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

41–50 of 277 posts

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

#41

Post by bayindirh »

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 switching speed of silicon has also some upper limit. When you drive silicon faster, it starts to make mistakes. i.e. not all electrons go the where you want them to go. This causes soft-faults and CPU re-executes the part at best, or gives you a BSOD, oops or panic at worst.

This upper limit depends on process, layout, power design and power limits of the CPU.

Last but, not the least, not all CPUs are created equal on a wafer. I came from an era where we hunted plain blue AMD Athlon dies for higher overclocking potential, since they were from center of the wafer and they were more stable under high load/voltage/clock. I had a 2200MHz Athon (200 x 11) which was faster then AMD's own 2200MHz Athlons, since AMD wasnt offering a 200MHz bus version of their 2200MHz parts.

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

#42

Post by dual_basis »

ksec wrote: post #39

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…

> ... none of these Consumer CPU upgrades interest me anymore

What about the Ryzen 3000 line up? The benchmark leaks make it seem like it is going to be a huge improvement and AMD isn't susceptible to Zombieload.

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

#43

Post by dgacmu »

ves wrote: post #35
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. :)

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

Someday I will learn to triple check when I use speech recognition.

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

#44

Post by dual_basis »

pitaj wrote: post #4
shereadsthenews wrote: post #2

I 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?

Yeah it's weird. Why not set the single-core turbo higher?

Marketing.

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

#46

Post by ksec »

dual_basis wrote: post #42
ksec wrote: post #39

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…

> ... none of these Consumer CPU upgrades interest me anymore What about the Ryzen 3000 line up? The benchmark leaks make it seem like it is going to be a huge improvement and AMD isn't susceptible to Zombieload.

The problem is I am on Mac ecosystem, which means I don't have much of a choice ( I doubt Apple will ever switch to AMD ) . And since most of my casual gaming are done on mobile, ( I am quite old and don't have time like I used to spent hours on UO or WoW ), none of these upgrade means anything to me. So my interest is in Servers where most of my time are spent now in Web Development.

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

#47

Post by zanny »

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?

Their design for 10nm and the implementation didn't line up. Whatever their (still undisclosed) problems were, the entire node was fundamentally flawed.

It might have been hubris at having been at the cutting edge of fab tech for so long. It could have just been the fruits of pushing the envelope - sometimes what you predict will happen when you put theory to application proves false.

It has warped their business heavily for 4+ years now, but in the same way AMD had to "get their act together" with their processor design after Bulldozer failed spectacularly in practice and took ~7 years to fix it companies at these scales cannot turn on a dime - Intel had their roadmap planned a decade in advance, and to have it so thoroughly trashed starting around ~2015-2016 will require until at least 2021 to correct in all likelihood.

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

#48

Post by api »

dgacmu wrote: post #33
jscott0918 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

reddit.com/r/boneappletea

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

Mobile is the foot rub. (Autocorrect of "mobile is the future" I saw once.)

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

#50

Post by dgacmu »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #31
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. :)

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…

Intel was ahead, and hit the wall first. Apple & AMD are not ahead, they're just catching up. I don't want to understate how big a problem that could be for Intel, of course. But they're also doing it on low margin parts, and Intel continues to make bank with their data center parts.

I don't think any of this represents a short-term problem for Intel, other than the general downturn in processor sales because fewer people will need to upgrade. But I think it represents a very serious long-term threat.

They have some really cool technical advances, like 3D xpoint. But I'm concerned that they do so badly on embedded and custom integration from a long-term perspective.

Post reply on HN