Discussion Intel 9900KS review and availability thread

[Hitman928]

Since the other thread was started specifically for the Tom's preview article, here's a thread for actual review discussion. I'll add links to this post as more come out. If you see a review posted in the thread not posted in the OP just send me a PM and I will update.

I haven't seen the CPU in stock anywhere yet but will update this post when I do.

In stock at newegg for $570 and at amazon for $613.75

https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/intel-core-i9-9900ks-review/1/
https://www.computerbase.de/2019-10/intel-core-i9-9900ks-cpu-test/
https://www.techspot.com/review/1936-intel-core-i9-9900ks/
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900ks-special-edition-review/
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-corei9-9900ks&num=1

 

[TheGiant]

thats about the 14nm miracle

Intel Core i9-9900KS mit 5,0 GHz im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur und Overclocking

Intel Core i9-9900KS im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur und Overclocking / Die Leistungsaufnahme passt zu der TDP und den weiteren CPUs

www.computerbase.de

however, it shows that 127/159W limited 9900ks does 99% of the job of the unlimited but at 100W less, so that is a big deal

 

[Markfw]

The last sentence on bit-tech is interesting:

"In short, the Core i9-9900KS is probably worth a small amount of extra cash if you're in the market for a Core i9-9900K anyway, but we're far more interested in what lies ahead next month in terms of CPU battles. "

 

[tamz_msc]

Per Phoronix, it has additional hardware mitigations.

There is actually a surprising extra difference too I noticed in my testing of the Core i9 9900KS compared to the i9-9900K... There are more hardware mitigations in place. At least compared to the i9-9900K review sample from last year, the Core i9 9900KS indicates it is not affected by the MDS vulnerability. Additionally, the Spectre V2 mitigation shifted from generic IBPB Retpoline and conditional IBRS_FW STIBP to enhanced IBRS IBPB by default. That puts the overall mitigation state for the Core i9 9900KS as "l1tf: Not affected + mds: Not affected + meltdown: Not affected + spec_store_bypass: Mitigation of SSB disabled via prctl and seccomp + spectre_v1: Mitigation of usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization + spectre_v2: Mitigation of Enhanced IBRS IBPB: conditional RSB filling."

 

[Hitman928]

Intel Core i9-9900KS mit 5,0 GHz im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur und Overclocking

Intel Core i9-9900KS im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur und Overclocking / Die Leistungsaufnahme passt zu der TDP und den weiteren CPUs

www.computerbase.de

however, it shows that 127/159W limited 9900ks does 99% of the job of the unlimited but at 100W less, so that is a big deal

If you want full multi-core performance it's going to be more like 92% -94% of the job but is then slower than a standard 9900K without the strict turbo boost limit. So it kind of becomes a weird product at that point because you are paying more for less performance than a 9900K but 9% lower system power consumption. Or you can turbo boost limit the 9900K and be within 6% of the turbo boost limited 9900KS in performance but with 24% lower power consumption. To me, the 9900KS doesn't make sense unless you want it to go full out and be the fastest 8 core / gaming chip on the planet and be prepared for the heat and power. If you're going to run it with restricted turbo boost just buy the cheaper 9900K.

 

[Hitman928]

The last sentence on bit-tech is interesting:

"In short, the Core i9-9900KS is probably worth a small amount of extra cash if you're in the market for a Core i9-9900K anyway, but we're far more interested in what lies ahead next month in terms of CPU battles. "

I'm assuming they are referring to the impending launch of AMD's 3950X as well as their 7 nm Threadripper and Intel's Cascade Lake-X, all due out next month.

 

[UsandThem]

To me, the 9900KS doesn't make sense unless you want it to go full out and be the fastest 8 core / gaming chip on the planet and be prepared for the heat and power. If you're going to run it with restricted turbo boost just buy the cheaper 9900K.

These "limited edition" CPUs never really make sense IMO (just like the i7-8086k before it). They don't really offer that much more performance.

However, these CPUs aren't marketing to people who look at the $ / performance. They are marketing to the people who just want to own it regardless of cost, period. It's not something I would ever be interested in, but I can see why some people would just to say they own it. These users likely upgrade their CPU pretty often to take advantage of owning the "latest and greatest". I was that way when I was younger, but I tend to keep my CPUs much longer now.

 

[Markfw]

I'm assuming they are referring to the impending launch of AMD's 3950X as well as their 7 nm Threadripper and Intel's Cascade Lake-X, all due out next month.

And possibly the 10xxx series Intel that is supposed to beat the new threadripper ? Whens that coming out ???

 

[Hitman928]

And possibly the 10xxx series Intel that is supposed to beat the new threadripper ? Whens that coming out ???

That's Cascade Lake-X. Supposed to launch next month also although I don't think a specific date has been given.

 

[Hitman928]

These "limited edition" CPUs never really make sense IMO (just like the i7-8086k before it). They don't really offer that much more performance.

However, these CPUs aren't marketing to people who look at the $ / performance. They are marketing to the people who just want to own it regardless of cost, period. It's not something I would ever be interested in, but I can see why some people would just to say they own it. These users likely upgrade their CPU pretty often to take advantage of owning the "latest and greatest". I was that way when I was younger, but I tend to keep my CPUs much longer now.

I agree. My only point was that I don't think those buying this CPU would then boost limit it to be more efficient, you're basically removing the only reason to own the CPU and that is to have it run full throttle and be the fastest 8 core / gaming CPU in the world.

 

[UsandThem]

I agree. My only point was that I don't think those buying this CPU would then boost limit it to be more efficient, you're basically removing the only reason to own the CPU and that is to have it run full throttle and be the fastest 8 core / gaming CPU in the world.

It looks like there were plenty of people out there who didn't care about the extra power usage as it looks like it sold out (at a higher price than the $513 Intel said it would cost).

 

[CentroX]

Not a good idea to buy a 14nm cpu right now.

 

[jpiniero]

Per Phoronix, it has additional hardware mitigations.

That's not a surprise. There are R0 stepping 9900K out there, but of course there wouldn't have been at launch.

 

[Hitman928]

It looks like there were plenty of people out there who didn't care about the extra power usage as it looks like it sold out (at a higher price than the $513 Intel said it would cost).

Newegg has them in stock for $570. That's the only place I've seen that even has them for sale. No product pages on amazon or best buy. B&H photo has a product page but it's a coming soon listing, not yet for sale.

Edit: Had to dig through the menus but I found it at amazon for $613.75.

 

[UsandThem]

Newegg has them in stock for $570. That's the only place I've seen that even has them for sale. No product pages on amazon or best buy. B&H photo has a product page but it's a coming soon listing, not yet for sale.

Werid.

They must have held some stock back (or less likely had some orders cancelled). Sneaky, sneaky Newegg.

The CPU was in their overnight email promotions, but I looked at it this morning it said it was sold out (no back order available).

 

[Hitman928]

They may have just had an internal issue with their inventory system or like you said, maybe had some orders cancelled.

It's always tough to know how much is high demand versus low stock. When the 3900X was released, it was sold out pretty fast but also showed up near the top of the Amazon best sellers list. So far the 9900KS doesn't appear at all in the best sellers list but it might just be because of the fact that you can't search for them and find them for some reason, you have to manually dig through the menu system. We'll see how it plays out over the next few days and weeks.

 

[TheGiant]

If you want full multi-core performance it's going to be more like 92% -94% of the job but is then slower than a standard 9900K without the strict turbo boost limit. So it kind of becomes a weird product at that point because you are paying more for less performance than a 9900K but 9% lower system power consumption. Or you can turbo boost limit the 9900K and be within 6% of the turbo boost limited 9900KS in performance but with 24% lower power consumption. To me, the 9900KS doesn't make sense unless you want it to go full out and be the fastest 8 core / gaming chip on the planet and be prepared for the heat and power. If you're going to run it with restricted turbo boost just buy the cheaper 9900K.

QFT
there is not a bad product, just the price
Intel needs to replace 9900KS with 10900K 10C and lower the price of the 8C/16T to 390EUR

if 9900KS for 400EUR=best buy

with the power, depends

for me power is important, but imo there are 2 categories

gamers- the CPUs dont use that much power like with handbrake or other computing/avx2, it is much more about GPU- it looks like power isnt much of a decision, otherwise AMD wouldnt sell many of r9 fury or rx 4xx or 5xx series
no/less GPU users- there the CPU power makes the difference

overall differences between the sites in power consumption means that MB makers just throw safe voltage, OC by default and dont care
with proper settings one can achieve much better power (like mine 6600K- default 74W, tuned 47W)

Intel doesnt have a problem up to 8C/16T area, 3900X is the main problem- no weakness chip

 

[DrMrLordX]

So uh, when does Comet Lake-S hit the streets?

 

[jpiniero]

So uh, when does Comet Lake-S hit the streets?

Current estimate is April/May, although it could be earlier. It's definitely not worth waiting for, unless it somehow overclocks well beyond 5 Ghz. As you can see the 5 Ghz 9700K delivers basically the same gaming performance as the 9900KS. You can see why Intel decided against releasing it early for K because of the shortages.

 

[Arkaign]

Been trying to find one of these, but with work I apparently missed the few that went out. Already being scalped online. Ugh. Might have to just hit silicon lottery for a decent 9900K instead. Will go ahead and sell the 8086k, luckily they still sell for unreasonably high prices, so the gap won't be too expensive.

 

[happy medium]

Any 9900ks at 5.2 gaming reviews where the gpu is not bottle necking the scores. Something with a 2080ti at 1080p, mabe not using ultra settings?
I see the 9900ks wins in just about every gaming benchmark but I'm curious how well it will handle a 40% faster 3080ti next year at 1440p.
Techpowerup usually does a nice job with this but there review is not up yet.

 

[Markfw]

Any 9900ks at 5.2 gaming reviews where the gpu is not bottle necking the scores. Something with a 2080ti at 1080p, mabe not using ultra settings?
I see the 9900ks wins in just about every gaming benchmark but I'm curious how well it will handle a 40% faster 3080ti next year at 1440p.
Techpowerup usually does a nice job with this but there review is not up yet.

None of the reviews I have seen have gotten it to 5.2 stable, just 5.1

 

[Kenmitch]

Anybody watch the video from der8auer? His scores in CB 15 looks pretty unimpressive for the super high clocks he's achieved. I guess it explains why Intel now frowns on Cinebench as a benchmark.

For comparison I think the highest I've gotten with my 3700x is 2282 at a measly 4.325 GHz all cores.

 

[Markfw]

Anybody watch the video from der8auer? His scores in CB 15 looks pretty unimpressive for the super high clocks he's achieved. I guess it explains why Intel now frowns on Cinebench as a benchmark.

For comparison I think the highest I've gotten with my 3700x is 2282 at a measly 4.325 GHz all cores.

It has cc, but it goes by too quick, so what score did he get in cb15 ?

 

[Hitman928]

Any 9900ks at 5.2 gaming reviews where the gpu is not bottle necking the scores. Something with a 2080ti at 1080p, mabe not using ultra settings?
I see the 9900ks wins in just about every gaming benchmark but I'm curious how well it will handle a 40% faster 3080ti next year at 1440p.
Techpowerup usually does a nice job with this but there review is not up yet.

Some 1080p at gamersnexus channel on youtube.