AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

[vMax]

Who in there right mind buys a 9900K to run it at the 95w TDP limit at $600? what is the point to the 'K' CPU's if not for overclocking and those that buy the 9900K, I am sure they want to push the CPU to it's max....It's certainly not cost effective but does that matter to a certain audience, I think not.

The testing done is so redundant as to be completely pointless as the 9900K is just there for those that wants absolutely maximum clocks, FPS, overclocking and bragging rights (for those that seem to need it) period...Who in there right mind would buy the 9900K for workstation use when there is Threadripper!...For price to performance Ryzen 2700, for all out gaming the 8600 or 8700K but to hamstring the 9900K at it's TDP when this is sold as a 'K' Overclocklable CPU is just laughable.

The 9900K was never meant to be bought to run at it's 'true stock settings' but if people want to delude themselves then who am I to stand in there way, just as I think people paying $600 for the 9900K are also a bit mental...

My argument would be totally unfounded IF, AND ONLY IF Intel had set the TDP at 150W. Had they done that then yes no one would be saying the stock benchmarks are bullsh*t. But the fact of the matter is Intel to try to showcase a more efficient processor set their TDP at 95W (vs the R7 2700X's 105W). At 95W - which by definition by Intel themselves is true stock settings the i9 9900K can only run all core at 4.0Ghz for most productivity tasks and only breaks even overall in productivity with the R7 2700X. All the first day "stock" benchmarks for the 9900K were bullsh*t and I take my hat off to Hardware Unboxed to show us the true stock benchmarks for the 9900K. Of course the overclocked benchmarks are going to remain the same, but most people reading reviews look at both the stock and overclocked numbers in comparing processors. As stated first day reviews for the i9 9900K all we had was default overclocked numbers and maximum overclocked numbers, but we never had stock numbers till now.

As stated these processors make no sense at any level. For gaming you don't need an 8 core processor, the 6 core i5 9600K will perform exactly the same in almost all gaming benchmarks for only $280. For productivity at stock the i9 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X (which is half the cost and comes with a very capable cooler) and if your overclocking the 9900K then you need very expensive aftermarket premium cooling, a top line high rated PSU and are drawing more system power than a Threadripper 2950X which by the time you factor in all costs for cooling needs the 2950X will be marginally more expensive for a total system build while providing much more workstation performance and consuming less power.

Its as though you think people who are going to fork out $600 on a CPU are brainless and absolutely don't know what they are buying even though the 9900K has been done to death on review after review with exactly the same results like this:

'Only buy if you have a lot of money and are not interested in price to performance, want the single fastest mainstream CPU, overclocking to boot....but there are much, much better options out there' namely the 2700 or 2700X and gaming any multitude of from Ryzen through to CPU's from Intel including the 8400 upwards..

People who buy the 9900K know exactly what they are buying and lets be honest, there is nothing wrong with there purchasing decision provided they are happy to spend the money. This I repeat is not about how good or bad the CPU is, it is just about the artificial 'we know better than you brigade' and 'mine is better brigade' of nonsense..

 

[Redneck5439]

As a person who builds custom computers for customers I would be remiss to not give my customers the full story when they come in for a build. I'm going to give them the best overall performers (regardless of price), the best priced processors to get meet their needs, and the very best price to performance they can buy. Then let them decide. The problem is, I can't list the 8 core i9s in any of those groups.

I can very easily recommend the i5 9600K as hands down it is the very best gaming processor for performance available. It has the same performance as the 9900K and 9700K in virtually all gaming benchmarks but is a much better option at $280. For gaming I would also point out that the best price to performance processor available is the R5 2600. The i5 9600K is only 16% better 1080p, yet costs over 85% more than the R5 2600 when overclocked to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz. And then let the customer decide do they want the very best possible FPS or the best value while retaining exceptional gaming performance. I know either way I have given them the best options.

For productivity the very best regardless of price is the Threadripper 2950X. The very best price to performance is the R7 2700X. I can't recommend the 9900K or 9700K. With default overclocking as set by most motherboards the i7 9700K breaks even with the R7 2700X even though the 9700K will run you ~$500 and the 2700X is under $300- with its 95W limit enforced the 9700K would be outperformed by a much cheaper 2700X. With its true stock 95W limit enforced the 9900K is overall even with the 2700X at twice the cost ($600) and when overclocked either by default or by manual overclocking will use over 150W and while it will now best the 2700X you will also need high end cooling- top of the line water cooling or custom loop (to reach 5.0Ghz if you can at all) and will be using more system power than the Threadripper 2950X (which has double the cores and threads). Factoring in the cost of high end water cooling or custom loop to cool the 9900K for maximum overclocking you are within ~$100 - $150 of the total system cost of the Threadripper 2950X and the 2950X will just totally outperform the 9900K in workstation tasks all day long. The 8 core 9th gen Intel processors are just processors that is very difficult to impossible to recommend for any system build.

 

[vMax]

As a person who builds custom computers for customers I would be remiss to not give my customers the full story when they come in for a build. I'm going to give them the best overall performers (regardless of price), the best priced processors to get meet their needs, and the very best price to performance they can buy. Then let them decide. The problem is, I can't list the 8 core i9s in any of those groups.

I can very easily recommend the i5 9600K as hands down it is the very best gaming processor for performance available. It has the same performance as the 9900K and 9700K in virtually all gaming benchmarks but is a much better option at $280. For gaming I would also point out that the best price to performance processor available is the R5 2600. The i5 9600K is only 16% better 1080p, yet costs over 85% more than the R5 2600 when overclocked to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz. And then let the customer decide do they want the very best possible FPS or the best value while retaining exceptional gaming performance. I know either way I have given them the best options.

For productivity the very best regardless of price is the Threadripper 2950X. The very best price to performance is the R7 2700X. I can't recommend the 9900K or 9700K. With default overclocking as set by most motherboards the i7 9700K breaks even with the R7 2700X even though the 9700K will run you ~$500 and the 2700X is under $300- with its 95W limit enforced the 9700K would be outperformed by a much cheaper 2700X. With its true stock 95W limit enforced the 9900K is overall even with the 2700X at twice the cost ($600) and when overclocked either by default or by manual overclocking will use over 150W and while it will now best the 2700X you will also need high end cooling- top of the line water cooling or custom loop (to reach 5.0Ghz if you can at all) and will be using more system power than the Threadripper 2950X (which has double the cores and threads). Factoring in the cost of high end water cooling or custom loop to cool the 9900K for maximum overclocking you are within ~$100 - $150 of the total system cost of the Threadripper 2950X and the 2950X will just totally outperform the 9900K in workstation tasks all day long. The 8 core 9th gen Intel processors are just processors that is very difficult to impossible to recommend for any system build.

Okay I see where you are coming from and in that context where you are recommending, absolutely In can understand and agree....My point is to test and say at 95w TDP this is a bad choice is wrong with the 9900K as it certainly is not built or priced more importantly for that at all and should be taken in it's own context as a top end seriously overpriced, I know!!! but hell of a fast CPU when unleashed...

 

[Redneck5439]

Who in there right mind buys a 9900K to run it at the 95w TDP limit at $600? what is the point to the 'K' CPU's if not for overclocking and those that buy the 9900K, I am sure they want to push the CPU to it's max....It's certainly not cost effective but does that matter to a certain audience, I think not.

The testing done is so redundant as to be completely pointless as the 9900K is just there for those that wants absolutely maximum clocks, FPS, overclocking and bragging rights (for those that seem to need it) period...Who in there right mind would buy the 9900K for workstation use when there is Threadripper!...For price to performance Ryzen 2700, for all out gaming the 8600 or 8700K but to hamstring the 9900K at it's TDP when this is sold as a 'K' Overclocklable CPU is just laughable.

The 9900K was never meant to be bought to run at it's 'true stock settings' but if people want to delude themselves then who am I to stand in there way, just as I think people paying $600 for the 9900K are also a bit mental...

My argument would be totally unfounded IF, AND ONLY IF Intel had set the TDP at 150W. Had they done that then yes no one would be saying the stock benchmarks are bullsh*t. But the fact of the matter is Intel to try to showcase a more efficient processor set their TDP at 95W (vs the R7 2700X's 105W). At 95W - which by definition by Intel themselves is true stock settings the i9 9900K can only run all core at 4.0Ghz for most productivity tasks and only breaks even overall in productivity with the R7 2700X. All the first day "stock" benchmarks for the 9900K were bullsh*t and I take my hat off to Hardware Unboxed to show us the true stock benchmarks for the 9900K. Of course the overclocked benchmarks are going to remain the same, but most people reading reviews look at both the stock and overclocked numbers in comparing processors. As stated first day reviews for the i9 9900K all we had was default overclocked numbers and maximum overclocked numbers, but we never had stock numbers till now.

As stated these processors make no sense at any level. For gaming you don't need an 8 core processor, the 6 core i5 9600K will perform exactly the same in almost all gaming benchmarks for only $280. For productivity at stock the i9 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X (which is half the cost and comes with a very capable cooler) and if your overclocking the 9900K then you need very expensive aftermarket premium cooling, a top line high rated PSU and are drawing more system power than a Threadripper 2950X which by the time you factor in all costs for cooling needs the 2950X will be marginally more expensive for a total system build while providing much more workstation performance and consuming less power.

Its as though you think people who are going to fork out $600 on a CPU are brainless and absolutely don't know what they are buying even though the 9900K has been done to death on review after review with exactly the same results like this:

'Only buy if you have a lot of money and are not interested in price to performance, want the single fastest mainstream CPU, overclocking to boot....but there are much, much better options out there' namely the 2700 or 2700X and gaming any multitude of from Ryzen through to CPU's from Intel including the 8400 upwards..

People who buy the 9900K know exactly what they are buying and lets be honest, there is nothing wrong with there purchasing decision provided they are happy to spend the money. This I repeat is not about how good or bad the CPU is, it is just about the artificial 'we know better than you brigade' and 'mine is better brigade' of nonsense..

The problem is its not the best possible processor at anything. It is even in gaming with the i5 9600K. It is outdone in productivity/ workstation tasks easily by the Threadripper 2950X which total system build cost (taking into consideration the aftermarket cooling the 9900K will require to hit its "full potential" overclock) is only marginally more for a high end build. The problem is it can't factually be touted as the very best in anything with its current performance and pricing that with cooling taken into account puts it in the price range of the 2950X.

 

[Redneck5439]

As a person who builds custom computers for customers I would be remiss to not give my customers the full story when they come in for a build. I'm going to give them the best overall performers (regardless of price), the best priced processors to get meet their needs, and the very best price to performance they can buy. Then let them decide. The problem is, I can't list the 8 core i9s in any of those groups.

I can very easily recommend the i5 9600K as hands down it is the very best gaming processor for performance available. It has the same performance as the 9900K and 9700K in virtually all gaming benchmarks but is a much better option at $280. For gaming I would also point out that the best price to performance processor available is the R5 2600. The i5 9600K is only 16% better 1080p, yet costs over 85% more than the R5 2600 when overclocked to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz. And then let the customer decide do they want the very best possible FPS or the best value while retaining exceptional gaming performance. I know either way I have given them the best options.

For productivity the very best regardless of price is the Threadripper 2950X. The very best price to performance is the R7 2700X. I can't recommend the 9900K or 9700K. With default overclocking as set by most motherboards the i7 9700K breaks even with the R7 2700X even though the 9700K will run you ~$500 and the 2700X is under $300- with its 95W limit enforced the 9700K would be outperformed by a much cheaper 2700X. With its true stock 95W limit enforced the 9900K is overall even with the 2700X at twice the cost ($600) and when overclocked either by default or by manual overclocking will use over 150W and while it will now best the 2700X you will also need high end cooling- top of the line water cooling or custom loop (to reach 5.0Ghz if you can at all) and will be using more system power than the Threadripper 2950X (which has double the cores and threads). Factoring in the cost of high end water cooling or custom loop to cool the 9900K for maximum overclocking you are within ~$100 - $150 of the total system cost of the Threadripper 2950X and the 2950X will just totally outperform the 9900K in workstation tasks all day long. The 8 core 9th gen Intel processors are just processors that is very difficult to impossible to recommend for any system build.

Okay I see where you are coming from and in that context where you are recommending, absolutely In can understand and agree....My point is to test and say at 95w TDP this is a bad choice is wrong with the 9900K as it certainly is not built or priced more importantly for that at all and should be taken in it's own context as a top end seriously overpriced, I know!!! but hell of a fast CPU when unleashed...

Exactly, I am coming from I have to be able to recommend a processor with actual numbers to back me up. That is why back in the day I build quite a few FX 8350 builds but hardly any FX 9590 builds, and for gaming basically Intel exclusively.

I still stand by the 9900K and 9700K should be tested with their 95W limit in place to give us true factory stock numbers and benchmarks based upon the manufactures specifications. Then give the overclocked results, both default overclocked results as set by motherboard and maximum manual overclocks. I think that is the most fair and best way to present the pure factual information and benchmarks.

 

[vMax]

Who in there right mind buys a 9900K to run it at the 95w TDP limit at $600? what is the point to the 'K' CPU's if not for overclocking and those that buy the 9900K, I am sure they want to push the CPU to it's max....It's certainly not cost effective but does that matter to a certain audience, I think not.

The testing done is so redundant as to be completely pointless as the 9900K is just there for those that wants absolutely maximum clocks, FPS, overclocking and bragging rights (for those that seem to need it) period...Who in there right mind would buy the 9900K for workstation use when there is Threadripper!...For price to performance Ryzen 2700, for all out gaming the 8600 or 8700K but to hamstring the 9900K at it's TDP when this is sold as a 'K' Overclocklable CPU is just laughable.

The 9900K was never meant to be bought to run at it's 'true stock settings' but if people want to delude themselves then who am I to stand in there way, just as I think people paying $600 for the 9900K are also a bit mental...

My argument would be totally unfounded IF, AND ONLY IF Intel had set the TDP at 150W. Had they done that then yes no one would be saying the stock benchmarks are bullsh*t. But the fact of the matter is Intel to try to showcase a more efficient processor set their TDP at 95W (vs the R7 2700X's 105W). At 95W - which by definition by Intel themselves is true stock settings the i9 9900K can only run all core at 4.0Ghz for most productivity tasks and only breaks even overall in productivity with the R7 2700X. All the first day "stock" benchmarks for the 9900K were bullsh*t and I take my hat off to Hardware Unboxed to show us the true stock benchmarks for the 9900K. Of course the overclocked benchmarks are going to remain the same, but most people reading reviews look at both the stock and overclocked numbers in comparing processors. As stated first day reviews for the i9 9900K all we had was default overclocked numbers and maximum overclocked numbers, but we never had stock numbers till now.

As stated these processors make no sense at any level. For gaming you don't need an 8 core processor, the 6 core i5 9600K will perform exactly the same in almost all gaming benchmarks for only $280. For productivity at stock the i9 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X (which is half the cost and comes with a very capable cooler) and if your overclocking the 9900K then you need very expensive aftermarket premium cooling, a top line high rated PSU and are drawing more system power than a Threadripper 2950X which by the time you factor in all costs for cooling needs the 2950X will be marginally more expensive for a total system build while providing much more workstation performance and consuming less power.

Its as though you think people who are going to fork out $600 on a CPU are brainless and absolutely don't know what they are buying even though the 9900K has been done to death on review after review with exactly the same results like this:

'Only buy if you have a lot of money and are not interested in price to performance, want the single fastest mainstream CPU, overclocking to boot....but there are much, much better options out there' namely the 2700 or 2700X and gaming any multitude of from Ryzen through to CPU's from Intel including the 8400 upwards..

People who buy the 9900K know exactly what they are buying and lets be honest, there is nothing wrong with there purchasing decision provided they are happy to spend the money. This I repeat is not about how good or bad the CPU is, it is just about the artificial 'we know better than you brigade' and 'mine is better brigade' of nonsense..

The problem is its not the best possible processor at anything. It is even in gaming with the i5 9600K. It is outdone in productivity/ workstation tasks easily by the Threadripper 2950X which total system build cost (taking into consideration the aftermarket cooling the 9900K will require to hit its "full potential" overclock) is only marginally more for a high end build. The problem is it can't factually be touted as the very best in anything with its current performance and pricing that with cooling taken into account puts it in the price range of the 2950X.

As a person who builds custom computers for customers I would be remiss to not give my customers the full story when they come in for a build. I'm going to give them the best overall performers (regardless of price), the best priced processors to get meet their needs, and the very best price to performance they can buy. Then let them decide. The problem is, I can't list the 8 core i9s in any of those groups.

I can very easily recommend the i5 9600K as hands down it is the very best gaming processor for performance available. It has the same performance as the 9900K and 9700K in virtually all gaming benchmarks but is a much better option at $280. For gaming I would also point out that the best price to performance processor available is the R5 2600. The i5 9600K is only 16% better 1080p, yet costs over 85% more than the R5 2600 when overclocked to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz. And then let the customer decide do they want the very best possible FPS or the best value while retaining exceptional gaming performance. I know either way I have given them the best options.

For productivity the very best regardless of price is the Threadripper 2950X. The very best price to performance is the R7 2700X. I can't recommend the 9900K or 9700K. With default overclocking as set by most motherboards the i7 9700K breaks even with the R7 2700X even though the 9700K will run you ~$500 and the 2700X is under $300- with its 95W limit enforced the 9700K would be outperformed by a much cheaper 2700X. With its true stock 95W limit enforced the 9900K is overall even with the 2700X at twice the cost ($600) and when overclocked either by default or by manual overclocking will use over 150W and while it will now best the 2700X you will also need high end cooling- top of the line water cooling or custom loop (to reach 5.0Ghz if you can at all) and will be using more system power than the Threadripper 2950X (which has double the cores and threads). Factoring in the cost of high end water cooling or custom loop to cool the 9900K for maximum overclocking you are within ~$100 - $150 of the total system cost of the Threadripper 2950X and the 2950X will just totally outperform the 9900K in workstation tasks all day long. The 8 core 9th gen Intel processors are just processors that is very difficult to impossible to recommend for any system build.

Okay I see where you are coming from and in that context where you are recommending, absolutely In can understand and agree....My point is to test and say at 95w TDP this is a bad choice is wrong with the 9900K as it certainly is not built or priced more importantly for that at all and should be taken in it's own context as a top end seriously overpriced, I know!!! but hell of a fast CPU when unleashed...

Exactly, I am coming from I have to be able to recommend a processor with actual numbers to back me up. That is why back in the day I build quite a few FX 8350 builds but hardly any FX 9590 builds, and for gaming basically Intel exclusively.

I still stand by the 9900K and 9700K should be tested with their 95W limit in place to give us true factory stock numbers and benchmarks based upon the manufactures specifications. Then give the overclocked results, both default overclocked results as set by motherboard and maximum manual overclocks. I think that is the most fair and best way to present the pure factual information and benchmarks.

I have absolutely no arguments with presenting both stock and overclocked numbers at all...after all it is a 'K' CPU and unlocked so having those numbers is important if not more so as that is why people pay the extra for the 'K' CPU's...those that do not want overclocked or overclockable CPU's have the H series chipset and the non K CPU's..

 

[Redneck5439]

Who in there right mind buys a 9900K to run it at the 95w TDP limit at $600? what is the point to the 'K' CPU's if not for overclocking and those that buy the 9900K, I am sure they want to push the CPU to it's max....It's certainly not cost effective but does that matter to a certain audience, I think not.

The testing done is so redundant as to be completely pointless as the 9900K is just there for those that wants absolutely maximum clocks, FPS, overclocking and bragging rights (for those that seem to need it) period...Who in there right mind would buy the 9900K for workstation use when there is Threadripper!...For price to performance Ryzen 2700, for all out gaming the 8600 or 8700K but to hamstring the 9900K at it's TDP when this is sold as a 'K' Overclocklable CPU is just laughable.

The 9900K was never meant to be bought to run at it's 'true stock settings' but if people want to delude themselves then who am I to stand in there way, just as I think people paying $600 for the 9900K are also a bit mental...

My argument would be totally unfounded IF, AND ONLY IF Intel had set the TDP at 150W. Had they done that then yes no one would be saying the stock benchmarks are bullsh*t. But the fact of the matter is Intel to try to showcase a more efficient processor set their TDP at 95W (vs the R7 2700X's 105W). At 95W - which by definition by Intel themselves is true stock settings the i9 9900K can only run all core at 4.0Ghz for most productivity tasks and only breaks even overall in productivity with the R7 2700X. All the first day "stock" benchmarks for the 9900K were bullsh*t and I take my hat off to Hardware Unboxed to show us the true stock benchmarks for the 9900K. Of course the overclocked benchmarks are going to remain the same, but most people reading reviews look at both the stock and overclocked numbers in comparing processors. As stated first day reviews for the i9 9900K all we had was default overclocked numbers and maximum overclocked numbers, but we never had stock numbers till now.

As stated these processors make no sense at any level. For gaming you don't need an 8 core processor, the 6 core i5 9600K will perform exactly the same in almost all gaming benchmarks for only $280. For productivity at stock the i9 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X (which is half the cost and comes with a very capable cooler) and if your overclocking the 9900K then you need very expensive aftermarket premium cooling, a top line high rated PSU and are drawing more system power than a Threadripper 2950X which by the time you factor in all costs for cooling needs the 2950X will be marginally more expensive for a total system build while providing much more workstation performance and consuming less power.

Its as though you think people who are going to fork out $600 on a CPU are brainless and absolutely don't know what they are buying even though the 9900K has been done to death on review after review with exactly the same results like this:

'Only buy if you have a lot of money and are not interested in price to performance, want the single fastest mainstream CPU, overclocking to boot....but there are much, much better options out there' namely the 2700 or 2700X and gaming any multitude of from Ryzen through to CPU's from Intel including the 8400 upwards..

People who buy the 9900K know exactly what they are buying and lets be honest, there is nothing wrong with there purchasing decision provided they are happy to spend the money. This I repeat is not about how good or bad the CPU is, it is just about the artificial 'we know better than you brigade' and 'mine is better brigade' of nonsense..

The problem is its not the best possible processor at anything. It is even in gaming with the i5 9600K. It is outdone in productivity/ workstation tasks easily by the Threadripper 2950X which total system build cost (taking into consideration the aftermarket cooling the 9900K will require to hit its "full potential" overclock) is only marginally more for a high end build. The problem is it can't factually be touted as the very best in anything with its current performance and pricing that with cooling taken into account puts it in the price range of the 2950X.

As a person who builds custom computers for customers I would be remiss to not give my customers the full story when they come in for a build. I'm going to give them the best overall performers (regardless of price), the best priced processors to get meet their needs, and the very best price to performance they can buy. Then let them decide. The problem is, I can't list the 8 core i9s in any of those groups.

I can very easily recommend the i5 9600K as hands down it is the very best gaming processor for performance available. It has the same performance as the 9900K and 9700K in virtually all gaming benchmarks but is a much better option at $280. For gaming I would also point out that the best price to performance processor available is the R5 2600. The i5 9600K is only 16% better 1080p, yet costs over 85% more than the R5 2600 when overclocked to 4.1 - 4.2Ghz. And then let the customer decide do they want the very best possible FPS or the best value while retaining exceptional gaming performance. I know either way I have given them the best options.

For productivity the very best regardless of price is the Threadripper 2950X. The very best price to performance is the R7 2700X. I can't recommend the 9900K or 9700K. With default overclocking as set by most motherboards the i7 9700K breaks even with the R7 2700X even though the 9700K will run you ~$500 and the 2700X is under $300- with its 95W limit enforced the 9700K would be outperformed by a much cheaper 2700X. With its true stock 95W limit enforced the 9900K is overall even with the 2700X at twice the cost ($600) and when overclocked either by default or by manual overclocking will use over 150W and while it will now best the 2700X you will also need high end cooling- top of the line water cooling or custom loop (to reach 5.0Ghz if you can at all) and will be using more system power than the Threadripper 2950X (which has double the cores and threads). Factoring in the cost of high end water cooling or custom loop to cool the 9900K for maximum overclocking you are within ~$100 - $150 of the total system cost of the Threadripper 2950X and the 2950X will just totally outperform the 9900K in workstation tasks all day long. The 8 core 9th gen Intel processors are just processors that is very difficult to impossible to recommend for any system build.

Okay I see where you are coming from and in that context where you are recommending, absolutely In can understand and agree....My point is to test and say at 95w TDP this is a bad choice is wrong with the 9900K as it certainly is not built or priced more importantly for that at all and should be taken in it's own context as a top end seriously overpriced, I know!!! but hell of a fast CPU when unleashed...

Exactly, I am coming from I have to be able to recommend a processor with actual numbers to back me up. That is why back in the day I build quite a few FX 8350 builds but hardly any FX 9590 builds, and for gaming basically Intel exclusively.

I still stand by the 9900K and 9700K should be tested with their 95W limit in place to give us true factory stock numbers and benchmarks based upon the manufactures specifications. Then give the overclocked results, both default overclocked results as set by motherboard and maximum manual overclocks. I think that is the most fair and best way to present the pure factual information and benchmarks.

I have absolutely no arguments with presenting both stock and overclocked numbers at all...after all it is a 'K' CPU and unlocked so having those numbers is important if not more so as that is why people pay the extra for the 'K' CPU's...those that do not want overclocked or overclockable CPU's have the H series chipset and the non K CPU's..

I totally agree. If you are looking at overclocking past what by default most i9 9900K's are already set at (4.7Ghz) then at most your going to get only a 300Mhz overclock past default, which isn't all that impressive. However if you compare that overclock to the actual factory specified stock clock of 4.0Ghz set by the 95W limit then overclocking to 5.0Ghz is much more impressive even with factoring in the need of extreme cooling.

The problem is Intel has been somewhat overshadowed by AMD Ryzen ever since Ryzen launched. They wanted the 9th gen refresh to nail home they are still the best. In so doing they were trying to "check" too many "boxes" and were realistically unable to do so other than by what can best be described as slight of hand. They wanted the most efficient 8 core processor, which they accomplished with setting the 9900K at 95W. At 95W it is even more efficient than the very efficient R7 2700X. The problem is at 95W although gaming performance was still greater productivity was only even with the 2700X and an 8 core 16 thread processor would almost surely be looked at for productivity, and Intel needed to beat the 2700X not match it. To increase the productivity they had to increase the clock speed which increases the power usage. They couldn't very well do that and keep their "95W TDP" rating so they got the motherboard manufactures to exceed the limit with default overclocking which removed the 95W limit, scaling the processor to 4.7Ghz at over 150W. Now they had the more powerful workstation processor (vs 2700X) and could also still claim that they had a 95W TDP as it wasn't technically them who were default overclocking and exceeding the TDP limit. It was the motherboard manufactures. It was a very sneaky slight of hand move so they could claim two things at the same time that could never exist at the same exact time. Either you have efficiency and low thermals with 95W or you have higher performance, and much higher thermals at over 150W. For a short period of time it worked for them as day 1 reviews all showed "stock" benchmarks based off of 150W+ and 4.7Ghz all core default overclocks. Now and only now have we seen the true base factory stock (as set by Intel themselves with a 95W TDP) benchmarks.

Bottom line for a workstation CPU (which is what the 8 core processors should be looked at for as for pure gaming their 6 core counterparts make much more sense with the same overall performance) the i9 9900K is at stock even with the much cheaper R7 2700X. When overclocked the i9 9900K takes the lead in workstation related tasks but will require expensive premium aftermarket cooling to reach those levels for 24/ 7 everyday use. Taking into consideration its already high cost then tacking on addition cost for high end cooling the i9 9900K is now very close in total system price to that of a Threadripper 2950X which absolutely outperforms it in workstation tasks. You buy a "K" processor for overclocking and basically "free extra performance". However if in the end your at the same price as a processor like the 2950X that will far outperform it in workstation tasks while using less power then you have a serious problem.

 

[toesis]

if they listed the 9900k performance at 150w people would say these Cpu's have very low overclockablity
the 2700x does not over clock well is known

 

[Redneck5439]

if they listed the 9900k performance at 150w people would say these Cpu's have very low overclockablity
the 2700x does not over clock well is known

In my neck of the woods we tend to call it "lipstick on a pig". Now don't get me wrong, the i9 9900K is a good processor with impressive performance but Intel has to decide what it is. Its either very efficient with huge ~1Ghz overclocking capability (with the factory specified 95W limit in place) or Its a beast out of the box with high ~150W TDP with very high thermals but scales all core to 4.7Ghz all core with the limiting factor being it can only then overclock a maximum of 200 - 300Mhz. The problem with Intel is they tried to have it both ways and both can't be true at the same time.

The fact is that marketing the product like Intel has should be illegal. Right on the box and all over the web the part is listed as a 95W TDP processor. In most every benchmark test its boosting to 4.7Ghz all core while using in excess of 150W. That is false advertising circumvented by Intel getting the motherboard manufactures to take the bullet. I'm just glad that review sites like Hardware Unboxed have taken the time and ethical high ground to show what the performance of the processor is at its true stock as set by Intel stock configuration.

Intel had a winner on its hands people would have been impressed with a 95W part that gamed better than the 2700X, matched its performance as a workstation but had a massive ~1Ghz overclock headroom. The only problem they had was they wanted to set the price absurdly high compared to the competition so it had to be a clear winner across the board and not just equal to in any aspect. To achieve this Intel fell back on an old familiar friend of theirs "slight of hand" believe its superior in every way because we say so.

 

[jdlech2]

If you can't afford a 9900K for gaming, then you should spend your time doing something more profitable than gaming. Just sayin.

 

[SkyBill40]

If you can't afford a 9900K for gaming, then you should spend your time doing something more profitable than gaming. Just sayin.

Nice black or white fallacy you've got there.

 

[richardvday]

If you can't afford a 9900K for gaming, then you should spend your time doing something more profitable than gaming. Just sayin.

Lot of people work their ass off but cant afford to spend that kind of money on a cpu/mb that cost that much.
Should they work 24/7 to meet your approval ?
Not everyone is doing as well as you are apparently.
Snobbish is what you are

 

[Redneck5439]

If you can't afford a 9900K for gaming, then you should spend your time doing something more profitable than gaming. Just sayin.

Damn, troll much? But seriously child, I can more than afford to build a rig with a i9 9900K, I'm just not ignorant enough to do so. If gaming dominance is what your looking for then I would build a i5 9600K or i7 8700K, custom loop and overclock the living snot out of it. That would be a total gaming dominance rig, as it would have the same or better performance (depending on how high you could get that overclock) than the 9900K. Seriously though as I've stated the 9900K has no place. Gaming total dominance the i5 9600K (or i7 8700K) will give the same gaming benchmarks in 99% of titles for way less money and best gaming processor for the money i5 2600 with an overclock best value period. As a gaming processor the 9900K is not able to be recommended.

 

[Redneck5439]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

 

[vMax]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

 

[Redneck5439]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

 

[Redneck5439]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

Its kind of a moot subject as there is only one motherboard manufacture that will run the i9 9900K at its actual stock specifications and that is Asus. It is a slight of hand and can be dangerous for unwary or uninformed buyers. If you were to buy an aftermarket heat sink at a retailer and all you could remember was its a new processor and has a 95W TDP well there are a lot of entry class cheap heat sinks that will fit that bill. You would more than likely be very surprised when you try running your shiny new machine and find that its hotter than blazes because its actually running out of the box with a 60W 700Mhz overclock. Getting motherboard manufactures to slightly default overclock the processor is shady to begin with, but getting them to do it at ~60W over the specification is another thing all together and at best is being very deceptive.

The fact remains that at stock speeds (95W limit enforced) the i9 9900K at nearly twice the cost of the 2700X is nearly identical in overall workstation performance, it may edge it but not by all that much in overall workstation performance. It only truly shines when it is overclocked past it 95W limit.

It should be the buyers decision if he or she is going to overclock the processor, it shouldn't be Intel deciding for you through its motherboard partners in a huge slight of hand trick. Would Intel even honor their warranty if somehow a chip got damaged being overclocked by default by the motherboard? After all they say "overclocking voids warranty" and by definition what these motherboards are doing (with Intel's blessing) is overclocking by 700Mhz and ~60 additional watts. Overclocking should be the buyers decision and believe it or not, not everyone who buys a "K" series processor plans to overclock it, I've seen some surveys that put it as high as 40% never intend to overclock. These customers are more interested in the "K" series because they are better binned and a lot of times they want to be able to run the processor at the least amount of voltage possible at stock speeds which the better binning on the "K" series is very good at.

By the way, the high price doesn't make me happy. Believe me or not, I recommend both Intel and AMD to customers all the time and both have their advantages. In recent months the line between the two is so very close that price becomes the biggest quantifier. I've had a few people ask about the new 9th gen and about the i9 9900K. When I saw those prices my jaw hit the floor, not happy but upset that such a processor would be priced that absurdly. The MicroCenter I usually do business with still has no stock on the 9900K so I've been checking online retailers here and there.

The 9900K is a build that I don't even know how I should approach. The i7 8700K was bad enough with its default overclocks, but this processor is another beast all together... When you build something for a customer is "out of the box" more important or is "stock" more important? If I build it out of the box and there is a problem with the default overclock on the motherboard and the motherboard or processor is damaged is that then my fault because it was run past Intel's spec, even though the motherboard sets those overclocks on Auto? Will customers get upset that I've set the processor at 95W limit to meet Intel's stock specification and their processor isn't benchmarking as high as they see online? I mean I have to protect my own butt too when building with these and by definition its overclocked if you go with Auto settings on most motherboards- overclocking voids warranties. I always tell customers that I'll build it to stock spec, everything set to auto with only the RAM set to its "box" ratings. If they want to overclock I can help them, but its on them if any damage occurs. These processors/ motherboards by default are already overclocking so what is stock for these processors? Is it true Intel specified "stock" or is it stock as set by most motherboards on Auto? That is what has me the most confounded and annoyed with these processors, the big Intel slight of hand. Just my opinion coming from someone who is going to be utilizing these processors in custom builds for at least some customers.

 

[vMax]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

Its kind of a moot subject as there is only one motherboard manufacture that will run the i9 9900K at its actual stock specifications and that is Asus. It is a slight of hand and can be dangerous for unwary or uninformed buyers. If you were to buy an aftermarket heat sink at a retailer and all you could remember was its a new processor and has a 95W TDP well there are a lot of entry class cheap heat sinks that will fit that bill. You would more than likely be very surprised when you try running your shiny new machine and find that its hotter than blazes because its actually running out of the box with a 60W 700Mhz overclock. Getting motherboard manufactures to slightly default overclock the processor is shady to begin with, but getting them to do it at ~60W over the specification is another thing all together and at best is being very deceptive.

The fact remains that at stock speeds (95W limit enforced) the i9 9900K at nearly twice the cost of the 2700X is nearly identical in overall workstation performance, it may edge it but not by all that much in overall workstation performance. It only truly shines when it is overclocked past it 95W limit.

It should be the buyers decision if he or she is going to overclock the processor, it shouldn't be Intel deciding for you through its motherboard partners in a huge slight of hand trick. Would Intel even honor their warranty if somehow a chip got damaged being overclocked by default by the motherboard? After all they say "overclocking voids warranty" and by definition what these motherboards are doing (with Intel's blessing) is overclocking by 700Mhz and ~60 additional watts. Overclocking should be the buyers decision and believe it or not, not everyone who buys a "K" series processor plans to overclock it, I've seen some surveys that put it as high as 40% never intend to overclock. These customers are more interested in the "K" series because they are better binned and a lot of times they want to be able to run the processor at the least amount of voltage possible at stock speeds which the better binning on the "K" series is very good at.

It's would be so much easier for you to just say...I hate Intel, why are they making Billions? why are people buying there products dammit? they are the devil incarnate and anyone who buys Intel should be shot or better yet I need to save them and convert them to Christianity...opps I meant AMD'ianity...I know you want to. Just let it out...It will make you feel better...

You got a nice warm fuzzy feeling as pointed out by not one, but two emojis!!!! when you 'mock horror' railed against the prices of the 9900K at £950 to $1000 only for the rage to build again when you found out you were wrong and even then your excuses came a tumbling out...What you seem to fail to understand is that buying any product, is as you would put it a buyers decision and buying AMD Ryzen is a great decision all around, especially if price to performance is key and buying Intel is also a great decision for those that want to and can afford too...absolutely nothing wrong with there choices, as the operative word here is 'choice'. Harping on about TDP is so pointless and you know it at the price range of the 9900K. people buy it because, guess what, they want one....

 

[Redneck5439]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

Its kind of a moot subject as there is only one motherboard manufacture that will run the i9 9900K at its actual stock specifications and that is Asus. It is a slight of hand and can be dangerous for unwary or uninformed buyers. If you were to buy an aftermarket heat sink at a retailer and all you could remember was its a new processor and has a 95W TDP well there are a lot of entry class cheap heat sinks that will fit that bill. You would more than likely be very surprised when you try running your shiny new machine and find that its hotter than blazes because its actually running out of the box with a 60W 700Mhz overclock. Getting motherboard manufactures to slightly default overclock the processor is shady to begin with, but getting them to do it at ~60W over the specification is another thing all together and at best is being very deceptive.

The fact remains that at stock speeds (95W limit enforced) the i9 9900K at nearly twice the cost of the 2700X is nearly identical in overall workstation performance, it may edge it but not by all that much in overall workstation performance. It only truly shines when it is overclocked past it 95W limit.

It should be the buyers decision if he or she is going to overclock the processor, it shouldn't be Intel deciding for you through its motherboard partners in a huge slight of hand trick. Would Intel even honor their warranty if somehow a chip got damaged being overclocked by default by the motherboard? After all they say "overclocking voids warranty" and by definition what these motherboards are doing (with Intel's blessing) is overclocking by 700Mhz and ~60 additional watts. Overclocking should be the buyers decision and believe it or not, not everyone who buys a "K" series processor plans to overclock it, I've seen some surveys that put it as high as 40% never intend to overclock. These customers are more interested in the "K" series because they are better binned and a lot of times they want to be able to run the processor at the least amount of voltage possible at stock speeds which the better binning on the "K" series is very good at.

It's would be so much easier for you to just say...I hate Intel, why are they making Billions? why are people buying there products dammit? they are the devil incarnate and anyone who buys Intel should be shot or better yet I need to save them and convert them to Christianity...opps I meant AMD'ianity...I know you want to. Just let it out...It will make you feel better...

I don't hate Intel, I don't like some of their marketing and tricks, but I don't hate them. We can look at Intel and say they set their prices too high and they are just "evil" or some such nonsense. The simple fact remains that without Intel AMD would be setting absurdly high prices and we would all be sitting with crappy Bulldozer type processors. Believe me that's not a reality any of us would want to live in!! We as buyers need Intel just as much as we need AMD. If either ones were the only game in town we would be stuck with expensive crap and there would be no need to improve on that crap. My only problem, really ever with Intel was the marketing tricks to make themselves look better than they actually were at that time. But believe me, I might use AMD in my own personal builds and I love my Ryzen build, but I know that without Intel AMD would be huge a$$holes.

Right now I'm looking at the 9900K and just wondering how I should sell it to customers in custom builds as "stock" can vary wildly depending on your definition. Saying Intel has now done this with the i7 8700K and now their 9th gen refresh, its pretty safe to assume going forward its going to be like this for most if not all new Intel processors. That is why I think overclocking should be left to the actual consumer and not something done as a slight of hand though a partner motherboard manufacturer. That's where I'm coming from.

I kind of find it funny that you think I hate Intel. Over the past several years (really before Ryzen) I built many more Intel builds. The only AMD builds were "budget builds". I never had any guilt telling people then that Intel was just hands down better. I usually have AMD builds for my personal computers just because they are cheaper and still work, and even Piledriver wasn't too bad if properly overclocked for its day. I would try to help other AMD owners get the most they could out of their rig, but Intel was just way better in most tasks. I'm just happy now that AMD and Intel are more or less on even ground again (that's why I have disdain for cheap marketing tricks). Intel has taken the raw performance advantage across the board when their 9th gen processors are overclocked (ie i5 9600k is more powerful than the 2600x, i9 9900K is more powerful than the 2700X) but AMD is just around the corner with 7nm. That is what we need, we need them more or less equal to keep them both honest. If either one would get a major advantage they would set pricing high and sit on their advantage stagnating the market.

 

[vMax]

I think we can basically put this whole topic to bed right now:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

And from the above links we finally have a the true asking prices for this processor- $950 - $1000!!! Who now could possibly recommend this processor to anyone? What I find telling is that on Amazon they already have "used" processors available. People who got their pre-orders and realized their expensive mistake?

Hi, lets just be honest as on the productivity workloads tests. The 9900K at 95w only loses out on 3 tests namely the 7 Zip file manger 32MB test, Handbreak 4K encode and the Adobe CC encode Cuda test..It wins to varying degrees in the other workload tests and in pretty much every gaming test at 1080p and above that the GPU takes over and levels the field...

All I am saying is at least lets be honest... As to asking price it is readily available here for £569.99...which includes our absurd VAT (TAX on goods) in the UK..still too much but at least it is available and has been available from day 1....not at the absurd $950 to $1000 being touted over the pond, which somehow makes you very happy...go figure!....And again who buys a 9900K to run at 95w....an absurdity in itself...

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-3.6ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-65k-in.html

Its kind of a moot subject as there is only one motherboard manufacture that will run the i9 9900K at its actual stock specifications and that is Asus. It is a slight of hand and can be dangerous for unwary or uninformed buyers. If you were to buy an aftermarket heat sink at a retailer and all you could remember was its a new processor and has a 95W TDP well there are a lot of entry class cheap heat sinks that will fit that bill. You would more than likely be very surprised when you try running your shiny new machine and find that its hotter than blazes because its actually running out of the box with a 60W 700Mhz overclock. Getting motherboard manufactures to slightly default overclock the processor is shady to begin with, but getting them to do it at ~60W over the specification is another thing all together and at best is being very deceptive.

The fact remains that at stock speeds (95W limit enforced) the i9 9900K at nearly twice the cost of the 2700X is nearly identical in overall workstation performance, it may edge it but not by all that much in overall workstation performance. It only truly shines when it is overclocked past it 95W limit.

It should be the buyers decision if he or she is going to overclock the processor, it shouldn't be Intel deciding for you through its motherboard partners in a huge slight of hand trick. Would Intel even honor their warranty if somehow a chip got damaged being overclocked by default by the motherboard? After all they say "overclocking voids warranty" and by definition what these motherboards are doing (with Intel's blessing) is overclocking by 700Mhz and ~60 additional watts. Overclocking should be the buyers decision and believe it or not, not everyone who buys a "K" series processor plans to overclock it, I've seen some surveys that put it as high as 40% never intend to overclock. These customers are more interested in the "K" series because they are better binned and a lot of times they want to be able to run the processor at the least amount of voltage possible at stock speeds which the better binning on the "K" series is very good at.

It's would be so much easier for you to just say...I hate Intel, why are they making Billions? why are people buying there products dammit? they are the devil incarnate and anyone who buys Intel should be shot or better yet I need to save them and convert them to Christianity...opps I meant AMD'ianity...I know you want to. Just let it out...It will make you feel better...

I don't hate Intel, I don't like some of their marketing and tricks, but I don't hate them. We can look at Intel and say they set their prices too high and they are just "evil" or some such nonsense. The simple fact remains that without Intel AMD would be setting absurdly high prices and we would all be sitting with crappy Bulldozer type processors. Believe me that's not a reality any of us would want to live in!! We as buyers need Intel just as much as we need AMD. If either ones were the only game in town we would be stuck with expensive crap and there would be no need to improve on that crap. My only problem, really ever with Intel was the marketing tricks to make themselves look better than they actually were at that time. But believe me, I might use AMD in my own personal builds and I love my Ryzen build, but I know that without Intel AMD would be huge a$$holes.

Right now I'm looking at the 9900K and just wondering how I should sell it to customers in custom builds as "stock" can vary wildly depending on your definition. Saying Intel has now done this with the i7 8700K and now their 9th gen refresh, its pretty safe to assume going forward its going to be like this for most if not all new Intel processors. That is why I think overclocking should be left to the actual consumer and not something done as a slight of hand though a partner motherboard manufacturer. That's where I'm coming from.

Just in case you missed it...

You got a nice warm fuzzy feeling as pointed out by not one, but two emojis!!!! when you 'mock horror' railed against the prices of the 9900K at $950 to $1000 only for the rage to build again when you found out you were wrong and even then your excuses came a tumbling out...What you seem to fail to understand is that buying any product, is as you would put it a buyers decision and buying AMD Ryzen is a great decision all around, especially if price to performance is key and buying Intel is also a great decision for those that want to and can afford too...absolutely nothing wrong with there choices, as the operative word here is 'choice'. Harping on about TDP is so pointless and you know it at the price range of the 9900K. people buy it because, guess what, they want one....I personally think the 9900K is not worth it at all...

And finally, you claiming 'wondering how you can sell it to customers' c'mon really, after what you have said!!!! It should be a simple, no don't buy this because it's crap....unless you don't believe yourself and want to lie to your customers. As I said, just be honest...I promise you, it's a lot easier than having to justify your stand on this...

On the 'Marketing tricks' really? AMD, Intel Nvidia, Samsung et all.. and I could go on and on, on some of the terrible marketing BS spouted by all companies. They are business, they are not in it for us....they are in the business to make money for share holders...If they make good products and we see through the marketing BS all the better, but they all do it...

 

[jimmysmitty]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

 

[Redneck5439]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I usually shop exclusively at MicroCenter as I have found over the years I get the best deals from them and don't have to worry about shipping issues (ie when is it actually going to get here and will it be damaged when I get it). I didn't know that Newegg had added third party vendors, I didn't think they had them in the past. As I said, totally my bad, I'm honestly just glad that they aren't going to be priced that high- market gouging has gotten out of control with some items.

 

[vMax]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

There isn't really any manipulation on Intels part going on. Some motherboard vendors throw in auto overclocking, this doesn't happen only with Intel. I always turn that off ans it always uses way more voltage than required at stock. Hell even just running the CPU at stock with it off most boards push more voltage than required.

I had a Q6600 that the board wanted to push 1.35v at stock but I was able to get it stable at 1.25v @ 3GHz for many years.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6KX8CU0933&Description=i9%209900K&cm_re=i9_9900K-_-19-117-957-_-Product

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005404P9I/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

The benchmarks have already shown that at true "stock" factory setting from Intel enforcing a 95W limit the 9900K breaks even with the R7 2700X in workstation based tasks. Only when overclocking to some degree or another does it pull away from the 2700X. We all know that for pure gaming the best total gaming dominance processor would be the i7 8700K or the i5 9600K as 99% of games can't use more than 6 cores and overclock them as high as possible.

Cherry picking price links is bad:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3876944&Description=i9%209900K

Board and CPU for less than the CPU itself.

Yup. his given links are all 3rd party links... even on Amazon where not even one of them is fulfilled by Amazon either.

This one is the true price of the CPU at NewEgg when sold by itself:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&ignorebbr=1

It's interesting though about the power envelope manipulation.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick anything, I asked to be notified when stock became available and those are the links that came up when I searched on Newegg and Amazon. I have no idea why Newegg would be offering processor only for $859 and then bundling a good motherboard and processor for less money, that makes no sense. I will take the bullet on that though, I looked at the first link that came up from Newegg and posted it without digging deeper. I usually buy most everything directly from MicroCenter, very rarely do I order online, but like at MicroCenter I always though that at Newegg the price was the price....To me its very strange to have two identical items vary in price by such a large amount being sold by the same retailer. I didn't realize they were 3rd party vendors. Totally my bad.

Newegg for some reason added third party vendors a bit ago. Probably to compete with Amazon. I think its a bad idea but who am I to say as I am just some random computer enthusiast.

Still you can get a combo for a decent price although I still think the CPU needs to come down in price by about $150 to be a more competitive part.

And as said no one is going to buy the 9900K and leave it stock. If I did I would probably settle for 4.7GHz on all cores and try to dial in a lower voltage like a lot of reviewers have done that lowers the heat and power draw quite a bit. I game but 5GHz isn't enough of a difference for me to worry about and 4.7GHz is still pretty damn fast.

I absolutely agree. The 9900K is not, I repeat not good value...The AMD family of Ryzen and Threadripper are very good value and I applaud AMD bringing competition to the market which can only be great for us the consumers....we finally have a choice at all price points...But to hamstring the 9900K because of a 95w TDP is a terrible comparison as who spends $600 on a 9900K to run it at stock and that a 'K' unlocked CPU...and even if they do, who cares, it's there money...