9900 with 2 more cores. A new motherboard required.

karma777police:

So 8% more for single core performance. When you think about it that's all Intel needs to do, just keep adding cores to it. If the CPU was on 7nm, same architecture...Intel would have eliminate high core count problem. Again 10/20 for 65W on 14nm is quite achievement if you ask me, I bet you that it won't go over 95W for any game or software you use. My 9900K never goes over 105W playing games and using software. Just because Prime 95 can push it too high, guess what...like I f. care. I don't play Prime95 nor I use it in production. It is just torture nonsense.

AMD is 2x ing the cores, Intel add +2. They misread what AMD wants to do, but it was too late 😛 AMD has 65W 12/24 already, with PCIe 4, not the old 3.0 and much more features. Stop praising intel, they seem that they don't have anything new to offer. They barely doubled the cores to 8, and now they struggle with everything. They can't really add single threaded performance, so they try to fix vulnerabilities by hardware so they don't take the penalty by software. Adding 2 cores is literally nothing these days. They are doing exactly what AMD did back with the FX 9 series. They just didn't added 2 more cores. (imagine FX 9590 on Excavator having 10 core...)

Undying:

9900 with 2 more cores. A new motherboard required.

Yup. I can't imagine anyone being excited for this processor. AMD doubles the core count on AM4 while Intel adds two more cores with a new socket, LMAO.

lol at the fine print. "performance numbers may not reflect all security updates. No product can be absolutely secure" Thanks for clearing that up, intel. Also like "workloads used may have been optimized for performance only on Intel processors"

It's not a bad platform, but lacking PCIe 4 seems a pretty big miss. What exactly are all those extra pins required for?

karma777police:

So 8% more for single core performance. When you think about it that's all Intel needs to do, just keep adding cores to it. If the CPU was on 7nm, same architecture...Intel would have eliminate high core count problem. Again 10/20 for 65W on 14nm is quite achievement if you ask me, I bet you that it won't go over 95W for any game or software you use. My 9900K never goes over 105W playing games and using software. Just because Prime 95 can push it too high, guess what...like I f. care. I don't play Prime95 nor I use it in production. It is just torture nonsense.

The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet. 65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks. If you're so sure it won't go over 95W then that means you bought an overkill CPU. Most people who will spend the kind of money on an Intel 10 core are pretty damn sure they're going to need all 10 cores, and at 4.5GHz, those 10 cores are definitely going to exceed 95W. If you think Prime95 is bad, real-world AVX tests draw far more power and heat.

I'm still happy af with my r7 1700 lol. Doing a lot of visual effects, does the job and its price is around 100 euro here in bulgaria nowadays second hand, can't believe how far amd pushed things looking back at it now.

IceVip:

I'm still happy af with my r7 1700 lol. Doing a lot of visual effects, does the job and its price is around 100 euro here in bulgaria nowadays second hand, can't believe how far amd pushed things looking back at it now.

What's amazing is how many people still said AMD won't compete or put a dent on Intel after Ryzen 1 launch. Now all over the place, including the biggest youtubers have ditch intel for everything, even gaming rigs. With the audience Linus and Jay2cents has, them praising AMD is a massive plus.

karma777police:

So 8% more for single core performance.

You must be smoking whatever intel is giving you. It states 8% improvement for general windows applications, it doesn't state 8% more for single-core performance. Personally i don't understand how they came up with this 8% over their otherwise stated 18% multi-core performance. The 9900 is a 3.1Ghz, 5Ghz boost 8c/16 thread processor The 10900 is, from any information i can find, a 2.8Ghz, 5.1Ghz boost 10c/20 thread processor. Lower base clock, probably won't matter in most cases. 100mhz boost increase would be a 2% increase in single-core performance, not your mythical 8%. And there's not going to be any noticable IPC improvements, but i'll be generous and say that'll be a 3% increase in single-core performance, again not your mythical 8%. But then again look who it is that, i can go through your post history and pick out countless BS statements made by you.

schmidtbag:

The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet. 65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks.

He's not going to care what you say about this, or believe, or change what he's paid to say. Whatever the reason. He makes statements like this(next quote) and refuses to acknowledge the nonsense in it. Effectively he believes Intel somehow has better margins on monolithic dies that are much larger then AMDs chiplets.

karma777police:

As I said 10/20 Cascade Lake X is $400. Ryzen on AM4 can only be offered in 8/12/16 variants due its design. Intel is going to offer extra two cores for the same price and there won't be 16 core part Cascade Lake X - 10/12/14/18 against 8/12/16. AMD design doesn't allow superior margins. AMD cannot sell their 12/24 part any cheaper, they won't make any money on it. Intel is going to offer 14/28 for same amount of money AMD sells their 12/24. I have all the prices for a month now.

Please AMD kill Intel off by releasing AM5 with both PCIe5 and DDR5 and then intel would be in real trouble. I don't think it's far off either.

D3M1G0D:

Yup. I can't imagine anyone being excited for this processor. AMD doubles the core count on AM4 while Intel adds two more cores with a new socket, LMAO.

schmidtbag:

The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet. 65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks. If you're so sure it won't go over 95W then that means you bought an overkill CPU. Most people who will spend the kind of money on an Intel 10 core are pretty damn sure they're going to need all 10 cores, and at 4.5GHz, those 10 cores are definitely going to exceed 95W. If you think Prime95 is bad, real-world AVX tests draw far more power and heat.

This is all Intel can release right now until they fix their 10nm node or move to a smaller one because it´s not possible to backport their new CPU architecture for their current 14nm node. Their luck is that they are still competitive despite lagging on such an old node and CPU design. They just need to adjust their prices...

Stairmand:

It's not a bad platform, but lacking PCIe 4 seems a pretty big miss. What exactly are all those extra pins required for?

Is PCIe 4 that important right now??? Honest question.

With the Intel shortages and requiring a new mobo for absolutely no extra features this processor is Doa especially once u consider the price.

From the bottom of image 4: Performance results are based on testing/estimates as of 8/13/2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See configuration disclosure for details. No product can be absolutely secure. Performance numbers are Pre-S: projections, subject to change and apply to top bin SKU's only. Results reported above may need to be revised as additional testing is conducted. The results depend on the specific platform configurations and workloads utilized in the testing, and may not be applicable to any particular user's components, computer system or workloads. The results are not necessarily representative of other benchmarks and other benchmark results may show greater or lesser impact from mitigations. Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products.

I'm not doubting the processor will perform, but hopefully Intel releases this cpu and the whole platform to be competitive not only by performance but by price as well. But there are a few things to think about still. 1. AMD is killing it, but Intel still has it in the mobile and big name OEM markets, even in server space. 2. If AMD by chance takes more market share and becomes the norm compared to Intel, without any competition AMD is going to become what Intel was, slowly progressing because there's nothing the opposing group has to offer that's competitive. We need competition in order to take advantage of a great price/performance from both companies.

karma777police:

So 8% more for single core performance. When you think about it that's all Intel needs to do, just keep adding cores to it. If the CPU was on 7nm, same architecture...Intel would have eliminate high core count problem. Again 10/20 for 65W on 14nm is quite achievement if you ask me, I bet you that it won't go over 95W for any game or software you use. My 9900K never goes over 105W playing games and using software. Just because Prime 95 can push it too high, guess what...like I f. care. I don't play Prime95 nor I use it in production. It is just torture nonsense.

It's used to check if your build is stable and how the cooling is working. That's nonsense for you, huh? I assume you buy your PCs prebuilt.

H83:

This is all Intel can release right now until they fix their 10nm node or move to a smaller one because it´s not possible to backport their new CPU architecture for their current 14nm node. Their luck is that they are still competitive despite lagging on such an old node and CPU design. They just need to adjust their prices... Is PCIe 4 that important right now??? Honest question.

Yes, it is. not for gaming that's for sure, but for content creation. massive multi-gig, or even terabyte sized files can be handled far faster...which turns out to be pure $$$ for the production company... you can transcode a 12 channel 4k (cinema 4k, not consumer) file of say 200 Gb's in minutes, not days. hi res dailies are delivered sooner for faster decision making saving even more money. for the recording industry, likewise. for server farms, likewise.

Intel still has a few tricks up its sleeves, but this is a piece of crap relatively speaking. this is just a placeholder to satisfy investors and OEM's. they're finally realizing they need to leverage newer tech (which they have) in the current market. right now all of their apples are in the foveros basket, as it is their only hope of catching AMD. not that foveros doesn't present problems (heat), but that they won't have to license "infinity fabric". SoC/Chiplets are the only way around Moore's Law that's been found to date. imho, they're looking at carbon nanotubes to integrate into their foveros matrix (this is a GUESS) to mitigate/transfer the heat that a i-7/i-9 level chip would generate.

D3M1G0D:

Yup. I can't imagine anyone being excited for this processor. AMD doubles the core count on AM4 while Intel adds two more cores with a new socket, LMAO.

Intel wins in the category of Gaming TBH...... core count is only digits.

Caesar:

Intel wins in the category of Gaming TBH...... core count is only digits.

is really surprising how much people hang on this 4~6% averaging all games on 1080p with a 2080 ti .... also the same thing said people that grabbed the 7600 instead of the ryzen .... now they enjoy a glorious stutter fest on a lot of new games !

Caesar:

Intel wins in the category of Gaming TBH...... core count is only digits.

exactly, and i don´t want buy one ryzen 3800x and see one rtx 2080 giving me the same performance than rtx 2070 on i7 10700k, sorry https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/images/far-cry-5-1920-1080.png https://tpucdn.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-founders-edition/images/far-cry-5_1920-1080.png