Originally Posted by mothergoose729
They added 49 more pins for power and the socket shape went from square to rectangular. This is coffee lake + 2 more cores. It won't be good, but if it was priced aggressively (and it probably won't be) it would still be worth buying.
Did not know this. Can't tell from images alone and I haven't held parts in my hand to make out a difference in shape. Pricing would matter on a few things. Depends on Intel's per processor cost as a finished product per *pick a sum* of total defect free processors achieving those clocks stable and no bad cores, plus maintaining silicon integrity. They'd have to price it to cover R&D and other associated costs plus enough to pocket. I wouldn't expect the i9 to be any less than $550-600. Compared to AMD, their costs are higher per unit. AMD is slated to double their orders by second half 2020. And given the data they now have on how their processors fly off shelves, physical and digital, I suspect they'll go all out with orders. For all we know the 3950X that retails at $750 may cost AMD a tiny fraction to produce and cover costs. The rests being profit. The next quarterlies should see a healthy rise up. There's a fake CES flyer flying around that jots down the confirmed 3990X release for Q1 2020 and a still rumored 3980X for a Q2 release. Makes a lot of sense. AMD is working off of a waterfall process for chiplet binning at segmentation.
MSI dropped the ball in early November with one of their developers showing a Task Manager screenie of the 64 core processor which people wrote off. But there were rumors of a 64 core TR3 going back to mid-summer. I don't expect core increases for Ryzen 4000, but do for Ryzen 5000. If the rumors for Zen 3 hold up, we should see a massive improvement across the range. Who knows what Zen 4 and 5 will hold. All I know and all most know are that AMD has teams working in tandem on future processor architectures. Exciting times.
Intel may finally get 10nm rolling for desktop albeit in very small numbers in 2020. Provided they stay true to their word. If not, I'd be curious to see how much they can push their highly refined 14nm process. I'm more curious about silicon integrity at this point. 11th gen, according to what I've seen which hasn't been confirmed by Intel yet, IIRC, will get a core regression. No idea on 12th gen. Intel's recent slide on 10th gen has some interesting footnotes, which were posted in this thread, I believe. In any case, two years ago I had hopes on Intel delivering a solid product that wasn't power hungry and put a healthy lead a la 2006 to AMD's product. Guess not. I don't want to judge AMD under Dr. Su's guidance this time around, but I hope for AMD's sake she doesn't allow the company to become complacent and ride on their laurels like they did many years ago and got sideswiped by Intel.
Originally Posted by dubldwn
109k is a $500 cpu. It will be very competitive with 3900x in everything but power. At $600 it doesn’t make sense, but with 11 skus $400 doesn’t make sense just from a product segmentation perspective, and I don’t believe that even includes Pentium and Celeron.
You have a lot of faith in that pricing. The 9900K is currently retailing for $494 on Amazon and NewEgg. I don't remember the MSRP for tray (1,000 units) Intel had set, but in November '18 it was retailing for between $540 and $580 depending on the day and retailer. The 9900KS had a customer recommended price of $513, but retailers sold these for more. You're effectively stating that a new 10 core (2 cores mores than 9th gen) with higher clocks, greater cache, etc. will cost $500 flat.