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

161–170 of 277 posts

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

#161

Post by robdachshund »

creato wrote: post #57
lawrenceyan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are they doing worse? Or are they still ahead, just not as far ahead as they used to be? I wouldn't expect any massive leads in any industry to last for long. This might just be regression to the mean.

The reason they are having problems is that they just continued doing die shrinks and speculation hacks to increase performance. They've essentially had the same core since sandy bridge.

They didn't see zen coming, didn't have to compete with bulldozer, and thought they could just keep shrinking rather than building a new core design. Once they hit 10nm, they failed, and their old core got some healthy competition from zen. Now AMD is looking to take a serious lead with zen 2, aka ryzen 3000 series.

I don't think Moore's law is dead, Intel just gave up on real r&d because it was cheaper.

I can't wait for arm and risc v to enter the playing field.

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

#162

Post by robdachshund »

Shorel wrote: post #53
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?

And yet they still have the lion's share of the market. And the money to eventually recover from this as if nothing happened. Tell me when they have really fallen. Still very far from it.

Losing up to 40% of performance and having to disable hyperthreading is going to kill them in the server space.

That ryzen 3 demo didn't look good for Intel either.

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

#163

Post by dejaime »

keldaris wrote: post #132
spamizbad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm glad the PC enthusiast space hasn't succumbed to the wild hysteria caused elsewhere by the side channel issues. It's tiresome to see every new variation people come up with reported as a new apocalypse all over again. Half the reason I still pay attention is to find if there's a new Linux boot switch I need to turn on to disable some new performance regression. Even though I'm personally in the fortunate position…

"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.

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

#164

Post by keldaris »

dejaime wrote: post #163
keldaris wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad the PC enthusiast space hasn't succumbed to the wild hysteria caused elsewhere by the side channel issues. It's tiresome to see every new variation people come up with reported as a new apocalypse all over again. Half the reason I still pay attention is to find if there's a new Linux boot switch I need to turn on to disable some new performance regression. Even though I'm personally in the fortunate position…

"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 performance they are used to with all the implications that entails (including for energy efficiency and other externalities) is a wise decision only time will tell.

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

#165

Post by 781 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #89
spamizbad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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...

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

#166

Post by rbanffy »

dgacmu wrote: post #50
lawrenceyan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Intel made one single bad bet - their 10 nm process didn't work as well as they expected - and TSMC, who made the right bet, leapfrogged them.

In terms of architecture and vulnerabilities, it's not prudent to bet Intel chips are more vulnerable to exploits than others - it's just that we know more about those vulnerabilities. If you want to find vulnerabilities with high impact in cloud and enterprise data centers, Intel Xeon CPUs will be your primary research target.

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

#167

Post by vbezhenar »

msbarnett wrote: post #87
vbezhenar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link a source please?

https://v8.dev/blog/spectre > Second, the increasingly complicated mitigations that we designed and implemented carried significant complexity, which is technical debt and might actually increase the attack surface, and performance overheads. Third, testing and maintaining mitigations for microarchitectural leaks is even trickier than designing gadgets themselves, since it’s hard to be sure the mitigations continue w…

But they do not claim that hardware mitigations are necessary. They claim that they need to change browser architecture a little bit:

> The only effective mitigation is to move sensitive data out of the process’s address space. Thankfully, Chrome already had an effort underway for many years to separate sites into different processes to reduce the attack surface due to conventional vulnerabilities. This investment paid off, and we productionized and deployed site isolation for as many platforms as possible by May 2018.

So with improved browsers it's still unclear why ordinary users need those performance-eating mitigations, when browser vendors managed to solve that problem themselves.

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

#168

Post by wtallis »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #78
mackal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those numbers are for chips that can 5.1 GHz all core though, which is probably a lot less than 5.1 GHz single core.

As far as I know, K-series parts don't support binning of individual cores- if you have one bad core that'll only hit 5.0, 1-core turbo to 5.1 will still result in the OS scheduler periodically picking that core to use, it clocking up to 5.1, and problems resulting. Might be wrong, though.

Intel's Turbo Boost 3.0 [1] was their attempt to take advantage of the fact that some cores on a chip can clock higher than others. It does not work well in practice, because it requires too much collaboration with motherboard and OS vendors. This feature is not available on their desktop platform, which the i9-9900KS uses.

[1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

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

#169

Post by BubRoss »

kingosticks wrote: post #145
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that the vast majority of PC gamers keep Javascript enabled in their browsers.

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?

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

#170

Post by dfrage »

vbezhenar wrote: post #167
msbarnett wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://v8.dev/blog/spectre > Second, the increasingly complicated mitigations that we designed and implemented carried significant complexity, which is technical debt and might actually increase the attack surface, and performance overheads. Third, testing and maintaining mitigations for microarchitectural leaks is even trickier than designing gadgets themselves, since it’s hard to be sure the mitigations continue w…

But they do not claim that hardware mitigations are necessary. They claim that they need to change browser architecture a little bit: > The only effective mitigation is to move sensitive data out of the process’s address space. Thankfully, Chrome already had an effort underway for many years to separate sites into different processes to reduce the attack surface due to conventional vulnerabilities. This investment pa…

These vulnerabilities can jump process address space boundaries. It's a lot harder but can be done, look at the original Spectre paper: https://spectreattack.com/spectre.pdf
Post reply on HN