this is actually a good deal considering that Gigabyte is unlikely in the extreme (lol) to change spec on a flagship product. and for many gamers who are afraid of overclocking, but want the extra fps this is ideal. i'm especially thinking e-sport where someone else's dime pays for this.

I hope for all of that extra cash customers are paying that they get full warranty support from Gigabyte should the CPU die earlier than expected.

Enticles:

I hope for all of that extra cash customers are paying that they get full warranty support from Gigabyte should the CPU die earlier than expected.

Buying new cpu's every year, so we do not care 😀

typhon6657:

$1000 would be more my goal and I hope ddr4 is like $80 a kit by then. I would do it if they could guarantee 5.2ghz.

Sorry, but LOL.

gydj:

I casually bought a 9900K at local store and it runs @ 5.2G just fine...

I hope it was cheap. :P

Called it. Well in way that is. Was close enough tbh.. 😛 Posted this on Feb 3rd when the price of €1049 was mentioned in frontpage.

Koniakki:

With that price, they better throw a 9700K with it. 😛

Sadly, that price is not all that far out of line with a flagship mobo + Monoblock. The Asus Maximus XI Extreme is around $600, and the Bitspower block for it is $150. Add in the fact that this board's block is a full cover, including the chipset and all three m.2 slots, and the leak detection, and it's not out of line. I'd question the logic of putting that much money into a chip that has the limitations that a 9900k does, but hey, enthusiasts aren't known for their logic or self-restraint.

16 lanes are too limiting for me but if games is all that matters well....

Biffo:

16 lanes are too limiting for me but if games is all that matters well....

That's an issue, but the worse problem is that if you overclock a 9900k (which of course you are if you are spending this much to cool it) you are likely to end up spending half or more of the cost of the CPU every year to power it. Intel has pushed this manufacturing process as far as it can go, and it shows a lot on this chip.

illrigger:

That's an issue, but the worse problem is that if you overclock a 9900k (which of course you are if you are spending this much to cool it) you are likely to end up spending half or more of the cost of the CPU every year to power it. Intel has pushed this manufacturing process as far as it can go, and it shows a lot on this chip.

But still way faster than the fastest AMD 2700x. We need AMD to beat 9900k in both latency and frequence. Now 2700x OC has 60-70% higher latency than 9900k OC.

I wonder for how low will Intel lie about the CPU's TDP. It is around 150W, not even close to 95W. And how do you even compare it to AMD's 2700X, which has much lower TDP. At same TDP 9900K is beaten horse, worse than 2700 non-X.

nizzen:

But still way faster than the fastest AMD 2700x. We need AMD to beat 9900k in both latency and frequence. Now 2700x OC has 60-70% higher latency than 9900k OC.

Can you please elaborate more on the latency impact on performance? I am well aware of the frequency's impact, but not sure about the latency( I assume here you are talking about the memory latency).

illrigger:

That's an issue, but the worse problem is that if you overclock a 9900k (which of course you are if you are spending this much to cool it) you are likely to end up spending half or more of the cost of the CPU every year to power it. Intel has pushed this manufacturing process as far as it can go, and it shows a lot on this chip.

If you ran your i9 9900k at 100% load in heavy multithreaded processing 24/7 which would be about 200W (total system power draw when not stressing the GPU as well) going off an aussie electricity price of 20c kWh (it can be cheaper or more expensive depending on where you live), that would come to a total of $350 AUD a year, and that's a worse case scenario where you run the CPU at 100% load every single hour of every single day for the whole year. Considering gaming uses less CPU power than a CPU torture test (which I used to figure out that power usage) and gamers don't spend 24 hours a day gaming, lets say an average gamer playing 4 hours a day playing games that had the same 200W cpu load (unlikely but easier to calculate and keep things similar) would come to a total of $58.40 AUD a year, even if you go up to 8 hours a day that's only $116 AUD a year. Currently a i9 9900k sells for $899 AUD here, so that is nowhere near "half or more of the cost of the CPU every year" even if you played games 8 hours a day on games that absolutely thrashed the CPU. So unless you are using your i9 24/7 for compute tasks (wich would be silly as there are much better processors for that kinda work) its not that big a deal. **note** I didn't use overclocked power usage as those values vary massively between processors, but the torture tests use way more power than games do anyway so it works out being similar to an overclocked processor anyways. Also power draw is TOTAL system power, not just CPU, but only the CPU is being stressed, I sadly don't have the power clamps or reading equipment to get only the power draw on the CPU. Also incase you were unsure these calculations don't include GPU electricity cost as that would be irrelevant to the cost of the CPU, if they did however, the GPU would cost *at least* half again as much ($500+ AUD for 24/7 of only GPU stress, more if cpu stressed as well) a year as the CPU for a high powered GPU like a 2080, 2080ti, 1080, 1080ti e.t.c **Second Note** A Ryzen 2700X btw uses roughly the same 200W system power draw without an overclock in a torture test, so the prices above apply to that processor as well. Just FYI. (if you don't believe me check hilberts own reviews of both of those processors for confirmation, I used them as a source to confirm my own testing info to make sure it was accurate) I kinda feel like this info needs to be re posted somewhere else as the issue of AMD being more power efficient or the cost of running an overclocked CPU (amd or intel) being super crazy expensive keeps being brought up in multiple threads all the time, people need to see this so they stop just spouting nonsense. (yes I am aware that some of AMD's CPU's are more power efficient than their direct performance equivalent from Intel, mostly these are AMD's high core count CPU's)

^ Same can be applied to GPU's. Playing with a GTX 1080Ti for 4 hours a day for 25 days each month(let's leave some weekends off), would cost ~$30($2.5 per month) more yearly, than if someone was playing with a GTX 1660Ti instead.

Ridiric:

If you ran your i9 9900k at 100% load in heavy multithreaded processing 24/7 which would be about 200W (total system power draw when not stressing the GPU as well) going off an aussie electricity price of 20c kWh (it can be cheaper or more expensive depending on where you live), that would come to a total of $350 AUD a year, and that's a worse case scenario where you run the CPU at 100% load every single hour of every single day for the whole year. Considering gaming uses less CPU power than a CPU torture test (which I used to figure out that power usage) and gamers don't spend 24 hours a day gaming, lets say an average gamer playing 4 hours a day playing games that had the same 200W cpu load (unlikely but easier to calculate and keep things similar) would come to a total of $58.40 AUD a year, even if you go up to 8 hours a day that's only $116 AUD a year. Currently a i9 9900k sells for $899 AUD here, so that is nowhere near "half or more of the cost of the CPU every year" even if you played games 8 hours a day on games that absolutely thrashed the CPU. So unless you are using your i9 24/7 for compute tasks (wich would be silly as there are much better processors for that kinda work) its not that big a deal. **note** I didn't use overclocked power usage as those values vary massively between processors, but the torture tests use way more power than games do anyway so it works out being similar to an overclocked processor anyways. Also power draw is TOTAL system power, not just CPU, but only the CPU is being stressed, I sadly don't have the power clamps or reading equipment to get only the power draw on the CPU. Also incase you were unsure these calculations don't include GPU electricity cost as that would be irrelevant to the cost of the CPU, if they did however, the GPU would cost *at least* half again as much ($500+ AUD for 24/7 of only GPU stress, more if cpu stressed as well) a year as the CPU for a high powered GPU like a 2080, 2080ti, 1080, 1080ti e.t.c **Second Note** A Ryzen 2700X btw uses roughly the same 200W system power draw without an overclock in a torture test, so the prices above apply to that processor as well. Just FYI. (if you don't believe me check hilberts own reviews of both of those processors for confirmation, I used them as a source to confirm my own testing info to make sure it was accurate) I kinda feel like this info needs to be re posted somewhere else as the issue of AMD being more power efficient or the cost of running an overclocked CPU (amd or intel) being super crazy expensive keeps being brought up in multiple threads all the time, people need to see this so they stop just spouting nonsense. (yes I am aware that some of AMD's CPU's are more power efficient than their direct performance equivalent from Intel, mostly these are AMD's high core count CPU's)

Even if the 9900k consumed 50W more than the 2700x while gaming(using 200w/$58 figures above) it comes out to ~$15($1.25 per month) more yearly over the 2700x. And that amount won't be that noticeable on someone's power/electricity bill every month or two.

Koniakki:

^ Same can be applied to GPU's. Playing with a GTX 1080Ti for 4 hours a day for 25 days each month(let's leave some weekends off), would cost ~$30($2.5 per month) more yearly, than if someone was playing with a GTX 1660Ti instead. Even if the 9900k consumed 50W more than the 2700x while gaming(using 200w/$58 figures above) it comes out to ~$15($1.25 per month) more yearly over the 2700x. And that amount won't be that noticeable on someone's power/electricity bill every month or two.

Ridiric:

If you ran your i9 9900k at 100% load in heavy multithreaded processing 24/7 which would be about 200W (total system power draw when not stressing the GPU as well) going off an aussie electricity price of 20c kWh (it can be cheaper or more expensive depending on where you live), that would come to a total of $350 AUD a year, and that's a worse case scenario where you run the CPU at 100% load every single hour of every single day for the whole year. Considering gaming uses less CPU power than a CPU torture test (which I used to figure out that power usage) and gamers don't spend 24 hours a day gaming, lets say an average gamer playing 4 hours a day playing games that had the same 200W cpu load (unlikely but easier to calculate and keep things similar) would come to a total of $58.40 AUD a year, even if you go up to 8 hours a day that's only $116 AUD a year. Currently a i9 9900k sells for $899 AUD here, so that is nowhere near "half or more of the cost of the CPU every year" even if you played games 8 hours a day on games that absolutely thrashed the CPU. So unless you are using your i9 24/7 for compute tasks (wich would be silly as there are much better processors for that kinda work) its not that big a deal. **note** I didn't use overclocked power usage as those values vary massively between processors, but the torture tests use way more power than games do anyway so it works out being similar to an overclocked processor anyways. Also power draw is TOTAL system power, not just CPU, but only the CPU is being stressed, I sadly don't have the power clamps or reading equipment to get only the power draw on the CPU. Also incase you were unsure these calculations don't include GPU electricity cost as that would be irrelevant to the cost of the CPU, if they did however, the GPU would cost *at least* half again as much ($500+ AUD for 24/7 of only GPU stress, more if cpu stressed as well) a year as the CPU for a high powered GPU like a 2080, 2080ti, 1080, 1080ti e.t.c **Second Note** A Ryzen 2700X btw uses roughly the same 200W system power draw without an overclock in a torture test, so the prices above apply to that processor as well. Just FYI. (if you don't believe me check hilberts own reviews of both of those processors for confirmation, I used them as a source to confirm my own testing info to make sure it was accurate) I kinda feel like this info needs to be re posted somewhere else as the issue of AMD being more power efficient or the cost of running an overclocked CPU (amd or intel) being super crazy expensive keeps being brought up in multiple threads all the time, people need to see this so they stop just spouting nonsense. (yes I am aware that some of AMD's CPU's are more power efficient than their direct performance equivalent from Intel, mostly these are AMD's high core count CPU's)

Koniakki:

^ Same can be applied to GPU's. Playing with a GTX 1080Ti for 4 hours a day for 25 days each month(let's leave some weekends off), would cost ~$30($2.5 per month) more yearly, than if someone was playing with a GTX 1660Ti instead. Even if the 9900k consumed 50W more than the 2700x while gaming(using 200w/$58 figures above) it comes out to ~$15($1.25 per month) more yearly over the 2700x. And that amount won't be that noticeable on someone's power/electricity bill every month or two.

Y'all some good power usage Gurus I tell ya! it is good to know that stuff offhand...Thanks.

Btw I saw the price listed as $1600. Geez. Fun fact: You can get an ASUS Maximus XI Formula(z390) + an EKWB Velocity cpu block + a 9900k for ~€1050 or ~$1020. Yeah, obviously people who can/would buy the bundle couldn't care less for the extra $550-600 but asking $1600 for a z390 platform mobo and cpu bundle is kinda ridiculous if not scary imo.