[ad_1]
The processor market has evolved more in the last 22 months than from 2008 to 2017 combined. That's not to say that the processor architectures has not changed or we have not seen prices fall by heart. But Intel has seen remarkable success with product positioning introduced in the high end with Nehalem in 2008 and improved with Sandy Bridge in 2011. Quad-cores with Hyper-Threading at the top, a mid-range Core i5 without HT in the middle and a Core i3 dual-core with HT reactivated to anchor the low end. From 2011 to 2017, it was Intel's desktop product line, until AMD launched Ryzen. Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves in a completely different ball game.
The 9th generation Intel family completes the transformation of the product line that began with the 8th generation parts. The hyper-threading disappeared from the stack, with the exception of the Core i9-9900K. The difference between Core i7 and Core i5 has also decreased, at least in terms of the number of threads. Previously, chips like the Core i7-8700K
or Core i7-7700K supported twice the total number of threads in the Core i5 family, stating that it was logical rather than physical processors and that they did not provide anything more that a complete sizing. We generally assume that Hyper-Threading support adds about 20% performance. The Core i7-9700K no longer offers hyper-threading, but the number of cores has been increased to eight to compensate.
This launch is a crucial chance for Intel to recover some of the prestige that the company has lost over the past 10 months. Although the company's profits were excellent, we had to hammer the press for various reasons, including (in no particular order): security issues such as Specter and Meltdown, the sudden and unexpected resignation of the CEO, a significant delay accumulated above already considerable delay in deploying its process to 10 nm and a host of downstream impacts this, including a shortage of CPUs and a rumored delay in the deployment schedule of its EUVs. As we have written, these downstream effects should be considered as the logical downstream impact of the 10 nm delay rather than as a series of unrelated and unrelated problems, but they add to a turbulent year.
The Core i9-9900K offers the opportunity to change this story, but only if it manages to surpass the competitor of Ryzen's size on its way.
Although I would like to believe that you have read all my reviews and that you are aware of the competitive situation of the processor market, a brief recap of the Ryzen era is needed. AMD's high-end Ryzen 7 1800X and associated processors located lower in the stack of products allowed Intel's Kaby Lake to come out of the water, especially from $ 180. Intel fought back with the Core i7-8700K last October, which allowed it to regain the performance crown. In April, AMD took over the advantage thanks to its second generation, Ryzen 7 2700X. Now, Intel is hitting again.
What to watch for
Today we are evaluating a wide range of chips, covering several product families. We used the Core i7-7700K to illustrate the performance gains of Intel's latest quad-core processor, including the Core i7-8086K and Core i7-8700K, to cover enthusiasts who may have opted for one generation former. (or are just curious about the 8086K in general) and have discarded the 10 core Core i9-7900X to illustrate the potential performance benefits provided by this platform's four-channel DDR4 support and two extra hearts.
Our milestones on AMD's side are slimmer – AMD just has not built high-end components for as long as Intel – but they will answer important questions. The Ryzen 7 2700X This is our main point of comparison, but we have also kept the 2950X. First, it allows us to introduce AMD's $ 900 processor at the height of our inclusion of the Core i9-7900X at $ 1,000. Second, it illustrates the type of value the Threadripper 2950X provides against a processor from AMD's biggest rival.
We also separated some test results where we updated performance tests or added tests.
We tested the Intel Core i9-9900K on an Asus Maximus XI Hero motherboard with 32GB of DDR4-3200 installed in the four DIMM slots, a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti running the Nvidia 411.63 driver and a Samsung 970 EVO M SSD drive .2 1 TB for storage. Windows 10 Build 1803 was used for the benchmark with the latest patches and updates installed. The results of our tests are included in the slideshow below.
Game benchmarks
There are two schools of thought on game criteria. One argument says to test processors with GPU quality levels that will not really stress the card, which will allow the reviewer to highlight architectural differences. The other indicates that processors should be compared to levels of detail that the players themselves are likely to use, especially when testing high-end hardware. I agree with both points of view, but I deploy them at different times: lower detail levels are sensible when the goal is to study the low level differences in a new processor architecture, while normal detail levels are more useful for benchmarking a family of processors once it is established. in the market. And although I'm sure there is someone who likes to use a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at 1080p average retail because they really hate the drops of cadence, I can not say that I've ever met them.
The honest truth is: I use these criteria to give the journal a sense of completeness, not because there is no question about what I'm going to find. The games are the less effective way to highlight the differences between Intel and AMD processors at reasonable levels of detail for a GTX 1080 Ti, and our tests show a minimal gap between chips. The only exception to this rule is the Ashes of the Singularity processor test, which is specifically designed as a CPU-intensive scenario that needs to evolve with the number of processors and processors. However, there are few games that fit this performance profile and players should not worry about whether an Intel Ryzen 7 or older processor is capable of running the latest games. When the Core i7-8700K came out, the big discussion was to find out if it represented a good game upgrade compared to Sandy Bridge's 2011, a six-year-old chip at the time. As far as games go, the old Intel chips are not a problem, any more than Ryzen.
Our slideshow is below.
Intel picks up performance, but AMD has potential to control performance by dollar
Intel's Core i9-9900K sets new records in mono and multi-thread performance for Intel's family of standard workstations. It is faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and this chip is in line with our recommendation of the old and still brilliant Core i7-8700K. If you play exclusively in the Intel ecosystem, the prices are interesting. Until now, buying an eight-core Intel processor meant paying a significantly higher premium because customers had to commit to either the Core X family or a Xeon processor. The current price on the Core i7-7820X (8-core, 3.6-4.3 GHz) is $ 600 and the Xeon high-clock processors are not cheap either. In addition, Xeon and HEDT customers pay more for motherboards.
At around $ 480, the Core i9-9900K cuts the price of the 7820X by $ 120, while the compatibility of the Z370 motherboard could open a gap of $ 30 to $ 50 between cheaper consumer cards and options. more expensive LGA 2066. The Core i9-9900K is a real improvement of the stack of products of Intel with regard to the available performances per dollar. It's also the best processor on the market for those who demand uncompromising performance in single-line mode and multithreaded workloads. This is significantly faster and cheaper than older kernels, such as the Broadwell-E Core i7-6900K: the 6900K accounted for $ 1089 in 2016, compared to the $ 480 expected for the Core i9-9900K today. hui.
The only fault of the processor is that Intel knows what it has and calculates it accordingly. In doing so, it is highly likely that AMD's ability to capture market share in desktop computers remains largely limited to low-cost systems or the retail network. Intel processor prices are generally applicable only to the distribution network – OEMs do not pay all costs – and Intel may be willing to sacrifice market share for these channels as long as OEMs continue to deliver mainly high-end Intel platforms.
To date, this strategy seems to have worked. Core X processors are not competitive with AMD based on the list price. The Core i9-7900X loses all Threadripper 2950X tests, including the benchmarks that Intel tends to gain. Ordinary, we would predict that Intel would lower its prices by heart, but this is not the case since the launch of the Core X family in June 2017. This suggests that Intel does not Not worry about the price disparity that exists between it. and AMD for the Core X family, but we do not know if this will continue to be the case for the Core i9-9900K.
At one time, when it had been argued in favor of the price / performance ratio for AMD, it was a bit like trying to convince someone that a Peel P50 and a Mini Cooper S were offering an experience equivalent driving. These days are over. The Ryzen 7 2700X is not just a fast processor "for the price," it's an objectively fast processor period. There is a difference between a product that has managed to intrude into a niche in which it can argue narrowly in favor of its own utility and equipment, which is a sacred value in itself. AMD has gone from the first to the second.
Credit: Getty Images
The irony of Core i9-9900K is that in the absence of Ryzen, it is extremely unlikely that this chip can exist. In 2016, Intel launched Broadwell-E and its 10-core processors were priced at $ 1,723. The Core i7-6900K 8-core sold for $ 1,089, an increase of $ 90 over the previous generation Haswell-E. Intel had no intention of lowering the price of its processor or offering more cores except as dictated by his competitive response to Ryzen. Compare the Core i7-7700K to the Core i9-9900K if you want to see how Intel views Ryzen as a competitive threat and seriously, and remember that Kaby Lake is not even two years old. There is a marked disparity between Intel's adjustments to its product family after the launch of Ryzen – the company completely redesigned its product segmentation at all prices – and how ready it was to adjust its products. prices.
The Core i9-9900K does not work usually justify its higher price compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X or even cheaper Intel processors. With the Ryzen 7 2700X priced at approximately $ 300, the purchase of the Core i9-9900K for an additional $ 180 is equivalent to a 1.6x price penalty for an average performance gain of 1.15x overall. of our range of references. However, keep in mind that this varies quite reliably depending on the workload. AMD is therefore more competitive in rendering (6000% advances on 900) than in 7zip compression or in H.265 coding (9900K on this standard in 75% of the time required). a Ryzen 7 2700X). A gap of this size is an advantage that some people would be willing to pay – which means that there will be some specific areas, possibly including transcoding H.265, where the Core i9-9900K is a very good deal. On the other hand, if you are a gamer, the $ 180 you would save by buying AMD or a cheaper Intel chip would make the difference between buying a GeForce 1060 6GB ($ 250) and a GTX 1070 Ti ( $ 409) with US $ 21. spare. This exchange would have a much greater impact on your gaming performance than going to the 9900K bar.
The value proposition of the 9900K also depends on whether you consider it as a potential upgrade to the quad-core or six-core processor you are going to buy or as a potential alternative to the eight-core + Core X chip you want. purchase. Compared to Intel's pre-existing high-end ecosystem, it's a big step forward. Compared to what you can buy from AMD or what Intel offers to people who do not need eight hearts, not so much. But it's more of an argument to consider than an argument against the CPU, and we always recommend users to consider their usage patterns and general needs before pressing the trigger of any hardware purchase. .
Intel has moved away from this situation with the performance crown and AMD has kept the excellent performance per dollar. No one really loses here, except perhaps the Core i7-7700K customers. We are rather sorry for you, even if the processor is still objectively good.
Now read: AMD Ryzen 7 Review 2700X: Can AMD Technology Use Intel?, Intel may have 10nm hardware on the market faster than expected, Intel releases an update of supply problems at 14nm
[ad_2]
Source link
