Intel Core i9-9900K

[dicktracy]

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

On average with a 2080 Ti. O.O AMD has a lot of catching up to do.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-cpu-test/

 

[E-curbi]

Sorry if I'm a little late to the party. I just saw this Der8auer video.

Now we have to pay for a delid and a grind?


"The 9900K is the fastest gaming CPU on the planet!"

(IFF - you are playing two games simultaneously, and streaming both games, also simultaneously.)

IFF from Calculus courses if I remember correctly means IF and only IF. Oh Intel, what are we gonna do with you?

 

[newtekie1]

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.

Yes, that would be why it is still $400 cheaper. But if you don't need the Quad-Channel RAM or extra PCI-E lanes, it would be a hard sell to go with a 7900X over a 9900K.

 

[Ruru]

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).

If I'd get a 1000+ eur graphics card, I'd go for HEDT platform.

 

[GoldenX]

Yes, that would be why it is still $400 cheaper. But if you don't need the Quad-Channel RAM or extra PCI-E lanes, it would be a hard sell to go with a 7900X over a 9900K.

I would go for a 2700X then, have similar multi thread preformance and save money. Getting a used Threadripper + GT1030 is also an option.

Man good thing it's soldered, it would meltdown otherwise.

 

[Ruru]

I would go for a 2700X then, have similar multi thread preformance and save money. Getting a used Threadripper + GT1030 is also an option.

Man good thing it's soldered, it would meltdown otherwise.

The soldering is a joke. Watch the video by der8auer.

 

[EatingDirt]

Yes, that would be why it is still $400 cheaper. But if you don't need the Quad-Channel RAM or extra PCI-E lanes, it would be a hard sell to go with a 7900X over a 9900K.

The 7900x has simply always had awful value. In fact the entirety of intel's current HEDT platform has been pretty awful compared to AMD's Threadripper, with only a few reasons to go intel's HEDT over AMD's, the main reasons being clock speed & AVX sensitive workloads. (For value comparison as of this thread: The 1920x, a 12/24 CPU, is currently $434 on Newegg & 394 on Amazon.)

The 9900k is simply a bad HEDT CPU, and it's an awful value consumer CPU. Its niche is almost so small, it's non-existent.

 

[John Naylor]

A great piece of hardware for an almost criminally high price compered to the competition.

As compared to what ?

"A surprising result is that Core i9-9900K matches performance of AMD's 16-core / 32-thread Threadripper 2950X processor when averaged over our whole CPU test suite. " Can't quite understand why $530 is "criminally" high and $800 is not ? If you are like 98% of PC users, then don't buy either.

"The new Intel Core i9-9900K finally puts eight-cores and 16-threads into the hands of gamers, consumers and enthusiasts" ... "Intel's own marketing paraded the Core i9-9900K as the best processor for gamers. While that is technically true, the differences are rather slim in our own testing.

Goes to what I was saying all along ... The focus on cores is meaningless for most of what 98% of PC users do every day. So yes, like the $900 Threadripper, it's great at stuff most folks never do, so why those folks would spend more for a processor that doesn't help them in any way is kinda puzzling.

The more appropriate comparison is the $399 9700k ... just $20 more then the $8700k and sure to drop as supplies increase and the "I must be 1st on block with new crowd" has filled their quota or the $289 9600k ... again just $20 more then the $8600k. Also not thet wholesale price is $488 ($42 markup) for the Core i9-9900K, $374 ($25 markup) for the Core i7-9700K, and $262 ($27 markup) for the Core i5-9600K

Are we gonna see any significant increase in gaming performance ? When was the last time that happened ? ... Sandy bridge. But soldered IHS is easily worth $20 on it's own, the chipset's support for 10 Gbps and integrated Wi-Fi 802.11ac will be of value to some, but personally, I see no value in Wifi for desktops ... apartment dwellers obviously will and that saves some money upgrading to a MoBo with 'on board" WiFi as a separate chip that must be added.

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's not Florida's fault that it doesn't snow there so residents can take advanage of 4WD. I have been hearing the advantage of more than 4/8 cores for 2+ years now and not seen anything yet.

I am going to say it up front, I prefer Intel over AMD. But looking at these benchmarks and going over the price difference, it makes me sad to admit that

I play my games at 1440p and when I compare the performance differences between the 9900k and 2700X, I just can't figure out the insane price difference

So why are you comparing the 9900k to the 2700x ? Why not the $900 2950X for which the 9900k has comparable performance ?

"A surprising result is that Core i9-9900K matches performance of AMD's 16-core / 32-thread Threadripper 2950X processor when averaged over our whole CPU test suite. "

The proper comparison would be the $399 9700k and the $305 2700x still significant price difference but by no means insane, especially considering difference in OC potential.

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 need a 8/16 core CPU for workstation apps then you but a $500 CPU ... if you're gaming, why would you buy the 9700k or 9600k ?

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.

I prefer to pass the old PC on and build new.... sure the cost is bigger doing it all at once... but if "time is money", then it's a losing proposition, especially on a WC build and also "can you afford to have PC down while you do it ?"..,, many make a living on thier PCs ... so what what works for anyone depends in individual situation

As for two Pcs on ya desk, a bit space limiting and, the option exists to put two in one box ....

 

[Fluffmeister]

On average with a 2080 Ti. O.O AMD has a lot of catching up to do.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-cpu-test/
View attachment 108998

Once again the i5 8400 continues to shine!

 

[GoldenX]

Once again the i5 8400 continues to shine!

The list is still the same, G4560, R3 1200, i5 8400. Those are the best gaming CPUs.

Get that 600 bucks nuclear reactor Skylake out of my face.

 

[John Naylor]

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.

I don't understand the comparisons ... as the review states, the 9900k has comparable CPU performance as the $900 2950x so why is it being compared to the 2700x ? Wouldn't the proper comparison be the 9700k ?

Another review where I am dumbfounded with the conclusion of "Editor's Choice".

Leaves me wondering if the reviewer read his own review.

As above .... 9900k's average CPU performance is same as 2950X ... 20% better gaming performance then Ryzen 2700x. I don't "get" the more cores thing as only 2% of PC users will see any benefit of "more cores", but then again all we been hearing for 2 years has been "OK, Ryzen can't catch Intel in gaming but it has more cores if ya want to do anything else". Has this ceased to be true literally overnight ? It's never been true in my book but I don't understand the sudden reversal. If you don't need 8/16 core CPU then no need to buy one.

I think Steve from Hardware Unboxed said it best. "For whom was this chip made?!"
It's marginally better than 8700K in gaming while costing $150-200 more.
It's marginally better than 2700X in productivity while costing almost two times more.

How about the poterntial 2950x customer who wants better gaming and cupla $100 bills left in his pocket.

 

[GoldenX]

AMD has SMT on the 8 core models.

 

[R-T-B]

Now we have to pay for a delid and a grind?

According to a guy who literally makes a living selling those types of services, yes. Personally I doubt you'll see much difference. Solder is more or less solder and thickness of the bond won't account for much.

 

[Tom_]

Weird... how consumption of the 9900k can be less than the 8700k?

Are you drunk?
The 9900K draws over 200W under load, even without overclocking.

 

[hat]

So, we're back to Pentium vs Athlon? Intel's hot, power hungry chips with lots of gigglehurtz are slightly faster than AMD's cheaper, more efficient offerings.

 

[trparky]

I think Steve from Hardware Unboxed said it best. "For whom was this chip made?!"
It's marginally better than 8700K in gaming while costing $150-200 more.
It's marginally better than 2700X in productivity while costing almost two times more.

Not to mention you can get an entire 2700X system with mobo and 16GB of ram for the same preorder/inflated price

It sure looks like Intel lost their way. Epic fail.

Not only that, but you can't hit the same clocks as a delided 8700K. Plus, you need a monster of a cooler for any type of OC. And even with it, it'll still hit 90C.

Gotta hand it to Intel, they made both 2700X and original Coffee Lake look amazing.

Further proof that Intel forgot how to compete. Now that they have an AMD that's actually competitive nipping at their heels they don't know how to react.

 

[mcraygsx]

To me this looks like "working as intended". The CPU is rated for 95 W, so it'll run at 95 W max (it can go beyond that for a short duration).

If you have a better heatsink -> dial up the TDP. If Intel magically changed their 95 W parts to 150 W over night via BIOS update, all hell would break lose

Excellent point, thank you for reply.

Sorry if I'm a little late to the party. I just saw this Der8auer video.

Now we have to pay for a delid and a grind?


"The 9900K is the fastest gaming CPU on the planet!"

(IFF - you are playing two games simultaneously, and streaming both games, also simultaneously.)

IFF from Calculus courses if I remember correctly means IF and only IF. Oh Intel, what are we gonna do with you?

At this point INTEL can take a lesson from AMD's Gold plated Solder used in RYZEN.

 

[E-curbi]

Now it’s a delidding plus a sanding.

Would you like your 9900K quarter-sanded, half-sanded or fully-sanded?

We charge $50 for every 0.2mm.

Don’t worry, we have a special this week on a quarter sanding…And if you can’t afford that, well there’s always my daughter … Sandy.

 

[GoldenX]

What about good olde lapping after the delidding and sanding?

 

[EatingDirt]

I don't understand the comparisons ... as the review states, the 9900k has comparable CPU performance as the $900 2950x so why is it being compared to the 2700x ? Wouldn't the proper comparison be the 9700k ?

How about the poterntial 2950x customer who wants better gaming and cupla $100 bills left in his pocket.

First off, saying the "9900k is comparable to the 2950x" is misleading. In well threaded workloads, that utilize all the cores well, the 2950x is well ahead of the 9900k as seen in these benchmarks:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/images/wprime.png
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/images/veracrypt.png
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/images/7zip-pack.png
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/images/7zip-unpack.png

Where the 9900k excels in the CPU comparison, the 8700k also often excels, and that is in single threaded workloads such Microsoft Office & Photo Editing(activities where the difference between the fastest & slowest workloads is less than 1 second).

Someone property utilizing the 2950x (and even all the way down to a 1920x(which is cheaper than the 9900k currently btw)) probably wouldn't even consider a 9900k as an option.

 

[HTC]

The price / performance should be amended when compared to other CPUs that come with cooler, regardless of manufacturer, i think:

- if the test is @ stock and the CPU does not come with a stock cooler, then add to the CPU's price, the price of whatever cooler is deemed need for it to be able to run @ stock
- if the test is overclocked then try to have all CPUs use the same cooler, regardless if the CPUs came with stock cooler or not. Obviously this isn't always possible due to socket incompatibility, such as TR3 VS AM4, for example: in all of these cases, the price of the cooler should be added to the CPUs, from both camps, and only then the price / performance ratio should be calculated

In the case of this particular review, only the 9900K was overclocked so only it needs to add the price of whatever cooler was used while those CPUs it's compared to need to add zero if they came with a stock cooler or the price of whatever cooler used to be able to run @ stock, and only then do the price / performance ratio.

 

[1d10t]

"The 9900K is the fastest gaming CPU on the planet!"
(IFF - you are playing two games simultaneously, and streaming both games, also simultaneously.)
IFF from Calculus courses if I remember correctly means IF and only IF. Oh Intel, what are we gonna do with you?

Well I do play games ( Battlefield 1 ultra settings + HDR ) and streamed them while running Linux's VM in background, all said and done with just crappy Ryzen 5 1600.Did i overdo it?

Something that hadn't exposed yet,that larger gap between base clocks and turbo clocks tend to make spikes in game. I don't know if anyone notice or worse, reluctant to admitted it. My observation concludes AMD CPU are low in fps,but they keep stable as long as it is with barely noticeable impact.On the other hand, Intel CPU high in fps but declining over time, both happened in 7700K and the worst are 8700K,reaching "visible" spikes.

 

[fabtech]

HARWARE UNBOXED 9900K OC 85C with a CUSTOM LOOP 360 ! So exit KRAKEN X72 and other AIO for 5GHZ and more... Well Done Intel !

 

[GoldenX]

Something that hadn't exposed yet,that larger gap between base clocks and turbo clocks tend to make spikes in game. I don't know if anyone notice or worse, reluctant to admitted it. My observation concludes AMD CPU are low in fps,but they keep stable as long as it is with barely noticeable impact.On the other hand, Intel CPU high in fps but declining over time, both happened in 7700K and the worst are 8700K,reaching "visible" spikes.

Shh, let them dream. "Best gaming CPU".

 

[Captain_Tom]

On average with a 2080 Ti. O.O AMD has a lot of catching up to do.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-cpu-test/
View attachment 108998

The 9900K is literally the most powerful chip for gaming Intel can make now, and in the next 2 years. Period.

Meanwhile AMD didn't even bother to make an R7 2800X because they knew Intel would have to spend twice as much money to win by 10% - might as well let them and sell the best yields on EPYC. Intel has a lot of catching up to do... although they probably won't till 2022.