Intel also launches Coffee Lake Desktop Refresh processors
Click here to post a comment for Intel also launches Coffee Lake Desktop Refresh processors on our message forum
user1
What exactly is the point of having a version without an igpu, that costs exactly the same?
Fox2232
Saves you time going into BIOS to disable it.
ezpzTP
Is this the new stepping I've been hearing about?
Andrew LB
Initial testing seems to look like it clocks better than the GPU enabled version.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-9900kf-vs-9900k-overclock-comparison,6038.html
__hollywood|meo
nice of them to charge us for silicon that isnt even on the chip, huh?
TalentX
what's more ridiculous is that they think people are willingly ready to upgrade their CPU several times every year. I always hated intel's bs called "tick-tock" model, which is more like a tick-tock-tock-tock-tock now.
Besides, they still have problems solving their hardware security vulnerabilities. What's the point of selling "refreshes" of broken chips, that are still broken?
user1
That Probably has more to do with the new r0 stepping , than the sku.
I'd wager you'll probably see newer 9900k's that are based off the same stepping.
if anything, these new chips are an attempt to salvage more broken sillicon, since they are production limited.
pretty piss poor value regardless, not that the igpu really helps all that much.
Undying
No igpu and 100mhz higher overclock, Intel - 100$ more over 9900k please. 😀
Venix
While most people would gladly forfeit the igpu for a cheaper price i do not think they will for equal or greater price even as a graphics card being almost useless in gaming it comes in handy troubleshooting and quick synch is nice to have! So well if i am to buy an intel cpu ....no thank you i will pay less and keep the benefits even if there is a chance i would never use em!
sverek
Exactly this.
And I think we need technology that utilizes iGPU when in desktop or browsing and fully puts GPU to sleep, no wasted energy.
EDIT: wait, you can't put dGPU to sleep if monitor connected to it...
Venix
well you can pass-through the signal threw the igpu if you want with out any hit on performance .... but when i had igpu i just had one monitor on each .... when the main screen went off ! ((rip my gtx 770 !)) my 2ndary monitor still was working fine so i was able to diagnose fast .
i am not sure if you can put the d.gpu to completely shut off though ... never tried like that .
fantaskarsef
While you are right, the issue is that actually, CPUs without the iGPU should be cheaper. That they are not gives your argument strength, when in reality, it could be otherwise.
It's just because Intel doesn't fabricate CPUs without the iGPU in the first place, it's probably still on the chip and just laser cut, no? If they'd make (smaller!) chips without the iGPU they'd be cheaper and with higher yields... it's just Intel's plan to make things that do less cost more so Intel themselves have an easier life.
And honestly, I did not ever use an iGPU besides my Ryzen 2400G because it's the HTPC which does not need much GPU power at all. Other than that, I will gladly skip any CPU with an iGPU. But that's a thing of point of view, especially with Intel's twisted pricing due to their fabrication choices.
