Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 277 posts

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#31

Post by lawrenceyan »

dgacmu wrote: post #24
lawrenceyan wrote: post #20

Intel 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?

It's not Intel, it's the end of Moore's law. Intel's problem is that they are not well positioned to capitalize on the specialized processors that will be required to continue ekeing out advances for the next decade or two before we're entirely up a creek. :)

From how Apple and AMD are doing with their own processors though, it seems like Intel is just fundamentally doing worse even as things become more difficult with smaller transistor sizes. Apple is going to replace Intel with their own processors because Intel has failed to meet requirements. AMD, with a shoestring budget basically on the verge of bankruptcy the entire time they were doing their R&D, managed to build out a new architecture that has provided amazing results while Intel has basically had nothing to show in the same time.

But perhaps there's something I'm missing here. Is there a misconception or lack of information here on my end that needs to be clarified? I can only make my analysis largely as an outsider looking in when talking about semiconductors.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#32

Post by mackal »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #21
XMPPwocky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And to explain why they don't have, say, one core boost to 5.1GHz...well, let's see what siliconlottery says. > As of 3/16/19, the top 38% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater. > As of 3/16/19, the top 8% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater. So, Intel'd cut their yield by more than a factor of four if they only let parts that could hit 5.1 into this bin. For a 2% single-core performance…

I think those numbers are for chips that can 5.1 GHz all core though, which is probably a lot less than 5.1 GHz single core.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#33

Post by dgacmu »

jscott0918 wrote: post #26
dgacmu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not Intel, it's the end of Moore's law. Intel's problem is that they are not well positioned to capitalize on the specialized processors that will be required to continue ekeing out advances for the next decade or two before we're entirely up a creek. :)

reddit.com/r/boneappletea

Oh goodness, thanks. Fixed 'ekeing', which my phone apparently did not believe I'd said.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#34

Post by saltyshake »

lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

Besides cloud providers running VMs /containers on the cloud, is Spectre/Meltdown really such an issue for day-to-day consumers ?

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#35

Post by ves »

dgacmu wrote: post #24
lawrenceyan wrote: post #20

Intel 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?

It's not Intel, it's the end of Moore's law. Intel's problem is that they are not well positioned to capitalize on the specialized processors that will be required to continue ekeing out advances for the next decade or two before we're entirely up a creek. :)

You probably want to say “eking out,” not “eating out,” as the latter means something... very different.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#36

Post by saltyshake »

kzrdude wrote: post #30
adamparsons wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d guess that the upper limit is stability rather than thermal capacity at that point

What does stability mean, a bit more exactly? Just curious

The CPU not losing its marbles when overclocked.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050412-47/?p=35...

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#37

Post by lkschubert8 »

jayflux wrote: post #25
lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

What else would they describe it as? There are 8 cores and 16 threads, whether you have to turn off the hyperthreading feature or not is a different matter.

It just feels kinda shady to advertise the peak performance with safety features that should be on off without mentioning that. They should at least include a disclaimer.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#38

Post by lkschubert8 »

hmottestad wrote: post #28
jayflux wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would they describe it as? There are 8 cores and 16 threads, whether you have to turn off the hyperthreading feature or not is a different matter.

I think that if you turn off hyperthreading it becomes 8 core 8 threads.

Yeah you are correct.

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#39

Post by ksec »

I used to be Pro Anandtech and consider them one of the best Sources online for Hardware News. But the fact they have yet write a single post, big or small about Intel's Zombieload and its implication on performance worries me a bit.

Then there is the "Intel" benchmarks as usual [1] on GPU. Trying to suggest the 2 CPU were both running at 25W TDP to give a "fair" comparison, without mentioning the Ice-Lake U CPU were running with 50% more memory bandwidth vs the AMD Ryzen. And we know Graphics Benchmarks do depend a lot on memory bandwidth. The memory used was somehow mentioned in Toms or Other Sites but not Anandtech. ( Although none of them had mentioned the bandwidth difference, it was up to the reader to work them out )

Anyway none of these Consumer CPU upgrade interest me anymore ( Although any improvement to iGPU would be great ) I am eagerly waiting for a 2S - 128 Core EPYC 2 on a Server or AWS to play around with it.

[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14405/intel-teases-ice-lake-i...

Edit: And the lesson here, never trust a single news source. Always have a few option opened and fact check yourself. ( If you have the time )

Re: Intel Announces 8 Core I9-9900KS: Every Core at 5Ghz, All the Time

#40

Post by infotogivenm »

saltyshake wrote: post #34
lkschubert8 wrote: post #23

Should they be describing it as 8 cores 16 threads when there have been multiple security vulnerabilities that have to turn off hyperthreading to be mitigated?

Besides cloud providers running VMs /containers on the cloud, is Spectre/Meltdown really such an issue for day-to-day consumers ?

Yes. I think this is a common misconception.

These attacks work fine in the browser, as researchers continue to show. They allow complete bypass of any native app sandboxing layers. Surely you don't run everything on your box as root all the time.

Post reply on HN