I9 9900k Official Reviews from Anandtech, Tomshardware. Add your own links to others !

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,232
632
136
#1
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

Reading it now

Edit:
221 watts power ! --- old number, but depending on the motherboard and bios, it can still do this

160 watts later revised number

Conclusion:
"The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X. For the select few, money is no object. For the rest of us, especially when gaming at 1440p and higher settings where the GPU is the bigger bottleneck, there are plenty of processors that do just fine, and are a bit lighter on the power bill in the process."

The one thing that I take exception to ? on the tests they compare to a 1920x@799, when newegg (and others) have a 1950X $680 and still call it 95w.

Edit: What HSF did Anandtech use ?
And $580 and OOS at newegg

And Tomshardare: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html

And from Toms:
"We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests."
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
28,370
191
126
#2
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review

Reading it now

221 watts power !

Conclusion:
"The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X. For the select few, money is no object. For the rest of us, especially when gaming at 1440p and higher settings where the GPU is the bigger bottleneck, there are plenty of processors that do just fine, and are a bit lighter on the power bill in the process."
Actually sounds okay compared to the recent doom and gloom reports.
 
Apr 27, 2000
11,005
638
126
#6
Those overclocking Blender tests on the 9700k are a bit odd (AT review). Look at the power vs. score, something seems off.

edit: also, while I am not trying to defend Intel's heat output here (compare it to TR2), I will point out that at least according to my metrics, my lowly R7 1800x can pull over 230W when I max overclock it and run stuff like Prime95. It seriously brings the heat. And that's only 4.0 GHz! It's a shock to me that my NH-d15 can handle it.

So if I am going to burn that kind of power, I think the 9900k will give you more than my old 1800x did . . . and TR2 will probably give you even more.
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
665
182
96
#9
So the numbers from the Gigabyte OC guide weren't off actually.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,685
57
136
#10
Reading the benchmark I thought...well that is better than anticipated.

Then came the power test...at first you look again bringing your phone up to your face.
Then you read it twice.
221w... stock...good grief. I thought the 2700x at half the power was a bit old school. But this thing is just fx style crazy.

9600k is imo the processor to get. Acceptable lean and plenty fast for 99.9% of all gaming and normal office task. Nice processor.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
918
2
106
#12
9900k is Intel's 9590.
At least AMD was upfront about the crazy power consumption and cooling required...hell it even shipped with the required water cooler.

All the crap AMD took at the time and years after....
 
Apr 8, 2002
40,885
51
126
#13
So for gaming above 1080p it appears the GPUs are the bottleneck. This is good to know as a 7700k owner.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,068
146
126
#14
9900k is Intel's 9590.
At least AMD was upfront about the crazy power consumption and cooling required...hell it even shipped with the required water cooler.

All the crap AMD took at the time and years after....
If the 9590 performed, I think people would have been OK with it.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
#15
9900k is Intel's 9590.
At least AMD was upfront about the crazy power consumption and cooling required...hell it even shipped with the required water cooler.

All the crap AMD took at the time and years after....
It's actually not that bad?



Pretty sure a 9900K @ 4.7GHz handily outperforms a 2700X @ 4.2GHz... for basically the same power consumption. Even overclocked at 5.1GHz, its 19.5% higher than the 2700X but is clocked 21.5% higher and with higher IPC to boot... not sure what all the hoopla is about with the power tbh. It's about where I expected it to be.
 
Nov 6, 2014
114
10
101
#16
Whats up with the power consumtion numbers? These are so different across the reviews.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,232
632
136
#17
It's actually not that bad?



Pretty sure a 9900K @ 4.7GHz handily outperforms a 2700X @ 4.2GHz... for basically the same power consumption.
I don't believe that at all. My 2990wx gets no where near 350 unless I OC to 4.1 With 4 times the cores as the I9 9900x and twice that of the 2950x
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
918
2
106
#19
It's actually not that bad?



Pretty sure a 9900K @ 4.7GHz handily outperforms a 2700X @ 4.2GHz... for basically the same power consumption. Even overclocked at 5.1GHz, its 19.5% higher than the 2700X but is clocked 21.5% higher and with higher IPC to boot... not sure what all the hoopla is about with the power tbh. It's about where I expected it to be.
That looks like an outlier..
2700x consumes about 110-140w....9900k about 2-225w..
Taking a look at all the data, neither the 9900k or the 9700k makes any sense what so ever.
This is the end of the line for skylake and 14nm...if zen2 can't best this then AMD has got problems.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
931
104
136
#20
I don't believe that at all. My 2990wx gets no where near 350 unless I OC to 4.1 With 4 times the cores as the I9 9900x and twice that of the 2950x
Do you believe this then?



141W in Blender at stock. That's CPU power only, not system power like the Techspot chart.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
918
2
106
#21
Do you believe this then?



141W in Blender at stock. That's CPU power only, not system power like the Techspot chart.
Depends on the workload, you have to take it at it's worst case, so you can apply the correct cooling.
9900k can consume 221w stock.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,130
53
126
#23
Not impressed so far. Looks like a hot power hungry cpu.

AMD is striving for lower power while the other guys are pushing the envelope. I see the goas posts once again shifting in favor of the other guys.
 

The Stilt

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,709
72
106
#24
The reported power consumption in several reviews seems to be extremely high.

Based on my testing, the CPU consumes at 4.7GHz around 128W in typical non-256b workloads, such as CB15 nT.
Which is within a watt of what the 2700X consumes at stock in the same test.

256-bit workloads obviously are a different story entirely and the power consumption is pretty absurd for a 8C CPU.
At 4.8GHz / 1.225V I measured 198.7W average power draw during Firestarter (SKL optimized FMA3). The power consumption resulting from Prime95 (FMA3 / AVX2) is less or equal to that, depending on the settings.

Measuring the CPU input power from the EPS connectors doesn't really tell a whole lot about the power consumption, unless you take something into the account.
The VRMs of Z390 and especially Z370 motherboards have extremely poor efficiency when paired to these CPUs, due to two things: The output voltage is generally very low (barely reaches 10% duty) and the current is extremely high (easily up to 200A).
Both of those things belong to the recipe of poor VRM efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if the next mainstream platform reverts back to FIVR again.

 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,068
146
126
#25
Both of those things belong to the recipe of poor VRM efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if the next mainstream platform reverts back to FIVR again.
Icelake is using McIVR. I guess we will have to see about Tiger and future.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS