Intel Core i9-9900K

[Captain_Tom]

It's not intel's fault that today's games do not fully utilize an eight core CPU.
same for the 2700X.
there is nothing intel can do about gaming perfomance at this point, but 9900K will show its true benefits for gaming over years.

It actually kind of is Intel's fault. They were the ones that continued to pressure devs to focus on quad-cores for gaming.

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....

If you want to "future proof", then get a 2700X since it is on the "future-proofed" AM4 socket and has the same thread count.

I have a feeling this is going to be the case.

Zen 2 doesn't even have to be groundbreaking to ruin Intel .

2700 successor with 300-350mhz increase on all cores + 5-7% increase in IPC for near $300 and it's probably all over to be honest

We already know an early sample of Zen 2 is at least 4.5GHz + 13% IPC increase. That alone will beat the 9900K and could be sold for $499 in massively higher numbers. This is before we confirm if there will even be 12/16-core models or clocks above 4.8GHz...

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

Steve at Techspot also was limited to 5.1GHz on BOTH of his 9900K's.

 

[ShurikN]

We already know an early sample of Zen 2 is at least 4.5GHz

I don't remember seeing this info anywhere. Can you provide a source, leak, rumor, would like to check it out.

Steve at Techspot also was limited to 5.1GHz on BOTH of his 9900K's.

As far as I can see from various reviews, no one can hit more than 5.1 stable. And even then the temps get insane.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I don't remember seeing this info anywhere. Can you provide a source, leak, rumor, would like to check it out.

As far as I can see from various reviews, no one can hit more than 5.1 stable. And even then the temps get insane.

https://wccftech.com/amd-zen-2-7nm-cpu-13-percent-ipc-increase-rumor/

https://wccftech.com/amd-zen-2-ryzen-8-core-16-thread-cpu-leak/


I suspect the 8-core model RTG has is just 1-CCX as well (Since RTG would want a single CCX for an APU). We could be looking at an R9 3800X that has 16 cores, 4.8GHz clockspeeds, and 15% higher IPC...

 

[trog100]

it dosnt deserve the score it got.. dosnt clock as high as expected.. runs too hot and still needs deliding .. bit of a fail if you ask me..

the video about the soldered tim and thicker pcb was fascinated..


trog

 

[ShurikN]

https://wccftech.com/amd-zen-2-ryzen-8-core-16-thread-cpu-leak/


I suspect the 8-core model RTG has is just 1-CCX as well (Since RTG would want a single CCX for an APU). We could be looking at an R9 3800X that has 16 cores, 4.8GHz clockspeeds, and 15% higher IPC...

Oh yeah that one, I remember now.
I would personally like to see them focus on everything other than more cores. 8 is enough for now on the mainstream desktop platform.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Oh yeah that one, I remember now.
I would personally like to see them focus on everything other than more cores. 8 is enough for now on the mainstream desktop platform.

I think it would be wise for AMD to just keep a core-count advantage if they can, simply because Infinity Fabric makes it so easy for them to win in that department and it is just good for marketing. However I do agree that 16 cores is not needed on mainstream desktop. I would prefer if they delivered 5 or 6 core CCX's so they can deliver a 5GHz 10 or 12-core instead of a 16-core @ 4.6GHz. But again, I would trade a little bit of IPC to get 10 or 12 cores instead of just 8. TBH though, I am starting to think that while it would be easy for them to give us a 16-core on AM4 next year - they may intentionally hold it back for Zen2+ so they can make a big deal out of it generation-to-generation.

it dosnt deserve the score it got.. dosnt clock as high as expected.. runs too hot and still needs deliding .. bit of a fail if you ask me..

the video about the soldered tim and thicker pcb was fascinated..


trog

I actually think the 9900K is more efficient than expected. It does seem to be able to beat the 2700X by 10-20% while using nearly the same energy. But yes it also doesn't overclock well, and it seems to require very expensive motherboards.

 

[laszlo]

I just cannot conceive of an intelligent human who would buy this for any good reason.

after Principled Tech testing a lot of "intelligent human" jumped and per-ordered them fast not to loose the opportunity ho have the "best gaming processor" asap...marketing and preconception dictate the herd behavior and in this case intelligence is unquantifiable

 

[GoldenX]

Hot and expensive. All hail the new Pentium EE.

 

[moob]

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.

Lmao. I'm still running a 3770K and there's no chance in hell I'd get this CPU. Like ShurikN mentioned, I could literally buy a 2700X + motherboard + 16GB RAM for the same price as this CPU alone, with only a small performance decrease across the board. But I've held off on that for this long so I can wait a few more months for Zen 2. The 9900K isn't even a consideration with that price/performance.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

after Principled Tech testing a lot of "intelligent human" jumped and per-ordered them fast not to loose the opportunity ho have the "best gaming processor" asap...marketing and preconception dictate the herd behavior and in this case intelligence is unquantifiable

That's a good point.

(Un)Principled Technology: '9900K up to 50% faster in 1080p gaming vs 2700X'
Reality: under 10% faster.

What a load of BS.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Lmao. I'm still running a 3770K and there's no chance in hell I'd get this CPU. Like ShurikN mentioned, I could literally buy a 2700X + motherboard + 16GB RAM for the same price as this CPU alone, with only a small performance decrease across the board. But I've held off on that for this long so I can wait a few more months for Zen 2. The 9900K isn't even a consideration with that price/performance.

My favorite comparison is that you can choose between a 2700X + 2080 Ti, or a 9900K + 1080 Ti! Thus unless you already have a 2080 Ti, your money is being thrown away on a 9900K.

 

[GoldenX]

I think we can finally say that 14nm++ is dead.

 

[HTC]

@W1zzard : would you consider including benches of multiple simultaneous things?

- a whole bunch of "one bench with something else in the background"
- one or two of "one bench with several things in the background"
- perhaps even 2 simultaneous benches with moderate to high CPU intensity

Obviously, what's in the background needs to be intensive enough to affect the bench run, plus it also needs to attempt to "copy" a "normal user".

 

[1d10t]

Great feat Intel,for pulling 5Ghz from your hat. But as chart told, that clocks doesn't make a clear winner, I think we safely to assume 'we reach a barrier'
As for the CPU itself,I don't see any reason why they sell this at obnoxious price.If they targetting for 1080p gamer,which is truly shines,why should people take this over $500 GPUs? Sadly,the same scenario goes all over resolution.
"The Best CPU for gaming", duh!

@W1zzard : would you consider including benches of multiple simultaneous things?

- a whole bunch of "one bench with something else in the background"
- one or two of "one bench with several things in the background"
- perhaps even 2 simultaneous benches with moderate to high CPU intensity

Obviously, what's in the background needs to be intensive enough to affect the bench run, plus it also needs to attempt to "copy" a "normal user".

Ahh,i see what you did there. Busting a myth "SINGLE THREAD IS ALL THAT MATTER" ?

 

[dicktracy]

I don't understand why reviewers are using the old 1080 Ti to test brand new CPUs... Tom's Hardware is even worse... a GTX 1080... ROFL. GPU bottleneck ensues.

 

[Robcostyle]

Actually, for me, it's kinda of a huge dissapointment (As entire hardware market this year). I mean, yeah, great! - latest intel arch + 8c16t would crush everything, literally.
But...
doubtfull 5GHz OC (many reviewers stucked at 4.8-5.1GHz allcore, with awfull temps) - that means my 8700K 5GHz 1.35-1.4V with temps around 60-80 under water is not so bad. And I'm not even talking about golden chips with 1.2V requirement. Thus, since I don't have any solid opportuity to bin CPUs by myself (and I don't want to pay trice price to silicon lottery for 5.3GHz silicon) - that means I have a decently high chance ending up with worse CPU for 600$.
100% guaranteed 5-5.3GHz overclock with low temps due to STIM and 9900K binning - that the first thing I hoped for. Unfortunately, its waaaay off the reality.

Second - any improvements over 8700K in games - like, more cores/threads available for pure game + more cores/threads for backfground = nanolatency and mindBLOWING 0.1% frame. It did happend, but not how I imagine that.

Soo, in the end. + 61% price for +1.8% perfomance. Nah, even slicky jensen has more to offer - for example, godlike rays and drake's DLSS aliasing.
They want too much for so less

 

[newtekie1]

I think the price is justified. It is trading blows with $900+ processors. The problem, IMO, is people judging this just as a gaming chip. This processor, IMO, is not a gaming chip. If you want to game, and that's your only concern, buy an i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K. This processor is for people that do more with the CPU than just play games, and for those of us that do that, this is an absolute bargain compared to going with a HEDT platform.

I don't understand why reviewers are using the old 1080 Ti to test brand new CPUs... Tom's Hardware is even worse... a GTX 1080... ROFL. GPU bottleneck ensues.

It doesn't really matter if you are including 720p results. If you prefer a 2080Ti be used, just use a sharpie to mark out the 720p on the graphs and put 1080p, the results will likely be pretty close to the same.

The reality is, for games you are usually always going to be GPU bound. You aren't going to be buying a 2080Ti and then playing at 1080p, just like no one with a 1080Ti plays at 720p. You crank the settings until the GPU can't handle it anymore. At this point, with any reasonably powerful CPU, the CPU is not going to be what is making the game unplayable your GPU is.

 

[kajson]

I'd love to see someone delid one of these new cpu's and use Intels old TIM style on it, and see what the actual difference is in temps.. Not sure if the new STIM is even removable though.. Just want to know if it is a "feature" or if the chips would be severely crippled had they gone with the old TIM.

 

[Ruru]

I don't understand why reviewers are using the old 1080 Ti to test brand new CPUs... Tom's Hardware is even worse... a GTX 1080... ROFL. GPU bottleneck ensues.

1080 Ti is still powerful and I have a strong feeling that people have more them, than those overpriced RTX cards..

That "IHS is now soldered again" is just a joke.

 

[XiGMAKiD]

9900K and RTX 2080 Ti are a match made in Heaven, both are the best for playing games with RTRT at 720p60

But seriously, for $500 I expect no less than the best performance

 

[R0H1T]

I'd love to see someone delid one of these new cpu's and use Intels old TIM style on it, and see what the actual difference is in temps.. Not sure if the new STIM is even removable though.. Just want to know if it is a "feature" or if the chips would be severely crippled had they gone with the old TIM.

Removing solder is like playing poker with your eyes closed, that is to say it's simply not worth the gamble especially for such an expensive chip.

 

[dicktracy]

1080 Ti is still powerful and I have a strong feeling that people have more them, than those overpriced RTX cards..

That "IHS is now soldered again" is just a joke.

People who wants to buy a highend CPU right now are most likely interested in the 20 series such as 2080 Ti. I can see the gap between the 9900k and 2700x increase further when using a 2080 Ti, let alone with DLSS (AMD's nightmare).

 

[Octopuss]

Lmao. I'm still running a 3770K and there's no chance in hell I'd get this CPU. Like ShurikN mentioned, I could literally buy a 2700X + motherboard + 16GB RAM for the same price as this CPU alone, with only a small performance decrease across the board. But I've held off on that for this long so I can wait a few more months for Zen 2. The 9900K isn't even a consideration with that price/performance.

I've just checked prices.
This ridiculous crap cost more than twice as much as 2700K. I'd have to be retarded to buy this.

Still running 3770K here. I don't like anymore and I really need some more cores, but I'll wait for Zen2. There's no way in hell I'd go with Intel again (last time I had AMD CPU was in 2003 I believe, AthlonXP).

 

[ShurikN]

People who wants to buy a highend CPU right now are most likely interested in the 20 series such as 2080 Ti. I can see the gap between the 9900k and 2700x increase further when using a 2080 Ti, let alone with DLSS (AMD's nightmare).

I believe Hardware Unboxed used a 2080ti, and the percentage gap was still around 12%

 

[EatingDirt]

I think the price is justified. It is trading blows with $900+ processors. The problem, IMO, is people judging this just as a gaming chip. This processor, IMO, is not a gaming chip. If you want to game, and that's your only concern, buy an i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K. This processor is for people that do more with the CPU than just play games, and for those of us that do that, this is an absolute bargain compared to going with a HEDT platform.

It's not comparable to HEDT CPU. It doesn't have is Quad Channel+ RAM or an acceptable amount of PCIe Lanes to be a serious HEDT.