Redneck5439
Honorable
- Aug 21, 2015
- 1,313
- 102
- 11,890
[quotemsg=21480396,0,75795][quotemsg=21480367,0,2067352][quotemsg=21480314,0,75795][quotemsg=21480238,0,2067352][quotemsg=21480090,0,75795][quotemsg=21479896,0,2067352]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?[/quotemsg]
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[/quotemsg]
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. [/quotemsg]
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...[/quotemsg]
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.[/quotemsg]
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...[/quotemsg]
While I believe the i9 9900K doesn't really fulfill any purpose well- the 8700K and 9600K are just as good at gaming, and as a workstation there are Threadripper builds that are going to come to around the same cost yet perform much better. Both of those are true, its also true that at ~$600 or so its overpriced. However the i6 9600K is a very good no compromise gaming processor, either it or the i7 8700K is what I would say is the top dog no compromise gaming processor. Not best bang for the dollar, but very best performance over all else crushing the FPS. If the i9 9900K comes down in price I could easily say its a great all around performer (because it is- its just priced at a point that doesn't make sense). It can crush games and turn around and do quite well as a workstation its just its current price point that makes it have no place. I also don't believe in default overclocking, I wish all motherboard manufactures would stop doing it or at least give you the choice when you first boot - do you want it or not.
You can go back and read past posts. I stand by I don't hate Intel, I hate marketing tricks (when anyone does them) however I firmly believe that Intel is very much needed. If only AMD were around prices would be sky high for stagnated technology. A world where Bulldozer is the most powerful processor isn't a world anyone would want to live in. AMD needs to have the challenge of competing with Intel and Intel needs to be pushed forward by a resurgent AMD.
I farm all spring and summer and I board horses. that's my main summer work. When the snow comes there's no major repairs or upgrading being done on the farm and I fall back exclusively on building custom rigs. I more than anyone can appreciate the need for Intel and AMD to both be great or else no one would ever need to upgrade to a new rig. In my opinion the i9 9900K would have been a great processor if released in high enough numbers, the price was set at $400 - $450, and they would have released it with the 95W limit enforced as its stock configuration across all motherboards. They could rightfully claim gaming supremacy and edging the 2700X in productivity at stock and have a massive ~1Ghz overclock capability for those who want to take advantage of it. No one could have said anything bad about that. That would have been huge and put AMD on its heels till 7nm releases.
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?[/quotemsg]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[/quotemsg]
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. [/quotemsg]
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...[/quotemsg]
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.[/quotemsg]
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...[/quotemsg]
While I believe the i9 9900K doesn't really fulfill any purpose well- the 8700K and 9600K are just as good at gaming, and as a workstation there are Threadripper builds that are going to come to around the same cost yet perform much better. Both of those are true, its also true that at ~$600 or so its overpriced. However the i6 9600K is a very good no compromise gaming processor, either it or the i7 8700K is what I would say is the top dog no compromise gaming processor. Not best bang for the dollar, but very best performance over all else crushing the FPS. If the i9 9900K comes down in price I could easily say its a great all around performer (because it is- its just priced at a point that doesn't make sense). It can crush games and turn around and do quite well as a workstation its just its current price point that makes it have no place. I also don't believe in default overclocking, I wish all motherboard manufactures would stop doing it or at least give you the choice when you first boot - do you want it or not.
You can go back and read past posts. I stand by I don't hate Intel, I hate marketing tricks (when anyone does them) however I firmly believe that Intel is very much needed. If only AMD were around prices would be sky high for stagnated technology. A world where Bulldozer is the most powerful processor isn't a world anyone would want to live in. AMD needs to have the challenge of competing with Intel and Intel needs to be pushed forward by a resurgent AMD.
I farm all spring and summer and I board horses. that's my main summer work. When the snow comes there's no major repairs or upgrading being done on the farm and I fall back exclusively on building custom rigs. I more than anyone can appreciate the need for Intel and AMD to both be great or else no one would ever need to upgrade to a new rig. In my opinion the i9 9900K would have been a great processor if released in high enough numbers, the price was set at $400 - $450, and they would have released it with the 95W limit enforced as its stock configuration across all motherboards. They could rightfully claim gaming supremacy and edging the 2700X in productivity at stock and have a massive ~1Ghz overclock capability for those who want to take advantage of it. No one could have said anything bad about that. That would have been huge and put AMD on its heels till 7nm releases.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram