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

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,967
720
126
Level 1 Techs also did a comparison that showed a repeatable GTA5 CPU spike that Ryzen took better than the 7700k.
GTA V is just broken and gives wrong signals to the windows task manager,it's not made for windows so it doesn't know any better.
It has one thread running on a high priority,windows runs those threads before anything else until completion,but game threads never complete until you close the game so naturally there are problems.
If you want to bring bad code into the discussion then let's talk about CSGO again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN-mdoMDuSQ GTA V stutter fix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8DQl_VRiPw GTA V loading times
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirDinadan

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
How does that relate to the original point? It didn't age badly because it didn't sell to begin with?!


A $200 CPU matched it's performance in gaming 12 months later. Becoming obsolete doesn't necessarily mean not being fit for the task, as in not being able to play the games at good frame rates. It can also mean another product does the same for less.

Look at the 8700K, the new gen launch did little if anything in making it less desirable even for people building a new system. This should be a clear warning sign that something is off, and come 2019 my bet is we'll see a correction, just as we saw with Kaby Lake.

Obsolete implies that the product you own can no longer do the job. I mean, who really cares if you paid $400 for an 8700k and a year later, Intel releases a $200 CPU which can do the same job? You’re not going to run out and spend another $200 just to be “current” in order to have the same performance. The 8700k will be a nice CPU for a number of years - keep in mind that even the 2600k, nearly 8 years later, can still play modern games well.

Yes, for those on older generations, they would skip the 8700k and go with a newer release but Intel will likely kill the 8700k once they can produce enough of the 9000 series. I wouldn’t call the 8700k obsolete; I’d say the value proposition is gone for potential new buyers.

I upgraded from a 2600k to an 8700k last year after very nearly pulling the trigger on an i9-7900. To be honest, I could’ve wait until even now to upgrade. As an 8700k owner, I see no reason to even consider this new release and am still planning not to do a major system upgrade until 2020. If my system died and I HAD to upgrade today, I believe the 9700k will likely be the faster gaming CPU due to the increased overclocked headroom. I think you will see 200-300 MHz more headroom on average.
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,151
11,686
136
I upgraded from a 2600k to an 8700k last year after very nearly pulling the trigger on an i9-7900.
And tell me, after you bought that 2600K, was there a $200-300 cheaper product less than 12 months later that matched it in performance?

Think about it, even after a new gen was recently launched, your 8700K is still likely worth as much if not more than you paid for it. Doesn't that strike you as particularly odd in the context of CPU valuation over time?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
And tell me, after you bought that 2600K, was there a $200-300 cheaper product less than 12 months later that matched it in performance?

I think you're missing the point I'm making. There was not a CPU (at least that I recall) equal to the 2600k in performance for $200-$300 less 12 months later but for the sake of argument, let's say there was. It doesn't make the 2600K obsolete for their current owners; it just removes the value proposition of the 2600K for new buyers and they would buy whatever the equal but cheaper CPU is. However, that isn't necessary the case either - there are hobbyists here who will upgrade every generation and get almost zero benefit from the upgrade. The 9700K is probably going to be the best gaming CPU of the new releases and you don't see many talking about it - they're going for the 9900K and the preliminary reports I've seen say the 9700K has 200-300 Mhz more OC room, which should more than negate the 9900K's cache advantage IMO.

Think about it, even after a new gen was recently launched, your 8700K is still likely worth as much if not more than you paid for it. Doesn't that strike you as particularly odd in the context of CPU valuation over time?

The 8700K has availability the others don't. That will likely change over time, but it doesn't mean the 8700K will get cheaper - Intel will just stop selling it at retail at some point. I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing the 7700K experience a large price cut when the 8700K was released. At any rate, I'd tell new buyers to go with the 9000 series if they can find them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

ZGR

Platinum Member
Oct 26, 2012
2,052
656
136
GTA V is just broken and gives wrong signals to the windows task manager,it's not made for windows so it doesn't know any better.
It has one thread running on a high priority,windows runs those threads before anything else until completion,but game threads never complete until you close the game so naturally there are problems.
If you want to bring bad code into the discussion then let's talk about CSGO again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN-mdoMDuSQ GTA V stutter fix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8DQl_VRiPw GTA V loading times


GTA V has some of the best CPU performance when it comes to mods. This is the only game I can get over 300 cars at once in traffic and not dip under 30fps and or crash.

I think the loading times are only abysmal on an HDD, and that stutter fix is over 2 years old and I have never experienced it.

But that's what I enjoy with sandbox games. Push "broken" game engines to their absolute limit, then test CPU's out in worst case scenarios.

What would you consider the most optimized sandbox game engine wise? Had this predicament with Destiny 2's online benchmarks; where they only test GPU limited scenes.

Lots of games I want to see the 9900k perform in areas where the CPU is being taxed, but most reviewers will not.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
And tell me, after you bought that 2600K, was there a $200-300 cheaper product less than 12 months later that matched it in performance?

Think about it, even after a new gen was recently launched, your 8700K is still likely worth as much if not more than you paid for it. Doesn't that strike you as particularly odd in the context of CPU valuation over time?
Since Intel stops making or supporting them, it doesn't strike me as odd.

If you look at the lists of SB, IB, HW, desktop processors, you will find certain ones still marked "launched", rather than "discontinued".

That may strike you as odd.

https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/29900/Sandy-Bridge#@desktop

https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/29902/Ivy-Bridge#@desktop

https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/42174/Haswell#@desktop
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,151
11,686
136
I think you're missing the point I'm making. There was not a CPU (at least that I recall) equal to the 2600k in performance for $200-$300 less 12 months later but for the sake of argument, let's say there was. It doesn't make the 2600K obsolete for their current owners; it just removes the value proposition of the 2600K for new buyers
You're missing my point as well, since your definition of "obsolete" is needlessly narrowed down to owners of said product. Removing the value proposition to new buyers is an integral part in the definition of "obsolete":
no longer in use or no longer useful
of a kind or style no longer current

The 8700K has availability the others don't. That will likely change over time, but it doesn't mean the 8700K will get cheaper - Intel will just stop selling it at retail at some point. I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing the 7700K experience a large price cut when the 8700K was released. At any rate, I'd tell new buyers to go with the 9000 series if they can find them.
Read my post again, I was telling you your CPU has almost the same value 2nd hand as it had on the first day of sale. At which point in time has this ever happened in the history of computing?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
You're missing my point as well, since your definition of "obsolete" is needlessly narrowed down to owners of said product. Removing the value proposition to new buyers is an integral part in the definition of "obsolete":

Read my post again, I was telling you your CPU has almost the same value 2nd hand as it had on the first day of sale. At which point in time has this ever happened in the history of computing?

Actually, it has happened many times since Sandy Bridge.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Many times since SB?! Care to share examples?

Do you seriously think the 2600k’s price plummeted as a result of the release of the 3770K? It didn’t and even as recently as 2017, the 2600k was still selling for a healthy amount on eBay. Heck, used ones are still going for $100-$200. A 2600k is nearly an 8 year-old processor!

Repeat the same question when Haswell was released. Keep on moving through the years - do you think the 7700K’s price plummeted when the 8700K was released? This was arguably the largest change in Intel’s consumer lineup since Nehalem or Sandy Bridge.

Let’s consider the primary market for a moment - why don’t you head over to Amazon and tell us how the 7700K is selling (hint: it is ranked #11th in CPU sales), and the current price of the 7700K and 8700K. Heck, I’ll save you the trouble - the 7700K is selling for $355 and the 8700K is $370. And unless I missed it in the list (entirely possible), the 7700K seems to be outselling the 8700K on Amazon. If you want your eyes opened even wider, keep scrolling down that list to #19 and tell us which CPU it is and how much it is selling for in 2018. Oh, what the heck, I’ll spill the beans there too - #19 is the $315 i7-6700K, which was released in 2015.

And yes, I know you’re talking second hand - go look on eBay for 7700ks. I’m seeing many used ones selling THIS MONTH for over $300. That is for a processor released nearly 2 years ago. Ebay also shows used 6700ks commonly going between $200 and $300. That’s for a 3.5 year-old CPU. I found several used 8700ks on eBay which sold for under $300 - yes, some sold for more as well. So yes, there are PLENTY of examples of CPUs since Sandy Bridge holding their values. The fact people are paying $300 for a used 7700k is amazing to me. I do think the quad i7s should start plummeting any time now, but it is amazing how they’ve held their value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
446
136
You're missing my point as well, since your definition of "obsolete" is needlessly narrowed down to owners of said product. Removing the value proposition to new buyers is an integral part in the definition of "obsolete":



Read my post again, I was telling you your CPU has almost the same value 2nd hand as it had on the first day of sale. At which point in time has this ever happened in the history of computing?


All it proves is the stagnation of Intel in pushing their cpu's forward. Instead of making bold moves they did only the bare minimum insofar as improving their cpu's in the last eight years or so. Now they are at a crossroads of sorts. One which they could have easily avoided.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,151
11,686
136
Do you seriously think the 2600k’s price plummeted as a result of the release of the 3770K?
Plummeted? No. But do you seriously think people were able to sell their 2nd hand 2600k at or above MSRP one year after they bought and used it?

And yes, I know you’re talking second hand - go look on eBay for 7700ks. I’m seeing many used ones selling THIS MONTH for over $300.
And the launch price for 7700K was $305, so thank you for proving my point, I'd be even more satisfied if you hadn't missed it.

I was asking you for examples in the past not what's happening RIGHT NOW. What's happening right now is dictated by Intel's production shortages and is the MAIN REASON an SKU such as 9900K that's selling for an inflated 580$+ will see a massive drop in value once production is back on track and Intel prepares to match whatever value Zen 2 brings to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136

iSR2iL

m3JMcf

Plummeted? No. But do you seriously think people were able to sell their 2nd hand 2600k at or above MSRP one year after they bought and used it?


And the launch price for 7700K was $305, so thank you for proving my point, I'd be even more satisfied if you hadn't missed it.

I was asking you for examples in the past not what's happening RIGHT NOW. What's happening right now is dictated by Intel's production shortages and is the MAIN REASON an SKU such as 9900K that's selling for an inflated 580$+ will see a massive drop in value once production is back on track and Intel prepares to match whatever value Zen 2 brings to the table.
So your definition of "obsolete" is a chip's inability to maintain or exceed msrp one year after release? Wow! Anyway, below is the Amazon tracker for both the 2600k and 2700k, from release to 2018. The msrp for the chips were $317 and $332 respectively:
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...0CC-B7B0-B307DA8DC499/Oct_23_11_1ku_Price.pdf

dbr6lj.png

nvqum1.png


In 8 years, the lowest price the $2600k saw on Amazon, was $47 off of the msrp. In that time, it has had to contend with the 2700k, 3770k, 4770k, 6700k, 7700k, 8700, and 8700k. That's incredible value retention for a chip that supposedly got obsoleted a year after release and was discontinued another year after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndyColtsFan

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Plummeted? No. But do you seriously think people were able to sell their 2nd hand 2600k at or above MSRP one year after they bought and used it?

Please prove otherwise.

And the launch price for 7700K was $305, so thank you for proving my point, I'd be even more satisfied if you hadn't missed it.

Someone definitely missed it, and it wasn't me. Please, allow me:

IndyColtsFan said:
And yes, I know you’re talking second hand - go look on eBay for 7700ks. I’m seeing many used ones selling THIS MONTH for over $300.

So, if you want to split hairs that a used 7700k may have sold for $299/$300 the other day and NOT $305, be my guest but in your original post, you said "almost the same value 2nd hand as it had on the first day of sale." I found used 7700ks going for more than $300 and many in that $280-$300 range and that's 18 months later. So, thank YOU for proving MY point and disproving your own point.

I was asking you for examples in the past not what's happening RIGHT NOW. What's happening right now is dictated by Intel's production shortages and is the MAIN REASON an SKU such as 9900K that's selling for an inflated 580$+ will see a massive drop in value once production is back on track and Intel prepares to match whatever value Zen 2 brings to the table.

Please show me examples from the past with links and hard examples. Educate me.
 
Last edited:

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,151
11,686
136
So your definition of "obsolete" is a chip's inability to maintain or exceed msrp one year after release?
No, if you go back and read my original claim, which has since been buried deeply in this sea of trying to prove me wrong on one topic in order to discard everything else, you'll see "my" definition of obsolete was quite simple and it involved the relevance of the product to new buyers. I also clearly acknowledged the merits of the product as a flagship, and it's continued ability to perform for those who bought it.​
It will be obsolete in less than 12 months actually, it will be Intel doing that in response to whatever 7nm chips will bring to the table. People who bought into Kaby Lake have witnessed this firsthand, as their i7 and i5 KBL were soon to become an i5 and i3 CFL respectively. Next year will be no different, as we transition to a new node.

This doesn't mean the 9900K will not be a top performer in the next 18 months, just that a similar Intel SKU will do the same at a significantly lower price point. People who buy the 9900K need to acknowledge they're likely paying a $200-300 fee to get that performance in advance. (availability price hike included)

That being said I don't agree with anyone criticizing a 9900K buy decision as long as the buyer understands both the product and the context: it's their money, it's an informed decision, I'd rather discuss performance, overclocking, undervolting, cooling, build options etc.

I talked about the offer vs. demand imbalance as being the major driving factor behind current pricing, and how it was bound to correct itself given the CPU field is competitive again. But some saw was just the word "obsolete" and lighted up like a Christmas tree. The logic was inescapable, a CPU cannot use the same definition of obsolete as many other products in the world, a CPU is only obsolete if the owner feels compelled to upgrade it.

And here we are with this mess, trying to pretend that proving me wrong on one topic will make the world right again. If only that were so simple. :)

Anyway, below is the Amazon tracker for both the 2600k and 2700k, from release to 2018.
Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for!

Please prove otherwise.
Here's what happened to 2600k according to the data Zucker2k was kind enough to provide us with:

mh8ECYL.png



And here's how 8700K is doing so far according to the same data source:
QPwETtK.png


It started a downward trend towards $300 until summer then climbed back up in autumn as stock became scarce. It's even worse in my country (Eastern Europe) where all Intel CPUs are currently seeing price hikes of around +50%. The 8700K was available for around 340 Euro shortly after launch, now it's gone past 500 Euro.



 

Pandamonia

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
433
49
91
People are forgetting that computer parts are obsolete as soon as intel launches a new model. Part values stay high because people need replacements for broken ones to fix existing computers.

People are also confusing obsolete with end of useful life. Obsolete is when something has replaced it which is newer and better.

Cpus don't really wear out so have a good used value for people who have faulty or damaged Cpus which are normally caused by failed psu or motherboard. Hand me down computers also can perform almost as well. As new ones given Intels lack of improvements and amd failure to compete.

I'd bet intel does a big production run and as stocks dwindle they raise prices as they know if you need that model cpu then you will pay more for it as the alternative is likely even more expensive. They are expensive and small and thus cheap to store so holding stock for many years easy.
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
664
701
106
They've done a huge production run of 9900Ks so far, hence why no-one that has actually bought one has actually posted in these forums; they seem more rare than the intentionally rare 8086K.
Given that it is set as a gaming god, it's relative lack of additional gaming performance compared to a 8700K, and it's exorbitant cost, it is little wonder why the 8700K still commands a premium over its price on release.

As for the future, my best guess is that Zen 3 is released to coincide with DDR5 and PCIe4/5. Whereas it is anyone's guess where Intel will be by that point in time. Anyway, let us assume that they are on 10nm early 2020, that is likely a year too early for DDR5 etc. You'd get a product that genuinely was obsolete in a year. That's fine if we assume that their first generation of 10nm is naff anyway, since we'd be waiting to buy 10nm+ anyway. But, that then means Intel are sitting ducks from 2019 to 2021 at least. Zen 2 and Zen 3 will certainly have moved the bar beyond what Intel on 14nm can offer us; the 9900K truly is the last hurrah for 14nm.
Could a 9900K last you until 2021? Sure.
Would it be the undisputed best throughout that period? Pipedream.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
No, if you go back and read my original claim, which has since been buried deeply in this sea of trying to prove me wrong on one topic in order to discard everything else, you'll see "my" definition of obsolete was quite simple and it involved the relevance of the product to new buyers. I also clearly acknowledged the merits of the product as a flagship, and it's continued ability to perform for those who bought it.​
This is a strawman because enthusiasts overwhelmingly build on the latest platform, not last-gen. Also, you're forgetting one important factor: chipset. Intel's penchant to release new processors with new chipsets means effective compartmentalization. On the Z67/77 chipset that generation tops out with the 3770k (which was a pure side-grade). So the flagships remained flagships regardless of what's happening outside that generation. This is why Intel rarely ever reduces prices on the previous generation flagships because your upgrade path is non-existent. Moreover, If you look at the Sandybridge flagships, they were 5GHz capable. The following generations, namely Ivybridge, Haswell, and Skylake, couldn't hit those numbers and had no core count advantages either - they were all 4 cores, 8 threads. So if you were on a Z67/77 chipset, and you were rocking a 2600k/2700k, there was absolutely no need for you to upgrade; much less so than the 6700k to 7700k (kabylake is 5Ghz capable compared to about 4.6Ghz tops for skylake; or 7700k to 8700k because of 50% more cores. So, no, the 2600k was not obsolete by any stretch of the imagination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,967
720
126
I think the loading times are only abysmal on an HDD, and that stutter fix is over 2 years old and I have never experienced it.
The loading time video is actually two videos PiP on the exact same hardware one without and one with the same tweak applied at loading time to show that the same issue also immensely affects the loading.
The fact that you didn't experience it doesn't mean much,even the benchmark that was posted and I replied to said that it's rare,but look at all the replies to the stutter fix video, a whole lot of people with much better CPUs than the celeron of the video state that it did work for them as well.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,729
559
126
People are forgetting that computer parts are obsolete as soon as intel launches a new model. Part values stay high because people need replacements for broken ones to fix existing computers.

The thing is usually you could make some kind of case for buying a new last gen cpu as a replacement part, you still saved more money not having to buy a new motherboard or maybe even RAM. With coffeelake changing the price landscape entirely you could literally throw your old board in the trash and buy a coffeelake series chip and board and still come out the same.
 

Pandamonia

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
433
49
91
The thing is usually you could make some kind of case for buying a new last gen cpu as a replacement part, you still saved more money not having to buy a new motherboard or maybe even RAM. With coffeelake changing the price landscape entirely you could literally throw your old board in the trash and buy a coffeelake series chip and board and still come out the same.
Currently you can buy the 8700k and a new mobo for the price of a 9700k let alone the 9900k

4.8ghz 6 core is somehow beating the 9900k games somehow as well according to reports I've read.
 

BrandonT

Member
Feb 23, 2011
102
7
81
The 9700K is probably going to be the best gaming CPU of the new releases and you don't see many talking about it - they're going for the 9900K and the preliminary reports I've seen say the 9700K has 200-300 Mhz more OC room, which should more than negate the 9900K's cache advantage IMO.

Given the higher binning, I can't see how this is possible? Unless the comparison is not exactly apples to apples, and I believe the orange is HT. Turn off HT, and I would suspect the 9900K on average will out OC the 9700K, yes?
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,323
4,904
136
Given the higher binning, I can't see how this is possible? Unless the comparison is not exactly apples to apples, and I believe the orange is HT. Turn off HT, and I would suspect the 9900K on average will out OC the 9700K, yes?

Silicon Lottery says 9900K is better binned than the 9700K. Given that they are one of the few entities that has more than a dozen samples AND follows a standardized testing methodology for stability I'd tend to believe them over reddit and anecdotal accounts.

While an individual 9700K may overclock better than an individual 9900K, it doesn't appear it will do so on average.

Silicon Lottery said:
I know some of you are wondering, and yes from initial results it looks like the 9900Ks will clock a little bit better than the 9700Ks.

Source:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/180...fee-lake-refresh-binning-20.html#post27693122
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702 and ZGR