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

181–190 of 277 posts

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

#181

Post by kingosticks »

zapzupnz wrote: post #156
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.

Nobody was offended by the other. I think people are downvoting you and gameswithgo because you appear to be applying your own personal notions to an entire segment with little to no evidence. 'PC enthusiast' is such a blanket term to start with, so applying a blanket statement to such a group is obviously doomed to failure from the very start.

And that's exactly what the parent did that I replied to. But I do appreciate the explanation, cheers.

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

#182

Post by markmark »

infotogivenm wrote: post #40
saltyshake wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you link to a hosted example of one of these. That would convince people nicely. Someone linked to one in a similar discussion yesterday but it didn't work anymore in currently patched browsers.

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

#183

Post by magila »

skavi wrote: post #134
twblalock wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people who write these articles for review sites do not really understand CPUs in depth. They know how to run benchmark suites and talk about new features mentioned in Intel's marketing material. Most of these people are writers, not engineers. If they were experts they could make a lot more money working at tech companies instead of working for review sites. In fact, I would bet that most professional so…

AnandTech is different. They cover μarch, and their writers clearly understand what they're talking about.

Even AnandTech mostly just regurgitates what is feed to them at press events these days.

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

#184

Post by kitchenkarma »

kitchenkarma wrote: post #174
mabbo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I forgot to add - it's been delidded. Crazy I know.

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

#185

Post by dodobirdlord »

jjeaff wrote: post #142
vbezhenar wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are behind. I think they have a chance to catch up with their 7nm which is supposed to be better than TSMC 7nm. But it won’t be soon.

But what does that really mean? They still seem to be producing the fastest processors available for desktop and server. It doesnt matter if someone else is making even a 3nm chip if the chip still can't outperform the current offerings.

The sizing numbers are also just nonsense marketing. They stopped meaning anything in particular a long time ago. Intel's '10nm' and TSMC's '7nm' are about the same size.

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

#186

Post by coldtea »

keldaris wrote: post #164
dejaime wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wild hysteria", what do you mean? Experts seem to be far from a hysterical, and go for a more technical language, benchmarks and all. And the mass that usually goes hysterical actually doesn't even know their CPUs are going to take a 20% performance hit next OS update, and probably won't even realize that.

The conversation was about the (nominally technical as well as more mainstream) press, not the experts. My remark regarding "wild hysteria" was made in that context. Experts and competent users will do the same thing they always do - evaluate any and all mitigations in the context of the threat models relevant to their usecases and act accordingly. Whether depriving the mass of less technically inclined users of the…

>My remark regarding "wild hysteria" was made in that context.

Considering we are referring to attacks that can bypass your PC's security, "prudence" is a better word than hysteria.

Yes, if they are left alone, it is the "end of the world".

They can be used to make any modern OS and browser as full of holes as Windows 98.

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

#187

Post by walrus01 »

spamizbad wrote: post #58
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…

It's not just Anandtech. I feel like the entire "PC enthusiast" review space has dropped the ball on hardware vulnerabilities. Reevaluating performance between microcode and OS patches is an afterthought, and when a new CPU hits the market the numbers are presented without the obvious disclaimer that these performance gains may evaporate within months. Some even perpetuate the "only relevant to datacenter" myth despi…

> I feel like the entire "PC enthusiast" review space has dropped the ball on hardware vulnerabilities. Reevaluating performance between microcode and OS patches is an afterthought, and when a new CPU hits the market the numbers are presented without the obvious disclaimer that these performance gains may evaporate within months.

If you want useful benchmarks that show the performance impact, go to phoronix.

"PC Enthusiast" websites care about gaming performance and single user desktop performance, and always have. This has been the same since I started following things when the fastest CPU available was a 300 MHz Pentium 2. Imagine how amazed we all were by the 1 GHz Slot A Athlon.

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

#188

Post by the8472 »

spamizbad wrote: post #58
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…

It's not just Anandtech. I feel like the entire "PC enthusiast" review space has dropped the ball on hardware vulnerabilities. Reevaluating performance between microcode and OS patches is an afterthought, and when a new CPU hits the market the numbers are presented without the obvious disclaimer that these performance gains may evaporate within months. Some even perpetuate the "only relevant to datacenter" myth despi…

Phoronix has multiple articles on the impact of those vulnerabilities, from small laptop to large server processors.

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

#189

Post by keldaris »

coldtea wrote: post #186
keldaris wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversation was about the (nominally technical as well as more mainstream) press, not the experts. My remark regarding "wild hysteria" was made in that context. Experts and competent users will do the same thing they always do - evaluate any and all mitigations in the context of the threat models relevant to their usecases and act accordingly. Whether depriving the mass of less technically inclined users of the…

> My remark regarding "wild hysteria" was made in that context. Considering we are referring to attacks that can bypass your PC's security, "prudence" is a better word than hysteria. Yes, if they are left alone, it is the "end of the world". They can be used to make any modern OS and browser as full of holes as Windows 98.

> Considering we are referring to attacks that can bypass your PC's security, "prudence" is a better word than hysteria.

That statement can be made about any vulnerability whatsoever. The merit of any mitigation can only be determined by a cost/benefit analysis that takes into account the potential impact of the vulnerability as well as the very real costs of mitigating it.

> Yes, if they are left alone, it is the "end of the world".

No offense, but this is exactly why the word "hysteria" seems far more appropriate than "prudence". Not a single one of these vulnerabilities has been used to cause any measurable damage anywhere that we know of, whereas the mitigations deployed have significant costs that everyone must pay. Despite this, emotional "the sky is falling" type pronouncements are far more common in the media - even the ostensibly technical press - than attempts to rationally weigh the costs and benefits of any particular approach to the problem.

Post reply on HN