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

271–277 of 277 posts

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

#271

Post by dfrage »

chx wrote: post #270
dfrage wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KBR = Kaby Lake Refresh. Interesting, in that Intel's "10nm" node is said to be more power efficient than their "14nm" node, in this case, per AnandTech ( https://www.anandtech.com/show/11738/intel-launches-8th-gene... ) KBR was launched with 14+nm. Could be that early of a 10nm part wasn't yet very power optimized. And that would be a very good explanation for why the GPU was disabled vs. the yield issue, which we'r…

https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor/intel/7433-intel-10nm-yie... The GPU was disabled because it is those blocks which are the most problematic yield wise.

Hits forehead for forgetting to check SemiWiki. But note that since then Global Foundries has abandoned for now offering this general node, 7nm as they name it, 10nm as Intel does.

But isn't the whole die exposed and otherwise processed as a whole piece? Very much not deeply educated here and can't justify the investment to change that, my primary mental models for defects are either something that takes out a whole die, like one lithography step being misaligned, or spot damage like a piece of dust.

But there are clearly issues in between that are statistical inside a die, I recall Semiaccurate saying one of Nvidia or AMD did a GPU tape out to a TSMC process where they duplicated vias because that process' were iffy, and they compensated with a less dense design where either one or two working was OK. If Intel is suffering that sort of problem, then the GPU is a big part of the die that can be fused out while you still have something useful. If all your CPUs or all your L3 cache banks fail, a working GPU is pointless.

That article points out two particularly suspect things Intel is uniquely trying at this node: SAQP for the metal layers, which I've seen cited before, and which they generically officially blame, and cobalt in interconnects. And at least one other thing was mentioned as suspect, and four new things total.

One ray of hope is mentioned for Intel, in that they were the most aggressive in the industry with their 14nm and 10nm nodes, and in both cases paid the price in yields, while they're being conservative for their 7nm node, no doubt because EUV is a very big step for everyone. Semiaccurate also commented and/or theorized that a compelling reason Intel is continuing to work on their 10nm at one fab is that one or more things in it are also going to be used in their 7nm, so they might as well debug them now and there, and sell some chips while they're at it.

Now to do some catching up on SemiWiki, thanks!

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

#272

Post by wtallis »

BuckRogers wrote: post #268
wtallis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End-user perceived performance is usually not affected enough to meaningfully change the ranking of products. If a chip goes from being 5% faster to 3% slower when mitigations are applied, you'll never notice that without busting out a stopwatch and digging for a reason to be disappointed. Remember, measurable performance differences aren't always noticeable performance differences, especially without a side by side…

Why not do an article with then-current mitigations every 6 months? Rather than conveniently waiting until Intel can get their hardware fixes out. Which will coincide with the "mitigations are stable" article. I'd be willing to bet that if the majority of mitigations impacted AMD rather than Intel as it does today, you'd already have done this and would continue to follow up. This is very interesting material and a s…

> I'd be willing to bet that if the majority of mitigations impacted AMD rather than Intel as it does today, you'd already have done this and would continue to follow up.

Fuck you, too. I've given you reasonable explanations and you're still throwing out insulting conspiracy theories. If you want sensationalized news, there are plenty of outlets that will give you what you want, and you don't need to be a dick to those of us who are trying to be reasonable and honest about both the subject matter and the resources we have to provide quality coverage.

Also, we've done two significant articles in the past year measuring the impact of these mitigations, so we're not even falling behind the standards you claim to want us to meet.

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

#273

Post by cozzyd »

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. :)

They did buy Altera didn't they?

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

#274

Post by dang »

wtallis wrote: post #272
BuckRogers wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not do an article with then-current mitigations every 6 months? Rather than conveniently waiting until Intel can get their hardware fixes out. Which will coincide with the "mitigations are stable" article. I'd be willing to bet that if the majority of mitigations impacted AMD rather than Intel as it does today, you'd already have done this and would continue to follow up. This is very interesting material and a s…

> I'd be willing to bet that if the majority of mitigations impacted AMD rather than Intel as it does today, you'd already have done this and would continue to follow up. Fuck you, too. I've given you reasonable explanations and you're still throwing out insulting conspiracy theories. If you want sensationalized news, there are plenty of outlets that will give you what you want, and you don't need to be a dick to tho…

Personal attacks and name-calling are not ok on HN, regardless of how unfairly someone is interpreting your work. Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#275

Post by dang »

BuckRogers wrote: post #268
wtallis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End-user perceived performance is usually not affected enough to meaningfully change the ranking of products. If a chip goes from being 5% faster to 3% slower when mitigations are applied, you'll never notice that without busting out a stopwatch and digging for a reason to be disappointed. Remember, measurable performance differences aren't always noticeable performance differences, especially without a side by side…

Why not do an article with then-current mitigations every 6 months? Rather than conveniently waiting until Intel can get their hardware fixes out. Which will coincide with the "mitigations are stable" article. I'd be willing to bet that if the majority of mitigations impacted AMD rather than Intel as it does today, you'd already have done this and would continue to follow up. This is very interesting material and a s…

It's not ok to insinuate shilling on HN or to dismiss someone's work by assuming bad faith in this way. Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#276

Post by ricardobeat »

earenndil wrote: post #203
ricardobeat wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at transistor count, yes. But single-core performance has stagnated since ~2003, that’s when we hit the 3Ghz mark. Progress since then has been a lot slower.

GHz are basically meaningless. The 2GHz CPU in my laptop is an order of magnitude faster than anything 3GHz from 2003.

True for practical uses, most of the performance increase comes from more bandwidth and parallelism. But it's a mere 2-4x increase for single-thread performance, over 15+ years: https://preshing.com/images/integer-perf.png

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

#277

Post by sixbrx »

wtallis wrote: post #125
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.

Intel has never told AnandTech not to benchmark their microcode updates or a third party's OS updates. They haven't threatened to stop sampling CPUs for review. I haven't seen any evidence that Intel has ever attempted to enforce such a restriction against anyone . It's just a stupid clause that one of their dumber lawyers slipped into the EULA text, and does not appear to be something they actually care about at an…

I would say putting it in the EULA text is telling you and what's more important, a court of law would probably agree. I don't know why you would expect anything more?
Post reply on HN