Intel Core i9-9900k 8c/16t, i7-9700K 8c/8t, i7-9600k 6c/6t 2nd Gen Coffee Lake CPU's + Z390

Just realize that what would be the name for Intel's new processor next year. It's already i9-9900k now. So it might be 10900K? Like Nvidia from GTX980 to GTX1080? Or Intel will use another naming system?

 

Ha, yeah, 10900K looks like garbage, surely they couldn't call it that! They'll have to come up with something else I think.

 

Exactly!

Intel 14nm Processors Face Shortages
Techpowerup.com Thursday, September 6th 2018 08:16

Intel's 8th generation Core desktop processors based on the company's 14 nm node are facing shortages in the market...

 

So 9900k will be 8/16 cores part like AMD Ryzen? I don't like HTT and most likely disabled by Win 10 just to force older Intel PC users (Pre Haswell) just to mitigate Spectre class exploits dubbed Reverse Spectre or something totally picked from Marvel or DC Comics.
Intel should go for 10/12 cores mainstream parts if they want to dethrone AMD's market share.

 

Well adding 2 cores/4 threads isn't exactly the same as bumping the clockspeed a couple hundred mhz and calling it a new product or refresh. AMD went full Intel on Ryzen+. No doubt Intel needs to get their **** together with the side channel attacks, but I don't think there has been a single documented attack yet has there? Also the first hardware fixes to the server market are coming with Cascade Lake.

 

The opposite of progress. Aka...deterioration, decline, retraction, decay, falling off, stoppage, turnaround or whatever you will call it. AMD crippling one of their coming Ryzen PRO SKUs: The top dog Pro 2700X will come with lower TDP and hence lower clock speed by 100-200 MHz compared to the non-Pro series. All the other Pro SKUs stand still.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...99-xeon-vs-epyc.805695/page-249#post-10791465

 

None know if there's actual spectre like code lurking inside our Intel PCs using stealth approach. Even if the PC was hacked Intel will simply blame user's browsing habits. They won't claim its compromised which will cause serious damage to Intel's rep.

 

Wow. Ryzen first gen taking a spanking.

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-refresh

"While we fully expected higher single-core performance simply by way of the 9700K rumored to be 200MHz faster than its Coffee Lake predecessor, we weren’t expecting a processor without hyper-threading to perform so well at multi-core tests. It seems inconceivable when the Intel Core i7-9700K has four fewer threads than the 8700K and eight fewer threads than the 2700X."

 

Bloody hell, my [email protected] does better than the Ryzen 1600 too! On that snowy map I'm pretty much always above 100fps, and it's my GPU which is the limiting factor on that map, as GPU load is always pegged at 100% (well 98-99% whatever), with about 70% average CPU load judging from HWInfo sensor graph. Same is true on Rotterdam, getting about 100-130fps, with GPU load pegged at 100%. I'm surprised not to see a higher CPU load % on both the Ryzen 1600 and also the 8600K when the GTX 1080ti is not being fully utilised at say 80% usage - I'd expect the game engine to be able to push the CPU's closer to 100% load when GPU is not the bottleneck - unless platform RAM speed & latency are becoming an issue, which we know is worse on Ryzen builds and that Ryzen CPU wasn't being pushed close to 100% either, less so than the 8600K, so that might explain the difference in performance.

As a side note, I'm not liking BF V in comparison to BF 1. Can't turn off the blurry TAA, I want to run without AA. Also, colours are oversaturated & looks like a cartoon. It also runs at lower fps at lower graphics settings and at poorer visual quality than BF1. There's not much of an atmosphere to the game either, it's 'flat'. The guns don't have much character in sound & feedback, which goes hand in hand with the cartoon feel of the game. You get I don't like it so far!

A respected member on Guru3d forums told me Geekbench doesn't support SMT (aka Hyperthreading), so that would explain why the 9700K did so well in comparison to the 8700K - the 9700K does not have hyperthreading, but instead 2 more real cores than the 8700K. I'd expect proper multi-threaded tests to show 8700K & 9700K tied when both operate at same clockspeed.

 

Wow yet another terrible showing for Ryzen 2nd Gen in BFV Beta. Seriously that is a large deficit in performance compared to even the 7700K quad core with Ryzen 2700X matching a 7600K performance wise.

The 2700X is 35% slower than the 8700K in average FPS at 1080p Ultra settings and scores 29% lower on maximum FPS. 35% is a huge gap and the difference between 144hz gaming and not.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

Core i9 9900K benchmark.

 

Ryzen 2700x vs "rumored" 9900k scores

Ryzen 2700x - Linux (see spoiler below for 2700x Windows scores)
Single-Core Score: 5694
Multi-Core Score: 34051
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8190535

"rumored" 9900k - Windows
Single-Core Score: 6248
Multi-Core Score: 33037
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

Ryzen 2700x - Linux
Single-Core Score: 5528
Multi-Core Score: 34922
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8488043

Ryzen 2700x - MacOS
Single-Core Score: 5623
Multi-Core Score: 32938
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9569782

There aren't any Ryzen 2800x scores... yet.

Spoiler: Corrected above, and below

This is the result I meant to select, based on highest single core 2700x score under Windows, but the multi-core is only on 2 cores, which is why I went to the next score - which turned out to be Linux (yeah!!):

Single-Core Score: 5695
Multi-Core Score: 5390
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8321921

Here is the next highest single core Windows 2700x score, but it's multi-core score isn't the highest:
Single-Core Score: 5664
Multi-Core Score: 31196
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8420471

Here is the highest multi-core Windows 2700x score, but the single core score isn't top score:
Single-Core Score: 5196
Multi-Core Score: 32487

For reference here is the "rumored" 9900k score again:
"rumored" 9900k
Single-Core Score: 6248
Multi-Core Score: 33037
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

 

Why post results from Ryzen 2700x - LinuxOS twice?

 

Those are Linux results, even your "Windows" result was Linux.

Highest Windows score reported...

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8406797

Multi 32487
Single 5196

 

6 core i7-8086K (Windows)
Multi 35836
Single 7395
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8760247

 

This is the result I meant to select, based on highest single core 2700x score under Windows, but the multi-core is only on 2 cores, which is why I went to the next score - which turns out to be Linux (yeah!!):

Single-Core Score: 5695
Multi-Core Score: 5390
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8321921

Here is the next highest single core Windows 2700x score, but it's multi-core score isn't the highest:
Single-Core Score: 5664
Multi-Core Score: 31196
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8420471

Here is the highest multi-core Windows 2700x score, but the single core score isn't top score:
Single-Core Score: 5196
Multi-Core Score: 32487

For reference here is the "rumored" 9900k score again:
"rumored" 9900k
Single-Core Score: 6248
Multi-Core Score: 33037
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

I fixed the Windows label to Linux on the previous post:

 

Or Win 7 (i7-8700K)
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/8300717

 

I fail to see the relevance of Linux or macOS results? Perhaps when there's a 9700k or 9900k score on either for comparison?

 

When the 9xxx release finally arrives (see below, it may be a while) Windows / Linux / MacOSX results will (hopefully) be there for comparison, until then I included scores for all 3 OS's for the 2700x as they are available now. I'll post the 2800x results vs 9900k results for all 3 OS's as well, eventually.

Intel can’t supply 14nm Xeons, HPE directly recommends AMD Epyc
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/intel-can’t-supply-14nm-xeons-hpe-directly-recommends-amd-epyc.822772/#post-10792159

 

Wait what 2800X? Has there been even a single shred of evidence that the 2800X exists and what exactly would change with it? It won’t be 7nm so I’m curious what AMD would release? Maybe a binned 2700X similar to the 8086K? But even then what binning could they do that wouldn’t have materialized in the wild in some 2700X CPUs?

A cherry 8700K is = or > an 8086K. Would the 2800X be a cherry 2700X?

 

I agree. He seems to be letting his heart get way ahead of his head, wishing AMD has a secret rabbit to pull from the hat. The TDP already had to be raised to handle the speeds of 2700x, and the best dies would have to be shared with 2990wx

 

Maybe @hmscott hope this is the real thing?
AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K?

Intel to outsource 14nm chip production due to tight supply
Monica Chen, Taipei; Jessie Shen, DIGITIMES | Monday 10 September 2018

"Intel intends to give priority to its high-margin products mainly server-use processors and chipsets amid its tight 14nm process capacity, and therefore plans to outsource the production of its entry-level H310 and several other 300 series desktop processors to TSMC, the sources indicated"

 

Review: Intel Core i7-9700K (Exclusive) (Google Translated)
BY IVÁN MARTÍNEZ - 09/10/2018
https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2018/09/intel-core-i7-9700k-review/

"... conclusion
Whether it is worth it or not, its acquisition will depend to a great extent on its price, which is estimated at around 440 euros (to which to add the dissipator).

If this quality comes true, it could not fight against the Ryzen 7 2700X in terms of performance / price...

Intel will therefore have to lower its price if it wants to offer more competition, because AMD has firmly planted its face and it seems that it is going for long."

This first ‘Intel Core i7-9700K review’ may uncover minor performance bump
By Kevin Lee 2018-09-10T19:44:05Z
https://www.techradar.com/news/this...00k-review-may-uncover-minor-performance-bump

"As if the Intel Coffee Lake Refresh leaks weren't widespread enough, the first review of the rumored Intel Core i7-9700K has appeared well ahead of its official announcement.

The very first Intel Core i7-9700K review comes by way of El Chapuzas Informatico, and it seems to confirm all the rumors we’ve heard thus far. This includes its 14nm architecture, 8-core/8-thread layout and complete lack of hyper-threading, as well as its maximum 4.9GHz boost clock on single-core (4.6GHz boost across all cores).

More importantly, the review allegedly contains complete benchmarks that show a disappointingly small improvement in performance over last-generation chips..."

Intel Core i7-9700K: 8-cores and no Hyper-Threading
El Chapuzas Informatico published a review of Coffee Lake Refresh processor almost 3 weeks ahead of expected launch.
Published: 10th Sep 2018, 12:14 GMT
https://videocardz.com/77872/intel-core-i7-9700k-review-posted-ahead-of-launch

"We have been asked by our Spanish friends to share a story with you. Apparently, they managed to secure an engineering sample of yet unreleased Intel Core i7-9700K processor and thought it would be a good idea to test it.

What makes this particular leak interesting is the fact that they even used an unnamed Z390 motherboard (to protect their source).

When it comes to overclocking, the CPU only managed to hit 5.0 GHz at 1.4V, which is probably not as high as we expected. We were told to share as many charts as we like, but I encourage you to check the full review as we are only sharing three..."



Source: El Chapuzas Informatico

 

Intel to outsource 14nm chip production due to tight supply
Monica Chen, Taipei; Jessie Shen, DIGITIMES | Monday 10 September 2018
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20180910PD210.html

" Intel has declined to comment on the reported move to outsource 14nm chips to TSMC."

Intel isn't commenting on outsourcing or TSMC, and Intel could use GlobalFoundries, as GF have extra capacity focusing on 12nm / 14nm immediate production instead of 7nm / 5nm futures.

Besides, Intel and GlobalFoundries are kindred spirits, having both failed at their Next Generation 10nm / 7nm fab projects.

Intel and GF can make s'mores and whittle 14nm wafers together around the bonfire of their 7nm / 10nm fabs.

Spoiler: Ahh great Intel, not again...

What concerns me most is that Intel, a proven cheater that pays off and strong-arm's companies to not use AMD components - Intel gave $100m's to Dell in particular to give priority to Intel builds - Intel is now giving who knows how much money and promises for future fab work to TSMC...to give priority to Intel builds??

If AMD's CPU's @ 7nm parts don't perform as the silicon TSMC is touting promises, that's gonna be a big problem.

"We gave all the best silicon to Intel, your honor" - TSMC @ some future hearing...(hopefully not)

I hope AMD is working with Samsung too...

 

Nice looks like it’s right where we expected it to be. When paired with a high end GPU the gaming differences will be notable (see BFV) and good samples at 5.2-5.3ghz should really do well in those heavy multithreaded workstation tasks. Now we just gotta see the 2700X competeing 8/16 threaded 9900K CPU which should hopefully be soon.

Unfortunately these “tests” are on a prerelease beta bios most likely with an ES CPU. Must be taken with a grain of salt. Will have to wait for proper benchmarks and release bios including overclocks and proper CPU gaming tests with the GPU bottleneck removed.

 

Intel Core i9-9900K 8 Core Flagship CPU’s 3DMark Timespy Benchmark Leaks Out – Stock Clocked 9900K Faster Than an Overclocked Ryzen 2700X-Techpowerup.com
The performance results show that at stock clocks, the Core i9-9900K 10,916 points and 36.68 FPS in the CPU tests on 3DMark Timespy. The chip was also tested by a different user with clock speeds of 4.8 GHz across all cores and that scored 11,459 points and 38.50 FPS in the CPU tests. Now when we compare these results to an overclocked AMD Ryzen 2700X at 4.45 GHz that seems to be the near limit of the AMD flagship 8 core processor, the chip scores 10,285 points and 34.56 FPS in the same CPU benchmark.

The Core i9-9900K is tested in 3DMark Timespy at both, a stock and overclocked frequencies. ( 3DMark Timespy Link)

Looking at the above-mentioned results, we can see that even at stock speeds, the Intel Core i9-9900K is ahead of it’s overclocked competitor. Another thing to note is that the overclocked CPU doesn’t score a whole lot more than the stock clocked Core i9-9900K. The reason being that the Intel Core i9-9900K already boosts to 4.7 GHz across all 8 cores so we are only looking at a 100 MHz bump with the overclock. Keeping that in mind, the score is good enough but we expect it to reach much higher with retail samples that would be able to hit clocks north of 5 GHz.

The 100Mhz clock speed bumb is equal + 1,021% Cpu performance over stock. And the overclocked results was near 5% performance increase in Physics score.

 

More Clarity on 9th Gen Core Processor Pricing Emerges Techpowerup.com | Wednesday, September 12th 2018

Intel is debuting its first wave of 9th generation Core desktop processors with three models later this year - the 6-core/6-thread Core i5-9600K, the 8-core/8-thread Core i7-9700K, and the 8-core/16-thread Core i9-9900K. We've been very curious about how the entry of the Core i9 extension to the mainstream-desktop LGA1151 platform would affect pricing of the Core i5 and Core i7 K-series SKUs, especially given that the i7-9700K is the first Core i7 SKU in a decade to lack HyperThreading. An updated catalog by a major Singapore-based PC components distributor adds more clarity.

Singapore-based PC component distributor BizGram, in its latest catalog, disclosed the all-inclusive retail prices of the three new processors. As Redditor Dylan522p suggests, if you do the SGD-USD conversion and subtract all taxes, you get ominous-looking SEP prices for the three. Intel could price the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99. The Core i7-9700K could be priced at $349.99. The flagship Core i9-9900K could go for $449.99. These seem like highly plausible pre-tax launch prices for the three chips, and fit into the competitive landscape.

At $250, the Core i5-9600K could blunt the slight price-performance edge the Ryzen 5 2600X has over the current i5-8600K, with its 2-3% performance increment. An early review of the Core i7-9700K is already out, which suggests that it could emerge the ultimate gaming CPU, with multi-threaded performance trading blows with the Ryzen 7 2700X. The Core i9-9900K could entice enthusiasts and quasi pro-sumers with its 16 MB L3 cache and 16-thread multi-threaded advantage. Given that AMD sought $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X at launch, $450 seems only fair.

 

I see no added clarity - just hope - these are fantasy prices, re-jiggered by guesses, and then he tries to fit them into a price competitive stance with AMD Ryzen?? Intel doesn't do that - unless they are really hitting their peak of desperation, I wouldn't count on these prices

These benchmarks don't pass the smell test - that last one with Timespy / 9900k - the Ryzen 2700x stock GPU scores were a lot higher than the stock 9900k GPU scores, so that smells wrong to start. If nothing else they didn't have a stable set up to use to post benchmark results.

We need to wait for the official pricing and independent comparisons for benchmarks to make purchasing decisions. As always.

 

We both know there is a differnce in performance between the cards. As well how they perform vs. Gpu temperature. Are they run with same cooler (water, air etc), + not same Win 10 build. Different drivers etc. You base your statement / facts on somewhat wrong premisses.

Of course. But you have no other choices than go for Intel if Performance, clock speed + overclock matters on Mainstream platform. If you want cheap... Go for Ryzen as always.

 

The focus is the CPU scores which are basically unaffected by GPU clocks, where the two 9900k results are ~6% and ~11% ahead of the 2700X result. GPU might be clocked differently from overclocks or a different AIB card in that middle result, hard to tell from reported clocks alone which are so often inaccurate

The 2700x result also appears to be overclocked, since its stock scores are 9000-9500 (depending on X370 vs X470 boost 2.0, water vs air cooled etc)

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,18.html

Appears those overclocked scores of the 9900K put a whooping on the 2700X, the Threadrippers and even the 7900X are beat out. Wow. Insanely good performance and those scores seem to line up nicely with these older benchmarks with an ES model.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel...bly-beats-the-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X.318704.0.html

 

Intel denies TSMC CPU outsourcing, relying on its own investment to cope with unexpected 14nm demand
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9f6a0g/intel_denies_tsmc_cpu_outsourcing_relying_on_its/

Wait_for_BM 18 hours ago
"But we have just received an official statement from Intel itself, which says: “ In response to the stronger than expected demand environment, we are continuing to invest in Intel’s 14nm manufacturing capacity.”

Investing in its own fab is a longer term strategy. That statement technically does not rule out that outsourcing could be a short term fix."

KKMX 51 points 17 hours ago
"Bingo. The statement was crafted in such way that it does NOT deny TSMC outsourcing. This article is idiotic".

TastyTreatsRTasty 40 points 17 hours ago
"This outlet is obviously noob status and not used to Intel Jedi mind tricks. Nowhere does Intel say it will NOT use TSMC. Intel owned them."

ThatsTheWordYo 9 points 12 hours ago
"waves hand This is not the outsourcing you are looking for"

Exist50 27 points 16 hours ago
"When a company so obviously goes out of its way to avoid contradicting the specific claim, it usually means there's truth to it."

DigiTimes: Intel To Outsource 14nm Chips To TSMC (Updated)
by Paul Alcorn September 10, 2018 at 10:50 AM, 21 COMMENTS
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-shortage-tsmc-outsource,37769.html

"UPDATE 10:45 PT 9/7/2018: Intel responded to our queries with the following nebulous statement (which does not deny outsourcing): “In response to the stronger than expected demand environment, we are continuing to invest in Intel’s 14 nm manufacturing capacity.”

We also spoke with representatives that indicated that Intel continues to use external foundries for some products, but would not elaborate on specific partners or products."

 

A.M.Dead. This thing is a freaking beast.

9900K 5.0Ghz all cores at 1.248v. We should see 5.3Ghz~ on top tier samples.

 

Interesting rumor from my Twitter feed. Intel, Intel, Intel.

https://twitter.com/CDemerjian/status/1040586902540378113

 

“Upcoming ~$450 CPU outperforms $320 CPU by 16%!!!”
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/9fzesx/upcoming_450_cpu_outperforms_320_cpu_by_16/

Barb0n 77 points 5 hours ago
"Correction “Upcoming ~$450 WATERCOOLED OC CPU outperforms $320 STOCK CPU by 16%!!!”"

Blacknightlll 44 points 5 hours ago
“Just buy it"

Barb0n 10 points 4 hours ago
"I love how the article specify that 0.5%"

BGummyBear 16 points 2 hours ago
"Further correction. “Upcoming ~$450 WATERCOOLED OC CPU outperforms $320 STOCK CPU by 16%!!! for about fifteen minutes until it thermal throttles itself to death"

Comments

MGALLO848 17 hours ago
"So:

Approx 16.5% faster then the R7 2700x
Costs approx 35-40% more than the R7 2700x

Threadripper 1920x price was lowered to $399 this week. I wonder how it compares to that for about the same money."

 

rofl

still, if there is any possibility to run this in my machine ill upgrade to the 9900K combo of soldered IHS + voltage improvements should allow for improved perf/w compared to KBL and CFL. not an intel fanboy, just want to maximize the life span of my beloved DM if i were to configure a new desktop right now id go for a 2950X with a 1080 Ti

 

I hear ya there. If you don't have to pay for other system components to upgrade, then this can make a fair bit of sense. But, double check if the VRM and inductors can handle the extra load from the 8-core at the higher clocks. Simple monitoring of the vrm temps (with a temp probe) and examination of power and current draw solves that.

As to the AMD system, sounds like my build, except I'm first gen and 980 Ti.

Yeah, that has been out for awhile. Once you combine it with their more recent statements on EUV adoption, etc., it looks even worse. Intel lost the process lead to TSMC. Full stop.

I expected higher numbers than 16%, closer to 20-25%. I'll withhold judgement until release, but that could effect when I recommend what on mainstream. Intel still has gaming, though (/s)

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

id expect to hit a thermal limit waaay before my VRMs come into play. so im guessing with a 9900K in this machine id have to use varying multipliers for different number of cores at load to get the most out of it plus an SL cherrypicked CPU is basically a must.

 

I think these are important considerations in evaluating compatibility with the new CPU. Saw this video today:



Not only is keeping VRMs cool going to be a factor, but also getting enough power into the motherboard. Several of the boards tested in that video failed the test due to current throttling.

 

Do I think the 4 phase could deliver the power needed? Yes. Do I think that it will pull more current and potentially effect the choke, which could cause more ripple? Yes. That latter part is more my concern than the former, although you do have a point on heat limitations. But, still, something to consider.

I did see this. I've got an Asrock X399 taichi and I think I'd have better performance here, but I watercool my VRM and don't really get above 40C on them much at all with an overclocked 1950X. Water cooling the VRM is DEFINITELY the difference here. I didn't like how hot they got with the block Asrock has for a cooler.

But, beyond that, the Asrock has the same power capabilities as the Asus (but no control of the phase). I haven't checked how hot my chokes get though. Which, as those go, the ripple increases and you can get power spikes into the CPU, which then can cause sudden death. Also, for general phase info, Buildzoid put up a decent video discussing the topic at his youtube channel actuallyhardcoreoverclocking


Also, for videos, when possible, go to youtube to watch, and watch through the ads so that these content providers can get some monetization, even if not much.

 

Hey, the 2 (that's a couple, not several) out of 4 motherboards that were designed for the new 2nd gen ThreadRipper CPU's worked great.

The motherboards that worked at stock settings with the 2990wx 32c/64t CPU were designed for the previous ThreadRipper #1 CPU's, with fewer cores than the 32c/64t 2990wx.

The 16c/32t 2950x is a better fit for those motherboards, being cheaper and suited for 1/2 the core/thread CPU's, and there is nothing wrong with them for that application.

Intel z370 motherboards were designed for the 6c/12t, so only the 9900k 8c/16t poses a larger power / cooling challenge, but that's nothing like doubling from 16c/32t to 32c/64t. Intel's slow pace of technology release plays into their favor for long generational CPU support, too bad they don't do that, until forced to by AMD progress.

Glad to see you are looking at AMD alternatives to Intel.

AMD's Ryzen CPU's (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPU's
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-512#post-10795435

 

The Z370 motherboards (for the most part) will be fine with the 8 and 8/16 chips. Although I will admit if I upgrade to the 8/16 9900K which is very likely, I plan to grab a Maximus Z390 board to go with it as I sort of cheaped out on my Z370 Strix board. Not that I can't hit high clocks, I feel that in some way my board is still a limiting factor and 100% holds back my memory overclocks. I didn't buy expensive 4200Mhz DDR4 to not use it fully. I use my Tornado F5 as a prime example. It was designed for 4/8 CPUs at most, but handles the 6/12 8700K and 8086K perfectly fine.

Motherboard manufactures did say back at Computex that some X399 boards would not handle the new Threadripper CPUs when overclocked. I reported this here back then, and seems it holds true. 7nm TR should fix this issue though and allow for forward compatibility.

 

The 9xxx CPU's were originally announced as 10nm Ice Lake parts, with a recent Intel promise of Ice Lake 10nm in end of 2019, now pushed out to 2020...with a new "Coffee Lake R put in it's place for 2019.

Leaked Intel Roadmap Hints At Coffee Lake R For 2019, 10nm Ice Lake Delayed To 2020
By Talha Amjad, September 19, 2018
https://segmentnext.com/2018/09/19/intel-roadmap-coffee-lake-r-2019/

"Intel has been having issues with the 10nm process, that is no secret and the chips that are going to come out this year, as well as the first half of 2019, will be based on the 14nm process for sure. Intel assured that the 10nm Ice Lake chipswill be out in the second half of 2019 but a new leaked Intel roadmap shows that the Ice Lake chips have been removed and replaced with Intel Coffee Lake R CPUs instead.

This means that the Intel 10nm process might be delayed to 2020. The process has been delayed time and time again and it would not be surprising if it was delayed yet again. Having that said, Intel is not only having issues with the 10nm process but with the production of 14nm chips as well.

Keeping in mind that the current generation of CPU use this process, which includes CPUs used not only by consumers but for the server market as well. Now the upcoming chips are going to use the same process so you can expect that there will be a shortage when it comes to yield and supply. You can check out the Intel roadmap below:



There is little that we know about the upcoming Intel Coffee Lake R CPUs but if the name is anything to go by then these upcoming chips will offer small improvements over the current Intel chips that we have on the market.

It is worth mentioning that these internal roadmaps often change and it is possible that the Ice Lake comes back on track in the near future but if Intel Coffee Lake R is going to come out next year then that certainly means that Ice Lake has been delayed and that other chips based on the 10nm process will come out in 2020 instead of 2019, as promised.

Let us know what you think about all this and whether or not you think Intel Coffee Lake R will replace Ice Lake in the roadmap for 2019."

 

Got a feeling this might have been posted a while back (not sure), but shortage of Intel CPUs likely at end of this year & into beginning of next - this is probably only gonna make 9700K/9900K even more expensive!
https://www.notebookcheck.net/JP-Morgan-Intel-are-running-short-of-CPUs-for-sale.331874.0.html

Combined with NVidia price gouging on their new upcoming RTX lineup and not too mention the ridiculous RAM prices at the moment, this is a real bad time from a wallet perspective to be building a new PC! I feel that any new PC building is best left to end of 2019/2020 when NVidia is likely having launched their next gen after Turing (smaller process node & refined what they have learned about ray tracing), when hopefully Intel and RAM manufacturers hopefully have their shizzle sorted too!

 

did you guys hear they will be using solder instead of TIM?

 

Yep.. Go back in the thread a little - http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-lake-cpus-z390.811225/page-11#post-10770364. Fast forward a bit - http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-lake-cpus-z390.811225/page-12#post-10771997 and you can pick it up from there.

 

There was a rumor a while ago, now a new rumor claim from a "laptop developer" has arrived today:

9900K and 9700K Will be Soldered
Wednesday September 19, 2018
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2018/09/19/9900k_9700k_will_be_soldered

"In a statement to OC3D, Canadian laptop developer Eurocom confirmed that the Intel 9900K and 9700K CPUs will be soldered to their IHS. When Intel launched their Ivy Bridge desktop CPUs, they switched from solder to a less thermally conductive TIM, and continued the tradition all the way to Coffee Lake. In August, Videocardz leaked some slides suggesting that Intel's next mainstream CPUs would be soldered, but that rumor wasn't confirmed by a PC manufacturer until now.

"New Intel i9-9900K and i7-9700K CPUs are coming with gold soldered TIM/IHS to the CPU die. This should help manage the temperatures of the higher-clocked CPUs and will also help with achieving higher overclocked frequencies. Our Sky "C" super-laptops are ready for 9900K/9700K."

Discussion"

 

News? 9900K was already delidded in August:

Spoiler

https://www.facebook.com/XFansHK/photos/a.292707514537998/490344574774290/?type=3&theater

Gold layer is also only very thin and only to have the actual solder make contact with the LID.
It's not gold solder.

 

The soldered IHS 9900k / 9700k info was posted here in July.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-lake-cpus-z390.811225/page-12#post-10771997

Yeah, I wondered about that detail myself, but doesn't that image from that facebook page you posted have a back drop of "goldish" material in tint?

Wait, so is that supposed to be a "pasted" IHS 9900k?

"9600K 9700K 9900K
finally used thermal grease . "

 

It's just a small film like they always do:

 

Wait, so is that supposed to be a "pasted" IHS 9900k?

"9600K 9700K 9900K
finally used thermal grease . " <== translated from the facebook post...

That can't be right, can it? How devastating... if true.