Question i9-9900K now or wait?

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Was about to build a new rig based around the 9900K in early May, as I thought the next update of Intel processors wasn't coming until either late 2019 or 2020 (Ice Lake) and I can't wait that long.

However it seems that I somehow missed the news that a refresh is likely this summer (June-August?), with the top tier 'Comet Lake' chip being a 10-core part.

I'm not in the position to wait and wait and wait (until 2020 at least), but am I correct in thinking that this 10 core processor is likely coming soon (say 3 months) and will not only have more cores than the 9900K but should also be faster (+ prob around £150 more expensive)?

Also, and I think I'm fairly safe on this one, we're not expecting an update to the 2080 Ti any time soon, right?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
2080 TI update is not coming anytime soon, since those just came out not long ago, however, AMD will be releasing a completely new architecture, the first in many, many years for them, very soon. It might be worth waiting to see what that brings as well as what the new Ryzen 3000 series CPUs bring in terms of IPC and core counts as well and those will all be coming, in addition to whatever Intel might release, in the next few months.

Normally I'd agree that waiting is a fool's game, but being this close to a flurry of new launches almost makes it senseless to not at least wait to see what happens because at the very least, we will likely see a drop in the cost of current parts in an effort to deplete current stock on those parts.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
379
125
390
9
The 9900k is complete waste of money IMHO. I say this as someone who owns one. The only reason I even bought mine was it was included in used system that was a ridiculously good deal. It is also a binned chip that can do 5.2ghz at 1.4 volts. I build and flip systems as a hobby. I've played around with just about every current CPU from both AMD and Intel. An overclocked 2700 is a considerably better value than anything Intel has to offer. It's not even close. The 9900k is significantly harder to tune/get stable, uses way more power, and runs ridiculously hot when compared to a 2700/2700x.

That being said, if you're already planning on picking up a 2080ti (which is also an incredibly terrible value), it's not that big of an extra expense in context of the entire system cost. It's not that the 2080 ti and 9900k aren't best in class in terms of performance....they are. It's just a hard pill to swallow when you can get close to that performance for a lot less money.

2080 TI update is not coming anytime soon, since those just came out not long ago, however, AMD will be releasing a completely new architecture, the first in many, many years for them, very soon. It might be worth waiting to see what that brings as well as what the new Ryzen 3000 series CPUs bring in terms of IPC and core counts as well and those will all be coming, in addition to whatever Intel might release, in the next few months.

Normally I'd agree that waiting is a fool's game, but being this close to a flurry of new launches almost makes it senseless to not at least wait to see what happens because at the very least, we will likely see a drop in the cost of current parts in an effort to deplete current stock on those parts.
I could't agree more. All signs point to the consumer desktop CPU market being turned completely upside down when AMD launches zen 2 in the next few months . This is a terrible time to build a new high end system. Navi will probably only be a player in the mid-range and low end initially from what the rumors are saying. They won't even try to play in the hi end until next year.

The rumored intel 10 core 14nm will probably not even be able to hit 5ghz without a custom water cooling setup. Even if it can, it will probably be knocking on the door of 250+ watts when hitting full load. The 9900k already pushes the limits of 280mm and 360mm aio coolers when running vcore at 1.35 volts.
 
Reactions: Finstar

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
If you are gaming, and NOT running HIGH END professional applications, virtual machines or a HELL of a lot of things simultaneously that result in a very heavy multi tasking workload, that 64GB of memory will be about the most ridiculous waste I've money I've seen recently. Not that YOU are ridiculous, just, that much memory on a system that isn't running high end scientific applications, very high end CAD or 3D rendering or professional graphics to a degree where you are using 40+ layers on extremely high resolution images, or some combination of those things, or at least one pretty serious virtual machine, there is no way it will ever get used.

Even if you are gaming at a high level, while recording, and encoding, and streaming, with ten browser tabs open, and team viewer, and any other game related programs you'd care to be running at the same time, you'd never ever, EVER, use more than 32GB. MOST probably, you'd usually not use more than 16GB no matter what titles you play. So unless you are decoding the human genome, designing buildings or complex 3D graphics, or plan to run some serious VMs, 32GB should be the absolute maximum you are looking at with 16GB a serious consideration, and put the savings elsewhere. Plus, it's incredibly silly to think of crippling the CPU performance, whether on Intel or AMD, by running memory that slow. 3000mhz sticks should be the MINIMUM speed you consider, for either platform, on the high end chipsets.

As far as the motherboard, if you have no plans to overclock then there is absolutely no reason to go with any board higher than the Hero/Hero WiFi, as I outlined in the other thread I linked to, because all the higher end boards are only offering features that benefit extreme overclocking or the use of custom loop water cooling once you go past the level of the Hero. Again, a waste of money. There is nothing really that those boards including the Code, offer, that you won't get from a lower tiered board unless you are overclocking or building your own loop.

You also won't be using the Noctua NH-D15 in that case, because that case only supports CPU coolers up to 162mm in height and the Noctua NH-D15 is 165mm tall when you include the fans. While the front fan COULD be slid down a bit further, you would then run into interference issues in the memory slot closest to the CPU cooler, even with memory that has short heatsinks. So you either neeed a shorter CPU cooler, a really good AIO (Which for this CPU would definitely be the preferred choice, and not just any 280mm model either. I'd highly recommend either a 360 or 420mm model. Since that case apparently requires an additional 3rd party accessory in order to bottom mount a radiator, and doesn't support a radiator anyplace else on the case, that's probably not an option either. I think you would be wise to consider a different case if you wish to use the 9900k and then obtain a CPU cooler that is going to be capable of managing the thermals of that CPU under boost conditions when heavily loaded for extended periods.
 
Reactions: j3ster

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
All I can say is you are doing this right in weighing all these options before making this kind of purchase. If half our users spent half as much time educating themselves as to the facts regarding their hardware and potential purchase, we'd have half as many threads to deal with because half of them are simply down to making stupid decisions and then later on going "what? really?".
 
Reactions: R_G_S and Karadjgne

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Whilst I'd not say no to a price drop, prob won't make that much difference to the total build cost.

Any idea on how long we might have to wait for news on the Intel processors?
 

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated.

I won't be overclocking the CPU; I need it to be stable and don't want to be messing around with settings or fixing issues. Was close to going with the 9920X as mentioned, but decided against it primarily due to the price (£700 more for the full system) but also the faster speeds of the 9900K won me over. It looks to fit the bill well for both work (Max/Photoshop) and gaming.

The 2080 Ti does strike me as being ridiculously expensive, but I'll be running a 4K display in which case it seems worth it.

I tend to hold on to my machines for a long time, only really upgrading the graphics card every few years. If my current machine wasn't really holding me back right now I'd be tempted to wait until next year, but that's not an option.

Specs-wise this is what I'm thinking of:

i9-9900K (+ Noctua NH-D15)
ASUS Maximus XI Code/Hero (WiFi)/WS Pro
64 GB RAM (prob just 2666 MHz)
2080 Ti
2x M.2, 2x SSD and 2 standard HDDs

Most likely using my existing case, a Silverstone TJ07.

Leaks from the previous couple of days seem to indicate a late 2019 launch for the 10-core 9900K replacement. Will hold off a bit longer and see. Q4 of this year would be the absolute limit of how long I can wait really, unless of course there was some revolutionary chip coming in 2020 in which case I may consider an entirely different strategy (just get a low-ish cost stop gap system for the time being as opposed to blowing close to £3K on a beast).

Thanks again for your thoughts.
 
i9-9900K (+ Noctua NH-D15)
ASUS Maximus XI Code/Hero (WiFi)/WS Pro
64 GB RAM (prob just 2666 MHz)
2080 Ti
2x M.2, 2x SSD and 2 standard HDDs
Even 32 GB of RAM is still in 'very comfortable overkill' territory in 99+% of most home systems... (get 3200 MHz RAM instead, IMO); so unless you just like spending $300-$400 extra dollars for a 64 GB RAM kit (4x16 GB), I'd opt for a 'smaller' kit...

FYI if you use 2x M.2 drives, I'd double check to ensure that you will still have 4x SATA ports available....
 
Reactions: coastie65

j3ster

Reputable
May 23, 2016
374
32
4,990
56
with everything so close to release itll really bug you out knowing that if the ryzen 3rd gen would be awesome at launch, it might force intel to lower their aggressive pricing for the i9 9900k but then again if you have the capabilities to build a system that incorporates a i9 9900k with a rtx 2080 ti then saving some money might not mean much to you anyways.


you can also go for gigabyte lineup of motherboards since they have the best capabilities to support the i9 9900k according to many experts regarding VRMs and board quality (buildzoid for example) for much better operation in the long run (since you wont be Overclocking you wont have to deal with gigabytes awesful BIOS).
but the asus maximus code would be a good board too.
64gb is kinda overkill tbh. not much stuff that can leverage that amount of ram for the average consumer for gaming you barely even reach 10gb+.

but if you plan to play at 4k cpu choices on the highend are almost completely irrelevant at that resolution youd get more from just using a ryzen 2700/x tbh.
but for 1440p 144hz or 1080p 144hz then intel would be a better choice (in most cases).

as an owner of an i9 9900k i dont really notice much difference from my brothers 2700x in gaming we both get really good frametimes with mine overclocked to 5ghz and he is running at 4.2ghz. at 1440p 75hz (both of us use a rtx 2070).
but its your money in the end, and your personal bias and wants come to play in buying new stuff.
 
I may be able to help if you have specific questions as I have similar hardware that you are considering, read sig. Also, glad to see some rocking the TJ07. Had one myself years back. Huge case and built like a tank. However, the case cooling these days would be awful with high end hardware. This case was one of primary reasons to get me back to watercooling. Went to Obsidion 800D after TJ07. If I recall, the case has 2 92mm rear fans for intake and 2 120mm for top exhaust, plus 120mm in lower PSU chamber. On side note, I can vouch for Ryzen as my other build for HTPC/gaming at 1080P is 2700X based and RTX 2060. Could offer ideas there as well. Just ask if you like.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Even if you are gaming at a high level, while recording, and encoding, and streaming, with ten browser tabs open, and team viewer, and any other game related programs you'd care to be running at the same time, you'd never ever, EVER, use more than 32GB. MOST probably, you'd usually not use more than 16GB no matter what titles you play.
Your open software may be actively using 16GB but cached data for open-world games and MMOs can easily fill most of the remaining 16GB with cached game files which help quite a bit with loading times especially when leaving large games on HDDs. If you play any one game for hours at a time, it is nice to effectively not have to worry about what storage device it is on.

I quite enjoy having 32GB of RAM on my i5-3470. Might not be the fastest CPU possible but it hardly ever slows down from avoidable storage IO. I'll take consistency over breaking records any day.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I'm not willing to argue with you, as we all know how that would end up. Outclassed by miles to say the least, however, I will say that currently I have 32GB and I've closely monitored memory usage just out of curiosity and I've never seen it go past 16GB on any game no matter how long I ran it, unless I was running other fairly intensive processes alongside the game engine. Maybe I'm not playing the right games, or it's some configuration setting. IDK. But I'd be happy to recommend more memory if it was something I could point at and say "I see it do this" fairly consistently. I guess the cached data is a possibility, but again, I've never experienced it doing that myself. Still, I can't see it going past 32GB like I said, for any reason other than running serious programs or VMs, unless you were running a server of some kind.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Maybe I'm not playing the right games, or it's some configuration setting.
You aren't looking at the right thing. What I'm talking about is cached data, not memory in use by applications. Unless you have a really insane amount of RAM, all "unused" memory gets allocated to the file system cache so the OS can fulfill reloads of recently used data from memory instead of storage. I can fill all of my 32GB with nothing open other than WoW by teleporting between 2-3 different locations and entering a raid or a few dungeons, pretty basic WoW night.

It made a whole lot more sense back then too with memory costing around $160 for 32GB and SSDs being around $1/GB.
 

vwcrusher

Honorable
Oct 16, 2012
500
10
10,995
2
Really interesting thread.....FWIW, The Fractal Design Define R6 I believe would fit the Noctua cooler, and as a bonus is a fairly quiet case.

GL which ever way you go....
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Various articles I've read all point towards more lower speed RAM being preferable to less high speed RAM
Maybe for servers or other types of configurations. Or depending on what is meant by "more". Certainly 16GGB of DDR4 2666mhz memory is preferable to 4GB of 3200mhz memory, but once you get past the point where you have more than enough memory for what you are running, it doesn't make as much sense to add more of it as it does to increase the speed of it. And at 32 to 64GB of RAM, you are WELL past what you'd need to see a performance benefit for any gaming scenario I can think of, long term cache as discussed above, aside.

Also, you are COMPLETELY confusing what we call "overclocking" on modern memory modules and what is simply the most common of manual configurations which is to set the memory XMP profile in the BIOS. Setting the memory speed and timings to what they were designed for by the manufacturer, is not overclocking in any acceptable sense of the term. Technically, it might be because it is above what the JEDEC default configuration allows for on a given platform or chipset, but it is NOT overclocking in any acceptable sense of the term. There is no requirement for stability or thermal testing involved with setting sticks to the XMP profile. The manufacturer has already EXTENSIVELY done that themselves to ensure that a given kit runs without issue for the broadest number of systems at it's profile configuration. Obviously, for chipsets that don't support overclocking, then XMP profiles that are beyond the default speed supported for that chipset typically can't be used at the profile speed, but for the chipset and CPU you are planning to use there should be nothing more than changing a single setting required to run at anything up to probably 3600mhz with two sticks installed. So, you can do what you want there, but NOT using speeds above 3000mhz on this platform is intentionally, and unnecessarily, leaving performance on the table for no good reason.

The fact that you DO do professional work and work with files that will benefit from it, makes it entirely understandable that you would want more memory. Since the stress on the internal memory controller increases based on the more sticks you add, I'd recommend achieving your desired memory capacity using as few sticks as possible, especially since this is a dual channel platform, not quad or higher channel chipset.

In that light, I think this might actually NOT be the right platform for you to consider. You'd be better served using a platform with quad or six channel architecture, but obviously that's just a preference, which also gives you the option of increasing your total memory capacity later if you find the need. Putting that aside as an option, it would seem you ARE going to require four DIMMs to achieve 64GB as 16GB DIMMs are the largest common option available currently for this platform. Having four DIMMs shouldn't affect being able to set a quad set of sticks to the XMP profile speed, say, 3200mhz, considering the already high clock speed and strength of the memory controller with this chipset and CPU. It COULD require needing to bump the DRAM voltage up slightly in order to get them to run, but two small settings seems a small price to pay in terms of extra configuration steps to gain a modest bump in performance. Either way is fine though. You're probably not going to lose any sleep over running with 2666mhz sticks if you go that route.

The Noctua NH-D14 is only 162mm tall, AND if you do THIS, it outperforms the D15 anyhow. You will however want to either focus on getting memory with very short heatsinks OR move the front fan to the back for a pull-push-pull configuration (IF the case will support a rear fan with that heatsink installed) rather than a push-pull-push configuration. There should be no appreciable difference in performance regardless of which configuration you choose.


Otherwise, I think you'll want a new case because none of the big air coolers are going to fit the constraints of that one, and I don't know of any other cooler which is smaller that I'd recommend. There are certainly a lot of coolers that will technically "work", but they are going be loud and annoying, constantly ramping up and down every time a core load is applied or simply running full speed to try and keep up with an all core boost load. If you can't go with one of the biggest air coolers, then I'd seriously consider a high quality large AIO, or a different case.

Graphics card, that's the right one. There really IS no other choice at the resolution you desire.

Cases, you might need to make concessions here if you decide to replace that one, by either foregoing the idea that it has to be metal or the idea that you can get everything you want in a case that costs less than the motherboard.
 

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Thanks for the lengthy reply; I have a lot to look over this evening. Will reply again later having done some more research.

Just briefly, yes I know anything over 16 GB is total overkill for gaming right now. Also, understand that adding more RAM will not help unless you need it, what I meant was that generally speaking the performance difference between RAM speeds doesn't seem to have much of an impact in many cases (depending on the app), but if you run out of RAM, you'll know it. Also (will try and dig up some of the articles I mention) it seems like the returns for going for very fast RAM are negligible in many cases compared to the cost + sometimes the higher speeds actually increase instability. Here's one quote "So the higher frequencies of some RAM are a flashy spec, and while they may not help the performance of most applications, it certainly won’t hurt, right? Well…because higher frequency RAM is often overclocked to reach those insane numbers, it may actually result in RAM related instability like crashes and freezes. Though this is not always the case, it’s always been our opinion that promoting system instability for the sake of a little extra performance, especially given how little extra performance you’ll actually see, is counterproductive."

The 'leaving performance on the table' argument could be made for increasing the spec of any part, no? It all depends on budget and what's worth it. I will look again for some benchmarks here, but my budget is not unlimited so going for faster RAM (on top of everything else) has to bring a noticeable improvement.

As for the platform, I did consider X299 but decided against it primarily due to cost. It'd have to really be much, much better for me as was £700 more (for the 12-core part). If you think it's worth it for my usage, I'll re-examine that option.

Will check out the Noctua link, thanks. Are you 100% sure that the D15 won't fit in the TJ07 though? Just measured from the tray to the case side: ~18.6 cm. Looks like it might fit judging by this video, but I may well be missing something:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4UAu4w2Wag

Thanks again, lots to look through ;).

Cheers!
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Fast RAM on Ryzen = measurable improvement in CPU performance. Fast RAM on Intel platforms, for gaming, doesn't offer a measurable improvement except on paper. It's not noticeable really, but it's there. Well, it's probably VERY noticeable going from something like 2133mhz to 3200mhz.

For professional applications, I think it's clearly noticeable. But I agree it probably depends HIGHLY on WHAT application/program you are working with and also what speeds we're talking about. But further, there is typically very little difference in price between a set of 2666mhz sticks and a 3200mhz set, in fact sometimes they are LESS expensive, but certainly they are minimally more expensive as you say, when compared to the cost of the system. So I'm not sure why you WOULDN'T want faster sticks if you can get them somewhere near the cost of the lower speed sticks or within a reasonable distance. Fifty dollars difference to go from 2666mhz to 3200mhz on a 64GB kit isn't much honestly, but I also totally get that fifty here and fifty there, adds up pretty quickly.

I will totally agree though that for what you are doing with this system, 64GB of 2666mhz memory is probably of higher benefit than 32GB of 3200mhz+ memory. So if it's a question of one or the other, I too would recommend going with the higher capacity.

Yes, you are missing the fact that the standoffs are .25" or taller, the motherboard itself has some thickness to it and the CPU socket + actual CPU adds about another half inch or more. These specs that the cooler and case manufacturers provide are generally EXACTING, with no or VERY little margin for error. If you can mount the motherboard and CPU and measure more than 162mm from the top of the CPU heat spreader to the inside of the case panel, then ok. Otherwise, not going to happen. Usually when a case says 162mm clearance AND you use a 162mm tall cooler, you will have or almost have, contact between the top of the heat pipes and the case panel.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
379
125
390
9
The BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4 performs comparably to the Noctua, is cheaper, and doesn't look like a used piece of toilet paper. It won't fit in that case either though. Unless you win the silicon lottery you'll struggle to cool a 9900k with either cooler unless you leave the Asus default TDP enforcement settings turned on in the bios. In that case the CPU will be completely gimped. If you don't at least achieve the 4.7 ghz all core turbo there is no point in buying the CPU. It will just run at base clock under load with the default settings.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Might wanna look up requirements for 3d Max systems, ones that want to perform anyways. 3d Max uses cores as much as clock speeds. While the 9900k is the fastest single cpu, in heavy workloads the 9900k limited core count can be a liability vrs the 2066 HEDT cpus running at 14 cores. Best cpu for 3d Max is the i9-9980XE. Any loss in clock speeds (4.5GHz turbo) is well offset by higher core count. Even the i9-9940X (14c/28t @4.4GHz) would be preferable.

16Gb recommend minimum. 32Gb average use. 64Gb for heavy/lengthy workloads at high resolutions.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
The BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4 performs comparably to the Noctua, is cheaper, and doesn't look like a used piece of toilet paper. It won't fit in that case either though. Unless you win the silicon lottery you'll struggle to cool a 9900k with either cooler unless you leave the Asus default TDP enforcement settings turned on in the bios. In that case the CPU will be completely gimped. If you don't at least achieve the 4.7 ghz all core turbo there is no point in buying the CPU. It will just run at base clock under load with the default settings.
That's nonsense. To start with, the OP already CLEARLY stated they didn't care much at all about aesthetics, so what it looks like is probably irrelevant, besides which, your personal opinion about how the Noctua coolers looks is your own and doesn't come close to reflecting the opinion of the larger enthusiast community.

Temp wise, not even close. The DRP4 has a 6°C stock idle difference from the D15, a 5.75°C difference in overclocked load temps, and that is a world of difference when comparing supposedly "comparable" coolers. Not comparable. Not even close. In fact, there are NO BeQuiet coolers that compare when it comes to cooling performance decibel for decibel. BeQuiet doesn't even make exceptionally good products. They just make products that LOOK exceptionally good, and then throttle the fan speeds to get good sound level specs on paper. Obviously, if you take two otherwise identical fans, and limit one of them to 500rpms less than the other, it's going to be quieter. That's EXACTLY what BeQuiet does.

Noctua achieves those kinds of sound levels without gimping the fan performance, so at ANY given RPM, they are going to be moving more air AND be quieter, pun intended.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8842/quiet-dark-rock-pro-4-cpu-cooler-review/index6.html

Typically, this paragraph is filled with dislikes about design or anything we feel might be lacking. However, unless you are looking for the best of the best in thermal results, there is not one thing we can pick out with the Dark Rock Pro 4 which we do not care for.
Well, in THIS case, the best of the best is EXACTLY what is called for, so I don't think that cooler fits the bill. It's a good enough cooler for what it is, but it is not in the same class as Noctua and Thermalright when it comes to performance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS