ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K specifications exposed (updated)
A little while ago we reported that Intel is to release three new three CPU SKUs. An 8-core, 16-thread CPU (Core i9 9900K); a 6c/12t one (Core i7 9700K) and a 6c/6t part (Core i5 9600K ).
The processors all will be a series 9000 model and based on Coffee Lake architecture. Asia based website coolaler now adds some juicy details to these processors. We're looking at only mild tweaks.
- The Core i9-9900K is an 8-core 16 thread with a base clock of 3.6GHz, a Boost of up to 5GHz, a cache memory of 16MB, a TDP of 95W, and an 8-core maximum acceleration clock of 4.7GHz.
- The Core i7-9700K is an 8-core 8 thread. It does not support HT. The base clock is 3.6GHz, Boost is up to 4.9GHz, the cache memory is 12MB, TDP 95W, and the 8-core maximum acceleration clock can reach 4.6GHz.
- Core i5-9600K is a 6-core 6 thread, with the same base clock as 3.7GHz, Boost up to 4.6GHz, cache memory of 9MB, TDP 95W, and 6 core maximum acceleration clocks up to 4.3GHz.
The Core i9-9900K (if it's really named like that) of course would be the premium 8-core part, released to battle AMD with their 8-core Ryzen processors, in specific the ZEN+ Ryzen 2700X. Though I still have a gut feeling that AMD is hiding a 2800X for release to compete with the Core i9-9900K (but perhaps that's wishful thinking). That 9700K was expected to be a 6-core part, but now looks to be an 8-core one, however lacking Hyperthreading. Intel is expected to launch these chips later at the end of Q3 2018.
Update: screenshot added with SiSift Sandra entry showing 9700K with 8 threads (no HT)
Shuttle now offers XPC Cube for 8th Gen Intel Core Processors - 07/12/2018 10:54 AM
The XPC cubes are the first models in the Shuttle range to benefit from the generation leap forward to Intel's latest processor models with a 14nm architecture (Coffee Lake). The SH370R6, which is de...
Intel Core Series 9000 Specifications published - merely 100 and 200 MHz speed bumps - 07/04/2018 08:30 AM
Yesterday we reported that Intel to be releasing Coffee lake based six and eight-core part in the 9000 series with processors like the Core i5-9600(K). We can advance a bit more on that as the specif...
Intel Coffee lake Core i9 9900K and other product names leaked? - 06/27/2018 10:03 PM
So much speculation on the Z390 chipset and the 8-core processors that go along with it, the news kind of gets lost in space eh? We talked Z390 for quite a while now. We know it's paired with at l...
Intel confirms it will release their first high-end GPU in 2020 - 06/12/2018 09:18 PM
Pretty much as expected, Intel is working on a dedicated GPU that Intel which is now confirmed to be released in 2020. Intels first real GPU likely will end up as graphics accelerator for artificia...
Intel Core i7-8086K CPU Turbo bins are Close To Similar to 8700K - 06/11/2018 05:20 PM
Over at Computex last week, Intel announced the anniversary edition Core i7-8086K, which they kind of did silently. Probably there was a good reason for that. The processor is advertised as 5 GHz pr...
Goiur
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: 2009-04-29
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: 2009-04-29
#5570221 Posted on: 08/01/2018 11:57 PM
Unless you have a refresh rate that will support 200 fps, the no you will not notice a difference from a static 140 to 200fps.
But FPS oscillation from 100fps to your max refresh rate of say 144hz , it's quite annoying to the eye when you are used to a fluid 144fps.
VRR displays help this, but when you are used to 144fps or higher, drops to 100fps are quite annoying.
Similar effect of 60 fps drops to 40fps.
The 'lag' term is pretty generic.
There are multiple latencies that add up to the 'total' lag in a PC setup.
For the ms lag you are referring to, it correlates directly to FPS.
Higher fps reduces that lag; that 'lag' is the time it takes to draw a single frame.
For a locked 60fps, it takes 16.67ms to draw a single frame.
The higher the fps, the lower time it takes to render a single frame.
This helps visual perception of smoothness and reduces image persistence(reduces the amount of blurring on screen)
So with high fps, you get reduced lag because the game is able to respond to input quicker.
As for your question about 'can you see less then 5ms of lag', the answer is yes.
If it were possible, 0ms lag would have zero blurring when you pan your crosshair on screen. IT would look as if there were perfect pictures without the 'motion blur' effect.
Im glad I have no high-tech bionic eye to see an annoying difference when frames drop from 144 to 120 or 100, or maybe its just the freesync that helps... *shrug*
Unless you have a refresh rate that will support 200 fps, the no you will not notice a difference from a static 140 to 200fps.
But FPS oscillation from 100fps to your max refresh rate of say 144hz , it's quite annoying to the eye when you are used to a fluid 144fps.
VRR displays help this, but when you are used to 144fps or higher, drops to 100fps are quite annoying.
Similar effect of 60 fps drops to 40fps.
The 'lag' term is pretty generic.
There are multiple latencies that add up to the 'total' lag in a PC setup.
For the ms lag you are referring to, it correlates directly to FPS.
Higher fps reduces that lag; that 'lag' is the time it takes to draw a single frame.
For a locked 60fps, it takes 16.67ms to draw a single frame.
The higher the fps, the lower time it takes to render a single frame.
This helps visual perception of smoothness and reduces image persistence(reduces the amount of blurring on screen)
So with high fps, you get reduced lag because the game is able to respond to input quicker.
As for your question about 'can you see less then 5ms of lag', the answer is yes.
If it were possible, 0ms lag would have zero blurring when you pan your crosshair on screen. IT would look as if there were perfect pictures without the 'motion blur' effect.
Im glad I have no high-tech bionic eye to see an annoying difference when frames drop from 144 to 120 or 100, or maybe its just the freesync that helps... *shrug*
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2012-10-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2012-10-07
#5570273 Posted on: 08/02/2018 06:06 AM
Buy a G-Sync monitor and you wont need 150+ fps lol
Overall Intel has better fps in games BUT is it a huge gameplay experience diference from 120 to 140 or 150 to 200 fps? I dont think so or im lucky enough not to have some high-tech bionic eye.
If you're playing online competitive multiplayer shooters then you can notice the difference of higher refresh rates above 120+. I have an overclockable 144Hz monitor, and I've run it at 180Hz from time to time - I can notice a difference between 144Hz and 180Hz, but only during fast camera panning in close quarter combat situations, it's a competitive advantage - you can see more accurately what is happening in the game and can respond to it more accurately.
Buy a G-Sync monitor and you wont need 150+ fps lol
Overall Intel has better fps in games BUT is it a huge gameplay experience diference from 120 to 140 or 150 to 200 fps? I dont think so or im lucky enough not to have some high-tech bionic eye.
If you're playing online competitive multiplayer shooters then you can notice the difference of higher refresh rates above 120+. I have an overclockable 144Hz monitor, and I've run it at 180Hz from time to time - I can notice a difference between 144Hz and 180Hz, but only during fast camera panning in close quarter combat situations, it's a competitive advantage - you can see more accurately what is happening in the game and can respond to it more accurately.
Goiur
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: 2009-04-29
Senior Member
Posts: 1126
Joined: 2009-04-29
#5570292 Posted on: 08/02/2018 08:31 AM
We are talking about 0,2% of the user base here.
If you're playing online competitive multiplayer shooters then you can notice the difference of higher refresh rates above 120+. I have an overclockable 144Hz monitor, and I've run it at 180Hz from time to time - I can notice a difference between 144Hz and 180Hz, but only during fast camera panning in close quarter combat situations, it's a competitive advantage - you can see more accurately what is happening in the game and can respond to it more accurately.
We are talking about 0,2% of the user base here.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11554
Joined: 2010-12-27
Buy a G-Sync monitor and you wont need 150+ fps lol
Overall Intel has better fps in games BUT is it a huge gameplay experience diference from 120 to 140 or 150 to 200 fps? I dont think so or im lucky enough not to have some high-tech bionic eye.
Unless you have a refresh rate that will support 200 fps, the no you will not notice a difference from a static 140 to 200fps.
But FPS oscillation from 100fps to your max refresh rate of say 144hz , it's quite annoying to the eye when you are used to a fluid 144fps.
VRR displays help this, but when you are used to 144fps or higher, drops to 100fps are quite annoying.
Similar effect of 60 fps drops to 40fps.
I have a Triton CRT. Having over 100fps it rather nice and extremely noticeable with it. But it caps off at 120fps. anything higher does no good.
Also how does a higher FPS reduce input lag? And can you even see less then 5ms of lag or even 6 or 7ms?
If so get a CRT. no input lag or response time. Some having reather high (upto 2k) resolution and up to 150hz refresh. Most good ones cap off at 1200p and 100hz however. But the better ones can do 1.5k and the best of the best can do 2k.
I was able to push 185hz out of my CRT at 480p.
The 'lag' term is pretty generic.
There are multiple latencies that add up to the 'total' lag in a PC setup.
For the ms lag you are referring to, it correlates directly to FPS.
Higher fps reduces that lag; that 'lag' is the time it takes to draw a single frame.
For a locked 60fps, it takes 16.67ms to draw a single frame.
The higher the fps, the lower time it takes to render a single frame.
This helps visual perception of smoothness and reduces image persistence(reduces the amount of blurring on screen)
So with high fps, you get reduced lag because the game is able to respond to input quicker.
As for your question about 'can you see less then 5ms of lag', the answer is yes.
If it were possible, 0ms lag would have zero blurring when you pan your crosshair on screen. IT would look as if there were perfect pictures without the 'motion blur' effect.