|
Tray versions seem to be in stock in EU, though at slightly higher than retail prices. Intel hasn’t released a EU MSRP yet so  One could swap from a 8700k to a 9700k for free at the moment but I still haven’t seen 6C/12T vs 8C/8T comparisons and eeh if there’s another refresh due next year... Some German forums posters found that there is a 0.1V difference in indicated Vcore between Z370 and Z390. Indicated because the same CPU with the same Vcore and workload runs >10 C hotter on Z370. That would explain some of the temperature issues because the 9900K at 1.2V on Z390 is the 8 core equivalent of a 8700K at 1.3V on a Z370 board, etc. eames fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Oct 21, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Looks like I'm going with my delidded 8700K till something worthwile comes out. I don't have a use case for those two extra cores.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Oh god this probably means ryzen gear will go up in price once AMD sees demand go up for them in the wake of Intel struggling to keep supply up I really hate sitting on the fence like this
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Oh god this probably means ryzen gear will go up in price once AMD sees demand go up for them in the wake of Intel struggling to keep supply up Glad I bought into Ryzen Plus this week then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Like Devil's Canyon. You don't need to tape out again, just tweak the packaging, maybe bump clocks a little. When 100-200Mhz hardly matter for real world non-synthetic bench performance I don't see them bothering with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 09:50
|
|
|
a couple of links comparing CFL-S to CLF-R including overclocked results, though sample sizes are still small. 9900k vs 8700k 9700k vs 8700k 9600k vs 8600k
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Oh god this probably means ryzen gear will go up in price once AMD sees demand go up for them in the wake of Intel struggling to keep supply up
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
So I'm upgrading my CPU and ran into a couple of issues. Thought I'd ask here first due to being a Intel CPU (9900k) upgrade before heading to Haus of Tech support. My Z390 board requires a 8 pin and a 4 min to power the CPU. My current PSU only has cables for 6 pins or 8 pin connectors. So my questions.... It's a modular design so I can just order a 4 pin cable? Will a 650w PSU be strong enough for it? Or should I just buy a new PSU with higher wattage. I did try this cable , but it did gently caress all, in fact having it plugged in caused the old motherboard to not work as well. The PSU is a Corsair CX650M. I did play around with this power supply calculator and it seemed to suggest it could work for under 650, but I could be doing something wrong. Eararaldor fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
I believe that power supply only supports either a single 4 pin power or a single 8 pin power CPU slot. You'd need a new power supply to support 8 pin + 4 pin CPU power. The PSU only supports one CPU power cable and a cable that has 8 pin power and 4 pin power split up as two connectors on the same cable is out of spec for that PSU.
MagusDraco fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
eames posted:a couple of links comparing CFL-S to CLF-R including overclocked results, though sample sizes are still small. From messing with this, it seems like the 9600k is the best value for gaming out there now? It nearly matches an 8700k for almost $100 less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
If you are willing to spend $500 on a CPU, another $200 on a mobo, what's $150 more on a new PSU? Also, the amount of power required for a system is dependent on the whole system, we would need to know what else is going to be in the system with it. A 9900k is noted to consume up to 200w, pair that with a high end GPU for instance, I've seen a couple GTX 2080 Ti cards with two 8 pin and one 6 pin power connector, which when combined with the PCIe slot is sufficient to deliver 450w to the card which brings you to 650w load potential in only two components. Now it is pretty unlikely you would see that much current pull from either component in practice, so 650w would probably do it. But throw in a couple hard drives, a SSD and a bunch of cooling fans then compound it with degraded output capacity of the PSU from a few years of usage down the road and you might want to think about something closer to 850w. Also as noted, you probably want a PSU that has all the necessary dedicated outputs for your motherboard, I know some aux power connections *can* be optional assuming you aren't overclocking, but this varies by motherboard and what CPU you stuff in it. It is better to play it safe and get a PSU that has every connector you need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
MagusDraco posted:I believe that power supply only supports either a single 4 pin power or a single 8 pin power CPU slot. You'd need a new power supply to support 8 pin + 4 pin CPU power. The PSU only supports one CPU power cable and a cable that has 8 pin power and 4 pin power split up as two connectors on the same cable is out of spec for that PSU. Indiana_Krom posted:If you are willing to spend $500 on a CPU, another $200 on a mobo, what's $150 more on a new PSU? I'm looking at a few PSU's at the moment, but not entirely sure what to look for in the tech specs (I was hoping CPU pins 8 + 4 or something). Would this be ok? Edit: I've noticed this EVGA has two CPU slots on the back with two CPU cables and is 1000w. The slots are a good sign, will these work with a 4 pin and 8 pin combination? Eararaldor fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
EVGA will work that I think the only Corsairs that would work are the Axi series or the rm series/other ones with more than 2 cpu/pcie connector slots. The Corsair PSUs seem to share those slots on a power supply but your current one only has two slots total so you'd be able to either power the CPU or power your GPU, not both. You'd also need the correct second CPU power cord for your old power supply and can't use the PCIe power cord for either CPU power slot on the mobo. edit: A PSU with 2 EPS connectors in the tech specs means it has 2 4+4 CPU connectors (which means it has enough for an 8 pin cpu and a 4 pin cpu power slot) MagusDraco fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Intel and AMD's earning calls this week. I am going to assume bad for intel and good for AMD. They seem to have gained a much larger % of the cpu market thanks to Intel's blunders. Tarriff hurt both companies. Also interested if Intel will talk at all about their manufacturing. E; Also. https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9q4r1i/update_for_i9_9900k_pre_orders_through_b_h/ Apparently B&H will have 9900k in stock in the next few days. Ulio fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
So will Amazon. I hope they're at least staggered a day or I'm too far in line for one of them so I don't get two shipped to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Ulio posted:Intel and AMD's earning calls this week. I am going to assume bad for intel and good for AMD. They seem to have gained a much larger % of the cpu market thanks to Intel's blunders. I would look at Intel’s last few earnings statements... the world of enthusiasts on message boards does not reflect the state of the market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
MagusDraco posted:EVGA will work that This is really useful thank you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Micro Center (which traditionally tends to get a fair bit of stock from Intel's distributors) has in the last few hours gone from SOLD OUT on their respective store listings for the 9th gens to NOT CARRIED. My local Micro Center (and I think yours too, aren't you also in DC?) says SOLD OUT but who knows. I did have to laugh at all of the eBay preorder placeholders that say "Ships the day I receive it!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Hed posted:My local Micro Center (and I think yours too, aren't you also in DC?) says SOLD OUT but who knows. I did have to laugh at all of the eBay preorder placeholders that say "Ships the day I receive it!!!!" Yeah, they've changed back to "SOLD OUT," but for a while yesterday it was "NOT CARRIED."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I would look at Intel’s last few earnings statements... the world of enthusiasts on message boards does not reflect the state of the market. Yeah, the 14 nm shortage is a result of underestimating demand, not just because they've failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Winks posted:Yeah, the 14 nm shortage is a result of underestimating demand, not just because they've failed. Intel thinks 4 cores should be enough for anyone. @_@
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Everyone's talking so much about how PCs are dying, I guess Intel believed it as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Does anyone know why intel removed HT on the new i7s? I don't get it at all. Is there some benefit?! Because look at these linus Benchmarks?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Cb_dYx_Lo 
redeyes fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Probably because with 8 threads the benefits are dubious. Apps I regularly use actually run worse with HT so I have HT disabled with a 5820K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
A scheduler bug with HT?! I googled this and found nothing. WTF? [edit] oh the idiot said he 'simulated' the i7
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Does anyone know why intel removed HT on the new i7s? I don't get it at all. Is there some benefit?! Reduces power consumption and makes it easier to hit high frequencies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
9700k seems better and better than 9900k day by day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Winks posted:Yeah, the 14 nm shortage is a result of underestimating demand, not just because they've failed. Its because they expected to have 10nm fabs up and running by now to take over production for at least some of their 14nm fabs. They can't just open another one easily but they can do stuff like outsource some chipsets to TSMC or move some things to older processes for production. Which they've already done. It'll just take time for those actions to take effect. By late Q1 or well into Q2 2019 the supply issues will go away entirely. The launch of a new chip is probably just making the issue of supply more apparent is all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
They've known that their 10 nm fabs were not going to be up by now for quite some time. The transition has made it hard to react to and fix their huge underestimation blunder, but what I said isn't wrong. The 14 nm shortage isn't just these 9th gen chips. We were seeing laptop chip issues starting 3 months or so ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Ulio posted:9700k seems better and better than 9900k day by day. Bear in mind that Linus' "9700K" was benefiting from 16MB of L3 since all he did was disable HT on his 9900K sample and adjust the clocks to match the i7 - the actual product will be 12MB, so it'll still probably be just under the 9900K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Yeah that's just Linus being Linus. The 9700 is better value in games, certainly, but it's not faster than the 9900, and especially not in multithreaded number crunching.  https://techreport.com/review/34192/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/4
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Does anyone know why intel removed HT on the new i7s? I don't get it at all. Is there some benefit?! It gives them higher yields for a given clock target. You have to realize, intel or amd or whoever does not have a separate manufacturing process for each model that consumers see, that's not how this works nowadays. The current set of 9th gen K chips are probably all manufactured in a single shared process, which tries to produce the full 8 hyperthreaded cores. It's expected that in a given chip produced by that process some cache modules, cores, etc will have flaws that prevent them from running at their theoretical max clock, or at all. If so the configurations that particular chip could be used in is reduced. A chip that fails to become a 9900K is not just thrown away, that would be hideously expensive, it just has some features disabled and becomes a 9700K. Intel doesn't start by saying "we're going to make the 9700K with these specs, please create the 9700K assembly line that makes them". They start by prototyping a new 14nm 8 core architecture, doing some trials to see how well their design works, then making educated guesses for what yields they might expect for different feature targets after a few months of process refinement. They use that guesstimate to invent some products and prices to try to turn their expected yields into more money than they put in. Sometimes those guesses are better than others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:It gives them higher yields for a given clock target. I have no way of proving this, but from the perspective of someone familiar with chip design it's very doubtful that Intel gets better effective yields by disabling hyperthreading. Usually when there's some piece of a chip that can be disabled if defective, it's laid out as a distinct block on the chip's floorplan with as little other logic as possible colocated (so that a defect only takes out that function, not both), there's a clean way to disconnect it and ignore everything it's trying to do, and there may even be a way to sever the power supply to the block (helps avoid excessive power consumption if the defect created a partial short). Hyperthreading isn't likely to satisfy any of those criteria. Most or all of the control logic required to implement HT needs to be so intimately tied into the control logic required for single thread operation that a defect in HT almost certainly kills the whole core. Enable/disable of HT (and several other features that Intel likes to play with, like ECC support) is almost certainly a pure market segmentation play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
The alternative is to do what AMD does and disable two entire cores instead. I'd guess 8/8 is better for most workloads than 6/12 and it spreads it over more die area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Xerophyte posted:It gives them higher yields for a given clock target. Do you have any more wisdom to share? I'm curious as to what happens to completely bad dies, do they shred them up before they dispose of them to make it harder for anyone to study them and steal info from/about them, or is there some process to reclaim valuable elements from them (like the copper wiring, I imagine after a while they would be throwing away a lot of copper that might be worth saving). This also applies to the partial chips that are made off the edges of wafers, i remember reading that they do this because it improves yield of the chips next to the partials but I don't know any more about it than that. More details on the process of fusing off broken bits of chips and how this makes the chip recognize as "lesser model than it was previously" would be really interesting too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I have no way of proving this, but from the perspective of someone familiar with chip design it's very doubtful that Intel gets better effective yields by disabling hyperthreading. Usually when there's some piece of a chip that can be disabled if defective, it's laid out as a distinct block on the chip's floorplan with as little other logic as possible colocated (so that a defect only takes out that function, not both), there's a clean way to disconnect it and ignore everything it's trying to do, and there may even be a way to sever the power supply to the block (helps avoid excessive power consumption if the defect created a partial short). I don't mean that it's a yield improvement because they can disable any shorted or otherwise nonfunctional execution schedulers, I certainly expect that would mean disabling the physical core. I mean that they're setting fixed thermal, clock and power targets and you get a higher yield for those with hyperthreading disabled. If that is case it's a marketing decision to prioritize thermals, power and base clock over HT on the i7, but the product line specifics are always a marketing decision. I'm not an expert and I could be wrong of course. Intel aren't exactly forthcoming with details on how they do their binning and why they choose whatever targets they do. I would be extremely surprised if the 9900K process doesn't have any bin-out at all though, that seems like it would just be throwing good silicon into the sea. E: I have no clue what Intel does to dispose of faulty dies nowadays but they used to make keychains out of them so I'm not sure how concerned they are. Xerophyte fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Lol if you are going to test a down clocked 9900k with HT turned off, please don't call it a 9700k in graphs that are going to be screenshoted and sent around. His video doesn't even mention the cache advantage of the 9900k possibly scewing results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
Extremely let down by youtube channel Linus Tech Tips, exemplars of scientific rigour.
Llamadeus fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
il serpente cosmico posted:Lol if you are going to test a down clocked 9900k with HT turned off, please don't call it a 9700k in graphs that are going to be screenshoted and sent around. His video doesn't even mention the cache advantage of the 9900k possibly scewing results. man have some sympathy for the small 10M+ sub channel who can't afford to get a real 9700K
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Palladium posted:man have some sympathy for the small 10M+ sub channel who can't afford to get a real 9700K don't worry he can just sell one of the six free titan vs nvidia is sending him in order to buy one
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:32
|
|