Slashdot Mirror
Intel Debuts 9th-Gen Core Chips, Including Core i9 and X-Series Parts, With a Few Twists (pcworld.com)
Intel unveiled its 9th-generation Core desktop chips, with the notable omission of a key feature: Hyper-Threading, at least on all but the most exclusive Core i9-9900K for mainstream PCs. Hyper-Threading has also been reserved for a new iteration of Intel's X-series processors, which includes up to 18 cores and 36 threads. From a report: In a livestream Monday morning from its Fall Launch Event in New York, the company announced just a single Core i9 chip, the $488 Core i9-9900K. Later, the company privately revealed two others in the Core i7 and Core i5 families. Intel also announced a new series of X-class chips, ranging from 8 cores and 16 threads through 18 cores and 36 threads. Prices will range from $589 to $1,979.
It's certainly fair to say that Intel surprised us all with the unexpected shift of its upcoming 28-core chip to the Xeon family, as well as the announcement of the X-series chips, too. And what's the deal with hyperthreading? Intel's announcement certainly adds some new topics to talk about in the months ahead. Part of the confusion was due to what Intel was expected to announce: a family of new 9th-gen chips, from Core i3s up through the Core i9, and how it did so. On the publicly available livestream, the company revealed only the presence of the Core i9-9900K, as well as the presence of the new X-series parts. Later, after the livestream had concluded, Intel fleshed out the remaining members of the K-series parts, and disclosed the price and performance of the X-series parts.
However, Intel didn't even mention what many enthusiasts wanted to know: why only the i9-9900K, out of all of Intel's mainstream parts, boasts the Hyper-Threading feature. Further reading: Intel claims best gaming processor with 9th Gen Core unveiling.
It's certainly fair to say that Intel surprised us all with the unexpected shift of its upcoming 28-core chip to the Xeon family, as well as the announcement of the X-series chips, too. And what's the deal with hyperthreading? Intel's announcement certainly adds some new topics to talk about in the months ahead. Part of the confusion was due to what Intel was expected to announce: a family of new 9th-gen chips, from Core i3s up through the Core i9, and how it did so. On the publicly available livestream, the company revealed only the presence of the Core i9-9900K, as well as the presence of the new X-series parts. Later, after the livestream had concluded, Intel fleshed out the remaining members of the K-series parts, and disclosed the price and performance of the X-series parts.
However, Intel didn't even mention what many enthusiasts wanted to know: why only the i9-9900K, out of all of Intel's mainstream parts, boasts the Hyper-Threading feature. Further reading: Intel claims best gaming processor with 9th Gen Core unveiling.
I just built a ryzen 2600/vega 64 system. There's literally nothing wrong with it. It never crashes. the CPU gets 1300 cinebench, and games better than my i5 haswell did(ryzen has faster single-thread than the i5 too). the vega is rock solid and trades blows with a GTX1080/RTX2070. Witcher 3 runs fluid smooth at 4k max settings. I mostly game at 1440p though so this should last me the next 5-6 years. You may have PTSD from ATI, but AMD has been good for GPU's since the 290x, and good for CPU's since ryzen.
Single-threaded benchmarks put Zen and *Lake at the same IPC. AMD wins some benchmarks, Intel wins some. That's why Intel had to shit out these high-clock parts - while first-gen Ryzen had a pretty low clock ceiling, second-gen Ryzen matched the contemporary eighth-gen Core series. These chips here are only faster than Ryzen in single-threaded performance because they're clocked to the absolute limit.
And across the entire spectrum, AMD is matching or winning on core count, and treats SMT as a near-standard feature (only excluded on the bottom-end R3s) instead of a top-end halo feature (now present only on i9s).
Anyone making emotional decisions when buying computer hardware will probably wind up being disappointed. Explaining to people today why they should chose AMD when they reference "being burned by ATI" is probably a wasted effort. Since you know, ATI hasn't existed in about a decade as an independent company.
AMD is a proven viable option on at least the CPU front (and really not that bad on the dGPU front, if you can find a decent deal on RX Vega 64). Anyone who doesn't know that today has their head in the sand.