Maybe a bit better sustained performance, or maybe it'll could OC better? Will have to wait and see. I'd guess it'll be a bit cheaper but I'm honestly not expecting much, maybe like $30-50. For gamers it might get them a bit nicer graphics card (won't be drastic, but could get you a custom aftermarket one over a reference blower design) or maybe a bit higher speed memory. Or an aftermarket HSF.
I would guess longer sustained turbo clocks - and/or lower power draw at the same base and same sustained turbo clocks (the TDP refers only to the base clock, the TDP of the turbo clock depends on the cooling solution).
The k cpus run way above 95w by default anyway. Just look at the reviews and in the forums. The onyl beenfit for end-user will be lower price but I doubt it will matter much. iGPU is useful when your gpu breaks or are selling your old one before release of new series to get more $$$ and then buy new series.
TDP, by Intel standards, is a meaningless figure and should never be taken as an indication of the actual power consumption of a CPU. It should be used only as an indication of the power class e.g. desktop class, low power, ultra low power etc
To elaborate further - the TDP is the power the CPU consumes when running at the base clock. The base clock, however, is not fixed and Intel can change it at will. This means that if Intel releases a CPU with much higher power consumption than the previous gen, they can simply lower the base clock and claim it has the same TDP, when in reality the new chip consumes much more power. This is what happened with the new 6-core chips vs the old 4-core chips. Notice how much lower the base clocks are on the new chips
I think that Intel is just testing the waters. If it turns out most buyers go for the F variants to save a small amount of money, Intel would likely start manufacturing dies without iGPU.
Seems logical. Enthusiasts have been claiming for years that there's an "untapped market" for CPUs without IGPUs so if you've got chips which have failed iGPUs why not give it a punt?
I'm guessing the only difference is price, and based on past experience, probably a small difference ($15 - $25).
AMD doesn't have a solution for users who want six or eight cores combined with integrated graphics. Intel probably feels it makes sense to charge a bit more for the chips with IGP because they do not face direct competition from AMD.
This seems to be all about yields and maybe a little about testing the market for actually making chips without integrated graphics. We know that Intel is heavily capacity constrained at 14nm. This gives them more options for recovering dies that have iGPU defects. If they can consistently sell them at 95% the MSRP of the chips that do contain (working) iGPUs, then they might find it worth it to spin a production wafer that has processors that don't have iGPUs on them at all. That could be 20% more die per wafer, which is a significant boost to production volume.
Dies without IGP require new masks, and that would be altruistic. This is more maximising $ per mm2 by selling higher core count parts by skipping IGP validation. Imagine having a die where all 8 cores works, but the IGP only hits 1000 MHz at the right voltage. They couldn't sell that as a 9900/K because the IGP is too low. In the past, you'd have to disable cores to get it to fit into the stack, and sell it for under half as much. This way, they can still sell it at the high price.
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
23 Comments
Back to Article
Juventas - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
So what's the benefit of buying "FK" over "K"? Specs are the same. Lower pricing? Less power consumption?darkswordsman17 - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
Maybe a bit better sustained performance, or maybe it'll could OC better? Will have to wait and see. I'd guess it'll be a bit cheaper but I'm honestly not expecting much, maybe like $30-50. For gamers it might get them a bit nicer graphics card (won't be drastic, but could get you a custom aftermarket one over a reference blower design) or maybe a bit higher speed memory. Or an aftermarket HSF.Santoval - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
I would guess longer sustained turbo clocks - and/or lower power draw at the same base and same sustained turbo clocks (the TDP refers only to the base clock, the TDP of the turbo clock depends on the cooling solution).ET - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Probably just lower pricing.theuglyman0war - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
would as much free up more PCI-E lanes?Zdigital2017 - Wednesday, January 9, 2019 - link
No, the iGPU is on the CPU package and does not use any PCIe lanes as it has direct access already.watchmania - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
just FK that. FK-edTeckk - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
Work IGP disabled, shouldn't it give some more legroom for TDP? If it's still at 95W, what is the advantage of not having the IGP?beginner99 - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
The k cpus run way above 95w by default anyway. Just look at the reviews and in the forums. The onyl beenfit for end-user will be lower price but I doubt it will matter much. iGPU is useful when your gpu breaks or are selling your old one before release of new series to get more $$$ and then buy new series.Retycint - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
TDP, by Intel standards, is a meaningless figure and should never be taken as an indication of the actual power consumption of a CPU. It should be used only as an indication of the power class e.g. desktop class, low power, ultra low power etcRetycint - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
To elaborate further - the TDP is the power the CPU consumes when running at the base clock. The base clock, however, is not fixed and Intel can change it at will. This means that if Intel releases a CPU with much higher power consumption than the previous gen, they can simply lower the base clock and claim it has the same TDP, when in reality the new chip consumes much more power. This is what happened with the new 6-core chips vs the old 4-core chips. Notice how much lower the base clocks are on the new chipsZdigital2017 - Wednesday, January 9, 2019 - link
Intel being able to sell CPUs that would have otherwise gone in the trash because the iGPU did not pass testing during manufacturing.Ashinjuka - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
So $110 gets you 100MHz more turbo and hyperthreading. 🤨darkswordsman17 - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link
For some the HyperThreading would be worth that.ET - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
I think that Intel is just testing the waters. If it turns out most buyers go for the F variants to save a small amount of money, Intel would likely start manufacturing dies without iGPU.mkaibear - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Seems logical. Enthusiasts have been claiming for years that there's an "untapped market" for CPUs without IGPUs so if you've got chips which have failed iGPUs why not give it a punt?BigMamaInHouse - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Just found them listed on their site: -you need to search for them- they aren't listed "officially" ;-)https://ark.intel.com/products/186605/Intel-Core-i...
https://ark.intel.com/products/190885/Intel-Core-i...
https://ark.intel.com/products/190884/Intel-Core-i...
https://ark.intel.com/products/190883/Intel-Core-i...
https://ark.intel.com/products/191126/Intel-Core-i...
https://ark.intel.com/products/134898/Intel-Core-i...
KAlmquist - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
I'm guessing the only difference is price, and based on past experience, probably a small difference ($15 - $25).AMD doesn't have a solution for users who want six or eight cores combined with integrated graphics. Intel probably feels it makes sense to charge a bit more for the chips with IGP because they do not face direct competition from AMD.
KAlmquist - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
My previous comment was a reply to the comment asking about the differences between the F and non-F processors (other than the lack of iGPU).BigMamaInHouse - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
I found another new F model: i3-8100F ProcessorLink to compare all new 7 SKU's:
https://ark.intel.com/compare/190887,190885,190884...
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Nice find.lightningz71 - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
This seems to be all about yields and maybe a little about testing the market for actually making chips without integrated graphics. We know that Intel is heavily capacity constrained at 14nm. This gives them more options for recovering dies that have iGPU defects. If they can consistently sell them at 95% the MSRP of the chips that do contain (working) iGPUs, then they might find it worth it to spin a production wafer that has processors that don't have iGPUs on them at all. That could be 20% more die per wafer, which is a significant boost to production volume.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, January 8, 2019 - link
Dies without IGP require new masks, and that would be altruistic. This is more maximising $ per mm2 by selling higher core count parts by skipping IGP validation. Imagine having a die where all 8 cores works, but the IGP only hits 1000 MHz at the right voltage. They couldn't sell that as a 9900/K because the IGP is too low. In the past, you'd have to disable cores to get it to fit into the stack, and sell it for under half as much. This way, they can still sell it at the high price.