From the article:Where did you hear that? AVX offset is a feature of the micro-architecture, AFAIK.
Intel's current flagship Core i9-9900K can hit 5.0 GHz on two of its cores at stock settings, but the Core i9-9900KS is designed to hit 5.0 GHz on all of its cores. That's an improvement of 300 MHz when all cores are active, and our chip does it with with all instruction types (AVX included) at stock settings.
With the 8700k with its MB, there was a separate setting for AVX. But with AVX2 and AVX set to 0, the 8700k could run 5 GHz on air and still not throttle.Where did you hear that? AVX offset is a feature of the micro-architecture, AFAIK.
I'm impressed with the improvements on the consumption front but the price should be around $450 and they could lower the K version at around $400.
As it is right now, the 3900X makes more sense
today everything from AMD makes more sense than Intels lineup except mobile or ultra high fps gaming or Xeon W Cascade lake, which is goodI'm impressed with the improvements on the consumption front but the price should be around $450 and they could lower the K version at around $400.
As it is right now, the 3900X makes more sense
Well, remember, BullDozer and PileDriver (Vishera) were 32nm (28nm?), and AMD got them to clock as high as 5Ghz, didn't they? What was the stock/boost clock of the FX-9590?It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.
I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.
Well, that sort of makes sense. Except no heatsink. And now in that price range, you are competing with the 3700x, that does come with a heatsink, and is very close in games.The practical gaming chip is actually the 9700K. 5 Ghz is mostly achievable and you should basically get the same performance as the 9900KS in games once overclocked.
Well, if someone wants an all core 5GHz overclock, the stock heat sink is pointless.Well, that sort of makes sense. Except no heatsink. And now in that price range, you are competing with the 3700x, that does come with a heatsink, and is very close in games.
Again, this is a niche of a niche, and Intel just wants to say they are the best in games, and I give them that.
At the moment AMD rules in everything else.
Your crapping on the chip in this thread certainly does not sound like a recommendation.I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.
I have said multiple times that if all you care about is gaming, and you want the absolute fastest, no matter the cost, or the heat, the 9900k or in this case 9900KS is your chip. But for the rest of the world, they can use less money, less heat and get better productivity in everything but games with a Ryzen 3000 series. Oh, and give up only about 5% FPS in games.
These chips that everyone loves to crap on are doing 5.2GHz+ with 16 threads on competitive ipc. Newer nodes will certainly be married to higher ipcs but these clocks are going to be next to impossible to match in the newer nodes. These octacores are going to enjoy greater shelf-life than the dual-cores from 10 years ago.If history repeats itself, i rather have a few more slower cores then fewer faster cores. I remember all the E8400 vs Q6600 threads. When next gen is in full swing people on a 9900K/9900KS might be wishing they sat on a 3900x. Could be wrong but i got a feeling i might be right.
Now to actually find a place to buy this damned thing. I'm slightly worried about the availability of it.
If history repeats itself, i rather have a few more slower cores then fewer faster cores. I remember all the E8400 vs Q6600 threads. When next gen is in full swing people on a 9900K/9900KS might be wishing they sat on a 3900x. Could be wrong but i got a feeling i might be right.
If these are normal results for the 9900KS then there is really no need for Intel to make 10nm chips. It's not like the microarch changed, for this increase in efficiency they basically made a bigger improvement than most other companies new nodes. If that was the case Intel would be talking it up, so I am more inclined to attribute this to measurement difficulties or a lucky sample.It's either some super golden sample, or Intel really has secret sauce in their 14nm fabs.