GPU Compute render perf review with 20 GPUs
Corsair H115i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
XFX Radeon RX 5600 XT THICC 3 review
Fractal Design Define 7 XL review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2020
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER GamingPro review
Team Group T-Force DarkZα 3600 MHz DDR4 review
Corsair Scimitar Elite RGB gaming mouse review
Cougar 700K Evo keyboard review
Aorus Liquid Cooler 360 review
Intel Core i9 9900KS processor review
Posted by: on: 11/15/2019 02:40 PM [
88 comment(s) ]
Intel has released its flagship desktop processor in the non-HEDT segment. The 9900KS is their most premium Coffee Lake-S eight-core processor that has been discussed so abundantly. This little beast has eight cores, sixteen threads and gets an all-core turbo bin that reaches 5.0 GHz. For many that is gaming nirvana whilst offering a balance of good performance and being a downright excellent gaming processor.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
intel,
Core i9 9900KS processor review
pages 1 2 3 4
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1368
Senior Member
Posts: 1368
Posted on: 11/15/2019 01:44 PM
Yeah, and seeing what you cant get for similar price from amd, anyone doing more than gaming @720 will be better off with ryzen.
Yeah, and seeing what you cant get for similar price from amd, anyone doing more than gaming @720 will be better off with ryzen.
mohiuddin
Senior Member
Posts: 788
Senior Member
Posts: 788
Posted on: 11/15/2019 01:57 PM
While scrolling down through the power consumption chart , i was quite fascinated by the 3950x's numbers. While populating 4 more cores under the hood , it consumes less than 3900x. Quite intriguing....
While scrolling down through the power consumption chart , i was quite fascinated by the 3950x's numbers. While populating 4 more cores under the hood , it consumes less than 3900x. Quite intriguing....
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:03 PM
That discussion doesn't belong in this thread, but I have been wondering about it as well. Both CPUs are physically the same (both two 8-core dies) with the same TDP even. It happens under multi-threaded stress, the 3900X has a 3800 MHz all core base-clock, the 3950X @ 3500 MHz. That could account for the 7-watt difference. Then again it can also be an instrument error.
While scrolling down through the power consumption chart , i was quite fascinated by the 3950x's numbers. While populating 4 more cores under the hood , it consumes less than 3900x. Quite intriguing....
That discussion doesn't belong in this thread, but I have been wondering about it as well. Both CPUs are physically the same (both two 8-core dies) with the same TDP even. It happens under multi-threaded stress, the 3900X has a 3800 MHz all core base-clock, the 3950X @ 3500 MHz. That could account for the 7-watt difference. Then again it can also be an instrument error.
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:21 PM
Hilbert it ain't my place to say this but if i were you i'd get this article off the front page big thumb nail and bring back the 3950x. You're doing Intel a favor but not yourself, I'm just saying.
Hilbert it ain't my place to say this but if i were you i'd get this article off the front page big thumb nail and bring back the 3950x. You're doing Intel a favor but not yourself, I'm just saying.
mohiuddin
Senior Member
Posts: 788
Senior Member
Posts: 788
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:24 PM
Yeah..well what about all core boost?
i dug a little about it . And it seems that 3950x default vCore is lower than 3900x's. That could be attributed to this improved efficiency .... right?
That discussion doesn't belong in this thread, but I have been wondering about it as well. Both CPUs are physically the same (both two 8-core dies) with the same TDP even. It happens under multi-threaded stress, the 3900X has a 3800 MHz all core base-clock, the 3950X @ 3500 MHz. That could account for the 7-watt difference. Then again it can also be an instrument error.
Yeah..well what about all core boost?
i dug a little about it . And it seems that 3950x default vCore is lower than 3900x's. That could be attributed to this improved efficiency .... right?
Angushades
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Senior Member
Posts: 218
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:24 PM
Very impressive...but still a dead-end platform.
Very impressive...but still a dead-end platform.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:29 PM
Thanks for the very thorough review as always HH and team!
Very close to a 9900k.
Thanks for the very thorough review as always HH and team!
Very close to a 9900k.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:30 PM
The article released 'today' gets a big thumbnail, just like the 3950X had yesterday.
Hilbert it ain't my place to say this but if i were you i'd get this article off the front page big thumb nail and bring back the 3950x. You're doing Intel a favor but not yourself, I'm just saying.
The article released 'today' gets a big thumbnail, just like the 3950X had yesterday.
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:33 PM
Seems a bit odd that the 9900ks that was released a while ago gets to move the 3950x off the big thumbnail the day after it has its moment doesn't it?
I mean i appreciate the work you are doing trust me, but AMD doesn't have a lot of shining moments, and the ones that it has get crushed, seems a bit unfair..
But any who you're the boss so its your decision, I ain't biased towards anyone, its just how i felt this particular situation.
The article released 'today' gets a big thumbnail, just like the 3950X had yesterday.
Seems a bit odd that the 9900ks that was released a while ago gets to move the 3950x off the big thumbnail the day after it has its moment doesn't it?
I mean i appreciate the work you are doing trust me, but AMD doesn't have a lot of shining moments, and the ones that it has get crushed, seems a bit unfair..
But any who you're the boss so its your decision, I ain't biased towards anyone, its just how i felt this particular situation.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 37061
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:37 PM
There, fixed it for you.
There, fixed it for you.
Inquisitor
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:37 PM
Awesome, thanks Hilbert. I actually have already gone ahead and purchased one of these, I couldn't resist that urge....and my 4790k was getting "old".
Haven't done much testing yet but I did manage 5.2 on stock voltages too.
At 5 Ghz on all cores I get low 70s on temps with H115i Platinum with fans still quiet.
Awesome, thanks Hilbert. I actually have already gone ahead and purchased one of these, I couldn't resist that urge....and my 4790k was getting "old".
Haven't done much testing yet but I did manage 5.2 on stock voltages too.
At 5 Ghz on all cores I get low 70s on temps with H115i Platinum with fans still quiet.
kanenas
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:38 PM
So we have to add another 100€ for liquid cooler me no like it nice review HH
So we have to add another 100€ for liquid cooler me no like it nice review HH
Michal Turlik 21
Member
Posts: 85
Member
Posts: 85
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:40 PM
TDP 1000 watts?
TDP 1000 watts?
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Senior Member
Posts: 692
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:45 PM
Wow ok, didn't really think this would actually change anything. You're a good man Hilbert.
There, fixed it for you.
Wow ok, didn't really think this would actually change anything. You're a good man Hilbert.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1788
Senior Member
Posts: 1788
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:49 PM
It's like Intel got annoyed by the shops that go through 1000 units of 9900K CPUs, pick out the best overclockers, and sell them at a high premium. Now Intel does it on their own, selling at a high premium. I'm not sure how many KS units Intel expects to sell and thus separate from the original silicon wafer stock, but nonetheless it does mean anyone buying the regular 9900K has lesser chances of a meaningful overclock.
It's like Intel got annoyed by the shops that go through 1000 units of 9900K CPUs, pick out the best overclockers, and sell them at a high premium. Now Intel does it on their own, selling at a high premium. I'm not sure how many KS units Intel expects to sell and thus separate from the original silicon wafer stock, but nonetheless it does mean anyone buying the regular 9900K has lesser chances of a meaningful overclock.
kanenas
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 11/15/2019 02:51 PM
+1
There, fixed it for you.
+1
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1368
Senior Member
Posts: 1368
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:08 PM
@kanenas
Anyone that spends more than 400$ on a cpu, and even more on a proper eco system to support such cpu (mb/psu/gpu), should have spend a tiny amount on proper cooling anyway.
If not, why buy this in the first place?
Same reason the ppl that can actually afford a +200k car, will never complain about cost of owning it (insurance/maintenance/fuel/tires etc).
@kanenas
Anyone that spends more than 400$ on a cpu, and even more on a proper eco system to support such cpu (mb/psu/gpu), should have spend a tiny amount on proper cooling anyway.
If not, why buy this in the first place?
Same reason the ppl that can actually afford a +200k car, will never complain about cost of owning it (insurance/maintenance/fuel/tires etc).
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 2077
Senior Member
Posts: 2077
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:21 PM
This would be my CPU of choice if I was still on the blue team. My last Intel CPU was a 4790K so this CPU would provide a nice jump in performance. In a universe without Ryzen, I would be rushing out to buy this (of course in a universe without Ryzen this CPU would likely not exist so I won't be getting it either way).
This would be my CPU of choice if I was still on the blue team. My last Intel CPU was a 4790K so this CPU would provide a nice jump in performance. In a universe without Ryzen, I would be rushing out to buy this (of course in a universe without Ryzen this CPU would likely not exist so I won't be getting it either way).
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 5919
Senior Member
Posts: 5919
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:22 PM
Consumes more power, is probably more expensive, and has worse performance than the equivalent Ryzen CPUs... No thanks
Good review as always, though.
Consumes more power, is probably more expensive, and has worse performance than the equivalent Ryzen CPUs... No thanks
Good review as always, though.
kanenas
Member
Posts: 39
Member
Posts: 39
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:35 PM
@kanenas
Anyone that spends more than 400$ on a cpu, and even more on a proper eco system to support such cpu (mb/psu/gpu), should have spend a tiny amount on proper cooling anyway.
If not, why buy this in the first place?
And that is the reason that is not going to sell,a cpu without cooler, rebranded, overpriced released just to steal some light from 3950x another ridiculous cpu for 750€ That also need liquid cooling both company's milking.
Same reason the ppl that can actually afford a +200k car, will never complain about cost of owning it (insurance/maintenance/fuel/tires etc).
@kanenas
Anyone that spends more than 400$ on a cpu, and even more on a proper eco system to support such cpu (mb/psu/gpu), should have spend a tiny amount on proper cooling anyway.
If not, why buy this in the first place?
And that is the reason that is not going to sell,a cpu without cooler, rebranded, overpriced released just to steal some light from 3950x another ridiculous cpu for 750€ That also need liquid cooling both company's milking.
Same reason the ppl that can actually afford a +200k car, will never complain about cost of owning it (insurance/maintenance/fuel/tires etc).
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9509
Senior Member
Posts: 9509
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:49 PM
I've been reading that the 3950x uses under 1V vCORE at full load (and of course the frequency is lower than the 3900x). It looks like the 3950x is the higher binned chips. Others have pointed out if you OC both CPU's to 4.3 all core that the 3950x does consume more power.
OT while this SPU is impressive It's just not worth the money. I'm still glad I was able to grab a 9900kf for $420 (I still feel that a tad high though).
That discussion doesn't belong in this thread, but I have been wondering about it as well. Both CPUs are physically the same (both two 8-core dies) with the same TDP even. It happens under multi-threaded stress, the 3900X has a 3800 MHz all core base-clock, the 3950X @ 3500 MHz. That could account for the 7-watt difference. Then again it can also be an instrument error.
I've been reading that the 3950x uses under 1V vCORE at full load (and of course the frequency is lower than the 3900x). It looks like the 3950x is the higher binned chips. Others have pointed out if you OC both CPU's to 4.3 all core that the 3950x does consume more power.
OT while this SPU is impressive It's just not worth the money. I'm still glad I was able to grab a 9900kf for $420 (I still feel that a tad high though).
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4712
Senior Member
Posts: 4712
Posted on: 11/15/2019 03:53 PM
In August I bought a B450 motherboard and a Ryzen 2600 for cheap, knowing I'll upgrade in two years for Ryzen 4000 or at least the best I can afford of Ryzen 3000.
With Intel, you have no upgrade options. For me that's inexcusable.
Although I don't disagree with your point, I find it very unlikely we're going to see a next-gen Ryzen architecture on AM4. AMD will be releasing AM4 products into 2020 but they haven't released any of the Zen2 APUs yet and the year is almost over. So, I predict the those APUs will be the last we see for AM4. Maybe some of the "Pro" models too.
This would be my CPU of choice if I was still on the blue team. My last Intel CPU was a 4790K so this CPU would provide a nice jump in performance. In a universe without Ryzen, I would be rushing out to buy this (of course in a universe without Ryzen this CPU would likely not exist so I won't be getting it either way).
Out of curiosity, why? Sure, it's binned better than the 9900K, but it doesn't seem to overclock much better. So as an overclocker, you're basically paying a higher price for little to no practical advantage.
In August I bought a B450 motherboard and a Ryzen 2600 for cheap, knowing I'll upgrade in two years for Ryzen 4000 or at least the best I can afford of Ryzen 3000.
With Intel, you have no upgrade options. For me that's inexcusable.
Although I don't disagree with your point, I find it very unlikely we're going to see a next-gen Ryzen architecture on AM4. AMD will be releasing AM4 products into 2020 but they haven't released any of the Zen2 APUs yet and the year is almost over. So, I predict the those APUs will be the last we see for AM4. Maybe some of the "Pro" models too.
This would be my CPU of choice if I was still on the blue team. My last Intel CPU was a 4790K so this CPU would provide a nice jump in performance. In a universe without Ryzen, I would be rushing out to buy this (of course in a universe without Ryzen this CPU would likely not exist so I won't be getting it either way).
Out of curiosity, why? Sure, it's binned better than the 9900K, but it doesn't seem to overclock much better. So as an overclocker, you're basically paying a higher price for little to no practical advantage.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:17 PM
@HilbertHagedoorn
Hey, just to say I like your relative perf charts, if u could also bring back your perf/$$ one I think it would be perfect
Edit: lol, "hh" is actually an user, is that an alter ego or a legitimate user?
@HilbertHagedoorn
Hey, just to say I like your relative perf charts, if u could also bring back your perf/$$ one I think it would be perfect
Edit: lol, "hh" is actually an user, is that an alter ego or a legitimate user?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9509
Senior Member
Posts: 9509
Posted on: 11/15/2019 04:37 PM
Although I don't disagree with your point, I find it very unlikely we're going to see a next-gen Ryzen architecture on AM4. AMD will be releasing AM4 products into 2020 but they haven't released any of the Zen2 APUs yet and the year is almost over. So, I predict the those APUs will be the last we see for AM4. Maybe some of the "Pro" models too.
Out of curiosity, why? Sure, it's binned better than the 9900K, but it doesn't seem to overclock much better. So as an overclocker, you're basically paying a higher price for little to no practical advantage.
4000 is confirmed for AM4.
Although I don't disagree with your point, I find it very unlikely we're going to see a next-gen Ryzen architecture on AM4. AMD will be releasing AM4 products into 2020 but they haven't released any of the Zen2 APUs yet and the year is almost over. So, I predict the those APUs will be the last we see for AM4. Maybe some of the "Pro" models too.
Out of curiosity, why? Sure, it's binned better than the 9900K, but it doesn't seem to overclock much better. So as an overclocker, you're basically paying a higher price for little to no practical advantage.
4000 is confirmed for AM4.
pages 1 2 3 4
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1035
It would be a great processor if not for the fact that next year you'll need a new motherboard (again) to be able to upgrade.
Intel can't beat AMD offerings with performance alone, as the gap is not what it was pre 2017, let alone with Ryzen 3000.
In August I bought a B450 motherboard and a Ryzen 2600 for cheap, knowing I'll upgrade in two years for Ryzen 4000 or at least the best I can afford of Ryzen 3000.
With Intel, you have no upgrade options. For me that's inexcusable.