ratirtDude. We are not talking about AMD processors here. The statement was 9700KS would have been better for gaming if binned like 9900KS. read the god damn posts.
And it is obvious 3900 and 3950 would be better for anything else than gaming.

I know I was just referencing the Flagship comment. I do not disagree that the 9700KS would have been a much better choice for Gaming but I referenced the 3950 because I think that is the mitigating factor in Intel releasing this CPU.

trog100i think Intel simply want to firmly establish their claim to the fastest gaming cpu.. the 9900k already has this title the 9900ks just makes it indisputable.. amd win elsewhere simply on a higher core count..

trog

Like said previously. Mentioning 9700K binned becoming KS would have been better for gaming no doubt. It is not just gaming but marketing as well. The 9700KS would have been better for gaming. So the 9900KS is not just gaming purpose but also marketing as the fastest CPU from Intel. (desktop) You mentioned 9700KS better binned would have been better for gaming didn't you? That was my point why intel didn't go 9700KS but went for 9900KS. Meaning flagship processor from intel the fastest they can get. Marketing using gaming with inevitable 5Ghz boost.

cucker tarlson9600k might be on 9900k's tail most of the time but does that at a really high load.it hits 90% utilization where 9900k stays under 50%.

Now if only Intel didn't stupidly neuter the i5 9600 series and take away Hyperthreading, maybe that would not be the case.

ratirtIntel's main purpose is to release a CPU better for gaming.

Yes but more cores does not make a processor a better gaming processor, higher core clocks make for better gaming performance. Yes, games of the figurative tomorrow will indeed use up to eight or ten threads but not yet. Right now, high clock speed is what matters and with those high clock speeds on the 9900KS, they run damned hot.

So I come back to my original statement, maybe the i5 9600 should have been turned into a KS model along with Hyperthreading re-enabled. The two fewer cores would have resulted in less heat and thus more able to stay at 5 GHz much longer than the 9900KS with its two additional cores that, at least today, only serve to generate more heat.

I'm fairly sure that one would be hardpressed to find benchmarks that show an 8700K at 5 GHz being killed. OK, it may be slightly behind but that's only because of the few percentage points in IPC improvements that Intel delivered with the 9000 series chips. But, with that being said, that would be the proof that taking an i5 9600 and making that into a KS chip would have been a much better idea.

kapone32The thing that worries me is if they are still using "toothpaste" running this in a system will produce some serious heat.

No, they use solder now but some people don't think that even the solder is good enough.

trparkyYes but more cores does not make a processor a better gaming processor, higher core clocks make for better gaming performance. Yes, games of the figurative tomorrow will indeed use up to eight or ten threads but not yet. Right now, high clock speed is what matters and with those high clock speeds on the 9900KS, they run damned hot.

So I come back to my original statement, maybe the i5 9600 should have been turned into a KS model along with Hyperthreading re-enabled. The two fewer cores would have resulted in less heat and thus more able to stay at 5 GHz much longer than the 9900KS with its two additional cores that, at least today, only serve to generate more heat. I'm fairly sure that one would be hardpressed to find real-world benchmarks that show an 8700K at 5 GHz being killed.

Why would you pick my sentence out of context? What I said was:

ratirtI don't think Intel's main purpose is to release a CPU better for gaming

And so since you haven't read my post I will say it again. Yes 9700KS would have been better for gaming or even 9600KS (like you guys mentioned) but Intel's MAIN purpose is not to launch a gaming processor but high-end fastest from Intel at the same time. So both 9600 and 9700 our out. Of course Intel is using gaming as a marketing to show it's advantage over AMD and of course 5Ghz frequency. In my eyes it means that intel doesn't want to diminish gaming performance of 9900K instead giving a better binned version which is 9900KS instead. The top model there is.

Need benchmarks of it running CS:Go before I can make a final decision to pick one up.

PanicLakeWho pays the electricity bill in your house? I hope is not your mom.

There are tons of fár easier ways to save on your electric bill than getting less power hungry PC parts.

Such as, closing the windows when its cold, not having the AC on, reducing the flow rate of your central heating system (<- try that one, huge win no loss!)... and here's the kicker, those are free of charge to implement too. Buying newer PC parts before you really need to, to 'save on a power bill' or getting slower ones that might not use 200 but instead 130 watts and still cost an arm and a leg won't even make the slightest dent...

The only real reason TDP/power hungry matters is in the case / heat management area. It requires better cooling and that on its own is all you might save on power right there in one go. So really, its much more than the electric bill change and if you buy these parts it wasn't a money issue to begin with.

ratirtAnd so since you haven't read my post I will say it again. Yes 9700KS would have been better for gaming or even 9600KS (like you guys mentioned) but Intel's MAIN purpose is not to launch a gaming processor but high-end fastest from Intel at the same time. So both 9600 and 9700 our out. Of course Intel is using gaming as a marketing to show it's advantage over AMD and of course 5Ghz frequency. In my eyes it means that intel doesn't want to diminish gaming performance of 9900K instead giving a better binned version which is 9900KS instead. The top model there is.

You're right, last I checked Intel is now not catering to 'the gamer' but 'the creator'... and both are bullshit reasons to buy an 8c16t CPU at 5.5 Ghz anyway. You won't need it at all.

Its marketing, but the target market for these CPUs is very clear. Yes, its US, the gullible idiots that buy rehashed Skylake in its umpteenth iteration. In the larger scheme do they want the fastest CPU? No, they want the headline, the soundbite and the sales that follow. If they want the fastest CPU, they just twist the benchmark results their way to make it so ;) If you think about it, gaming on this 9900KS isn't even the best way to market it, because really, most of the advantage in FPS is lost in GPU translation anyway. That extra 10% in clocks barely pays off. If anything it highlights how close AMD can get with much less power and frequency...

Intel sells on mindshare now and for the foreseeable future, this is no longer about fastest CPU and it hasn't been for the last decade - we knew they had it anyway. This might sound like a big joke but take a minute to ponder on this strategy, because really, that's how they're pushing it now. Those little press releases we laugh about on this forum - those echo and result into sales in the real world, they still do, especially among simple consumers.

neatfeatguyI am going to get myself one of these and two of these GTX 480s - I plan on burning the house down!

Did you mean to say GeForce Fx 5800?

Vayra86You're right, last I checked Intel is now not catering to 'the gamer' but 'the creator'... and both are bullshit reasons to buy an 8c16t CPU at 5.5 Ghz anyway. You won't need it at all.

Its marketing, but the target market for these CPUs is very clear. Yes, its US, the gullible idiots that buy rehashed Skylake in its umpteenth iteration. In the larger scheme do they want the fastest CPU? No, they want the headline, the soundbite and the sales that follow. If they want the fastest CPU, they just twist the benchmark results their way to make it so ;) If you think about it, gaming on this 9900KS isn't even the best way to market it, because really, most of the advantage in FPS is lost in GPU translation anyway. That extra 10% in clocks barely pays off. If anything it highlights how close AMD can get with much less power and frequency...

Intel sells on mindshare now and for the foreseeable future, this is no longer about fastest CPU and it hasn't been for the last decade - we knew they had it anyway. This might sound like a big joke but take a minute to ponder on this strategy, because really, that's how they're pushing it now. Those little press releases we laugh about on this forum - those echo and result into sales in the real world, they still do, especially among simple consumers.

I can't believe you agree with me on something. BTW please don't use the US idiots because it's not right.
Intel doesn't have anything to go with so this 9900KS is their last resort to show customers they are not sleeping and are doing something
Is it really 5.5Ghz? I thought it is 5Ghz.

So Intel has i9-9900, i9-9900K, i9-9900KF and will launch these i9-9900KS?
I believe Intel wouldn't stop there, remember this CPU will come with iGPU, soon they will launch i9-9900FFS 5Ghz all core boost without iGPU :roll:

neatfeatguyI am going to get myself one of these and two of these GTX 480s - I plan on burning the house down!

Why don't you just get a Vega 64, it pulls tripple the watts of this 9900KS.

<<<< see my avatar <<<<

'nuff said :D

ratirtI can't believe you agree with me on something. BTW please don't use the US idiots because it's not right.
Intel doesn't have anything to go with so this 9900KS is their last resort to show customers they are not sleeping and are doing something
Is it really 5.5Ghz? I thought it is 5Ghz.

You're right. The 5.5 is a typo in the original post. And yeah, I have my moments, I guess :D