Oh no Intel what is you doing

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
1

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14256/intel-9th-gen-core-processors-all-the-desktop-and-mobile-45w-cpus-announced

There are two main numbers in the Core i9 section, the 9900 family with HyperThreading, and the 9700 family without. Both the i9-9900K and i9-9700K have corresponding F versions without integrated graphics, as well as 35W ‘T’ versions which have much lower base frequencies.

Interestingly, Intel’s official documentation lists the Core i9-9900 as a 4.9 GHz processor, or 5.0 GHz when ‘Intel Thermal Velocity Boost’ is enabled and valid. If you’re wondering what Intel Thermal Velocity Boost is, so were we – Intel has never specifically mentioned it in any previous meeting or briefing, and it suddenly appears in a processor list slide. The slide actually lists the turbo as 5.0 GHz*, with the asterisk leading to a footnote which clarifies that it is 5.0 GHz when ITVB is enabled. It’s very sneaky how they’ve done that, and easy to miss if you are just skimming the spec sheet. Also doubling down on the awkwardness, the Core i9-9900 is the only processor in the whole stack that has this feature. Why just this one? I can guess the PR answer, but the real answer? Is Intel just trialling a feature? How is this feature going to be interpreted by the motherboard manufacturers? Are they going to butcher this one as well? Intel just opened a can of very specific worms that it pulled from a box it didn’t tell us about.

Moving onto the Core i7 parts, and we immediately have a problem. Here Intel has listed three Core i7-9700 CPUs. But wait, didn’t we have i9-9700 parts with the Core i9 family? Yes, we did. Intel has decided (or rather, someone at Intel wants to confuse everyone) that the 9700K processors should be Core i9, while the non-K parts should be Core i7.

Wat

Intel…

https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14256/9th%20Gen%20Intel%20Core%20Mobile%20Launch%20Presentation%20-%20UNDER%20NDA%20UNTIL%20APRIL%2023...-page-022.jpg

/Picardfacepalm

2

Wait until you see comet lake.

3

It was a typo

1 Like
4

How in the world do they REMOVE something (the igpu) but charge the same…

5

that boggles me too. I could perhaps see it on the K models if it might help with overclocking? but the others…it should be a few bucks cheaper imo.

6

No, no we didn’t. The 9700K was an i7 when it was leaked, an i7 when it was released and still an i7 to this day. That Intel had to correct them on that is nothing short of embarrassing for a tech-oriented website.

Because they cost the same to make. Those chips still technically have the GPU - it’s just disabled (likely physically severed) to increase yields.

7

The Intel slide was screwed up

8

Modern journalism in a nutshell, really, isn’t it?

“We have this one piece of information. It clearly has a typo which contradicts everything we already know up to this point and everything we can easily verify in less than 30 seconds. But we’ll run with it anyway, because it better fits with the point we’re trying to make.”

9

I can see why tech sites wouldn’t believe early i7 9700k leaks. Who would have expected an i7 without hyper threading?

One could argue the i7 9700k should have been an i5 and the i9 9900k was one of intel’s last ditch efforts against ryzen.