Intel Core i9-9900KS

[oxrufiioxo]

What memory is that? Wouldnt you want that in the 4000mhz range??

its a garbage 3200 kit I now run at 3600..... Corsair RGB PRO CL16


I have a bdie kit that can do 4000 but I am too lazy to mess with it lol

 

[mrthanhnguyen]

Maybe more expensive MB ? Im using the asus prime-a. All I do to oc is set to xmp, sync all core and set the voltage. Test in realbench and aida64.

 

[Xzibit]

LOL. This review just reminded me what an excellent bang-for-buck the 3700x is.

When stress testing the 9900K(S) above 5ghz you can fit (2) 3700X systems in that power envelope

 

[heflys20]

When stress testing the 9900K(S) above 5ghz you can fit (2) 3700X systems in that power envelope

Funny part is that overclocking it doesn't even provide that much of a performance increase (when reflecting on the ridiculous efficiency), and it still loses to the 3900x in most CPU related tasks (aside from gaming). Such a silly product, IMHO. Plus, the 3950x is right around the corner.

 

[GoldenX]

At 1080P, only Sekiro and Farcry 5 show any significant difference between the 9900KS and the 3900X. Obviously this is some kind of game optimization for Intel. If you drop (or at least substitute for two others) these two games then the performance will be the same.

Am I missing something here?

Some games are more sensitive to latency, and Zen2 mitigated the problem, didn't solve it. Just because Zen2 is faster, that doesn't mean it will always be faster.

 

[my_name_is_earl]

I still see no reason to upgrade my 8700k. So sad, expected more.

 

[Rob94hawk]

A lot of great cpu's to choose from! Makes me want to build a rig just for myself and start gaming again.

In all honesty though, until the base clock is 5.0 Ghz, I'm not impressed. This should have happened years ago.

Till then I'll just keep doing whatever with my old 4770k.

 

[notb]

Most comment authors missed the point as usual.
It's not about winning benchmarks. It's about winning in a particular niche. Because that's how OEMs and many consumers choose CPUs.

This is the fastest gaming CPU. End of story. Gamers who want to squeeze the most fps will buy this over a Ryzen - 9900K (even 9700K) was already good enough and this just adds a bit of margin over what AMD provides.

On the "working" front: 9900KS is going to be the fastest CPU available for many mainstream applications (like Photoshop), so Intel won't have any trouble selling these to OEMs - assuming there's any need (because gamers may suck the whole supply).
That said, 9900KS isn't vPro-compliant (unlike 9900K), so Intel is not targeting business-class workstations with this. It's only for gamers and prosumers.

And of course this is, by far and away, the fastest CPU with integrated graphics.
But that's nothing new since the fastest AMD's one is 3400G - basically half as fast, with countless Intel alternatives between them (even many mobile).
It means that at this point Intel is already faster than a theoretical maxed-out Zen2 AM4 APU (3700X + IGP). And they're going to add 2 more cores in the next 14nm generation.

 

[GoldenX]

That's the problem, next 14nm generation, again. This shit is too old by now, Skylake will be 5 years old by then.

 

[notb]

That's the problem, next 14nm generation, again. This shit is too old by now, Skylake will be 5 years old by then.

This may as well be 20 years old. Or it may be 320nm++++++. It's all just pointless numbers. It's not what computers are about.

You may buy a CPU because it's more modern or because it does better in reviews/benchmarks. But that's because you care about stuff other than actually using a PC. You care what's inside the case.
Some people on this forum openly admit that they're more interested in hardware than in software. I.e. they buy a PC as a collectors item or a DIY hobby - not as a tool (for the same reason many people here are against cloud in general).

Typical consumers are extremely pragmatic - simply because they don't know (and don't care) how a CPU is made or how it works. They only care what it does for them.
Most people don't even like PCs. A PC is something they're forced to use at work or at home.

Will someone like that consciously buy a 9900K(S)? Of course he won't. He doesn't even know what 9900K is.
But will he end up getting a 9900K(S) because he needs a PC to edit videos or do some scientific/engineering/financial computations? Likely yes.

 

[phill]

Great review there @W1zzard It seems there's very little offering over the original 9900k which is a shame but if I was going to buy one, that would be my choice of CPU...

For 8 core 16 thread CPUs tho, the AMD's are amazingly good value. In the gaming tests that matter 1080P or greater, there's not masses in it and as it's been said before in the thread, they are the best value for money here.

 

[Ruru]

Worst CPU since the 9000 series FX.

This is why they should've named this as 9900EE, "Emergency Edition" like they had those P4 and Pentium D EEs..

 

[GreiverBlade]

This is why they should've named this as 9900EE, "Emergency Edition" like they had those P4 and Pentium D EEs..

i thought it was "PE" : Physical Educa.... errrr Panic Edition

Most comment authors missed the point as usual.
It's not about winning benchmarks. It's about winning in a particular niche. Because that's how OEMs and many consumers choose CPUs.

This is the fastest gaming CPU. End of story. Gamers who want to squeeze the most fps will buy this over a Ryzen - 9900K (even 9700K) was already good enough and this just adds a bit of margin over what AMD provides.

On the "working" front: 9900KS is going to be the fastest CPU available for many mainstream applications (like Photoshop), so Intel won't have any trouble selling these to OEMs - assuming there's any need (because gamers may suck the whole supply).
That said, 9900KS isn't vPro-compliant (unlike 9900K), so Intel is not targeting business-class workstations with this. It's only for gamers and prosumers.

And of course this is, by far and away, the fastest CPU with integrated graphics.
But that's nothing new since the fastest AMD's one is 3400G - basically half as fast, with countless Intel alternatives between them (even many mobile).
It means that at this point Intel is already faster than a theoretical maxed-out Zen2 AM4 APU (3700X + IGP). And they're going to add 2 more cores in the next 14nm generation.

well ... i let the KS to the OEM, as an enthusiast on a budget (yes it does exist) i rather take 3fps less for 295$ less

 

[Space Lynx]

30 fps faster at 1440p over my ryzen 3600 in far cry 5.

i wonder if older games like divinity original sin 2, or dragon age origins 1, 2, 3, etc also see these kinds of gains with intel. :/ might not matter though since those games are so old anyway my 3600 prob maxes them out anyway at 1440p 144hz

 

[Basard]

$500-$600 for a "gaming" cpu. No wonder people love their consoles.

You could always buy an FX chip and an RX 570 if u want that sweet console experience on a PC.

 

[AusWolf]

Is this a test to see how far Intel fans are willing to go to buy the "latest" tech? (in captions because there is nothing "latest" about this processor)

 

[Space Lynx]

Is this a test to see how far Intel fans are willing to go to buy the "latest" tech? (in captions because there is nothing "latest" about this processor)

I like Ryzen and own it. However, keep in mind, I am pretty sure Intel cpu's still hold a large lead in a lot of older games that are not tested by a good 20-30 fps.

 

[GoldenX]

This may as well be 20 years old. Or it may be 320nm++++++. It's all just pointless numbers. It's not what computers are about.

You may buy a CPU because it's more modern or because it does better in reviews/benchmarks. But that's because you care about stuff other than actually using a PC. You care what's inside the case.
Some people on this forum openly admit that they're more interested in hardware than in software. I.e. they buy a PC as a collectors item or a DIY hobby - not as a tool (for the same reason many people here are against cloud in general).

Typical consumers are extremely pragmatic - simply because they don't know (and don't care) how a CPU is made or how it works. They only care what it does for them.
Most people don't even like PCs. A PC is something they're forced to use at work or at home.

Will someone like that consciously buy a 9900K(S)? Of course he won't. He doesn't even know what 9900K is.
But will he end up getting a 9900K(S) because he needs a PC to edit videos or do some scientific/engineering/financial computations? Likely yes.

I see the numbers, more power consumption, the highest temps, and double the price than the 3700X for just a 11% improvement in gaming, this product is a fail even on it's own terms, no way around it. And don't even start to compare it to the more logical 3900X price-wise.
Skylake has to pass the torch already. This sounds exacly like someone defending the FX lineup.

 

[Space Lynx]

I see the numbers, more power consumption, the highest temps, and double the price than the 3700X for just a 11% improvement in gaming, this product is a fail even on it's own terms, no way around it. And don't even start to compare it to the more logical 3900X price-wise.
Skylake has to pass the torch already. This sounds exacly like someone defending the FX lineup.

I mean 3770k to 4770k was only like a 5% jump in gaming benches, and same for every generation of chip from intel... 11% is actually decent, I am surprised they didn't just call this 10th gen.

 

[GoldenX]

I mean 3770k to 4770k was only like a 5% jump in gaming benches, and same for every generation of chip from intel... 11% is actually decent, I am surprised they didn't just call this 10th gen.

The 11% is against the 3700X, a CPU with lower gaming performance. The difference with the 9900K is only 5%, in 720p.
Plus, 10th gen is also Skylake, again.

 

[Assimilator]

It may be desperate binning from Intel, but 8 cores holding steady at 5GHz is still a very impressive achievement, one that AMD is nowhere near matching even on a more advanced process. But... you've got to wonder, with volume production 10nm still more than a year away... how much more can Intel have in the tank that is Skylake? How much more can they wring out of 14nm so they don't look like they're losing totally to AMD?

Worst CPU since the 9000 series FX.

Except it actually has performance to go with it, unlike the FX-9000 series which was basically just a very inefficient way of converting electricity into heat (the actual CPU part was a side effect).

 

[GoldenX]

Except it actually has performance to go with it, unlike the FX-9000 series which was basically just a very inefficient way of converting electricity into heat (the actual CPU part was a side effect).

Does it? it's faster than the 9900K, and gets the gaming crown, but that's as far as it can go.

 

[ERazer]

This CPU went on sale immediately before I even bought it from Microcenter. The CPU war between Intel and AMD is more pronounced than the GPU war between AMD and Nvidia because AMD has no competition whatsoever for Nvidia on the high end, and only can score points on the low end for cheap budget builds.

This CPU is a beast. 5.0 GHz across all cores.

AMD can outperformit on paper or benchmarks...but there is no doubt who's on top when the GAMES start being played.

Most people want a Gaming computer and multitask to editing (like Youtubbers).

AMD CPU are for people who WORK on their computers rather than game.

Most games now are GPU intensive rather than CPU intensive and most gamers are running in 1080p or 1440p rather than 4K. It's easy to buy a powerful CPU with future proofing for a few years.

You can still game on an i5 or i7 4790 just fine with an RTX card.

Future proof when intel is known to keep changing sockets

 

[Thuban]

A lot of great cpu's to choose from! Makes me want to build a rig just for myself and start gaming again.

In all honesty though, until the base clock is 5.0 Ghz, I'm not impressed. This should have happened years ago.

Till then I'll just keep doing whatever with my old 4770k.

Same here. Unless you need that gaming performance today, it's better to wait for a year or two for the fundamentally new core architecture. This processor performs well, but sucks way too much power. Reminds me of the late P4 processors.

EDIT:

Any, reasonably recent Intel 8T+ CPU is okay for non-competitive leisure gaming.

 

[notb]

Does it? it's faster than the 9900K, and gets the gaming crown, but that's as far as it can go.

It's just a flagship for the DIY market. It doesn't need to go any further.
But it's the fastest CPU available for software that uses 8 cores or less - a fact you should stop ignoring all the time...

Yes, it's not very efficient or posh in your world. But it gets the job done faster than anything else.