Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intel officially launches Sky Lake Refresh Refresh Refresh

124»

Comments

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,461
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.
    I'm using my home PC for both gaming and working, and for that, Intel is still the best.
    Cinebench means little compared to real world applications.

    Yeah if I had to build a renderfarm I'd use AMD. But I'm not.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,920
    Depends on what work you do.  My audio programs crave more and more threads.   Next computer for me will be AMD.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.
    Let's put that into context.  Ever since the launch of Ryzen, Cinebench has been a very favorable benchmark to AMD.  It existed and was commonly used in CPUs well before Ryzen launched, so it's not like it's a benchmark created by AMD, but it is more favorable to AMD than most other benchmarks.

    Cinebench has two versions:  single-threaded and multi-threaded.  The latter scales well to many CPU cores.  On Anandtech, a Core i7-9900K beats a Ryzen 7 2700X by 23% at the single-threaded version and 26% at the multi-threaded one.  The Intel CPU also uses a lot more power than the AMD one, so it's not like this performance comes for free.  But for Zen 2 to win outright at the latter is a major improvement over the Ryzen 7 2700X.

    It's nearly guaranteed that Zen 2 is going to be a lot more energy efficient at load than Coffee Lake, largely because of the process node.  So while it's likely that AMD will still have a modest single-threaded performance deficit, it's also likely that AMD is able to keep the eight-core turbo clocks closer to the single-core turbo than Intel is able to when pushing all those cores precisely because it uses so much less power.  That's probably how AMD wins at Cinebench.

    But there are two other things that are critical to remember.  One is that Intel charges a lot for that Core i7-9900K.  If you can't afford to spend over $500 on a CPU and buy something that tops out at 4.0 GHz rather than the 5.0 GHz of the Core i7-9900K, Intel's single-threaded performance advantage nearly vanishes.  Most people shop for the best CPU (or GPU or whatever) in a particular price range, not the best without regard to price.

    The other issue is the Zen 2 dies that have been announced are primarily a server product, not a desktop one.  AMD isn't ignoring the desktop market, but it's not their primary focus here.  That reduced power consumption (due largely to the process node) means that AMD can pack in a lot more CPU cores for server workloads that scale well to many cores.  That's where AMD is going to below Intel out of the water.  Intel will still be competitive on desktops after Zen 2 launches, at least if you don't care much about power consumption.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    DMKano said:
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.

    I fall into - "buy best gaming CPU" dont' care if it's Intel/AMD

    There are definitely people who stick to one brand.

    As far as "intel" people - I guess there are many of those who only stick to Intel as that's all they've ever used - there are simply way more people like this, than AMD people who only use AMD cpu - especially in the desktop market.

    Intel's desktop market share is over 85% - AMD has their work cut out for them in that segment.
    Broadly agree, however, over the years I have found that the total thermal output from an AMD based system is consistently, and significantly, higher than Intel based systems. And with summer temperatures in the high 30's ( over 100 Fahrenheit) this is an important consideration. Run a couple of AMD boxes in a small room and you are going to want a dedicated room air conditioner.
    Ozmodan
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    edited January 2019
    DMKano said:
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.

    I fall into - "buy best gaming CPU" dont' care if it's Intel/AMD

    There are definitely people who stick to one brand.

    As far as "intel" people - I guess there are many of those who only stick to Intel as that's all they've ever used - there are simply way more people like this, than AMD people who only use AMD cpu - especially in the desktop market.

    Intel's desktop market share is over 85% - AMD has their work cut out for them in that segment.
    Broadly agree, however, over the years I have found that the total thermal output from an AMD based system is consistently, and significantly, higher than Intel based systems. And with summer temperatures in the high 30's ( over 100 Fahrenheit) this is an important consideration. Run a couple of AMD boxes in a small room and you are going to want a dedicated room air conditioner.
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Quizzical said:
    DMKano said:
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.

    I fall into - "buy best gaming CPU" dont' care if it's Intel/AMD

    There are definitely people who stick to one brand.

    As far as "intel" people - I guess there are many of those who only stick to Intel as that's all they've ever used - there are simply way more people like this, than AMD people who only use AMD cpu - especially in the desktop market.

    Intel's desktop market share is over 85% - AMD has their work cut out for them in that segment.
    Broadly agree, however, over the years I have found that the total thermal output from an AMD based system is consistently, and significantly, higher than Intel based systems. And with summer temperatures in the high 30's ( over 100 Fahrenheit) this is an important consideration. Run a couple of AMD boxes in a small room and you are going to want a dedicated room air conditioner.
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
    I said total thermal output and that is what I meant, for a given amount of "work" AMD systems have a significantly higher total thermal output.
    Ozmodan
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Quizzical said:
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
    I said total thermal output and that is what I meant, for a given amount of "work" AMD systems have a significantly higher total thermal output.
    The laws of physics don't care what logo is on the box that a CPU came in.  It turns out that they do care tremendously about things like voltage, current, capacitance, and resistance.  What you likely mean is that doing a given amount of work uses more power on an inferior process node than it would on a better one.  For decades, AMD has been stuck on process nodes that were inferior to Intel's.  That, and not the logo on the box, is probably what led to your observation.  This year, that's going to flip around and AMD will be on a superior process node to Intel for the first time ever.

    The process node isn't the only thing that affects power output, of course.  Some architectures are simply better than others, and AMD's Bulldozer architecture, or going back further, Intel's NetBurst (Pentium 4 and Pentium D) were notorious power hogs.  But right now, AMD and Intel are about even on architectural goodness.  It's certainly close enough that if either side were a full process node ahead, they'd win by a lot on efficiency.

    Unless the issue is that you don't realize that thermal output is the same as power consumption.  That's just conservation of energy.

    Or if you're talking specifically about chipsets as opposed to CPUs, then you have a point, but probably don't realize what it is.
    Ridelynn13lakecraftseeker
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Quizzical said:
    DMKano said:
    Ozmodan said:
    This is the reason I am waiting for for the Zen 2, 7nm chips from AMD:

    https://www.hardocp.com/news/2019/01/11/amd_cinebench_benchmark_demo_at_ces_2019_buries_current_intel_lineup/

    Read it and weep for you Intel people.

    I fall into - "buy best gaming CPU" dont' care if it's Intel/AMD

    There are definitely people who stick to one brand.

    As far as "intel" people - I guess there are many of those who only stick to Intel as that's all they've ever used - there are simply way more people like this, than AMD people who only use AMD cpu - especially in the desktop market.

    Intel's desktop market share is over 85% - AMD has their work cut out for them in that segment.
    Broadly agree, however, over the years I have found that the total thermal output from an AMD based system is consistently, and significantly, higher than Intel based systems. And with summer temperatures in the high 30's ( over 100 Fahrenheit) this is an important consideration. Run a couple of AMD boxes in a small room and you are going to want a dedicated room air conditioner.
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
    I said total thermal output and that is what I meant, for a given amount of "work" AMD systems have a significantly higher total thermal output.
    Not true at all.  I have had multiple AMD systems running in my apartment and noticed no increase in temperature.  The new Zen 2 cpus according to what we know we run even cooler.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Interesting test by HardOCP shows a 7700k CPU outperforming a 9900k CPU in Battlefield V.  It also shows how much ray tracing degrades performance even with a 2080ti.  Makes a good point these games are far more GPU limited than CPU.

    https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/13/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_i99900k_cpu_testing/1

    Even in 1080p, ray tracing is a bit too demanding at this point in time.  Can't imagine how bad ray tracing would be with a 2060.

    So for a gamer, the 9900K seems like a big waste of money.
    Ridelynnblueturtle13
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,695
    Ozmodan said:
    Interesting test by HardOCP shows a 7700k CPU outperforming a 9900k CPU in Battlefield V.  It also shows how much ray tracing degrades performance even with a 2080ti.  Makes a good point these games are far more GPU limited than CPU.

    https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/13/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_i99900k_cpu_testing/1

    Even in 1080p, ray tracing is a bit too demanding at this point in time.  Can't imagine how bad ray tracing would be with a 2060.

    So for a gamer, the 9900K seems like a big waste of money.
    7700K was overclocked. I don't think it's that surprising, rather it shows that single core performance is still important, and both Intel and AMD pack their best processors with more cores than most games can take advantage of.

    Ridelynn
     
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    edited January 2019
    The difference between the 6000, 7000, 800 and 9000 series Intel processors is ... the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9. Those are all Skylake-based, and the differences are minimal generation over generation. Hence Quiz's title for the OP - Skylake Refresh Refresh Refresh.

    So you would completely expect that, between any of those CPUs, that whichever one has the clock speed advantage would come up the winner in a core-limited race. And that's what HardOCP showed - the 7700 was OCed faster than the 9900 stock, and the benchmarks tell the story.

    nVidia's (maybe not the company itself but at least the white knights) were claiming that Raytracing was supposed to be run on a 9000 series CPU and the testing HardOCP did with a 7000 series was invalid because of that. The HardOCP team also knows these are all Skylake CPUs... and they did the testing to prove that ... no, that wasn't what was limiting Raytracing performance, and that for a given architecture clock speed is going to win out if core count isn't the deciding factor.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,461
    edited January 2019
    Ridelynn said:
    The difference between the 6000, 7000, 800 and 9000 series Intel processors is ... the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9. Those are all Skylake-based, and the differences are minimal generation over generation.
    I've experiences them all first hand, and therefore I can assure this is wrong.

    Between 6700k and 7700k, little difference. There you got a point.
    Between 7700k and 8700k, appreciable boost.
    Between 8700k and 9700k, appreciable boost, larger than between 7700 and 8700.

    All my CPUs are boosted the same way, max turbo speed all the time including with all cores.

    I'm only talking about gaming here, as this forum is all about.
    blueturtle13
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,698
    Ridelynn said:
    The difference between the 6000, 7000, 800 and 9000 series Intel processors is ... the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9. Those are all Skylake-based, and the differences are minimal generation over generation.
    I've experiences them all first hand, and therefore I can assure this is wrong.

    Between 6700k and 7700k, little difference. There you got a point.
    Between 7700k and 8700k, appreciable boost.
    Between 8700k and 9700k, appreciable boost, larger than between 7700 and 8700.

    All my CPUs are boosted the same way, max turbo speed all the time including with all cores.

    I'm only talking about gaming here, as this forum is all about.
    Ridelynn said:
    The difference between the 6000, 7000, 800 and 9000 series Intel processors is ... the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9. Those are all Skylake-based, and the differences are minimal generation over generation.
    I've experiences them all first hand, and therefore I can assure this is wrong.

    Between 6700k and 7700k, little difference. There you got a point.
    Between 7700k and 8700k, appreciable boost.
    Between 8700k and 9700k, appreciable boost, larger than between 7700 and 8700.

    All my CPUs are boosted the same way, max turbo speed all the time including with all cores.

    I'm only talking about gaming here, as this forum is all about.
    Agreed. I went from an i7 7700K to an i7 8700k and have noticed enough difference to say it was worth it.
    I mean it was a motherboard upgrade that lead to the upgrade to begin with but still. I’m more than happy with the difference. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
    I said total thermal output and that is what I meant, for a given amount of "work" AMD systems have a significantly higher total thermal output.
    The laws of physics don't care what logo is on the box that a CPU came in.  It turns out that they do care tremendously about things like voltage, current, capacitance, and resistance.  What you likely mean is that doing a given amount of work uses more power on an inferior process node than it would on a better one.  For decades, AMD has been stuck on process nodes that were inferior to Intel's.  That, and not the logo on the box, is probably what led to your observation.  This year, that's going to flip around and AMD will be on a superior process node to Intel for the first time ever.

    The process node isn't the only thing that affects power output, of course.  Some architectures are simply better than others, and AMD's Bulldozer architecture, or going back further, Intel's NetBurst (Pentium 4 and Pentium D) were notorious power hogs.  But right now, AMD and Intel are about even on architectural goodness.  It's certainly close enough that if either side were a full process node ahead, they'd win by a lot on efficiency.

    Unless the issue is that you don't realize that thermal output is the same as power consumption.  That's just conservation of energy.

    Or if you're talking specifically about chipsets as opposed to CPUs, then you have a point, but probably don't realize what it is.
    Thanks for the condescension. Yes I am entirely aware of the physics, probably better than you, having worked in hardware development. But my point is that while both brands are capable of excellent performance, historically systems built with AMD CPU's have a higher measurable thermal output. And this has an impact on room temperature. Glad to hear that AMDs latest generation may reverse that.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Ridelynn said:
    The difference between the 6000, 7000, 800 and 9000 series Intel processors is ... the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9. Those are all Skylake-based, and the differences are minimal generation over generation.
    I've experiences them all first hand, and therefore I can assure this is wrong.

    Between 6700k and 7700k, little difference. There you got a point.
    Between 7700k and 8700k, appreciable boost.
    Between 8700k and 9700k, appreciable boost, larger than between 7700 and 8700.

    All my CPUs are boosted the same way, max turbo speed all the time including with all cores.

    I'm only talking about gaming here, as this forum is all about.
    You're basically observing that if you take the same cores as before, but add more of them and clock them higher, performance goes up, albeit at the expense of higher power consumption.  That's true as far as it goes, but can't drive long-term improvements.

    You don't need multiple generations of chips to make that comparison.  Just go from a Core i3-8300 to a Core i5-8500 to a Core i5-8600K to a Core i7-8700K and you'll observe about the same thing.  Add more cores and higher clock speeds and performance goes up, at the expense of more power consumption.

    Intel could have offered 8 core CPUs in their mainstream 7000 series ("Kaby Lake").  They offered a lot more than that in their Xeons and in their HEDT line.  They just chose not to.  They could have encouraged motherboard vendors to be more aggressive with turbo and ignore the TDP.  They just chose not to.  Taking off such limitations does allow improved top end performance, at the expense of greatly increased power consumption.

    But that's kind of like Nvidia launching a GeForce RTX 3000 series that consists of the 2000 series higher clock speeds and greatly improved coolers to handle all of that extra heat.  Faster, yes, but not really the generational uplift that you were hoping for.  If the real 3000 series is on 7 nm, then it will be disappointing if they can only improve top end performance by 20%.
    Ridelynn13lake
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    Being a process node behind typically means that every time a transistor does something, it uses about 40% more power than if you weren't behind.  For decades, AMD has been behind on process nodes.  This year, if Zen 2 launches around the middle of this year as AMD says it will, AMD is going to be ahead on process nodes for the first time ever.  And that means that if your goal is to keep load power consumption down at a given level of performance, AMD will be your only option for the CPU.  Possibly also the GPU, if Navi is good, at least until Nvidia gets to 7 nm.  Rumors say that Nvidia won't get there until 2020.
    I said total thermal output and that is what I meant, for a given amount of "work" AMD systems have a significantly higher total thermal output.
    The laws of physics don't care what logo is on the box that a CPU came in.  It turns out that they do care tremendously about things like voltage, current, capacitance, and resistance.  What you likely mean is that doing a given amount of work uses more power on an inferior process node than it would on a better one.  For decades, AMD has been stuck on process nodes that were inferior to Intel's.  That, and not the logo on the box, is probably what led to your observation.  This year, that's going to flip around and AMD will be on a superior process node to Intel for the first time ever.

    The process node isn't the only thing that affects power output, of course.  Some architectures are simply better than others, and AMD's Bulldozer architecture, or going back further, Intel's NetBurst (Pentium 4 and Pentium D) were notorious power hogs.  But right now, AMD and Intel are about even on architectural goodness.  It's certainly close enough that if either side were a full process node ahead, they'd win by a lot on efficiency.

    Unless the issue is that you don't realize that thermal output is the same as power consumption.  That's just conservation of energy.

    Or if you're talking specifically about chipsets as opposed to CPUs, then you have a point, but probably don't realize what it is.
    Thanks for the condescension. Yes I am entirely aware of the physics, probably better than you, having worked in hardware development. But my point is that while both brands are capable of excellent performance, historically systems built with AMD CPU's have a higher measurable thermal output. And this has an impact on room temperature. Glad to hear that AMDs latest generation may reverse that.
    Sorry.  In my defense, the comment I replied to was kind of baffling as a reply to the comment you quoted.

    It's not so much that AMD has greatly improved as that Intel has simply stalled.  The move to Ryzen didn't give AMD an architectural lead; it only made them competitive again, and they've been competitive on architecture plenty of times before.  The real difference is that AMD has been able to keep advancing on process nodes, while Intel has stalled, as they've been stuck on 14 nm since 2015 and won't be able to move on until around the end of this year.
    craftseeker
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,461
    Sorry, but physical cores in the 9700k are more efficient than in the 8700k.
    Ozmodan
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Sorry, but physical cores in the 9700k are more efficient than in the 8700k.
    They're the same architecture on the same process node.  The differences are eight cores rather than six, hyperthreading disabled, different clock speeds, and likely different voltages.  There might be some slight tweaks for efficiency, as a new die does implicitly let you do a base layer respin.  (Or perhaps force you to is the better way to put it.)  But the 8700K was already a very mature architecture on a very mature process node;
    OzmodanAsm0deus
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    8700k -- 

    Passmark single thread @ 4.7 - 2703
    Passmark multicore 6 w/SMT @ 3.7 - 15959

    9700k --
    Passmark single thread @ 4.9 - 2822
    Passmark multicore 8 (no SMT) @ 3.6 - 17235

    So what's the difference here? The 9700 does look more efficient - look, higher multicore score with fewer threads (8 vs 12)!

    But... look at single core score - pretty much in line. 4% increase in clock speed, 4% increase in bench score.

    SMT cores are traditionally worth about 40% of a single full core.. so we would expect the 8700k to act about like an 8 or 9 core CPU without SMT, but we are still seeing higher scores with the 9700k.

    Remember, on the 9000 series, Intel changed the TDP rules, so the 9700k is able to pull a lot more power than the 8000 for same workloads. This additional power under fully loaded conditions due to change in power profile/TDP is what is accounting for the big difference. The 9700k 95W TDP is actually pulling closer to 140W in this case - a sizable jump in power over what the 8700k would be allowed to pull under stock conditions.

    That's why the 9700k looks like it's more "efficient" - it's not, it's just much better at auto-overclocking. The per-core architecture and IPS is virtually identical between the two.
    QuizzicalOzmodanTorval13lakeAsm0deus
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,461
    edited January 2019
    Ridelynn said:


    That's why the 9700k looks like it's more "efficient" - it's not, it's just much better at auto-overclocking. The per-core architecture and IPS is virtually identical between the two.
    I certainly used the wrong term with "efficient", but the 9700k is just a more powerful CPU than the 8700k. And not just because he can clock higher.

    Ridelynn said:
    This is the 9900k...
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,652
    Ridelynn said:


    That's why the 9700k looks like it's more "efficient" - it's not, it's just much better at auto-overclocking. The per-core architecture and IPS is virtually identical between the two.
    I certainly used the wrong term with "efficient", but the 9700k is just a more powerful CPU than the 8700k. And not just because he can clock higher.

    Ridelynn said:
    This is the 9900k...
    It is what I said it was:  they got more performance by having more cores clocked higher, and it came at the expense of burning more power.  That's all that there is to it, as other than that they disabled hyperthreading on the 9700K, the cores themselves are identical.  If you were to disable hyperthreading on the 8700K, disable two cores on the 9700K, disable turbo on both, and fix them at the same clock speed, you'd get identical performance.
    RidelynnOzmodan13lake
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    edited January 2019
    9000 series = 8000 series, with better Turbo for auto-overclocking.

    Sure, there are SKUs with more cores, different HT configurations, etc. But it's the same core architecture.

    You can go back even farther than that - the core architecture differences between a 6000 and 9000 are miniscule.
    Ozmodan13lake
Sign In or Register to comment.