Confirmed - i9 9900k will have soldered IHS, no more toothpaste TIM

[Zucker2k]

Turbo freqs:
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13401/9thGenTurbos.png

I love the aggressive Turbo Bins. That TSMC process better be as good as touted.

 

[RichUK]

I'm really interested in temps and how well STIM performs.

 

[AtenRa]

i7-9700K is the mainstream replacement for the 7700 and 8700. 8 real intel cores @ 4.6 GHz all-core-turbo and with a 95 watt TDP for under $400 tells me the CPU world is doing just fine. (Thanks Ryzen!)

Socket 1151 is mainstream, mainstream was supposed to be up to $300-320, not $350 not $370 and certainly not $488-500.
In a time of half the competition we have today, Core i7 2600K launched at $317 with a ~27% larger die size (216mm2).

ps. 4.6GHz all core turbo is not at 95W TDP but closer to 125W TDP. At 95W TDP we only get the base clocks.

 

[Zucker2k]

9700K really has no 8th gen counterpart. The 8700K might keep up in some multi thread benches, but I kind of doubt it. I think overall the true 8 cores will probably stay ahead of 6 cores plus HT.
Also the 9000 series have some hardware fixes for meltdown and spectre.

Assuming linear core scaling and same clocks, 9700k will add 33.3% while HT on 8700k is about 28%, best case. 9700k should run cooler, consume less, and overclock higher.

 

[Zucker2k]

In a time with very good competition in the CPU landscape, this is the first time a mainstream CPU cost close to $500.
I dont know about you guys but it looks to me that something is wrong with the world we are living lately.

Let's hope AMD keeps Intel honest with their next release. I'm not a fan of $500 mainstream processors either.

 

[swilli89]

This makes me so damn mad. How ridiculous can they get? This is quite ridiculous. I'm glad they are using solder again, but it took AMD kicking them in the crotch before they decided to FINALLY go ahead and give us a real chip. All those people delidding 7700k's and 8700k's, voiding their warranty and having to use an inferior liquid metal that might degrade over time etc. Makes me sick. And here all of a sudden they give it to us just like that? No problem? No concerns about cracking dies or anything? And then they try to educate us on what solder TIM is and pretend it's a new feature along with the world's first 8/16 consumer CPU? I hope Intel gets vaporized by an asteroid.

I hear you man. AMD's 2700 8c/16t was just on sale for $220 on Amazon. And here Intel is finally releasing an 8c/16t SKU for $520, a year after OG Ryzen launched. Touting TIM nonetheless.. LOL! These guys are truly something else. 9900k should be $300 just like all previous top mainstream SKUs from Intel.

If 14nm is such a great, mature node then Intel's yields on this fairly small chip should be simply excellent, yet here Intel is asking for over $500. Some things never change.

 

[RichUK]

Ouch - £600 for the 9900k.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-65j-in.html

 

[AtenRa]

Let's hope AMD keeps Intel honest with their next release. I'm not a fan of $500 mainstream processors either.

I have a feeling AMD will find a gap to release a mainstream $400-430 Ryzen 3xxx SKU next year, Intel is helping them with those prices.

 

[Abwx]

Not much numbers of absolute value, only between MBs, except for power comsumption with a surprisingly low 95W TDP with Cinebench but roughly 150W for Prime 95 with AVX2.

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/z390-mainboard-test-asus-gigabyte-intel/3/

 

[Dayman1225]

Here are the benchmarks Intel used to define the 9900K as the "Best Gaming Processor ever, Period." 3rd Party but commissioned by Intel. 1080P w/1080Ti

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

 

[arandomguy]

Is that statement worth debating? I think that was pretty much assumed. It's just a question of whether or not it's worth the price and/or other trade offs.

Although I'm surprised in general the numbers are that high (for all the processors involved) especially since none of them used "OCed" memory speeds.

 

[UsandThem]

Is that statement worth debating? I think that was pretty much assumed. It's just a question of whether or not it's worth the price and/or other trade offs.

Although I'm surprised in general the numbers are that high (for all the processors involved) especially since none of them used "OCed" memory speeds.

Especially those results are at 1080P.

Not much of a performance increase really over a 8700K, and I will wait to see what 1440P and 4K results. From what I see, the 8700K sold for $320 before Intel's shortage, and the 9900K is at $500. Does this "new" CPU provide enough of performance increase for the difference to be justified? I'll wait for independent benchmarks, but so far to me the answer is a big nope.

 

[LTC8K6]

How about the performance differences regarding the meltdown/spectre patches?

Some posters here mentioned SSD transfer rate slowdowns? (I think that was it)

Would these CPUs do anything about that?

 

[AtenRa]

CPU cooler : Noctua NH-U14S (Exception: The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X used the included AMD Wraith Prism Cooler. The other CPU units did not come with CPU coolers.)

Next year AMD will not include a heat-sink with their top CPU models.

 

[Accord99]

Some posters here mentioned SSD transfer rate slowdowns? (I think that was it)

The computerbase review that abwx linked to shows that the Z390 chipset is a bit faster than the Z370 for the same 960 Pro.

 

[jpiniero]

Looks like Newegg's got the auto-gouger going... $579 for the 9900K (albeit OOS), $419 for the 9700K and $279 for the 9600K. Amazon had the 8600K last week for $239.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Socket 1151 is mainstream, mainstream was supposed to be up to $300-320, not $350 not $370 and certainly not $488-500.
In a time of half the competition we have today, Core i7 2600K launched at $317 with a ~27% larger die size (216mm2).

ps. 4.6GHz all core turbo is not at 95W TDP but closer to 125W TDP. At 95W TDP we only get the base clocks.

Proof of your last statement? At 95 watts, you may not get 4.6 ghz all core, but I also highly doubt it will be limited to "base clocks". The price is high, but based on a system that most likely will cost 1500 to 2000 (1000.00 2080Ti anyone?), it is only 10 to 15 % more, easily within the performance increase you could get vs the 2700x. The thing that is more disappointing to me is that there is not a cheaper, hyperthreaded, non-k model with 8 cores, analogous to the 8700.

 

[swilli89]

Oof. From $350 to $550 in one generation. All for a die that measures 170mm^2 on an extremely mature process. Intel sure seems to want to squeeze extra margins in before they are competing with 7nm Ryzen 2 for over a year before Ice Lake launches.

 

[mikk]

Here are the benchmarks Intel used to define the 9900K as the "Best Gaming Processor ever, Period." 3rd Party but commissioned by Intel. 1080P w/1080Ti

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Intel/PC_gaming_processor_study_interim_1018.pdf

They should have tested in 720p because some tests are clearly bottlenecked by the GPU. But of course the 9900k is a gaming beast. Btw this CPU is officially using Intels 14nm++ process, there is no 14nm+++

488 USD is cheaper than expected, nice

 

[Thunder 57]

I thought Intel might change their ways under new leadership. I suppose not. Hopefully AMD can strike hard with Zen 2. I'm looking for a 6C/12T CPU next year, who's it gonna be? I'm leaning towards AMD if for no other reason then the ability to upgrade to an 8 core Zen 3 (hopefully).

 

[Dayman1225]

I thought Intel might change their ways under new leadership. I suppose not. Hopefully AMD can strike hard with Zen 2.

Not quite sure the Interim CEO is what I would consider "new leadership" considering he has been their CFO for a few years now.

 

[epsilon84]

I wish it was a bit cheaper (was hoping for $450) but for those saying it should be $300, you gotta be kidding right?

If I had a product that was a clear 25% (or more) better than the competition I surely wouldnt price it at the same level unless I was desperate for marketshare.

Plus we are talking about Intel here, they don't let AMD dictate their prices.

 

[Zucker2k]

Looks like Newegg's got the auto-gouger going... $579 for the 9900K (albeit OOS), $419 for the 9700K and $279 for the 9600K. Amazon had the 8600K last week for $239.

This is just crazy.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hopefully prices settle down in a couple weeks.

 

[Kenmitch]

Plus we are talking about Intel here, they don't let AMD dictate their prices.

Sarcasm? If not AMD indirectly dictates Intels pricing by nothing more than setting their pricing.

9900k seems expensive until you look at pre Zen pricing. Although they set the price I'm sure Intel isn't happy with it. They got Zen'd!