Friday, September 27th 2019
Intel Core i9-9900KS to Cost around $600
Australian e-tailer MWave has put up their product page for the Intel Core i9-9900KS processor that Intel announced earlier this year, but with no actual product in sight. The merchant's listing is showing an AUD 899 price for SKU BX80684I99900KS, which converts to USD 605. The new Intel processor, is basically a binned eight-core Coffee Lake Core i9-9900K, which runs at 4.0 GHz base clock (up by 400 MHz) and 5.0 GHz all-core Turbo (300 MHz increase). Single-core maximum Turbo remains at 5.0 GHz (just like on the Core i9-9900K).
Just earlier this week, ASUS posted a BIOS update note, mentioning in it that the Core i9-9900KS will have a 127 W TDP. It looks like Intel can definitely defend the gaming performance crown with the Core i9-9900KS, mostly thanks to its high clock speeds. However, since most of the improvements are in multi-core workload boost clocks, and single-threaded clocks are identical to 9900K, I'm having some doubts whether the processor can really make any substantial difference — it's definitely not going to beat the $100 cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in Cinebench, and the 127 W TDP limit might mean that the 5.0 GHz all-core Boost will end up being active only for a short amount of time.
Just earlier this week, ASUS posted a BIOS update note, mentioning in it that the Core i9-9900KS will have a 127 W TDP. It looks like Intel can definitely defend the gaming performance crown with the Core i9-9900KS, mostly thanks to its high clock speeds. However, since most of the improvements are in multi-core workload boost clocks, and single-threaded clocks are identical to 9900K, I'm having some doubts whether the processor can really make any substantial difference — it's definitely not going to beat the $100 cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in Cinebench, and the 127 W TDP limit might mean that the 5.0 GHz all-core Boost will end up being active only for a short amount of time.
73 Comments on Intel Core i9-9900KS to Cost around $600
And do you think having an expensive, slightly faster, limited CPU won't cut it? :-)
Battlenonsense did a video on this, a GPU or CPU that is completely pegged produces higher input lag and a worse gaming experience. So which would you rather have? The slightly higher FPS of the 9900KS or the smoother, more consistant gaming experience of the 3900X? Not even considering that the 3900X absolutely smokes the KS in every metric including price and performance, the 9900K is literally only the winner in spitting out more frames. Heck, a year from now even that single last advantage could dissappear as games utilize more CPU resources.
If Intel wants to compare "real life" results like their marketing suggests, perhaps they should start looking more then just max FPS numbers and examine input lag numbers and CPU usages which indicate actual experience much more.
This cpu is decent for this time, but only worth around $400~450 max
Also would add, in gaming - CPU limitation is not really a problem these days.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/23.html
You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?".
And 9900KS will sell.
You may say it's mostly for Intel fanboys or idiots. Well. Some people are fanboys and some people are idiots. Why not sell them something?You're way to eager to assume this will happen.
What if it doesn't? What if most games will keep using 4-6 cores? :-)
BTW. I can say same about you. Praise Intel, Criticize AMD, what else to say?
You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. You are prejudice either to me or Your own thoughts.
There's a difference in launching a processor that is supposed to be the top notch for such a price giving basically nothing. Lame for Intel with this and that's my opinion. Of course you have different because why not?
Your 3700x and 3800x is not a good example. these are a lineup of AMD's portfolio. How many times do i have to say that huh? The KS isn't a line up but it goes as a premium for whatever reason.
Intel's KS is different and i guess you see it just don't want to admit it. You are not being fair and you don't see the bigger picture.
9900KS will be 5% better than 9900K? Where did you get that? These are the same processors and dont tell me because it will be binned better. 9900k are binned better as well. Silicon differs. What is different on the other hand is, Silicon Lottery wont have the privilege to sell higher binned 9900k because these are going to be KS now. I hope the KS will deliver these mere 5% although I doubt it with the advertised TDP is rather wishful thinking. Having 5Ghz all cores for fraction of a minute to satisfy the statistics is not ground breaking or worth noticing.
Buckle up Intel.and these reasons are?
Don't tell people what questions they should ask dude. :) That's pathetic :D They know what to as just the answer sucks. kinda like yours btw. If you got input or your point of view share.
Price is $100 more than 9900K. Maybe for you $600 is a huge sum and that's why you have to imagine it. But many people spend so much and way more.
More importantly: this is just $100 over a standard 9900K and I've already said why that seems like a fair price.I'm openly mocking AMD as a company. They are a mess. I've been saying that for way over a decade.
But I'm honest and you're not. That's the difference.It's a top-quality binned CPU. That's the added value.You're trying to build your argument on naming differences. That's... weird.
3700X and 3800X have different second digit, to they magically create "a lineup". That's why it's OK for AMD to ask 20% more for extra 5% performance.
9900K and 9900KS have the same second digit, so they aren't "a lineup" and so: Intel shouldn't be allowed to ask a premium for the faster variant.
Right?I said this is based on results of overclocked 9900K.
9900K@5GHz (all core) is roughly 5% faster than 9900K left on factory setting. So I expect 9900K to achieve similar performance. Acceptable?Hmm... low cognitive skills?
My comment was:
[ICODE]Business is not philosophy or religion (...) You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?" [/ICODE]
It was an obvious figure of speech. I didn't mean @evernessince should go out and ask people "will this sell? will this sell????"
which is why i bought a 9900K two or three months back hopefully before the pillaging happened.. :)
trog
The only really new thing is that for few generations Intel offered just a single unlocked CPU in each segment.
To be honest, it might soon turn out 9900K will become obsolete and Intel will end production.
The overclocking, high-spending crowd will go for the 9900KS anyway.
Intel already launched 9900, so that's where all the 5GHz-unable samples can go. OEMs are already offering 9900-powered workstations (and getting A LOT of orders from what I've heard).
Retail availability of boxed chips is second half of October. Right in time for 9900KS.You're running yours at 4.7GHz. The "lower tier" 9900K will still be able to do that. :-)
I may be old school, but overclocking used to be about buying a cheap CPU and getting a lot of "free" performance out of it. Buying an i9-9900KS(4.0/5.0 GHz) and perhaps getting another 200 maybe 300 MHz out of it, I don't see the point. Granted it will be slightly better dies than i9-9900K, but still the difference will be fairly small in maximum overclocking.
The increasing market share of AMD is happening in consumer segment. TR platform will become less and less significant - up to a point where it'll be just for showing off (just like Intel HEDT).
As usual with AMD - it's hard to guess what they're up to (I'm not sure they know...), but it seems plausible that the best chips will be saved for the flagship consumer chips. It's really obvious they need 3950X more than an update to Threadrippers. Especially when 3950X is replacing the well-received 2950X (with roughly the same specs and pricing; just on a smaller socket).That's the economical aspect. Yes, there was a time when you were actually rewarded by the learning and work put into overclocking.
You bought a cheap CPU and a good heat sink (which back then used to cost $40) and you could get 30-40% more performance.
That's not happening today. Boosting killed the "mainstream" overclocking. Going beyond needs very expensive cooling and almost never makes any sense other than fun from rivalry in benchmarks.
So yeah, I strongly believe overclockers will vote with their wallets for the CPU that gives them higher absolute - rather than relative - figures.
Getting a 9900K to 5GHz won't be fun anymore when your neighbour has an identical Cinebench score from a 9900KS and he doesn't even know what BIOS is.
i do have HT off though.. 8 real cores is plenty for gaming..
trog
What if most games keep using 4-6 cores? Hello, is this UserBenchMark speaking? Intel is releasing a 10 core consumer processor in the not too distant future. The original Ryzen 1000 series launched 3 years ago and we already have games utilizing 8 core CPUs. The fact that my prediction draws suspicion is funny in the least, I simply predicted things progress as normal for the PC space. You know, when we aren't mired in an Intel monopoly. It is not hard to comprehend that games can advance as fast with CPUs as they do with GPUs. People have clearly been far too trained by Intel to expect a slow trickle, which is funny given the pace GPUs have been moving at (well at least before turning, which is fairly dissapointing but you can once again blame lack of competition for that one).
On all other points, you're absolutely correct. But predicting 'you might need those cores soon' has never really worked out well for gaming wrt CPUs. Games follow the common denominator, not the bleeding edge of CPU performance. For GPU, its somewhat different because the visual difference is much more pronounced. That can be recognized by the updated PS4 and X1 that mostly boosted the graphics department. Consoles generally have a cycle of 5-6 years, I do reckon that is about the time frame for people to do a new PC build or serious upgrade.
However, supply of 3900X is still very limited.
Yes, it's a very good CPU. Yes, AMD's recommended price is very attractive. But AMD took a step beyond technical capabilities of production lines. It gives them a big win in reviews, but it doesn't mean a win in sales.
And apparently there are quite a lot of gamers willing to spend $500-700 on a CPU, so (assuming everyone wants to buy 3900X) few lucky % will get what they want. With that unique CPU out of the question, people will choose between 9900K(S) and 3700X / 3800X. So many will end up buying 9900K(S) anyway.
Intel knows this and they know how to price their products. They may not win reviews, but they'll still make a ton of money.Intel will sell everything they can make money on. That's how they got to their billions.In 2017 we had games that could utilize 8 cores - AMD used them in Ryzen campaign. It's naive to think there weren't any earlier.
And today we have games that hardly go past 3-4.
To prove a hypothesis like yours (that in last few years core utilization in games increased), one would have to do a proper test. You know: choose a basket of 20 mainstream series and show that there's a significant difference between versions released just before Ryzen and today. Maybe someone did that - I have no idea.
But the argument that "there exist something that does something" is irrelevant.How can you say what is "normal"? You have no statistics. No point of reference even. We live in a world with 2 major x86 CPU manufacturers. This is the only observable reality we have.
And for decades it's been an Intel monopoly. They know how to make CPUs, they know how to position them and make money. They've been doing it for 50 years.
From time to time AMD manages to make a decent CPU line. And because they can afford a risk Intel can't, they briefly lead in innovation. Intel catches up, so AMD loses momentum and soon money ends.
Yes, it would be healthier to have 2 CPU makers with 50:50 share. But:
1) it would not lead to quicker CPU evolution, because that's limited by more fundamental aspects (semiconductor research mostly),
2) AMD isn't willing to play ball. They could sell 3800X for $500 and gradually build an image of a serious, business-oriented enterprise. In 5-10 years they could get to 30% market share while still having a stable and profitable business. But they don't want to do that. Well, it's their choice.
At least this time, when AMD goes back to being a tiny company with no profits and outdated lineup, we'll remember them for an interesting Zen idea, not a Bulldozer disaster. :)This is where people like you make a big mistake.
If Bulldozer was a success and we would have had 2 large CPU makers competing on the market, CPUs in 2019 would be... just as fast as they are. :)
www.guru3d.com/news-story/core-i9-9900ks-spotted-at-etailer-costs-679-euros.htmlNo supply problem in Norway. All PC build vendors must have got their 3900x supplies. besides the Pc build companies were offering this processors for over a month now if not more.
So I disagree with the supply issues. Consumer market is the last to get these.
Intel knows this. AMD knows this as well. Any company knows this if they are in the industry for some time. These two companies been here for a long time.
Time will tell if any of these two companies was right about their predictions and planning.