Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches 9th Generation Core Processors; Core i9-9900K Benchmarked (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Intel lifted the embargo veil today on performance results for its new Core i9-9900K 9th Gen 8-core processor. Intel claims the chip is "the best CPU for gaming" due to its high clock speeds and monolithic 8-core/16-thread design that has beefier cache memory (now 16MB). The chip also has 16-lanes of on-chip PCIe connectivity, official support for dual-channel memory up to DDR4-2666, and a 95 watt TDP. Intel also introduced two other 9th Gen chips today. Intel's Core i7-9700K is also an 8-core processor, but lacks HyperThreading, is clocked slightly lower, and has 4MB of smart cache disabled (12MB total). The Core i5-9600K takes things down to 6 cores / 6 threads, with a higher base clock, but lower boost clock and only 9MB of smart cache. In benchmark testing, the high-end Core i9-9900K's combination of Intel's latest microarchitecture and boost frequencies of up to 5GHz resulted in the best single-threaded performance seen from a desktop processor to date. The chip's 8-cores and 16-threads, larger cache, and higher clocks also resulted in some excellent multi-threaded scores that came close to catching some of Intel's many-core Core X HEDT processors in a few tests. The Core i9-9900K is a very fast processor, but it is also priced as such at $488 in 1KU quantities. That makes it about $185 to $225 pricier than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X, which is currently selling for about $304 and performs within 3% to 12% of Intel's 8-core chip, depending on workload type.
the list of different things going into the "Spectre" bucket keep growning
i7 is the new 85. I9 is the new i7. Pretty cynical of Intel. BTW, hyperthreading only speeds up Meltdown, but Meltdown still will get your passwords even without hyperthreading, it just takes a bit longer. This is because of the way cache is shared between processor cores.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Any chip that's old by "several years" would have at best pcie2, at roughly half the bandwidth per lane of pcie3.
Nonsense, CPUs with 16x 3.0 lanes were available more than 5 years ago.
https://ark.intel.com/products...
There is no excuse for 16 lanes in 2018.
That's $304 per SINGLE AMD processor, $488 per if you buy a thousand units of the Intel. Unless you're building a thousand computers this makes no sense to compare, and even then, the cost of the AMD processor goes down at those volumes too. This reveals a stupid level of bias in this article.
Please learn about the difference between PCIe3 and PCIe2
I have a 1080ti GPU that runs PCIe 3.0 @ 8x rather than 3.0 @ 16x due to the additional PCIe cards. Remove the cards and it runs 16x.
and the fact your motherboard chipset will give you more PCIe lanes.
Sure you could add a manifold to a 1" water pipe and get 4 1" pipes. It doesn't allow you to move 4x the water.
All desktop CPUs have had 16 lanes direct to the CPU since your generation CPU.
All desktop *Intel* CPUs that is. AMD processors have no such limit.
And you don't need ECC memory.
There is no basis to for you to conclude anything about me or my needs. You don't even know who I am. I demand ECC memory. My next system WILL have ECC no matter what.
Had to rerun jobs that spin all cores for months at a time due to subtle errors from bad ram not to mention wasting days of my time troubleshooting what turned out to be a hardware problem. Of course memtest never finds a problem even after 24hrs. I refuse to waste my time with this BS ever again.
Are you also going to fork over money for a Quadro graphics card with an ECC framebuffer?
No. I only use GPU for VR / goofing off playing video games. Don't much care if it glitches.