# Intel Core i9-9900KS



## W1zzard (Nov 11, 2019)

The Core i9-9900KS is Intel's new consumer flagship processor. It runs at 5 GHz boost no matter how many cores are active, which translates into 10% application performance gained over the 9900K. Gaming performance is improved too, but pricing is high, especially compared to what AMD is offering.

*Show full review*


----------



## erixx (Nov 11, 2019)

"Over 10% application performance gains compared to i9-9700K" from the conclusion list.

But in the review I don't see this CPU, it might be the i7-9700K?


----------



## Chrispy_ (Nov 11, 2019)

Nice review.
I had to contain myself on the power draw charts. We all know that Intel has been fudging the TDP numbers for a while, but those results show how bad the lies really are once you get to the top-bin, highest-clocked parts.

However, my favourite chart in the review is this one.
Intel is winning with a 1st-place, chart-topping score :\


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 11, 2019)

erixx said:


> "Over 10% application performance gains compared to i9-9700K" from the conclusion list.
> 
> But in the review I don't see this CPU, it might be the i7-9700K?


Fixed, it is the 9900K



Chrispy_ said:


> Intel is winning with a 1st-place, chart-topping score :\


I can see how certain gamers would be willing to spend 10% over the 3900X for this. But yeah, overall quite expensive


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 11, 2019)

Have to believe an 8086K running at 5.4Ghz or 5.5Ghz 6core 12thread will be slightly faster completing work - long manuscript searches, transferring text, reformatting text in Word 2019.

Maybe just splitting hairs, but you never know. Only writers working 24/7 may actually see a real time-saving benefit. lol  

*Great review W1izzard, and that's a sweet 9900KS CPU at 5.2Ghz. *

Wondering about the heat though, not sure I could run even a cherry-picked 9900KS at 5.4Ghz on air - especially inaudible ambient air. I've heard the 9900K(S)s need a water loop for 5.3Ghz and above.

I'm most likely STUCK with an 8086K until Rocket Lake or Sapphire Falls 2021, no real single thread performance improvements from Intel arriving for quite awhile.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 11, 2019)

$500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 11, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> $500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.



You can also get a great deal of WORK completed with a 9900KS at 5.2Ghz 8cores 16threads in very little time.

Not everyone using a computer is gaming, or at least not 100% of the time, lol 

Everyone loves to play BL3 over lunch.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Nov 11, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> $500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.



and best paired up with a $900-$1,000 GPU...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 11, 2019)

E-curbi said:


> 8086K running at 5.4Ghz or 5.5Ghz 6core 12thread will be slightly faster


Agreed, unless you run workloads that fully load all cores to max. Nice oc btw


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 11, 2019)

E-curbi said:


> You can also get a great deal of WORK completed with a 9900KS at 5.2Ghz 8cores 16threads in very little time.
> 
> Not everyone using a computer is gaming, or at least not 100% of the time, lol



I agree. However the marketing gurus over at Intel are busy annointing this CPU as the fastest gaming processor. Regular folks see gaming cpu and that price tag and think that anything less than spending $500 on a processor will make their games suffer which is why they buy a cheap dependable console.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 11, 2019)

yakk said:


> and best paired up with a $900-$1,000 GPU...


That's exactly who I think they are targeting this at. And that market is not small considering all the 2080/2080 ti owners I see online


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Nov 11, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> That's exactly who I think they are targeting this at. And that market is not small considering all the 2080/2080 ti owners I see online



Agreed, there is apparently a good market for that price bracket.  The general increases in high end CPU & GPU prices does indicate the market can most likely support much higher prices for the whole system.  

On the enthusiasts side, AMD is pushing their high-end Ryzen and new Threadripper prices up this generation, curious to see how high Nvidia will increase prices on their upcoming generation of GPUs.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 11, 2019)

It is interesting that this is $200 US up from the 3700X but is only about 10% faster overall with a 5.1 GHZ OC in Gaming. I wonder where the 3950X will be placed vs this one.


----------



## trparky (Nov 11, 2019)

Only but the people who absolutely must have the best of the best performance and have money to burn will buy this chip. As for the rest of us? Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 for you really can't get any better than that when it comes to getting the best bang for your hard-earned dollar.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 11, 2019)

LOL. This review just reminded me what an excellent bang-for-buck the 3700x is.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 11, 2019)

trparky said:


> Only but the people who absolutely must have the best of the best performance and have money to burn will buy this chip. As for the rest of us? Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 for you really can't get any better than that when it comes to getting the best bang for your hard-earned dollar.



True but only if they are just pure gamers.


----------



## trparky (Nov 11, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> True but only if they are just pure gamers.


Unless you're a pure gamer there's absolutely no reason anywhere on this Earth that you should buy this chip. I can't help but see this launch as nothing more than an "Oh crap" kind of moment to try and steal some thunder away from AMD.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 11, 2019)

Utterly pointless product. 700mhz gets 'the gamer' 6% in FPS at the most favorable resolution compared to CPUs that cost half or less than this one.

300 W minus GPU, versus half the amount or way less.

I guess there is new 'gullible fool' badge and it has KS in it.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 11, 2019)

trparky said:


> Unless you're a pure gamer there's absolutely no reason anywhere on this Earth that you should buy this chip. I can't help but see this launch as nothing more than an "Oh crap" kind of moment to try and steal some thunder away from AMD.



Exactly they are trying to take everything out of AMD as the 3950X looks like it will be the final nail in the coffin for Intel's 14+++++.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Nov 11, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> $500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.


There's the $700 budget build guide you guys just released, which is a pretty good console-killer that also happens to do all the things a console can't do, with all the games that a console can't have, and can be upgraded incrementally in all the ways a console never will 



W1zzard said:


> [$1100 GPU owners are] exactly who I think they are targeting this at. And that market is not small considering all the 2080/2080 ti owners I see online


Aye, but nobody is going to pair a 2080Ti with a 1080p screen (well okay, some idiots will).
Realistically, even at 1440p the GPU/resolution bottleneck is so serious that a 2080Ti basically doesn't care what CPU its paired with. Any current-gen i5 or R5 is up to the job according to your charts


----------



## Steevo (Nov 11, 2019)

Intel more dollars for more performance where it really doesn't matter.

When AMD fixes the latency in cache they will get another 20% IPC boost for worst case scenario gaming, like at 720 and pure math tests. As is they have better performance at everything that 90% of users want.


----------



## Nater (Nov 11, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> $500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.


Um.  The Ryzen 3 1200 that launched 2.5 years ago at $109 is only about 7% slower than this CPU at 4K.  

And you can get 90% of it's performance at half the price going w/ an i5 9400/9600 or Ryzen 5 3600.  Dump all that extra money into the $1200 video card 

Anyone buying this CPU for gaming doesn't care what it costs, and probably isn't just gaming.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 11, 2019)

Worst CPU since the 9000 series FX.


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Nov 11, 2019)

This CPU went on sale immediately before I even bought it from Microcenter. The CPU war between Intel and AMD is more pronounced than the GPU war between AMD and Nvidia because AMD has no competition whatsoever for Nvidia on the high end, and only can score points on the low end for cheap budget builds. 

This CPU is a beast. 5.0 GHz across all cores. 

AMD can outperformit on paper or benchmarks...but there is no doubt who's on top when the GAMES start being played. 

Most people want a Gaming computer and multitask to editing (like Youtubbers). 

AMD CPU are for people who WORK on their computers rather than game. 

Most games now are GPU intensive rather than CPU intensive and most gamers are running in 1080p or 1440p rather than 4K. It's easy to buy a powerful CPU with future proofing for a few years. 

You can still game on an i5 or i7 4790 just fine with an RTX card.


----------



## Nater (Nov 11, 2019)

^ You didn't seriously spend $700 on that did you?  It's $525 at BestBuy last I looked.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 11, 2019)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> snip



LOL. Funniest thing I've read today, thanks.



Nater said:


> ^ You didn't seriously spend $700 on that did you?  It's $525 at BestBuy last I looked.



It's 570 at Microcenter, when you factor in the "savings". Probably over $600 with the cooler. Almost $300 more than the 3700x, which it's only 10% faster than, and much more inefficient.


----------



## trparky (Nov 11, 2019)

$500 for a processor? A single component of your system? Not just no but *hell no*! I like performance as much as the next TechPowerUP user but there's definitely a dollar amount that I'm going to stop at in order to get that performance. Anything past that dollar amount and I just don't care.

There's paying to have the best performance and then there's paying stupid amounts. $500 is very much within the realm of pure stupidity, if not firmly in the realm of wallet raping.


----------



## CounterSpell (Nov 11, 2019)

r5 ryzen way better for games considering that power consumption e price


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Nov 11, 2019)

Nater said:


> ^ You didn't seriously spend $700 on that did you?  It's $525 at BestBuy last I looked.




I'm not sure if you READ THE ENTIRE COMMENT but as I said, it was on sale before they even released them.

I even have a tax free card to prevent me from paying the extra 40 bucks.


----------



## Nater (Nov 11, 2019)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> I'm not sure if you READ THE ENTIRE COMMENT but as I said, it was on sale before they even released them.
> 
> I even have a tax free card to prevent me from paying the extra 40 bucks.



Cut the attitude.  You never gave a "sale" price, so I thought you meant "on sale" as in they put it out for sale before it would typically be available.  I was just going by the $699 sticker on the box, so yeah, no shit it was "on sale".  It'll never retail for that.

And tax fraud, that's cool bro. Your tone there makes it sound as if you're not buying it for whatever you have a tax free card for.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 11, 2019)

Real gamers use Intel. And game at 720P where it wins!!


----------



## birdie (Nov 11, 2019)

> Of course, we would have wished for more with this release, but I have to admit that yet again, Intel managed to squeeze more life out of their * Coffee Lake* architecture to keep consumers happy until Comet Lake arrives next year



You surely meant *Sky Lake* as this CPU is still based on the Sky Lake uArch which turned 4 yo last August. I don't remember Intel ever dragging their CPU uArchs for so long.


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2019)

Just to throw in my experience.

Maximus XI Hero board and 9900ks.

Not went above 1.4v but able to boot into windows at 5.5GHz

Can game at 5.4Ghz with avx set to zero. (Only tested Outer Worlds so far) and temps sit around 45-55 during the gaming session. So far this chip is excellent compared to my previous 7700K 

When I have time I'll experiment see if I can get 5.4GHz stable. Id be happy with 5.3GHz to be fair...


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 11, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> LOL. This review just reminded me what an excellent bang-for-buck the 3700x is.


I think you over looked the Ryzen 5 3600 with 209%. That has to be worthy of the title performance per dollar spent?


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 11, 2019)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> This CPU went on sale immediately before I even bought it from Microcenter. The CPU war between Intel and AMD is more pronounced than the GPU war between AMD and Nvidia because AMD has no competition whatsoever for Nvidia on the high end, and only can score points on the low end for cheap budget builds.
> 
> This CPU is a beast. 5.0 GHz across all cores.
> 
> ...





QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> This CPU went on sale immediately before I even bought it from Microcenter. The CPU war between Intel and AMD is more pronounced than the GPU war between AMD and Nvidia because AMD has no competition whatsoever for Nvidia on the high end, and only can score points on the low end for cheap budget builds.
> 
> This CPU is a beast. 5.0 GHz across all cores.
> 
> ...


 Same thing can be said for any Ryzen processor


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 11, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> I think you over looked the Ryzen 5 3600 with 209%. That has to be worthy of the title performance per dollar spent?


 Lol. Most definitely. I recommend that, particularly for most users and gamers.  Best to spend more money on the gpu. I just like the 3700x more, because of the core count. Personal preference .  I find it laughable how intel is marketing this processor to gamers, particularly when reflecting on real world game performance. This thing only comes with a one year warranty,  too.


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Nov 11, 2019)

Nater said:


> Cut the attitude.  You never gave a "sale" price, so I thought you meant "on sale" as in they put it out for sale before it would typically be available.  I was just going by the $699 sticker on the box, so yeah, no shit it was "on sale".  It'll never retail for that.
> 
> And tax fraud, that's cool bro. Your tone there makes it sound as if you're not buying it for whatever you have a tax free card for.



It's not Tax Fraud if that benefit comes with your job. I file taxes annually - and have NEVER been audited. I keep records on everything. 

LEARN TO READ before you have something stupid to say.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 11, 2019)

well, that review confirmed it for me: a R6 3600 or a R7 3700X are more desirable than that i9-9900KS

so much for gaming usage domination ... given the differences in fps, unless 76fps versus 78fps is a huge gape


----------



## Nater (Nov 11, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> It's 570 at Microcenter, when you factor in the "savings". Probably over $600 with the cooler. Almost $300 more than the 3700x, which it's only 10% faster than, and much more inefficient.





QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> It's not Tax Fraud if that benefit comes with your job. I file taxes annually - and have NEVER been audited. I keep records on everything.
> 
> LEARN TO READ before you have something stupid to say.



Am I the only one that READ the $699 sticker on the box?  

Goddamn you guys are touchy.


----------



## Xuper (Nov 11, 2019)

so with best Air cooling , OC Temp will reach 97'c , so Only option : Water cooling


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 11, 2019)

Nater said:


> Am I the only one that READ the $699 sticker on the box?
> 
> Goddamn you guys are touchy.



I saw the sticker price, I was just revealing the actual price since you inquired if the sticker is what he actually paid. I have no idea how that makes me "touchy," but ok, I guess. Lol.


----------



## Nater (Nov 11, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> I saw the sticker price, I was just revealing the actual price since you inquired if the sticker is what he actually paid. I have no idea how that makes me "touchy," but ok, I guess. Lol.


Yeah, sorry, quoted you more for reference!


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 11, 2019)

Xuper said:


> so with best Air cooling , OC Temp will reach 97'c , so Only option : Water cooling


3°C more before it becomes "only option", or have more luck with the silicon lottery


----------



## altermere (Nov 11, 2019)

Chrispy_ said:


> There's the $700 budget build guide you guys just released, which is a pretty good console-killer that also happens to do all the things a console can't do, with all the games that a console can't have, and can be upgraded incrementally in all the ways a console never will


True for this gen, but I feel like PS5 will obliterate any build that's under $2k, and it comes with it's own exclusives too. As for this CPU might as well call it Pentium 4 EE anniversary edition. Intel is in a position of Deliverance piggy squealer guy.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 11, 2019)

libastral said:


> I feel like PS5 will obliterate any build that's under $2k



I am assuming you aren't really familiar with these things, for the PS5 you're looking at something equivalent to a fairly underclocked RX 5700 and an 8 core Zen 2 processor. The only thing that it will obliterate is going to be the PS4.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 11, 2019)

libastral said:


> True for this gen, but I feel like PS5 will obliterate any build that's under $2k


PS5 when it releases is gonna be at best on par with a 2 year old mid tier desktop..... (yeah it's not obliterating anything)


Vya Domus said:


> I am assuming you aren't really familiar with these things, for the PS5 you're looking at something equivalent to a fairly underclocked RX 5700 and an 8 core Zen 2 processor. The only thing that it will obliterate is going to be the PS4.


 Agreed. PS4 will have restrictions with the CPU due to cooling (will use modern Ryzen but will be clocked at least 1ghz slower than the desktop counterpart + not all the cores will be available for gaming) and 5700 performance isn't terrible but reality is that's the equivalent of a 2016 GTX 1080 (PS5 in 2021 is gonna have the GPU power of a 2016 desktop card, you cannot realistically say it's gonna beat even a $1000 desktop)


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Nov 12, 2019)

Don’t know why his r20 hit almost 5400. My 5.2ghz KS hit only 5264  even I pair with 4000mhz ram. Maybe real time priority?


----------



## Daven (Nov 12, 2019)

At 1080P, only Sekiro and Farcry 5 show any significant difference between the 9900KS and the 3900X. Obviously this is some kind of game optimization for Intel. If you drop (or at least substitute for two others) these two games then the performance will be the same.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 12, 2019)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> Don’t know why his r20 hit almost 5400. My 5.2ghz KS hit only 5264  even I pair with 4000mhz ram. Maybe real time priority?




Seems a little low to me... My 5.1ghz score with just windows handling priorities.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 12, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Seems a little low to me... My 5.1ghz score with just windows handling priorities.
> View attachment 136218



What memory is that? Wouldnt you want that in the 4000mhz range??


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 12, 2019)

ShrimpBrime said:


> What memory is that? Wouldnt you want that in the 4000mhz range??



its a garbage 3200 kit I now run at 3600..... Corsair RGB PRO CL16


I have a bdie kit that can do 4000 but I am too lazy to mess with it lol


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Nov 12, 2019)

Maybe more expensive MB ? Im using the asus prime-a. All I do to oc is set to xmp, sync all core and set the voltage. Test in realbench and aida64.


----------



## Xzibit (Nov 12, 2019)

heflys20 said:


> LOL. This review just reminded me what an excellent bang-for-buck the 3700x is.



When stress testing the 9900K(S) above 5ghz you can fit (2) 3700X systems in that power envelope


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 12, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> When stress testing the 9900K(S) above 5ghz you can fit (2) 3700X systems in that power envelope


Funny part is that overclocking it doesn't even provide that much of a performance increase (when reflecting on the ridiculous efficiency), and it still loses to the 3900x in most CPU related tasks (aside from gaming). Such a silly product, IMHO. Plus, the 3950x is right around the corner.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

Mark Little said:


> At 1080P, only Sekiro and Farcry 5 show any significant difference between the 9900KS and the 3900X. Obviously this is some kind of game optimization for Intel. If you drop (or at least substitute for two others) these two games then the performance will be the same.
> 
> Am I missing something here?


Some games are more sensitive to latency, and Zen2 mitigated the problem, didn't solve it. Just because Zen2 is faster, that doesn't mean it will always be faster.


----------



## my_name_is_earl (Nov 12, 2019)

I still see no reason to upgrade my 8700k. So sad, expected more.


----------



## Rob94hawk (Nov 12, 2019)

A lot of great cpu's to choose from! Makes me want to build a rig just for myself and start gaming again.

In all honesty though, until the base clock is 5.0 Ghz, I'm not impressed. This should have happened years ago.

Till then I'll just keep doing whatever with my old 4770k.


----------



## notb (Nov 12, 2019)

Most comment authors missed the point as usual.
It's not about winning benchmarks. It's about winning in a particular niche. Because that's how OEMs and many consumers choose CPUs.

This is the fastest gaming CPU. End of story. Gamers who want to squeeze the most fps will buy this over a Ryzen - 9900K (even 9700K) was already good enough and this just adds a bit of margin over what AMD provides.

On the "working" front: 9900KS is going to be the fastest CPU available for many mainstream applications (like Photoshop), so Intel won't have any trouble selling these to OEMs - assuming there's any need (because gamers may suck the whole supply).
That said, 9900KS isn't vPro-compliant (unlike 9900K), so Intel is not targeting business-class workstations with this. It's only for gamers and prosumers.

And of course this is, by far and away, the fastest CPU with integrated graphics.
But that's nothing new since the fastest AMD's one is 3400G - basically half as fast, with countless Intel alternatives between them (even many mobile).
It means that at this point Intel is already faster than a theoretical maxed-out Zen2 AM4 APU (3700X + IGP). And they're going to add 2 more cores in the next 14nm generation.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

That's the problem, next 14nm generation, _again_. This shit is too old by now, Skylake will be 5 years old by then.


----------



## notb (Nov 12, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> That's the problem, next 14nm generation, _again_. This shit is too old by now, Skylake will be 5 years old by then.


This may as well be 20 years old. Or it may be 320nm++++++. It's all just pointless numbers. It's not what computers are about.

You may buy a CPU because it's more modern or because it does better in reviews/benchmarks. But that's because you care about stuff other than actually using a PC. You care what's inside the case.
Some people on this forum openly admit that they're more interested in hardware than in software. I.e. they buy a PC as a collectors item or a DIY hobby - not as a tool (for the same reason many people here are against cloud in general).

Typical consumers are extremely pragmatic - simply because they don't know (and don't care) how a CPU is made or how it works. They only care what it does for them.
Most people don't even like PCs. A PC is something they're forced to use at work or at home.

Will someone like that consciously buy a 9900K(S)? Of course he won't. He doesn't even know what 9900K is.
But will he end up getting a 9900K(S) because he needs a PC to edit videos or do some scientific/engineering/financial computations? Likely yes.


----------



## phill (Nov 12, 2019)

Great review there @W1zzard   It seems there's very little offering over the original 9900k which is a shame but if I was going to buy one, that would be my choice of CPU...

For 8 core 16 thread CPUs tho, the AMD's are amazingly good value.  In the gaming tests that matter 1080P or greater, there's not masses in it and as it's been said before in the thread, they are the best value for money here.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 12, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Worst CPU since the 9000 series FX.


This is why they should've named this as 9900EE, "Emergency Edition" like they had those P4 and Pentium D EEs..


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 12, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> This is why they should've named this as 9900EE, "Emergency Edition" like they had those P4 and Pentium D EEs..


i thought it was "PE" : Physical Educa.... errrr Panic Edition 



notb said:


> Most comment authors missed the point as usual.
> It's not about winning benchmarks. It's about winning in a particular niche. Because that's how OEMs and many consumers choose CPUs.
> 
> This is the fastest gaming CPU. End of story. Gamers who want to squeeze the most fps will buy this over a Ryzen - 9900K (even 9700K) was already good enough and this just adds a bit of margin over what AMD provides.
> ...


well ... i let the KS to the OEM, as an enthusiast on a budget (yes it does exist) i rather take 3fps less for 295$ less


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 12, 2019)

30 fps faster at 1440p over my ryzen 3600 in far cry 5.  

i wonder if older games like divinity original sin 2, or dragon age origins 1, 2, 3, etc also see these kinds of gains with intel.  :/  might not matter though since those games are so old anyway my 3600 prob maxes them out anyway at 1440p 144hz


----------



## Basard (Nov 12, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> $500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.


You could always buy an FX chip and an RX 570 if u want that sweet console experience on a PC.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 12, 2019)

Is this a test to see how far Intel fans are willing to go to buy the "latest" tech? (in captions because there is nothing "latest" about this processor)


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 12, 2019)

AusWolf said:


> Is this a test to see how far Intel fans are willing to go to buy the "latest" tech? (in captions because there is nothing "latest" about this processor)



I like Ryzen and own it. However, keep in mind, I am pretty sure Intel cpu's still hold a large lead in a lot of older games that are not tested by a good 20-30 fps.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

notb said:


> This may as well be 20 years old. Or it may be 320nm++++++. It's all just pointless numbers. It's not what computers are about.
> 
> You may buy a CPU because it's more modern or because it does better in reviews/benchmarks. But that's because you care about stuff other than actually using a PC. You care what's inside the case.
> Some people on this forum openly admit that they're more interested in hardware than in software. I.e. they buy a PC as a collectors item or a DIY hobby - not as a tool (for the same reason many people here are against cloud in general).
> ...


I see the numbers, more power consumption, the highest temps, and double the price than the 3700X for just a 11% improvement in gaming, this product is a fail even on it's own terms, no way around it. And don't even start to compare it to the more logical 3900X price-wise.
Skylake has to pass the torch already. This sounds exacly like someone defending the FX lineup.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 12, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> I see the numbers, more power consumption, the highest temps, and double the price than the 3700X for just a 11% improvement in gaming, this product is a fail even on it's own terms, no way around it. And don't even start to compare it to the more logical 3900X price-wise.
> Skylake has to pass the torch already. This sounds exacly like someone defending the FX lineup.



I mean 3770k to 4770k was only like a 5% jump in gaming benches, and same for every generation of chip from intel... 11% is actually decent, I am surprised they didn't just call this 10th gen.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I mean 3770k to 4770k was only like a 5% jump in gaming benches, and same for every generation of chip from intel... 11% is actually decent, I am surprised they didn't just call this 10th gen.


The 11% is against the 3700X, a CPU with lower gaming performance. The difference with the 9900K is only 5%, in 720p.
Plus, 10th gen is also Skylake, again.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 12, 2019)

It may be desperate binning from Intel, but 8 cores holding steady at 5GHz is still a very impressive achievement, one that AMD is nowhere near matching even on a more advanced process. But... you've got to wonder, with volume production 10nm still more than a year away... how much more can Intel have in the tank that is Skylake? How much more can they wring out of 14nm so they don't look like they're losing totally to AMD?



GoldenX said:


> Worst CPU since the 9000 series FX.



Except it actually has performance to go with it, unlike the FX-9000 series which was basically just a very inefficient way of converting electricity into heat (the actual CPU part was a side effect).


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> Except it actually has performance to go with it, unlike the FX-9000 series which was basically just a very inefficient way of converting electricity into heat (the actual CPU part was a side effect).


Does it? it's faster than the 9900K, and gets the gaming crown, but that's as far as it can go.


----------



## ERazer (Nov 12, 2019)

QUANTUMPHYSICS said:


> This CPU went on sale immediately before I even bought it from Microcenter. The CPU war between Intel and AMD is more pronounced than the GPU war between AMD and Nvidia because AMD has no competition whatsoever for Nvidia on the high end, and only can score points on the low end for cheap budget builds.
> 
> This CPU is a beast. 5.0 GHz across all cores.
> 
> ...


Future proof when intel is known to keep changing sockets


----------



## Thuban (Nov 12, 2019)

Rob94hawk said:


> A lot of great cpu's to choose from! Makes me want to build a rig just for myself and start gaming again.
> 
> In all honesty though, until the base clock is 5.0 Ghz, I'm not impressed. This should have happened years ago.
> 
> Till then I'll just keep doing whatever with my old 4770k.


Same here. Unless you need that gaming performance today, it's better to wait for a year or two for the fundamentally new core architecture. This processor performs well, but sucks way too much power. Reminds me of the late P4 processors.

EDIT:

Any, reasonably recent Intel* 8T+* CPU is okay for non-competitive leisure gaming.


----------



## notb (Nov 12, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Does it? it's faster than the 9900K, and gets the gaming crown, but that's as far as it can go.


It's just a flagship for the DIY market. It doesn't need to go any further.
But it's the fastest CPU available for software that uses 8 cores or less - a fact you should stop ignoring all the time...

Yes, it's not very efficient or posh in your world. But it gets the job done faster than anything else.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 12, 2019)

I can agree to that. But I insist, 14nm is not for 8 cores.


----------



## trparky (Nov 12, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> but 8 cores holding steady at 5GHz


Somewhere I read that it won't necessarily stay at 5 GHz and that it can and will clock down if the cooling isn't up to the task. It'll stay at 5 GHz under load as long as it can, usually until the heatsink is soaked, clocked down and then when the heatsink can take on more heat it'll clock back up to 5 GHz. So unless you have some damn good cooling, good luck with your 5 GHz under full load.

Oh wait... it wasn't something I read, it was a video I watched.









Gotta love how he put "5 GHz, Sort Of" in his video thumbnail.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 12, 2019)

trparky said:


> Somewhere I read that it won't necessarily stay at 5 GHz and that it can and will clock down if the cooling isn't up to the task. It'll stay at 5 GHz under load as long as it can, usually until the heatsink is soaked, clocked down and then when the heatsink can take on more heat it'll clock back up to 5 GHz. So unless you have some damn good cooling, good luck with your 5 GHz under full load.
> 
> Oh wait... it wasn't something I read, it was a video I watched.
> 
> ...


Yeah, after 28 seconds the power limit kicks in (unless it's disabled), and may limit the clock speed, down to ~4.7-4.8 GHz for the most intensive workloads.

The CPU will consume ~186W at burst speed and ~127W sustained, which itself isn't problematic on any decent air cooler. The challenge with i9-9900K(S) is energy density more than total energy consumption, and this is probably one of the few things Intel potentially can improve for Comet Lake which is still on 14nm++.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 13, 2019)

notb said:


> This may as well be 20 years old. Or it may be 320nm++++++. It's all just pointless numbers. It's not what computers are about.
> 
> You may buy a CPU because it's more modern or because it does better in reviews/benchmarks. But that's because you care about stuff other than actually using a PC. You care what's inside the case.
> Some people on this forum openly admit that they're more interested in hardware than in software. I.e. they buy a PC as a collectors item or a DIY hobby - not as a tool (for the same reason many people here are against cloud in general).
> ...



Mate. Its hot, grossly overpriced and it has zero IPC improvements. If you think this product fills a niche you are quite right, the idiot niche is what that is. And I'm not even joking, its a real one with real people who really think what they're doing makes any sense. They buy products based on their price tag and place in the stack 'have to have top parts', and probably never even looked at a review proper. The vast majority doesn't even know if the CPU brings them any benefit in any of the games they play.

Main reason for this is that the product was also preceded by a 9900K that is the exact same product - if you really wanted top FPS, you'd have already gotten that one. This CPU exists for the headlines and for some extra margin for Intel off aforementioned idiot niche.


----------



## altermere (Nov 13, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Mate. Its hot, grossly overpriced and it has zero IPC improvements. If you think this product fills a niche you are quite right, the idiot niche is what that is. And I'm not even joking, its a real one with real people who really think what they're doing makes any sense. They buy products based on their price tag and place in the stack 'have to have top parts', and probably never even looked at a review proper. The vast majority doesn't even know if the CPU brings them any benefit in any of the games they play.
> 
> Main reason for this is that the product was also preceded by a 9900K that is the exact same product - if you really wanted top FPS, you'd have already gotten that one. This CPU exists for the headlines and for some extra margin for Intel off aforementioned idiot niche.


Yep, it's a pure "golden toilet" product for the modern brainless "gamers" who buy $500 RGB mobos and $2k Kingpin GPUs thinking they're getting "teh best" to help them win in Overwatch. I'd call them "PC peasants".


----------



## gamefoo21 (Nov 13, 2019)

Sooo... my 7700K at 5.2 is just as fast single threaded...

LoL


----------



## altermere (Nov 13, 2019)

Bad news for "gaming crown".
The Gaming Performance Impact From The Intel JCC Erratum Microcode Update


----------



## notb (Nov 13, 2019)

libastral said:


> Bad news for "gaming crown".
> The Gaming Performance Impact From The Intel JCC Erratum Microcode Update


Have you actually seen the results?


----------



## efikkan (Nov 13, 2019)

libastral said:


> Bad news for "gaming crown".
> The Gaming Performance Impact From The Intel JCC Erratum Microcode Update


That performance impact is pretty much negligible. And in many cases the performance impact decreases as the mitigations are improved.

Every Intel and AMD CPU from the last 15 years have a long errata. The biggest difference today is that some of these get much more attention in media than before. Hopefully this increased attention results in improved testing procedures to reduce the problem during development. While some timing issues may be hard to catch, most logical errors should be possible to find.


----------



## altermere (Nov 14, 2019)

efikkan said:


> That performance impact is pretty much negligible. And in many cases the performance impact decreases as the mitigations are improved.
> 
> Every Intel and AMD CPU from the last 15 years have a long errata. The biggest difference today is that some of these get much more attention in media than before. Hopefully this increased attention results in improved testing procedures to reduce the problem during development. While some timing issues may be hard to catch, most logical errors should be possible to find.


So, losing performance over time is the new norm for Intel? And I feel this is not the last nerf, there will be many more to come because these kind of holes are impossible to truly fix without getting rid of flawed Core arch entirely. That's the point here, it's not a routine "errata fix" that apologists try to diminish it to.


----------



## notb (Nov 14, 2019)

libastral said:


> So, losing performance over time is the new norm for Intel?


CPUs are fixed all the time and many of these patches take away some performance. It has happened before most gamers learned about this in 2017.
Initial fix is always rushed and rough, so it often takes away more performance than necessary. Later revisions usually reduce the impact.

This is not new and not limited to Intel CPUs.


> it's not a routine "errata fix" that apologists try to diminish it to.


It is.

And there's nothing extremely wrong with current Intel architecture as well.
But it's been around for a long time and has had over 90% server share. The amount of testing it has gone through is unprecedented in this industry.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 14, 2019)

What a terrible release, last throw of the 14nm dice to fool Johnny Casual out of a bit more money. Terrible price, shocking power consumption, all for 2% more gaming performance? Get out of here.



notb said:


> It's just a flagship for the DIY market. It doesn't need to go any further.
> *But it's the fastest CPU available for software that uses 8 cores or less -* a fact you should stop ignoring all the time...
> 
> Yes, it's not very efficient or posh in your world. But it gets the job done faster than anything else.



Is this how desperate it has become for Intel - that the defence has turned into 'this is the fastest CPU with this many cores' whilst ignoring every other factor? Let's ignore terrible power draw, price, longevity, multi-threaded performance, heat output, lack of heatsink, etc etc.

No thanks.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 14, 2019)

libastral said:


> So, losing performance over time is the new norm for Intel? And I feel this is not the last nerf, there will be many more to come because these kind of holes are impossible to truly fix without getting rid of flawed Core arch entirely. That's the point here, it's not a routine "errata fix" that apologists try to diminish it to.


Please be serious and stop pretending this is limited to Intel.
Your post is FUD.


----------



## Animalpak (Nov 14, 2019)

Just waiting this CPU coming to swiss seller's and i will buy it right away.

Then my good old 4790k that served me for 6 years can retire for good and see you in 5 years as a minimum for an upgrade.


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 14, 2019)

gamefoo21 said:


> Sooo... my 7700K at 5.2 is just as fast single threaded...
> 
> LoL




*Your 7700K might be faster* at 5.2Ghz single thread than a 9900KS at 5.2Ghz, both using the same Intel Ring Bus yet your quad-core has less electronic distance to travel vs an 8-core. lol

Really, that's why you see quad core CPUs using fast ddr4 scoring so well (so low in nanoseconds) with the AIDA64 memory latency bench and other ST benchmarks.

Just run some ST benchies and find out. 









						PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance
					

Benchmarks of the single thread performance of CPUs. This chart comparing CPUs single thread performance is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.



					www.cpubenchmark.net
				












						Cinebench 15 Download
					

Here you can download Cinebench 15. CINEBENCH is a real-world cross platform test suite that evaluates your computer's performance capabilities. CINEBENCH is based on MAXON's animation software CIN...




					www.guru3d.com
				






			https://www.maxon.net/en-us/support/downloads/
		










						CPU-Z | Softwares | CPUID
					

CPU-Z is a freeware that gathers information on some of the main devices of your system :  			 				Processor name and number, codename, process, package, cache levels. 				Mainboard and chipset. 				Memory type, size, timings, and module specifications (SPD). 				Real time measurement of each...




					www.cpuid.com
				




CPUZ contains a "bench" tab that runs an MT and ST benchmark.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 14, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Just waiting this CPU coming to swiss seller's and i will buy it right away.
> 
> Then my good old 4790k that served me for 6 years can retire for good and see you in 5 years as a minimum for an upgrade.



Bad time to buy this for that kind of longevity as it'll be blown out the water in less than 2 years when Intel finally releases their 10nm desktop CPUs.


----------



## E-curbi (Nov 14, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Bad time to buy this for that kind of longevity as it'll be blown out the water in less than 2 years when Intel finally releases their 10nm desktop CPUs.



10nm or 7nm  

Or maybe 14nm and 10nm within the same series, lower TDP processors using 10nm? Who knows what Intel is planning?

Two years can be a long time to wait vs having something functional "right now" in your PC working for you. lol


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 14, 2019)

notb said:


> And there's nothing extremely wrong with current Intel architecture as well.
> But it's been around for a long time and has had over 90% server share. The amount of testing it has gone through is unprecedented in this industry.


We can call that the "Windows XP effect", right?


----------



## altermere (Nov 14, 2019)

notb said:


> But it's been around for a long time and has had over 90% server share. The amount of testing it has gone through is unprecedented in this industry.


Sure, but companies are still getting owned from time to time. No matter how "well patched" their Intel rigs are I would still like the bank and government systems that handle my data to use EPYC though. Even in casual stuff like game servers it would drastically help reduce the maintenance downtime, admins won't have to patch new speculative execution holes that surface every month.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 14, 2019)

libastral said:


> Sure, but companies are still getting owned from time to time. No matter how "well patched" their Intel rigs are I would still like the bank and government systems that handle my data to use EPYC though. Even in casual stuff like game servers it would drastically help reduce the maintenance downtime, admins won't have to patch new speculative execution holes that surface every month.


This hardly effects downtime to the end user. That is what redundancy is for. I know with AWS, the amount of headroom and redundancy they have and the ability to simply ramp up servers (I worked there, note) means nothing. If patching takes you down, then you need better redundancy, period.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 14, 2019)

E-curbi said:


> 10nm or 7nm
> Or maybe 14nm and 10nm within the same series, lower TDP processors using 10nm? Who knows what Intel is planning?
> Two years can be a long time to wait vs having something functional "right now" in your PC working for you. lol


7nm is coming late 2021 in low volumes, so don't hold your breath.
10nm Tiger Lake is scheduled for next year, I assume very late in the year, with parts up to 95W.

The choice between buying now and waiting is always a tough one. If value/price your criteria, I suggest using a price watching service and add notifications for relevant products and buy whenever it hits your sweetspot (e.g. during a Black Friday sale etc.). And while the next generation will be the first big step from Intel in over 4 years and much bigger than Haswell->Skylake, it depends if you need or benefit from that performance improvement or not. If this is only a gaming PC then a i7-9700K is already plenty fast, just get a decent Noctua cooler and be done with it. The improvements in Sunny Cove will mostly benefit non-gaming workloads and of course energy efficiency.

But if you need performance or features that don't exists in the market yet, then play the waiting game.


----------



## Flanker (Nov 15, 2019)

Huh, the Visual Studio test shows it completed with about 10% less time compared to 9900K just from binning and higher clocks. I guess compilation is still very much dependent on single core performance. But the AMD stuff is performing really good :S Perhaps the high thread count helps with compiling the translation units in parallel and single core performance help with linking stage. 

I thinking about grabbing this or a 9900K/9900KF if I can find one priced somewhat reasonably, because I can't be bothered replacing the motherboard. But then I would need a different case and cooler anyway. Ugh, nevermind, too lazy these days.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 15, 2019)

Flanker said:


> Huh, the Visual Studio test shows it completed with about 10% less time compared to 9900K just from binning and higher clocks. I guess compilation is still very much dependent on single core performance. But the AMD stuff is performing really good :S Perhaps the high thread count helps with compiling the translation units in parallel and single core performance help with linking stage.
> 
> I thinking about grabbing this or a 9900K/9900KF if I can find one priced somewhat reasonably, because I can't be bothered replacing the motherboard. But then I would need a different case and cooler anyway. Ugh, nevermind, too lazy these days.


It's hard to tell how representative the workload really is. But in general, typical developers will be using a decent makefile or build system that only recompiles changes, and will be doing these very frequently during development. Small builds like these will scale better on faster cores rather than higher quantities of slower cores, probably even more-so than illustrated in this benchmark. While clean rebuilds of large code bases, e.g. the entire Linux kernel, is more relevant for a build server making releases, and these may sometimes scale better towards high core count.

Workstation workloads are always a bit tricky, since they are workload specific down to the individual user. If you have a particular workload in mind, you can at least get a good idea by watching your system monitor and see if it at least scales well on your current CPU, and if it appears to be bottlenecked by single core speed.

But in general, it seems like i9-9900K(S) is the best all-round developer CPU as of right now (until Sunny Cove arrives), providing you don't use it for also something that scales incredible well on many more cores, benefit from AVX-512 or similar. I do recommend that you add some kind of price watch notification and consider grabbing one on discount. I saw one deal at 16% off the other week, I would be incredible tempted if it wasn't already gone.


----------



## erixx (Nov 22, 2019)

Yesterday early this cpu had 1 week delivery time. At midnight it jumped to 1-3 month!!! (Amazon spain)


----------



## Poul-erik (Nov 22, 2019)

I wonder a little bit that when you give a thumbs down, why this processor then doesn't get a thumbs down to switch from 3 year warranty to 1 year. ??.

I have seen that in several places, it is not written that there is only 1 year warranty.

The 9900k has a 3-year warranty, so upgrade a 9900k to a 9900ks and lower the warranty by 2 years.

that does not sound good.


----------



## notb (Nov 22, 2019)

Poul-erik said:


> I wonder a little bit that when you give a thumbs down, why this processor then doesn't get a thumbs down to switch from 3 year warranty to 1 year. ??.


It does. It has been discussed a lot.

It's a binned, limited CPU. Intel offers a very short warranty period, because they like can't secure the usual inventory.
It's a bummer, but Intel is entitled to do so. To be honest, 3 years is a lot.

Keep in mind that if you buy a whole PC (from OEM or SI), it may be covered by a longer warranty anyway and it includes the CPU.
And if you buy in EU, you get the 2-year legal warranty as well.


----------



## whazzup (Dec 5, 2019)

Created an account specifically to say THANK YOU!

And please continue to post benchmarks for software development for future processors. Yes, show some love for visual studio. Not everyone does graphics and simulation programming....It's infuriating how hard it is to find benchmarks that answer the simple question of 'how much faster can my code compile with XXX processor'.

Would love to see how AMD's 3950X - 3970X stack up against the 9900KS


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 5, 2019)

whazzup said:


> Created an account specifically to say THANK YOU!
> 
> And please continue to post benchmarks for software development for future processors. Yes, show some love for visual studio. Not everyone does graphics and simulation programming....It's infuriating how hard it is to find benchmarks that answer the simple question of 'how much faster can my code compile with XXX processor'.
> 
> Would love to see how AMD's 3950X - 3970X stack up against the 9900KS


Thanks for the positive feedback. Unfortunately AMD decided they "don't have enough samples" of these CPUs


----------



## Camper7 (Feb 12, 2020)

They forgot to test performance single core at same clock relative to price. From there you can see the truth about the cpu. Intel might have higher clocks but that produces also more heat and consumes more power.



Animalpak said:


> Just waiting this CPU coming to swiss seller's and i will buy it right away.
> 
> Then my good old 4790k that served me for 6 years can retire for good and see you in 5 years as a minimum for an upgrade.



Why waste the money? Swiss people has too much of them.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 13, 2020)

Camper7 said:


> Why waste the money? Swiss people has too much of them.


while i agree on the waste of money that CPU is, on the second part of that sentence : actually ... nope, thanks for the cliche ... for instance if i was foolish enough to take a 9900KS it would need a 3 month tiered billing ... and i would not be able to buy other components on the same order   
(well at last i would be able to take a good X570 mobo plus a R6 3600X for the price of a single 9900KS )


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 13, 2020)

GreiverBlade said:


> while i agree on the waste of money that CPU is, on the second part of that sentence : actually ... nope, thanks for the cliche ... for instance if i was foolish enough to take a 9900KS it would need a 3 month tiered billing ... and i would not be able to buy other components on the same order
> (well at last i would be able to take a good X570 mobo plus a R6 3600X for the price of a single 9900KS )



Why you guys always judge what people is buying ? Why you are so interested and so damn worried about people that doesnt buy the same thing that you bought ?
Do you guys have some personal issues as many in this forum and others ?

You gotta stop this dumb thing leave people what they want to to with their own money !!!

Why i have to buy AMD BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT AMD ?? TELL ME WHY ? I have my own tastes i have my own ideas my own experience and needs i do my choice whatever ! And you are NOBODY to tell me that i did a mistake just because what YOU HAVE BOUGHT ITS CHEAPER and nothing more than that than cheaper ! Does not perform better its performing equal or a little bit worse !
If you want to hit high FPS in games you are better with Intel  ! STILL INTEL yes !

I DONT GIVE A FFFFFFF to AMD !! Do you understand ?

I do not go to the AMD forum's and post saying YOU GUYS DONE MISTAKE BUYING AMD BLA BLA BLA GNE GNE GNE ! I dont do that  !! Why you AMD fanboys are doing this over and over again ? 

Stop this childish behavior you guys are just showing how immature you are.


----------



## Camper7 (Feb 13, 2020)

GreiverBlade said:


> while i agree on the waste of money that CPU is, on the second part of that sentence : actually ... *nope, thanks for the cliche* ... for instance if i was foolish enough to take a 9900KS it would need a 3 month tiered billing ... and i would not be able to buy other components on the same order
> (well at last i would be able to take a good X570 mobo plus a R6 3600X for the price of a single 9900KS )



If you only do gaming an R6 3600X is just enough. Or you like to brag with Intel CPU....
I've been in Switzerland 8 times in 6 years now and most the swiss people are rich compared to the rest of EU. Therefore I meant what I wrote before.
Sorry to be little off topic.



Animalpak said:


> Why you guys always judge what people is buying ? Why you are so interested and so damn worried about people that doesnt buy the same thing that you bought ?
> Do you guys have some personal issues as many in this forum and others ?
> 
> You gotta stop this dumb thing leave people what they want to to with their own money !!!
> ...



Your reply just proves that I have right. Swiss people are self-important people with heavy wallets. They don't know the people outside their borders, they live in their own bubble.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 13, 2020)

Camper7 said:


> If you only do gaming an R6 3600X is just enough. Or you like to brag with Intel CPU....
> I've been in Switzerland 8 times in 6 years now and most the swiss people are rich compared to the rest of EU. Therefore I meant what I wrote before.
> Sorry to be little off topic.
> 
> ...



Can you quit with the generalizations?  It's only showing an ugly side of yourself, and not "proving" anything.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Feb 13, 2020)

Camper7 said:


> I've been in Switzerland 8 times in 6 years now and most the swiss people are rich compared to the rest of EU



I've been to Qatar, the richest country in the world (per capita). Therefore everyone in Qatar is rich 

The reality is that the *majority* of Qatar's inhabitants (1.5m of the 2.6m population) are barely elevated above slave labour, earning around $20 a day with no benefits like medical or pension.

Swiss salaries are higher, on average, than other countries, but the cost of living in Switzerland is proportionately high.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 13, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Why you guys always judge what people is buying ? Why you are so interested and so damn worried about people that doesnt buy the same thing that you bought ?
> Do you guys have some personal issues as many in this forum and others ?
> 
> You gotta stop this dumb thing leave people what they want to to with their own money !!!
> ...


i did not target you in that post tho i did agree on one point, but that doesn't mean i would say : "you shouldn't buy Intel CPU's because it's a waste of money"  it's your money : your call ... i didn't imply anything else  

also i am no brand loyal either.


----------



## AusWolf (Feb 16, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> Why you guys always judge what people is buying ? Why you are so interested and so damn worried about people that doesnt buy the same thing that you bought ?
> Do you guys have some personal issues as many in this forum and others ?
> 
> You gotta stop this dumb thing leave people what they want to to with their own money !!!
> ...


There's no need to become angry just because someone pointed out the *fact *that considering alternatives, the Core i9-9900KS is a terrible value for your money. You're more than welcome to buy it though, just don't try to justify it with logic, because there is none. Buying anything _"special edition"_ is purely an emotional decision.


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 16, 2020)

AusWolf said:


> There's no need to become angry just because someone pointed out the *fact *that considering alternatives, the Core i9-9900KS is a terrible value for your money. You're more than welcome to buy it though, just don't try to justify it with logic, because there is none. Buying anything _"special edition"_ is purely an emotional decision.



Same words was said to me before i bought my 4790K like when it was launched and this is the chip that i currently using and its almost 6 years old. Ive always gamed on it for entire nights and evenings on the week ends and lately i overclocked to 4.7Ghz due to the loss in peformance because it start to showing his age.

I bought my 4790K not by emotions or to just show " how big it is my.... "  IT was the best performer for my needs thats the reason.

Those people who bought cheaper chips and said to me that i throwed away my money they changed PC like 3 times in 6 years and i never changed my Z97 Maximus Impact VII nor my 4790K.


----------



## W1zzard (Feb 16, 2020)

Animalpak said:


> 4790K


+1 for 4790K, replaced it just a few months ago in my work rig, with 8700k, and tbh not really noticing any difference in day to day perf


----------

