They should still be able to do base clock, so not really throttling. That said, it's interesting intel is going to release these, becuase 1) the performance advantage over 6 cores likely isn't all that great. Yes more cores at lower clocks is more efficient, but they can't really reach really high frequencies with 6 cores already at 35W, and this effect is diminished at low frequencies - so it may be 33% more cores but probably only 15% or so higher performance. And 2) there is actually no competition from AMD in this space, since the only APU AMD has is 4 core only (unless this is a really dedicated gaming notebook, you definitely want it to have a integrated gpu, even if the notebook has a discrete gpu too, since the battery runtime with discrete only gpu is always awful).
Oh you're right I confused them with the -H chips (which are mobile, and 45W) for a minute. AMD does have some competition there in theory (haven't really seen these 8-core low-power ryzen chips used anywhere) but again only in designs with discrete gpus.
Yep, and contrary to Ian's guess that "[t]his means that the 2.1 GHz base frequency of the eight core sixteen thread Core i9-9900T might never be seen, and the power consumption of the chip might be beyond 35W", this is going to depend on the individual machine. I have a Dell Optiplex with an i7-8700 (non-K) at work, and it will not go beyond 65W. Day-to-day stuff that won't peg the CPU will let it reach its boost speeds and sustain close to them, but run Handbrake or a stress test along with HWInfo64, and you'll see it locked to 65W, which results in sustained all-core speeds just under the base speed (which is 3.2GHz, so it'll bounce around between 3.0 and 3.2).
I would expect most enterprise desktops would function this way, too.
Where all threads are used it's still a large net benefit in MP performance, where one thread is used it still has high single threaded turbo. Same as the 8th gen, bumping cores even in 14nm limbo is a net win.
The question is how large that "large net benefit" is for MP (I'm not questioning that it's still every bit as fast for single thread performance). Inevitably, the clock will need to go down quite a bit with 8 vs 6 cores in a 35W envelope (hence my guesstimate about the chip being faster 15% in multithreaded scenarios despite having 33% more cores - if the clock goes down 15% on average you're pretty much there).
A lot depends on the expectation of the products. AMD had pre-orders for Ryzen, and they sold out quickly. Ryzen third generation, if pre-orders are offered, will also sell out fairly quickly, depending on initial supply promises for each company. Going from first generation to third generation should provide close to a 40 percent performance jump between IPC and clock speeds.
Looks like another rebranding. Aside from the multi cores, the lower core versions seem like an already existing product! A scheme Intel has kept going on for decades.
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
GeoffreyA - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
Thanks, Ian, for the linked article on TDP.MarcusMo - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
16 mobile threads while stuck in 14nm purgatory. Prepare for throttling galore.baka_toroi - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
14nm++++ is a much better process than 14nm+++!mczak - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
They should still be able to do base clock, so not really throttling.That said, it's interesting intel is going to release these, becuase 1) the performance advantage over 6 cores likely isn't all that great. Yes more cores at lower clocks is more efficient, but they can't really reach really high frequencies with 6 cores already at 35W, and this effect is diminished at low frequencies - so it may be 33% more cores but probably only 15% or so higher performance.
And 2) there is actually no competition from AMD in this space, since the only APU AMD has is 4 core only (unless this is a really dedicated gaming notebook, you definitely want it to have a integrated gpu, even if the notebook has a discrete gpu too, since the battery runtime with discrete only gpu is always awful).
chipped - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
These are not mobile chips. The T means power optimised and you usually see them in all in one designs or NUC’s.mczak - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
Oh you're right I confused them with the -H chips (which are mobile, and 45W) for a minute.AMD does have some competition there in theory (haven't really seen these 8-core low-power ryzen chips used anywhere) but again only in designs with discrete gpus.
Targon - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Wait and see what 7nm does for Ryzen, this should be fun.Samus - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
T-series are pretty typicacal in USFF PC's like the HP Elitedesk Mini's and Lenovo Thinkcentre Mini's, too.Very common in compact enterprise PC's.
1_rick - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Yep, and contrary to Ian's guess that "[t]his means that the 2.1 GHz base frequency of the eight core sixteen thread Core i9-9900T might never be seen, and the power consumption of the chip might be beyond 35W", this is going to depend on the individual machine. I have a Dell Optiplex with an i7-8700 (non-K) at work, and it will not go beyond 65W. Day-to-day stuff that won't peg the CPU will let it reach its boost speeds and sustain close to them, but run Handbrake or a stress test along with HWInfo64, and you'll see it locked to 65W, which results in sustained all-core speeds just under the base speed (which is 3.2GHz, so it'll bounce around between 3.0 and 3.2).I would expect most enterprise desktops would function this way, too.
tipoo - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
Where all threads are used it's still a large net benefit in MP performance, where one thread is used it still has high single threaded turbo. Same as the 8th gen, bumping cores even in 14nm limbo is a net win.mczak - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
The question is how large that "large net benefit" is for MP (I'm not questioning that it's still every bit as fast for single thread performance). Inevitably, the clock will need to go down quite a bit with 8 vs 6 cores in a 35W envelope (hence my guesstimate about the chip being faster 15% in multithreaded scenarios despite having 33% more cores - if the clock goes down 15% on average you're pretty much there).nicolaim - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
Typo? "[...] Intel’s ability to manufacture enough processors for its customers."r3loaded - Monday, April 15, 2019 - link
> in the gaming industry, people pre-order games, but in the PC industry, you rarely pre-order hardwareReally though, that says a lot more about the morons who pre-order a product with no intrinsic physical supply constraints.
Targon - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
A lot depends on the expectation of the products. AMD had pre-orders for Ryzen, and they sold out quickly. Ryzen third generation, if pre-orders are offered, will also sell out fairly quickly, depending on initial supply promises for each company. Going from first generation to third generation should provide close to a 40 percent performance jump between IPC and clock speeds.danwat1234 - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
9th Coffee lake+ is a joke. Waiting for 10nm ice Lake / AMD Ryzen 3 & 7nm GPU for laptops.AshlayW - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
""""35W""""ProDigit - Tuesday, April 16, 2019 - link
Looks like another rebranding.Aside from the multi cores, the lower core versions seem like an already existing product!
A scheme Intel has kept going on for decades.
onlinegethelp - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
nice post and it is a informative post. Thanks for sharing this informationhttps://www.avastsupporthelpnumber.com/avast-tech-...
urbanman2004 - Sunday, April 21, 2019 - link
Intel, why provide us, the consumer such a pitiful form of use case for 8-core CPUs on a outdated process node...