so ya lets just fill out 50 different cpu's for no apparent reason on our old process. seems logical for intel to do right? i just don't understand anymore.
they dont do it for no apparent reason. they sell all of these configs. just because a chip isnt for you doesnt mean somebody else doesnt want it. the only reason these chips exist is because someobdy asked for it. somebody thats going to roll out 1000's and is willing to pay a couple extra bucks to get the stock clocks and tdp for the chip set autmomatically instead of trying to buy a consumer part or a xeon and then set bios rules individually for each of them to come up with what is essentially these parts.
its the same silicon as the 9900k (or the 9600k for that matter as well as other chips). when it get packaged the laser scriber puts a "T" at the end instead of a k and the machine that programs\fuses off features makes it a T instead of a K and 3 or 4 lines of bios code are changed to make them run at the correct tdp\turbo. its not hurting anyone. you are just looking for something to complain about.
thats what i hate about all this ....well intel hate. there are good reasons to be unhappy with intel but pointing a thousand things that arent even real complaints just waters it down to the point that nobody (especially intel) will really take any consumer comment seriuos because its dilluted with so much intel is evil\amd is our savior BS.
The i7-8700T 6/12 has a base clock of 2.4Ghz @ 35W TDP. That mean the base clock will be like 2GHz for the i9-9900T 8/16 to be able to hit 35W at its base clock. Expect the typical TDP to be more like 85W but given a cooler that is only rated for 45W.
Yeah its really hard to tell as the core counts have gone up. My i7-4790T seems to max out around 54W. So it's not too far over its tdp of 45W. Intel's tdp has become quite meaningless as of late.
We need more models in the Intel product stack. Keep adding them and maybe we'll get one for each whole unit of our favorite form of currency. The also need needlessly complex number designations that help make buying difficult and really drive up hits over at Ark which will soon become farmed out to Google Ad Services to feature mid-page auto playing videos just like we enjoy already at cutting-edge Anandtech.
At this point, and with so many different -F SKUs, I have to wonder, has Intel gotten so desperate for wafer yield that they have actually created a die that has no iGPU on it for this market segment, or is the defect rate on their iGPU so terribly high that it actually makes sense to have SKUs across the entire breadth of their desktop product stack that have the iGPUs disabled? I can see the worth in doing it for the i9/i7 market. It can be plausible for the i5-K series and maybe an i3-K model. But, for the non Ks and the Pentium and Celeron market? What even is the point? Either they are absolutely desperate to get value out of each and every die that can be cut from a wafer due to capacity constraints due to having a high defect rate in some critical part of the iGPU at this sub-node and are harvesting everything that they can, or, they've actually cast a die that lacks an iGPU to save on die size to increase wafer die# yields and are just recovering less than stellar parts from those wafers with the F series.
35W 8/16 desktop for Intel means that its typical TDP is more like 75W. "According to our measurements, Core i7-8700 peaks at up to 126W during taxing all-core workloads." https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7... Remember Intel gives their TDP based on the base clock only. If the 65W 6/12 i7-8700 is already doing almost double its TDP then you can extrapolate that an 8/16 i9-9900T will most likely be doing more than double its TDP. Only issue will be that the coolers used to run them will be rated for 45W when 100W cooler is needed.
Not only coolers, but PSUs too. T-class CPUs usually go into compact appliances (HTPCs, NUC/Liva/Deskmini-alikes) with thin-ITX/STX, and those often use external laptop-type PSUs, limited to 60W/80W. Unexpected extra power consumption would be crucial for those devices. (I hope MB suppliers will add sane power limits.)
Will these Xeons be like the last Xeon Es? OEM only? It's almost impossible to buy one of them today unless you buy it in a pre-made server/workstation tower. Besides that will they release them this year? On time? The last Xeons were announced about this time, were re-announced about 5 months later, and finally for sale about 3 months after that.
Intel stays cutting corners by skimping on features anywhere they can. As of this year they're selling mainstream CPU's w/o iGPU's at the same prices as ones w/ them and they got a convoluted and cannabalizing lineup to boot. Sounds like Intel's having a midlife crisis
As a consumer, I like choice, but this is ridiculous. And why do we still have 2 core parts? Seriously noncompetitive compared to AMD in the low-end tbh, if AMD steps up their mobile game/laptops, and their desktop/enterprise space is similar to rumors, then Intel will have lost utterly in every segment.
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
19 Comments
Back to Article
austinsguitar - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
so ya lets just fill out 50 different cpu's for no apparent reason on our old process. seems logical for intel to do right? i just don't understand anymore.bobhumplick - Monday, March 11, 2019 - link
they dont do it for no apparent reason. they sell all of these configs. just because a chip isnt for you doesnt mean somebody else doesnt want it. the only reason these chips exist is because someobdy asked for it. somebody thats going to roll out 1000's and is willing to pay a couple extra bucks to get the stock clocks and tdp for the chip set autmomatically instead of trying to buy a consumer part or a xeon and then set bios rules individually for each of them to come up with what is essentially these parts.its the same silicon as the 9900k (or the 9600k for that matter as well as other chips). when it get packaged the laser scriber puts a "T" at the end instead of a k and the machine that programs\fuses off features makes it a T instead of a K and 3 or 4 lines of bios code are changed to make them run at the correct tdp\turbo. its not hurting anyone. you are just looking for something to complain about.
thats what i hate about all this ....well intel hate. there are good reasons to be unhappy with intel but pointing a thousand things that arent even real complaints just waters it down to the point that nobody (especially intel) will really take any consumer comment seriuos because its dilluted with so much intel is evil\amd is our savior BS.
stanleyipkiss - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
I'd love a review on the super-binned T-variants.WinterCharm - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
35W at base clock... but at boost, these will pull 75W... yay?schujj07 - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
The i7-8700T 6/12 has a base clock of 2.4Ghz @ 35W TDP. That mean the base clock will be like 2GHz for the i9-9900T 8/16 to be able to hit 35W at its base clock. Expect the typical TDP to be more like 85W but given a cooler that is only rated for 45W.Ej24 - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
Yeah its really hard to tell as the core counts have gone up. My i7-4790T seems to max out around 54W. So it's not too far over its tdp of 45W. Intel's tdp has become quite meaningless as of late.PeachNCream - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
We need more models in the Intel product stack. Keep adding them and maybe we'll get one for each whole unit of our favorite form of currency. The also need needlessly complex number designations that help make buying difficult and really drive up hits over at Ark which will soon become farmed out to Google Ad Services to feature mid-page auto playing videos just like we enjoy already at cutting-edge Anandtech.baka_toroi - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
I won't stop until I get my own customized Intel CPU. I want my initials inscribed on core #3.lightningz71 - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
At this point, and with so many different -F SKUs, I have to wonder, has Intel gotten so desperate for wafer yield that they have actually created a die that has no iGPU on it for this market segment, or is the defect rate on their iGPU so terribly high that it actually makes sense to have SKUs across the entire breadth of their desktop product stack that have the iGPUs disabled? I can see the worth in doing it for the i9/i7 market. It can be plausible for the i5-K series and maybe an i3-K model. But, for the non Ks and the Pentium and Celeron market? What even is the point? Either they are absolutely desperate to get value out of each and every die that can be cut from a wafer due to capacity constraints due to having a high defect rate in some critical part of the iGPU at this sub-node and are harvesting everything that they can, or, they've actually cast a die that lacks an iGPU to save on die size to increase wafer die# yields and are just recovering less than stellar parts from those wafers with the F series.HStewart - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
At 35watts and 14nm, I have a feel in year of so we are likely are not going to see difference in desktop CPU's and Mobile CPU'sschujj07 - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
35W 8/16 desktop for Intel means that its typical TDP is more like 75W. "According to our measurements, Core i7-8700 peaks at up to 126W during taxing all-core workloads." https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7... Remember Intel gives their TDP based on the base clock only. If the 65W 6/12 i7-8700 is already doing almost double its TDP then you can extrapolate that an 8/16 i9-9900T will most likely be doing more than double its TDP. Only issue will be that the coolers used to run them will be rated for 45W when 100W cooler is needed.bolkhov - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
Not only coolers, but PSUs too.T-class CPUs usually go into compact appliances (HTPCs, NUC/Liva/Deskmini-alikes) with thin-ITX/STX, and those often use external laptop-type PSUs, limited to 60W/80W.
Unexpected extra power consumption would be crucial for those devices.
(I hope MB suppliers will add sane power limits.)
RSAUser - Friday, March 8, 2019 - link
The CPU should probably only quick burst to it, so it will most likely be fine.HStewart - Thursday, March 7, 2019 - link
Keep in mind 14nm will change to 10nm later this year - so current power concerns of desktop chips will likely go away.mooninite - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
Will these Xeons be like the last Xeon Es? OEM only? It's almost impossible to buy one of them today unless you buy it in a pre-made server/workstation tower. Besides that will they release them this year? On time? The last Xeons were announced about this time, were re-announced about 5 months later, and finally for sale about 3 months after that.JKJK - Wednesday, March 6, 2019 - link
Still no pcie4? Come oooooon!GreenReaper - Thursday, March 7, 2019 - link
It's a reheated lake of last year's coffee, what do you expect? :-purbanman2004 - Thursday, March 7, 2019 - link
Intel stays cutting corners by skimping on features anywhere they can. As of this year they're selling mainstream CPU's w/o iGPU's at the same prices as ones w/ them and they got a convoluted and cannabalizing lineup to boot. Sounds like Intel's having a midlife crisisRSAUser - Friday, March 8, 2019 - link
As a consumer, I like choice, but this is ridiculous.And why do we still have 2 core parts? Seriously noncompetitive compared to AMD in the low-end tbh, if AMD steps up their mobile game/laptops, and their desktop/enterprise space is similar to rumors, then Intel will have lost utterly in every segment.