Intel Core i9-9900K

[R0H1T]

I'm sure some fan boy will come and say how its future proofing to buy this CPU (maybe Toms will will even write an article) but in the future I would expect more from $500 CPU. Maybe there will be a rush of used 8700k for cheap on ebay from this....

That was never in doubt, what's a little bit surprising is how Intel pushed this further than many of us expected.
They literally have left no room on the table even for OCing enthusiasts, this is their FX9590 except with a fake TDP.

 

[TheOne]

It's a shame that stock of the 8700K is low and the price is inflated.

 

[kajson]

And now it´s all clear why 8700k could not be allowed to be available in substantial quantities at normal price, or noone considering money a factor in the purchase decision would ever buy the 9900k.(pretty sure 9700k will not hold up against the 8700k in most scenario's, and thus would be unsellable at a price that is not at least 50$ lower then the 8700k)

 

[kings]

4%~5% faster than 2700X in 1440p gaming (resolution I use).

Great deal for 600€.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Here we reached 5.1 GHz all-core completely stable (even with +105 mV). While the system booted fine at 5.2 GHz, it had a tendency to crash when heavily loaded, no matter the voltage (we tried up to +250 mV), so we settled for 5.1 GHz as our stable overclock, and include that in all performance comparisons.

Those saying that 5.4Ghz overclocks on this thing would be possible 'because these have improved silicon' from the 8700K were always living in fantasy land.

What's more, this 9900K tested is likely a golden sample as per usual Intel shenanigans/marketing tactics so retail chips might struggle to get past 5Ghz all-core. Intel really have pushed this old 14nm arch to its limit. Bring on 10nm I say.

 

[E-curbi]

Outstanding review. Yet stock vs stock reviews only tell us part of the story.

Realize the 9900K 5.1Ghz OC values are included, but we simply don’t know how high these 8C/16T chips can clock stable, 5.2Ghz, 5.3Ghz?

Results like 8086K/8700K at 5.4Ghz or 5.5Ghz vs 9900K at 5.3Ghz (or whatever clock speed the high bin tops out at), would be even more exciting.

The Cinebench ST score in this review is interesting - 9900K @5.1GHz of 223. Even if only a small percentage of the 9900Ks do clock up to 5.3Ghz, the single and slightly threaded performance I believe will still only overlap i.e. trade blows with an 8700K or 8086K also binned at 5.3Ghz. So if you already own a 8700K/8086K high bin, no real need to update, for me that means no new CPU until Ice Lake and 10nm which is 14months away.

Multithreaded performance with the 9900K high bins on the other hand should be greatly improved over the 8700K/8086K high bins, if that’s something your work applications will benefit from.

Siliconlottery.com is estimating November 2nd, for the 9900K binned CPU availability. That day we will know MUCH MORE about this processor. Only problem is a 9900K high bin on launch day will probably be priced at around $1200. OUCH.

My 8086K 5.3Ghz binned was $880, so yea, I'm sitting out this launch completely. Be happy with what you have. lol

For those who are still running a 3770K or even a 6700K, WOW, your ship has come in with the 9900K for gaming and just about anything else you’d like to perform with your PC.

Oh Happy Day!

 

[S@LEM!]

never though that this chip will be better than Ryzen 2700x in efficiency. quit a good result for an ageing end of life architecture. explains what could Intel do in the first place.

 

[Sandbo]

As someone who writes his own code who can do multi threading, there is no hesitation choosing 2700x over this.

And then if I game, I can choose 8700k or even 8600k for their almost identical single threaded performance as 9900k.

It’s a premium to pay to get the best out of both world; more or less for the rich only.

 

[E-curbi]

As someone who writes his own code who can do multi threading, there is no hesitation choosing 2700x over this.

And then if I game, I can choose 8700k or even 8600k for their almost identical single threaded performance as 9900k.

It’s a premium to pay to get the best out of both world; more or less for the rich only.

NO need to be rich, just create your gaming rig from hand-me down 2ndary components. Plus an outstanding GPU.

"Incremental upgrades over time" is the way to do it, no need to shell out lots of cash all at once. Time is NEVER our friend in this world EXCEPT when upgrading your PC(s).

Two individual PCs on your work desk is the only way to live brother.

 

[R0H1T]

Outstanding review. Yet stock vs stock reviews only tell us part of the story.

Realize the 9900K 5.1Ghz OC values are included, but we simply don’t know how high these 8C/16T chips can clock stable, 5.2Ghz, 5.3Ghz?

Results like 8086K/8700K at 5.4Ghz or 5.5Ghz vs 9900K at 5.3Ghz (or whatever clock speed the high bin tops out at), would be even more exciting.

The Cinebench ST score in this review is interesting - 9900K @5.1GHz of 223. Even if only a small percentage of the 9900Ks do clock up to 5.3Ghz, the single and slightly threaded performance I believe will still only overlap i.e. trade blows with an 8700K or 8086K also binned at 5.3Ghz. So if you already own a 8700K/8086K high bin, no real need to update, for me that means no new CPU until Ice Lake and 10nm which is 14months away.

Multithreaded performance with the 9900K high bins on the other hand should be greatly improved over the 8700K/8086K high bins, if that’s something your work applications will benefit from.

Siliconlottery.com is estimating November 2nd, for the 9900K binned CPU availability. That day we will know MUCH MORE about this processor. Only problem is a 9900K high bin on launch day will probably be priced at around $1200. OUCH.

My 8086K 5.3Ghz was $880, so yea, I'm sitting out this launch completely. Be happy with what you have. lol

For those who are still running a 3770K or even a 6700K, WOW, your ship has come in with the 9900K for gaming and just about anything else you’d like to perform with your PC.

Oh Happy Day!

The biggest problem is temps, around 5GHz this thing is easily hitting 70~80 degrees even with high end liquid cooling, obviously depending on ambient temps & case airflow. Also power consumption is just way OTT, so if you're looking for MT beast then HEDT (Intel or AMD) is a much better option.

Nah 8700k is still the gaming chip to get in the Intel lineup, 9700k if you want 8 cores.

 

[Dante Uchiha]

At stock it has lower base clocks, so not too surprising really.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm not sure what you're trying to show me? That max power draw is probably using AVX code & all cores being loaded at 4.7GHz, at which point 9900k exceeds it's PL2 & consumes an overwhelming 221W & almost 60W more than 9700k all core @4.6 GHz.

The 9900k will be horrible at full load, wrt power consumption, but part of that can be mitigated using better cooling.

 

[W1zzard]

Realize the 9900K 5.1Ghz OC values are included, but we simply don’t know how high these 8C/16T chips can clock stable, 5.2Ghz, 5.3Ghz?

I reached 5.1 GHz stable with a 240 mm AIO, that's what's included in the data. 5.2 = unstable

 

[Saxxter]

Long time follower & system enthusiast, first time poster! Just want to say thanks for the indepth review. I think something that could help with alleviating thermal performance would be to potentially include various types of Air & AIO coolers to get an idea of what potential buyers may need to invest in, especially if they are in search of the best bang for buck.

For gaming benchmarks...and don't shoot me - would it be possible to see Diablo 3 & World of Warcraft with these results? I actually know several raiders that are looking to come from much older gear and have been waiting to chose AMD or Intel, and I think some benchmarks for them would be of benefit as well.

 

[Vya Domus]

but part of that can be mitigated using better cooling.

How much better though ? Of the few reviews I have seen people were already using fairly high end coolers that were still not quite enough.

 

[R0H1T]

How much better though ? Of the few reviews I have seen people were already using fairly high end coolers that were still not quite enough.

Depends on the chip & a whole host of other variables, including MB.

 

[E-curbi]

The biggest problem is temps, around 5GHz this thing is easily hitting 70~80 degrees even with high end liquid cooling, obviously depending on ambient temps & case airflow. Also power consumption is just way OTT, so if you're looking for MT beast then HEDT (Intel or AMD) is a much better option.

Nah 8700k is still the gaming chip to get in the Intel lineup, 9700k if you want 8 cores.

Yep, I agree 100%. The Intel 6core 12thread may be the sweet spot for most of us until 10nanometer next year at this time. I run my 8086K at 5.3Ghz/5.4Ghz all core all thread with nice temps all day long using a Noctua C14S air cooler (pic attached). Can do the same with a 5.6Ghz single core (per-core) boost 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 configuration in bios, still nice temps ON AIR.

... and the Noctua Industrial 140mm PWM fan dialed down to 680rpm - 700rpm is completely inaudible, with those nice temps and those sweet overclocks, not certain that can also be achieved with this 9900K, I need complete silence while working.

The 8700K and 8086K might be the best overall CPU for some of us for the next 14months.

I only hope we have a 6C/12T option with Ice Lake (10nm). With much higher clock speeds of course. I'll take a 5.8Ghz bin from SL.com please.

 

[W1zzard]

Diablo 3 & World of Warcraft with these results?

WOW is a huge pain to bench due to the always online nature and patches. Never looked into Diablo 3, but seems a bit old to be relevant.

Adding some lighter games could be a good idea for the future. Anyone else has an opinion on that?

 

[Agentbb007]

I’m trying to find this cpu benched with a 2080 Ti, seems most reviews are using a 1080 which is definitely going to be GPU bound for all the gaming benchmarks.

 

[HD64G]

So much talk for the gaming strenght of this ultra-expensive cpu that could give some excuse to that price. 7-8% more FPS in 1080P and 4-5% more FPS in 1440P vs the 40-50% cheaper 2700X. And not that much faster in productivity apart from sw optimised for Intel. 7nm are on the way. If AMD is true to their promise for their IPC increase for Zen2 vs Zen1, we will see the tables turned upside down for the performance crown, even in gaming. VFM-wise, AMD is king by far since Ryzen launched and their place has become even better lately with the increase in intel's cpu pricing.

 

[Space Lynx]

what is the temperature at 1.35 volts 5.1 ghz?

 

[Saxxter]

WOW is a huge pain to bench due to the always online nature and patches. Never looked into Diablo 3, but seems a bit old to be relevant.

Adding some lighter games could be a good idea for the future. Anyone else has an opinion on that?

I can understand the pains of benching games built on spaghetti code for sure - I think a part of it stems also from comparing a 2700x vs 8700k w/32GB DDR4 3200 RAM at home on WoW at a resolution of 3440 x 1440 @ 100Hz on a 1080ti FTW3 Elite. (Using Ultra level 10 Settings)

I had severe raid stuttering on the 2700x running @ 4.4GHz and I would jump all over the place with FPS, but with Intel, it was pretty damn smooth.

So this is whats thrown me for a loop is that with most, if not alot of games, the 8700k and 2700x are relatively neck-to-neck and constantly tradiing blows. I guess why I've come here to ask is to get others opinions as well so I can help my friends with their purchase - I just didn't want to be that guy and say "just buy this and be done."

 

[mcraygsx]

"9900K, which will automatically drop clocks when it senses too much power draw. For example when set to 5 GHz all-core, with some extra voltage, as soon as you put a serious multi-core load on the CPU, the clocks will drop instantly to around 4 GHz. To raise this limit, you'll have to adjust the power limit in BIOS or XTU — a first for Intel, but no problem, as long as you are aware of it."

You think this will be worked out with future BIOS updates?. My own 7700K or 8086K when running on Asus Maximux Hero boards do not automatically throttle. I mean I do not have to manually increase the TDP rating in BIOS when I overclock. Any thoughts or reasons why this default limitation was implemented at first place for very first time?.

Great review as always on par with what I just read at Techspot.com.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Sounds like you need a $100-$200 200watt heatsink to prevent the CPU from throttling itself at stock-turbo boost clocks. So the total actual cost of this cpu is what, $700?

NO need to be rich, just create your gaming rig from hand-me down 2ndary components. Plus an outstanding GPU.

"Incremental upgrades over time" is the way to do it, no need to shell out lots of cash all at once. Time is NEVER our friend in this world EXCEPT when upgrading your PC(s).

Two individual PCs on your work desk is the only way to live brother.

AMD's Zen 2 is only ~3 months away and is supposed to have 13% IPC improvements + slight bump in clockspeeds. If true, then we're basically going to get something that beats the Coffee Lake cpus in both single and multi threaded applications...without Intel's price gouging. For those who are trying to buy the best, they might as well wait 3 months and see why AMD has to offer with Zen 2.

 

[fabtech]

So much talk for the gaming strenght of this ultra-expensive cpu that could give some excuse to that price. 7-8% more FPS in 1080P and 4-5% more FPS in 1440P vs the 40-50% cheaper 2700X. And not that much faster in productivity apart from sw optimised for Intel. 7nm are on the way. If AMD is true to their promise for their IPC increase for Zen2 vs Zen1, we will see the tables turned upside down for the performance crown, even in gaming. VFM-wise, AMD is king by far since Ryzen launched and their place has become even better lately with the increase in intel's cpu pricing.

Yes indeed, am I the only one to be disappointed by this CPU ? The scaling in Multithread is very poor, some other tests have shown a huge decrease in speed when used with heavy Multithreaded tasks... If OC is the only way to keep high frequency, a very expensive cooler will be needed and a powerful PSU, getting an increase of 140W in power consumption when OC only at 5.2 GHz is just not possible for a little workstation, a 7900x will do much better, even my 6950x (got it at $500) performs better in Multithread tasks @ just 4.4GHz (Cinebench score 2318).

Well, I am not a high core gamer, but I do play with a 1440p monitor, this 9900K gives no advantages at this resolution, so this cpu is not worth for gaming at this resolution in front of a 2600x, 2700x, 8700K...
So what is the real target of this CPU(sold 700€ in EU) ? As little workstation, a 1920x way cheapper (220€ less expensive than the 9900K in EU), a 1950x (sold just a little bit more expensive) will be better choice for workstation.
Well the 9900K do well in all kind of task but the 2700x do well too and i IS for my opinion, the BEST CPU VALUE for all kind of tasks, the 9900K is crucified by its high price.