Intel Core i9-9900k 8c/16t, i7-9700K 8c/8t, i7-9600k 6c/6t 2nd Gen Coffee Lake CPU's + Z390

Intel’s Flagship 9th Generation Core i7-9700K To Pack 8 Cores, 16 Threads
https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-8-cores-16-threads-rumor/

"Based on the recent Intel leaks, Chinese sources are further reporting through information acquired from motherboard makers in Taiwan that Intel’s next generation, 9th generation flagship will pack more cores than the current fastest mainstream processor.

Intel’s Core i7-9700K 9th Generation Flagship To Feature 8 Cores, 16 Threads – Core i5 and Core i3 Get Upgrades Too
There was no doubt that Intel’s 9th generation mainstream processors weren’t going to receive a core bump in the coming year. There were leaked slides already hinting that and next year means Intel will be getting enough time to tweak their process and architecture design to accommodate more cores.

Straight from HKEPC, who were able to get information out of Taiwan motherboard makers, it has been rumored that the 9th generation flagship which will be known as the Intel Core i7-9700K, will pack 8 cores and 16 threads. There’s no mention of what process technology the new processors will be utilizing but I believe it’s an updated version of the current 14nm++ process. There’s also a interesting rumor regarding the Core i5 and Core i3 series of processors too.

It’s easy to tell the Coffee Lake was an immediate and rushed response to AMD’s Ryzen but with 9th generation, Intel will have a good amount of time to release a strong competitor. The AMD Pinnacle Ridge family is expected to debut next year and will be using tweaked Zen cores for improved performance leverage and greater efficiency. There’s no mention of core bump at the moment but AMD might take that path since the core wars between Intel and AMD are on the rise in both main stream and HEDT segments."
Intel’s Flagship 9th Generation Core i7 9700K To Pack 8 Cores, 16 Threads

AIDA64 Adds Support For Unreleased Intel CPUs – Includes Core i9 Mobile Processors, 9th Generation CPUs and New Coffee Lake Desktop CPUs
https://wccftech.com/intel-unreleased-cpus-core-i9-8th-9th-gen-aida64-support/

"AIDA64 has added a list of unreleased Intel CPUs for support in their latest Beta release. The new AIDA64 Extreme Beta version can identify a list of CPUs that have not been released to consumers yet but may be headed for launch soon.

AIDA64 BETA Adds Support For Several Unreleased Intel CPUs – An Entire Army of 8th and 9th Generation Desktop / Mobile CPUs Launching Soon?
So, just to make clear, these chips may or may not launch anytime soon, but they have been defined by Intel themselves as indicated by Videocardz. Generally, such CPUs end up showing in databases early in production when they are tested by the manufacturer themselves or information is passed along."

Leo Says Ep4: - Intel screw the pooch!
13:47 Loads of new Coffee Lake CPUs announced including mobile Core i9-8950HK
15:28 Intel Z390 chipset due in H2 2018, presumably alone with 8 core Coffee Lake CPU

 

I like how intel is still panicking. They realize how much better Ryzen actually is that it's not even funny.

 

I don't need 16 more cores but I'd love about twice the number of PCIe lanes.

 

While I like Ryzen, other than the bug issue right now I do not see it as better than Intel. I see them as a viable, affordable option. In certain circumstances the Ryzen chipsets and configurations may make one platform advantageous over the other but that then relies more on use specifics.

 

"updated 14nm++"

........ 14nm+++?

The "10nm is dead, long live 14nm" bandwagon is going strong

 

Apparently 10nm isn't performing - no improvement's from 10nm process over 14nm, in fact worse performance.

Intel delays Cannonlake 10nm processor for the third time
Intel has delayed its 10nm processor Cannon Lake for the third time, reports Digitimes, because of 10nm production problems.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/n...cannonlake-10nm-processor-third-time-2017-09/

The Price of Intel Corporation’s 10-Nanometer Failure
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nasd...orporations-10-nanometer-failure-cm821414/amp

Little choice but to continue using what works.

Lucky for AMD they have TSMC, with great 7nm results so far, and 5nm + 3nm plants underway for 2019 and 2020 respectively.

 

9th Gen Intel CPUs Bring 8 Cores & Hyper-threading To i5/i3?!
Intel's 9th generation CPUs are rumored to bring 8 cores to their mainstream line and up their i5 and i3 CPUs! Stay tuned...

 

That is not how I read it.

10nm isn't performing enough better (not simply yields/performance - but also cost of moving to that node too) than what 3rd gen 14nm is already, or 'close enough', delivering already.

Another point that is constantly missed when pointing out how Intel is still 'failing' (lol...) is that process nodes between different fabs aren't comparable in the slightest. Not from a cost stand point, not form a TDP stand point, not from a performance stand point and not from an optimized node stand point either.

When Intel decides to move to the next node it wants to support; the problems will have already been cleared up without spending dollar one on ramping up production on these intermediate nodes first...

Intel is doing what I keep recommend doing too; namely; keep using what you have until you find something with superior performance without any other aspect changing on your platforms. There is no sin in this; some may even call it smart in some circles.

The first link is comical - a random internet blurb about another internet blurb - saying what Intel is supposed to have said. Yawn.

The second link doesn't even load for me right now - I've tried from three of my primary connections to the 'net and the page hangs.

In the end; Intel is delivering more than enough to not only stay competitive with AMD - but also with the previous products it had available to us that want/need them.

Getting stuck on something effectively irrelevant (today) as an 'Xnm' process node is sure showing how low and picky we have to get to find any small fault with the still king of the processors in x86 land as we near the end of 2017...

And the recent postings of Intel's latest introduced platforms are even more promising as the details keep trickling in.

 

I think you are missing the point. t is that where Intel was looking to go to 10nm it was trying to distance itself even further from AMD. Since it will not get and advantage AMD now has 12nm and 14 nm+ or even 14nm++ to look forward too in the near future. This and 7nm is up for grabs for both Intel and AMD as far as time frame and relative gains.

 

Oh, I understand that things can change and very quickly too. No doubt Intel has something ready for that eventuality...

Right now though? Intel has a comfortable lead over AMD in many, if not most aspects of productivity - even on AMD's 'more cores' is better push...

More cores is better (when other performance aspects don't change - i.e. high single core perf), smaller nodes are eagerly anticipated - for their power and performance improvements and all of that and more will come to a boil when it does.

Right now? The distance from AMD to Intel is even greater than it was after Ryzen was released earlier this year, just like I hoped and somewhat predicted (i.e. my stating to 'wait for Intel's response...' before claiming the processor crown for AMD).

Process nodes are but just one way to move forward. Intel has proven that with Kaby Lake R.

I'm still interested in the overall platform they deliver - not the details of that platform, per se - and deliver, they do.

 

Intel had the single core speed and now the core counts. It is not by enough though to justify the price difference unless you have a workflow that can saturate those cores, and keep them saturated. if they are not the extra money is doing nothing to help. No one has ever proclaimed Ryzen would pull the crown from Intel other than TR did for a short time being out of the gate first.

AMD prior to Ryzen was not a real alternative now it is. In the day when a word program could easily saturate a CPU then every ounce of power was needed, that is not the way it is today. This is why Intel fears AMD as in other than the most demanding of scenarios a Ryzen system is more than adequate and can equal productivity.

This is not to say that the competition is not a good thing. Keep on upping the anti. The core I9 is a welcome addition and maybe it will make AMD take notice and do something there.

 

Cores don't need to be saturated to justify a higher performing platform. All that is needed is the (paid) work to do so.

If a system is running @ 100% utilization - it is the wrong system to use if actual productivity is required/needed and better platforms are available.

At just around 70% utilization is where I feel the need to actively look for a new platform - at 80%+ utilization; I'm leaving productivity on the table for a mere few $$$$ worth of tools. Either hardware tools or software tools; I'll begin searching for something that will bring the % utilization into the 'maximized' range vs. the past the 'exhausted' range of the platforms I use.

 

I consider a system saturated when all the cores show 50% or better usage. At that point usually there is some bogging down. Just because I am being "paid" does not justify a higher priced high speed system when it is not required.

 

That is also a good way to measure 'saturated' too, depending on the workload.

As for justifying a higher priced platform? Depends on what you get 'paid' per hour to play with it.

 

Awesome Hardware #0131-A: 8-Core 9700K Rumors
39:13 - i7-9700K 9th Gen w/ 8 Cores 16 Threads

 

BIOSTAR confirms Z390 RACING GT3 & GT5 motherboards
Published: 10th Apr 2018, 09:25 GMT
https://videocardz.com/75858/biostar-confirms-z390-racing-gt3-gt5-motherboards

"Now, this is probably one of the biggest embargo-breaking failures in recent history.

BIOSTAR Z390 RACING GT3
A manual bundled with B360 Racing series apparently has more information than it’s supposed to have. The cover revealed that the company has Z390 motherboard in the making, in fact, they already have a manual for it.

This means that either Z390 motherboards are close, or someone was just not paying attention and made a huge mistake which went into print (very unlikely).

The manual can be downloaded from Biostar website and its content are not really giving us much information about the Z390 chipset itself. It does mention though that B360 chipset does not allow overclocking while Z390 does. The motherboard also supports CPUs up to 95W, which may indirectly confirm the maximum TDP of 8-core Coffee Lake-S CPU.

Contents of the manual reveal another motherboard, the Z390 Racing GT5:

Spoiler

View attachment 157462
View attachment 157463

 

9th series gen? the naming scheme starts to get ridonculous, with 6th to 9th gen being based on an identical arch with same IPC...

nevertheless, good to see AMD forcing intel to actually move forward with overall cpu performance, FINALLY letting go of pimped igpu, nobody cares!!!!

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/z390-and-x399-chipset-confirmed-through-intel.html

Looks like we are getting Cannon Lake and it will be supported on Z390 and ALL EXISTING 300 series motherboards..

 

Weird, it lists Cannon Lake support for most 300 Series chipsets but not Z370.

Also the fact that X399 is used on both AMD and Intel HEDT platforms will be confusing as hell.

 

They are telling me a Z370 board, with decked out VRMs, power delivery etc won't support next gen CPUs with same socket, but the H370 will? Right.. I don't take this as final support. Additionally my 8700K box says it "Requires 300 Series Chipset Motherboard" right on the box. My motherboard also says 300 series chipset if I recall correctly. If Intel decides to do some voodoo blocking, I have a feeling the could become subject to a lawsuit actually. If you think you're buying a 300 series platform, and then it turns out to not support 300 series CPUs due to an artificial block, thats a lawsuit waiting to happen.

It also has X299 only lasting one generation as well. Again not something Intel has ever done with their X series motherboards.

 

Actually I think what that table is saying, is that *310/*360/*370 will support only CFL, but Z390 will support both CFL and CNL.

 

...and in extension on ALL Z170 and Z270 boards via bios mods

Sent from my Xiaomi Mi Max 2 (Oxygen) using Tapatalk

 

Glad to see Intel, will not sand bag anymore.

 

I don't think that chart says what you think it says, and there is still no confirmation that 8c/16t Coffee Lake will run on x370 as well as the new x390.

Given Intel's past behavior, the only way Intel would allow the 8c/16t CPU's to function on the x370 is if they were completely desperate and are rolling over on their bag of tricks.

Also, what a waste of potential to limit the 8c/16t to 95w, even AMD have expanded support for higher power limits, 105w on the new Ryzen 2.0 (Zen 1.0) generation CPU's, and likely even higher on Ryzen 3.0 (Zen 2.0).

Although that 8c/16t 95w limit with power throttling to fit on the x370 might indeed make sense, given the increasing lack of opportunity to screw their customers due to AMD taking them in vast numbers.

What then will the x390 offer for the apparently non-improved power handling of the new 8c/16t CPU over the x370?

It looks like Intel might be "messing it up again", another lost opportunity due to caving in to pressure to deliver quickly to compete with AMD Ryzen 2.0.

Or, the new 8c/16t CPU will only be supported at full performance on the x390...with limited x370 support to stave off the pitch forks and torches of customers fed up with Intel's poor treatment of Intel's platform life-cycle.

But, that is many months off if Intel does it right, or just around the corner if Intel is panicking again and shipping too early.

 

You can increase PL1 and PL2 in BIOS.

 

Yeah, again posting what we already know? Why not consider the ramifications of doing that? Let's do that now.

The problem is the motherboard manufacturers build to spec, and based on that 95w the power delivery won't be as high as if it were designed for a higher power spec.

So, if you increase the power limits, or remove them, on a x370 you could over drive the power delivery and have problems with reliability or stability running at the limits trying to shoe-horn in the 8c/16t CPU into a motherboard power delivery system that was designed to support a 6c/12t CPU.

The x390 motherboards should have been redesigned for higher power delivery for the extra cores, and if Intel had spec'd the 8c/16t CPU power requirements higher than the 4c/8t CPU's, they would have done so.

Either the x390 delivers more power and provides better support for 8c/16t, as x370 provided more power and provides better support for 6c/16t over the x270/x170 4c/8t CPU's, or it loses it's reason for existence.

If Intel allows the x370's to take the 8c/16t CPU's they are both killing the reason for the x390 as well as introducing problems for owners with x370's that don't have enough power to fully drive unlocked 8c/16t CPU's.

So, yeah, you can theoretically change the PL1 / PL2 in today's BIOS, but will that be fully the case with the updated BIOS for x370 that supports 8c/16t CPU's, or will there be a hard wall on power delivery based on MB capabilities?

x390 or highest end x370 MB's might be the only BIOS's that are really unlimited.

That's assuming a scenario where Intel rolls over and allows 8c/16t CPU's on to x370 motherboards.

 

Intel’s Core i7-9700K: What We Know (And How It Could Beat AMD)
by Matt Safford April 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i7-9700k-intel-9th-generation,36826.html

"It’s a tough time to be a PC builder or gamer. Graphics-card prices are astronomical, RAM sits in a similar celestial orbit, and HTC’s new Vive Pro VR headset will set you back $1,200 if you don’t have an existing set of sensors and accessories for HT's previous-generation headset. If you want to play on the leading edge, or anywhere close to it, it will cost you.

Indeed, from the PC-component perspective, about the only thing working in favor of increased performance and affordability at the moment is the CPU market.

The launch of AMD’s Ryzen chips last year, which brought eight-core CPUs into the mainstream for the first time, was followed later by Intel’s six-core Core i7-8700K. All of a sudden, the number of cores and threads available for your computing dollar was never better.

And that ratio may get better still—AMD’s next-generation Ryzen chips are expected to arrive in April. Leaked reviews of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 seem to indicate that they are a decent upgrade over the initial Ryzen chips from 2017—especially when it comes to the latency issues that plagued last year’s Ryzen chips in some games.

What’s Intel’s Next CPU Step?
With new Ryzen processors about to roll out, our interest--of course--turns to what Intel will offer up as a response, and as a replacement for chips like the Core i7-8700K. (That key "mainstream flagship" CPU debuted just about six months ago, in early October of 2017.) Let’s take a look at what we know (or at least what we think we know) about the putative Core i7-9700K, and what it will need to compete with AMD’s increasingly tough competition.

Multiple rumors and leaks strongly indicate that the ostensible Core i7-9700K will sport eight CPU cores and 16 threads, in contrast to the six cores and 12 threads on the Core i7-8700K. If this turns out to be true, it will be a first for Intel on a mainstream-grade CPU platform—as opposed to the enthusiast-targeted Core X-Series platform, which goes all the way up to 18 cores (if you can afford to drop a couple of grand on a CPU). But the eight cores on the Core i7-9700K, if that turns out to be accurate, only just matches what AMD has to offer in terms of cores and threads on its mainstream Ryzen CPUs; it doesn’t surpass the competition.

10 Nanometer (or Not)?
Of course, a shift to the long-promised 10nm process node would help Intel move further ahead of AMD without necessarily adding more cores. But that’s looking increasingly unlikely with Intel’s next round of desktop chips. Intel’s Gregory Bryant (senior vice president and general manager of the Client Computing Group) proclaimed at CES 2018, back in January, that 10nm chips were shipping to customers. But documents released weeks later seem to confirm that those 10nm “Cannon Lake” parts that shipped in 2017 were low-power, dual-core parts without integrated graphics. These aren’t the Cannon Lake chips that enthusiasts and gamers are looking for.

In fact, it’s looking likely that the Core i7-9700K will be a so-called “Coffee Lake Refresh” chip built around Intel’s 14nm++ process. Why do we say that? For starters, we have heard persistent rumors and leaks around an upcoming Z390 chipset.

Most recently, a listing for " motherboard-specific sensor info for MSI B360/H310/H370/Z390-Series," showed up in a recent AIDA64 update. (AIDA64 is a benchmark and diagnostic suite often used to test pre-release hardware.)

What a Chipset Tells Us
We now know that the other 300-series chipsets mentioned above are real—in fact, we’ve tested a few motherboards based on them. So there’s no reason to think that a Z390 chipset won’t arrive soon—at Computex 2018 in July, perhaps.

Now, the “3” in the Z390 name almost certainly indicates that the chipset is aimed at Coffee Lake CPUs, just like the other 300-series chipsets. What does that tell us? If Intel knew it was going to have 10nm "Cannon Lake" desktop chips ready sometime in 2018, it seems extremely unlikely—though certainly not out of the question—that the company would be launching yet another high-end chipset for its current-generation processors halfway through the year.

If we were placing bets, we’d put our chips (pun intended) on the likelihood that Z390 was designed specifically for a line of Coffee Lake Refresh chips, which would include the Core i7-9700K.

Alternately, the Core i7-9700K could be a limited stop-gap between chip generations, just like the pair of "Devil’s Canyon" chips were back in 2014.

Can Intel Push Coffee Lake Higher?
Of course, even assuming all the above leaks and assumptions are true, there is quite a lot we still don’t know about Intel’s future mainstream flagship chip. This wikichip page has a fairly detailed spec list based on existing leaks and rumors. It may prove to be accurate, but it doesn’t say anything about clock speed—base clocks or turbo-boost rates. And if the Core i7-9700K is indeed a Coffee Lake chip that doesn't end up featuring architecture or major process-node changes, clock speed (plus core count) would tell us most of what we’d need to know about the performance of this upcoming chip.

That said, the Core i7-8700K already has a top Turbo Frequency (at stock settings) of 4.7GHz. It seems likely that, for Intel to set the new chip apart from its predecessor, the stock Turbo clocks would have to hit 5GHz or higher. If Intel can do that, while pushing up the base frequency to about 4GHz and keeping thermal demands in the same 95-watt range of the Core i7-8700K, that indeed would be impressive.

A Lot Comes Down to Pricing
Of course, we don’t know what Intel or AMD will charge yet for their next-generation CPUs. AMD has been extremely price-aggressive since the launch of Ryzen last year, often undercutting Intel’s comparable parts by a significant amount. With its finances now solidly in positive territory for the first time in years, AMD may continue to pressure Intel on chip prices. After all, the CPU underdog is making money and gaining market share with this strategy. So why change it?

But CPU prices aside, Intel also faces problems of affordability when it comes to the platform as a whole. AMD’s AM4 boards have been out for a year, and the company says that new CPUs will be backward-compatible with existing AM4 boards (after a BIOS update, of course). Intel’s chips, meanwhile, have not been backward-compatible with previous-generation boards in recent years. And on top of that, Team Blue only just released its lesser 300-series chipsets, after six months of essentially forcing consumers interested in 8th-Generation Core processors to overspend on motherboards—particularly upgraders and builders who don’t care about overclocking, Optane storage, or multiple-graphics-card setups.

Intel Has Options
So, where does Intel stand in the desktop CPU space with next-generation chips like the Core i7-9700K, and what does it need to do to gain ground on its newly resurgent competitor?

Offering more cores for less money would be a good start. That seems unlikely in the short term. Offering up more-affordable motherboards that work with more than one processor generation wouldn’t hurt, either. Both tactics seem to be working for AMD, and Intel clearly has the coffers to cut its margins thinner than AMD can.

Another interesting option for Intel to compete in today’s world of ever-overpriced graphics cards would be a socketed version of the "Kaby Lake-G" CPU that we just tested in the Intel NUC 8 VR. A custom build around a Kaby Lake-G chip would allow many users to game without the added expense of a graphics card, as well as making truly compact mainstream gaming systems more viable than they have been in the past. Given the rise of titles like Fortnite and Overwatch—which aren’t that graphically demanding—the market could be ripe for just that kind of system. And Intel clearly has some kind of designs on the GPU market, as evidenced by the company’s hire of AMD’s Raja Koduri late last year.

But while Koduri is certainly an interesting hire, a socketed Kaby Lake-G is extremely unlikely, given that AMD makes the Vega graphics in those chips. It was surprising to see AMD selling Intel its graphics silicon for comparatively low-volume products such as the new Intel NUC and high-end convertibles like the Dell XPS 15 Convertible. But we highly doubt that AMD is desperate enough to cut into its own core desktop-CPU and graphics businesses by helping Intel compete against itself and its own socketed graphics-equipped products, like the "Raven Ridge" AMD Ryzen 5 2400G."

 

The Economics of Intel Corp.'s Rumored 8-Core Chip
More cores mean higher manufacturing costs.
Ashraf Eassa, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:45PM

"In October 2017, chip giant Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) introduced its Coffee Lake family of processors for the desktop personal computer market. The key improvement that these new chips delivered was an increased core count from their predecessors for roughly the same price.

In effect, Intel began selling six-core processors for the same prices that it previously sold four-core processors and it offered four-core processors for the same prices that it sold dual-core chips.

To deliver these additional cores, Intel had to increase the sizes of its chips. Increases in chip sizes, all else being equal, mean that the manufacturing costs of those chips move up.

In a few months, Intel is expected to introduce yet another derivative of its Coffee Lake processors, but this time with eight cores, up from the six found in the current top-end models. This processor is expected to help both spur replacement demand among current customers while also helping to bolster its positioning in an increasingly fierce competitive environment.

Let's go over the potential economics of this upcoming eight-core chip and what they'll mean for Intel's business.

Calculating the chip size
Intel's quad-core Kaby Lake processor is believed to measure in at 123 square millimeters. The hex-core Coffee Lake chip, unsurprisingly, came in at around 149 square millimeters. Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake are nearly identical save for the addition of two cores and cache memory (to keep the amount of cache memory per core constant) on the die.

What this means, then, is that we can estimate the size of the eight-core Coffee Lake chip by adding the chip size difference between Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake to the known Coffee Lake chip size. That number works out to approximately 175 square millimeters -- a 17.4% increase in chip size.

The cost structure increase
It may be tempting to conclude that the eight-core Coffee Lake chip will cost 17.4% more to manufacture because it'll be around 17.4% larger than its predecessor. Though cost structure is positively correlated to chip size, it's not a linear relation.

This is because of the way that chips are manufactured. Chips are printed on circular silicon wafers. Every wafer produced has a certain average number of defects. Chips that contain defects are either sold as lower-end parts (assuming that the defective region doesn't kill the entire chip) or they're tossed out.

As chip size grows, the percentage of the chips that get hit with these defects goes up since you have a fixed number of defects spread out across fewer chips. This is one reason that chip manufacturing costs can go up by more than chip size increase.

Potentially offsetting this phenomenon, of course, is the fact that the 14-nanometer++ technology continues to mature (meaning that the defect density comes down), so while a six-core Coffee Lake will always be cheaper to build than an eight-core model, an eight-core model launched in June/July of 2018 may be at cost parity to a six-core model at launch in October of 2017.

For some context, Intel claimed that in going from 2016 to 2017, it saw a more-than-$1-billion reduction in 14-nanometer product manufacturing costs, likely reflecting improving yield rates. Intel executives have indicated that the yield rates on its 14-nanometer technology are nearly maxed out (so don't expect as dramatic an improvement in 2018 as what Intel delivered in 2017), but there's probably still room for a material improvement in 14-nanometer manufacturing costs year over year.

Total economic impact
Ultimately, the eight-core Coffee Lake chip should be at least 17.4% more expensive to build than its current hex-core counterpart (probably more in the realm of 20-25% taking into account the chip manufacturing issues I outlined above). That's the bad news.

The good news is that Intel should be able to charge more for this eight-core part than it could the six-core part. Additionally, the eight-core part should improve Intel's competitive positioning, particularly as games and other applications increasingly take advantage of additional processor cores, which could lead to market segment share gains (or, at a minimum, a stemming of the loss that it's seen in recent quarters).

The total economic impact from the release of this eight-core part should be good for Intel, even if the chip costs a little more to manufacture than its predecessor did."
Ashraf Eassa owns shares of Intel. The Motley Fool recommends Intel. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

 

https://downloadmirror.intel.com/27681/eng/Release_Notes_16_0_2.pdf

Intel has changed the document and it now lists the Z370 as a "300" series chipset. Funny how that quickly changed after some pointed out they were internally listing it as a "200" series chipset. Huh.

Either way even if a new motherboard is required for an 8-core CFL chip I will sell and upgrade again unless gaming performance tanks. . 8-core CFL with high clocks would bury the 8 core Ryzen chips in multitasking and force AMDs hand at releasing even higher core count chips on their consumer boards (not talking TR here). The problem though for Ryzen is that their core counts don't save their single core performance and therefore gaming performance suffers. If anything with additional glued on CCXs gaming performance might even tank unless they can get the latency down or you go out and purchase even more expensive RAM defeating all that cost savings with Ryzen (look at TR gaming performance).

No matter what now is a very exciting time for CPUs again, I haven't seen this much progress and movement since the Athlon days and it's fun. My first family computer was a Pentium 166mhz. Then I had nothing but AMD products after that until around college when I got a Pentium E8400 to replace my Opteron 185 dual core. Haven't had an AMD chip since, but it's nice to see them coming back hard. If they could only match gaming performance at stock and have a ton of OC headroom for fun then I would consider them again. Until then, nah. They gotta bring it harder. With Intel bringing Jim Keller now at Intel I think we are finally seeing Intel make real moves to bring something big again. Exciting times ahead for sure.

 

lol this is ridiculous. with intel ure getting a new mobo for every new CPU released every six months, whereas with AMD u just keep ur mobo, update bios and go for like 3-4 cpu gens at that point, how much sense does it make, even if intel is "a bit" better in gaming? especially with a 1080 Ti, which u surely dont use at 1080p to game....

 

I know people who use a 1080 Ti for 240Hz gaming, where both a strong CPU and GPU are key.

 

somehow i KNEW that you would bring up ultrahigh refresh/FPS gaming

 

Ofc, because that's a common usage scenario. Maybe not 240Hz per se, but definitely 120/144/165/180 Hz.

 

Intel's 10nm Is Broken, Delayed Until 2019
by Paul Alcorn April 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-10nm-earnings-amd,36967.html

"Intel announced its financial results today, and although it posted yet another record quarter, the company unveiled serious production problems with its 10nm process. As a result, Intel announced that it is shipping yet more 14nm iterations this year. They'll come as Whiskey Lake processors destined for the desktop and Cascade Lake Xeons for the data center.

Intel nailed a nearly perfect quarter with top-line numbers that include record Q1 revenue of $16.8 billion, which is up 16% year-over-year (YoY). The company also raised its guidance for the full year to $67.5 billion, which is a $2.5 billion bump over its previous guidance, but we'll circle back to those numbers later.

The 10nm Problems
Overall, Intel had a stellar quarter, but it originally promised that it would deliver the 10nm process back in 2015. After several delays, the company assured that it would deliver 10nm processors to market in 2017. That was further refined to the second half of this year.

On the earnings call today, Intel announced that it had delayed high-volume 10nm production to an unspecified time in 2019. Meanwhile, its competitors, like TSMC, are beginning high volume manufacturing of 7nm alternatives.

Recent semiconductor node naming conventions aren't based on traditional measurements, so they're more of a marketing exercise than a science-based metric. That means that TSMC's 7nm isn't entirely on par with Intel's 10nm process. However, continued process node shrinks at other fabs show that other companies are successfully outmaneuvering the production challenges of smaller lithographies.

Intel's CEO Brian Krzanich repeatedly pressed the point that the company is shipping Cannon Lake in low volume, but the company hasn't pointed to specific customers or products. And we've asked. As we pointed out earlier this year, the delay may seem a minor matter, but Intel has sold processors based on the underlying Skylake microarchitecture since 2015, and it's been stuck at the 14nm process since 2014. That means Intel is on the fourth (or fifth) iteration of the same process, which has hampered its ability to bring new microarchitectures to market. That doesn't bode well for a company that regularly claims its process node technology is three years ahead of its competitors.

Krzanich explained that the company "bit off a little too much on this thing" by increasing 10nm density 2.7X over the 14nm node. By comparison, Intel increased density by only 2.4X when it moved to 14nm. Although the difference may be small, Krzanich pointed out that the industry average for density improvements is only 1.5-2X per node transition. Because of the production difficulties with 10nm, Intel has revised its density target back to 2.4X for the transition to the 7nm node. Intel will also lean more on heterogeneous architectures with its EMIB technology (which we covered here).

10nm is Intel's last process based on traditional photolithography, and though Krzanich didn’t dive deep into details, he listed the lithography technique as a significant contributor to the low 10nm yields. The company will switch to EUV at 7nm. Currently, Intel's multipatterning process is generating too many yield-reducing defects to produce 10nm cost-effectively. Krzanich says the company has identified the issue and is moving to correct it, but the fixes will take an unspecified amount of time to impact yields significantly. Intel was unwilling to commit to high volume production in the first half of 2019, so it's possible 10nm will be delayed until the second half of the year.

We continue to make progress on our 10-nanometer process. We are shipping in low volume and yields are improving, but the rate of improvement is slower than we anticipated. As a result, volume production is moving from the second half of 2018 into 2019 . We understand the yield issues and have defined improvements for them, but they will take time to implement and qualify. We have leadership products on the roadmap that continue to take advantage of 14-nanometer, with Whiskey Lake for clients and Cascade Lake for the data center coming later this year.

Krzanich’s statement says that while Intel has defined the fixes, it hasn’t actually tested them in high-volume manufacturing. That means the company could turn back to the drawing board soon if the fixes aren’t effective.

That's likely the impetus for Intel's confirmation today that it realigned its critical Technology and Manufacturing Group, which produces the company's silicon, under new leadership. Intel also made a timely pre-earnings-call announcement today that it had brought in famed chip architect Jim Keller to head up its silicon design initiatives. This was likely a move to assure investors that the 10nm production issues have Intel's full attention.

Unfortunately, process technologies require extensive incubation periods, so it could take some time before leadership changes have a significant impact on Intel's roadmap. Intel's obviously bringing the pieces together quickly, but its competitors, such as AMD, are executing well on their future architectures. AMD already has working 7nm GPUs in its labs and projects it will sample 7nm EPYC 2 processors this year. Both will be in volume production early next year.

Thoughts
Intel's late 10nm process has led to stagnation on the microarchitecture development front, and the problems are even larger than they appear on the surface. As the financial results clearly outline, the company is successfully diversifying into AI, the data center, autonomous driving, 5G, FPGAs, and IoT, among other climes. It's even added GPUs to the list.

Unfortunately, Intel's process technology touches every segment of all that tech, as well as the chips that power them. 10nm's late arrival could hamper Intel's competitiveness in nearly all of those segments, and all this comes as Intel is expanding into new segments that already have dominant and entrenched players with deep pockets. Krzanich did point out that Intel has improved 14nm's performance by 70% since its debut in 2014, but the company will surely reach a diminishing point of returns soon.

Intel's relatively flat R&D spend (+3%) is certainly not encouraging, given the current climate. The company will likely switch to second-gen 10nm+ due to its yield issues with 10nm, but it did not confirm the change during the earnings call. Krzanich did say the company will not skip to the 7nm node. Instead, it will apply its learning from the 10nm node to the 7nm process.

Krzanich also admitted that the company's density lead over competing fabs is shrinking. Intel has long been the keeper of the Moore's Law flame, and the company has continued to insist that the Law is still alive long after other companies have conceded that it expired. We'll have to see if Intel changes its messaging, but we're a long time removed from the Tick-Tock cadence. Considering that Intel hasn't delivered a smaller process in significant volumes since 2014, it's fair to say that the original Moore's Law is officially dead.

The Financials
Intel's Client Computing Group (CCG) posted strong financial results. The group focuses on processors for laptops and desktops and has been under an extended assault from AMD, which continues to enjoy brisk momentum. Intel's CCG group posted $8.2 billion in revenue, a 3% YoY gain, but this is largely due to increased average selling prices and strength in enthusiast processor sales."
Comments

MODEONOFF 17 hours ago
"Does that mean CPUs such as Cascade Lake that should have the Meltdown and Spectre issues removed at hardware level will be delay to 2019?"


PAULALCORN 15 hours ago
ANONYMOUS SAID:

"Intel brought out Coffee Lake and had really low volume during the holiday season, so you basically couldn't buy one. And when you could, they were insanely overpriced. That likely hurt Intel's sales in that period because no one would buy a Kaby with fewer cores than the pending Coffee Lake models. Retailers ran deep discount Ryzen sales during Black Friday and Cyber Monday, so AMD owned the holiday shopping season.

Announcing an eight-core could have a similar impact on Intel's Coffee Lake sales. Why buy a six-core when an eight-core is right around the corner? Meanwhile, AMD has really competitive silicon in the market. Pre-announcing products is a tricky business. Sometimes it hurts more than it helps."

Moore's Law Is Dead - Intel's 10nm Is Broken, Delayed Until 2019
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/8f9kxm/moores_law_is_dead_intels_10nm_is_broken_delayed/

 

So no Cannon Lake 8-cores until next year?

 

Intel is in no rush to get those chips done and they don't need to be. 8700K is gaming king, hell even an i5 8400 beats out anything Ryzen offers in gaming performance. I think we'll see an 8-core CFL or Whiskey Lake on 14nm+++++++++ soon enough and if it maintains ring design and clockspeed it will bury Ryzen in workstaiton tasks as well. AMD has Ryzen 2 with a late 2019 or possibly 2020 release so they aren't going to be pressed anytime soon. 10nm and a complete architectural change with Jim Keller at the wheel can wait. AMD should be very worried with their golden boys on board at Intel.

 

Wow, Intel is not putting out an 8 core or higher CPU to compete against AMD in gaming. In most work station tasks AMD is burying Intel, the high IPC cunts only for maybe a slightly snappier desktop but it does not help with productivity. If I click on a web sight as an example, I do not care when I blink my eye how fast it has been opened while it is closed, only that before my eye opens it is open.

When a huge DB has to be recalculated it is faster on the multicore Ryzen than on a lower core Intel. Even where the Intel is insanely overclocked which over 95% are not. Lastly gaming advantage requires a 1080 as a minimum and running at 1080P or lower. Even of the minority of systems that are gaming ones those are a minority within that class.

 

Steam survey shows 72% using 1080p resolution

 

You're right they aren't putting it out for gaming, that is covered with their 4 core/8 thread CPUs already.

 

You forget the and GTX 1080 or better. The fact is if you have one of those high end video cards it is likely you may be running 1440P or better. Also that steam survey is of a lot of older systems and hardware, if you look at GTX 1080 and GTX 1080TI, no matter the resolution or system, they are only 2% of the survey.

So for the surveys you point too, at least 98% of the users are better off with an AMD system! Remember too these are surveys of a primarily gaming environment not all real world every day users.

 

I disagree... most of the 98% would be better off not wasting money on a new CPU/RAM/MOBO combo, and just spending money on a GPU.

 

Not all of those systems could even support a 1080 or 1080TI, then there are PSU issues along with display ports etc. etc., etc.. Then there are those casual gamers who do not need to spend that kind of money just to get that high end of a GPU. That argument has so many holes in it, as they say it just won't float. I mean the 1080 has been around for a while so if it were as easy as a simple desired upgrade that would bring up market saturation it would have happened already.

 

To be honest, Intel's discounts on the 7700k don't even really make it a bargain. The delta between Kaby and coffee is like 40-50$ might as well go for coffee.

Point I am making is, coffee lake will attract more people moving forward. It's future proofing. More and more games are optimizing for multi thread work loads. AMD is betting on multithread optimization and I think it's a valid bet. Intel is behind, and they know that they have been resting on their reputation and now need to start inovating.

 

I gamer exclusively at 4K , 1080ti is pretty much enough for most things . Like 99% of things

 

The point being most games at 4K on 1080TI do not get better frame rates with Intel or AMD. This is about a wash. Until Intel has their 8 core though AMD is the better at other workloads.

 

Its rumored that AMD is working on a 10 core Ryzen platform. AMD may actually outplay Intel for once. I only hope.

 

Maybe you have already forgot Intel's move vs. Ryzen Threadripper™
in Hedt platform Intel® Core™ i9-7980XE Extreme Edition Processor

And why can't Intel push similar move for mainstream? Or at least same amount cores.

 

The problem may be that these rumors center around 7nm, without 10 nm Intel may be in trouble, then again maybe not. This is all just talk for now until we see actual silicon.

 

AMD does have 10core yes, but that is not for enthusiast class and also that it is not on the standard Ryzen platform. Rumor has it, they are working on a 10 core RYZEN CPU that will socket into the 470 socket or whatever is after that. So, in essence, the Ryzen 2700 2800 will not be the top for that chipset.

 

Don't expect Intel will deliver less core vs. what AMD will offer (whatever platform) Hedt or mainstream.