>The Core i9-9990XE will be a 14 core processor, but with a base frequency of 4.0 GHz and a turbo frequency of 5.0 GHz. This makes it a super-binned 9940X.
>Intel is listing this processor as 'off roadmap', meaning it won't come to retail. Instead of selling to end users directly, Intel will offer it to select OEMs via a series of auctions, held once a quarter, with the first auction scheduled for the third week of 2019. This means the price of the processor is not fixed, and will depend on how much each system integrator is willing to pay. We also learned that only three system integrators will be at the first auction.
>Other details about the chip that we have learned include that it will have a listed TDP of 255W, which means the peak power will be higher. Motherboard vendors will have to support 420 amps on the power delivery for the chip (which at 1.3 volts would be 546 watts), and up to 30 amps per core. It will be for the socket 2066 X299 motherboards already on the market, and perhaps importantly, there is no warranty from Intel. This means that system builders will not be able to recoup costs on dead silicon, but they might give their own warranty to end users.
It is more like Intel getting BTFO This chip already gets pwned by an i9-9900K at gaming and low-threaded shit because mesh-topology is ill-suited for low-threaded workloads. At multi-threaded stuff it gets pwned 2990WX and 9980XE. Clockspeed can't make up having only 14cores w/ SMT versus 32cores/SMT and 18cores/SMT. At least 9900K, 2990WX and 9980XE are obtainable unlike these "joke 9990XE". They are chips that not even HFT-fags want and Intel is stuck with them. They are essentially vaporware that will fail retake the performance crown.
Leo Johnson
>TDP of 255W Can't I just burn my own house down for free?
Juan Howard
I still see the 7980XE and 9980XE smoking the 9900XE in multithreaded tasks. Of course, TRs are still the best in multicore.
SHAWNTY FIRE BURNING ON THE DANCEFLOOR OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH
Liam Rodriguez
>TDP of 255W, which means the peak power will be higher. Motherboard vendors will have to support 420 amps on the power delivery for the chip (which at 1.3 volts would be 546 watts), and up to 30 amps per core Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy some matches at this point?
>comparing a server cpu with more threads to a consumer grade cpu
Xeons now confirmed for defunct, the year of the Intel housefire has arrived
Isaiah Powell
>reddit spacing Go back.
Jace Rogers
What's wrong with comfy spacing?
Jose Butler
Are they testing the market?
Xavier Lopez
I don't like it.
Nathan Reed
Hello newfag. People have been using spacing between blocks of text here since 2004. Fuck off.
Jason Cook
intel is so strapped for cash that they have to make auctions now LOL
Julian Garcia
>paying 600+ burger bucks to burn your house down
Samuel Torres
>This chip already gets pwned by an i9-9900K at gaming and low-threaded shit because mesh-topology is ill-suited for low-threaded workloads. Yet to be proven, and it won't be until some actual testing of the 9800X takes place (there are still zero reviews). That's the chip which would be most suitable for gaming, not just because of its clock speeds but because of the massive amount of cache it has per core compared to the rest of the lineup. These high core count chips only have 1.375MB per core, which is identical to what the first Skylake-X chips had, whereas the 9800X has just over 2MB per core. There was plenty of speculation that the cut down L3 cache was as much to blame for Skylake-X's poor gaming performance as the bingmesh, so seeing how it performs with that cache restored is what's interesting. I really want a direct head to head between the 9800X and 9900K to see what's what. There's little difference in how they clock (+200MHz in favour of the 9900K at most), and the 9800X also has a silly amount of L2 cache compared to the 9900K, in addition to its restored L3 cache and far more memory bandwidth to work with.
Sadly, nobody gives a fuck about the Skylake-X refresh. Even the Wikipedia page for Skylake-X hasn't been updated with the new chips, and those autists usually obsessively update every page no matter how trivial and obscure.
>meltdown brings intel performance down by 30% >intel responds by making a 550W frakenstein chip that still is slower than Epyc >intel responds by not actually selling it to anyone, just saying that they have it
outstanding move
Jose Powell
>For a mere twenty-gorillian dollars!
Does it grow food for me once I have no money left?
Jackson Clark
When Intel says 255W, they mean 600W, considering 9900K is a """""95W""""" chip. and pulls 200+W
>Intel is listing this processor as 'off roadmap', meaning it won't come to retail. Instead of selling to end users directly, Intel will offer it to select OEMs via a series of auctions So it is dead on arrival.
Lincoln Young
What if the Scot was right, and zen2 is 16C/32T 5 GHz at half the draw, better IPC and god knows how many times cheaper?
Benjamin James
it isn't even arriving
it's dead on conceptualization
Colton Parker
Based i7-7700k
Evan Sanchez
Get a job
Luis Perry
Maybe a dumb question, but how can a chip with with a specified tdp of 95 or 135 draw almost double of that?
Ethan Sanders
Intel is cheating by specifying TDP at base clocks without any Turbo Boost. So in case of 9900K it's 3.6GHz instead of up to 5.0GHz.
Nicholas Jones
>14c/28t draws as much as a 32c/64t chip INTEL IS DOA
Josiah Miller
Ah ok
Robert Gray
>4.0GHz chip draws as much as a 5.0GHz one
Camden Jackson
This, it's the same with my FX 8350, stock 4GHz at 1.35v is cool as a cucumber, but if you try to run all cores with the 1.425 turbo vcore at 4.5GHz or whatever your chip does, it's right on the edge of air cooling on my Hyper T4
Brandon Sanchez
It's pretty much confirmed at this point. AMD showed just one chiplet at CES. They're going to go for two chiplets to cover everything from 6 cores all the way to 16 cores.
Nicholas Perry
Factory Turbo for that CPU is 4.2GHz which matches the TDP of 125W. Driving it above that obviously invalidates the TDP and I don't think any motherboard does that by default.
Intel is claiming 9900K has 95W TDP while by default on almost every motherboard it will use All Core Turbo to go far beyond that. It's misleading for consumers who often are not aware of cooling requirements to reach full performance.
Austin Morgan
>I don't think any motherboard does that by default Kek, my MSI 990FX was really shitty and would turbo to 1.448v, and it's oc genies 4.2GHz with 1.384 vcore setting was easily over 125w because my Hyper TX3 was hitting 65C.
If you reset BIOS to default does it bring the CPU above 125W? Because Intel does that and that's my point. I know you can make AMD boards do stupid shit with auto-OC features.
Matthew Reyes
Power draw is proportional to voltage squared times frequency. Voltage itself grows quadratically with frequency towards the end of the overclocking curve so power draw grows quintically with frequency. All else being equal a 5.0GHz chip will draw 3x as much power as a 4.0GHz one regardless if it's AMD or Intel
Jacob Green
Finally, I can compile chromium on gentoo.
Lucas Scott
Yes, it uses a default 1.384v when the 8350 only has a vid of 1.35v, and the temps are unneccesarily higher by a little bit even at 4ghz, it could be a little over 130w but not this stupid shit that intel has
Just blows my mind that there would become a time where the Vishera thermals are not a big deal because intel cannot be competitive.
Cooper Sanders
>We also learned that only three system integrators will be at the first auction the yields must be absolutely horrible.
Jose Brown
Yeah that sounds about right considering the delivery overshoot/sensor precision.
What a time to be alive, indeed.
Elijah Cook
>70ghz processor draws more heat than a 128ghz one OHNONONOOOOOOO
