CPU Intel Core 9000 Series Processors Discussion
- Thread starter Hifihedgehog
- Start date
I'd still be inclined to wait for further verification of Intel's 10nm process' demise. Everyone reporting seems to point back to the same SemiAccurate.com article, but I have yet to see anyone independently corroborate this yet. And if true, while I am all for more parity in the CPU market space, I hope this wouldn't lead to AMD going the Intel route of innovation stagnation if they obtain the process advantage.
^ This. Unless they have a good start on 7nm to where it’s so close to the same stage as 10nm, I don’t see this happening.
To be confirmed (especially as 2 weeks ago it was annouced for June 2019)...as 10nm was supposed to arrive by 2015...it's a major issue for Intel, especially they were so in advance vs competition on 22nm, 14nm...somehow lack of competition is sometimes very bad, and not in ways we can think/foreseen.
What we need is 14.0001 nm +++++ from Intel.
I don't find the 9000-series quite interesting. It's like how Toyota is squeezing another year out of the Sienna platform, except for 14nm. I mean, it's competitive, and that's good, but it really isn't that different in gaming from an 8700K. This is simply my opinion. (also, power consumption is through the roof under load at 5GHz, temperatures are not ideal because of Intel's Skylake-style architecture (which is why solder is required), etc.
I'm actually kinda disappointed since processors are moving forward fairly fast and I just bought a new computer this year. I can't afford PCs every year, so yaay.
I don't find the 9000-series quite interesting. It's like how Toyota is squeezing another year out of the Sienna platform, except for 14nm. I mean, it's competitive, and that's good, but it really isn't that different in gaming from an 8700K. This is simply my opinion. (also, power consumption is through the roof under load at 5GHz, temperatures are not ideal because of Intel's Skylake-style architecture (which is why solder is required), etc.
I'm actually kinda disappointed since processors are moving forward fairly fast and I just bought a new computer this year. I can't afford PCs every year, so yaay.
As a dev I know that my statement is exaggerated, but as someone who saw the realease of all Intel CPU since the 80286 series .... CPU are boring nowadays.
Even if they have been the underdog for over a decade, I enjoyed watching AMD trying new things.
Intel and its Core family, on the other hand, has only been worth spending 10mn per new release to read a review. Even without reading them, one could easily bet on a 5-10% perf increase, a new socket and/or a new chipset.
My opinion is biased because I grew up with technology improvement (born in 1980 and had my first computer at 9, an Amiga2000). Saw CPU going from 8MHz to 5GHz, single core toany cores, a few KB of memory to whopping Gigs, small 10" monochrome CRT screens to walls of 40" arrays, software CPU rendered games running @ 320x200 pixels to million of pixels worth GPU accelerated scene with real-time raytracing.
I'm really grateful that I was able to experience all of this, but on the other hand I do not feel the excitement I had back then with most of the new techs.
Or maybe I'm turning into a grumpy "it was better before" old man
.... Please no.
Bets are opened...
Intel cannot admit any issues on 10nm as it will scare all investors.
Thus let’s wait for 2019...wait and see as we say..
Bets are opened...
Intel cannot admit any issues on 10nm as it will scare all investors.
Thus let’s wait for 2019...wait and see as we say..
Intel has admitted they have problems with 10nm. Only one chip came out this year with it, but they’ve said next year will be the year they really start to rolll them out.
But it will be interesting to see how far AMD can push Zen2 and maybe, just maybe take the crown.
Edit: small note, but did anyone preorder launch day from amazon have their chips sent yet?
Meta analysis of 9600K vs 9900K.
Take away:
Conclusion:
- Data compiled from GURU3D, Anandtech, and Hardware.info, no vetting was involved.
- Used average FPS comparing 9900K vs 9600K
Take away:
- The zone here seems to be around 110 FPS mark. Here the 9600K and 9900K are very closely matched, offering less than 5% difference for half the price. Below 80 FPS, there was no discernible difference between the CPUs, as all games became GPU bottlenecked.
- At around 140 FPS the 9900K begins pulling away from the 9600K. This is likely due to clock speed and additional cores/threads required.
- There is a second data cluster around the 200-225 FPS. The 5% difference is likely due to the 9900K being 5% clocked faster, so those games were purely single thread limited, as indicated by the outrageous FPS anyways.
Conclusion:
- If you game near 60 FPS and/or at high RES, get the Ryzen 2600 and save the money
- If you game 80-140 FPS, get the 9600K
- If you game above 140 FPS, have the monitor and a high end GPU to match, get the 9700K. Though even at 140, the difference is only 5% vs 9600K.
- If you run out of things to spend money on, get the 9900K
Last edited:
I
Ionrent
Guest
You're certainly entitled to spending as you wish. Some people spend it on booze. Some on avocado toast. Some on the latest and greatest pc parts.
Intel artificially create a high used market value by reducing forward compatibility with motherboard and cpu, thus limiting supply for people with older generations. They will never decrease MSRP even the in the face of terrible value (see i5-6500 at $200 vs ryzen 1600 at $200). It also didn't help there was no real improvements until this last two Gen, so it kept cpu values high.
AMD's low used market cost is their willingness to reduce pricing based on supply and market conditions and the forward compatibility of AM4 ensures amble motherboard supply.
Intel situation may be useful in keeping up with the latest upgrades due to retaining value. AMD on the other hand is more typical of the used market, benefiting those who don't upgrade as often or those who do halfway through a cycle.
I
Ionrent
Guest
Similar threads
