gaming performance.



Even when you set 9900K vs 3900X at 4 GHz all core, which is a severe under-clock for Intel, Intel is still ahead in gaming.
Thanks fo the link. The difference is negible.
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,902
1,820
You're a weird chap, one post you accused AMD users/enthusiasts of being foolish or broke and then the next post you elude to gaming at 1080p...

I never accused or alluded to any of that, you people keep misinterpreting simple words.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: The Mad Draklor
Jun 26, 2013
5,513
6,497
800
If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.

$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.

Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.

Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.
And if someone upgrades to a 9900K, they have to buy a brand new motherboard on top of the CPU. Add the loss on the CPU that person would be upgrading from and the loss on the motherboard, now we have the complete picture.

But hey, can't expect you to provide the full context. Anything to paint Intel in a positive light.
 

Ivellios

Member
Mar 26, 2015
1,657
1,133
655
Brazil
If someone bought an 8-Core first Gen Ryzen and upgraded to 3900x they would have taken a $230-$370 loss on their first gen CPU and added another $500 to that.

$730-$870 total cost of the upgrade in only a few years. And you'd still have worse than 9900K gaming performance.

Upgrade again and you'll probably have sunk over a thousand dollars in CPU alone.

Terrible value, CPUs depreciate in value too fast these days.




People who bought 8700K, 9700K, 9900K don't need to buy a new CPU every couple of years because they already have a top tier gaming CPU.

People stuck on AM4 may never reach 9900K levels of gaming performance.



Even when you set 9900K vs 3900X at 4 GHz all core, which is a severe under-clock for Intel, Intel is still ahead in gaming.

As Mad Drak said, this apply to Intel as well. anyone who has an older Intel CPU needs to buy a new expensive mobo, CPU, cooler and ram for a 8700,9700 and 9900k and the people who do that are stuck and cannot upgrade to 10900k and beyond without upgrading their entire system. Though i agree with you that anyone with these CPUs probably dont need to upgrade in a very long time.

But judging by benchmarks anyone who bought a first gen 6-8 core ryzen dont "NEED" to upgrade as well, they can still play today and future games just fine. By the time they do need to upgrade current Ryzen CPUs will be really cheap while Intel barely reduces the price on older processors.
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,902
1,820
And if someone upgrades to a 9900K

Anyone who bought 9900K won't need to upgrade for gaming for a very long time.

Though i agree with you that anyone with these CPUs probably dont need to upgrade in a very long time.

Glad you understood that point.

But judging by benchmarks anyone who bought a first gen 6-8 core ryzen dont "NEED" to upgrade as well, they can still play today and future games just fine. By the time they do need to upgrade current Ryzen CPUs will be really cheap while Intel barely reduces the price on older processors.

Sure they can run games just fine. I'm an enthusiast that cares about the best gaming hardware though. Almost 2017 gaming performance is not the least bit exciting which is why Zen2 was a massive disappointment to me personally.

And before anyone with limited cognition twists my words yet again, I never said Zen2 were bad CPUs, its gaming performance (which is what I care about) just isn't exciting and doesn't match Intel.
 
Last edited:

thelastword

Member
Apr 7, 2006
11,726
11,914
2,000
This "intel wins amd in gaming" is kind of retarded.

When results are +-5% or something similar, it doesnt matter at all for majority of people.

And not many play with some stupid 240hz setups or even 144hz.

Games are more GPU bound anyway.

Gamers should think about the price of the setup and other things, not just few fps here and there.

It just makes PC gamers look like crybaby idiots if/when they care about few fps drops or anything like that.

They arent gamers, they are benchmarkers then.

If 30 fps games would be unplayable, nobody would buy consoles. And then crybaby pc master race rages 120 vs 144hz
Besides, if you want to game and stream, which many people do these days, game and have a few apps open.....There is no better option than AMD......AMD already has the lead in IPC and it's about a 3-5% lead for Intel overall, mostly at 1080p though, the only reason AMD has not outright overtaken Intel in every single game is because of the drawbacks with the CCX, that will be solved with Zen 3 very soon....
 

ChrisB

Member
May 19, 2019
73
44
190
I never accused or alluded to any of that, you people keep misinterpreting simple words.

"The only people excited for Zen2 gaming performance are people who are easily mislead"
= Someone foolish. If you're easily mislead you're in fact foolish.

"or maybe people just getting into PC gaming who are on a tight budget and only have $190 for a 3600"
= Some one broke. The wording of this one is self explanatory considering you can get a matching Intel product/setup for the same price..

There's no misinterpreting or twisting of your words.

It's close only when your purposefully gimp Intel to run at Zen2 like clocks.

They're matching clock speeds to show the IPC gain because intel has superior clocks. It's to simply show the potential of the architecture. Intel was beating AMD like a red headed stepchild during the bulldozer architecture, so of course people who are enthusiasts of PC building are going to be excited about new found competition.
 

Ivellios

Member
Mar 26, 2015
1,657
1,133
655
Brazil
Anyone who bought 9900K won't need to upgrade for gaming for a very long time.



Glad you understood that point.



Sure they can run games just fine. I'm an enthusiast that cares about the best gaming hardware though. Almost 2017 gaming performance is not the least bit exciting which is why Zen2 was a massive disappointment to me personally.

And before anyone with limited cognition twists my words yet again, I never said Zen2 were bad CPUs, its gaming performance (which is what I care about) just isn't exciting and doesn't match Intel.

Intel $500 (+ cooler) 8/16 CPU is just roughly 5-10% better than AMD $320 ar 1080p depending on the game, and at 1440p the difference is negligible.

So while i agree that Intel is the best in perfomance, the advantage is very small, and not worth it imo. I would rather buy a 3900x for more future proof or a better GPU.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
6,927
8,294
765
intel only really wins when it comes to playing at 1080p or high refresh rates. if you're playing at 1440/2160p at 60hz then the difference is negligible.

i say this as someone who owns a 9900K. it's a great CPU but there is no denying AMD are kicking intel's ass and i'm so happy even if i don't own an AMD cpu.

if it weren't for AMD we'd probably still be on 4 cores. it was only when Ryzen appeared did we get 6 and 8 core cpus. they also tried to make HT exclusive to i9 but have back tracked on that.

most people are gonna bottleneck their GPU unless they're doing a ton of rendering/post processing anyway. the average person doesn't need this.

Honestly wonder if you guys play PC games even remotely. When your CPU bottlenecks resolution doesn't matter even remotely. Resolution only matters in nuking your GPU performance down. If your CPU can render the game only at 40 fps, no resolution or gpu will change this problem. GPU's get replaced far more often then CPU's on top of it.

Go play any CPU demanding game and see your CPU performance tank directly out of the gate.

Anno 1800 ( 31 fps lows )
They are billions ( 41 fps lows )
Skyline cities ( 35 fps lows )
AC odyssey / AC orgin. ( 61 fps lows )
7 days to die ( 30 fps lows )

And that are just the games i own.

Here a screenshot, u can play at 4k all u want that 40 fps stays at 40. in that situations with drops to as low as 31 fps. U need 2x faster 9900k to get a stable 60 fps in that game which isn't happening until we are probably far into next generation and far out of the ryzen upgrade path. I would not be shocked if next ryzen series will not even hit it with all its upgrades in 5 years from now.



9000 series is literally the only CPU range that keeps the fps at 30+ at all time. Not a single ryzen is capable to push it. And 30+ fps is something u want to aim for because otherwise tearing will happen from gsync loss which introduces jutter and stutter. Any FPS is highly useful also a reason i picked a 9900k over anything else.

I also never understood the hate for 4 core cpu's. Staying at that core amount was the best thing to happen with PC gaming as it made upgrading not much needed. Instead of having what we had in the skyrim area completely and utterly unoptimized mess of game code running that nuked performance on CPU down to a crisp because devs didn't even remotely bother in optimizing anything because "go buy new and faster hardware' while when we where stuck at a more fixed cpu performance with PS4/xbox one generation performance never was a issue because code would be far more optimized to run on that hardware.

I got a 9900k myself and frankly, the only reason i care for the extra 4/8 core/thread solution is to keep it valid with next generatoin consoles. It barely adds anything towards PC gaming at all. The more cores each gen could be a huge clusterfuck for PC gaming once software comes out that actually are counting on those cores to exist which results in endlessly upgrading all over again because hardware is outdated. It's not something anybody should be wanting to happen.

4 cores cpu never where a issue to start with. Unless u use the CPU for professional solutions and frankly there are better CPU's out there dedicated for that.

Besides, if you want to game and stream, which many people do these days, game and have a few apps open.....There is no better option than AMD......AMD already has the lead in IPC and it's about a 3-5% lead for Intel overall, mostly at 1080p though, the only reason AMD has not outright overtaken Intel in every single game is because of the drawbacks with the CCX, that will be solved with Zen 3 very soon....

Wrong again. Intel dominates the high end market for streaming. Also something those benchmark youtubers don't realize because they all honestly have no clue what the hell goes on. Every single high end streamer sits at 16-18 core intels which are already there for 2 years now that use the full power of them to render the quality of the stream in the maximum preset that obs offers.

A 3900 or 3950 will be consumed completely to get there.

For mid level streamers, there is no point in even bother with streaming on the same setup through your CPU. U will want to aim for GPU on your own PC and just buy a bit faster GPU as it reduces the input lag the most or u want to build a super cheap streaming PC and be done with performance hit on your PC at all.

A good streaming PC however i would say:

150 cpu ( ryzen 2700 ) ( it will allow u to render 1080p/60fps at low preset. )
50 motherboard ( any shitty am4 board that supports it )
50 memory ( any shitty 16gb memory )
whatever shitty hdd u got ( honestly it needs to fit windows that's it )
50 power supply ( whatever junk u can get )
20 case ( u don't even need a case but if u want there you go )

That's ~300 bucks depending on what u already got, and will be a far better solution then having to deal with extra rendering on your own PC.

For low end streamers u can just stream on your GPU, cpu isn't even a thing there or buy a super cheap streaming PC with decade old parts that u can snap up for a few bucks each price wise. Like any 4/8 i7 old as shit cpu will do for 720p/60fps streaming, Or if you want to spend a bit more buy the cheapest ryzen u can get your hands on in the 4/8+ segment.

Intel $500 (+ cooler) 8/16 CPU is just roughly 5-10% better than AMD $320 ar 1080p depending on the game, and at 1440p the difference is negligible.

So while i agree that Intel is the best in performance, the advantage is very small, and not worth it imo. I would rather buy a 3900x for more future proof or a better GPU.

Believe it or not, but a ryzen motherboard + 3900x was more expensive here then a 9900k + motherboard

And if u don't care about 10% performance which is really noticable in games like ac origin where hitting 60 fps with dips in the middle of the city is jarring on exactly that 10%. Then why even bother at all and not just buy a 2700 and call it a day for 150 bucks? Why even bother with 320 bucks for a CPU to start with.

The only reason why 1440p the performance is negligible is that most games have issue's even reaching 60 fps at 1440p that are newer. That cpu bottleneck will stay forever.
 
Last edited: