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

[mcraygsx]

I would love to pick one up just to add it to collection only if it came with standard 3 year warranty which it does not.

"Limited Warranty period (parts): 1 year"

 

[kapone32]

I would love to pick one up just to add it to collection only if it came with standard 3 year warranty which it does not.

"Limited Warranty period (parts): 1 year"

I am sure somewhere in the small print that this will say warranty voided if OC by user.

 

[EarthDog]

I am sure somewhere in the small print that this will say warranty voided if OC by user.

You don't have to read the small print. Intel does not support/warranty overclocking regardless without buying their extra overclocking warranty. The Performance Tuning Protection Plan.

AMD doesn't cover overclocking either AFAIK.

 

[biffzinker]

Techspot has their review up.

Intel Core i9-9900KS Review

Intel launched today the "new" Core i9-9900KS processor which appears to be a pointless release, similar to the Core i7-8086K that we never bothered to look at....

www.techspot.com

System Power Consumption:

No difference from the 9900K when overclocking the 9900KS

Just like the Core i9-9900K, the 9900KS seems to struggle with 5.2 GHz. With a bit more tweaking it might be possible to get it stable in heavy workloads but we're almost certain 5.3 GHz is out of the question.

Our Core i9-9900KS ran all cores at 5.1 GHz by default on the Aorus Ultra and temperatures using an AIO were reasonable. Paying the small price difference for the 9900KS if you’re after a high performance version of the 9900K, isn’t terrible though the 1-year warranty kind of sucks.

If you were already in the market for a Core i9-9900K processor and you were keen to overclock it, then the 9900KS makes sense.

 

[kapone32]

You don't have to read the small print. Intel does not support/warranty overclocking regardless without buying their extra overclocking warranty. The Performance Tuning Protection Plan.

AMD doesn't cover overclocking either AFAIK.

Yes I know it states that when you open Ryzen Master. but seriously paying for a warranty on a 1 year CPU.......priceless

 

[EarthDog]

Yes I know it states that when you open Ryzen Master. but seriously paying for a warranty on a 1 year CPU.......priceless

I mean if you are going to overclock and can bork it doing so, why not? The PTPP goes for the K series and other CPUs with a 3 year warranty. Why not is my take? At least if it dies you can get a new one without being shady and playing dumb. Otherwise, you don't pay the $30(?) dollars and be shady on return or eat it in case it does fail. It's an option...doesn't mean anyone has to use it.

 

[kapone32]

I mean if you are going to overclock and can bork it doing so, why not? The PTPP goes for the K series and other CPUs with a 3 year warranty. Why not is my take? At least if it dies you can get a new one without being shady and playing dumb. Otherwise, you don't pay the $30(?) dollars and be shady on return or eat it in case it does fail. It's an option...doesn't mean anyone has to use it.

Understood it is just like the extra warranty Amazon sells you when you buy hard drives well anything electronic really.

 

[John Naylor]

When the competition doesn't include IGP, the KF became a great option for less money... great option for gamers who edit photos and videos ... the 9900k was faster in these appklications to begin with and now it's cheaper.... good news for 3900x folks also as it will inevitable force the price down. Now with the KS, I'll ahve to take a wait and see approach amd see how well it compares with the KF OC results

 

[efikkan]

When the competition doesn't include IGP, the KF became a great option for less money... great option for gamers who edit photos and videos ... the 9900k was faster in these appklications to begin with and now it's cheaper.... good news for 3900x folks also as it will inevitable force the price down. Now with the KS, I'll ahve to take a wait and see approach amd see how well it compares with the KF OC results

Seriously, who needs the power of a i9-9900K(S) but not a dedicated graphics card?
The only reason why Intel include IGP for the K-models is they use the same dies for OEM focused models, where IGP is a huge selling point.
I hope Intel in the future makes slightly different dies optimized for the custom builders (K-models) with no IGP, perhaps some cache tweaks etc. or something that is better use of that die space. It's such a waste when 99% of the buyers will never use that IGP…

 

[John Naylor]

IGP is a great selling point ... relevant question however is, why pay an extra $50 if you don't need it. And since the 3900x doesn't have one, that makes Intel better and cheaper for most uses

IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc

 

[efikkan]

IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc

So what is the purpose of this? To prevent the second screen from turning black when launching a game?
From what I've seen monitors hooked up to different GPUs can cause some serious stutter.

 

[EarthDog]

IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen

It is? I've never done that when I had an IGP. Just ran it off the discrete GPU.

It's been years since amd or Intel touted that technology.

 

[candle_86]

IGP is popular among gamers who have a 2nd screen for browser, utilities, game data, etc

This isn't 2004 anymore, you can run 3 screens per card and have only one display for gaming the other 2 for other tasks, the days of needing multiple GPU's for multiple monitors ended with Nview and Hydravision

 

[ratirt]

All microprocessors go through binning, which only means they sort it by "quality".
i9-9900KS is not more binned than i9-9900K, just a higher (or different) bin.

Exactly. So why I have a feeling, that the binning process is not qualification but enhancement of a chip considering some people's posts here? 4x binning to make it better binned or better quality?
Isn't that weird?

No difference from the 9900K when overclocking the 9900KS

Maybe not so different but the power consumption is up a fair bit and shorter warranty. That is a bummer considering these chips are to be maxed out or exceed specs noticeably. I guess, they are taking some precautions for broken chips.

 

[anachron]

Maybe not so different but the power consumption is up a fair bit and shorter warranty. That is a bummer considering these chips are to be maxed out or exceed specs noticeably. I guess, they are taking some precautions for broken chips.

The power consumption is only up when you compare the 9900k to the 9900ks at respective stock speed. When overclocking, the 9900ks actually consume less power for the same clock than the 9900k due to better binning (less voltage to achieve same clock speed).

 

[ratirt]

The power consumption is only up when you compare the 9900k to the 9900ks at respective stock speed. When overclocking, the 9900ks actually consume less power for the same clock than the 9900k due to better binning (less voltage to achieve same clock speed).

I did not see the power consumption measurement while OC. For me the stock 9900 consume a lot power to begin with. 9900KS consumes even more at stock than 9900K. It will consume way more when OC'ed. Maybe the KS will consume less when OC'ed to 5.2Ghz in comparison with 9900K but it will still consume more than at its stock state. I'm sure the consumption for the 9900KS when OC'ed will go over 300Watts easily or maybe even 350.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

350W for the 9900KS + OC?? I wonder how much does a binned 9900KS pulls though? 330 or so? But for how much more of a premium?

 

[ratirt]

350W for the 9900KS + OC?? I wonder how much does a binned 9900KS pulls though? 330 or so? But for how much more of a premium?

This is nice to watch. It does show a lot of the KS version of 9900 series CPU.

 

[efikkan]

Exactly. So why I have a feeling, that the binning process is not qualification but enhancement of a chip considering some people's posts here? 4x binning to make it better binned or better quality?

Isn't that weird?

After a wafer is cut, each chip is validated and put in different "bins" based on quality, thereby the name "binning". This process is done once (unless done by a third party), repeating it will not make the chip better.
I don't know where this "4x binning" comes from, it makes no sense.

 

[trog100]

After a wafer is cut, each chip is validated and put in different "bins" based on quality, thereby the name "binning". This process is done once (unless done by a third party), repeating it will not make the chip better.
I don't know where this "4x binning" comes from, it makes no sense.

the first bin could be to see if it make the 9900 grade.. if not it would go into a 9700 bin.. the second bin could be to see if it makes the K grade if not would go in the 9900 bin.. one more bin from the 9900k grade to get the KS grade.. maybe not X4 but more than X1..

i am assuming that lesser chips all come from failed 9900 chips.. or with good yields deliberately crippled chips to meet market demand..

i bought a 9900k chip a while back before all the good or better ones went into the KS bin.. my chip is running 5 g at 1.24 volts i recon my thinking panned out.. but at 1.35 or so to get 5 g i still dont see how they are keeping the KS chip cool enough..

trog

 

[efikkan]

the first bin could be to see if it make the 9900 grade.. if not it would go into a 9700 bin.. the second bin could be to see if it makes the K grade if not would go in the 9900 bin.. one more bin from the 9900k grade to get the KS grade.. maybe not X4 but more than X1..

After each chip is tested, they know which bin it goes into, they don't have to re-test it. Then they know which features are defective, the quality of each core, memory controller etc. There is no need to re-test them to find golden samples etc.

 

[ratirt]

After each chip is tested, they know which bin it goes into, they don't have to re-test it. Then they know which features are defective, the quality of each core, memory controller etc. There is no need to re-test them to find golden samples etc.

I agree but even if they do retest it is not going to end up in higher grade bin but lower only.
Maybe when evaluation of the 9900K is done and there are chips in that bin they evaluate them again to see if they can do better than what 9900K spec says and they end-up as better quality products?
That kinda explains the KS CPU.
Anyway it seems like Intel has made a market product out of higher quality product than their previous purpose.

 

[medi01]

Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games

Nothing "sure" about it.
For starters, you'd need to overpower the game in terms of GPU, for even see any difference.
For which TPU ended up running 720p game tests with overprice piece of crap like 2080Ti.
And then, YMMV, lol:

 

[EarthDog]

Nothing "sure" about it.
For starters, you'd need to overpower the game in terms of GPU, for even see any difference.
For which TPU ended up running 720p game tests with overprice piece of crap like 2080Ti.
And then, YMMV, lol:

View attachment 135364

The thing is, Medi, that most people game at 1080p or less... with that notion, many titles can be CPU limited and hold a mid-range+ GPU back. It doesn't take a 2080 Ti and 720p to show how a fast CPU can help push FPS at 1080p. Now, when the resolution gets higher, it really doesn't matter. But for those chasing every FPS, generally, the Intel chip has AMD beat... either by little or by a few/several percent.

But hey, at least you pulled your shit together here and got the right information/graph (though clearly cherry picked for your fanboy purpose)...unlike here.


So tired of the polarizing BULLSHIT at this website and nothing being done about it.

 

[ratirt]

I don't think people run games lower than 1080p unless if the graphics is an iGPu and they have no other choice.