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

191–200 of 277 posts

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

#191

Post by Wowfunhappy »

robocat wrote: post #150
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And iPhones still don't come close to competing with desktop-class processors in terms of performance. iPhones also use much less electricity, of course, but the point remains. I don't know enough about this, but the GP's argument of "Intel hit the wall first because they were the first to reach that level of performance" makes logical sense to me.

"Apple’s iPhone Xs is faster than an iMac Pro on the Speedometer 2.0 JavaScript benchmark" Yes, Safari, but iPhones do compete with your average desktop processor (not the top end). https://macdailynews.com/2018/09/23/apples-iphone-xs-is-fast...

Apple's newest CPUs have hardware explicitly for accelerating Javascript, so it's not surprising they'd pull ahead there.

And as you said, you're comparing the top-of-the-line iPhone to an "average" CPU.

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

#192

Post by sitkack »

the8472 wrote: post #188
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…

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

The lament was that the large enthusiast sites are staying hush hush, mostly to not bite the hand that feeds them.

Because Phoronix cares is outside the argument.

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

#193

Post by CoolGuySteve »

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.

It would be nice if the mitigations could be applied per-core. Then the OS could set the affinity for processes like games that really don't care.

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

#194

Post by ricardobeat »

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.

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.

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

#195

Post by pkaye »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #148
tntn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and AMD just have to ask TSMC to do their magic to make 7nm chips - they haven't had to do anything spectacular, just use TSMCs design libraries. Intel is struggling because of their struggles with 10nm. Apple and AMD are not because TSMC has pulled off 7nm. Architecture matters, but process node matters a lot too.

What would you say are the primary differences between the two companies? Is it more just a matter of luck that has allowed for TSMC to have been able to succeed where Intel hasn't? Or is there actually a meaningfully different process design and/or problem solving approach that is enabling this?

I think Intel having their own manufacturing fab is hurting them in the longterm. By outsourcing it you can go with whomever has the best solution. By matter of pride, Intel has not done this but AMD, Nvidia, Apple all do this.

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

#196

Post by pkaye »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #108
akvadrako wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t compare nm between vendors - it’s just marketing numbers.

Not directly no, but the actual feature size and density of TSMC 7nm and Intel 10nm are comparable.

What about die size?

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

#197

Post by MikusR »

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…

Zombieload is two week old. Testing take time.

And a minute of googling brings up multiple articles about Spectre/Meltdown including two comparisons. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13659/analyzing-core-i9-9900k...

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12566/analyzing-meltdown-spec...

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

#198

Post by wtallis »

the8472 wrote: post #188
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…

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

The perk of being able to test on Linux is that it's much easier to fully automate testing. Unfortunately, their analysis tends to be shallow.

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

#199

Post by throwaway2048 »

pkaye wrote: post #196
throwaway2048 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not directly no, but the actual feature size and density of TSMC 7nm and Intel 10nm are comparable.

What about die size?

Die size is independent of process size, customers can order most any die size they want.

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

#200

Post by msbarnett »

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…

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

For Spectre, that’s enough; for Spectre-class Intel permission exploit vectors (aka, Meltdown, Fallout, ZombieLoad, RIDL, Store to Leak Forwarding and other MDS vulnerabilities) all of the same infeasability of browser mitigations apply but data also leaks across process boundaries, so process isolation does jack shit to protect you without lower level mitigations.

There’s nothing whatsoever browsers can do to prevent this. Process memory read isolation effectively doesn’t exist in the presence of unpatched Intel MDS vulnerabilities.

> 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.

The unclarity is only in your misunderstanding of the relationship of MDS vulnerabilities on Intel to Spectre vulnerabilities in general.

Post reply on HN