Base frequency is when the Tau moving window time has expired. How most modern high end motherboards set it to an effective unlimited time. Check the link to the TDP article.
If side-channel attacks only affected VMs, then we'd only have to use mitigations when running on them. If you choose to disable mitigations on your box, then you should be careful where you point a web browser.
Great article, sadly I missed the link to it in my first read. The way you guys center links like that makes the eye think it's an ad or something. You should change that styling.
Base is simply the default that it would of ran if the BIOs defaulted to what chip was at. But since every motherboard will default to best performance it will now default to the "overclocked" performance because these chips binned for that. Much in the same way ram can operate, choose default for "safe" values, but the motherboard BIOS will pick fastest it can.
TLDR version: The base frequency is the the point at which the CPU's power draw equals its TDP when running a worst case workload (think Prime95 small FFT). The turbo frequency is the absolute maximum frequency CPU will run at with the given number of cores active if none of the power or thermal limits are hit first.
Full version: Intel CPUs maintain a moving average of their power consumption. By default the CPU will limit its frequency to keep this moving average at-or-below the TDP. If the CPU has been idle for a while its instantaneous power draw can exceed the TDP for a short time while the moving average catches up. The CPU's base frequency is the worst case frequency it will end up running at once the moving average and instantaneous power draw have converged to the TDP. Again, this is with a worst case workload such as Prime95 small FFT. For workloads which are not as power intensive the CPU's frequency can remain above the base frequency indefinitely, as long as the moving average power consumption remains at or below the TDP. In Intel's datasheets this moving average power limit is called PL1. PL1 is intended to represent the heat dissipation capacity of the CPU's cooler. Note that enthusiast motherboards almost always disable PL1, thus rendering everything I said above moot.
There is also a power limit called PL2 which is generally higher and uses an average over a much shorter time window. PL2 is meant to represent the power delivery capacity of the motherboard's VRM. Motherboards which disable PL1 often also disable PL2.
The turbo frequency table defines a set of maximum frequencies based on the number of active cores. These limits serve as a sort of backstop, only coming into play if none of the other power or thermal limits (there are several) are hit first. On motherboards which disable PL1 and PL2 the turbo frequencies will usually be what limits the CPU's operating frequency.
They fixed it in *some* 8th gen chips. Specifically Intel64 Family 6 Model 142 Stepping 12, which does include the 9900K. But the "8th gen" U-series chips are a mix of stepping 10 and 11 and are not fixed.
Intel's generations are not very meaningful here. They claim to have fixed the issue in stepping 12 of all their current chip families, except Atom which didn't have the issue in the first place.
There are "9th gen" chips that are stepping 10 and "8th gen" chips that are stepping 12. Some Coffee Lake chips are stepping 12 or 13, most are 10 or 11.
Yeah, the fixed ones were all mobile or mostly. The chart/product line up was a bit convoluted. The side channel attacks don't seem to be in the wild yet, but I'm kind of glad I went with a 9700K.
It gets worse because the MDS issues are only fixed in hardware in stepping 13. Frustrating that they didn't make separate SKUs. Does an i9-9900K have hardware protection for certain issues, or does it need performance-sapping firmware? Who knows! Surely the retailer won't tell you. https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/architec...
Keep worrying about zombieland the exploit that means your system was already compromised. Lol these side channel attacks mean nothing unless you run virtual machines your system would already have been owned.
Recent side-channel exploits don't have anything to do with VMs, except that they create chinks in the armor of even these fortresses once thought to be impenetrable.
Put another way, if one VM can be penetrated from another, just how secure do you think a process or the OS kernel is?
i believe higher than that because only way Intel winning now is increase TDP. with higher TDP = higher performance. AMD should also do the same as Intel isnt playing fair
"There's a slight chance Intel might have increased the TDP, especially given that the base frequency (which TDP is built on) has increased 10% from 3.6 GHz to 4.0 GHz."
Like that matters. They could claim any TDP they want, it's completely meaningless. It's still gonna run wild on actual motherboards with stock board OEM settings.
Questions that have been asked and answered since the begining of time. It's 2019 and this guy is still whining about base vs turbo. Hes a little slow.
Intel's TDP is about as useful as a 3rd thumb. They will market it as a 95/100W CPU and people will expect to have 5GHz at that level and Intel will make sure that places like Forbes says "we can do 5GHz on all cores for only 100W" which is completely false. This will have an actual TDP of ~225W, it is in essence Intel's FX9590. With this CPU you know Intel is worried about Zen 2.
AMD has everyone worried. It takes years to put these products on the shelves. AMD is STILL catching the competition unprepared. Expect alot more refreshes and special versions of existitng products from intel and nvidia.
I don't think Nvidia is behind anyone. Intel is the only player here that has very little interesting product available. Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs just as AMD is for CPUs.
We will see what the perf per mm2 and perf per watt is in reality, but NVIDIA will continue to have features AMD doesn’t, and the absolute performance crown. That last point is just that - a point - and should be meaningless on lower price points but in reality it means NVIDIA can charge more for ~same performance. And perf per watt matters too - in the same way. So the real question is: as NVIDIA can charge more at the same performance level, is AMD’s GPU smaller and thus cheaper to produce at each cost and performance level? Until now, that wasn’t the case, so amd could only undercut NVIDIA so much without losing money on the chips. NVIDIA in that situation can set the price that maximizes sales & profit, essentially putting them in charge of what happens in the gpu market. Not a good spot for amd to be in. (Or for us as consumer for that matter)
While navi looks nice, we will see if it is good enough to give amd any control over the market or if it is still a larger (thus more expensive to make), less energy efficient chip. Given NVIDIA has a very strong brand, large market and mind share and big software ecosystem, amd would really need to be some 10-20% better in several metrics (perf per mm2 per watt) to retake the initiative. It would be great but I’m not holding my breath.
Flying Aardvark " Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs " maybe if you have more money then brains... :-) jospoortvliet nvidia can charge more like you say... but at the same time.. they also have priced A LOT of people out of the market.. if navi is even a few % less in performance then say the 2070 amd says navi is at.. but charge 500 or less, then which video card do you think most would buy ?
Maybe you need a brain to know that brains and money are not comparable? AMD needs to make something real, not makes beautiful PPT sides. If AMD NAVI charges less for almost the same performance, that would be a good news, but AMD needs to make the card available on market first.
Not true. I want a powerful CPU that will only run hot when it needs to. In my situation an additional 10W is noticeable. So along with all the other Zen 2 attractions, AMD's PrecisionBoost looks great to me.
The chip should still clock down when not in use. Just make sure you're using Balanced power plan instead of High Performance. Or, if you want to save even more power, use Power Saver, which is less aggressive about clocking up, and just switch to Balanced when you need some more performance.
So basically it’s a 9900k setup with Muti Core Enhancement from the factory. I can’t imagine anyone who bought the 9900k not setting it up for 5GHz on all cores to begin with.
I did pretty well on the silicon lottery with my 9900k doing 5.16GHz AVX @ 1.25v but it pulls ~190w in blender benchmark. I wonder what they're going to say the "tdp" is on this 9900ks or what will happen if you use a budget motherboard.
intel will send all your motherboard on fire and force you to buy expensive equipement to keep them cool watch it will be 150 watt when its suppose to be 190 watt
This cpu is still a 5 year old arch, I’d either buy a zen2 or wait for the first really new intel arch since Skylake to come in 2020 or 2021. Your 2500k did remain relevant for a long time, this 8 core won’t, not in any way. Remember, if it wasn’t for its 10nm failings intel would by now have released one or even two new architectures so I expect their next to do very well. It better, given the arm and amd competition... but intel always managed to deal well with challenges.
nerd1 do you keep your computer in a fridge to keep it cool ? all core ALL the time ? post a screen of CPUz while running something that will get it to run at those speeds :-)
Hey Intel can I enable hper threading without causing a security risk? I mean for $500 can I actually use the thing? How many firmware/bios updates will it need and how much will my performance plummet? Should I wait for i10 and yet another new motherboard and socket/chipset?
They should name this chip something else. It boosts both base and turbo up a notch. Why not i9 9910K? That'd distinguish it enough without having to use a secret decoder ring to figure out that the suffix means.
Speaking of, I do suspect that we may see a handful of i9 9900KFS (or 9900KSF) chips that disable the GPU too but have the same clocks.
Intel's naming conventions have sucked for the past few years.
I am likely the odd one out here, but wouldn't having the capability to turbo a single core to, let's say, 5.5 GHz or higher as factory stock be more useful in real life than the one or all eight core turbo to 5 GHz instead of 4.7? There are still enough single core/single thread apps out there that could benefit from faster single core performance, and this newest and hottest (also in temperature) i9 cannot go faster in single core than the 9900K.
So, this is Intel grasping at straws to try and maintain the "the best chip for gaming is Intel" title.
So if you overclock the overpriced chip, and don't enable any of the security mitigations, then its the "fastest"? Lol
Lets see what AMD drops, but I strongly suspect the entire reason behind this CPU being announced right now is a lame attempt to try and pee in AMDs cheerios.
Last ditch effort to sell their Skylake++++ architecture before Ryzen 3000 and makes their entire 14nm+++++ lineup obsolete. I'll pass on the 250W 8 core, with all the security vulnerabilities, Intel, thanks. Wouldn't notice the difference between this likely £500+ potato and my 2700X anyway, even in games lol.
I think Intel is just trying to stay relevant. Everyone is going AMD. Its not nearly as bad as Pentium vs Athlon, but Intel Kinda Looks Like They're standing still.
Besides, my last 5 machines have been Intel, a few AMD builds are overdue.
So Intel is rereleasing 9900k with altered all core boost ratio and maybe slightly better binned. Okay I don't see why this is exciting since all the Intel sub people say 99.5% of the 9900k can already do all core 5.1ghz
Any sign of the Zombieload article from Anandtech and the dire performance/security effects it has on Intel hardware? Or does Intel have this site by the balls? Just asking, because it's increasingly looking like they do...
Plenty of time for fluff/spoiler pieces like this, though. We all know why this "product" announcement came when it did, but I guess Intel would have been upset if it had been delayed due to being "backlogged", so straight to the front of the queue.
Thankfully sites like Phoronix haven't sold out and have already reported the ugly truth about the latest Intel vulnerability - it now just remains to be seen if/when Anandtech publish_anything_ that is negative about Intel. I won't hold my breath.
if you 2 say so ... id rather have them make sure their info and conclusions are correct, then post the wrong info... have you 2 not read the article on intel and how much power their " 95 watt " cpus really use, or when an intel cpu is forced to run at 95 watts max.. how bad its performance is ?? my guess. cityblue has NOT read that article ....
found the article. and the comment post from ryan smith about zombieland it is in the article about Ice Lakes IGP performance : " "May I ask Why AnandTech hasn't covered or mention, even in the news pipeline about Zombieload or MDS?"
Backlogged on testing. I'm in the middle of something, but I ran out of time before Computex.
I don't want to put up an article without data; there's too many misconceptions and wishcasting on the subject, which is leading to everyone losing their minds. "
Ooh look, another article on another Intel CPU product (Ice Lake mobile).
Backlogged, my ass. The lack of _any_ coverage for another serious Intel security vulnerability can't be justified by a backlog of testing. This is beginning to stink...
Well, they're at a show. That's where you need to be, if you want to get interviews and see products (sometimes prototypes) being demo'd in booths.
While at a show, quite some distance away from home, it's pretty difficult to do the kind of benchmarking they probably need to finish, in order to post that article. Plus, don't forget about jet-lag.
So, um, entitled much? Maybe you can ask them for a refund.
Agreed. If you want the latest breaking news, you can find that at other sites. I'd rather AT not compromise quality, just to post up all the same shallow stuff you can already find elsewhere.
Phoronix tends to spin his hardware reviews, because he's 95% dependent on having review samples provided to him. He also usually doesn't have the time to look into weird performance discrepancies.
Not to be harsh, but I wouldn't place him on a pedestal, or anything. He still has some good coverage, but he's often stretched pretty thin.
I don't think it's Intel so much as not having a news item, period. They can't get the first MDS article now, they made their choice to go to the show, so they might as well report what they can from the show and have the Zombieload stuff be a comprehensive one that others might refer to later.
Going to an event takes a lot out of you and you can't manage a bunch of tests at the same time, let alone write an article about those tests.
We already know it's another painful issue and explains in part why a bunch of old laptops went on sale recently (although that's also because new models with four real cores came out).
Ooooh....so the good news is that this now has an all-core turbo of 5.0 GHz across all 8-cores (yay!).
The downside is that if is built off of the same silicon as the 9900K, then it will only support dual channel DDR4-2666 RAM, which will starve it (somewhat) of much needed memory bandwidth to ensure that all 8 cores can have data fed to it to the maximum extent possible.
Bummer.
Also bummer is that there doesn't appear to be a Xeon counterpart to this either (which usually will have the extra memory channels as well).
Support of DDR4-2666 is true but you can easily run faster memory if that is going to be a problem.
Say for example gskill F4-4133C17D-16GTZR running at 4133MHz with a decently low latency of 17-17-17-37. All you have to do is set the XMP profile and done. I'm not promoting one memory just saying it's not like you really have to even OC memory to run out of what Intel supports since all the high end memory makers have XMP 2.0 sets running well over the "supported" frequencies.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
136 Comments
Back to Article
djayjp - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Still not clear on the exact relationship between base and turbo. When will this chip run at base vs the latter?Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Base frequency is when the Tau moving window time has expired. How most modern high end motherboards set it to an effective unlimited time. Check the link to the TDP article.Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
At what voltage does it do 5ghz allcore. With what uncore. What about AVX. Is "all the time" really all the time.Zingam - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Then comes a new exploit some ZombieSpectreMeltdown, which after fixes will let you run all but one core at 1GHz.Opencg - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
And it will mean nothing outside of virtual machines just like every other side channel attack to date.mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
If side-channel attacks only affected VMs, then we'd only have to use mitigations when running on them. If you choose to disable mitigations on your box, then you should be careful where you point a web browser.MarcusMo - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Great article, sadly I missed the link to it in my first read. The way you guys center links like that makes the eye think it's an ad or something. You should change that styling.imaheadcase - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Base is simply the default that it would of ran if the BIOs defaulted to what chip was at. But since every motherboard will default to best performance it will now default to the "overclocked" performance because these chips binned for that. Much in the same way ram can operate, choose default for "safe" values, but the motherboard BIOS will pick fastest it can.magila - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
TLDR version: The base frequency is the the point at which the CPU's power draw equals its TDP when running a worst case workload (think Prime95 small FFT).The turbo frequency is the absolute maximum frequency CPU will run at with the given number of cores active if none of the power or thermal limits are hit first.
Full version: Intel CPUs maintain a moving average of their power consumption. By default the CPU will limit its frequency to keep this moving average at-or-below the TDP. If the CPU has been idle for a while its instantaneous power draw can exceed the TDP for a short time while the moving average catches up. The CPU's base frequency is the worst case frequency it will end up running at once the moving average and instantaneous power draw have converged to the TDP. Again, this is with a worst case workload such as Prime95 small FFT. For workloads which are not as power intensive the CPU's frequency can remain above the base frequency indefinitely, as long as the moving average power consumption remains at or below the TDP. In Intel's datasheets this moving average power limit is called PL1. PL1 is intended to represent the heat dissipation capacity of the CPU's cooler. Note that enthusiast motherboards almost always disable PL1, thus rendering everything I said above moot.
There is also a power limit called PL2 which is generally higher and uses an average over a much shorter time window. PL2 is meant to represent the power delivery capacity of the motherboard's VRM. Motherboards which disable PL1 often also disable PL2.
The turbo frequency table defines a set of maximum frequencies based on the number of active cores. These limits serve as a sort of backstop, only coming into play if none of the other power or thermal limits (there are several) are hit first. On motherboards which disable PL1 and PL2 the turbo frequencies will usually be what limits the CPU's operating frequency.
BigMamaInHouse - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
95W TDP right? :-).Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Should be given on Tuesday at the keynote.trparky - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Not a chance.Chaitanya - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
It would be 95W when underclocked, and Turbo is disabled. Also with zombieland HT is useless so its just an overglorified i7-9700K.IntelUser2000 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
The zombieland flaw is for pre 8th gen Core chips.notashill - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
They fixed it in *some* 8th gen chips. Specifically Intel64 Family 6 Model 142 Stepping 12, which does include the 9900K. But the "8th gen" U-series chips are a mix of stepping 10 and 11 and are not fixed.schujj07 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
When the release first came out it was only fixed in Whiskey Lake and Atom CPUs not Coffee Lake based ones.notashill - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Intel's generations are not very meaningful here. They claim to have fixed the issue in stepping 12 of all their current chip families, except Atom which didn't have the issue in the first place.There are "9th gen" chips that are stepping 10 and "8th gen" chips that are stepping 12. Some Coffee Lake chips are stepping 12 or 13, most are 10 or 11.
evilpaul666 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Yeah, the fixed ones were all mobile or mostly. The chart/product line up was a bit convoluted. The side channel attacks don't seem to be in the wild yet, but I'm kind of glad I went with a 9700K.GreenReaper - Friday, May 31, 2019 - link
It gets worse because the MDS issues are only fixed in hardware in stepping 13. Frustrating that they didn't make separate SKUs. Does an i9-9900K have hardware protection for certain issues, or does it need performance-sapping firmware? Who knows! Surely the retailer won't tell you.https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/architec...
futurepastnow - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Don't think I'm going to take Intel's word on that.Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Keep worrying about zombieland the exploit that means your system was already compromised. Lol these side channel attacks mean nothing unless you run virtual machines your system would already have been owned.Peter2k - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
The patches and the perfomane hit they bring are distributed universally thoughthrough windows update for instance, or a new UEFI
So sure, as a gamer I don't worry about frankly all those side channel attacks, the the patched perfomance hit is for everyone, no matter the risk
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
It's one thing to be misinformed, but you really shouldn't spread that nonsense around.mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Recent side-channel exploits don't have anything to do with VMs, except that they create chinks in the armor of even these fortresses once thought to be impenetrable.Put another way, if one VM can be penetrated from another, just how secure do you think a process or the OS kernel is?
Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
i believe higher than that because only way Intel winning now is increase TDP. with higher TDP = higher performance. AMD should also do the same as Intel isnt playing fairbubblyboo - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Massive block on that AIO cooler.N8SLC - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Desperate times call for desperate measures.Alexvrb - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
"There's a slight chance Intel might have increased the TDP, especially given that the base frequency (which TDP is built on) has increased 10% from 3.6 GHz to 4.0 GHz."Like that matters. They could claim any TDP they want, it's completely meaningless. It's still gonna run wild on actual motherboards with stock board OEM settings.
IntelUser2000 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Yup. Even having press put out articles that completely invalidate datasheet claims.Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
They have to still guarantee power consumption at base frequency. Essentially, 95W for 4.0G all-core.Irata - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
True, but how meaningful is that Information for a CPU sold / advertized as running all cores at 5 Ghz all the time ?Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Questions that have been asked and answered since the begining of time. It's 2019 and this guy is still whining about base vs turbo. Hes a little slow.BushLin - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Maybe they ask because Intel don't tell you how much power your CPU will actually be using: you're officially given a misleading figure instead.schujj07 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Intel's TDP is about as useful as a 3rd thumb. They will market it as a 95/100W CPU and people will expect to have 5GHz at that level and Intel will make sure that places like Forbes says "we can do 5GHz on all cores for only 100W" which is completely false. This will have an actual TDP of ~225W, it is in essence Intel's FX9590. With this CPU you know Intel is worried about Zen 2.Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
AMD has everyone worried. It takes years to put these products on the shelves. AMD is STILL catching the competition unprepared. Expect alot more refreshes and special versions of existitng products from intel and nvidia.Flying Aardvark - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I don't think Nvidia is behind anyone. Intel is the only player here that has very little interesting product available. Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs just as AMD is for CPUs.Opencg - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
they are about to be far behind on value. nobody will buy a 2070 anymore when amds navi is the same performance for half the price.jospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
We will see what the perf per mm2 and perf per watt is in reality, but NVIDIA will continue to have features AMD doesn’t, and the absolute performance crown. That last point is just that - a point - and should be meaningless on lower price points but in reality it means NVIDIA can charge more for ~same performance. And perf per watt matters too - in the same way. So the real question is: as NVIDIA can charge more at the same performance level, is AMD’s GPU smaller and thus cheaper to produce at each cost and performance level? Until now, that wasn’t the case, so amd could only undercut NVIDIA so much without losing money on the chips. NVIDIA in that situation can set the price that maximizes sales & profit, essentially putting them in charge of what happens in the gpu market. Not a good spot for amd to be in. (Or for us as consumer for that matter)While navi looks nice, we will see if it is good enough to give amd any control over the market or if it is still a larger (thus more expensive to make), less energy efficient chip. Given NVIDIA has a very strong brand, large market and mind share and big software ecosystem, amd would really need to be some 10-20% better in several metrics (perf per mm2 per watt) to retake the initiative. It would be great but I’m not holding my breath.
Korguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Flying Aardvark " Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs " maybe if you have more money then brains... :-)jospoortvliet
nvidia can charge more like you say... but at the same time.. they also have priced A LOT of people out of the market.. if navi is even a few % less in performance then say the 2070 amd says navi is at.. but charge 500 or less, then which video card do you think most would buy ?
PeterSun - Friday, May 31, 2019 - link
Maybe you need a brain to know that brains and money are not comparable? AMD needs to make something real, not makes beautiful PPT sides. If AMD NAVI charges less for almost the same performance, that would be a good news, but AMD needs to make the card available on market first.Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
oh man Intel is getting scary i dont believe all base cores will run at 95W...Teckk - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
If it's not a huge delta in power consumption, this would be pretty awesome.halcyon - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
" 8-core processor that will run at 5.0 GHz during single core workloads and multi-core workloads."Under full AVX workloads using Intel stock cooler?
Highly doubt it.
Bavor - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
It doesn't come with a stock cooler. Its been several years since K processors came with a cooler.halcyon - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
.... AND it doesn't do 5Ghz all core during AVX loads, as reported by Toms Hardware.So, so much for "5Ghz all cores all the time".
Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Intel market this first so Intel can possibly slow down people buying into zen 2 until Intel have something added. its plain simplejospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Yup. And it gets released in q4, with limited supply or high prices (or both) I bet.tipoo - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
300MHz bump for what power efficiency loss I wonder. The 14nm fruit has been squeezed down to an atom at this point.imaheadcase - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
No one cares about power efficiency in high end chips. Its like buying a sports car and complaining the engine is to loud.Arbie - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Not true. I want a powerful CPU that will only run hot when it needs to. In my situation an additional 10W is noticeable. So along with all the other Zen 2 attractions, AMD's PrecisionBoost looks great to me.Nagorak - Saturday, June 22, 2019 - link
The chip should still clock down when not in use. Just make sure you're using Balanced power plan instead of High Performance. Or, if you want to save even more power, use Power Saver, which is less aggressive about clocking up, and just switch to Balanced when you need some more performance.Flying Aardvark - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Not true, and what you're saying has a reasonable limit even for your analogy. There is a point where a sport's cars engine is too loud, for anyone.UltraTech79 - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Spoken like someone that doesn't run a successful business.mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
People start to care about power efficiency when they start having to use more exotic cooling solutions and cases.Cellar Door - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
The two key pieces of info missing - TDP and price. A $300 price premium over a regular 9900k?Ian Cutress - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Details to be given at the Keynote on Tuesday.jospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
TDP isn’t even that relevant - let it be 125 watt - but when running at 5 ghz, power will be over 200 for sure.iBoMbY - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
250W+halcyon - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
... and it still can't do 5Ghz all core during AVX loads.AlyxSharkBite - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
So basically it’s a 9900k setup with Muti Core Enhancement from the factory. I can’t imagine anyone who bought the 9900k not setting it up for 5GHz on all cores to begin with.Nagorak - Saturday, June 22, 2019 - link
Based on the prices Silicon Lottery is charging for pre-overclocked chips, it doesn't look like every 9900K is capable of doing 5 GHz on all cores.piroroadkill - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Oh, you can really tell they want to do anything right now to derail the Zen 2 hype trainKrayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
just think about it. Why intel pre announce this cpu before zen 2? definitely not having AMD stealing their thunder.just4U - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Considering the news out of AMD today..12345 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I did pretty well on the silicon lottery with my 9900k doing 5.16GHz AVX @ 1.25v but it pulls ~190w in blender benchmark. I wonder what they're going to say the "tdp" is on this 9900ks or what will happen if you use a budget motherboard.vidal6x6 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
190w, you never used a pentium D805! 450w on the wall just for the CPU!Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
intel will send all your motherboard on fire and force you to buy expensive equipement to keep them cool watch it will be 150 watt when its suppose to be 190 wattjospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
That is impressively efficient, i hadn’t expected it to do that under 250 watt. Really >5ghz with AVX? At under 200 watt??ParadoxalDream - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Well finally, after nine years Intel might just gave me a reason to upgrade my 2010 i5 2500K !ParadoxalDream - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
eratum : 8 years, it's actually a 2011 CPU. My bad.jospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
This cpu is still a 5 year old arch, I’d either buy a zen2 or wait for the first really new intel arch since Skylake to come in 2020 or 2021. Your 2500k did remain relevant for a long time, this 8 core won’t, not in any way. Remember, if it wasn’t for its 10nm failings intel would by now have released one or even two new architectures so I expect their next to do very well. It better, given the arm and amd competition... but intel always managed to deal well with challenges.Korguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
" but intel always managed to deal well with challenges. " except for 10nm, intel has lost that challenge for the last 4 years :-)Valantar - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Not to sound snarky, but one might say that someone is a bit nervous about tomorrow.Not that the 9900K isn't already a very good CPU, but this is underwhelming. +300 MHz? For how much money, and at how many watts?
mazzy143 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Desperate tentative to counter AMD, but... every enthusiast user know about Zen 2 and the rumors....Makaveli - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
How fast is it once you apply all the Meltdown, spectre,etc patches?Flying Aardvark - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Depends on the workload, but up to ~40% performance loss patched. More if you do the right thing and disable HyperThreading.GeoffreyA - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Somewhat reminiscent of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition's announcement back in 2003.Arbie - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Why does Intel need this? A year ago they introduced a 28-core that could do 5GHz. That was much more impressive.Meaker10 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
That needed a sub zero cooling unit of substantial size.mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Not to mention something like a kW of power for the CPU, itself.OTG - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I dunno, I think their desperation now is even more impressive than it was then.mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
How can you know that and *not* know what a shame that was?nerd1 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I'm running my 9900K at 5.2ghz all core.... so what's new?weevilone - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Not having to win the silicon lottery to obtain one.Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
lol but at higher tdpKorguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
nerd1do you keep your computer in a fridge to keep it cool ? all core ALL the time ? post a screen of CPUz while running something that will get it to run at those speeds :-)
svan1971 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Hey Intel can I enable hper threading without causing a security risk? I mean for $500 can I actually use the thing? How many firmware/bios updates will it need and how much will my performance plummet? Should I wait for i10 and yet another new motherboard and socket/chipset?svan1971 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Or should I just go Ryzen 3000 series next month ?nandnandnand - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Yes.werpu - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Is this the PL 9700k BH edition? (Abbreviation for Paperlaunch 9700K Building Heating edition)mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
lol.Kevin G - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
They should name this chip something else. It boosts both base and turbo up a notch. Why not i9 9910K? That'd distinguish it enough without having to use a secret decoder ring to figure out that the suffix means.Speaking of, I do suspect that we may see a handful of i9 9900KFS (or 9900KSF) chips that disable the GPU too but have the same clocks.
Intel's naming conventions have sucked for the past few years.
eastcoast_pete - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I am likely the odd one out here, but wouldn't having the capability to turbo a single core to, let's say, 5.5 GHz or higher as factory stock be more useful in real life than the one or all eight core turbo to 5 GHz instead of 4.7? There are still enough single core/single thread apps out there that could benefit from faster single core performance, and this newest and hottest (also in temperature) i9 cannot go faster in single core than the 9900K.jospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
5.5ghz is just not stable, even on a single core. 5 is on the due already, they have to bin these cpus...Bp_968 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
So, this is Intel grasping at straws to try and maintain the "the best chip for gaming is Intel" title.So if you overclock the overpriced chip, and don't enable any of the security mitigations, then its the "fastest"? Lol
Lets see what AMD drops, but I strongly suspect the entire reason behind this CPU being announced right now is a lame attempt to try and pee in AMDs cheerios.
AshlayW - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Last ditch effort to sell their Skylake++++ architecture before Ryzen 3000 and makes their entire 14nm+++++ lineup obsolete. I'll pass on the 250W 8 core, with all the security vulnerabilities, Intel, thanks. Wouldn't notice the difference between this likely £500+ potato and my 2700X anyway, even in games lol.Hrel - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I think Intel is just trying to stay relevant. Everyone is going AMD. Its not nearly as bad as Pentium vs Athlon, but Intel Kinda Looks Like They're standing still.Besides, my last 5 machines have been Intel, a few AMD builds are overdue.
Santoval - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
This should have a TDP of at least 125W, maybe even 135W. Binning can only get you so far..sorten - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
The AMD horde is at the gates. Do you think Intel execs will be drinking shots tonight?kwinz - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
Yet another 9900K refresh is not what we need to hear from Intel right now.Pewzor - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
So Intel is rereleasing 9900k with altered all core boost ratio and maybe slightly better binned.Okay I don't see why this is exciting since all the Intel sub people say 99.5% of the 9900k can already do all core 5.1ghz
Karmena - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
This is exciting as now 9900Ks are the bottom feeders and most of them will not OC so easily to said 5.1GHz as those are now 9900KS SKUs.Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
gotta investigate intel 9900ks tdp whether its real or fake and also benchmark with patchKorguz - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
oh look.. a PR move from intel....Krayzieka - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
special edition.... that mean limited inventory =.-godrilla - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
it would need to be clocked at 5.3 ghz to match ryzen 3800x at stock though, based on 15% ipc gains.vbigdeli - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link
I think I should stop to see the news about Intel after seeing great AMD products within last year and now.John_Krisfalusci - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
So is this any different than those with 9900k and oc'd to 5.0 already?CityBlue - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Any sign of the Zombieload article from Anandtech and the dire performance/security effects it has on Intel hardware? Or does Intel have this site by the balls? Just asking, because it's increasingly looking like they do...Qasar - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
ian answered this in another post... backlogged and running tests still i think it wasCityBlue - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link
Plenty of time for fluff/spoiler pieces like this, though. We all know why this "product" announcement came when it did, but I guess Intel would have been upset if it had been delayed due to being "backlogged", so straight to the front of the queue.Thankfully sites like Phoronix haven't sold out and have already reported the ugly truth about the latest Intel vulnerability - it now just remains to be seen if/when Anandtech publish_anything_ that is negative about Intel. I won't hold my breath.
AV_Stables - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
The Intel bias is now just pathetic, signed up to comment. Been reading since this site began pretty much.Korguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
if you 2 say so ... id rather have them make sure their info and conclusions are correct, then post the wrong info... have you 2 not read the article on intel and how much power their " 95 watt " cpus really use, or when an intel cpu is forced to run at 95 watts max.. how bad its performance is ?? my guess. cityblue has NOT read that article ....Korguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
found the article. and the comment post from ryan smith about zombieland it is in the article about Ice Lakes IGP performance :" "May I ask Why AnandTech hasn't covered or mention, even in the news pipeline about Zombieload or MDS?"
Backlogged on testing. I'm in the middle of something, but I ran out of time before Computex.
I don't want to put up an article without data; there's too many misconceptions and wishcasting on the subject, which is leading to everyone losing their minds. "
CityBlue - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Ooh look, another article on another Intel CPU product (Ice Lake mobile).Backlogged, my ass. The lack of _any_ coverage for another serious Intel security vulnerability can't be justified by a backlog of testing. This is beginning to stink...
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Well, they're at a show. That's where you need to be, if you want to get interviews and see products (sometimes prototypes) being demo'd in booths.While at a show, quite some distance away from home, it's pretty difficult to do the kind of benchmarking they probably need to finish, in order to post that article. Plus, don't forget about jet-lag.
So, um, entitled much? Maybe you can ask them for a refund.
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Agreed. If you want the latest breaking news, you can find that at other sites. I'd rather AT not compromise quality, just to post up all the same shallow stuff you can already find elsewhere.Korguz - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
CityBlue then by all means.. go back to the other sites that posted that stuff.. mode_13h, said the rest :-)mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
Phoronix tends to spin his hardware reviews, because he's 95% dependent on having review samples provided to him. He also usually doesn't have the time to look into weird performance discrepancies.Not to be harsh, but I wouldn't place him on a pedestal, or anything. He still has some good coverage, but he's often stretched pretty thin.
GreenReaper - Friday, May 31, 2019 - link
I don't think it's Intel so much as not having a news item, period. They can't get the first MDS article now, they made their choice to go to the show, so they might as well report what they can from the show and have the Zombieload stuff be a comprehensive one that others might refer to later.Going to an event takes a lot out of you and you can't manage a bunch of tests at the same time, let alone write an article about those tests.
We already know it's another painful issue and explains in part why a bunch of old laptops went on sale recently (although that's also because new models with four real cores came out).
albert89 - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Not a fan of any CPU with a TDP's that's over 65W.svan1971 - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Meltdown, Spectre ZombieLoad, RIDL, and Fallout vulnerabilities included?CityBlue - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
If you're concerned about such issues, this is not the site you should be reading...alpha754293 - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Ooooh....so the good news is that this now has an all-core turbo of 5.0 GHz across all 8-cores (yay!).The downside is that if is built off of the same silicon as the 9900K, then it will only support dual channel DDR4-2666 RAM, which will starve it (somewhat) of much needed memory bandwidth to ensure that all 8 cores can have data fed to it to the maximum extent possible.
Bummer.
Also bummer is that there doesn't appear to be a Xeon counterpart to this either (which usually will have the extra memory channels as well).
FreckledTrout - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link
Support of DDR4-2666 is true but you can easily run faster memory if that is going to be a problem.Say for example gskill F4-4133C17D-16GTZR running at 4133MHz with a decently low latency of 17-17-17-37. All you have to do is set the XMP profile and done. I'm not promoting one memory just saying it's not like you really have to even OC memory to run out of what Intel supports since all the high end memory makers have XMP 2.0 sets running well over the "supported" frequencies.
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
The die doesn't *have* the extra memory channels for the Xeon variant to enable.If you want a Xeon W with 8 cores, those are built from a very different die.
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
For an overclockable Xeon, with *all* the memory channels, you want this: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13748/the-intel-xeo...Normally, Xeons aren't overclockable.
mode_13h - Wednesday, May 29, 2019 - link
According to Intel's promise at last year's Computex, this is still 20 cores short.I'm waiting, Intel...
Oxford Guy - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link
Since hyperthreading has to be disabled on Intel for security, we get to pay the 9900KS price for an 8/8 part.ToxicTaZ - Thursday, June 27, 2019 - link
9900KS4GHz base with 5GHz Turbo
So 95w base and Turbo is around 195w
9900KS is faster than AMD 3800X
The hole point of the 9900KS is to keep the world's fastest 8 cores Gaming CPU!
Just like the 8086K is the world's fastest 6 cores CPU and faster than the 3600X.
9900KS is the last CPU upgrade for the 300 series boards. (8700K trade in?)