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

111–120 of 277 posts

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

#111

Post by gameswithgo »

gameswithgo wrote: post #88
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…

its gaming centric news, nobody cares about these exploits when running fortnite

explain why i should care instead of downvoting. a windows program can already just directly look at the memory of other running processes, so why do i care about sidechannel attacks outside of javascript snooping on things which i can mitigate with simple behavior changes.

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

#112

Post by gameswithgo »

gameswithgo wrote: post #91
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?

maybe it is just hard. amd isnt shipping clearly better stuff either.

show me what amd chip performs better instead of just downvoting.

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

#113

Post by atq2119 »

koala_man wrote: post #65
bayindirh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eq…

>gives you a BSOD, oops or panic at worst. That's not too bad. I'd be much more worried about code silently doing the wrong thing .

Why do you think the panic happens?

It's because the code does the wrong thing, and that happens silently... until it hits some pointers or kernel structures and stops being silent.

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

#114

Post by berbec »

ksec wrote: post #46
dual_basis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

Apple might switch to ARM, but I think you're right on AMD

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

#115

Post by bayindirh »

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…

Because intel strictly forbids publishing benchmarks of their processors with the "hardware vulnerability mitigations" applied. Even OEMs cannot show them to their enterprise customers. You can do your own benchmarking after buying the systems. So, no money, no real-world benchmarking.

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

#116

Post by bayindirh »

atq2119 wrote: post #113
koala_man wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gives you a BSOD, oops or panic at worst. That's not too bad. I'd be much more worried about code silently doing the wrong thing .

Why do you think the panic happens? It's because the code does the wrong thing, and that happens silently... until it hits some pointers or kernel structures and stops being silent.

Not always. CPUs have extensive "machine check" capabilities. some of these MCE events are recoverable, some not.

If the processor fires an unrecoverable MCE event, you're frozen with a nice, explanatory panic.

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

#117

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

Oddly enough, the challenge of estimating who is "ahead" is kind of like traffic. Intel arrived at the scaling traffic jam way before anyone else, and has been slowly slogging through it. New entrants are catching up to the traffic jam and will have to make their way through it as well. If there is no breakthrough, then everyone will find themselves more tightly bunched in feature/performance curves than they have been in the past.

The spoiler though is that different architectures have different scaling properties and limitations. IBM's Power architecture has already scaled past where Intel is, not because of the semiconductor process, but because the architecture is more streamlined. ARM is somewhere in the middle, it started off pretty streamlined but it has been adding warts (special instructions) to more directly compete with Intel and that creates impediments to scaling.

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

#118

Post by pfortuny »

bayindirh wrote: post #115
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…

Because intel strictly forbids publishing benchmarks of their processors with the "hardware vulnerability mitigations" applied. Even OEMs cannot show them to their enterprise customers. You can do your own benchmarking after buying the systems. So, no money, no real-world benchmarking.

And you have to abide by those unjust rules because... ?

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

#119

Post by ChuckMcM »

earenndil wrote: post #109
ChuckMcM wrote: post #99

From an interesting historical perspective, I mark the end of Moore's Law in 2001 with Intel's prediction of a 5GHz "Netburst" in 2005, which could not keep itself from melting. Somewhere I have a marketing road map of 5GHz in 2005, 10GHz in 2010. It was aspirational of course, but seeing what had to happen between then and now in order to get a chip that runs at 5GHz all the time based on their architecture is illum…

That's an overexaggeration, IMO. Moore's law didn't really start losing steam until 2014-2015.

Perhaps, and perhaps it is just a difference of how we internalize what "Moores Law" means. Granted when Gordon postulated it, he was strictly talking about numbers of transistors, and the implication was that transistors were a leading indicator of performance.

Since I lean more on the 'performance' side of things, that was the end of 'single thread performance scaling', or put another way, that was when the performance of a single core stopped doubling every 18 months or so. And everyone switched over to dealing with Amdahl's law instead.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

pfortuny wrote: post #118
bayindirh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because intel strictly forbids publishing benchmarks of their processors with the "hardware vulnerability mitigations" applied. Even OEMs cannot show them to their enterprise customers. You can do your own benchmarking after buying the systems. So, no money, no real-world benchmarking.

And you have to abide by those unjust rules because... ?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN