CPU Intel Core 9000 Series Processors Discussion

[Hifihedgehog]

What are everyone’s thoughts on Intel's new 9000-series processor line? Reply below!

Update (10/19/2018, 10:57PM EST):
Ian at AnandTech clarified the situation to me on Reddit. Sometime between the numerous reviews, he had changed the power consumption testing methodology to use POV-Ray instead of Prime95. In relation to this, as explained on Twitter, he has also issued a change in his article's power test. In this change, he has switched to an MSI motherboard due to the ASRock board's over-ambitious voltage swings. Here is the updated page, as well as the new and more accurate chart directly below:

The rest of the original post follows:

Here are mine: When I first saw the power consumption benchmarks, besides gasping, I immediately thought: FX 9000 series. Seriously, drawing as much if not more than a 32-core ThreadRipper?! Man, Intel and their corporate espionage must know something about Zen 2 we all don’t and, as a result, are desperate to no end.

Translation: The 8-core 9900K draws more power than the 32-core 2990WX. Let that sink in a bit.

 

[VegetableStu]

POWERRIPPER / WALLRIPPER

(seriously, that comparison somehow made me feel better about thinking to go for a "more power hungry threadripper", and for some reason it shouldn't and yet it did, LOL)

 

[brt02]

Power draw is as expected, i.e in the region of 200W.

The temperatures are worse though. I expected more from STIM. From de8auer's video it looks like the combination of a thick layer of solder combined with a thicker die makes temperatures worse.

Another interesting takeaway is that the 6 core 9600K is an 8 core die (with 2 cores and HT disabled).

POWERRIPPER / WALLRIPPER

(seriously, that comparison somehow made me feel better about thinking to go for a "more power hungry threadripper", and for some reason it shouldn't and yet it did, LOL)

Threadripper and ITX don't go together, however i think you raise a valid point. Personally I'd be more interested in the how the 8 core skylake-x refresh compares to the 9900K.

 

[VegetableStu]

eh? what does anything ITX have to do about this? o_o
(also if it's related, I'm staying at mATX)

also (outside brackets) Anandtech reviewed the 9700K and the 9600K as well. go have a look:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

also also Hardwareunboxed also paints a milder but similar picture in power draw. tiny thing outsipped a 2950X at blender rendering O_O

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Threadripper and ITX don't go together

True, but I am sure there are some mATX SFF users who are face palming at these numbers.

Some months ago, I had jestfully predicted a FX 9000 series-like power draw. However, I never actually expected it to be seriously this high off of the charts.

With the 4.5 GHz base and >13% IPC numbers spinning in the rumor mill, Zen 2 might actually live up to those rumors if Intel is pulling as crazy a release as this.

 

[loader963]

I’m just wondering when amazon will ship the preorders lol. I don’t think the performance numbers look that bad, about what most were expecting of a coffeelake plus 2 cores. The prices aren’t too bad, but not so good when you compare to ryzen.

 

[NateDawg72]

I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone given the clockspeed they are running + 2 extra cores.

8 core 4.7ghz all core stock can guzzle ~220 watts? Sounds exactly as it should be given what the 8700k does in the same test.

Anyway, it would probably be pretty efficient at 4ghz if someone wanted to tweak it for lower power.

Edit: I have zero trust for the zen2 rumor mill and it's sounding like wishful thinking to me. I'm expecting 4.5Ghz as a overclock, and +7-10% IPC, and I will be happily buying one. I think the rumors are setting such lofty goals that people will be disappointed.

 

[VegetableStu]

yeah I'm not against its incredible peak power draw. just amazed and in awe, LOL

 

[brt02]

eh? what does anything ITX have to do about this? o_o
(also if it's related, I'm staying at mATX)

Tha's just me looking at it from an ITX standpoint. Z390 and X299 can be had in ITX form factors whereas X399 can't

 

[VegetableStu]

yeah come to think of it, powering that thing would need a super serious VRM setup o_o not too familiar with how the Z390 ITX boards are in that aspect

dammit ASUS bring back the maximus impact ,_,

 

[Legion]

yeah come to think of it, powering that thing would need a super serious VRM setup o_o not too familiar with how the Z390 ITX boards are in that aspect

dammit ASUS bring back the maximus impact ,_,

For all you mad people thinking of 9900k ITX

Full written review: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_rog_z390-i_strix_itx_review/1

 

[SashaLag]

it would be very interesting to see a chart with efficency plotted in different workloads (games included)...
So far, it seems to me also this is a FX-9000 like comeback... Intel is worried... And pushed frequencies and cores in a range so far not common!

 

[Allhopeforhumanity]

For all you mad people thinking of 9900k ITX

Full written review: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_rog_z390-i_strix_itx_review/1

Only 328 W from the wall at 5Ghz on the 9900k...

 

[rcradiator]

What are everyone’s thoughts on Intel new processor line?

Here are mine: When I first saw the power consumption benchmarks, besides gasping, I immediately thought: FX 9000 series. Seriously, drawing as much if not more than a 32-core ThreadRipper?! Man, Intel and their corporate espionage must know something about Zen 2 we all don’t and, as a result, are desperate to no end.

Translation: The 8-core 9900K draws more power than the 32-core 2990WX. Let that sink in a bit.

The thing is Anandtech (and Der8auer) uses Prime95 29.6 AVX which hammers the life out of any cpu, let alone Intel cpus with AVX. I think Prime95 26.6 should give a more realistic power draw figure. I think there are also MCE shenanigans going on behind the scenes as there's no way it pulls more than the 7980XE and 2990WX unless MCE is on or they overclocked it to the moon.

 

[Thehack]

I compiled some gaming data using any reviews I found. I compared the difference between 9900K vs 2700X. This is purely academic, but you can see the % difference in FPS. I ignored games where CPU doesn't make a difference. I did not take into account how reputable the reviews were. For very high end GPUs, Ryzen does hold the GPU back pass the 80 FPS mark. Most testers were using 1080 or higher class of GPU. The X axis is the FPS of the 9900K, and the Y axis is the performance difference. I used average FPS. 1% low would also reduce the % difference more.

 

[confusis]

Kinda shows that the FPS per $ really tanks with the 9900K - we're talking a $300 Ryzen chip vs a $580 i9 chip :/ (Retail in USD on Newegg at time of writing)

Edited for clarity

 

[Ionrent]

 

 

[Allhopeforhumanity]

This highlights the poor power delivery on the ITX board. At stock CPU speed it needs 26W more than the ATX counterpart. That's an entire mobile CPU's worth of heat dumped into your case via the VRM components (and PSU). Ouch. I think I understand the giant aluminum I/O cover now.

Yeah, the reduced efficiency really shows its detriment with such a power hungry chip. I'd be curious if you would see the same scaling with the 9700K in the ITX vs ATX comparison, or if this is more a limitation of the non-linear effect of more current draw.

 

[tinyitx]

This highlights the poor power delivery on the ITX board. At stock CPU speed it needs 26W more than the ATX counterpart. That's an entire mobile CPU's worth of heat dumped into your case via the VRM components (and PSU). Ouch. I think I understand the giant aluminum I/O cover now.

I suppose, one just cannot have everything when choosing an ITX over an ATX. Sacrifices have to be made in exchange for a smaller size mobo over a larger one.

Or perhaps, it is not a case of 'poor delivery vs good delivery' but rather a case of 'good delivery vs even better delivery'. And I think this is the perspective of overclock3d as their summary says:-
''...Unquestionably the biggest element to the Z390 Strix ITX is how well it overclocks. We thought that the Strix-E was impressive pushing our Core i9-9900K to 5 GHz across all eight cores, and indeed it is, but ASUS successfully obtaining this level of overclocking on a motherboard that has a greatly reduced footprint and thus smaller power phase area and heat sink capability to keep them cool is nothing short of spectacular. The results also bear out this impressive level of performance with almost nothing to pick between the two Strix motherboards...''

i9 9900K and Asus Z390i is exactly my setup. I will see how this rig is going to warm my room in this winter (even though it is usually not very cold here in subtropical Sourthern China).

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Update: Ian at AnandTech clarified the situation to me on Reddit. Sometime between the numerous reviews, he had changed the power consumption testing methodology to use POV-Ray instead of Prime95. In relation to this, as explained on Twitter, he has also issued a change in his article's power test. In this change, he has switched to an MSI motherboard due to the ASRock board's over-ambitious voltage swings. Here is the updated page, as well as the chart directly below: