Question i9-9900K now or wait?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
My rule of thumb is 70% of the PSU's rated power is your max load. If you calculated your max load will be 650W, then you need ~850W
"PSU calculators" typically use inflated figures to begin with as overclocked single-GPU enthusiast systems rarely break 500W unless you are pushing your luck with impractical OCs or do silly things like add a cigarette lighter.
 
Reactions: Bearmann
"PSU calculators" typically use inflated figures to begin with as overclocked single-GPU enthusiast systems rarely break 500W unless you are pushing your luck with impractical OCs or do silly things like add a cigarette lighter.
Yeah, there's the fine print around that as well for the 3V+5v rails as they combine their power output and can affect some CPUs. They now depend more on the 12V rail, so it should be safe-ish even with less than 130W combined for those rails.

Cheers!
 
Using both 9900K and 2080Ti myself, and very happy with both performance wise. No complaints outside of initial costs, but that's the big hurdle here. I wouldn't personally wait for the 9900KS if you are OC friendly. Most 9900k owners at this point should be able get to 5Ghz all-core with proper cooling and a quality motherboard. If you don't overclock, then the 9900KS model makes sense. That said, with all the tech news this week, do you not have any interest in the Ryzen 9 3900X at the same price or X570 platform? I plan on getting one of those to upgrade my other 2700X based build since it should work with just a UEFI update on X470. Just a thought. Regarding 2080Ti, I'm doubtful there will be a faster version of this model. No way to know for sure though. Rumors seem to point towards using 16Gb GDDR6 vs current 14Gb in a "Turing Refresh" of sorts. Since Navi looks to be around 2070 or slightly above on average with performance, Nvidia doesn't really need to be to concerned at the moment at the very high end. I'm guessing a refreshed 2070 and 2080.
 

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Thanks for your thoughts, guys.

PSU
My 3 PSU options (all Seasonic Prime Ultra; grey items listed for ref. but not really under consideration due to, IMO, poor value):

750 W
Gold: £125
Platinum: £160
Titanium: £190

850 W
Platinum: £170
Titanium: £230

I was going to go with the 750 W Gold to keep costs down whilst still getting the best tech, aside from efficiency, but considering how long these PSUs last, thought about the 850 W for future-proofing (plus eff. boost), think 8-10 years from now (12 year warranty). Also, as I understand it PSUs are at maximum efficiency when drawing 50% of their max power, so depending on the system (and how it's used), the 850 W Platinum might be as efficient as a 750 W Titanium, no?

As far as I can tell, I'm not going to run into any trouble with the 750 W with my system as specced; the 850 W really is for future-proofing (+ it seems reasonable value). Maybe future monster CPUs/GPUs won't require much power, but the truth is, we don't know (think about an nVidia 2-in-1 behemoth for e.g. coupled with a hot-running CPU) and the 850 W gives enough headroom so as not to worry about it at all - right? Or, do you feel that that is already the case with the 750 W, provided I stick with single GPU builds?


CPU
1LiquidPC
, thanks for your input. I don't overclock as system stability/longevity are very important to me (the builder offers a 4.9 GHz OC at no extra charge, but am going to go with stock). I would definitely buy the KS, as it's perfect for someone such as myself, if it weren't for the fact that it's not coming out until Q4, or as Intel recently tweeted, 'holiday' 2019 - which to me says Christmas time (late Nov/Dec) rather then October - a shame, as I'd have snapped it up had it been June/July. The processor I was really waiting for was the 10-core Comet Lake, unofficially slated to also come in Q4 2019. 10 cores/5 GHz would have been perfect for me, but who knows if it is coming then or not and again, I suspect December more likely than October, or maybe even Q1 2020, particularly as I wonder how many would choose to pay £500+ for the i9-9900KS with a 5 GHz 10-core CPU on offer? It does look as though it'll require a new MB (annoying), so there is that in the KS's favour but still... I can imagine myself waiting until Q4 for Comet Lake only to see it 'delayed' until 2020, then hearing rumours of new nVidia cards and so on... (though personally I wouldn't expect a new RTX series before end of 2020, agree?).

AMD is too much of a risk for me. I've had issues with them in the past (long while back, admittedly) and Intel is proven to work well with my progs/sims/games etc.


GPU
As for the 2080 Ti - yeah, I think you're right. Feels too soon to seriously update it (9 months old), or indeed replace it (!), but I can wait another week to see what this 'Super' tease was all about just in case (if nothing at E3, then I'll just go for it). Rumours do indicate that if there is an update to the RTX 20 series, it's as you suggest, i.e. GDDR6 adjustment (+ possibly faster clocks); not sure how much of a performance gain that would equate to. Also agree that Navi poses no threat to the 2080 Ti and that, combined with the card's total dominance in almost all existing titles and fantastic 4K performance, is why it seems like a pretty safe bet from a 'buy now, not about to be replaced' standpoint.


Thanks again!
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I agree. For MOST any single card, a 750w unit puts you comfortably in the 50-60% usage zone, at worst. At best, with a lower end card, even less than that.

If you had a Vega 64, then I might say the 850w unit was a better option, in fact, I WOULD say that, and even for the 2080 TI with it's 600w full system recommendation it couldn't hurt, but it's certainly not a necessity. A very good 750w unit is more than enough, UNLESS you plan to do any overclocking of the CPU and GPU card. Then, you really might want to consider the 850w unit IF you want to be able to overclock and still likely land in that 50-60% usage zone.
 
Reactions: R_G_S
Just for a quick reference on power consumption, I get a reading on draw from my APC Smart-UPS SMT1500 front display. I can't say for sure how close to actual it is, but would guess it's close. My system in signature, including monitor, will pull 17% load at idle and around 50% gaming. Realbench full stress both CPU and GPU combined is somewhere in 65% range, not sure as havent check in awhile. This comes out to 167W idle, 490W gaming load, and around 640W. SMT1500 is rated at 980W output. Also, this is AC draw from UPS to power supply, so the actual AC/DC conversion loss and PSU efficiency aren't yet factored in on how much power is being supplied to components themselves. This would be even lower numbers for actual.
 
Reactions: R_G_S

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
The i9-9900k has a default boost upto 5.0GHz. That's only for a couple of cores under load. 3-4 cores is 4.8GHz and 5-8 is 4.7GHz. So honestly a 5.0GHz OC is nothing more than a lock of boost clocks on all cores. Not particularly demanding other than for power limits on the mobo/psu and cooling issues. It's nothing like an older fashioned OC such as taking my old i7-3770K from its boost of 3.9GHz and bumping that all the way upto 5.0GHz. Pretty much if you have the cooler, mobo and psu to handle the power necessary, that builder doesn't have to do much more than set boost at 4.9GHz and enable all core locked. No wonder it's free.

For me, psu calculations are very similar to Darkbreeze.
I9 9900k 250w
Rest of the pc including drives, mobo etc 150w
RTX2080ti 350w.
Thats @ 750w absolutely maxed out, everything running at full power draw. Which never happens. At best you'd be looking at @ 60-70% draws under extremely heavy loads.
450-525w, if pulling an all core locked at 5.0GHz OC.
Which puts an 850w psu @ 53-63% usage when working hard, a 750w would be at 60-70%, but if you aren't pushing anywhere close to the cpus 250w limits, that efficiency is going to tank on the bigger psu.

Running stock, I'd stick with the 750w, you really don't need more and you have room to bump the efficiency rating higher. If running a locked OC, I'd go with the 850w, simply for those long render jobs etc when the pc will be at high loads for hours.
 
Reactions: R_G_S

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Thanks for all the PSU info, guys. Interesting stuff.

PSU
Some things to consider: I tend not to upgrade often, but when I do I go big, so either the fastest 'K' processor or HEDT; the same is true for the GPU, hence the 2080 Ti (I don't go bleeding edge though, no 18-core, Titan or SLI ;)) - so whatever I have in future will be high spec, at time of purchase at least. What I like about the 850 W PSU is also what I like about 64 GB RAM; sure, I may not need it and 32 GB might be sufficient, plus I could spend the difference on faster RAM, but... if I do need it (and there's a reasonable chance I will) - it's there, and in that situation a faster 32 GB isn't going to help. So, the question is, is 850 W the 64 GB equivalent, or is it more like 128 GB (which I 100% would not make use of ;))?

Also of note, I tend to use a lot of drives, for e.g. will prob have 7 in this rig, to start with at least (1 NVMe, 3 SSD and 3 HDD). The machine will be working pretty hard, many hours per day and for many years (I guess this is a good reason to go for a higher efficiency rating).

Whilst I don't overclock, presumably not all CPUs (in future) will run cooler/have lower power consumption, take the 9900KS for e.g., sure it's binned, but it's also operating at 5 GHz all core; there's a good chance it'll be more demanding than the 9900K, right? Then we have Comet Lake which, if rumours are correct, will also operate at 5 GHz (or above) whilst adding 2 more cores and, still being 14 nm, will presumably be pretty power hungry as well.

I don't really want to pay £230 for the 850 W Titanium if I can help it, so I think the decision's between the 750 W Titanium and the 850 W Platinum. From what you've all said, I imagine either would do a v. good job ;).


CPU (9900K/KS/Comet Lake)
Gee_Simpson
, happy to include this in the discussion - it's also something I've been mulling over.

I always like to buy the best I can (see above) and preferably shortly after a product's launched to get as much longevity out of it as possible. If I were an AMD man, I'd be to go with their new 12-core chip (or 16, depending on time frame), but I'm with Intel, so things are a little trickier...

I mention this above but in case you missed it, Intel tweeted that the KS will be 'shipping holiday 2019' which, rightly or wrongly, I interpret as December as opposed to earlier in Q4. By that time we will either have, or be close to having 10-core, 5 GHz Comet Lake, which will also require a new 400-series MB (if rumours are correct, on all counts...). Whilst I would hands down choose the KS over the K right now, or in June/July, come December it becomes a much less attractive proposition unless I already have a Z390 MB and am looking for an upgrade rather than a new system.

View: https://twitter.com/intel/status/1133750362089938944

When Intel announced the KS last week I felt sure it'd be coming this summer, in order to counter AMD's new releases and generate some excitement until Comet Lake arrived at the end of the year (so basically the new 'latest and greatest,' but only for 6 months). Upon learning that it wasn't coming until Q4, apart from being a bit bummed out, I began to wonder whether Comet Lake was actually coming this year at all - in fact, I thought that it meant it probably was not. It seems as though I'm the only one who came to that conclusion however, as since I've heard that Comet Lake is most likely to arrive in October, as that has become a somewhat standard release date for Intel over the past few years.

I'd like to hear what people think on this and whether it might be worth waiting for (bearing in mind I won't be upgrading the CPU/MB for many years, or don't plan to at least!). It'd be difficult for me to wait longer really, but for an extra 2 cores, faster clocks and to get onto the next platform, I could prob just about hold out till Oct; just... Under normal circumstances, I would def wait (as per my normal routine), but I am under a certain amount of pressure to upgrade.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Op Claim: 10 core HEDT would be perfect combination.
Op Claim: 9900k speeds are really what's needed for work and longevity.

Online claim: 9900ks is 9900k on steroids, 2 extra cores, new platform, same as (if not better than) performance of 9900k.

Put together, the KS meets All priorities, performance per core, performance multi-core, longevity...

I'd wait. It's too much money to have regrets later.
 

Gee_Simpson

Reputable
Mar 4, 2015
33
1
4,535
0
KS 2 more cores? I thought it was only the same as the i9 9900k but clocked at 5ghz on all cores? Maybe I have misread your post @Karadjgne

Comet Lake desktop CPU's probably won't be out until next year imo @R_G_S
 
Last edited:

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Put together, the KS meets All priorities, performance per core, performance multi-core, longevity...

I'd wait. It's too much money to have regrets later.
Sorry, you'd wait for the KS, or Comet Lake? It sounds like KS and if looking at 6 months, I'm not sure if (for me) that's worth it. As said, June/July - Yes, definitely. But as we push towards the end of year I think CL becomes far more tempting. I imagine the difference between the 9900K and KS to be very small under most conditions, technically they're equal under 1-2 cores after all. Worst case it'd be a ~£500-600 upgrade for the KS, and then sell the K for (hopefully) a decent amount, I'd imagine prob a £150-250 loss total, maybe less if I'm lucky.

In terms of buyer's remorse, it's Comet Lake that has me worried. If I knew it was coming next year (the later the better ;)), I'd be OK with that as I can't really wait that long, but October... well, that'd be a bit fierce, especially as due to the new MB requirement the above option isn't nearly as doable.
 

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
KS 2 more cores? I thought it was only the same as the i9 9900k but clocked at 5ghz on all cores? 10 core Intel desktop CPU's probably won't be out until next year no?
Correct on the KS, same as the 9900K, 8-core.

We don't know about Comet Lake, but there are plenty of rumours (including leaked road maps) that suggest it'll be here this year - that's my exact dilemma, see above. Even if it's Jan/Feb 2020, if the KS releases in Dec I'd hold off for the extra month or two - that is why I don't think it's worth waiting for the KS. It seems like a strange product to launch if going toe-to-toe with 5 GHz 10-core CL; if it came out before CL, sure, I get it, but at the same time, or after... what's the point? Logically, unless you have the Z390 MB already, Comet Lake is far more appealing, no?

Presumably CL could/would be more expensive, but within reason that wouldn't change my decision.
 

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Gee_Simpson,

Yeah, it just strikes me as a really odd time to release it, unless of course CL isn't coming until Q2 next year, but no one seems to be suggesting that! It seems like a stop-gap chip, to provide a small boost and a bit of excitement for the enthusiast market until the next big thing comes out, but releasing it moments before, alongside or after (!) the next big thing? I don' know... it's weird. Maybe I'm missing something?

I suppose if it works on the older Z370 MBs it could make a nice upgrade for someone, but presumably it's best suited to the Z390 boards.

For me, a particular frustration was that originally I wanted a 10/12-core chip and was looking at HEDT, but the platform ended up being too expensive (~£700 more), plus was not as fast single core performance-wise as the 9900K series - so in many ways CL would be absolutely spot on. But I can't wait 6 months really.
 

Gee_Simpson

Reputable
Mar 4, 2015
33
1
4,535
0
Sorry mods, I'm on topic in regards to answering the OP now though.

@R_G_S

Seems to me that you should just go for the i9 9900k now from what you have said above then. I've made the decision to go for it now.

Good luck! :)
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
As somebody already said, there's always better around the corner. Always. So if you plan on waiting, by the time better gets here, there'll be better still in the works. The 9900k is going to be good for years yet unless software really starts leaps and bounds ahead, which is doubtful. Even Adobe CC doesn't scale well above 8 threads and as new as that is, doubtful it's going anywhere anytime soon either.

Jump on what you can get now. If you upgrade in 2-3 years no worries. Might be 5-6 instead. With the class of cpu, it's not going to amount to much.
 
Reactions: Gee_Simpson

R_G_S

Honorable
Dec 17, 2012
129
9
10,585
0
Thanks, guys.

Yeah, I have pretty much decided to go with the 9900K. Totally get that 'the next best thing is always around the corner' - it just depends how close you are to that corner... for e.g. the general recommendation was against buying an AMD system in the first half of this year as their new stuff was coming, and I don't think anyone would have thought it the smart move for the past 2-3 months. That's why I worry about CL coming in Oct, it's a bit too close for comfort, particularly as I want to hold on to this system for a long time, def beyond 2-3 years, more like 6+ (CPU/MB). As I say, my natural inclination is to wait, but my circumstances require new hardware really and the timing's right on a knife edge (Oct 2019, OK; Q1 2020, erm...).

I'd be interested to know if I'm the only one who finds the release date of the KS a bit odd? The Limited Edition i7 8086K for example, launched in June, a few months ahead of the (superior) i9 9900K, which came in October; would it have made sense to launch the former alongside, or indeed after the latter? The 8086K sounds eerily similar to the 9900KS to me, both limited/special edition parts that gave a short term boost over the current fastest CPU Intel offered. A review of the 8086K stated "...you can basically boil this part down to a cherry-picked Intel Core i7-8700K with a 300MHz bump in frequency for a small premium in price." which sounds rather familiar!
 
Last edited:

vwcrusher

Honorable
Oct 16, 2012
500
10
10,995
2
As somebody already said, there's always better around the corner. Always. So if you plan on waiting, by the time better gets here, there'll be better still in the works. The 9900k is going to be good for years yet unless software really starts leaps and bounds ahead, which is doubtful. Even Adobe CC doesn't scale well above 8 threads and as new as that is, doubtful it's going anywhere anytime soon either.

Jump on what you can get now. If you upgrade in 2-3 years no worries. Might be 5-6 instead. With the class of cpu, it's not going to amount to much.
To take this tread (no pun intended) a little further, lets assume that the anticipated use includes Adobe Premiere Pro video editing software, plus some gaming. The original plan was an I9-9900K perhaps mildly overclocked. Given the potential actual performance specs of the 3800X or 3900X, are you suggesting that the 9900K might still be the best solution (assuming that the differences in performance between the above CPUs is virtually non-detectable in a real world operating environment)?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald


Currently Adobe doesn't scale above 8 threads very well at all, so apart from programs such as winzip that do, Ryzens multi-thread advantages are pretty much nullified, as compared to similar thread counts from Intel. Even HEDT suffers as the better cpus can't match either clock speeds or IPC from the 9700k or 9900k.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-143/Hardware-Recommendations

When a 6 thread 9600k can top the ability of a 16 core threadripper 2950x, you know something is not right with Amd and Adobe.
 

vwcrusher

Honorable
Oct 16, 2012
500
10
10,995
2


Currently Adobe doesn't scale above 8 threads very well at all, so apart from programs such as winzip that do, Ryzens multi-thread advantages are pretty much nullified, as compared to similar thread counts from Intel. Even HEDT suffers as the better cpus can't match either clock speeds or IPC from the 9700k or 9900k.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-143/Hardware-Recommendations

When a 6 thread 9600k can top the ability of a 16 core threadripper 2950x, you know something is not right with Amd and Adobe.
Wow, that is significant.....a friend of mine is gathering components for a new PC that is intended as I described. You just made the design decision making process much easier...at least for CPUs.

Thanks! : )
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS