TurmaniaBoth Intel and AMD seems to be in a race to shoot their own foot. Their answer for more performance is increase the power consumption and price.

You can add NVIDIA to that as well, with the super GPUs. 2080 has a TDP of 210-215W. 2080 Super has a TDP of 250W. 2080 Ti, haha, has a TDP of 250W as well. 3072 vs 4352 cores at 250W.

Vayra86Disgusting price point & product.

If they actually sold this at $400 it would be a no brainer for a gamer

kapone32If they actually sold this at $400 it would be a no brainer for a gamer

$400 for KS was never in any way possible. $400 for KS chip where 9900K's are more expensive? Never in a million years Intel would do that. KS is advertised as a premium product so it was obvious that the price would be higher than 9900K's price is.

AquinusIn this day and age, I would not spend $600 USD on an 8c part.

I wouldn't spend $600 on one part no matter what it is. I don't care if it's a GPU or a CPU, they're out of their damn minds.

ratirt$400 for KS was never in any way possible. $400 for KS chip where 9900K's are more expensive? Never in a million years Intel would do that. KS is advertised as a premium product so it was obvious that the price would be higher than 9900K's price is.

I am not disagreeing with that at all. All I am suggesting is that Intel needs to lower their prices across the board if they want enthusiasts to take them seriously today. Even though 5 GHZ sounds sexy but the premium doesn't make any sense in a world where there are so many less expensive choices from both camps. It is also much more relevant now that CPUs will come with serious refinements in performance in the coming years.

kapone32All I am suggesting is that Intel needs to lower their prices across the board if they want enthusiasts to take them seriously today.

Uh... yeah. Most definitely.

kapone32Even though 5 GHz sounds sexy but the premium doesn't make any sense in a world where there are so many less expensive choices from both camps.

Especially for those of us who don't necessarily have huge budgets to build systems with.

ratirtthey cant lower the price because if they had done that they would lose money. Remember, the 9900 are monolithic. These chips don't use chiplets like AMD does. Making one requires more cash and there are way more flaws in the production. (the bigger the chip more faulty ones you get) Even though the 14++++ (not sure how many + now) is matured now it is still a huge chip.
Besides you are looking at this the wrong way. If Intel didn't feel threatened by AMD, Intel wouldn't release KS version of 9900K. Gamin is a marketing scheme to attract customers since this is the only area where Intel is better than AMD. Although by a tiny bit. What Intel can do now is to exploit this advantage, even though small, is the only thing Intel can do at the moment and Intel does it. What else is there aside that marginal gaming advantage?

Losing money? I find that hard to believe since 9900KS is a binned 9900K, so they could very well offer it at the same price while cutting down the price of the K model a bit. Intel releasing the KS is the only thing they could do at this point I agree, but asking for $100 more than what the 3900x costs is pretty arrogant imho. I mean certain people will still buy it but it surely doesn't help them win consumers back.

trparkyUh... yeah. Most definitely.

Especially for those of us who don't necessarily have huge budgets to build systems with.

Or have young kids at home :cry:

Kokotaspretty arrogant

That's typical Intel for you, they've always been a bit on the arrogant side.

kapone32Or have young kids at home :cry:

Yep.

PanicLakeGaming differences are so marginal that all your counterpoints are just blatant fanboyism...
In a blind test, I'll assure that you and many other won't be able to distinguish 9900k from 3900x while playing games.

Is competitive gaming importand to you?

Well done people, judge a product's price based on a listing in a shop ahead of release…

I don't get the point of releasing a special edition product like this just a few months before they refresh the entire lineup.

ratirtthey cant lower the price because if they had done that they would lose money. Remember, the 9900 are monolithic. These chips don't use chiplets like AMD does. Making one requires more cash and there are way more flaws in the production. (the bigger the chip more faulty ones you get) Even though the 14++++ (not sure how many + now) is matured now it is still a huge chip.

Considering TSMC 7nm is at least twice as expensive per die area as mature 14nm processes, and Ryzen 7 3700X/3800X also needs the controller die, i9-9900K is in fact cheaper to produce despite being monolithic. The chiplet advantages you talk about come into play when talking about much larger dies. The 8-core Coffee Lake die is only ~174mm², which is actually a very small die for a chip this hot. For comparison a 4-core Sandy Bridge was ~216mm².

i9-9900K does have some issues, but not cost or yields. Intel could price these at $350 or lower and still sell them with a profit. The only reason I see why they don't is that they wouldn't be able to meet the increased demand if the price were much lower. Their current production capacity is still maxed out due to the massive demand for laptop chips.

I'm sure that won't be the final MSRP when it releases, unless they're really that out of touch with consumers.

I agree with other comments that in this day and age paying over $400 for an 8 core part is ridiculous when you can pick up 1700s and 2700s for below $200 with small differences in gaming (and I'm talking 1080p and up). But there will always be people who need the absolute best even if it's negligible.

i wonder how bad it really is the 10nm Intel process that they have to appeal to things like this... 127W TDP, and remember this TDP is not calculated when boosting. prepare your Noctua giant fans or Custom loops... cause boy that thing gon be hot.

"Sir, people are saying the 9900K is bad value and is on a dead socket, so it's not a good buy."

"Well, we'll show them."

phanbuey"Sir, people are saying the 9900K is bad value and is on a dead socket, so it's not a good buy."

"Well, we'll show them."

If you think $474.99 for a processor that makes sense only for gaming is good value i recommend you go ahead and get a PS4 or XBOX, if you plan only to game its a better value for your money.

This is a set up for future which I mean next Gen Intel cpu which is suppose to be 10 core 20 thread cpu with 5.2 ghz boost. They will price it the same as this.and people would buy it hey same price as 8core bit we get 10 core now!!! Yuppee and everyone is happy.clever marketing and there are many who will fall into this marketing trick....

Arc1t3ctIs competitive gaming importand to you?

Grasping at straws here... where can I see your competitive gaming achievements?

This processor will likely be popular with high-frequency traders, eSports "athletes", and rich hobbyists. If you need multithreaded performance, 3900X is still top, and 3950X will be even better. If you need decent gaming performance, something like the 9700K or 9900K are already more than sufficient. You'd seriously have to be targeting high framerate gaming to the exclusion of consideration of value to be swayed by this chip as a mainstream or even enthusiast gamer.

Well, I don't think an all-core 5 GHz i9-9900KS is going to matter much to even the most hard-core gamer, i9-9900K is already faster than what most games need today, even at high frame rates. Getting higher all core-boost and base clocks are going to matter for heavily multithreaded tasks, including content creation. i9-9900K already does very well in workloads like Photoshop and Premiere, beating even the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X, and an i9-9900KS might do even better here. But I would still question the point of such a short-lived product, right ahead of Comet Lake. (It's obviously to get free press coverage of course)

fynxerWhat I see is that it is Silicon Lottery that will be suffering. The chance for them to find 9900K 5GHz+ in the future will drop significantly since Intel will remove them in production.

What do you mean by "remove"?
Intel will sell high-quality chips as 9900KS. That's it.

There is also a significant lower chance in the future for an ordinary customer to get lucky and get an 9900K 5GHz+ unless he pays +$100 for the 9900KS.

That's just looking at things complete backwards.
And ordinary customer can, for a fee of $100, get a CPU that is guaranteed to remain stable with high clocks.

Usually, a person looking for such a chip is taking part in a lottery. Some people buy and resell until they get what they wanted.
This is exactly the niche that companies like Silicon Lottery target. You pay them a premium and you're happy with the first sample.

I could keep talking about how Intel is simply trying to make money, but is it really necessary?
Why is this move such a shock?

Had Intel launched two 8C/16T CPUs: 9800K and 9900K - and differentiate them by clocks - we wouldn't have had this discussion. That would have been totally normal.
But for some weird reason, because they run out of numbers and call it "KS", forums burst in flames of anti-Intel-ism.

Intel has not only done this to compete with AMD, they also wanted to prevent Silicon Lottery and ordinary buyers of 9900K to get more value than that they paid for.

Intel is not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything. They're simply making money.

KarymidoNi wonder how bad it really is the 10nm Intel process that they have to appeal to things like this... 127W TDP, and remember this TDP is not calculated when boosting. prepare your Noctua giant fans or Custom loops... cause boy that thing gon be hot.

It will be just as hot as an overclocked 9900K. And many people own overclocked 9900K, so clearly: it's not impossible to sustain.

This is just a CPU with guaranteed 5GHz all-core. It's not more power-hungry than what we have today. In idle it'll still use <10W. At 5GHz all-core it'll use as much as a 9900K run at 5GHz would... or actually less. Since Intel will sell the best quality samples as "KS", at any given frequency it may consume less than an average 9900K.

PanicLakeGrasping at straws here...

Maybe. People are still willing to pay extra for whatever gaming performance advantage they can get. Pay Intel that is...

PanicLakewhere can I see your competitive gaming achievements?

LOL!

kapone32If they actually sold this at $400 it would be a no brainer for a gamer

In terms of intel, I think 360ish for the 9700K is almost a no brainer for a gaming rig as quite possibly the 3700X would likely be for AMD, it's just so long since I had an AMD CPU I have just gotten used to almost a lazy Plug >> Play >> Overclock mentality, it almost scares me if I have to put some work into it, that said the AMD price point may make it worthwhile. I will be upgrading in a couple of months and I have lots of choices to make.

ratirtAMD doesn't call it the best? There are better models out there from AMD's. 3800x doesn't cost $600+. AMD doesn't advertise 3800x as special or premium (KS is advertised like that) instead it is just a regular processor lineup in the AMD's portfolio.
These are from the top of my head I could think of as of now. I'm sure there is more.

Well you've just admitted that you're not criticizing this CPU because you think it is bad. You're simply against the company that makes it.
Of course we all know that, but it's nice to see you honest for once.

Putting all other things aside, this really is a simple situation.

AMD has two 8C/16T CPUs that differ by clocks with everything else being equal: 3700X and 3800X.
3800X is ~5% faster - a privilege for which AMD wants you to pay 21% more (329 -> 399 USD).

After 9900KS launches, Intel will also have two 8C/16T that differ only by clocks.
Judging by 9900K OC benchmarks, 9900KS will also be around 5% faster - a privilege for which Intel (likely) will want you to pay ~25% more (479 -> 600 USD).

You praise AMD.
You criticize Intel.
What else is there to say?

Arc1t3ctI see this as a gaming specific component, so...

- Recycled technology: How? It's just a new addition to the current lineup
- Still 8 core: It's more than enough for gaming
- High price compared to competition: What competition? The 9900K? Amd can't compete with either in gaming

These three though... its more than enough for gaming. So why go here in the first place? The real life benefit of this CPU for gaming is incredibly tiny compared to a regular K. Like margin of error type tiny. You can easily get a CPU at half the price and get close enough not to ever notice a difference.

Not the best job at defending the price point, I'd say.

kapone32If they actually sold this at $400 it would be a no brainer for a gamer

Yes and they'd be sold out everywhere always, and we'd get monthly press releases about Intel and supply issues. Oh wait. :D

Arc1t3ctIs competitive gaming importand to you?

Even in that space you won't need this CPU. There isn't one pro gamer right now missing it. High refresh IS Intel's last bastion, but that already happens with the current crop just fine.

All that said Intel is of course at liberty to price it anyway they like. Just like we're at liberty to discuss it :)

KarymidoNi wonder how bad it really is the 10nm Intel process that they have to appeal to things like this... 127W TDP, and remember this TDP is not calculated when boosting. prepare your Noctua giant fans or Custom loops... cause boy that thing gon be hot.

This is going to run close to or past 200W no problem. I doubt air is going to cut it, unless you fill up your entire case with a heatsink and fans. There is also the thermal density problem we've seen since Kaby Lake. Its a spiky affair... delid mandatory? Oh wait :P

Vayra86These three though... its more than enough for gaming. So why go here in the first place?

So why do people OC their 9900K?