Well, this also means that attacks exploiting speculation with run much faster!
Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
11–20 of 277 posts
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#12I don't get it. If it has an all-core frequency of 5GHz, doesn't that mean they've left some single-core boost on the table? Or have they hit some other limit and this part is basically free of thermal limits?
[deleted]
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#13no i7-9700KS? disappointing
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#14Is it going to be that much faster? 300mhz faster than the current top one according to the article.
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#15I don't get it. If it has an all-core frequency of 5GHz, doesn't that mean they've left some single-core boost on the table? Or have they hit some other limit and this part is basically free of thermal limits?
I believe Intel processors can't boost all cores. At least some tests I have done with my notebook processor (i7 8550u - 4c8t) with `stress -c n`, being n the number of processors, show that for n > 1 the processor doesn't reach 4ghz, only about 3.7ghz, while the package temps are still at around 70 °C. Only a single core on full load reaches 4ghz before throttling.
XTU allows setting different turbo multipliers for 1-4 active cores (but the difference from the nominal clock speed typically gets smaller as more cores become active).
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#16Some of the 9900K chips are able to push 5.2Ghz, this is not a proper answer to the AMD's new lineup
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#17hyperthreading?
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Intel processors can't boost all cores. At least some tests I have done with my notebook processor (i7 8550u - 4c8t) with `stress -c n`, being n the number of processors, show that for n > 1 the processor doesn't reach 4ghz, only about 3.7ghz, while the package temps are still at around 70 °C. Only a single core on full load reaches 4ghz before throttling.
> I believe Intel processors can't boost all cores. And that's exactly what shereadsthenews's point is. They can't boost all cores, and they are not boosting any core beyond the all-core capacity if it's truly a CPU that runs at 5 GHz all the time.
Turbo Boost can certainly apply to all cores- the limits you hit are TDP and time based, there, not strictly thermal.
So, for example, my old laptop CPU would clock itself up to 2.7GHz on all cores... well, okay, it was a dual core, so that's not saying much, but still. But it'd only maintain that boost for a few seconds- under sustained load it dropped down to 2.5. This wasn't because of thermals, but rather because 2.7GHz was a Turbo Boost frequency, and once the PPL timer runs out...
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#19Is it going to be that much faster? 300mhz faster than the current top one according to the article.
And the speed of my overclocked 9700K. If anything, this is just a "Hey, some people can cool an 8-core CPU at 5GHz, let's make a new bin for the 40% of CPUs that can maintain that" release.
Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time
#20Intel has fallen so far. It's honestly a shame to watch at this point.
I remember back when Sandy Bridge was first released, and I was extremely pleased by the performance improvements my new chip was able to provide. Did they really manage to mess everything up within such a limited timespan? Or was there just always a hidden incompetence that never showed itself until now?