9900K. Potential saviour for 8K?


#21

To be honest you might as well wait for Zen 2 at that price. Zen 2 is only 6 months away and on 7nm there’s a pretty damn good chance it’s going to beat Intel on 14nm++++. 7nm Zen 2 is from-the-ground-up again, started 2 years into the development of Zen with their new found knowledge of chiplet architectures. Zen 2 is designed to compete with Intel’s 10nm processors, which have been delayed into 2020. I made a write-up about this awhile back about why this is so:

Intel processors cost more not just because Intel likes charging more, but because they are much, much more expensive to produce. Basically, AMD has a multi-die design, meaning one CPU is made up of multiple dies. Intel does not, and has not started work on, having a multi-die architecture - which would take them roughly 6-8 years to create from the ground up. Each silicon wafer is prone to errors, this is the “silicon lottery”. The smaller the die process, the more complex the manufacturing of said wafer becomes, and the more errors you will get per square inch. By Zen being a multi-die design, it has much smaller dies, meaning it’s less likely to have these errors affecting one die to the point of inoperability. If you do the math, this means that AMD gets about double the CPUs out of a single wafer, if not more, than Intel. This has always been Intel’s Achilles heel, and many analysts have said that it’s going to be impossible for Intel to get to 5nm, possibly even 7nm, for the performance desktop market. Intel was supposed to get to 10nm in 2014 according to their own roadmap, but we’ve barely gotten it now in low-end dual-core CPUs.

AMD’s Zen 2 engineering samples are currently clocking at 4.5GHz… and that’s an engineering sample. The IPC uplift is 15% per clock single-threaded which puts it above Intel, and the 7nm node gives a 60% power efficiency boost.

Unless you’ve got money to throw around, wait for Zen 2.


#22

And you get the easy upgradeability of the AMD socket. Something that Intel rather prohibits even without technical reasons just to make one more shill out money for the full platform.


#23

Not as much of an advantage to Zen 2 because AM4 only has garunteed support until 2020. However for people who want a computer ASAP for their Pimax it’s a good idea to go AM4 now with a Ryzen 5 series processor and upgrade to the top dog next year. Which ironically would still be cheaper than going Intel now.


#24

8700K is still good.

Intel claim in games something like 7-10% better than 8700K but up to 47% or so better than 6700K so it’s not that much better than 8700K.

For me big plus on the 9900K as SweViver says is the solder, something we’ve been asking for for years. So if you’re into overclocking the 9900K will destroy the 8700K unless you get a delidded one. I’ve always fancied air cooling as I felt the crappy paste under the IHS was the bottleneck for overclocking and never had the balls to delid but now who knows maybe water is the way to go to OC even higher.


#25

You would still need to get a new motherboard for Zen 2 doing that?


#26

Delidding is very easy, if I can do it with 5 thumbs per hand you can :relaxed:


#27

Do we know the IPC gain of the 9900K? My 8700K allready runs at 5.2K. I doubt intel managed an IPC gain that would result in noticable performance gains. Even the step from an i7 3700K at 4.6ghz to an 8700K at 5.2Ghz was a small one.


#28

That’s interesting Serinity and certainly for me you’re leaning on an open door because I was an AMD fan and all my builds were AMD without fail. Then they lost their way and Intel was/still is the only decent option.

But what you say fills me with intrigue. I know nothing about AMD anymore apart from the Zen is great in some areas but Intel wins for games.

If Zen2 is going to beat 9900K and is only 6 months away you can be damned sure I’ll wait!

Having said all this people were advising me to wait for Zen rather than buy my Intel and I’m glad I didn’t listen as it ended up disappointing in key areas for me.


#29

Yeah I’m sure it is. Certainly looks simple. But I just couldn’t be arsed. Now that Intel are built properly out the box it makes it so much more overclockable for everyone including scaredycats like me :slight_smile:


#30

Nope, Zen 2 releases next year. AM4 has support until 2020. I was just commenting that Ryzen / Athlon Zen 2 are likely the last chips on AM4. Zen 2+ and/or 3 will likely be on AM4+.


#31

Even if Zen did not beat intel at games, they still made them drop their prices.

Unless you have plenty of money, I would advise to wait even if you know for sure you will buy intel.


#32

Im not sure about the performance gains when in most videos i saw cpu and gpu usage was below 75%.
What’s the avg usage per core ingame?
What if you force the game to run in less threads?


#33

That’s interesting Serinity and certainly for me you’re leaning on an open door because I was an AMD fan and all my builds were AMD without fail. Then they lost their way and Intel was/still is the only decent option.

AMD never really “lost their way”, they were beaten down by Intel’s unethical and illegal business practices. This isn’t me being a fanboy before someone says it either, Intel’s offices in several countries were even raided by police. Intel was found guilty on several counts, but the damage was already done and Intel had already gained so much out of it. They put us in about a decade of slow innovation because AMD didn’t have the funds to compete anymore (remember how I said it takes 8 years to create a new CPU architecture? Nice coincidence eh?).

Zen was created with AMD’s then horrible budget in mind. The CCXes (each die) are all the same ‘template’ for silicon fabrication. Each one of these template plates costs nearly a billion to produce. They legitimately did not have enough money for more than one die type. That’s why AMD created infinity fabric, the lanes in the organic substrate that connect the CCXes. The highest end EPYC chip and lowest end Athlon chip use the same template (how neat is that?).

So by Intel being so violent and putting AMD in such a bad place, they ironically put AMD in a position to where they had to create an architecture so revolutionary and so cheap to produce that Intel will literally not be able to keep up.

Now, there are limits to the current implimentation of Ryzen. One of the biggest limitations being the lanes through the organic substrate, and another being the memory access. The memory speed also dictates the speed that infinity fabric runs at, which is why Ryzen is much more sensitive to memory speeds. AMD knew these limitations but didn’t have the funds to correct them, but now they do. Enter Zen 2. The memory controller / IO / etc. are all moved onto a separate die, with that die being surrounded by smaller dies that contain nothing but cores. This makes the core dies smaller, significantly increasing yields even further. The memory controller and such aren’t as sensitive to process size, so they’re likely on 22nm. This new approach allows for more dedicated space to a larger and more robust memory controller, a significant amount of more cache (there’s a rumored 400MB (!!!) cache EPYC processor), etc. This will need special routing and possibly an active interposer, one with logic built in.

http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~enright/micro14-interposer.pdf

http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~enright/Kannan_MICRO48.pdf

(pssst, look at the authors of the papers).

An active interposer with a reverse butter-donut method of routing wouldn’t cost them much more at all (potentially even cheaper) at higher core counts and would allow for significantly reduced latency as well (another problem that infinity fabric introduced).


#34

The difference in FPS between 8700k and 9900k will not be measurable for a use case like VR.
It’s a GPU bottleneck, the CPU won’t make your GPU faster.


#35

Yeah, the price of this chip is way lower than what I would have imagined based on below. I wonder what AMD will charge for the same performance.

£599
i9 9900K, Coffee Lake Refresh, 8 Core, 16 Thread, 3.6GHz, 5.0GHz Turbo, 16MB, 1200MHz GPU, 95W,

£1,099
i9 7900X, S 2066, Skylake-X, 10 Core, 20 Thread, 3.3GHz, 4.3GHz Turbo, 13.75MB, 44 Lane, 140W, CPU,

Price source


#36

AMD is currently charging $3,000 for something that beats out Intel’s $12,000 chip by a pretty significant margin, I’d say things are looking up :slight_smile:


#37

I don’t fully follow as some of it is a bit over my head. You’re saying AMD was limited in some way but now they have the funds to develop something that eradicates that limit so there’s every reason to believe this time they will beat Intel?

And I had no idea Intel did illegal stuff that cost AMD lots. I’ve just googled some of it and it looks complex.

But yeah, if there are clear reasons as you suggest that AMD may be on the way back this is brilliant news. I’ve hated the last few years with only Intel and it’s slow and expensive and minor increases. Good luck AMD. I may wait if only as a matter of principle… ! Let’s see if I can hold out that long.


#38

I assume that is the Xeon competitor EPYC?

There was a few interesting posts last month on the AMD reddit sub where server costs were put into context. One guy (claimed to be a buyer for a server farm) said that his server costs (more than just cpu’s) might be 7 million and a saving of 300K to switch to AMD is just not worth it for all the new risk it brings.

But to us desktop users, that’s a HUGE saving so lets hope it carries over to our desktop chips :slight_smile:


#39

Sort of yeah. They knew about the problems a few years into Zen but they didn’t have the money to fix them. So they split off another design team to commence work on Zen 2, an investment basically if Zen 1 succeeded they’d be able to afford Zen 2.

Yep, Intel did a TON of shady and downright illegal stuff. I highly recommend you give this video a watch: https://youtu.be/osSMJRyxG0k


#40

You have to be very careful there. CPU usage is only at 100% if every single core is running at the max.
If the game does not multithread to the max (wich basically no game does because it is hard to program and in many cases not useful) the CPU wont show 100% usage.
If you see 75% CPU usage your CPU will be working at it’s max on at least 1 thread in pretty much every case. Evoerclock it and it still shows 75% but better performance.