# Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS



## btarunr (May 27, 2019)

With 7 nm AMD Ryzen 3000 processor family expected to make landfall early-July, and "Ice Lake" nowhere in sight, a panicked Intel announced the development of the Core i9-9900KS 8-core/16-thread LGA1151 processor. Based on the 14 nm "Coffee Lake Refresh" silicon, this processor has a base-frequency of 4.00 GHz, up from 3.60 GHz of the original; and an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, identical to the original i9-9900K, which has its max-turbo set at 5.00 GHZ, too. A revamped Turbo Boost algorithm is expected to yield significant gains in multi-core performance. The company didn't reveal TDP, pricing, or availability.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.



Pretty much.  That, and words like "panic" bug me because they pander to sensationalism rather than good journalism (outside of editorials anyhow).  But meh, the modern web has lower standards I think.

As I recently told w1zzard, it bugs me, but I totally get why he has editors doing it.  Adapt or die, as they say.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

*Intel doesn't lower prices*, the last time they did was just around the time Dell & others were getting dollar bill kickbacks!

What they do is kill the SKU instead.


----------



## Wavetrex (May 27, 2019)

12c vs 8c and slightly higher IPC, there's just no competition.
They can push clocks to the moon, it will still lose.

GG Intel.


----------



## randomUser (May 27, 2019)

They are most likely buying back their CPU binned for 5GHz by siliconlottery and reselling it worldwide instead of just USA.

Surely 5GHz all core out of the box very nice. My 9900k can't handle 5GHz even at 1.36vCore.


----------



## Zubasa (May 27, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> 12c vs 8c and slightly higher IPC, there's just no competition.
> They can push clocks to the moon, it will still lose.
> 
> GG Intel.


Doesn't matter, there will still me plenty of people who insist Intel is more stable or more security etc.
FYI Intel is still milking record profits.
This chip is not even a penny cheaper.


----------



## GoldenX (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.


*gasp* How could you say that!


----------



## Wavetrex (May 27, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> FYI Intel is still milking record profits.


They can milk all they want I couldn't care less.

What's important is that soon there will be a real option.
1800X and 2700X were good, but as Lisa Su said, it wasn't good enough, they still lost the mainstream performance competition.

And as a personal note , going from 6c to 8c wasn't a good enough option for me. Now with 12, the story changes. And at that price it's a no brainer !
(Yes I know there's HEDT etc. with 10+, but way too expensive overall).


----------



## dicktracy (May 27, 2019)

A slight clock bump on the same product is hardly a panic... and for Intel users, Zen 2 would be a side-grade at best for gaming. I'm still sitting here waiting for something to blow away those ancient Skylake cores out of the water but Zen 2 doesn't look like that candidate and desktop Ice Lake is delayed LMAO. All in all, there is still no big performance leap for CPUs in 2019.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Don't expect anything major from ICL either, the next 10% "IPC" lift from Intel will be due to the patched KBL, CFL systems vs hardware mitigation on ICL or TGL.


----------



## chaosmassive (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.


lowering price is sign of weakness, lack of confidence in their product, and its the last thing they want to do


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

I'm going to have to agree with the above comments, this is not Intel pressing the "panic" button. This is them recognizing AMD has something good that will give them solid competition and responding with a bit of a sweet CPU. It would be sweeter to reduce the pricing as well..



chaosmassive said:


> lowering price is sign of weakness, lack of confidence in their product, and its the last thing they want to do


No, it would be simply acknowledging solid competition.


----------



## Nkd (May 27, 2019)

lol 200w tdp? Intel already runs around their TDP number, which is only the base clock. I think 9900k standard runs way above its rated TDP on all core turbo. I am sure fanboys will just hide behind their fantasy TDP number lol. Ryzen 9 3900x is day one purchase for me! Sold my 9900k in anticipation few weeks ago.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

They're selling a higher sku for a higher price.Tell me when there's something interesting e.g. an actual price cut.
Btw this news editor is pretty clickbaity I noticed.


----------



## Nkd (May 27, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> A slight clock bump on the same product is hardly a panic... and for Intel users, Zen 2 would be a side-grade at best for gaming. I'm still sitting here waiting for something to blow away those ancient Skylake cores out of the water but Zen 2 doesn't look like that candidate and desktop Ice Lake is delayed LMAO. All in all, there is still no big performance leap for CPUs in 2019.



really? 12 core at less power to match IPC and kick ass in productivity is not enough? While AMD brings you more core 15% IPC lift in 2 years, dont tell me you think that is nothing while intel sat on its ass. Zen 2 doesnt look like a candidate to you? Yea 4 more cores than competition for same price is nothing I guess. Atleast thank AMD for bringing some competition and giving intel a run



Wavetrex said:


> 12c vs 8c and slightly higher IPC, there's just no competition.
> They can push clocks to the moon, it will still lose.
> 
> GG Intel.



pentium 4


----------



## champsilva (May 27, 2019)

Explain me how a company who is setting record after records, keeping the price sky rocking is pushing the panic button?

imo, intel should set $380 for 9900K, would be a better deal than 9900KS.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

Nkd said:


> lol 200w tdp?


That is an assumption and not a great one. Far more likely to be sub-150W TDP.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

Nkd said:


> lol 200w tdp? Intel already runs around their TDP number, which is only the base clock. I think 9900k standard runs way above its rated TDP on all core turbo. I am sure fanboys will just hide behind their fantasy TDP number lol. Ryzen 9 3900x is day one purchase for me! Sold my 9900k in anticipation few weeks ago.


65w 2700 draws 50w idle,80w single threaded and 140w multithreaded.that's 2.15x of what's advertised.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Ryzen 9 3900x is day one purchase for me! Sold my 9900k in anticipation few weeks ago.


Ok, that's just silly. You sold a solid performer for a CPU that is an unknown performer? Granted we all know it's going to be competitive, but how do you know that you didn't loose out? Risky gamble IMO.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2019)

The TDP on this vs the 65W 3700x should be hilariously bad


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

Mussels said:


> The TDP on this vs the 65W 3700x should be hilariously bad


True. Even with an OC the 3700X should run cooler.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 65w 2700 draws 50w idle,80w single threaded and 140w multithreaded.that's 2.15x of what's advertised.


140W for just the CPU, non AVX workload? I'm sure you have the data for that


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> 140W for just the CPU, non AVX workload? I'm sure you have the data for that


Tpu review
9900k and 2700x have three same power draw except for single threaded where 9900k draws noticeably less


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

Tom's Hardware said:
			
		

> the *Core i9-9900K* gets super hot faced with Prime95 and AVX instructions *(205W stock, 250W overclocked)*, exceeding the specified TDP.
> 
> We measured *137W (232W) during the Cinebench test,* and we topped *145W (241W overclocked) under the larger Blender workload*. We even pushed past *120W (198W overclocked) with various CAD plug-ins for Creo and SolidWorks*.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

So you don't know what you're talking about  


cucker tarlson said:


> Tpu review
> 9900k and 2700x have three same power draw except for single threaded where 9900k draws noticeably less


----------



## dicktracy (May 27, 2019)

Nkd said:


> really? 12 core at less power to match IPC and kick ass in productivity is not enough? While AMD brings you more core 15% IPC lift in 2 years, dont tell me you think that is nothing while intel sat on its ass. Zen 2 doesnt look like a candidate to you? Yea 4 more cores than competition for same price is nothing I guess. Atleast thank AMD for bringing some competition and giving intel a run
> 
> 
> 
> pentium 4


That's the problem. It only "matches" the old and milked out Skylake. Zen 2 is practically a Coffee Lake 2.0 but with moar cores and less power consumption (still questionable gaming performance and overclockabiliy). It's hard to get excited about yesterday's performance... Zen 2 is a pretty good performer for those jumping in this late in the game (I would even get the 3900x if I was buying a CPU today), but you could've gotten those gaming performance years ago with an overclocked 6700k in 2015... so yeah still nothing better than ancient Skylake in 2019 unless you need moar cores.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Zen 2 likely exceeds SKL's IPC & if SKL is ancient in 2019 what do you suppose Comet or Rocket lake are?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 27, 2019)

so this is basically the i9 processor they wanted to release; 4GHz on all 8 cores with an all-core boost of 5GHz? ok...


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> So you don't know what you're talking about


Why?I quoted tpus numbers.you picked torture tests only.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

You said 143W (*total system power consumption*) & compared it against 65W TDP. Do you want me to show 9900k torture test results?


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> You said 143W,* total system power consumption*, & compared it against TDP. Do you want me to show 9900k torture test results?


What? I said multithreaded.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Even is it is Multi threaded, it's still *total system* power. Stop your *disinformation*!


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Even is it is Multi threaded, it's still *total system* power. Stop your *disinformation*!


LOL


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Yeah clearly, you're putting TDP & total system power in the same sentence liberally


----------



## Space Lynx (May 27, 2019)

chaosmassive said:


> lowering price is sign of weakness, lack of confidence in their product, and its the last thing they want to do



Which is why I was criticizing the use of the word panic... what is your point? Thanks for helping me prove mine? mmk.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

I think the word *CB*, no not Maxon's benchmark, come to mind


----------



## zlobby (May 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> What? I said multithreaded.



Hon, hon, hon! RIDL, Smeltdown and the rest want their HT back!

I smell bad damage control when I see one.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Yeah clearly, you're putting TDP & total system power in the same sentence liberally


yes,my bad.
thank you for your measured reaction.
it's like your head didn't catch fire at all.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

I pointed out your mistake twice & yet you doubled down, surely you can cut me some slack?


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 27, 2019)

all i know is that AMD has yet again successfully shaken Intel's fruit-bearing trees, after their (AMD's) rather long 5+ years of barely-innovating "hiatus".


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> I pointed out your mistake twice & yet you doubled down, surely you can cut me some slack?


"pointed out" is a fancy word for snarky remarks you made.
btw the methoology is same for intel and amd.the point I was making was to nkd and it still stands,both manufacurers' tdp number is bogus.
MT power draw is 199w for 9900k and 198w for 2700x.Let's say 1080ti and the rest of the system takes 50-60W.It's still around 40-50W more for 9900K and over 50W more for 2700x.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 27, 2019)

the TDP that the processors advertise isn't really accurate anyways... coz in the end, users wants to use 'em for many reasons. let the total system power draw be the deciding factor here.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

And how do you count for PSU losses or motherboard, I'm sure my comments didn't cover that? The difference in power consumption can only be measured when you're actually counting just the CPU power draw, not guesstimating what it's consuming from the rest of the system. The point about *max power draw*, over 95W or 105W TDP, is valid though.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 27, 2019)

He's like "I know, I know, its not really that interesting is it"
or
"Yeah its the same box, so what"

By the way, is Intel going to keep adding letters now that they've run out of numbers? What's next, a 9900KFS?!


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

9900k still manages to draw 40w less in gaming while beating the crap out of amd's flagship 8c/16t.






ryzen is a workstation cpu and that's where it shines,beating intel both in value and efficiency.



Vayra86 said:


> View attachment 123830
> 
> He's like "I know, I know, its not really that interesting is it"
> or
> ...


9900KFC with edram like 5775C.It'll fry your chickens too.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 9900k still manages to draw 40w less in gaming while beating the crap out of amd's flagship 8c/16t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With the minor caveat that it tops the charts the moment you look a bit funny at the Vcore value and want to all-core your turbo  Ryzen OTOH does not.



cucker tarlson said:


> 9900KFC with edram like 5775C.It'll fry your chickens too.



Thanks for my new sig.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 27, 2019)

put it simple; gaming & general use = Intel, workstation/CPU-intensive workloads = AMD.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> With the minor caveat that it tops the charts the moment you look a bit funny at the Vcore value and want to all-core your turbo  Ryzen OTOH does not.


14nm,even mature and really good,is 14nm.There's so much you can do without throwing away efficiency at some point.9900K is still very efficient for gaming if you look at perf/wat,just waaaay too expensive.



Vayra86 said:


> thanks for my new sig.


was gonna use another word for a male chicken but didn't want do push it too far.


----------



## R0H1T (May 27, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> put it simple; gaming & general use = Intel, workstation/CPU-intensive workloads = AMD.


With zen 2 you're better off buying AMD, unless you're chasing that last 1% or 0.1% especially in gaming. Though as I've said repeatedly, Intel's IGP gives them an edge in lots of segments where AMD is missing.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> With zen 2 you're better off buying AMD, unless you're chasing that last *1% or 0.1*% especially in gaming.


----------



## ViperXTR (May 27, 2019)




----------



## Valantar (May 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 9900KFC with edram like 5775C.It'll fry your chickens too.


AnandTech: Playing Chicken: Kentucky Fried Intel Core i9-9900KFC Processor Listed. 2/15/19.



vprem said:


> [Madly incoherent rant where every second word is in quotes for some reason]


What on earth are you on about?
Edit: I tried re-reading that. Still don't have the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Is it at all related to the topic? It certainly doesn't look that way, though frankly I can't tell. Also, please stop putting every second word in quotes. It makes no sense.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 27, 2019)

Valantar said:


> AnandTech: Playing Chicken: Kentucky Fried Intel Core i9-9900KFC Processor Listed. 2/15/19.
> 
> 
> What on earth are you on about?
> Edit: I tried re-reading that. Still don't have the foggiest idea what you're trying to say. Is it at all related to the topic? It certainly doesn't look that way, though frankly I can't tell. Also, please stop putting every second word in quotes. It makes no sense.



One flew over the cuckoo's nest comes to mind.


----------



## Xzibit (May 27, 2019)

ViperXTR said:


> View attachment 123837



His video was better

*LTT: I need to buy AMD stock. NOW.*


----------



## EDK-OZMA (May 27, 2019)

So the next one will be 9900KSFC


----------



## Tomgang (May 27, 2019)

Yawn. So basic a binned factory overclock i9 9900K and properly to a higher price as well. Knowing intels price politic.

If that's the case, no thanks. Intel get your ass together and release some 10 or 7 nm chips. 14 nm is so last season now. What is it now 14 nm++++ or some thing like that


----------



## B-Real (May 27, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.



Yes, that's why twice more AMD products are sold  than Intel. DDDDDD



dicktracy said:


> A slight clock bump on the same product is hardly a panic... and for Intel users, Zen 2 would be a side-grade at best for gaming. I'm still sitting here waiting for something to blow away those ancient Skylake cores out of the water but Zen 2 doesn't look like that candidate and desktop Ice Lake is delayed LMAO. All in all, there is still no big performance leap for CPUs in 2019.



LOL. 3700x has the same gaming performance as the 9700K and the 3800X has the same as the 9900K. And saying that is a "side-grade at best" means it is much better multi-thread-wise for less money. And don't forget you could only get the extra power of Intel CPU with the RTX 2080 Ti in FHD, which 0,01% of the gamers use - maybe. Any other card on that resolution, or 2080 Ti on 1440P or above wipes the difference between an Intel and a pre-Zen2 Ryzen.


----------



## Ravenas (May 27, 2019)

What’s amazing to me is that AMD started 4 years ago as a 1 billion dollar market cap company on the verge of bankruptcy.


Today they are worth ~30x that in market capitalization, and causing significant competition and disruption in the market (as can be seen by the arguements in this thread) versus a 200 billion + dollar market cap company with a processor market share at 90% just 4 years ago.

Granted none of this would be possible if they weren’t fabless, but being in the fab business seems to be what is holding Intel back. Makes everyone come to a moment of Zen (play on words) when thinking about why Apple hasn’t purchased a fab.


----------



## Manu_PT (May 27, 2019)

B-Real said:


> Yes, that's why twice more AMD products are sold  than Intel. DDDDDD
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. 3700x has the same gaming performance as the 9700K and the 3800X has the same as the 9900K. And saying that is a "side-grade at best" means it is much better multi-thread-wise for less money. And don't forget you could only get the extra power of Intel CPU with the RTX 2080 Ti in FHD, which 0,01% of the gamers use - maybe. Any other card on that resolution, or 2080 Ti on 1440P or above wipes the difference between an Intel and a pre-Zen2 Ryzen.



Does it? Do you have benchmark numbers? Because amd only compared their chips to their old ones, not to Intel ones in gaming... so......


----------



## B-Real (May 27, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Does it? Do you have benchmark numbers? Because amd only compared their chips to their old ones, not to Intel ones in gaming... so......


Yes, they did.

"The second proc announced is the Ryzen 7 3800X. This processor has 8 Cores, 16 threads  4.5 GHz Boost and 3.9 GHz base clock frequencies. It has 36 MB total cache. It has been compared to a Core i9 9900K on stage. The proc ran the same perf as the 9900K in game. This proc will have a 105 Watt TDP. "


----------



## Manu_PT (May 27, 2019)

B-Real said:


> Yes, they did.
> 
> "The second proc announced is the Ryzen 7 3800X. This processor has 8 Cores, 16 threads  4.5 GHz Boost and 3.9 GHz base clock frequencies. It has 36 MB total cache. It has been compared to a Core i9 9900K on stage. The proc ran the same perf as the 9900K in game. This proc will have a 105 Watt TDP. "



Yeah they did on Pubg, the game where you hit a wall fps wise and can´t break it no matter what. Convenient comparasion.... but no gaming graphs vs Intel, I wonder why... only vs Zen+.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 27, 2019)

AMD's "slight disruption" not only made Intel panicked like hell but they also committed silly decisions.


----------



## systemBuilder (May 27, 2019)

they did not announce pricing and availability because like their previous panic moves the availability might be none and the price might be infinity.


----------



## Ravenas (May 27, 2019)

I think what should be eye popping is that Intel has basically stretched their 14nm process to the max with 9900ks. What more room is there over the next 3 years? Continued slight efficiency improvements? TSMC is now 7nm, over the next 3 years the sky is the limit. 3 years from now TSMC may be 5 nm. 

Although, I continue to believe that Intel 14nm++ and TSMC 7nm are company defined. 7nm Intel is different than 7 nm TSMC. The valleys are defined and measure differently.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 27, 2019)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> the TDP that the processors advertise isn't really accurate anyways... coz in the end, users wants to use 'em for many reasons. let the total system power draw be the deciding factor here.


Real world TDP is a quite important factor too, so you can know what level of cooling you need.


----------



## systemBuilder (May 27, 2019)

Ravenas said:


> What’s amazing to me is that AMD started 4 years ago as a 1 billion dollar market cap company on the verge of bankruptcy.



This is not really true AMD started Zen work in 2012.  That's about the time when Intel fired all their CPU architects. Intel has its head up its ass thinking that Fab technology still runs the show.  If they don't change their mind they are actually going to die as a company.  The problem is that marketing morons are infesting the upper echelons of the company for the past 5 years and have no idea what is going wrong.  They don't even have the brain power to understand what to do...


----------



## Ravenas (May 27, 2019)

systemBuilder said:


> This is not really true AMD started Zen work in 2012.  That's about the time when Intel fired all their CPU architects. Intel has its head up its ass thinking that Fab technology still runs the show.  If they don't change their mind they are actually going to die as a company.  The problem is that marketing morons are infesting the upper echelons of the company for the past 5 years and have no idea what is going wrong.  They don't even have the brain power to understand what to do...



I’m not talking about the work on the architecture, I’m talking about their company value 5 years ago.

I’m an engineer in my profession and education. I have worked at 2 different companies. I have always found that companies which rely on engineering where the rubber meets the road are better off when they have engineers running the business side as well.


----------



## StudMuffin (May 28, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> A slight clock bump on the same product is hardly a panic... and for Intel users, Zen 2 would be a side-grade at best for gaming. I'm still sitting here waiting for something to blow away those ancient Skylake cores out of the water but Zen 2 doesn't look like that candidate and desktop Ice Lake is delayed LMAO. All in all, there is still no big performance leap for CPUs in 2019.



Oh really? Blinded have you become, by Intel pixie dust! Hey! wake up out of your stupor, dood!
AMD just brought its newest and most narly Ryzen 3000 series 16 core/32 thread CPUs *into its "mainstream" lineup*, lol and only thing Intel has at that level, costs $2000.

*AMD Ryzen 9 CPU With 16 Zen 2 Cores is faster than i9-9980XE*

If you can sit there with a straight face and say that and yet cannot see AMD tearing Intel a new Ahole this time around with its Ryzen 3000 series, then you are indeed lost into Intel oblivion.

Not only will this particular Ryzen 9 3000 series chip allow for some amazing gaming perf but damn, gone are the days of saying "multi-core" CPUs are not needed for gaming,  those 16 cores will sure be welcomed come next generation of consoles (PS5/Xbox Next), I bring this up because all these upcoming next-gen games will be built around Ryzen 3000 series CPUs...and we all know 99.999% of all PC games are "Ports" from the console versions. And unlike this generation of games where multi-core CPUs were pretty much underutilized besides 4 cores or so in most games, next gen will be a whole different story as they will be using up 8 cores at minimum and  PC gamers will most definitely benefit by having "MORE" than 8 cores, make no mistake about it.

Try harder, dude


----------



## Melvis (May 28, 2019)

Also comes with a liquid nitrogen bottle to cool the thing.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 28, 2019)

...got a  Phantex Evolv  waiting to do a new build in for your new boards and cpu's   Amd....but please come up with some original naming/numbering....


----------



## Ravenas (May 29, 2019)

Does anyone know the fab location of the 9900K?


----------



## medi01 (May 29, 2019)

Let me uncherrypick your cherry picks:






4k:





Yeah, baby. Perhaps going to 1080p and lower would help? Or, maybe, 480p? I mean, after all, tests were done using entry range 1080Ti. Try it.




StudMuffin said:


> If you can sit there with a straight face and say that and yet cannot see AMD tearing Intel a new Ahole this time around with its Ryzen 3000 series, then you are indeed lost into Intel oblivion.


Perf wise, sure. 
Marker share wise, Intel will still be the dominant player after all the dust settles, even if this situation will stay for more than 12 month.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 29, 2019)

medi01 said:


> Let me uncherrypick your cherry picks:
> 
> View attachment 123973
> 
> ...


It's not the resolution but testing place mainly.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 29, 2019)

So tired of the FAN boy posting that highjack every Intel thread, and the mods just ignore it. Does Amd have quad channel memory with there new yet to hit the streets CPU?


----------



## GoldenX (May 29, 2019)

The 9900KS is not quad channel, and it seems you have never heard of Threadripper.
Shilling is a bad thing, on both sides.

Plus anyone can see that this is as bad of a joke as those FX 9590.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 29, 2019)

jaggerwild said:


> Does Amd have quad channel memory with there new yet to hit the streets CPU?


The new entry's in the TR series will.


----------



## Kissamies (May 29, 2019)

Emergency Edition, long time no see!


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jun 1, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> Emergency Edition, long time no see!



I still have a socket 478 P4 3.4EE Gallatin paired with an IC7-MAX3, one of the original Emergency Edition cpu's


----------



## shaolin95 (Jun 2, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Pretty much.  That, and words like "panic" bug me because they pander to sensationalism rather than good journalism (outside of editorials anyhow).  But meh, the modern web has lower standards I think.
> 
> As I recently told w1zzard, it bugs me, but I totally get why he has editors doing it.  Adapt or die, as they say.


Indeed..they are just pandering to the butthurt amd fanboys.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 2, 2019)

shaolin95 said:


> Indeed..they are just pandering to the butthurt amd fanboys.


Butthurt Intel fanboy detected. Here, have another Skylake refresh/rename.


----------



## junglist724 (Jun 2, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> Doesn't matter, there will still me plenty of people who insist Intel is more stable or more security etc.
> FYI Intel is still milking record profits.
> This chip is not even a penny cheaper.



Yeah it's gonna take years of being ahead in outright performance, price/performance and performance/watt for AMD to get any significant mindshare. The people in charge of IT budgets know nothing about IT.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 2, 2019)

junglist724 said:


> Yeah it's gonna take years of being ahead in outright performance, price/performance and performance/watt for AMD to get any significant mindshare.


Rubbish. AMD is already making inroads to Intel's enterprise business and that will only increase with the next gen TR.


----------



## junglist724 (Jun 2, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Rubbish. AMD is already making inroads to Intel's enterprise business and that will only increase with the next gen TR.


They're still not going to get majority market share any time soon. Sure they've increased market share by over 1300% since 2016, but 13 x nothing is still nothing.




Estimates are 10% by 2020. So yeah, it's gonna take years.

I've gotten my boss to switch to 100% AMD on server purchases since Naples came out but we're a small business and she takes my word on hardware configs 100% of the time. I even tried to get threadripper workstations, but guess what, there's literally zero 1st party threadripper workstations with proper SLAs.

There's a huge difference between the people in charge of spending money and the people browsing this site, as you've just proved.


----------



## Frick (Jun 3, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Pretty much.  That, and words like "panic" bug me because they pander to sensationalism rather than good journalism (outside of editorials anyhow).  But meh, the modern web has lower standards I think.
> 
> As I recently told w1zzard, it bugs me, but I totally get why he has editors doing it.  Adapt or die, as they say.



"5 reasons  i9-9900KS is secretely terrible for the consumer"


----------



## Vario (Jun 3, 2019)

Getting tired of these sensationalist titled articles.


----------



## r9 (Jun 4, 2019)

This is for the people who buy pentiums and i3s, they google what processors is best for gaming and it will say i9-9900KS and they not gonna be able to afford it so they gonna ignore the Ryzen CPUs and think that Intel is all around better choice for games at any price range.



lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.


That's on the way too once Ryzen 2 becomes available.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 5, 2019)

r9 said:


> This is for the people who buy pentiums and i3s, they google what processors is best for gaming and it will say i9-9900KS and they not gonna be able to afford it so they gonna ignore the Ryzen CPUs and think that Intel is all around better choice for games at any price range.



thats how this stuff works, people read somewhere what 'the best' is, and go for something cheaper from that brand
This is how apple works, by not having cheaper options most of the time so people cough up the exepensive one for fear of missing out


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Butthurt Intel fanboy detected. Here, have another Skylake refresh/rename.



Why can't we all just I don't know, not be fanboys?


----------



## 95Viper (Jun 5, 2019)

How about this...  Stay on Topic
Stop calling others fanboys (or any variation of the word).
Stop the this versus that troll posting.
If it does not contribute to the topic... don't post it.
Be civil to one another.
The mods and staff cannot be everywhere... so report the problem, do not post a reply and become a problem.

Thank You.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 5, 2019)

Is it Intel going to support PCIE 4.0 anytime soon for their "consumers" market?


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 5, 2019)

But I love pointing out all kind of fanboys... Sorry, you're right, it's wrong, let's stay on topic.


Prima.Vera said:


> Is it Intel going to support PCIE 4.0 anytime soon for their "consumers" market?


I guess they eventually would. Not sure how they aren't a part of it since day 1 thou.
They could have launched a new chipset with PCIe 4 support on it and leave the native CPU/SoC support for later.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 5, 2019)

Mussels said:


> people cough up the expensive one for fear of missing out


That is thinking for sheep. Dumb sheep. Smart people use critical thinking, logic and reason to make purchasing decisions. They do their due diligence and research before spending $500, to say nothing of $1000 or $5000.

Likewise, smart people do research before making potentially expensive decisions on PC purchases, or parts for same. Even people who have money to burn, if they're smart, carefully consider what to buy and how much to spend on any given part.


----------



## ArchStupid (Jun 5, 2019)

Nkd said:


> lol 200w tdp? Intel already runs around their TDP number, which is only the base clock. I think 9900k standard runs way above its rated TDP on all core turbo. I am sure fanboys will just hide behind their fantasy TDP number lol. Ryzen 9 3900x is day one purchase for me! Sold my 9900k in anticipation few weeks ago.



Absolutely ridiculous comment.
You've most likely made that story up about selling your 9900K, otherwise you're truly lost.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 5, 2019)

I find it funny that Intel only announced this part just before Computex. It was also funny that every Youtuber focused on AMD from Zen2 to Navi to X570. If Ryzen was 10% slower than the 9700K in games would not a 13% increase in IPC translate into better frames. The other thing is that the maximum you could get on Ryzen was 4.3 GHZ for most chips. Would not the jump in clockspeed also translate into gains?


----------



## metalkhor (Jun 7, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.


This is what intel do every time they facing a treat. they wont lower the price because if they cut the prices a little it wont affect the market and if they  lower their prices dramatically it would be eventually a confess that they were robbing you all these years and it also drop the price expectation for permium cpu in consumer mind and it would be very hard to push the prices backup. intel spend years of monopoly in the market to build this price scheme and this huge profit margin. they will not lose the situation easily. cutting company's profit margin will only accelerate their down fall. market will act as buffer and intel will continue to outsell amd for at least 4 more quarters and keeping profit margin as high as possible will help them to bring in the money they are desprately need for R&D to make fast and powerfull comeback if there gonna be one.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 8, 2019)

October 2018 9900K became the fastest Gaming 8 cores on the planet.

9 months later AMD releases the 3800X 8 cores witch outperforms Intel 9900K. Intel doesn't want to lose their fastest 8 cores PC Gaming crown so their releaseing basically Cherry Picked high yielding 9900K and changed to higher multipliers and called it the 9900KS. 

9900KS should be slightly faster than 3800X but higher cost and higher power levels 95w base to 195w Turbo. Nevertheless a guy could swop out there 2 years old 8700K on Z370 board and drop in a 9900KS witch is the last CPU for the 300 series boards. 

AMD has Zero competition against the 3900X 12 cores from Intel till Q4 2019 with a faster upcoming 10 cores on new socket and 400 series boards that are not backwards compatible with 8th & 9th generation CPUs. 

I myself have an 8700K @5.1GHz Cooled by EK I could swop out my 8700K for 9900KS to see how much headroom is left?? 5.2GHz-5.3GHz on my setup...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 8, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> I myself have an 8700K @5.1GHz Cooled by EK I could *swap* out my 8700K for 9900KS to see how much headroom is left?? 5.2GHz-5.3GHz on my setup...


That would be a waste of money, even if you have it to burn. The performance difference will be marginal at best..


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 8, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That would be a waste of money, even if you have it to burn. The performance difference will be marginal at best..



yep agreed. the only real upgrade here would be i decide to retire my laptop gaming for full desktop - 4 cores at 2.9ghz to 12 cores 24 threads at 4.7ghz.. that would be a big big upgrade for me... I am considering it, but I am not sure.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jun 10, 2019)

Nkd said:


> lol 200w tdp? Intel already runs around their TDP number, which is only the base clock. I think 9900k standard runs way above its rated TDP on all core turbo. I am sure fanboys will just hide behind their fantasy TDP number lol. Ryzen 9 3900x is day one purchase for me! Sold my 9900k in anticipation few weeks ago.


at least u didnt sell ur car for a 7960x


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 13, 2019)

Every normal person who used on Intel platform and have some of newer generations with DDR4 know that now is bad time for buying Intel processors.
They done every single move except to develop new core and can't battle any more with Intel Core vs Zen Core.

You should stop to buy processors looking Cinebench Multi Score because they manipulate with you on two ways, with frequency and more cores.
When you see that new core is 50% faster then previous then it's time for upgrade. But before that you need to do one thing or again you will be under influence of manipulation.
You should use average OC frequency on previous and new generation. Or if you don't do that you could measure single core of i7-5960X on 3.0GHz with new Intel on 5.0GHz.
One can OC 100MHz, and other can OC 1500MHz. On that way they still your money.

Intel didn't know that Zen cores will show up or Turbo frequency of i7-5960X would be 4.2GHz and reviews would be 30% better or more automatically.
Later they fix that, but now because much newer type of core that's not enough any more.
They try with customization to make car/cpu 10 years old competitive with new one and you pay additional parts, new wheels, turbo chargers, modifications, try to make him lighter and more faster and additional parts cost two times more then new car. 
Cinebench multi is not relevant for upgrading, or 198 ws 175 single thread. Need to be 300cb vs 200cb example.


----------



## trog100 (Jun 15, 2019)

they are just doing what they did with the 8700K with a name change 8086K 5 gig out of the box.. 

i have just picked up a 9900K for £390 quid.. £435 with a £45 discount code..

if it dosnt easily manage 5 gig on all cores i will be very disappointed... 

trog


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 15, 2019)

If you want the fastest 8 cores CPU for 2019 buy the 9900KS.

If you can't afford the fastest 8 cores 9900KS then buy the second place 8 cores 3800X.

If you want a faster than 9900KS then buy the 12 cores 3900X.

Basically
3900X is the 9900KS Killer
9900KS is the 3800X Killer

Not everyone can afford top i9 & R9 CPUs...

Im curios about 9900KS OC.... Since the 9900K can do 5.1GHz, I would think that the 9900KS would be around 5.3GHz being a cherry picked binned CPU?

I be watching the the silicon lottery to see what happens.









						Intel Core i9 9900K @ 5.1GHz Boxed Processor
					

Intel Core i9 9900K Overclocked and Binned CPU.




					siliconlottery.com


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 15, 2019)

trog100 said:


> if it dosnt easily manage 5 gig on all cores i will be very disappointed...


If it doesn't send it back a claim it's defective.


----------



## trog100 (Jun 15, 2019)

my 8700k will run at 5.2 gig.. it just gets too hot..

i currently have it at 5.1 for some gaming tests before it goes up on ebay.. i should get £300 for it which makes the upgrade to a 9900K at the £390 i paid for it not overly expensive..

if the 9900k does 5 gig on all cores at reasonable temps i will be happy..

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 15, 2019)

trog100 said:


> they are just doing what they did with the 8700K with a name change 8086K 5 gig out of the box..


It's different, actually. The 8086k was an anniversary special with slightly raised clocks. Boost clocks still applied. The 9900KS is 5 ghz all c/t all the time. No boost. Nada. There's a big difference in how that works.

I'll admit, I had a little giggle at this upgrade of yours... I mean, you neuter your cards to keep a certain fps.... why would you upgrade your cpu? Is there something a 6c/12t cpu cant handle or you going to run the 9900k at 6c/12t... lololol


----------



## trog100 (Jun 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's different, actually. The 8086k was an anniversary special with slightly raised clocks. Boost clocks still applied. The 9900KS is 5 ghz all c/t all the time. No boost. Nada. There's a big difference in how that works.
> 
> I'll admit, I had a little giggle at this upgrade of yours... I mean, you neuter your cards to keep a certain fps.... why would you upgrade your cpu? Is there something a 6c/12t cpu cant handle or you going to run the 9900k at 6c/12t... lololol



as i repeatably keep telling you i buy stuff because i can not because i need to.. he he

no way would i have paid £600 for a 9900k but £390  temped me.. 

by the time i sell my 8700K the upgrade will cost me £90.. by my standards not exactly a lot.. 

for what its worth the german website now has the 9900k listed for £455 and the £40 discount code has vanished.. i think i just dropped on a lucky deal.. he he..

Scan UK still want £500 for one..

trog

for what its worth i have dropped the 2080ti frame rate cap.. for reasons unknown to me it was causing coil whine.. i still run the 70% power limit cap.. the card still scores 12500 in time spy.. plenty enough gaming performance for me..


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 15, 2019)

trog100 said:


> as i repeatably keep telling you i buy stuff because i can not because i need to.. he he


he he that doesnt mean the way you use it isnt still head scratching for those around you he he


Anyway... the thread title is hilarious... panic button. Lololhe helololol


----------



## trog100 (Jun 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> he he that doesnt mean the way you use it isnt still head scratching for those around you he he
> 
> 
> Anyway... the thread title is hilarious... panic button. Lololhe helololol



i will be interested to see what the new "panic button" costs when it arrives.. he he..

trog


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jun 15, 2019)

Reading the conversation between you two just reminds me of this:


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's different, actually. The 8086k was an anniversary special with slightly raised clocks. Boost clocks still applied. The 9900KS is 5 ghz all c/t all the time. No boost. Nada. There's a big difference in how that works.
> 
> I'll admit, I had a little giggle at this upgrade of yours... I mean, you neuter your cards to keep a certain fps.... why would you upgrade your cpu? Is there something a 6c/12t cpu cant handle or you going to run the 9900k at 6c/12t... lololol



Not what I heard about the 9900KS, the 9900KS base clock is 4GHz and Turbo is 5GHz all cores! That's factory stock settings.

Yes you can run the 9900KS @5GHz OC all cores all the time as an AVX0 OC.

Side by side 9900K vs 9900KS both @5.1GHz the 9900KS would have better temperature over the 9900K because the 9900KS is the higher yielding CPU with the higher prices unfortunately.

So the only benefits from the 9900KS over the the 9900K are better Temp and probably 200MHz at best over the 9900K. 

9900KS AVX-0 @5.3GHz would be amazing CPU if you're cooling it by EK  bring out those Benchmarks!!


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 15, 2019)

That is still different than the typical steppings. The 8086k was also only single core 5ghz... this is single and all c/t at 5ghz out of the box. No steppings... it 4ghz or 5 ghz.



TheMadDutchDude said:


> Reading the conversation between you two just reminds me of this:


I love that cartoon...its just classic how he throws those random he he's in there, so I do it too occasionally when talking to him.

Like signing your name after every post as if nobody is sure who posted it.. wth is that about? He he!


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jun 15, 2019)

There's no guarantee it would have better temperatures... it's the same silicon. The only way it would yield a temperature difference is if the voltage required was lower and the mount between IHS/CPU die was better.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 15, 2019)

TheMadDutchDude said:


> There's no guarantee it would have better temperatures... it's the same silicon. The only way it would yield a temperature difference is if the voltage required was lower and the mount between IHS/CPU die was better.



Just like the on difference between 8700K and 8086K is the Cherry Picked higher binned CPUs as the 8086K gets better temperature @5GHz over the 8700K @5GHz. Both are the same silicon!

Same thing going to happen with the 9900KS Cherry Picked higher binned CPUs will get a little better temperature and higher OC over the 9900K. Is it worth the value NO but that doesn't stop people from buying the fastest Gaming 8 cores CPU on the planet.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 15, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Just like the on difference between 8700K and 8086K is the Cherry Picked higher binned CPUs as the 8086K gets better temperature @5GHz over the 8700K @5GHz. Both are the same silicon!
> 
> Same thing going to happen with the 9900KS Cherry Picked higher binned CPUs will get a little better temperature and higher OC over the 9900K. Is it worth the value NO but that doesn't stop people from buying the fastest Gaming 8 cores CPU on the planet.


Maybe on the overclock. It's only binned for 5 ghz all c/t and not a penny more. 35% of 9900k can reach 5ghz all c/t at 1.3V according to silicon lottery. I'd be surprised if they averaged more than 100 Hz more than 9900k honestly.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Maybe on the overclock. It's only binned for 5 ghz all c/t and not a penny more. 35% of 9900k can reach 5ghz all c/t at 1.3V according to silicon lottery. I'd be surprised if they averaged more than 100 Hz more than 9900k honestly.



9900KS is basically a cheaper alternative to siliconlottery binned CPUs. 

9900KS @5.2GHz yes 100MHz most likely but very possible 5.3GHz all cores AVX-0 sweet spot. But like I said before only with great cooling by EK or Swiftech or equivalent others is definitely needed in the 9900KS @5.3GHz club!


----------



## trog100 (Jun 15, 2019)

very little software runs all these threads..

i have just been playing division 2 with my 8700k at 5.1 gig.. a cpu load test which does does load all threads shows temps well over 90 C at 5.1 gig.. playing division 2 shows temps around 75 C

for me a 9900k will just be something to fiddle with for a while.. as i said earlier i am hoping for it to hold 5 g on all cores at reasonable temps.. i dont need 5.2 or 5.3..

as for what reasonable temps mean.. having just been buying and looking at high end gaming laptops my idea of reasonable temps has gone up a little.. 

jet engine noise and cpu temps at 90 C are pretty normal for high end gaming laptops.. i like my desk top machine to be near silent but I am beginning to think 90 C is okay running cpu burner tests..

trog


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 15, 2019)

All depends apon what cooling system set up you have! I too play Division 2 with my 8700K @5.1GHz AVX-0 @1.4v around 50c/30dBA and then on Prime95 full load around 70c/40dBA Cooled by EK.

At low 30dBA noise is not a problem PC gaming for me... Using stock ROG Fan Expert 4 controler.

My 8700K 1.44v AVX-1 @5.2GHz is 80c+/45dBA loads is unacceptable for every day gaming only good for benchmarking plus as loud as a vacuum cleaner I tell you.

My 8700K @5.3GHz AVX-2 windows RS5 boots but not stable.

If you're not Extreme OC buying 9900KS leaving it at stock is still a crazy fast gaming CPU for sure! Any Prefilled 240mm cooling system is good enough.

But pushing that 9900KS 4GHz base to 5.3GHz all cores OC is definitely a Watts Monster/Heat Monster for sure in benchmarks heaven.

ToxicTaZ


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 15, 2019)

TheMadDutchDude said:


> Reading the conversation between you two just reminds me of this:


That is exactly what I was thinking... LOL! 



ToxicTaZ said:


> 9900KS is basically a cheaper alternative to siliconlottery binned CPUs.
> 
> 9900KS @5.2GHz yes 100MHz most likely but very possible 5.3GHz all cores AVX-0 sweet spot. But like I said before only with great cooling by EK or Swiftech or equivalent others is definitely needed in the 9900KS @5.3GHz club!
> 
> View attachment 125006View attachment 125007View attachment 125008View attachment 125009


That is some crowded space. Get yourself a bigger case!


----------



## Valantar (Jun 16, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is some crowded space. Get yourself a bigger case!


Crowded? That thing? You ought to spend some time in the "builds" section over at smallformfactor.net


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 16, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Crowded? That thing? You ought to spend some time in the "builds" section over at smallformfactor.net


Fair enough..


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 16, 2019)

That Full Tower case is basically 10 years old. It's a "Cooler Master HAF X Nvidia Edition"









						Cooler Master Intros HAF-X NVIDIA Edition Case
					

Things are looking upbeat at NVIDIA, and to feed that, Cooler Master is out with its latest NVIDIA-themed case, the HAF-X NVIDIA Edition. The company is known for making a wide range of cases themed after the GPU giant. The HAF-X NVIDIA Edition uses the HAF-X design overall, with a bright green...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Had to modify it for two Push-pull EK RADs... 420mm/45mm and 140mm/45mm with two D5 pumps. The EK loop is not done yet as the new Nvidia 2080 NVlink setup is still air.... Need two EK GPU water blocks.

Went with soft Tubing for easy 10 minutes CPU swoops (8700K to 9900KS), with hard Tubing it's a major job for CPUs swooping. Definitely hard Tubing looks better and clearer builds. 

Yes I need a new Super Tower upgrade, I have been looking at this one...









						In Win Launches 928 Super Tower case for $999
					

In Win, a known luxurious case manufacturer has launched a super tower case titled the 928. The case costs $999 and is made out of premium and high-quality materials such as aluminium and tempered glass. In Win positions this case with the aim to "Present PC's Power" using its spacious interior...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




In-Win looks roomy for my level of builds... Using old pictures

- 8700K @5.1GHz AVX-0 on Maximus X FORMULA
- G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4133MHz CL17 32GB 1.40v
- 3 200mm case fans and 230mm fan

(((9900KS Ready)))


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 16, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> That Full Tower case is basically 10 years old. It's a "Cooler Master HAF X Nvidia Edition"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope my comment didn't come off as me saying it's ugly in any way. Actually I think it's very cool. It's that the air-flow gets more and more restricted as things get more crowded. You may want to consider one of these;








						Thermaltake Tower 900 Snow Edition Tempered Glass Fully Modular E-ATX Vertical Super Tower Chassis CA-1H1-00F6WN-00 - Newegg.com
					

Buy Thermaltake Tower 900 Snow Edition Tempered Glass Fully Modular E-ATX Vertical Super Tower Chassis CA-1H1-00F6WN-00 with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




					www.newegg.com
				



Lots of room, fully open for display. I've built a few systems out of these and they are a joy to work with. And only $250.


----------



## Valantar (Jun 16, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I hope my comment didn't come off as me saying it's ugly in any way. Actually I think it's very cool. It's that the air-flow gets more and more restricted as things get more crowded. You may want to consider one of these;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That thing does in no way look cramped enough to block any noticeable airflow. What would be blocking it? The tubing? Sure, there's plenty of stuff in there, but also plenty of free space. Vents and fans are what ensure airflow, and people consistently overestimate the value of having the case as open as possible.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 16, 2019)

We need something to replace ATX.


----------



## BlueBirdCharm (Jun 24, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> Nah, if they were pushing the panic button they would lower prices.



Ok, I literally made an account to go "haha"



Nkd said:


> really? 12 core at less power to match IPC and kick ass in productivity is not enough? While AMD brings you more core 15% IPC lift in 2 years, dont tell me you think that is nothing while intel sat on its ass. Zen 2 doesnt look like a candidate to you? Yea 4 more cores than competition for same price is nothing I guess. Atleast thank AMD for bringing some competition and giving intel a run
> 
> 
> 
> pentium 4


Didn't they famously pull a lot of dirty shit in that era? Can't now, the EU will steal another 1.6B


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 24, 2019)

BlueBirdCharm said:


> Ok, I literally made an account to go "haha"


Its too bad that's the court jester. 

Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Its too bad that's the court jester.


What do you mean?


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Its too bad that's the court jester.
> 
> Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.




well intel did announce they are lowering prices by 15% as of a couple days ago. so I guess they did hit the panic button a little bit  I'm just sad that ryzen 3000 does not beat Intel at every game at 1080p... only beats them in about half of games at 1080p, nice improvement, but still just I am sad... was hoping 7nm was going to be a true leap forward.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 24, 2019)

It's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market.  Nothing you've said supported it was in a panic. Lol. 

We havent seen any legit benchmarks yet on the new cpus...so let's not make a rush to judgement my hilarious friend.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jun 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market.


This. It's not surprising, it's something that has happened many times in the past and will not be the last time.


----------



## Valantar (Jun 24, 2019)

I agree that it's no panic (the half-assed launch of a 9900K with the most negligible OC is more among those lines, but more of a flailing counterpunch after being jumped in a proverbial dark alley), but it's still a more or less unprecedented move for Intel, and while one could say they've been padding their margins for years and that this is a "natural correction", reading it as "Intel is worried" is just as correct.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 24, 2019)

Worried.. sure. Panic? No.


----------



## mouacyk (Aug 13, 2019)

Mindshare retention
News relevancy

The cost (in time and resources) for Intel to bin this SKU is hardly worth the ROI, especially with such competitively priced AMD CPUs.


----------



## Xzibit (Aug 13, 2019)

*NOTEBOOKCHECK: The Core i9-9900KS scores up to 12% lower in 3DMark than the Ryzen 9 3900X; 9% less than the Ryzen 7 3700X too*


----------



## cucker tarlson (Aug 13, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> *NOTEBOOKCHECK: The Core i9-9900KS scores up to 12% lower in 3DMark than the Ryzen 9 3900X; 9% less than the Ryzen 7 3700X too*


lol,3dmark

3900x oc loses to stock 9700k in gaming,I don't think 9900ks will be slower.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 13, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> lol,3dmark


What's wrong with 3DMark?


cucker tarlson said:


> 3900x oc loses to stock 9700k in gaming,I don't think 9900ks will be slower.


That depends greatly on the game. As TPU's own testing shows the 3700x trading blows with the with the 9700K in gaming, the 3900X is more than a match for the 9700K in most processes and at a lower price.








						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Review
					

The flagship of AMD's new Ryzen 3000 lineup is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is a 12-core, 24-thread monster. Never before have we seen such power on a desktop platform. Priced at $500, this processor is very strong competition for Intel's Core i9-9900, which only has eight cores.




					www.techpowerup.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review
					

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 13, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> What's wrong with 3DMark?


More cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 14, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> More cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.


That argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited in addition too the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited as well as the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.


I wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 14, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.


Fair enough.


----------



## trog100 (Aug 14, 2019)

more than six cores dosnt really count in gaming performance..

nether do temps because most of the cores/thread are not being used..

my 9900k only runs around 70 C playing a game but running something that loads all its cores/threads it will easily hit 100C...

a 9900k will not produce more fps than a 9700k at the same clock speeds ether.. i am currently running my 9900k at 5 ghz 1.216 core voltage with hyper threading off..

my system runs better and cooler this way.. nothing i do needs more than 8 cores at 5 ghz..

trog


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Aug 14, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> What's wrong with 3DMark?
> 
> That depends greatly on the game. As TPU's own testing shows the 3700x trading blows with the with the 9700K in gaming, the 3900X is more than a match for the 9700K in most processes and at a lower price.
> 
> ...



9900KS is faster than the 3800X 

The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance! 

Both 8086K and 9900KS remain the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs for now. 

It's all about the Base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo 

I can't wait to get my 9900KS CPU upgrade... 

Isn't the 3800X single core performance faster than the 3900X as well?


----------



## Melvis (Aug 14, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> 9900KS is faster than the 3800X
> 
> The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance!
> 
> ...



At Games, and thats about it.


----------



## trog100 (Aug 14, 2019)

Melvis said:


> At Games, and thats about it.



i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..

trog


----------



## Melvis (Aug 15, 2019)

trog100 said:


> i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..
> 
> trog



Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 15, 2019)

Melvis said:


> Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.


Exactly! Clock for clock, AMD is king. Intel's advantage is clock speed. Even though Ryzen3 can do more per clock, Intel CPU's can be pushed to higher clock speed to compensate but that only makes a difference in certain situations, which is why AMD's top tier CPU's are trading blows with Intel's.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 15, 2019)

Melvis said:


> Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.


????








						AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Vs Intel Core i9-9900K IPC Shootout: Did AMD Close The Gap? - Page 3
					

AMD's new Ryzen CPUs can clock as high as 4.5 GHz, a notable bump over previous models, but what about AMD's purported IPC gains? - Page 3



					amp.hothardware.com
				




Here too.. intel mostly wins...: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6

Literary the first two things I looked at... 3900x IPC and then ju.ped to AT as I know they test IPC.

I dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup. But true IPC it looks like that are, on average, still a bit behind. 

The problem with YT reviews (and forums, lol) is every slack jawed yokel has a voice...and because it's on the web, its the truuuuuf.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> *I dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king*...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup.


That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(*I*nstructions *P*er *C*lock) performance  win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering were the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.








Power users will be best served by a Ryzen CPU, even those who do a great deal of gaming because the GPU is the more important variable in that equation.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Aug 15, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(*I*nstructions *P*er *C*lock) performance  win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering are the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stock vs stock....or If you're talking about OC then the 3.6GHz 9900K OC to 5.1GHz is crazy fast! 

3800X is faster than 3700X. 
9900KS is faster than the 3800X. 

9900KS factory super binned can OC too Intel top Coffeelake/Coffeelake Refresh GHz barrier of 5.3GHz with good aftermarket cooling. EK Swiftech etc etc...9900KS hole sol purpose is to keep the fastest 8 cores Gaming CPU for this year. 

Just as good old factory super binned 8086K blow away 3600X... the 9900KS will do the same to the 3800X. 

But Bravo AMD on cheaper 6&8 cores CPUs and bring those stupid Intel prices down. Intel been riding on the no competition train since 2700K till 3900X/3950X release. 3900X is definitely AMD best Ryzen 3000 series CPU Right now till Intel 10th generation. 

Love to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 15, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Love to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2


Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The limitation, *and this is only a theory currently*, is that the limiting factor of Ryzen going beyond 4.5ghz is the CCX and the way it interacts with the cores. The CCX is part of what makes Ryzen amazing, but also what's holding it back from the OC's that the cores should be able to do. Kinda like BCLK overclocking for Intel CPU's. Used to be a great thing, but now it's impossible.


----------



## Valantar (Aug 15, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This never seems to get old: IPC = _instructions per clock_, or performance at equal clock speed for comparisons. Heck, the AnandTech article you yourself link to has this chart at the bottom:





Followed by this quite unequivocal statement:


			
				AnandTech said:
			
		

> Normalising the scores for frequency, we see that AMD has achieved something that the company hasn’t been able to claim in over 15 years: *It has beat Intel in terms of overall IPC*. Overall here, the IPC improvements over Zen+ are 15%, which is a bit lower than the 17% figure for SPEC2006.


(emphasis mine)

The fact that an Intel CPU at higher clocks than an AMD CPU wins a benchmark comparison tells us exactly nothing about IPC - for that, we need to know which clocks both CPUs are operating at, divide the scores by clock speed, and compare the outcomes. Which is what AT did with the above chart. Just because the title of that page is "ST Performance & IPC" doesn't mean that every chart there is an IPC test.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 15, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(*I*nstructions *P*er *C*lock) performance  win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering are the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didnt. My two links are clocked at the same speed. The only way the across the board win is when they its using SMT due to its superior efficiency.

Edit: wait.... AT didnt run the same clocks? Wtf? The first article did...lol. my bad on the second link...! The way they presented that information was weird...


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Aug 15, 2019)

Valantar said:


> This never seems to get old: IPC = _instructions per clock_, or performance at equal clock speed for comparisons. Heck, the AnandTech article you yourself link to has this chart at the bottom:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again your talking about the IPC of the 3.8GHz 3900X vs the 3.6GHz 9900K just to point out! 200MHz on the CPU base is huge performance increase thus is why the 9900KS has a 4GHz base to start giving it an extra 400MHz across all 8 cores base increase advantage over the 9900K. 3900X with 3.8GHz base and 4 extra cores sure hope it would be faster than 3.6GHz 9900K with only 8 cores. 

If you're talking about the factory throttling OC then 3900X is 4.6GHz vs 9900K 4.7GHz giving Intel an extra 100MHz advantage boost on 8 cores where the 9900KS has 5GHz across all 8 cores giving an extra 300MHz per core advantage. 

9900K can all cores AVX-2 5.1GHz OC headroom vs 3900X 4.4GHz all cores OC at best. 

Most articles are misleading and people take it for facts.


----------



## Valantar (Aug 15, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Again your talking about the IPC of the 3.8GHz 3900X vs the 3.6GHz 9900K just to point out! 200MHz on the CPU base is huge performance increase thus is why the 9900KS has a 4GHz base to start giving it an extra 400MHz across all 8 cores base increase advantage over the 9900K. 3900X with 3.8GHz base and 4 extra cores sure hope it would be faster than 3.6GHz 9900K with only 8 cores.
> 
> If you're talking about the factory throttling OC then 3900X is 4.6GHz vs 9900K 4.7GHz giving Intel an extra 100MHz advantage boost on 8 cores where the 9900KS has 5GHz across all 8 cores giving an extra 300MHz per core advantage.
> 
> ...


Seriously? Jesus, it seems there's no end to explaining that IPC means "instructions _per clock_". In other words, IPC does not vary with clock speed, _performance_ varies with clock speed (and can be said to be a product of IPC and clock speed combined).

The graph shown in my post that you quoted is for _frequency normalized performance_ - i.e. with averaged scores from the SPEC2017 test suite divided by the clock speed of each respective CPU. Here is the chart for _performance_ for each CPU:




See how it differs from the IPC/frequency normalized graph below (clearly marked as "Performance per GHz", i.e. "performance per clock")?





So: In SPEC2017, the 9900K ekes out a small victory overall compared to the 3900X. It scores 7.71 vs. 7.60 overall, with subscores of 9.59 vs. 9.56 in SPECfp and 5.98 vs. 5.77 in SPECint. However, the 9900X is clocked higher than the 3900X, meaning that when adjusted for clock speed - i.e. _when looking at IPC_ - the Zen2 architecture is faster. Actually it's quite noticeably faster, with an overall SPEC score of 1.65 vs. 1.54, or 2.07 vs. 1.92 in SPECfp and 1.25 vs. 1.19 in SPECint.


As to your final statement: that's nonsense, at least if you look at serious sites like AnandTech. If you find what they're saying to be misleading, you aren't understanding what they are saying.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Aug 16, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Seriously? Jesus, it seems there's no end to explaining that IPC means "instructions _per clock_". In other words, IPC does not vary with clock speed, _performance_ varies with clock speed (and can be said to be a product of IPC and clock speed combined).
> 
> The graph shown in my post that you quoted is for _frequency normalized performance_ - i.e. with averaged scores from the SPEC2017 test suite divided by the clock speed of each respective CPU. Here is the chart for _performance_ for each CPU:
> 
> ...



So your saying your saying that the 9900KS is faster than the 3900X because 9900KS has better IPC and has nothing to do with GHz got you.

I'm very excited about the 9900KS, can't wait to get it! Going to be fantastic.


----------



## Valantar (Aug 16, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> So your saying your saying that the 9900KS is faster than the 3900X because 9900KS has better IPC and has nothing to do with GHz got you.
> 
> I'm very excited about the 9900KS, can't wait to get it! Going to be fantastic.


So you're not able to read graphs. Got it. You see, the test data quite clearly shows that AMD has the better IPC, while Intel stays slightly ahead in performance due to higher clocks. Given that the KS should sustain marginally higher clocks than the K, it will probably perform a few percent better. And be a power hog, of course.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Aug 16, 2019)

Valantar said:


> So you're not able to read graphs. Got it. You see, the test data quite clearly shows that AMD has the better IPC, while Intel stays slightly ahead in performance due to higher clocks. Given that the KS should sustain marginally higher clocks than the K, it will probably perform a few percent better. And be a power hog, of course.



But most likely the 9900KS will use way less power than 3900X as per graph since your an graph person! I'm an PC Gamer guy basically its all about "gaming performance" for me.


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 16, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> But most likely the 9900KS will use way less power than 3900X as per graph since your an graph person! I'm an PC Gamer guy basically its all about "gaming performance" for me. View attachment 129355



A difference of 30 watts is nothing.


----------



## Valantar (Aug 16, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> A difference of 30 watts is nothing.


At those power levels that is mostly true, though with the KS being a binned and factory OC'd model, it'll more than likely match the 3900X. TPU's manually OC'd 9900K hit 378W in the same gaming load - though it's interesting to see that the 9900K's stock power consumption seems to have gone up by about 20W from their initial review also:




Given that a factory OC needs more voltage headroom than a manually tuned OC by any semi-competent person, we can expect even a well-binned 9900KS to match or exceed those numbers at stock clocks. It'll still outperform the 3900X in games, even if the actual difference will be too small to notice, but on the other hand it shows just how high Intel needs to push their clocks to match AMD's better IPC when 8 Intel cores consume as much power as 12 AMD cores. Nobody is saying the 9900KS (nor the K) are _bad_, it's just that they are no longer unequivocally _the best_, and the competition has managed to make their weak spots look particularly bad.



ToxicTaZ said:


> *snip*


I responded to the contents of your post above, but I have to comment on the fact that your attempts at moving the goal posts when you are proven wrong are blatantly obvious.

*Data shoing how AMD has better IPC is posted* "Intel has better IPC!" "No, Intel has slightly better _performance_, AMD beats them on IPC" "But Intel is better for gaming!"

That's not how a civil debate is conducted, just FYI.


----------



## zlobby (Aug 16, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> 3800X is faster than 3700X.
> 9900KS is faster than the 3800X.



What a wall of text but no definition of 'faster'? Totally won me!


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 16, 2019)

Anyone who says that Intel is the fastest period is a little or very delusional, every review from Ryzen to Threadripper has them beating the Intel price competitor in almost everything except Gaming at 1080P (and not even all games). Don't get me wrong I am not saying that Intel is bad or that it can't keep up with AMD CPUs. In fact I would say it's a wash overall and I am never one to compare. My thought process when it comes to CPUs is (is it faster than what I had before) so yeah I had an FX 8320 (a better CPU than opinions of those who never owned one for a good amount of time), The R7 1700 was faster than that chip, The 2600 was faster in clock speed than the 1700 and the 1900x has way more to offer than those chips. I am also confident that the next TR4 chip I put in my system will be faster again than the 1900x. I would even go so far as to say that even people who regularly review hardware would be hard pressed to notice the difference between an AMD vs Intel system if they are unaware of the hardware and using no FPS counter when gaming.  Raise your hand if you can notice the difference between 160 and 150 FPS in a game on a 120HZ monitor.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 16, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Raise your hand if you can notice the difference between 160 and 150 FPS in a game on a 120HZ monitor.


I agreed with you until this, lol.

How the heck are you supposed to notice that fps difference when the monitor cant even show it??? That said, I can notice a 10-20 fps difference from 120+ to 144 pretty easily.  It's also not all about average but minimums... 10 fps can be a lot. The difference between the next setting up graphics wise...or reaching your monitors refresh rate. Some people just dont like glass ceilings and other think 'good enough' is fine.


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 16, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I agreed with you until this, lol.
> 
> How the heck are you supposed to notice that fps difference when the monitor cant even show it??? That said, I can notice a 10-20 fps difference from 120+ to 144 pretty easily.  It's also not all about average but minimums... 10 fps can be a lot. The difference between the next setting up graphics wise...or reaching your monitors refresh rate. Some people just dont like glass ceilings and other think 'good enough' is fine.



I agree with you I should have expanded on that comment to say average. But I did say 150 vs 160 on a 120HZ monitor because they would both be higher than the monitor's refresh rate. I agree also that minimums are very important on how the game feels but I did not want people to call me an AMD fan boy for pointing out that it looks like AMD is better at the 1% minimums. You are absolutely right about the glass ceilings too there are plenty of people who get 1080Tis for 1080P 60HZ monitors without realizing that a 1660 or RX 570 would be plenty enough for those specs (because it's not good enough).


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 16, 2019)

You're missing the point. Your example was impossible to notice in the first place.


----------



## Valantar (Aug 16, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You're missing the point. Your example was impossible to notice in the first place.


I thought the point was exactly that it is impossible to notice, yet a rather shocking amount of people keep harping on "Intel is better for gaming" when that is only the case if you are one of the very few with a high-end GPU and a monitor to match. Which is why this whole argument is rather silly.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 16, 2019)

Valantar said:


> I thought the point was exactly that it is impossible to notice, yet a rather shocking amount of people keep harping on "Intel is better for gaming" when that is only the case if you are one of the very few with a high-end GPU and a monitor to match. Which is why this whole argument is rather silly.


But it isn't impossible to notice. More FPS is more FPS regardless. As I said, it could be the difference between hitting your refresh rate or raising IQ settings. It matters and can be noticable. But to use a scenario where there is literally zero chance to see the difference isn't appropriate when it can be noticed in most situations. Anyone can make up some BS examples to make something impossible.... like this was. So yes, that is impossible as he described, but its entirely possible in most other situations. It paints a lopsided picture that doesn't jive with most people's reality, that example.


----------



## kapone32 (Aug 16, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> You're missing the point. Your example was impossible to notice in the first place.



Hahaha I hear you


----------



## Valantar (Aug 16, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> But it isn't impossible to notice. More FPS is more FPS regardless. As I said, it could be the difference between hitting your refresh rate or raising IQ settings. It matters and can be noticable. But to use a scenario where there is literally zero chance to see the difference isn't appropriate when it can be noticed in most situations. Anyone can make up some BS examples to make something impossible.... like this was. So yes, that is impossible as he described, but its entirely possible in most other situations. It paints a lopsided picture that doesn't jive with most people's reality, that example.


Nothing you're saying here goes against what I said. If you have a 1080p >=144Hz monitor and something like an RTX 2080 or -Ti, it might indeed be noticeable. Maybe even with a 2070, but in fewer games. If not, or if you had a 1440p or 4k monitor, it wouldn't be. The _vast_ majority of people gaming even on relatively high end monitors have <=120Hz monitors, and even more than those have lower end GPUs that only hit those types of frame rates in esports titles. In other words, for all of these people - the vast majority of gamers - _it is indeed impossible to notice_. Yet plenty of people _in the latter group_ keep harping on the "Intel is best for gaming" nonsense when there's no way they'd notice the difference between the two with their own setup. That's the point here. We're not talking about 1%'ers with $5000 gaming rigs here, but gaming in general. And for gaming in general, the field is now even enough for it to not really matter which you pick - you're going to have a good experience no matter what.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 16, 2019)

Just forget it.


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 16, 2019)

> Intel Pushes the Panic Button with Core i9-9900KS



With a thread title like that, would be nice to have seen some reasoning or justification ... as written, just comes off as bias.  With the 3900X having been announced with no IGP, why wouldn't Intel respond with a non IGP version of the 9900K that they could sell $50 cheaper.   AMD did pretty  well .... but there is a big "but" ... Kinda like losing the title game to your rival ... ya can feel good about losing the game by a smaller margin than last, but it's still not a win.  The AMD CPUs do very well in certain tasks ... the relevant part though is how many folks are actually doing those things ?   If one is building a box where the breadth of usage includes gaming, office apps,  CAD, photo and video editing why would one even consider the 3900X ?  It costs more and doesn't finish on top.

The discussion is like "what's the best tool for  a particular job  ... a hammer a screwdriver or a wrench ?  "  Can ya say wrench because it's best at tightening bolts ?  or do you make a choice based upon the tasks you expect to perform.   If I'm planning a tool box as a gift for my wife to keep at home and ask folks what's the best type of hammer to put in, would you say an air nailer ?  Then why say a 12 or more core CPU when the user's apps include nothing that takes advantage of them ?   Biggest task my wife would have is banging a tack in the wall to hang a picture or tap down a floor nail that popped up that she stepped on.

Here's TPUs test results on the 3900x / 9900k

Ryzen is king for getting your name on web site benchmark leader boards ... 
Ryzen is king for rendering ... 
Ryzen is king for software development ...
*No clear / significant winner in Web Browsers*
Ryzen is king for the science lab
*No clear / significant winner in Office Productivity
Intel takes the PhotoShop crown
Intel takes the Premiere crown
Intel takes the Photogrammetry crown
Ryzen is king in text recognition*
Ryzen is king in VM ware
*No clear / significant winner File Compression (app dependent)*
Intel takes the Encryption crown
Ryzen is king in Graphics / mixed media encoding
*Intel takes the music encoding crown
Intel takes the gaming crown*
*Intel takes the CAD crown*


The items in bold I have done ... the items underlined, I do pretty much every day.  To quote Frank Zappa, the  "crux of the biscuit" is how the tools you employ do with things you actually do ... how it does in things you don't do is irrelevant.   If asked to build a box for a science lab, rendering, software development, VMware. media encoding, etc I would definitely recommend a 3900X, but in 25 years of PC building, we have done 2 rendering boxes and 0 boxes in the other categories.

So if I am asked to build a box that will primarily be used for gaming, video / photo editing, office apps, browsing ad other "everyman uses" ... and which doesn't include science lab, rendering, software development, VMware. media encoding, like stuff, what CPU ....

a) 9900K ($479)
b) 9900KF ($449)
c) 3900X ($499)

How can I justify AMD based build that costs more and performas less is the tasks at hand ?   What's best to put on ya feet to go down a hill ?   Roller blades or skis ? ... kinda depends on whether we talking snow or pavement.   Use the one appropriate for the surface.

Pushing the panic button ... No.  The sports equivalent would be after the manager brings in a new pitcher to face a hitter, the other manager responds by using a pitch hitter.   In other words, ... a perfectly normal and appropriate response to market conditions.  Seems the KF also is bringing a bit better performance on average





__





						Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz vs Intel Core i9-9900KF @ 3.60GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software
					





					www.cpubenchmark.net
				




The suggestion that the KF is a ploy by Intel and is just a binned CPU was hysterical .... is it generally a sound business strategy to bin high performing chips and sell them $30 cheaper than the run of the mill stuff ?   First thingthat popped into my head when this was announced was the nvidia GTX 560 Ti 448 ... where they took failed 570s, disabled the broken shader units and sold as a 560 Ti 448.   Take a 9900k and remove the IGP or disable a failed IGP and you have the 9900KF


----------

