Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB (FE) review
Intel Processor Refresh in Spring - 100 MHz bumps
Earlier this week you've already read the funny news about a KFC edition, in the upcoming weeks more processors will be added into the lineup from Intel, they, however, all are refreshes mostly 100 MHz increase on the frequency. In the desktop segment, You've already seen the Intel Core i5-9400 / 9400F.
In retail you can already spot most of the new SKUs listed, for the desktop, processors in the Coffee Lake Refresh will be available as the Core i-9000 processors.
Similar to the Core i5-9400, most models will be a higher-clocked Coffee Lake, typically 100 MHz more clock. The naming is a little weirder though. If you look at the below overview the Celeron sticks to two cores and two threads, Pentium procs offers at least four of them (two cores + two threads) now going to 4 GHz (Pentium Gold 5260). This is an entry-level Pentium Gold G5260 model is already present in some European stores along with a prominent availability date on March 4th. It is not known which architecture the Pentium Gold G5260 is based on, but according to a current Intel roadmap, this should be Coffee Lake-R. With the Pentium Gold G5260, six additional models are planned: Pentium Gold G5420, Pentium Gold G5420T, Pentium Gold G5600T, Celeron G4950, Celeron G4930 and Celeron G4930T. Pentium models should come in combination with two processor cores and a total of four threads, while two processor cores and two triads are expected in Celeron.
It is expected that Intel will bring the entire range of new models to market in April. Some of the KF versions can already be found.
Shuttle launches DH370 Mini-PC for 6-core 8th Gen Intel Processors - 02/06/2019 09:49 AM
The 1.3-litre DH370 sports a new chassis design which accommodates Intel processors of the 8th generation for socket LGA1151v2, relies on the faster H370 chipset and offers a total of four USB 3.1 po...
Intel processor shortages to continue into 2Q19 says ASUS - 11/15/2018 10:01 AM
We've touched the topic a couple of times but it's now confirmed by ASUS as well. With the issues on 10nm fabrication, Intel is running out of fabrication space on 14nm, and they have a lot of proc...
Three new vulnerabilities in Intel processors discovered - L1TF - 08/15/2018 08:54 AM
Intel has announced that three new serious vulnerabilities have been discovered in its processors, allowing unauthorized access to data in the L1 cache. The vulnerabilities are named L1 Terminal Faul...
Intel Promotes Its Three Corporate Officers - 07/25/2018 05:05 AM
Intel today announced that its board of directors has promoted three corporate officers. "These promotions recognize the expanded scope and significance of the organizations for each of these pr...
New Apple new MacBook Pro Gets 8th Gen Intel procs and a more silent keyboard - 07/12/2018 03:35 PM
The new MacBook Pro comes on the market Thursday, Apple announced Thursday in a press release. It is a new 15-inch model and a new version of 13 inches. The Retina display is equipped with True Ton...
slicer
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 2015-03-25
Senior Member
Posts: 140
Joined: 2015-03-25
#5642309 Posted on: 02/21/2019 01:25 PM
People here asking for better ST performance dont understand, that 5.5ghz is about max where we have room to go. In next 5-7 years. St performance was an old way of doing things. Parallel processing/computing is a way forward. Right now ST prorgramming rules, because 4Cores was a norm just 2 years ago. Developers are slowly but steadily adjusting to more core count CPUs. Because of the hard 5.5ghz fall ahead of us. Even at 3nm manufacturing process. Only way to get more performance is to add cores and programs that are built to use multiple threads at same time. ST performance cheering is like cheering for the use of coal in the age of rocketfuel.
People here asking for better ST performance dont understand, that 5.5ghz is about max where we have room to go. In next 5-7 years. St performance was an old way of doing things. Parallel processing/computing is a way forward. Right now ST prorgramming rules, because 4Cores was a norm just 2 years ago. Developers are slowly but steadily adjusting to more core count CPUs. Because of the hard 5.5ghz fall ahead of us. Even at 3nm manufacturing process. Only way to get more performance is to add cores and programs that are built to use multiple threads at same time. ST performance cheering is like cheering for the use of coal in the age of rocketfuel.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5642323 Posted on: 02/21/2019 01:50 PM
They are not worried at all. In gaming AMD is gonna lose even from sub 200€ intel's cpu.
Intel and Nvidia are the only option for pure gaming and legit enthusiasts. That ain't gonna change any time soon. This is quite depressing.
You don't need to win to be successful, Zen has shown this 2 times already.
The majority of sales revenue come from the server and then mainstream, not the enthusiast market.
AMD has to grab confidence and cut through the Intel brainwash all these years, that's hard to do.
For me the best price/performance wins, and that's AMD right now.
The Intel+Nvidia combo are only useful for people that want/need high refresh rate (+100) as AMD hardware is capable of delivering similar performance for considerably less money (except GPU top end).
Also, AMD has been closing on Intel with Zen+. And wile Intel figures out 10nm, TSCM 7nm will get AMD where it needs to be: in front of Intel. Although, probably for a short period, but it will cut through marketshare and mindshare.
They are not worried at all. In gaming AMD is gonna lose even from sub 200€ intel's cpu.
Intel and Nvidia are the only option for pure gaming and legit enthusiasts. That ain't gonna change any time soon. This is quite depressing.
You don't need to win to be successful, Zen has shown this 2 times already.
The majority of sales revenue come from the server and then mainstream, not the enthusiast market.
AMD has to grab confidence and cut through the Intel brainwash all these years, that's hard to do.
For me the best price/performance wins, and that's AMD right now.
The Intel+Nvidia combo are only useful for people that want/need high refresh rate (+100) as AMD hardware is capable of delivering similar performance for considerably less money (except GPU top end).
Also, AMD has been closing on Intel with Zen+. And wile Intel figures out 10nm, TSCM 7nm will get AMD where it needs to be: in front of Intel. Although, probably for a short period, but it will cut through marketshare and mindshare.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5642326 Posted on: 02/21/2019 02:00 PM
RTX OFF: *intel has some lead in high fps scenarios
RTX ON: *CPU Clock advantage? Who cares about CPU clock? Nobody cares!
Times change man and we will be part of it, just wait
RTX OFF: *intel has some lead in high fps scenarios
RTX ON: *CPU Clock advantage? Who cares about CPU clock? Nobody cares!
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 2005-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 2005-04-04
#5642330 Posted on: 02/21/2019 02:23 PM
From what has been shown or leaked so far, better clocks and higher IPC then Zen 1, not Intel.
The only real tool in AMDs toolbox seems to be throwing cores at the problem. Personally, I don't like that strategy anymore. I don't need 16 cores in a consumer desktop CPU. I rather have more ST power.
I am almost sure that Zen 2.0 goint to have Equal or even better single core performance then Intel's 9900K, Remember if the ES 8 Core Zen2 was head to head with 9900K thar run @ 4.7Ghz all core turbo, then add ~5% for single core boost and you get at least 9900K single core performance level, what do you need more?
From what has been shown or leaked so far, better clocks and higher IPC then Zen 1, not Intel.
The only real tool in AMDs toolbox seems to be throwing cores at the problem. Personally, I don't like that strategy anymore. I don't need 16 cores in a consumer desktop CPU. I rather have more ST power.
I am almost sure that Zen 2.0 goint to have Equal or even better single core performance then Intel's 9900K, Remember if the ES 8 Core Zen2 was head to head with 9900K thar run @ 4.7Ghz all core turbo, then add ~5% for single core boost and you get at least 9900K single core performance level, what do you need more?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 2018-05-03
From what has been shown or leaked so far, better clocks and higher IPC then Zen 1, not Intel.
The only real tool in AMDs toolbox seems to be throwing cores at the problem. Personally, I don't like that strategy anymore. I don't need 16 cores in a consumer desktop CPU. I rather have more ST power.
Completely agree on the fact that over a certain amount of threads the gaming performance increase is minimal/zero BUT
amd and intel are much much closer in IPC than you think, the differences we see are because of clocks. here's Hilbert great IPC test:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-2600-review,9.html
even a 10% IPC gain means AMD is basically the same as Intel. Ryzen 3000 series is using TSMC's 7nm which should hit much higher clocks then GLoF 14nm.
Leaks show 4.5GHZ mainstream chips, with the power savings of 7nm I bet Ryzen 3000 is going to be *faster* than Intel at stock clocks. mark my words.