# Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS, World's Best Processor for Gaming Made Better



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2019)

Intel today announced full details and availability for the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Delivering up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency out of the box for the ultimate gaming experience, the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS will be available beginning Oct. 30, with recommended customer price starting at $513. This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only and can be found at retailers worldwide. 

"Intel has raised the bar for desktop gaming with the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Based on the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K architecture, it's the world's best gaming desktop processor made even better and created specifically for extreme gamers who want the most performance possible. This processor demonstrates another innovation milestone for Intel, following last year's limited edition 8th Gen Intel Core i7-8086K," said Frank Soqui, Intel vice president and general manager of the Desktop, Workstation and Channel Group. The i9-9900KS processor is unlocked and boasts eight cores and 16 threads, up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes for gaming and overclocking.



 

 




Key Features and Capabilities: 
Up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency; up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, which allow games to run faster when they scale across more cores for higher frame rates
Eight cores, 16 threads, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes
Compatible with existing Z390 motherboards
Up to 27% faster mega-tasking when you simultaneously game, stream and record compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 35% more frames per second compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 17% faster 4K video editing compared with the previous generation and up to 78% faster compared with a 3-year-old PC
One-year warranty
Overclock confidently with new and enhanced features like Intel Performance Maximizer, which makes it easy to dynamically and reliably custom-tune the unlocked processor based on the processor's individual performance DNA
Gamers and overclocking enthusiasts will be able to take performance to the max with the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Only select chips from Intel wafers can achieve this specification to run up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo. Quantity is limited for this special edition product.

The Small Print:
Performance results are based on testing as of August 10, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See configuration disclosure for details. No product can be absolutely secure. Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. For more complete information about performance and benchmark results, visit http://www.intel.com/benchmarks.
As measured by in-game benchmark mode performance (score or frames per second) where available, or frames per second where benchmark mode is unavailable. PC Gaming Processors Compared: 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS, 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K, Intel Core i9-9980XE Extreme Edition, Intel Core i9-9960X X-series, Intel Core i9-9940X X-series, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. Prices of compared products may differ. Configurations: Graphics: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 or 4x4GB DDR4 (2666, 2933 or 3200 per highest speed of the corresponding processor), Storage: Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS Windows 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6). Results: 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS scored better on the majority of the 20+ game titles tested.Intel Core i9-9900KS is a special edition of Intel Core i9-9900K, with even better performance.
1Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.
2As measured by gameplay FPS on PUBG (Season 4 - "PC Update 4.1") - 1080p High Settings comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
3As measured by gameplay FPS on Total War: 3 Kingdoms - Campaign - 1080p High Settings comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
4As measured by Adobe Premiere Pro CC Transcode4Kvideo SW workload comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. Intel Core i7-8700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-8700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 6C12T, Turbo up to 4.7GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105
5As measured by Adobe Premiere Pro CC Transcode4Kvideo SW workload comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
6Intel is providing a one-year warranty on both the box and tray versions of this processor due to its limited volume.
The Recommended Customer Price ("RCP") is pricing guidance for Intel products. Prices are for direct Intel customers and are subject to change without notice. Taxes and shipping, etc. not included. Prices may vary for other package types and shipment quantities, and special promotional arrangements may apply. Listing of these RCP does not constitute a formal pricing offer from Intel. Please work with your appropriate Intel representative to obtain a formal price quotation. Purchases of Intel products are subject to Intel's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale.


*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## sam_86314 (Oct 28, 2019)

*yawn*

3 year old PC could mean anything from a i7-7700K and GTX 1080 Ti to an i3-7100 and GT 1030.

Also that 127W TDP. Intel needs to drop Skylake and move on.


----------



## cynic01 (Oct 28, 2019)

Boring. I haven't actually seen a single 9900K not able to OC to all cores 5.0GHz.


----------



## juiseman (Oct 28, 2019)

I wonder how far you could push it with some OC? It's going to suck some power though....
If they lowered the price a little more, I could see this selling good.


----------



## Metroid (Oct 28, 2019)

advertised = 127w, real = 327w.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 28, 2019)

Up to 5 ghz? was the entire point of this re-release not that 5ghz all cores was guaranteed?

Also why the F are they comparing performance to a "3 year old PC"?!?
not even mentioning we have no clue what kinda build this 3 year old pc they are comparing it with is.....
(EDIT, fine print sheds a bit more light on what the build was, still does not make sense to compare it to that though)

"Compatible with existing Z390 motherboards"
that is a key feature/capability?! what?
can you imagine the sh!tstorm if it wasnt... and what would it be compatible with then? its not like anything new is out.

Honestly if they put stuff like that in there you might as well say it has pads to make contact with the motherboard and comes with an IHS....


----------



## dirtyferret (Oct 28, 2019)

1 - can't you just OC the 9900k?
2 - doesn't the 9700k give you the exact same performance for less



Metroid said:


> advertised = 127w, real = 327w.


----------



## juiseman (Oct 28, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Up to 5 ghz? was the entire point of this re-release not that 5ghz all cores was guaranteed?
> 
> Also why the F are they comparing performance to a "3 year old PC"?!?
> not even mentioning we have no clue what kinda build this 3 year old pc they are comparing it with has.....
> ...



Oh, I missed that, so its not 5.0 on all cores? then yea, what the crap is the point of this?


----------



## XL-R8R (Oct 28, 2019)

i came here looking to make a witty comment... instead I feel as if Intel has made the biggest joke of today with the release of this press announcement and my humor wont come anywhere close to what they themselves have done already....



However, I would really like some information on this supposed "_(faster)compared with a 3-year-old PC_" - as stated earlier by @sam_86314, it could very well be a 7100T being compared - the statement Intel made needs clarification.


----------



## steve360 (Oct 28, 2019)

Malibu Stacy gets a new hat.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> "Compatible with existing Z390 motherboards"
> that is a key feature/capability?! what?
> can you imagine the sh!tstorm if it wasnt... and what would it be compatible with then? its not like anything new is out.



I think it's their way of saying "don't expect support for B360." I wonder if Z370 is supported, because there are some pretty expensive Z370 boards.

Great warranty, considering these chips are cream of the crop and that the i7-8086K comes with 3-year.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

sam_86314 said:


> 3 year old PC could mean anything from a i7-7700K and GTX 1080 Ti to an i3-7100 and GT 1030.


It's compared to a 6700k. Videocardz has the fine print, not sure why the TPU one doesn't... https://videocardz.com/press-release/intel-announces-core-i9-9900ks-special-edition-for-513-usd



> *up to* 4.00 GHz base frequency


Everyone seems to be missing that not even base clock seems to be guaranteed part of spec any more...



> One-year warranty


Down from 3 btw...

And also in the fine print as expected:


> Performance results are based on testing as of August 10, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates.



Overall this is even worse than I had expected, and this thing was already a joke from it's inception.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Oct 28, 2019)

juiseman said:


> Oh, I missed that, so its not 5.0 on all cores? then yea, what the crap is the point of this?


It's 4GHz on all cores guaranteed. That's also what the 127W rating is for. 

You want more than 4GHz? 

*MOAR POWER. POWER OVERWHELMING. MY LIFE FOR AIUR INTEL.*


----------



## juiseman (Oct 28, 2019)

Doesn't every body want more than 4.0GHZ?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> It's compared to a 6700k. Videocardz has the fine print, not sure why the TPU one doesn't... https://videocardz.com/press-release/intel-announces-core-i9-9900ks-special-edition-for-513-usd



Good idea, added.


----------



## HwGeek (Oct 28, 2019)

Poor SiliconeLottery ...


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 28, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> Poor SiliconeLottery ...


Really? No, because they're planning to bin the 9900KS and 3950X


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (Oct 28, 2019)

steve360 said:


> Malibu Stacy gets a new hat.



Hahaha

Great reference


----------



## _UV_ (Oct 28, 2019)

> This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only and can be found at retailers worldwide.


They must distribute it as a loot box. You buying box with 9900K"?" and some of them may contain this "best gaming desktop processor made even better" which is better then 3-year-old PC.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 28, 2019)

btarunr said:


> I think it's their way of saying "don't expect support for B360." I wonder if Z370 is supported, because there are some pretty expensive Z370 boards.
> 
> Great warranty, considering these chips are cream of the crop and that the i7-8086K comes with 3-year.



Well I get that it might not be on other platforms, but its not what one would call a Key Feature or a Capability of a product, or am I just crazy?
Just weird to put that in that list like that.
Sure the information should be somewhere in the text as to what motherboard it will work on, just not in that list.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 28, 2019)

Congrats on overclocking your own chip a bit more with a lot of unverified info thrown in, like a pinch of salt in the ocean I'm sure it will be slightly more salty.

Also, their poor PR department must have been on fire while trying to write that travesty of word vomit.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

cynic01 said:


> Boring. I haven't actually seen a single 9900K not able to OC to all cores 5.0GHz.


They are there... 

According to Silicon lottery, only 30% get there with reasonable voltage... https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r/products/9900k50g?variant=15392435896406

They also bin 9900k down to 4.8 GHz......... so, plenty don't (with reasonable voltage).


----------



## E-curbi (Oct 28, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Really? No, because they're planning to bin the 9900KS and 3950X



Yup, don't let the crazy high 9900KS TDP put you off. That's only an average rating at stock out of the box, with no bios settings added.

Drop into bios, make a few simple adjustments and a really sweet 9900KS binned at 5.1GHz on a Hero XI - same chip binned at 5.3Ghz by Siliconlottery.com on an Maximus Apex XI board will run with MUCH lower voltage and MUCH lower thermals than an average clocking 9900K.

And of course his testing is rigorous, *that 5.3Ghz 9900KS/Apex XI CPU is going to run all day with simple workloads easily at 5.4Ghz all 8cores/16threads.*

Wish we had more coming from Intel, but unfortunately we still have to wait until next year. 

----

Below is an AIDA 64 memory latency score of *34.6ns the SL dude sent* *me* of the Super-Binned 9900K 5.1Ghz Hero XI - 5.3Ghz Apex XI CPUs running Trident Z 4800Mhz XMP.

Intel bins them once to get the 9900K, then Intel bins them twice to get 9900KS samples, then SL bins once at 5.1 Hero XI, then bins twice with the 5.3 Apex XI.

*Binned 4times(4X) to find that small percentage of 9900KS capable of 5.3Ghz. 


LOOK also, at those extremely high Read Write and Copy scores the SL dood achieved! Mind-blowing. *


----------



## SamuelL (Oct 28, 2019)

FX-9590, Intel edition


----------



## PerfectWave (Oct 28, 2019)

only 127 tdb XD


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

PerfectWave said:


> only 127 tdb XD


TDP?

Hey! A bit more than half of the 225W FX 9590 that the feeble haters toss out as a comparison!!!

8370 - 9590 - 100W difference or 80%
9900k to 9900KS = 32W difference or ~35% increase.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

E-curbi said:


> ...


Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off 

Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...


LOL, No you wouldn't.


----------



## E-curbi (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off
> 
> Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...



LOL, 5.3Ghz or 5.4Ghz 9900KS. I'd only spend the extra dollars for a workstation "Return On Investment" build or if you're really INTO Speed Parts as a hobby. lol 

Average daily use? Um NO!


----------



## Konceptz (Oct 28, 2019)

Intel doesn't handle defeat well......


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 28, 2019)

So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

And it's not like 9900ks is massively faster than 9900k. Base clock is bumped 400 mhz while max all core boost is measly 300 mhz, so yeah 9900ks is a bit faster, but far from a game changer. 

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.
> 
> Now the question is, what do you prefer?
> 
> ...


In anything else that uses more than 8c/8t, yep!


----------



## sam_86314 (Oct 28, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.
> 
> Now the question is, what do you prefer?
> 
> ...


9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL


----------



## E-curbi (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!



Exactly. If your working apps only utilize for example 6threads or 8threads or 10threads at maximum design, your workloads will run faster and complete sooner with a higher frequency - higher clocking CPU. 8700K or 8086K or 9900KS.

BUT if your work apps can utilize MORE than 16threaded workloads *continuously*, then a better choice is the Ryzen 3000 CPUs. 

A simple rule of thumb for work computers.

Not certain why the common theme for creators and workstation computers seems to be 28cores or 36cores - more cores the better, when many of us use single and slightly-threaded work apps all day long and benefit more from higher frequency capable processors.

----

For play computers - the best rule of thumb = buy whatever turns you on and makes you happy. 


This video, the Intel guy explains 9900KS internal binning:


----------



## PerfectWave (Oct 28, 2019)

sam_86314 said:


> 9900KS is faster in games.
> 
> 3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.
> 
> Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.


it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

PerfectWave said:


> it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited







Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...


----------



## PerfectWave (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...



Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!



I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.



sam_86314 said:


> 9900KS is faster in games.
> 
> 3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.
> 
> Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.



Exactly my point. 9900KS wins in most games, but as a cpu needed for for every thing. 3900X is a better all over performer and also if you stream your gaming then 3900X is also a better solution.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

PerfectWave said:


> Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....


Steam survive????????????????

Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?



Tomgang said:


> I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.


Last I recall IPC was around the same. Give or take. WHere AMD does shine is when it can use SMT. Its' SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Steam survive????????????????
> 
> Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?
> 
> ...



As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.


Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.

I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.


----------



## AddSub (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL



No. It wont.

 I don't really post anymore but, I do own (not owned, OWN) every CPU from 80486DX through 8xxx Intel and Ryzen. I benchmark as a hobby, and have for decades, mostly retro benchmarking lately.... anyway, not to get off track too much, but Ryzen is severely deficient at feeding those frames at the lower end such as 1024x768 (3DMark 2001 SE and games from the Dx7-8 era). In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580. Think about that, a 10 year old GPU.

Now you guys may continue with the corp A vs. corp B silliness. Just had to correct that little bit of nonsense.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 28, 2019)

Drivel attempt from intel


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.
> 
> I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.



Ah yeah give or take.

Oh yeah Intel got a much needed wake up call from amd that technology doesn't stay still. And yeah thanks to AMD I can now get me a 16 core cpu for half the price of intels i9 9960X and funny that Intel does not have a 16 core in there 10000 series line up this time. No matter what, it's a good time to be replacing my old i7 980x cpu.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 28, 2019)

"Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "

maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..

trog


----------



## HugsNotDrugs (Oct 28, 2019)

Is this the one with the defective GPU?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

trog100 said:


> "Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "
> 
> maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..
> 
> trog


Yes trog, sure, you will not be limited by using a potato for a GPU... which makes complete sense when buying the 'fastest' gaming CPU around...

Anyone can find reasons to bunk anything... if you want to hang your hat on the edges and make that a reality for the majority, go right on ahead.


----------



## E-curbi (Oct 28, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Drivel attempt from intel



That's all they got right now. I'm also feeling a bit same ol same ol with 14nm so the waiting game continues, lol 

No single-core performance improvements over an 8086K (from 2018) capable of 5.5Ghz 6c/12t all day long until Rocket Lake 2021?(14nm reverse ported from 10nm?). Geez, and that's a LONG wait and a BIG maybe.

Unless AMD's pulls off a miracle next year 2020 with Ryzen 4000, and they may do just that.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

AddSub said:


> In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580.


All of those older rendering benchmarks are just CPU benchmarks when run with modern GPUs, happens with both xLake and ryzen.

You aren't specifying what ryzen chips you are running,  but you have to keep in mind there is a massive difference in smoothness between the zen2 and zen/+ chips though, again a lot down to the cache sizes, but also zen2 has a better front end in general, so the prefetching and scheduling is better than zen/+.

zen/+ I wouldn't recommend for 144hz, but the 3600 is effectively on par with the intel parts in the vast majority of games. The other thing is that in a lot of games where the zen2 parts struggle to pull 144hz, xLake parts do as well.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> The other thing is that in a lot of games where the zen2 parts struggle to pull 144hz, xLake parts do as well.


I think the point is, however, to remove the glass ceiling. I'd still rather run 130 fps than 120 in a quest to reach 144... no? That is the point here.


----------



## Mistral (Oct 28, 2019)

Got to love the amount of small print for your "World's Best" processor....


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I think the point is, however, to remove the glass ceiling. I'd still rather run 130 fps than 120 in a quest to reach 144... no? That is the point here.


Pointless, because it's still a stuttery mess when you drop below your monitor refresh rate


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Pointless, because it's still a stuttery mess when you drop below your monitor refresh rate


Huh..ews to me.

Note, im running a 165 hz monitor with fps that slips below and do not experience such behavior. You act like anything below 144 hzrefresh rate is unplayable... why?


----------



## anachron (Oct 28, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.
> 
> Now the question is, what do you prefer?
> 
> ...



While i mostly agree with you, for people like me already having a z390 motherboard, it's cheaper to buy a 9900ks rather than the whole platform for a 3900x.

Now, between the i9-9900ks and the i9-9900k/kf, the initial review of tomshardware seems to indicate that a 9900ks@5.2ghz consumme 20W less than the 9900k@ 5ghz, so it might be an interesting choice depending on the price difference between the two.


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 28, 2019)

Still not seen by any seller ... Im gonna get one... If i find it ....


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Huh..ews to me.
> 
> Note, im running a 165 hz monitor with fps that slips below and do not experience such behavior. You act like anything below 144 hzrefresh rate is unplayable... why?


Not unplayable but definitely noticeable and probably jarring... The extra 10 fps matters a lot more when one is over and one is under the monitor refresh..


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> Not unplayable but definitely noticeable and probably jarring... The extra 10 fps matters a lot more when one is over and one is under the monitor refresh..


I don't notice my man. FPS in PUBG for example fluctuate wildly above and below the refresh rate. The only way I notice is because the fps counter is up.

Anyway, wrong thread for this.. I just wanted to correct the info across several titles where this can happen to be, it sure as heck isn't a "stuttery mess".


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 28, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Really? No, because they're planning to bin the 9900KS and 3950X


You mean 9990XE(Auction only Cpu), 3950X is a 16Core mainstream CPU from Amd.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Oct 28, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> You mean 9990XE(Auction only Cpu), 3950X is a 16Core mainstream CPU from Amd.











						Silicon Lottery to Bin AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and Intel Core i9-9900KS This November
					

Silicon Lottery is extending its chip binning business to AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X and Intel's Core i9-9900KS




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 28, 2019)

That small print section kills.


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 28, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> That small print section kills.



Yes comparing 9900KS 8c/16t to 6700K 4c/8t


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 28, 2019)

It's still gonna be amongst the most efficient for gaming,but 513 usd,they must be crazy.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 28, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Yes comparing 9900KS 8c/16t to 6700K 4c/8t




Their cherries are a green unripe VS a red hot melting one, since they are cherry picking


----------



## dinmaster (Oct 28, 2019)

just stop intel ffs. bringing out new models as fast as your doing it is getting you nowhere, what makes it worse is the socket changes all the time. get that sh!t out of here! comparing 3 year old pc to this is garbage.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Yes trog, sure, you will not be limited by using a potato for a GPU... which makes complete sense when buying the 'fastest' gaming CPU around...
> 
> Anyone can find reasons to bunk anything... if you want to hang your hat on the edges and make that a reality for the majority, go right on ahead.



i think i was suggesting that "steam" people aint gonna be buying a 9900k.. or was that too much for you to grasp.. he he..

trog


----------



## john_ (Oct 28, 2019)

*1* year warranty

*TDP :* *Sky* is the limit

Frequencies "*UP TO*"

Really funny.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

trog100 said:


> i think i was suggesting that "steam" people aint gonna be buying a 9900k.. or was that too much for you to grasp.. he he..
> 
> trog


You're absolutely ridiculous...


----------



## Xzibit (Oct 28, 2019)

trog100 said:


> i think i was suggesting that "steam" people aint gonna be buying a 9900k.. or was that too much for you to grasp.. he he..
> 
> trog



Certainly not a majority. According to SHS most have a Intel 4c CPU and the most active games continue to be DOTA 2, LOL and CSGO.

8c CPUs only account for 4% using Windows in the Steam Hardware Survey.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 28, 2019)

Imagine what the voiceover guy looks like, trying to get through that small print in the 3seconds left at the end of the typical advert.

That exasperated out of breath dude IS Intel atm, 

Wow this is F#@&in weak ,Ltd edition and all benchmarks for sure were ran with all mitigation off as they say as much in line one.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Imagine what the voiceover guy looks like, trying to get through that small print in the 3seconds left at the end of the typical advert.
> 
> That exasperated out of breath dude IS Intel atm,
> 
> Wow this is F#@&in weak ,Ltd edition and all benchmarks for sure were ran with all mitigation off as they say as much in line one.


Micromachine guy from the late 80s? 

It's not the real THING!


----------



## Aerpoweron (Oct 28, 2019)

Wow, one year warranty. Don't Intel CPUs usually have 2 years?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 28, 2019)

40 lanes,good decision to allow high-end users to run 16x-16x on best gaming chips.   platform lanes means 16+24 
still,513 usd is pretty friggin high,though this this thing is a gaming beast.
it'll be unobtanium like 8086k,might be even worse.



GorbazTheDragon said:


> Pointless, because it's still a stuttery mess when you drop below your monitor refresh rate


get a adaptive sync monitor already,it's 2019.
games do not stutter no matter how low it dips.dipping from 120 to 60 ? no problem.The framerate is clearly lower,but no stutter,no lag,no tearing.None.
using v-sync ? good luck,it drops to 119 and you're screwed cause you're getting tons of stutter and lag.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 28, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Certainly not a majority. According to SHS most have a Intel 4c CPU and the most active games continue to be DOTA 2, LOL and CSGO.
> 
> 8c CPUs only account for 4% using Windows in the Steam Hardware Survey.


Of course not the majority. 

BUt those using in the market for and using a flagship midrange CPU, aren't buying potato GPUs either...

Steam HW survey is not The Gospel, we get that, but it's more than obvious that an overwhemling majority of users are rocking 1080p and below res. This includes potatos and enthusiasts alike. 3 of the top 5 most popular steam cards can be held back by the CPU... 5 of the top 10...7 of 13... that's about half which would could be held back with an inferior CPU. And the fastest card in that group is 'only' a RTX 2070.

RE: 4c processor the majority.. absolutely!!! This could be anything from a Q6600 to a 7700K or any other 4c CPU in Intel and AMD's stable. The latter, also placing a glass ceiling when pairing it with a modern mid-range+ card.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 28, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> can't you just OC the 9900k?



Not mine.  Of course, she's a proper turd that won't go past one bin above stock.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 28, 2019)

Just like i7-8086K before it, i9-9900KS is certainly a _good product_, but is ultimately just a PR stunt for a few thousand golden samples.



Tomgang said:


> I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster.


There is no way to optimize software for either Intel or AMD. They use the same ISA, and the low-level differences that separates them are not exposed to the programmers. The myth of "Intel optimized software" is a lie and needs to die.



Tomgang said:


> 9900KS wins in most games, but as a cpu needed for for every thing. 3900X is a better all over performer and also if you stream your gaming then 3900X is also a better solution.


That all depends on the workload. Some real-world productive loads like Photoshop and Premiere scales much better on fewer faster cores. And for most non-server workloads, faster cores will remain advantageous. Unlike before, there is no clear cut winner across the board, so buyers needs to look at benchmarks relevant to their use case. There is no point in choosing products based on irrelevant use cases or even synthetics.


----------



## wiyosaya (Oct 28, 2019)

Faster than a three-year old PC is Intel's way of saying that they have made progress.


----------



## Axaion (Oct 28, 2019)

1 year warranty
..wait
..thats illegal in the EU aint it? lmao


----------



## Dave65 (Oct 28, 2019)

YAY!
INTEL IS BACK......................................................Nah!


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Oct 29, 2019)

Anandtech reviewed one:


> During a sustained CB20 run, which is possible through the command line, we were able to observe a peak power consumption of the system at 600W, which indicates that at 5.0 GHz this CPU is pulling an extra 334 W over idle – this power naturally being split mostly to the cores but some will be for the mesh and some will be in the efficiency of the power delivery.











						The Intel Core i9-9990XE Review: All 14 Cores at 5.0 GHz
					






					www.anandtech.com


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 29, 2019)

Hmm Intel emergency edition is back

I remember 2004 well, a64 released and to beat the fx51 Intel released an over locked xeon, I wonder is the same game about to be replayed.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 29, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Silicon Lottery to Bin AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and Intel Core i9-9900KS This November
> 
> 
> Silicon Lottery is extending its chip binning business to AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X and Intel's Core i9-9900KS
> ...


I had no idea about silicon lottery offering binning of 3950X. Intel has been selling 9990XE as prebinned cpu with 9900KS joining the list of stupidity from Intel in consumer market.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Oct 29, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> I had no idea about silicon lottery offering binning of 3950X. Intel has been selling 9990XE as prebinned cpu with 9900KS joining the list of stupidity from Intel in consumer market.



Binning a 3950X....
Saw the historical list with my 2700X and laughed. 4.2ghz AVX2 tested at 1.4250v..... The exact same frequency and voltage my rig uses when PBO oc is set to level 3. Wow, what an accomplishment. 

Do people really buy into this binning business?? Get box and stock cooler for only 10$ more!!! Doesn't that come with the cpu any ways? GOtta pay extra for that because of a supposed binning?

lol.


----------



## Vycyous (Oct 29, 2019)

btarunr said:


> I think it's their way of saying "don't expect support for B360." I wonder if Z370 is supported, because there are some pretty expensive Z370 boards.



According to Intel's product specifications page, it is compatible with every 300 series chipset except B365, but I believe that's probably an error because I haven't found a single 8th or 9th gen CPU that lists B365 as compatible chipset/product on their respective web page.

Click on "Compatible Products"








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 29, 2019)

"world's best processor" is this a joke? Can't even sustain 5GHz all-core boost & with that $510-ish price tag... still riding on that 14nm node & cramming 40 PCIe lanes just to sell to people who only runs single GPUs? Intel oh Intel... you just never learn from your mistakes, huh?? Using the "up to" moniker makes it even worse.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 29, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> "world's best processor" is this a joke? Can't even sustain 5GHz all-core boost & with that $510-ish price tag... still riding on that 14nm node & cramming 40 PCIe lanes just to sell to people who only runs single GPUs? Intel oh Intel... you just never learn from your mistakes, huh?? Using the "up to" moniker makes it even worse.


this is 16 cpu+24 pch lanes,just like any 1151 cpu
the price tag is ridiculous
the node doesn't matter,it's a nice cpu but really a redundant one and way overpriced.


----------



## kmetek (Oct 29, 2019)

Intel = BORING.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 29, 2019)




----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 29, 2019)

everything about Intel these days is a joke. Too bad not many are sane enough to consider paying half grand for that 27% gain in multi-tasking unless they are those Intel shills.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 29, 2019)

Well I'm kinda confused here.  
4x binning on the 9900K version? Am..... for me binning is categorizing the product (put certain CPU in a proper bin representing specific product) so if a SL does x4 binning on the 9900k version CPU means it is being categorized 4 times? Some people here make it sound like "Binning" means some sort of enhancement that Intel and now SL apply on the CPU's to make them faster and that " binning process" is applied on an already manufactured processor. That's is a little bit of a stretch to me though.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 29, 2019)

when this thing was first announced 5 g on all cores i was skeptical.. now the magic words "up to" which really means maybe or sometimes i aint so skeptical.. 

when people say most 9900k chips will do 5 g they are correct.. but it all come down to the voltage required to be stable at 5 g.. these binned examples will just hit 5 g on a lower voltage than average but it will still come down to cooling the things when they are firing on all cylinders..

trog


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 29, 2019)

What the heck is mega-tasking?  This KS (Keep Spending) sku is just as big a marketing c*** as the i7-8086K was.

I'm sick of how Intel is trying to push sales by calling their $500+ CPUs "gamer". I doubt anyone knows a game that benefits from having 16 threads at 5 GHz. I can't reach 50% usage on my i7-7700 with any game, so why would I need this overpriced heating device?


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 29, 2019)

trog100 said:


> when this thing was first announced 5 g on all cores i was skeptical.. now the magic words "up to" which really means maybe or sometimes i aint so skeptical..
> 
> trog


This is how all turbo is described from both amd and intel. Nothing new in that wording.


----------



## TranceHead (Oct 29, 2019)

Say what you will, this is the news I was waiting for, with all mainstream CPUs having only 16x PCI-E lanes I'm glad this one finally has 40.
Don't want to gimp my 2080ti at all for the sake of a NVMe SSD, (2080ti saturates 8x)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 29, 2019)

TranceHead said:


> Say what you will, this is the news I was waiting for, with all mainstream CPUs having only 16x PCI-E lanes I'm glad this one finally has 40.
> Don't want to gimp my 2080ti at all for the sake of a NVMe SSD, (2080ti saturates 8x)


????

16 from the cpu the rest (24) are on the chipset... same as before, no (z390 chipset)? Typically a single drive doesnt take any cpu pcie lanes and dual NVMe m.2 drives would only take from SATA ports (depending on the board). May want to read your board's manual to see how it breaks down, bud. 








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				











						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				




Indeed. That 2% performance loss running x8 must be a deal breaker (but I get it!).... 








						NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti PCI-Express Scaling
					

It takes a lot of bandwidth to support the fastest graphics card, especially one that can play anything at 4K 60 Hz, with an eye on 120 Hz. The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti could be the most bandwidth-heavy non-storage PCIe device ever built. PCI-Express gen 3.0 is facing its design limits.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Oct 29, 2019)

This thing just needs more marketing, if there actually exists enough stock of it to be worth marketing.  Or maybe just more RGB...

8 cores are still ok-ish for small VMs I guess, but for sure not at that price.


----------



## TranceHead (Oct 29, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ????
> 
> 16 from the cpu the rest (24) are on the chipset... same as before, no (z390 chipset)? Typically a single drive doesnt take any cpu pcie lanes and dual NVMe m.2 drives would only take from SATA ports (depending on the board). May want to read your board's manual to see how it breaks down, bud.
> 
> ...



Ah, sweet.
I got a i7-4930k and been avoiding upgrading due to lack of lanes.
I don't fanboy, I've had an Athlon back before Pentium 4 after Pentium 3, had Opteron.
Fanboys miss out on a chance of buying best CPU for price, at the moment  looks like AMD has it nailed, I was just looking for lanes.
Cheers bro, makes my upgrade decision so much easier


----------



## Kissamies (Oct 29, 2019)

This should've been named i9-9900EE. Emergency Edition like back in the day..


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 30, 2019)

I prefer my Ryzen 3600 anyway even over this chip, mainly because I know it is much more secure than any Intel chip at the moment. If I lose 10 fps in some games I am fine with that knowing I have better security.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 30, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Well I'm kinda confused here.
> 4x binning on the 9900K version? Am..... for me binning is categorizing the product (put certain CPU in a proper bin representing specific product) so if a SL does x4 binning on the 9900k version CPU means it is being categorized 4 times? Some people here make it sound like "Binning" means some sort of enhancement that Intel and now SL apply on the CPU's to make them faster and that " binning process" is applied on an already manufactured processor. That's is a little bit of a stretch to me though.


All microprocessors go through binning, which only means they sort it by "quality".
i9-9900KS is not more binned than i9-9900K, just a _higher_ (or different) bin.


----------



## mcraygsx (Oct 30, 2019)

I would love to pick one up just to add it to collection only if it came with standard 3 year warranty which it does not. 

"Limited Warranty period (parts): 1 year"


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 30, 2019)

mcraygsx said:


> I would love to pick one up just to add it to collection only if it came with standard 3 year warranty which it does not.
> 
> "Limited Warranty period (parts): 1 year"



I am sure somewhere in the small print that this will say warranty voided if OC by user.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> I am sure somewhere in the small print that this will say warranty voided if OC by user.


You don't have to read the small print. Intel does not support/warranty overclocking regardless without buying their extra overclocking warranty. The Performance Tuning Protection Plan.

AMD doesn't cover overclocking either AFAIK.


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 30, 2019)

Techspot has their review up.








						Intel Core i9-9900KS Review
					

Intel launched today the "new" Core i9-9900KS processor which appears to be a pointless release, similar to the Core i7-8086K that we never bothered to look at....




					www.techspot.com
				















System Power Consumption:





No difference from the 9900K when overclocking the 9900KS


			
				Techspot said:
			
		

> Just like the Core i9-9900K, the 9900KS seems to struggle with 5.2 GHz. With a bit more tweaking it might be possible to get it stable in heavy workloads but we're almost certain 5.3 GHz is out of the question.
> 
> Our Core i9-9900KS ran all cores at 5.1 GHz by default on the Aorus Ultra and temperatures using an AIO were reasonable. Paying the small price difference for the 9900KS if you’re after a high performance version of the 9900K, isn’t terrible though the 1-year warranty kind of sucks.
> 
> If you were already in the market for a Core i9-9900K processor and you were keen to overclock it, then the 9900KS makes sense.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 30, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You don't have to read the small print. Intel does not support/warranty overclocking regardless without buying their extra overclocking warranty. The Performance Tuning Protection Plan.
> 
> AMD doesn't cover overclocking either AFAIK.



Yes I know it states that when you open Ryzen Master. but seriously paying for a warranty on a 1 year CPU.......priceless


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Yes I know it states that when you open Ryzen Master. but seriously paying for a warranty on a 1 year CPU.......priceless


I mean if you are going to overclock and can bork it doing so, why not? The PTPP goes for the K series and other CPUs with a 3 year warranty. Why not is my take? At least if it dies you can get a new one without being shady and playing dumb. Otherwise, you don't pay the $30(?) dollars and be shady on return or eat it in case it does fail. It's an option...doesn't mean anyone has to use it.


----------



## kapone32 (Oct 30, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I mean if you are going to overclock and can bork it doing so, why not? The PTPP goes for the K series and other CPUs with a 3 year warranty. Why not is my take? At least if it dies you can get a new one without being shady and playing dumb. Otherwise, you don't pay the $30(?) dollars and be shady on return or eat it in case it does fail. It's an option...doesn't mean anyone has to use it.



Understood it is just like the extra warranty Amazon sells you when you buy hard drives well anything electronic really.


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 30, 2019)

When the competition doesn't include IGP, the KF became a great option for less money... great option for gamers who edit photos and videos ... the 9900k was faster in these  appklications to begin with and now it's cheaper.... good news for 3900x folks also as it will inevitable force the price down.  Now with the KS, I'll ahve to take a wait and see approach amd see how well it compares with the KF OC results


----------



## efikkan (Oct 30, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> When the competition doesn't include IGP, the KF became a great option for less money... great option for gamers who edit photos and videos ... the 9900k was faster in these  appklications to begin with and now it's cheaper.... good news for 3900x folks also as it will inevitable force the price down.  Now with the KS, I'll ahve to take a wait and see approach amd see how well it compares with the KF OC results


Seriously, who needs the power of a i9-9900K(S) but not a dedicated graphics card?
The only reason why Intel include IGP for the K-models is they use the same dies for OEM focused models, where IGP is a huge selling point.
I hope Intel in the future makes slightly different dies optimized for the custom builders (K-models) with no IGP, perhaps some cache tweaks etc. or something that is better use of that die space. It's such a waste when 99% of the buyers will never use that IGP…


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 30, 2019)

IGP is a great selling point ... relevant question however is, why pay an extra $50 if you don't need it.  And since the 3900x doesn't have one, that makes Intel better and cheaper for most uses

IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc


----------



## efikkan (Oct 30, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc


So what is the purpose of this? To prevent the second screen from turning black when launching a game?
From what I've seen monitors hooked up to different GPUs can cause some serious stutter.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 30, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen


It is? I've never done that when I had an IGP. Just ran it off the discrete GPU. 

It's been years since amd or Intel touted that technology.


----------



## candle_86 (Oct 30, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc



This isn't 2004 anymore, you can run 3 screens per card and have only one display for gaming the other 2 for other tasks, the days of needing multiple GPU's for multiple monitors ended with Nview and Hydravision


----------



## ratirt (Oct 31, 2019)

efikkan said:


> All microprocessors go through binning, which only means they sort it by "quality".
> i9-9900KS is not more binned than i9-9900K, just a _higher_ (or different) bin.


Exactly. So why I have a feeling, that the binning process is not qualification but enhancement of a chip considering some people's posts here? 4x binning to make it better binned or better quality?
Isn't that weird?



biffzinker said:


> No difference from the 9900K when overclocking the 9900KS


Maybe not so different but the power consumption is up a fair bit and shorter warranty. That is a bummer considering these chips are to be maxed out or exceed specs noticeably. I guess, they are taking some precautions for broken chips.


----------



## anachron (Oct 31, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Maybe not so different but the power consumption is up a fair bit and shorter warranty. That is a bummer considering these chips are to be maxed out or exceed specs noticeably. I guess, they are taking some precautions for broken chips.


The power consumption is only up when you compare the 9900k to the 9900ks at respective stock speed. When overclocking, the 9900ks actually consume less power for the same clock than the 9900k due to better binning (less voltage to achieve same clock speed).


----------



## ratirt (Oct 31, 2019)

anachron said:


> The power consumption is only up when you compare the 9900k to the 9900ks at respective stock speed. When overclocking, the 9900ks actually consume less power for the same clock than the 9900k due to better binning (less voltage to achieve same clock speed).


I did not see the power consumption measurement while OC. For me the stock 9900 consume a lot power to begin with. 9900KS consumes even more at stock than 9900K. It will consume way more when OC'ed. Maybe the KS will consume less when OC'ed to 5.2Ghz in comparison with 9900K but it will still consume more than at its stock state. I'm sure the consumption for the 9900KS when OC'ed will go over 300Watts easily or maybe even 350.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Oct 31, 2019)

350W for the 9900KS + OC?? I wonder how much does a binned 9900KS pulls though? 330 or so? But for how much more of a premium?


----------



## ratirt (Oct 31, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> 350W for the 9900KS + OC?? I wonder how much does a binned 9900KS pulls though? 330 or so? But for how much more of a premium?


This is nice to watch. It does show a lot of the KS version of 9900 series CPU.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 31, 2019)

ratirt said:


> Exactly. So why I have a feeling, that the binning process is not qualification but enhancement of a chip considering some people's posts here? 4x binning to make it better binned or better quality?
> 
> Isn't that weird?


After a wafer is cut, each chip is validated and put in different "bins" based on quality, thereby the name "binning". This process is done once (unless done by a third party), repeating it will not make the chip better.
I don't know where this "4x binning" comes from, it makes no sense.


----------



## trog100 (Oct 31, 2019)

efikkan said:


> After a wafer is cut, each chip is validated and put in different "bins" based on quality, thereby the name "binning". This process is done once (unless done by a third party), repeating it will not make the chip better.
> I don't know where this "4x binning" comes from, it makes no sense.



the first bin could be to see if it make the 9900 grade.. if not it would go into a 9700 bin.. the second bin could be to see if it makes the K grade if not would go in the 9900 bin.. one more bin from the 9900k grade to get the KS grade.. maybe not X4 but more than X1..

i am assuming that lesser chips all come from failed 9900 chips.. or with good yields deliberately crippled chips to meet market demand..

i bought a 9900k chip a while back before all the good or better ones went into the KS bin.. my chip is running 5 g at 1.24 volts i recon my thinking panned out.. but at 1.35 or so to get 5 g i still dont see how they are keeping the KS chip cool enough.. 

trog


----------



## efikkan (Oct 31, 2019)

trog100 said:


> the first bin could be to see if it make the 9900 grade.. if not it would go into a 9700 bin.. the second bin could be to see if it makes the K grade if not would go in the 9900 bin.. one more bin from the 9900k grade to get the KS grade.. maybe not X4 but more than X1..


After each chip is tested, they know which bin it goes into, they don't have to re-test it. Then they know which features are defective, the quality of each core, memory controller etc. There is no need to re-test them to find golden samples etc.


----------



## ratirt (Nov 1, 2019)

efikkan said:


> After each chip is tested, they know which bin it goes into, they don't have to re-test it. Then they know which features are defective, the quality of each core, memory controller etc. There is no need to re-test them to find golden samples etc.


I agree but even if they do retest it is not going to end up in higher grade bin but lower only.
Maybe when evaluation of the 9900K is done and there are chips in that bin they evaluate them again to see if they can do better than what 9900K spec says and they end-up as better quality products? 
That kinda explains the KS CPU.
Anyway it seems like Intel has made a market product out of higher quality product than their previous purpose.


----------



## medi01 (Nov 1, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games


Nothing "sure" about it.
For starters, you'd need to overpower the game in terms of GPU, for even see any difference.
For which TPU ended up running *720p *game tests with overprice piece of crap like *2080Ti*.
And then, YMMV, lol:


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Nothing "sure" about it.
> For starters, you'd need to overpower the game in terms of GPU, for even see any difference.
> For which TPU ended up running *720p *game tests with overprice piece of crap like *2080Ti*.
> And then, YMMV, lol:
> ...


The thing is, Medi, that most people game at 1080p or less... with that notion, many titles can be CPU limited and hold a mid-range+ GPU back. It doesn't take a 2080 Ti and 720p to show how a fast CPU can help push FPS at 1080p. Now, when the resolution gets higher, it really doesn't matter. But for those chasing every FPS, generally, the Intel chip has AMD beat... either by little or by a few/several percent.

But hey, at least you pulled your shit together here and got the right information/graph (though clearly cherry picked for your fanboy purpose)...unlike here.


So tired of the polarizing BULLSHIT at this website and nothing being done about it.


----------



## ratirt (Nov 1, 2019)

I don't think people run games lower than 1080p unless if the graphics is an iGPu and they have no other choice.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 1, 2019)

ratirt said:


> I agree but even if they do retest it is not going to end up in higher grade bin but lower only.
> Maybe when evaluation of the 9900K is done and there are chips in that bin they evaluate them again to see if they can do better than what 9900K spec says and they end-up as better quality products?
> That kinda explains the KS CPU.
> Anyway it seems like Intel has made a market product out of higher quality product than their previous purpose.


What bins they use may change as yields change and new products are launched, but at the time of testing they still know everything they need to know to know this is a golden sample etc. If yields change, they can introduce new bins, but they don't "re-bin" CPUs to achieve that, just change which bin chips go into.



medi01 said:


> Nothing "sure" about it.
> For starters, you'd need to overpower the game in terms of GPU, for even see any difference.
> For which TPU ended up running 720p game tests with overprice piece of crap like 2080Ti.


I would like to see the guys who buy a RTX 2080 Ti to run games in 720p. 
CPUs like i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i7-9600K and i7-8700K are already faster than needed for current games and GPUs, bumping the clock more wouldn't do much except for a handful of edge cases. All of these will probably be plenty fast for gaming for several years.


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 3, 2019)

5.2Ghz.   All 8-cores All 16-threads activated. 

Mankind moving forward. (if only by a little bit)


----------



## hat (Nov 3, 2019)

It's expensive, but not really when you consider the cost of extreme edition CPUs... there is absolutely a market for this stuff. Plenty of people bought the $1000+ QX6850 back in the day, when you could reach similar results by overclocking the Q6600 for half the price.


----------



## TxGrin (Nov 3, 2019)

I'm guilty i bought one pushed it to 5.3 








						Intel Core i9 @ 5302.86 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
					

[cs4dc6] Validated Dump by DESKTOP-SLI (2019-11-03 15:48:39) - MB: Gigabyte Z390 AORUS MASTER-CF - RAM: 32768 MB




					valid.x86.fr


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 3, 2019)

TxGrin said:


> I'm guilty i bought one pushed it to 5.3
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Newest member of the Mile-High Binning Club*, 

Feels Good, doesn't it? 

I did a 5.6Ghz CPU-Z single thread bench today - scored 676.8

CPU-Z single thread bench seems to increase by 20 unit points for every 100Mhz

So:
5.0Ghz will score 556
5.1Ghz will score 576
5.2Ghz will score 596
5.3Ghz will score 616
5.4Ghz will score 636
5.5Ghz will score 656
5.6Ghz will score 676

The Chiller Zone:
5.7Ghz will score 696
5.8Ghz will score 716
5.9Ghz will score 736
6.0Ghz will score 756

My work rig is set up for ST performance so my MT score is shameful, don't look. 

Also in this screenshot, I disabled the 4400Mhz 17-17-17-34 ddr4 overclock, thinking this would improve my score. In reality, the benchmark scores the same whether your ddr4 is overclocked or not. lol





That 5.2Ghz 9900KS BadBoy sold out in 90minutes. 

Probably only had one.

Pretty good to even find a single 5.2Ghz bin in the first early sampling, first day of binning and availability. In all probability, Siliconlottery.com is most likely to find a few more.


----------



## TxGrin (Nov 5, 2019)

Yes mine runs 5.2 with ease  just set core clock to 52 and good to go


----------

