• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Article Tom's Hardware Core i9 9900KS Preview

Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?

Since you did not provide a link, I am going to go look for it.

Edit: from their conclusion:

Intel has extended its lead in gaming over AMD's lineup, but you have to keep that in perspective. The Ryzen 9 3900X offers a lower price point and is more agile in heavily-threaded workloads, particularly in productivity applications. It's also comes with other advantages, like support for PCIe 4.0. If you're not chasing the bleeding edge of gaming performance or overclockability, the Ryzen 9 3900X still offers a compelling blend of price and performance in both gaming and productivity applications.
So, as we already knew it wins in games by a little, but gets destoyed at anything else at the same price or more. And usess 57A% more power (and heat)

So why again is this good ?
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?
Click to expand...
It's incredible relative to what it was before, it's been a while since power consumption of the same architecture dropped so much without a shrink. And a fairer comparison with the 3700X would be to clock it higher to try to match the overall higher performance of the 9900KS (or to reduce to the 9900KS down), the power consumption comparison would be much closer.
 
Zucker2k said:
Power efficiency is incredible for 14nm.
Edit: Consumes 50 watts less than the i9 9900K @ 5GHz.
Click to expand...
If the same level of power reduction is in the 10980XE vs 9980XE, then the 5.1 GHz all-core overclock might actually be possible with off-the-shelf cooling.
 
Markfw said:
Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?

Since you did not provide a link, I am going to go look for it.
Click to expand...
I've provided a link.
Naturally, the 7nm node of the Ryzens is going to be more power efficient, but at those clocks, the Intels are well outside that efficiency window but the previewed 9900KS is over 30%+ more power efficient (than a comparable 9900k) - a far cry from the doom and gloom some have predicted on this forum. I think it bodes well for the 10 core i9-10900K processor.
 
Last edited:
Zucker2k said:
I've provided a link.
Naturally, the 7nm node of the Ryzens is going to be more power efficient, but at those clocks, the Intels are well outside that efficiency window but the previewed 9900KS is over 30%+ more power efficient (than a comparable 9900k) - a far cry from the doom and gloom some have predicted on this forum. I think it bodes well for the 10 core i9-10900K processor.
Click to expand...
142 watts vs 130 is not 30% Its more like 10%. And they had a year to make that happen. In that same time frame, AMD has done way better than that.

Now why again is this so great ?

Edit; I had it backwards... It takes MORE at stock. Now overclocked it takes 15 watts less.

Oh boy, I can get 5% more FPS @50% more power....
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
142 watts vs 130 is not 30% Its more like 10%. And they had a year to make that happen. In that same time frame, AMD has done way better than that.

Now why again is this so great ?

Edit; I had it backwards... It takes MORE at stock. Now overclocked it takes 15 watts less.

Oh boy, I can get 5% more FPS @50% more power....
Click to expand...
It's 142 watts of the 9900KS vs 192 watts of the 9900K @ 5GHz so, yes, it's 30%+ more efficient than the 9900K at that clock - which is already well outside of optimal efficiency for the 14nm process.
 
It is just as well Intel has stumbled so badly on 10nm, it gives AMD a chance to become viable long term, but what Intel has managed to scrounge out of 14nm+++ makes me wonder if Intel on 7nm might be delivering another Conroe moment.
 
That's actually pretty impressive if the numbers hold true.

I'll wait for more reviews to see if there is any "funny business" from this pre-production CPU review.

The only issue I see with it is being the price. They say in the article it is rumored to be $560 (street price likely higher), and that puts it right at the entry-level Cascade Lake-X i9-10900X (although I think strict gamers would go with the 9900KS).
 
Markfw said:
Maybe... But a 3700x 8 core (85 watts) vs a 9900ks 8 core (142 watts) 57% more power ???? What is incredible about that ? That they are so handicapped on power ?

Since you did not provide a link, I am going to go look for it.

Edit: from their conclusion:

Intel has extended its lead in gaming over AMD's lineup, but you have to keep that in perspective. The Ryzen 9 3900X offers a lower price point and is more agile in heavily-threaded workloads, particularly in productivity applications. It's also comes with other advantages, like support for PCIe 4.0. If you're not chasing the bleeding edge of gaming performance or overclockability, the Ryzen 9 3900X still offers a compelling blend of price and performance in both gaming and productivity applications.
So, as we already knew it wins in games by a little, but gets destoyed at anything else at the same price or more. And usess 57A% more power (and heat)

So why again is this good ?
Click to expand...
Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.
 
ondma said:
Because gaming is my primary use, and I dont really care about productivity? Each to his own, but maybe you could consider occasionally that other uses may have different priorities than you.
Click to expand...

The 1% always trumps the 99%.
 
UsandThem said:
That's actually pretty impressive if the numbers hold true.

I'll wait for more reviews to see if there is any "funny business" from this pre-production CPU review.
Click to expand...

The power consumption is a little suspicious but I suppose Intel could just have binned tighter. The gaming performance didn't look too out of line compared to a 5 Ghz 9900K.
 
I suspect we'll see a great deal of variation in measured power consumption. For three reasons: these are ultra-binned chips, motherboards doing things they don't say they are doing, and we saw a lot of variation in reviews with the 9900K.
 
Not gonna believe the hype about some reduced power consumption. Not gonna believe it for a minute. About the price and its place, i would rather sell off my B360/8700 non k/16gb ddr3 2666 and jump on the 3900x before i even consider paying the rumored $560. Would prob rather get the 9900 non k for $439 off Newegg and be set if i truly needed more cores. If my Asus B360-G Gaming can support it without throttling is another matter.

Its all desperate from Intel at this point and as someone who has loved their processors going back to my E6750 back in 2007, it breaks my heart to see Intel slacking but i am glad there is some true competition after all these years.

I get the idea that the 9900 has some insane clocks but is there a game where a 5ghz 8700 couldn't honestly deliver within 1-2 frames of a 9900KS at this point? Most benchmarks yeah the 8700 barely registers 50% usage in the mass majority of games. Yes i know there is more then gaming people do on the 9900 but dang some people seriously defend this chip for that.
 
I mean, IF the numbers are to be believed (and when I say that, I'm more implying that Tom's got shipped a "cherry" CPU from Intel, top-top-top binned, rather than impuging TH's methodology, which is generally sound), then yes, I'd say Intel has a winner here, for the segment of the gaming population that wants "ultra clocks", and doesn't want to de-lid or use exotic cooling. Good job Intel! But... you're still on 14nm (plus-plus-plus-plus-plus-etc), TSK, TSK, TSK.

I'm happy with my $200 7nm Ryzen R5 3600, personally, and I see no reason to shell out for a $300 mobo and a $560 CPU, just for like 5% more FPS during most games. (Remember, the GPU is still mostly the limit, with today's modern CPUs, I believe. At least, at higher resolutions, like 1440P and 4K.)

I mean, some people drive BWM's, that's their thing. I prefer something more economical, yet, in my eyes, just as good.
 
well wait for for more reviews to verify that number

but if it is true and real, looks good

9900K at 5GHz is untouched especially in gaming

I would be interested in opposite testing- how much power is needed for 9900KS to perform like 3700X, which means like 4,5-4,6GHz- my bet is around 110W

if its all true, comet lake leaks with that pricing doesnt look bad at all
 
This is indeed impressive. Normally at 5.0 Ghz (which is close to the limit) some would expect a poor efficiency, the question is why....is it down to 14nm improvements or some good chip selection or something in the new stepping.
 
Markfw said:
I was comparing stock vs stock. Now you can twist the facts any way you want, I really don't care....
Click to expand...
That'll be 4.1GHz/4.2GHz ACT (95w 9900K running AVX code) at 130 watts compared to 5GHz 9900KS at 142 watts. I suspect this may be 4.7GHz though. The i9 9900KS has no AVX offset. It'll run all workloads at 5GHZ, assuming cooling requirements are met. That's incredible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top