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

171–180 of 277 posts

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

#171

Post by gambiting »

gameswithgo wrote: post #111
gameswithgo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>a windows program can already just directly look at the memory of other running processes

Do you run everything with administrative privileges?

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

#172

Post by AgentME »

781 wrote: post #165
gameswithgo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pc enthusiasts aren’t really into running javascript either.

Discord is huge in gaming/pc enthusiasts. Oh, and you use VS Code in your stream. I wonder what those two are written in...

Those are bad examples because they both run unsandboxed.

The recent CPU vulnerabilities aren't uniquely bad for Javascript specifically. They're bad for wanting to run unprivileged code. Javascript in regular web pages just happens to be the most obvious example of sandboxed code in desktop computers.

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

#173

Post by BubRoss »

wtallis wrote: post #129
craftyguy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work for Anandtech? If not, what are you basing these claims on? I suspect that Anandtech, etc would not publicly disclose if a hardware manufacturer was forbidding them from benchmarking certain configurations under threat of not releasing samples..

Yes, I write for AnandTech (paid as an independent contractor; I'm not one of the salaried editors). I've done some Spectre/Meltdown regression testing for AnandTech, and I've never been instructed to not do such testing in the future. Microcode benchmarking is not the hill Intel wants to die on.

Which begs the question, when will we see benchmarks of Intel's CPUs with all vulnerability mitigations on vs. AMDs CPUs?

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

#174

Post by kitchenkarma »

mabbo wrote: post #54
kitchenkarma wrote: post #49

I have 9900k binned for 5.1Ghz all core. Absolutely brilliant CPU. I wish there was 16 core version though.

What's the power usage on that? I could imagine the heat from it keeping your home warm on a cold winter's night.

I didn't measure. It is not too hot. I am typically getting 50-65 C under my workloads.

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

#175

Post by tinus_hn »

gambiting wrote: post #100
tatref wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benchmarking cpu firmwares is forbidden by the license (same thing for databases)

What licence? You don't have to agree to a licence to use a CPU. I mean Intel might think otherwise, but those kinds of licences("you agree to this licence by just opening the product") are not worth the paper they are written on in EU, so even if there is such a licence it wouldn't be applicable everywhere.

Intel could license the microcode update.

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

#176

Post by kitchenkarma »

clarry wrote: post #130
kitchenkarma wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have one constantly pushing 5.1Ghz (disabled speedstep etc. been stable for months). I bought it because there was no comparable AMD cpu and as far as I know AMD is still behind. Why do you think it is not a proper answer?

I think by AMD's new lineup they're referring to Ryzen 3000 series, which isn't out yet. If the rumors are true, the top models come with 12 to 16 cores, higher IPC and higher clocks than the current Zens, pushing 5GHz boost. A current 9900K might be some 20%-30% faster than a current Zen, but it will no longer be so when with the new lineup. Meanwhile mitigations are eating up Intel's performance advantage..

I saw some leaked benchmarks today and it doesn't look great. I really hope AMD will kick the Intel (I even have Ryzen 1800x too and will buy the new 16 core one), but I need fastest possible single core performance and by the look of it at best it will be the same. But AMD has other problems like huge DPC latency, which makes it difficult to use for real time computations. If Ryzen happens to have the same single core speed as 5Ghz 9900k and pack 16 cores capable of delivering it each, I'll swap my Intel in no time.

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

#178

Post by leggomylibro »

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

Disclaimer: this is an oversimplification and I only have a lay person's understanding.

CPUs are basically huge networks of transistors (on/off switches). They're sort of like tiny printed circuit boards; lots of individual 'parts' are connected by 'wires' on top of a silicon wafer.

The distances are miniscule, but the lengths of wires running between transistors still varies. So when a transistor switches between 'off' and 'on', the signal takes a different amount of time to reach to its destination depending on which transistors are being switched. The signal can also feed into multiple other transistors which it will reach at different times.

While signals are busy propagating through the circuit, the CPU's state will be unstable, including the 'output' value of its current instruction. The time that it takes for any given instruction to stabilize is tough to predict because it depends on a lot of things, including how far apart the transistors are and how many of them the signal needs to pass through.

The CPU's "tick rate" in Hertz relates to how quickly it "latches" its internal state. Between "ticks", the CPU waits for all of the signals to stabilize. If they haven't stabilized when the clock strikes, bad things can happen.

I'm not sure how the 'quality' of an individual chip can make it more amenable to overclocking, though; maybe they run into fewer issues from thermal stress? Maybe the tiny 'wires' between the transistors have slightly less resistance? I dunno, someone help me out?

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

#179

Post by wtallis »

BubRoss wrote: post #173
wtallis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I write for AnandTech (paid as an independent contractor; I'm not one of the salaried editors). I've done some Spectre/Meltdown regression testing for AnandTech, and I've never been instructed to not do such testing in the future. Microcode benchmarking is not the hill Intel wants to die on.

Which begs the question, when will we see benchmarks of Intel's CPUs with all vulnerability mitigations on vs. AMDs CPUs?

As soon as the definition of "with all vulnerability mitigations on" stays stable long enough to put together a good review. Benchmarking a moving target is hell, and we don't have enough equipment or staff to do the around-the-clock regression testing that would be necessary to keep our benchmark database current with everything that's happened over the past 1.5 years.

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

#180

Post by kingosticks »

BubRoss wrote: post #169
kingosticks wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't expect that. Is this the kind of thing that would be reported by the Steam hardware survey (if that's still a thing)? Edit: I took a look and it seems they don't ask/record that info. I apologise for the offence this idea seems to have caused someone.

Why would steam's hardware survey report if JavaScript is enabled in browsers?

Because its a hardware and software survey. I have a memory of them asking some extra questions but that was years ago. Either I remembered wrong (likely), they changed it, or they don't report it all.
Post reply on HN