NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER review
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X TRIO review
Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock LE review
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Team Group T-Force 4133 MHz 16GB DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII HERO (Wi-fi) review
MSI MEG X570 Godlike review
Corsair NightSword RGB gaming mouse review
Slides Show Intel Ghost Canyon X NUC Could Have 8-Core 16-Thread CPU
You can say what you want about AMD, but they surely ignited a more-core race with Intel. In newly leaked slides from the PC EVA forums you can spots products tagged as Ghost Canyon X NUC systems.
The products are to launch in 2019 and will offer a diverse selection of procs for the tiny NUC platform. The most striking entry is a 45W 8 core / 16 threaded i9-9xxxH (highlighted in black on the slides).
But also there will be a 45W 6 core / 12 threads i7-9xxxH, and 45W 4 core / 8 threads i5-9xxxH. The three procs will get UHD graphics and the 6- and 8-core part will offer a full PCIe X16 slot or at least the lanes for it. The units can house two M.2 units and can support up to 8x USB ports, two Thunderbolt 3. Connectivity for displays will be x HDMI 2.0a ports. It features two memory slots with support DDR4 2400/2666 memory up to 64 GB maximum, we do hope that is dual-channel. Have a peek at the slides.
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
#5614230 Posted on: 12/06/2018 09:30 AM
"45W TDP" like the "95W TDP" on 9900K?
"45W TDP" like the "95W TDP" on 9900K?
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6612
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 6612
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5614303 Posted on: 12/06/2018 12:57 PM
Yes. Indicated TDP is for base frequency.
3.6GHz for 9900k and 9700k
3.7GHz for 8700K
etc...
"45W TDP" like the "95W TDP" on 9900K?
Yes. Indicated TDP is for base frequency.
3.6GHz for 9900k and 9700k
3.7GHz for 8700K
etc...
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
#5614362 Posted on: 12/06/2018 02:58 PM
And this is stupid and misleading!, they take very low Base clock and advertize as 15/25/45/65/95W TDP but when you use it you get X2 the power usage and Heat!.
The customers should know the real TDP for all core turbo. few years back it was OK since the delta was small but now that 9900K take almost double the Wattage- it's just misleading!
And this is stupid and misleading!, they take very low Base clock and advertize as 15/25/45/65/95W TDP but when you use it you get X2 the power usage and Heat!.
The customers should know the real TDP for all core turbo. few years back it was OK since the delta was small but now that 9900K take almost double the Wattage- it's just misleading!
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5614407 Posted on: 12/06/2018 04:38 PM
And this is stupid and misleading!, they take very low Base clock and advertize as 15/25/45/65/95W TDP but when you use it you get X2 the power usage and Heat!.
The customers should know the real TDP for all core turbo. few years back it was OK since the delta was small but now that 9900K take almost double the Wattage- it's just misleading!
I agree, but this has been the reality for many years. It's just more noticeable now, since boost clocks are higher and there are more cores.
And this is stupid and misleading!, they take very low Base clock and advertize as 15/25/45/65/95W TDP but when you use it you get X2 the power usage and Heat!.
The customers should know the real TDP for all core turbo. few years back it was OK since the delta was small but now that 9900K take almost double the Wattage- it's just misleading!
I agree, but this has been the reality for many years. It's just more noticeable now, since boost clocks are higher and there are more cores.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9380
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9380
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5614425 Posted on: 12/06/2018 05:18 PM
On AMD's side it has been other way around for very long time. Carrizo APUs downclocking CPU/GPU just to stay within rated 65/95W. Same goes for Ryzen, unless you tell it to go above limit, it stays within.
I agree, but this has been the reality for many years. It's just more noticeable now, since boost clocks are higher and there are more cores.
On AMD's side it has been other way around for very long time. Carrizo APUs downclocking CPU/GPU just to stay within rated 65/95W. Same goes for Ryzen, unless you tell it to go above limit, it stays within.
WareTernal
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2013-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2013-09-27
#5614457 Posted on: 12/06/2018 06:42 PM
Those high wattage models in black better have a bigger chassis and better cooling. The 'Skull Canyon' (45 watt/4 core/8 thread)model had heat problems. If they make a cooling solution that can actually handle the 100 watt model with Vega M, then maybe these 45 and 65 watt models will be OK. If they do the "Skull/Hades Canyon" low profile box, then I see more thermal issues coming.
'Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.'
'Configurable TDP-up is a processor operating mode where the processor behavior and performance is modified by raising TDP and the processor frequency to fixed points. The use of Configurable TDP-up is typically executed by the system manufacturer to optimize power and performance. Configurable TDP-up is the average power, in watts, that the processor dissipates when operating at the Configurable TDP-up frequency under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.'
I do agree with you to the extent that it's a confusing mess to the average consumer. I feel like the GPU boost speeds are even more vaguely described by most manufacturers. That's just how the marketing is now. Back when they were made, most Intel boards were pretty conservative with the boost. Many 3rd party boards are pretty aggressive. If you ran, for example, an ASUS CSM(Corporate Stable Model) you might see more modest turbo speeds(and temps) than an ROG model.
The "advertised speed" is questionable now as see products like Vega or MacBook Pro(and probably these NUCs) that can't reach advertised speeds because they can't keep cool.
Also Intel trying to cram too much in tiny chassis makes it more noticeable.
Those high wattage models in black better have a bigger chassis and better cooling. The 'Skull Canyon' (45 watt/4 core/8 thread)model had heat problems. If they make a cooling solution that can actually handle the 100 watt model with Vega M, then maybe these 45 and 65 watt models will be OK. If they do the "Skull/Hades Canyon" low profile box, then I see more thermal issues coming.
And this is stupid and misleading!, they take very low Base clock and advertize as 15/25/45/65/95W TDP
'Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.'
'Configurable TDP-up is a processor operating mode where the processor behavior and performance is modified by raising TDP and the processor frequency to fixed points. The use of Configurable TDP-up is typically executed by the system manufacturer to optimize power and performance. Configurable TDP-up is the average power, in watts, that the processor dissipates when operating at the Configurable TDP-up frequency under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.'
I do agree with you to the extent that it's a confusing mess to the average consumer. I feel like the GPU boost speeds are even more vaguely described by most manufacturers. That's just how the marketing is now. Back when they were made, most Intel boards were pretty conservative with the boost. Many 3rd party boards are pretty aggressive. If you ran, for example, an ASUS CSM(Corporate Stable Model) you might see more modest turbo speeds(and temps) than an ROG model.
The "advertised speed" is questionable now as see products like Vega or MacBook Pro(and probably these NUCs) that can't reach advertised speeds because they can't keep cool.
I agree, but this has been the reality for many years. It's just more noticeable now, since boost clocks are higher and there are more cores.
Also Intel trying to cram too much in tiny chassis makes it more noticeable.
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 2005-04-04
#5614522 Posted on: 12/06/2018 10:26 PM
My problem is- why this is only happening on Desktop- while same Turbo tech on Intel's HEDT represents the actual TDP on full load:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2194
On HEDT platform where power and cooling are no problem at all- the TDP is represents the real life power consumption- while on desktop it's only 55% of the actual power usage, and yes- we the tech gurus- we know how it's work- but for average user it's misleading and it's on purpose to make the new Gen look good because Intel manage to bring over double the performance at "same TDP" as 7700K . Pure Marketing stunt - same like their 5GHs 28C Monster CPU!.
My problem is- why this is only happening on Desktop- while same Turbo tech on Intel's HEDT represents the actual TDP on full load:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2194
On HEDT platform where power and cooling are no problem at all- the TDP is represents the real life power consumption- while on desktop it's only 55% of the actual power usage, and yes- we the tech gurus- we know how it's work- but for average user it's misleading and it's on purpose to make the new Gen look good because Intel manage to bring over double the performance at "same TDP" as 7700K . Pure Marketing stunt - same like their 5GHs 28C Monster CPU!.
Dazz
Senior Member
Posts: 795
Joined: 2001-08-12
Senior Member
Posts: 795
Joined: 2001-08-12
#5614596 Posted on: 12/07/2018 01:44 AM
These better be REAL TDP's last thing we want is another 9900K with a fake 95w TDP (real 149w TDP) in an SFF a single rad AIO which can exceed 105C very easy. If you set the 9900K to 95w TDP performance drop is huge runs exactly like Ryzen 2700X.... except it costs 50% more!
It's no wonder Intel got their board partners to overclock their CPU's to beat Ryzen because at Intels Spec it's not very good.
These better be REAL TDP's last thing we want is another 9900K with a fake 95w TDP (real 149w TDP) in an SFF a single rad AIO which can exceed 105C very easy. If you set the 9900K to 95w TDP performance drop is huge runs exactly like Ryzen 2700X.... except it costs 50% more!
It's no wonder Intel got their board partners to overclock their CPU's to beat Ryzen because at Intels Spec it's not very good.
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 1289
Joined: 2009-06-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1289
Joined: 2009-06-07
#5614636 Posted on: 12/07/2018 04:54 AM
Mom... why is our TV on fire?
Oh don't worry dear, it's Intel's latest NUC... now cover your ears... Mommy's gonna say a bad word...
#@!
Mom... why is our TV on fire?
Oh don't worry dear, it's Intel's latest NUC... now cover your ears... Mommy's gonna say a bad word...
#@!
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2011-01-02
Senior Member
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2011-01-02
#5614660 Posted on: 12/07/2018 06:15 AM
By then I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD Zen2+ with mainstream CPU 16-cores 32-threads.
Intel bringing a sword into gun fight. Would be shame if Intel couldn't grasp on gaming numbers.
By then I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD Zen2+ with mainstream CPU 16-cores 32-threads.
Intel bringing a sword into gun fight. Would be shame if Intel couldn't grasp on gaming numbers.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9380
Joined: 2012-07-20
Those 6C/12T & 8C/16T are scheduled for 2020.