Coffee Lake Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/247481/intel...h-database

The higher clocks seem to bring the i5-9600K a touch higher than the i5-8600K in terms of GeekBench scores, although still nowhere close to the i7-8700 (non-K). The i5-8600K, if you'll recall, beat some of its pricier previous-generation siblings such as the i7-7700, in multi-threaded tests. Someone with access to an i5-9600K put it through GeekBench 4. The chip scores 6,015 points in the single-core test or about 3.7 percent faster than its predecessor (the i5-8600K typically scores 5,800 points), coming from the 300 MHz higher single-core boost. The multi-core score is 23,393 points, which is a meager 2 percent faster (the i5-8600K typically scores around 23,000 points). The generational jump in performance for the mid-range hence seems to have stagnated. At best the i5-9600K will repair the uncertain price/performance equation the i5-8600K has against the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X.

https://www.techpowerup.com/247494/first...w-surfaces

The bottom-line is that the i7-9700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 2700X in most multi-threaded tests except Cinebench nT; and owing to its high clock speeds, it will end up as the fastest gaming processor around the $350-400 mark. Interestingly, the i7-9700K isn't 33% faster than the i7-8700K despite 33% more cores, because HyperThreading is sorely missed. The distinction could be reserved for the Core i9-9900K, although samples of that chip are far too rare.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37769.html

DigiTimes is reporting that Intel intends to outsource 14nm chipsets and "several other" 300-series processors, meaning the Coffee Lake chips, to TSMC to aid in production. The news comes as details of Intel's struggles with 14nm chip production surface from multiple sources. We are working to verify the report and will update as necessary.

It seems counter-intuitive for Intel to outsource production of its Coffee Lake processors, especially due to design complexity and trade secrets, so we are skeptical. Outsourcing the H310 chipset, which has been plagued by poor availability for months, seems more plausible.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37777.html

TrendForce expects Intel's worsening 14nm CPU shortage to impact notebook shipments during the lucrative holiday season as Whiskey Lake processors fall behind schedule. In an announcement today, the analyst outfit also predicted the reduced supply of notebooks will result in reduced DRAM and SSD pricing. Surprisingly, the firm also contends that Intel's CPU shortage will push into the latter portions of the first half of 2019 (1H19), which might open the door for AMD's Ryzen Mobile products.

Several analyst firms are upbeat that AMD's Ryzen Mobile processors have finally begun to make tangible progress in the laptop market. A bevy of partners, including blue-chip firms like Dell, HP, Acer and Lenovo, have competitive products at decent pricing.

AMD has already increased its laptop market share to 4.9 percent in the third quarter, a 1.7 percent increase over the prior quarter, and that progress occurred before the Intel supply problems. Most importantly, AMD products are expected to be plentiful during the coming holiday season. That means AMD machines will avoid any price hikes that Intel-powered notebooks might face due to the shortage.

https://www.techpowerup.com/247549/more-...ng-emerges

Singapore-based PC component distributor BizGram, in its latest catalog, disclosed the all-inclusive retail prices of the three new processors. As Redditor Dylan522p suggests, if you do the SGD-USD conversion and subtract all taxes, you get ominous-looking SEP prices for the three. Intel could price the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99. The Core i7-9700K could be priced at $349.99. The flagship Core i9-9900K could go for $449.99. These seem like highly plausible pre-tax launch prices for the three chips, and fit into the competitive landscape.

At $250, the Core i5-9600K could blunt the slight price-performance edge the Ryzen 5 2600X has over the current i5-8600K, with its 2-3% performance increment. An early review of the Core i7-9700K is already out, which suggests that it could emerge the ultimate gaming CPU, with multi-threaded performance trading blows with the Ryzen 7 2700X. The Core i9-9900K could entice enthusiasts and quasi pro-sumers with its 16 MB L3 cache and 16-thread multi-threaded advantage. Given that AMD sought $499 for the Ryzen 7 1800X at launch, $450 seems only fair.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i...37795.html

Lau Kin Lam claims to have successfully overclocked the Core i9-9900K to 5GHz across all cores with a mere 1.28V with watercooling, producing a Cinebench R15 result of 2,166 points. Lau Kin Lam's result is 158 points higher than a previous result posted by a Facebook user named "18yearsoldangus," who managed to rake in a score of 2,008 points. It's difficult to assess the Core i9-9900K's true multi-core performance based on either result. The processor was running at 5GHz on all its cores when the Core i9-9900K supposedly has an all-core turbo of 4.7GHz. For the sake of comparison, let's see how the overclocked Core i9-9900K fairs against Intel's own Core i7-8700K and AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X.

Both Lau Kin Lam and 18yearsoldangus allegedly used engineering samples of the Core i9-9900K, so it's still subject to tuning. The results should be taken with a degree of skepticism since the final performance numbers could differ greatly. The overclockers also failed to mention the test systems' specifications, which could be what casused to the substantial difference between the scores.
...
Unfortunately, Lau Kin Lam didn't run the single-core Cinebench R15 test on the Core i9-9900K. so we have yet to see the processor's performance in single-threaded scenarios.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/jp-mor...37797.html

J.P. Morgan today added its voice to the chorus of analysts claiming a shortage of Intel processors will hurt the laptop and desktop markets in the fourth quarter of 2018. A note from Gokul Hariharan, the company's head of Asia-Pacific technology research, reportedly warned J.P. Morgan clients that PC sales could drop between five to seven percent in the coming months as manufacturers scramble to source enough CPUs for their pre-built systems.

CNBC reported that in his warning to J.P. Morgan clients Hariharan said that "our conversations with PC vendors indicate that the shortage, which started in small magnitude in 3Q, has been progressively worsening and is likely to have the maximum impact in 4Q18." The problem is expected to be particularly bad when it comes to "high-end consumer PCs, where using AMD or older Intel family of CPUs as substitutes are more difficult."

[SteelCrysis]

Intel officially confirms that i9-9900K and i7-9700K will use soldered IHSes: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/27...-not-paste

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37819.html

We've confirmed through multiple sources that Intel is fabbing its new H310C chipset on its 22nm process, which means the chip-making giant has taken a step back to an older process as it struggles with its ongoing shortage of 14nm processors. Contrary to recent reports, our sources confirmed Intel manufactures these chips and not TSMC (which has been reported in recent weeks), though that could be subject to change in the future.
...
Word of a new H310C chipset surfaced last month. Leaked images of the new H310C on mydrivers.com revealed that the new H310C, which measures 10 x 7mm, is much larger than the 14nm H310, which measures 8.5 x 6.5mm.

However, the increased physical size alone doesn't confirm that Intel is fabbing the new chipset on a larger process, so we reached out to several contacts and confirmed the change.

Our sources indicate that vanilla H310 motherboards will continue to be offered at retail locations, but they fully expect the H310C motherboards, which will be branded with either an H310C or H310 R2.0 branding, to replace the existing SKUs eventually. The new chipsets will also support Windows 7, as reported by our sister site AnandTech, which may signal that Intel will restore compatibility with the older OS on its newer motherboards, such as the forthcoming Z390 lineup. That's an abrupt about-face from the decision to stop supporting older versions of Windows with the Kaby Lake processors.

Currently, the 14nm chipsets are clogging Intel's 14nm foundries. In most cases, the company has to create one chipset for each processor, so easing that production load would free Intel up to produce more 14nm Coffee Lake processors. For Intel, it makes a lot of sense to move back to the 22nm process for its chipsets: performance and power consumption also isn't as much of a concern with the low-end chipsets, and, most importantly, the tiny chips generate very little margin. That means Intel stands to lose little from going back to an older node that may cost slightly more to produce.

We don't expect Intel to move its desktop or server processors back to the 22nm node, but it is possible that it may migrate other chipsets back to 22nm. It's also possible for Intel to move other low-margin parts back to an older process, or to explore outsourcing some of its production in the future.

[SteelCrysis]

Intel is increasing facilities for 14nm manufacturing: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37783.html

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/247866/more-...ms-unhappy

OEMs are not happy with Intel. Haphazard roadmap and platform changes have forced them to revise their product designs way too frequently, and now they're faced with the prospect of a short-supply. A report from research firm Fubon predicts that by next year, 1 in every 3 personal computers sold by HP (Hewlett Packard) will run an AMD processor. "Fubon's report that Intel will undersupply the PC market between 4Q18 and 2Q19 leaves us with higher conviction that AMD will report improving revenue, pricing and margins near term, and that is positioned to take share in the high end PC MPU and server market long term," said stock market analyst Mark Lipacis. He predicts that AMD's CPU market-share climbing to 30% through next year (a very huge feat for AMD).

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/27...-the-slack

In other words: Even in a best-case scenario for AMD, it’ll probably be Q4 before we see any impact, and the size of the gain will depend on whether AMD has equivalent parts to match against Intel in the specific areas where Intel is falling short. And, of course, it’ll be impacted by just how severe the Intel supply constraint is and how long it lasts. With component prices going up thanks to tariffs, OEMs aren’t necessarily in a great place to absorb additional shocks from scarce CPUs.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/247946/silic...d-i7-9700k

Silicon Lottery is an online retailer that sells computer hardware its employees personally bin to pick out the best performing parts, at higher-than-MSRP prices. It listed its pricing for the upcoming Intel Core i9-9900K 8-core/16-thread processor, and the Core i7-9700K 8-core/8-thread part. The site currently reports both parts as "sold out" either because they've actually sold out all their pre-order inventory, or because they have't built inventories yet. Regardless, the i9-9900K is listed at USD $479.99, and the i7-9700K at $369.99.

We've been actively tracking down possible list prices of Intel's 9th generation Core processors. Our most recent article on the topic predicts the i9-9900K to be priced around $450, the i7-9700K at $350, and the i5-9600K at $250. Either Silicon Lottery's listings don't include any premiums, or Intel could surprise us with prices lower than our predictions.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37858.html

According to a report by DigiTimes, president and CEO of Compal Electronics Martin Wong believes Intel will continue to face 14nm CPU supply shortages well into the second half of 2019. Compal is an original design manufacturer (ODM) from Taiwan that has had customers such as Apple, Acer, Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba, Hewlett-Packard and Fujitsu.

There have been multiple additional reports about Intel’s short supply recently. Intel itself has acknowledged the issue and recently we learned of its expansion of testing capabilities for 14nm processors.

Still, according to Wong, Intel hasn’t given its downstream partners a clear schedule for when the shortage might be solved, leading Wong to conclude that the shortages could last for at least another year.

Acer recently said that Intel’s CPU shortages have started impacting the whole notebook market, DigiTimes said in its report. Inventec, another Taiwanese ODM, has also had to cut its growth expectations for the third and fourth quarter this year to single-digit growth, according to the report.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/248008/intel...up-analyst

Intel's in-house sub-10 nanometer silicon fabrication dreams seem more distant by the day. Raymond James analyst Chris Caso, in an interview with CNBC stated that Intel's 10 nm process development could set the company back by at least 5 years behind TSMC. In its most recent financial results call, Intel revised its 10 nm outlook to reflect that the first 10 nm processors could only come out by the end of 2019. "Intel's biggest strategic problem is their delay on 10nm production - we don't expect a 10nm server chip from Intel for two years," analyst Chris Caso said in a note to clients Tuesday. "10nm delays create a window for competitors, and the window may never again close."
...
Intel is already beginning offload some of its 14 nm manufacturing to TSMC. Meanwhile, AMD is reportedly planning to entirely rely on TSMC to make its future generations of "Zen" processors.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cpu,37866.html

Intel's CFO and interim CEO Bob Swan penned an open letter to its customers and partners today outlining the steps it is taking to address a persistent and worsening shortage of 14nm processors.

The shortage has exploded into the public eye as several of Intel's partners have publicly outlined the impacts on their own businesses. Some processors are becoming scarce, while prices are simultaneously rising, particularly in regions outside of the U.S., like EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) and APAC (Asia-Pacific).

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/27...ms-at-14nm

There’s undoubtedly truth to some of this. According to Gartner, server revenues and shipments both rose sharply in the first part of the year. Increased demand for server hardware means increased demand for the largest-core count CPUs, which puts pressure on Intel’s manufacturing capacity by requiring the company to build larger dies that result in fewer wafers per die. But Intel has also been stuck in the middle of a 10nm transition that has sapped its manufacturing capacity by effectively idling significant amounts of its overall production capability.

But Swan’s attempt to blame the shortfall on an upturn in the PC industry — which he does — is simply laughable. Writes Swan:
...
Why is this claptrap?

Because the consumer PC market grew by 2.7 percent in Q2 2018 after declining roughly 30 percent from 2011-2018. Intel blaming its issues on an unexpected growth in the consumer PC market after a near-30-percent decline over seven years is absurd. The PC market growth might be the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it’s not the proximate cause of Intel’s production shortfall. The company made strategic decisions as far as 2014 to idle Fab 42 rather than bringing it up on 14nm. It later opted to convert Fab 42 to 7nm directly back in 2017 rather than ramping it as a 10nm facility. The industry also canceled the push for 450mm wafers several years ago (such technology wouldn’t be online to offset increased silicon demand yet, but avenues that could have increased production at Intel and other foundries long-term were not pursued due to the downturn in PC sales several years ago). But the growth in server and data center sales (where much larger chips are used) and 10nm’s failure to ramp (the node, by introduction, will be at least three years behind schedule) are responsible for Intel’s shortfalls, not some single-digit uptick in consumer PC sales.
...
Intel’s letter also states that it will increase an additional $1B into 14nm facilities in Oregon, Arizona, Ireland, and Israel to boost 14nm capacity and that its 10nm production remains on-track for volume insertion in 2019. No updated date was given, which means Q4 2019 is still the official expected introduction date.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37871.html

Amazon has listed Intel's Core i9-9900K, the company's first eight-core 16-thread processor for the mainstream desktop, for $582.50. Twitter user @momomo_us posted a screenshot of the packaging this morning, and after a bit of digging we found the full listing.

The listing also reveals Intel's new packaging, which appears to be a translucent new packaging shaped like a d12 die (twelve-sided). Intel's new Core i9-9900K packaging is obviously a direct response to AMD's impressive Threadripper packaging that has set a new bar for the processor market. Intel doesn't provide coolers with its high-end processors, so the large packaging likely comes with the processor only. In either case, the new packaging is a welcome addition, particularly when you plunk down $582.50 for a new processor.

Amazon lists the Core i9-9900K as out of stock and doesn't list a ship date. The listing also confirms that the processor boosts up to 5.0 GHz, likely on a single core, which is impressive for an eight-core processor.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37877.html

So, the million-dollar question is: If you're on the market for a Core i7-8700K, should you pull the trigger now? Well, it depends on how bad you want it. If you want to play the waiting game, Intel's 14nm processor shortage could last until the second half of 2019, according to Martin Wong, president and CEO of ODM Compal Electronics. In the meantime, the Core i7-8700K's price will likely continue to rise. However, there are other viable options if you're willing to switch over to the red team.

https://www.techpowerup.com/248157/intel...s-on-10-nm

A research report from Steve Mullane, analyst at BlueFin Research Partners, says that Intel could be looking on sooner-than-expected ramp-up of their 10 nm process - slated for a June 2019 timeframe. "Intel's second-half production levels suggest upside to analyst revenue estimates for the fourth quarter and first quarter of 2019," further stating that suppliers believe production of new 10 nm silicon could be pulled forward from the June 2019 timeline by four to six weeks. This news brought about a jump in Intel share price up by 5%, while simultaneously reducing AMD's stock price by some 3.6%. At the end of trade day, these highs and lows converted to a 3.55% increase for Intel and a 0.45% drop for AMD.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/248210/neweg...rd-pricing

Noting that these are in Canadian dollars, the respective Z370 offerings from the same website are priced 30-40% lower at this time where applicable courtesy of some sales but also a direct MSRP-to-MSRP comparison. Keep in mind also that the features may not be identical, and that may contribute also to the pricing strategy we see employed here. These do not look to be placeholders either, given the precision down to two decimal points, but we will have to wait for USD prices to know if this is price gouging from a retailer or a blanket increase worldwide. In anticipation of these links being taken down sooner than later, we just saved a web archive of the page that can be seen here.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37894.html

Today, motherboard manufacturer ASRock officially revealed its army of Z390 motherboards to house Intel's next line of Core CPUs. Of particular interest is the branding that ASRock used to describe the chips, referring to them as 9th generation. Previously the branding of these chips remained unconfirmed, with a leaked slide previously having them titled as 9000-series under the 8th gen umbrella. But with ASRock's latest listing, it seems the chips will, indeed, be considered 9th generation.

[SteelCrysis]

Coffee Lake refresh announced: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37898.html

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/248355/intel...misleading

Intel paid Principled Technologies, a third-party performance testing agency, to obtain performance numbers comparing the Core i9-9900K with the Ryzen 7 2700X across a spectrum of gaming benchmarks, instead of testing the two chips internally, and posting their test setup data in end-notes, as if to add a layer of credibility/deniability to their charade. The agency posted its numbers that were almost simultaneously re-posted PCGamesN, gleaming the headline "Up to 50% Faster than Ryzen at Gaming." You could fertilize the Sahara with this data.

Right off the bat, we see Principled Technologies use a sub-optimal memory configuration for the Ryzen 7 2700X machine, saddling it with a dual-rank memory with all four memory slots populated, and running at stock memory speeds with the motherboard BIOS determining "stable" memory timings. AMD processors compensate for dual-rank / 4-module setups by either restricting memory clocks or loosening up memory timings in the interest of stability. Principled Technologies incompetently set the Ryzen setup's memory clocks to 2933 MHz, leaving the motherboard BIOS to find extremely loose memory timings to stabilize the memory clock.

In stark contrast to this, for the Core i9-9900K machine, the testers simply flicked the XMP profile of the Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR4-3000 memory kit, which ended up running at not just higher clocks, but also tighter timings (which have been tested by Corsair on an Intel platform to obtain the XMP certificate). They reinforced the memory by adjusting the frequency manually. This gives the Intel platform a significant performance advantage against AMD. Ryzen processors are more memory-sensitive than Intel, as DRAM clocks are synchronized with other clock domains such as the InfinityFabric clock, which determines the data-rate of communication between the two Zen Compute Complex (CCX) components on the 8-core "Pinnacle Ridge" die.

The next part of its deception was testing both setups at 1080p on "Ashes of the Singularity" CPU benchmark with medium settings, to obtain extremely suspicious performance numbers. When HardwareUnboxed used similar settings to compare their Core i7-8700K with the Ryzen 7 2700X (using sane memory settings for both setups), the performance numbers obtained were very different, and don't bode well for the credibility of their i9-9900K numbers. Without the unfair advantage to the i9-9900K, the Ryzen 7 2700X yields up to 18% higher frame-rates than what Intel's numbers suggest. The story repeats (albeit to a smaller degree), with most other benchmarks posted by Intel. "Assassin's Creed Origins" is another benchmark where Principled Technologies numbers paint the Intel 8700K at 36% faster than the 2700X, while in reality, the 8700K is more like 8% faster.

Normally, performance numbers released by hardware manufacturers at launch are disregarded by consumers as hardware launches are almost always simultaneously followed by independent reviewers being allowed to post their benchmark numbers. Off late, however, there is a worrying trend of hardware manufacturers launching their products with reviewer NDAs expiring weeks later, letting them solicit pre-orders on the basis of questionable performance data. In this case, Intel's gilded numbers release almost 2 weeks before the review NDA, and the Core i9-9900K is up for pre-order, in some places even at $540.

We strongly recommend you to wait until you read performance reviews from multiple tech publications before basing your purchase decisions. It's a foregone conclusion that the i9-9900K will be faster than the 2700X, as the i7-8700K already trades blows with it despite having two fewer cores. However, the percentage-difference in performance, and the cost-performance numbers put out by Intel for the upcoming chip, are extremely questionable at this point.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37908.html

There are few absolute truths, but the old mantra of "never trust vendor's benchmarks" is certainly one of them so today's findings that the benchmarks are flawed isn't entirely surprising. We've seen misleading reports in the past from almost every vendor, but it is concerning that this report comes during Intel's 10-day preorder window.

Here are some of the controversial results in Principled Technologies' report.

Principled Technologies' benchmarks pit the Core i9-9900K, Intel's new flagship eight-core processor for mainstream systems, against AMD's mainstream desktop Ryzen 7 2700X. The 19 game benchmarks in the report paint a very convincing picture of the Core i9-9900K's total dominance over the Ryzen 7 2700X in gaming, but a deeper look at the system settings used during the tests revealed a few questionable, and one downright unbelievable, configuration that skews the results in Intel's favor.
...
Slight differences in cooling solutions can have an impact on the test setup. In this case, the Intel system could expend more waste heat than the AMD system, which would provide it with an advantage. Intel's new K-series processor doesn't come with a stock cooler, so the company had to use a third-party solution, but sound testing methodology dictates that coolers for both systems should be of equal quality, which didn't happen here.

Perhaps the most damning admission involves AMD's Game Mode feature that AMD created for its Threadripper processors. Game mode essentially disables half of the processors' available cores to circumvent the intricacies of the Threadripper architecture. Those same principles don't apply to the mainstream Ryzen processors, but Principled Technologies chose to enable the feature on the eight-core Ryzen 7 2700X anyway, thus turning the processor into a four-core chip. As you might expect, this effectively cripples the processor in heavily threaded gaming benchmarks, and the test suite included a few impacted titles, like Ashes of the Singularity.
...
We've reached out to Principled Technologies for comment and have lodged follow up questions with Intel. For now, in spite of Intel's statement, it appears that the tests are spurious at best. We advise readers to wait for reviews instead of plunking down their hard-earned cash based solely on vendor benchmarks.

[SteelCrysis]

GN does interview and follow-up interview with Principled Technologies: https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/337...g-concerns

[SteelCrysis]

Principled Technologies will be rerunning the benchmarks after correcting its previous errors: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37912.html

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/27...nce-claims

The company’s explanations for its memory configurations, however, do not pass elementary scrutiny. We are told that the RAM configurations used were chosen “to have complete parity across all systems.”

This is a lie.

XMP was enabled on the Intel Z390, disabled on the X299-Deluxe, and enabled on the Prime Z370-A used to test both the Core i7-8086K and the Core i7-8700K. For Threadripper, the D.O.C.P. Standard setting was used (Asus has called this “XMP by another name”). The Asus Prime X470 Pro motherboard used to test the 2700X didn’t enable XMP or DOCP at all. In other words, out of five different motherboards, three had XMP or an equivalent enabled and two did not. RAM clocks were apparently set according to maximum manufacturer specifications. But choosing to use manufacturer-specified memory clocks and leaving XMP disabled and enabled at turns means the memory subsystems of these platforms were not configured for maximum parity.
...
If Principled wanted to configure for maximum parity, it should have tested with XMP fully enabled or disabled across all products and all systems using the same RAM clock. If it wanted to test in a manufacturer’s approved configuration, it should have stated it was doing so and explained why XMP / DOCP was enabled or disabled in each specific circumstance relative to the best practices communicated by AMD and Intel. What we got was neither.

The situation gets even stranger once you see that even some of PT’s Intel performance claims are odd. Looking through the whitepaper, I realized Principled Technologies had used an Asus Prime Z370-A motherboard running UEFI 1406 with a GTX 1080 Ti — which happens to correspond exactly to the system I used for our recent review of the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti. They were even kind enough to test many of the same games.

This made me curious. Could I validate the Intel results they reported for the Core i7-8086K? For the most part, yes — with some notable and odd exceptions.
...
Finally, in the Final Fantasy XV benchmark, the score of 10,858 reported by PT was 7-8 percent higher than our own results in both configurations. There was no clear advantage or disadvantage to enabling or disabling Performance Mode in the tests we could verify, but we were unable to confirm benchmark results in three out of the 13 tests we investigated. That’s not a great finding for a project when we already know the AMD CPU was blatantly misconfigured. I don’t know why I can’t replicate PT’s results in every test — but I know I’ve done similar validation of benchmark results by using Reviewer Guides provided by Intel and AMD on many occasions. Something is wrong here.
...
Companies are typically extremely careful when they talk about their competition because it can open them up to legal liability if they’re found to be making false claims. In many cases, companies prefer to simply talk about “the competition” even when they literally compete with one other company. Engaging a third-party to write a whitepaper is one way of offering additional information that isn’t seen as coming directly from Intel itself. But make no mistake — Principled Technologies is a company writing a document for a client, which means the client has oversight and input into both the test conditions and the final product. If Intel doesn’t like a setting, game, or performance test, that test isn’t in this document.

Neither Intel nor Principled Technologies have responded to our emails. Could this be the result of an honest mistake or oversight? Of course. It wouldn’t be the first time someone flipped a wrong switch and then spent 10 hours cheerfully benchmarking the wrong hardware configuration, believe me. But there are problems, plural, with this whitepaper, its data, Intel’s failure to respond to it, and the fact that Principled Technologies is still trying to slide out of from acknowledging that it published verifiably false results with a lame reference to retesting AMD CPUs that it should have known were misconfigured in the first place. The company continues advancing a false narrative about its memory configuration and how it supposedly established memory configuration parity between testbeds when it did nothing of the sort.

At a time when Intel needs to be building a narrative around the Core i9-9900K as its first mainstream eight-core desktop processor, a demonstration of forward progress, and a distraction from its own security concerns and manufacturing delays, we’re instead having an extended conversation about whether the chip giant attempted to lie to consumers by proxy. It’s not a good look.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/248518/new-p...-at-gaming

As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).

This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz.

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:
...
The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data."

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/248582/intel...-of-memory

Intel's 6-core "Coffee Lake" die was essentially a "Kaby Lake" die with two extra cores, and no physical changes to other components, such as iGPU or uncore. With its new 8-core "Coffee Lake" Refresh silicon, Intel has turned its attention to not just increasing the core-count, but also improving the processor's integrated memory controller, in addition to hardware fixes to certain security vulnerabilities. The 128-bit wide (dual-channel) integrated memory controller now supports up to 128 GB of memory. Intel's current DDR4-capable mainstream desktop processors only support up to 64 GB, as do rival AMD's Ryzen socket AM4 processors.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37928.html

The latest leak gives us a small taste of what we can expect from the Intel Core i5-9600K hexa-core processor in terms of performance gains over the previous model that it's replacing, the Intel Core i5-8600K. Blue Sea Dragon paired its Core i5-9600K ES (engineering sample) chip with an MSI MEG Z390 Godlike motherboard and a 16GB Adata DDR4-2666 memory kit with CL19-19-19-43 timings. The Thermalright Silver Arrow Extreme air cooler took care of the processor's cooling, while an MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti was responsible for graphics duty.
...
With the chip overclocked to a little over 5.1GHz with 1.507V, the Core i5-9600K beat the Core i7-8700K by 12.6 percent in the single-thread test, while reducing the multi-thread performance gap from 26.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...37965.html

According to Intel, the flagship Intel Core i9-9900K processor should retail for around $488 to $499. However, the processor hit the shelves with an overbloated price tag of $579.99, which is around 16 percent higher than the maximum price recommended. The Core i9-9900K isn't just the fastest gaming processor on the planet, but sold out fast too. Sadly, there is no word on when the octa-core processor will come back in stock.

Moving down the processor hierarchy, we find the Core i7-9700K processor with a $419.99 price tag, roughly nine percent more expensive than what Intel suggested. Suffering the same fate as the Core i9-9900K, the Core i7-9700K is also nowhere to be found.

Out of the three K-series processors, the Core i5-9600K is the only part that is widely available. Surprisingly, Walmart is selling the Core i5-9600K for $259. On the other hand, Newegg has the Core i5-9600K listed for $279.99, when the hexa-core processor's MSRP is between $262 and $263. On Amazon, $279.99 Core i5-9600K CPUs are out of stock; you'll have to pay over $279.99 if you want one in a timely fashion.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Inte...0K/20.html

Overall, Intel has managed to refresh its portfolio around the $350-400 market with the Core i7-9700K. There's enough in this chip to warrant choosing it over the i7-8700K, and if you're gaming, you need to look no further than this chip. The Core i7-9700K is a nice way to save $150 by not opting for the i9-9900K, if you're a gamer and aren't starstruck with the Core i9 brand. You could save some serious cash by opting for Core i5 chips that are less than 10% behind. The Ryzen 7 2700X isn't much slower either, but is significantly cheaper at $320, and has added value thanks to its included cooling solution and cheaper motherboards.

At the time of this writing, Intel CPU pricing is whack, and the Core i7-9700K is priced north of $420, which further erodes its value. Your decision to buy the i7-9700K should hence be purely predicated on whether you were originally looking to buy the pricier i9-9900K and whether you're mostly gaming on your rig. If the answer to both is yes, then pick the i7-9700K and party with the savings.

I'm seriously considering the Core i7-9700K for our next VGA testing rig, and not the Core i9-9900K.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3381-...-overclock

Let’s bring it back to reality. Delidding has never been a hard requirement with Intel’s processors. It becomes a requirement for serious overclocking, and it absolutely helps drive down the thermals in a way that can benefit system noise levels. With the soldered CPU, it’s still not a requirement, and the solder is better than the original Dow Corning TIM that Intel has used. Intel soldered this one out of necessity. The company could not have achieved the clocks it did – not across eight cores – without increased cooling efficiency.

Even still, it’s clearly possible to improve performance. You could also go direct die, if you really wanted to, but we’ve got to draw the line somewhere. As for whether it’s worth it, the answer is generally “no,” and more so than previous CPUs. With this one, it’s a lot of extra steps and the risk is higher for the untrained. Gains require more attempts to really get it right, more trial-and-error testing, and it’s possible that you don’t end up much better than before. If you start grinding down the die and lapping the IHS, it’s more likely you see worthwhile improvements. This isn’t like the 7980XE where we saw instant 20-degree improvements from a delid and liquid metal. It’s more tempered.

We’d only recommend delidding to people who are pushing for high clocks, competitively overclocking, or who are so neurotic about noise that an extra couple degrees and 200RPM reduction in fan speed might be meaningful.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/28...ing-prices

That was the case on October 26. But as of Friday, November 9, the Core i9-9900K is finally available — at price points that kill our original recommendations, elasticity or not. As of this writing, the CPU is listed for $950 at Newegg and a minimum of $800 at Amazon. Any CPU cooler you’d purchase for it goes on top of the base price.
...
It’s one thing to say the Core i9-9900K is still a good chip at $580 as opposed to $480 and something altogether different to proclaim it as a leader when it slams into the Threadripper 2950X at $900. Between the Threadripper 2950X and the Core i9-9900K, Threadripper wins our nod. For those of you who may stumble on this story while the chip’s price is fluctuating, our guidance is this: At MSRP to +$100 (call it $480 – $600), the Core i9-9900K makes a solid argument for itself, provided you’re either determined to buy the absolute fastest chip on the market in its price class regardless of cost or are locked into Intel’s ecosystem. Above $600, that argument starts to look dicey, with 12-core Threadripper parts (not tested above) offering competition of their own. At $750+, the Threadripper 2950X is going to offer better absolute performance than either Intel solution in the vast majority of cases.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/249559/cpu-s...sustek-ceo

Intel's processor shortage could continue in the coming months, and in fact Jerry Shen, CEO of Asustek Computer, explained how the problem will continue until at least the second quarter of 2019. In his words, "the continued CPU supply crunch, escalating US-China trade disputes, and increasing competition in the notebook segment in Europe have pressed down Asustek's "operational visibility" for the fourth quarter of 2018 to the lowest level of 20% compared to an over 50% seen in previous years".

Intel has tried to solve the problem, but the priority in the production of the processors of the Xeon and Core families has made that CPUs for the entry-level have been especially affected by this shortage. Shen noted though that "with Intel maintaining its shipments of CPUs to the server and gaming PC sectors, Asustek's gaming PC business has seen little impact from the CPU shortfalls". Intel's reduced supply has been one of the reasons for the company's somewhat poor financial results, whose PC shipments will remain flat in the fourth quarter of 2018 compared to the previous quarter.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...38082.html

According to a DigiTimes report today, Intel will reportedly cut CPU shipments to the PC building sector by 2 million units in Q4 2018. The supply shortage could also lead to a significant decline in motherboard shipments by Taiwanese manufacturers that quarter, the publication's unnamed sources said.

According to DigiTimes’ "industry sources," Intel had to reduce shipments of desktop CPUs in order to prioritize the server and notebook market. The company will reportedly cut the shipments of desktop processors to only 6 million, down from an initially expected 8 million units.

Intel has previously blamed the 14nm CPU shortage on increased demand, even though all signs point to Intel not being able to meet even regular demand due to the all the issues it's been having with its much-delayed 10nm process node. The new report seems to confirm that Intel’s problem wasn’t one of having significantly more demand for its chips, but one of not being able to make as many chips as it originally planned.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/249636/intel...liday-2018

Prices of retail packages of Intel Core desktop processors could continue to rise over Q4-2018, as the company has reportedly cut their supply, in favor of tray/reel shipments to OEMs. This could mean DIY favorites such as the Core i5-8400, the i5-8600K, i5-9600K, or even Core i7 models such as the i7-8700K, i7-9700K, and the flagship i9-9900K could be severely in short supply, or heavily marked up wherever available. Intel recently devised a strategy to increase its Core processor volumes by pumping in an additional $1 billion to its usually-$15 billion capital expenditure, to fire up small-scale manufacturing facilities around the world, to augment its bigger fabs located in Malaysia and Vietnam.

Sites like Mexico, Israel, and Ireland are beneficiaries of this move, and are being expanded. Much of Intel's efforts appear to be focused on making sure notebook and pre-built PC manufacturers aren't starved of processor inventory. The DIY retail channel, which consists of boxed processors, will foot the bill for this move. A good example of understocked retail channel would be the $499 Core i9-9900K processor being sold for upwards of $900 in some online stores. AMD is in an enviable position to fill the void, comments PCGamesN. Prices of its Ryzen desktop processor PIBs are either flat, or marginally cut; and socket AM4 motherboards are generally cheaper than LGA1151 ones.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/249657/retai...s-sober-up

Prices of retail versions of several 8th and 9th generation Intel Core processor SKUs dropped down to MSRP-levels Friday, in the US. Newegg currently lists the Core i5-9600K at USD $249.99, and the Core i7-8700K at $369.99, while the i7-8700 goes for $319.99, matched with AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X. The Core i5-8600K is listed at $239.99, which is just $20 above the consumer-favorite i5-8400. Newegg's pricing is still riddled with mark-up anomalies for SKUs in high demand. The Core i7-9700K is listed at $487.99, which is about $10 cheaper than Intel's MSRP for the Core i9-9900K, which is selling for an obnoxious $850.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...38095.html

For the first time in months, some of Intel’s CPU prices started to drop to a bit of a reasonable price. But don’t go calling it a Black Friday, Cyber Monday or holiday shopping deal.
...
So what is this indicative of, exactly? It’s hard to know how long these prices are going to stay as they are. Intel has been having a very public shortage of Coffee Lake and Coffee Lake Refresh, so it seems that this return to the MSRP may be a temporary reprieve to be combative this holiday season.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/250020/intel...conference

Essentially Intel had hedged their bets that they could take a revolutionary step instead of the more typical evolutionary one thereby leaving their competition behind. Instead, it's resulted in the current situation that we are all very much aware of, that Intel is far behind their original predicted schedule. While that timeline has since been revised and they are now on course to release 10nm products in 2019, and 2020 Intel has also made it known that they plan to regain their leadership position as that transition begins.

In regards to supply constraints, Swan elaborated that they will continue to prioritize their Xeon product line first with their traditional small core and other devices coming second. Meaning those products will see continued supply shortages for the foreseeable future since that ties into Intel's eventual transition to 10nm. To help mitigate the issue, Intel has redeployed some of their 14nm equipment, but it is not enough to completely solve the supply problem. Right now they are trying to work with customers to figure out what constitutes actual demand rather than just inventory hoarding. Thus far Intel considers overall inventory healthy going from Q3 to Q4. For some customers this may be true, however for enthusiasts, that is not the case. Intel's latest Core 9000 series processors are in minimal supply having sold out pretty much everywhere making them little more than imaginary offerings for the PC gaming and enthusiast market. So while the inventory of certain products may be in a healthy state, you could say Intel's looking at the situation with rose-colored glasses.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3409...tage-march

Multiple PC vendors have come forward in confirming that Intel’s 14nm CPU shortage is affecting business. Just last week, Intel made clear its plans to slash DIY CPUs for retail by up to 2 million units, instead directing chips to the OEM channel.

Now, it seems that Gemini Lake SoCs are so backlogged, vendors are expecting to wait until February or March 2019 for orders. Hardkernel’s ODROID H2 is an x86-based, single board mini PC that uses the Celeron J4105. Apparently, the company undershot demand for the system, and sold through all 2,000 produced units in 24 hours.

Now, Intel reports that they can’t deliver anymore Gemini Lake chips until February or March, and can’t even confirm that delivery schedule until January. Intel has already offloaded some of its entry-level chip production to TSMC, and rumors have suggested SoCs may become outsourced as well.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/250185/intel...sktop-skus

Intel is readying a curious-looking "KF" brand extension for key SKUs of its 9th generation Core "Coffee Lake Refresh" family. These SKUs include the Core i9-9900KF, the Core i7-9700KF, Core i5-9600KF, and the Core i3-9350KF. The source revealing slides from a GIGABYTE internal presentation mentioning these doesn't explain what "KF" means, but we've heard rumors on what "KF" could mean. The "K" in KF denotes that the processor features an unlocked base-clock multiplier. No points for guessing that one. The "F," however, could indicate a disabled or physically absent iGPU.

This won't be the first time that Intel has launched variants of its mainstream desktop premium SKUs with disabled iGPUs. Intel's reasons for doing so with "Coffee Lake Refresh" could be many, including harvesting dies with defective iGPU components. Physically absent iGPUs could only make sense from the perspective of increasing yields per wafer, as the dies could be around 15% smaller for the 8-core silicon, and 25% smaller for the 6-core silicon. It doesn't make sense from a TDP optimization perspective, because Intel processors are capable of power-gating (and not just clock-gating) user-disabled iGPUs.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...38235.html

In September Intel released the H310C chipset, which was a downgrade of the existing 14nm H310 chipset back to the 22nm process node. As Intel continues its 14nm struggles, the Santa Clara chipmaker has launched the new B365 chipset. It's basically the B360 chipset produced under the 22nm manufacturing process and the Kaby Lake Platform Controller Hub (PCH) architecture.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/250586/intel...anded-z170

According to the ARK specifications page for the B365 Express, this chip completely lacks integrated 10 Gbps USB 3.1 gen 2 connectivity. Perhaps the expanded downstream PCIe is really meant for motherboard vendors to use third-party USB 3.1 gen 2 controller chips. You still gen eight 5 Gbps USB 3.0 ports (notice we didn't say USB 3.1 gen 1, because don't expect fast-charging features). The chipset also loses the latest generation Wireless AC integrated MAC. All of these point to the possibility of the B365 Express being a re-branded Z170 with locked CPU overclocking. Adding credence to this theory is the fact that while the B360 uses ME version 12, the B365 uses the older ME version 11. Much like the H310C, the B365 could include platform support for Windows 7.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/i9-990...38284.html

Recent rumors claim that Intel is planning to expand its 9th-generation family of Intel Core processors with up to six new chips that lack the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 (GT2) iGPU, as denoted by an "F" suffix on the product name.

Now major Norwegian and Finnish computer hardware retailers have listed four unannounced Intel 9th-generation Coffee Lake Refresh processors: The Intel Core i9-9900KF, Core i7-9700KF, Core i5-9600KF, and Core i5-9400F.
...

It's not unusual to find an Intel HEDT (High End Desktop) or Xeon processor without integrated graphics. The reasoning being that if a consumer has the budget to pick up one of those chips, they would probably pair it with a discrete graphics card. However, it's pretty rare to see a mainstream Intel processor that doesn't have onboard graphics. The last time Intel released a chip of this class without integrated graphics was back in the good old Sandy Bridge days with the Intel Core i5-2550K. That chip didn't have an iGPU and was 100MHz faster than the Intel Core i5-2500K. However, the processor never caught on, and Intel stopped the practice.

The incredibly complex chip manufacturing process isn't perfect, so many processors come off the production line with defects. Intel can simply disable cores on a chip, instead selling it as a lower-end model, if a defect lands in a core. It stands to reason, then, that selling chips without integrated graphics would allow Intel to sell chips with defects in the graphics units. That would certainly help as Intel grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity. It is unlikely that these new chips come with a die that lacks integrated graphics, largely due to the expense of designing and fabricating an entirely new die.

Deactivating the GPU has other benefits, too. Like the other units on a chip, the integrated graphics unit consumes power, and thus produces heat. The disabled unit could also serve as 'dark silicon,' which is unused silicon that absorbs heat from surrounding chip structures, thus improving thermal performance. That could open up more headroom for higher boost clocks, longer boost duration, or overclocking capability.

The list prices are likely placeholders, so you should take them with a grain of salt. According to the Norwegian retailer, the Core i5-9400F could go for $255.15. The Core i5-9600KF, on the other hand, can possibly cost between $188.34 to $355.70, while the Core i7-9700KF is expected to have a $528.17 price tag. The Core i9-9900KF could set you back anywhere from $511.26 to $684.07.

Both retailers expect to have the new processors in stock by January 3, 2019 which could mean that Intel will announce the chips in a couple of weeks.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/34...k-and-more

The Intel i7-9700K received ample criticism at unveil for being the first “gaming,” S-class i7 in recent history to drop hyperthreading. The move was accompanied by an increase in physical core count to 8C, but followed the previous move from 4C/8T to 6C/12T, and thus felt like an odd middle-step that had forgotten the lessons learned by the 8700K. The decision left enthusiasts feeling ripped-off; rather than a clear improvement in the product category, Intel had made a sort of lateral step.

Now that we’ve tested it, we can see that benchmarking positions the 9700K oft superior in gaming tasks, largely a result of frequency, to the preceding 8700K. This doesn’t remain true in every case, like in Blender workloads where the additional threads of the 8700K prove advantageous. The price increase of the 9700K over the 8700K also feels off-putting, and so the gains the 9700K makes in gaming are lost when considering the price increase. At the same price, it’d be more tenable, but an increase to $400 to $430 is unpalatable in the face of Intel’s similarly performing i7-8700K at cheaper prices.

The move did not feel productive for Intel. The 9700K is fine. It’s not a bad product, it does well in testing (overall), and it both wins and loses some tests, as any product would do. The oddity is just that it’s losing tests against its predecessor, even when those are simple tests of value, not necessarily performance. This was true for the likes of the RTX 2080 as well, for instance, where performance was fine, but value was a clear regression from the previous generation. We feel similarly about the 9700K. We need to see price come down to around where the 8700K is – around $350 – to really feel comfortable with the 9700K. Even then, it feels like an odd, lateral move from the 8700K before it.