Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS, World's Best Processor for Gaming Made Better

[EarthDog]

only 127 tdb XD

TDP?

Hey! A bit more than half of the 225W FX 9590 that the feeble haters toss out as a comparison!!!

8370 - 9590 - 100W difference or 80%
9900k to 9900KS = 32W difference or ~35% increase.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

...

Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off

Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...

 

[EarthDog]

I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...

LOL, No you wouldn't.

 

[E-curbi]

Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off

Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...

LOL, 5.3Ghz or 5.4Ghz 9900KS. I'd only spend the extra dollars for a workstation "Return On Investment" build or if you're really INTO Speed Parts as a hobby. lol

Average daily use? Um NO!

 

[Konceptz]

Intel doesn't handle defeat well......

 

[Tomgang]

So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

And it's not like 9900ks is massively faster than 9900k. Base clock is bumped 400 mhz while max all core boost is measly 300 mhz, so yeah 9900ks is a bit faster, but far from a game changer.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.

 

[EarthDog]

So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.

In anything else that uses more than 8c/8t, yep!

 

[sam_86314]

So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.

9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL

 

[E-curbi]

In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!

Exactly. If your working apps only utilize for example 6threads or 8threads or 10threads at maximum design, your workloads will run faster and complete sooner with a higher frequency - higher clocking CPU. 8700K or 8086K or 9900KS.

BUT if your work apps can utilize MORE than 16threaded workloads continuously, then a better choice is the Ryzen 3000 CPUs.

A simple rule of thumb for work computers.

Not certain why the common theme for creators and workstation computers seems to be 28cores or 36cores - more cores the better, when many of us use single and slightly-threaded work apps all day long and benefit more from higher frequency capable processors.

----

For play computers - the best rule of thumb = buy whatever turns you on and makes you happy.


This video, the Intel guy explains 9900KS internal binning:

 

[PerfectWave]

9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.

it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited

 

[EarthDog]

it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited

Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...

 

[PerfectWave]

Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...

Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....

 

[Tomgang]

In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!

I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.

9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.

Exactly my point. 9900KS wins in most games, but as a cpu needed for for every thing. 3900X is a better all over performer and also if you stream your gaming then 3900X is also a better solution.

 

[EarthDog]

Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....

Steam survive????????????????

Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?

I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.

Last I recall IPC was around the same. Give or take. WHere AMD does shine is when it can use SMT. Its' SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.

 

[Tomgang]

Steam survive????????????????

Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?


Last I recall IPC was around the same. Give or take. WHere AMD does shine is when it can use SMT. Its' SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.

As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.

 

[EarthDog]

As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.

Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.

I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.

 

[AddSub]

And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL

No. It wont.

I don't really post anymore but, I do own (not owned, OWN) every CPU from 80486DX through 8xxx Intel and Ryzen. I benchmark as a hobby, and have for decades, mostly retro benchmarking lately.... anyway, not to get off track too much, but Ryzen is severely deficient at feeding those frames at the lower end such as 1024x768 (3DMark 2001 SE and games from the Dx7-8 era). In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580. Think about that, a 10 year old GPU.

Now you guys may continue with the corp A vs. corp B silliness. Just had to correct that little bit of nonsense.

 

[eidairaman1]

Drivel attempt from intel

 

[Tomgang]

Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.

I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.

Ah yeah give or take.

Oh yeah Intel got a much needed wake up call from amd that technology doesn't stay still. And yeah thanks to AMD I can now get me a 16 core cpu for half the price of intels i9 9960X and funny that Intel does not have a 16 core in there 10000 series line up this time. No matter what, it's a good time to be replacing my old i7 980x cpu.

 

[trog100]

"Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "

maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..

trog

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

Is this the one with the defective GPU?

 

[EarthDog]

"Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "

maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..

trog

Yes trog, sure, you will not be limited by using a potato for a GPU... which makes complete sense when buying the 'fastest' gaming CPU around...

Anyone can find reasons to bunk anything... if you want to hang your hat on the edges and make that a reality for the majority, go right on ahead.

 

[E-curbi]

Drivel attempt from intel

That's all they got right now. I'm also feeling a bit same ol same ol with 14nm so the waiting game continues, lol

No single-core performance improvements over an 8086K (from 2018) capable of 5.5Ghz 6c/12t all day long until Rocket Lake 2021?(14nm reverse ported from 10nm?). Geez, and that's a LONG wait and a BIG maybe.

Unless AMD's pulls off a miracle next year 2020 with Ryzen 4000, and they may do just that.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580.

All of those older rendering benchmarks are just CPU benchmarks when run with modern GPUs, happens with both xLake and ryzen.

You aren't specifying what ryzen chips you are running, but you have to keep in mind there is a massive difference in smoothness between the zen2 and zen/+ chips though, again a lot down to the cache sizes, but also zen2 has a better front end in general, so the prefetching and scheduling is better than zen/+.

zen/+ I wouldn't recommend for 144hz, but the 3600 is effectively on par with the intel parts in the vast majority of games. The other thing is that in a lot of games where the zen2 parts struggle to pull 144hz, xLake parts do as well.