News Intel Core i9-9900KS Reportedly Hits 5.2 GHz

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
190
41
10,710
0
And my 9700k works perfectly at 5.3ghz and 1.39V. This doesn't mean anything. The 9900k already worked fine at 5.2ghz, so the KS model is exactly the same. The issue isn't voltage levels, the issue is overall power draw. Over 250W of power can be required at some 5Ghz+ speeds, so basically nothing can cool the chip under sustained load. I use a Noctua U14S and it goes straight to 100 degrees eventually. I can do Cinebench no problem, but try looping it for an hour.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: King_V

King_V

Distinguished
So, $559.99 for this chip, which is $70 more than the non-S. Thus the non-S is $489.99.

So about 18.4% more money to get a 1.7% performance gain at stock clocks? And, sure, as much as 7.5% if pushed to 5.2GHz, but that sounds like it's compared to a non-overclocked non-S chip. That margin decreases, presumably, if you overclock the non-S.

I don't see the point of paying that much more for it.
 

Redneck5439

Reputable
Aug 21, 2015
1,244
45
5,690
174
Personally I'm not impressed. 5.2Ghz all core overclock and only 5356 points in Cinebench R20.... That isn't a good score for such high frequency. I get 5420 points in Cinebench R20 with my Ryzen 3800X and its only clocked at 4.425Ghz (fastest CCX clocked at 4.45Ghz) all core. So the "powerful", "best gaming CPU" has to hit frequencies of over 700Mhz more to have lower rendering performance? The 3800X is a $400 CPU, the 9900KS is $560... $160 more for a hotter running, more power hungry CPU that has less performance? For Intel's sake that hopefully was an early engineering sample.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=300384&d=1570840355
 
Last edited:

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
190
41
10,710
0
Exactly. You basically have to buy the largest cooler possible to cool those frequencies. I would have been happy to see it sell for the SAME price as the 9900k, but with an increase in price for an already overpriced chip (if you MUST buy Intel just get the 9700k instead), it is getting silly. shrugs ... I actually thought the 8700k was a great chip as the price didn't go up, and the power consumption was under control (the 8700k unlike the 9900k doesn't use double the power AMD's chips use), but the 9900k has always struck me as a terrible purchase.
 
Reactions: Redneck5439

Redneck5439

Reputable
Aug 21, 2015
1,244
45
5,690
174
Exactly. You basically have to buy the largest cooler possible to cool those frequencies. I would have been happy to see it sell for the SAME price as the 9900k, but with an increase in price for an already overpriced chip (if you MUST buy Intel just get the 9700k instead), it is getting silly. shrugs ... I actually thought the 8700k was a great chip as the price didn't go up, and the power consumption was under control (the 8700k unlike the 9900k doesn't use double the power AMD's chips use), but the 9900k has always struck me as a terrible purchase.
And if memory serves, the 9700K has 98-99% of the gaming performance of the 9900K. There are only a few titles that scale well enough to take advantage of the extra threads you get with the 9900K. For pure gaming I get better performance in a lot of games by turning off SMT (hyperthreading), running 8 cores, 8 threads and increasing the frequency more. For productivity the extra threads are needed badly.
 

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
190
41
10,710
0
And if memory serves, the 9700K has 98-99% of the gaming performance of the 9900K. There are only a few titles that scale well enough to take advantage of the extra threads you get with the 9900K. For pure gaming I get better performance in a lot of games by turning off SMT (hyperthreading), running 8 cores, 8 threads and increasing the frequency more. For productivity the extra threads are needed badly.
Yeap. Get the 9700k for max ST performance, or buy AMD right now is how I see it. I bought and returned a 9900k just to check, I got 200mhz higher OC with my 9700k, so I saved myself over 200 dollars and got MORE performance in gaming, as SMT doesn't matter much, and single threaded performance is more frequency dependent than anything else (though Intel nerfed the cache a bit on purpose to try to retain some interest in the 9900k vs the 9700k, made up by the extra 200mhz easily).
 
Reactions: Redneck5439

Redneck5439

Reputable
Aug 21, 2015
1,244
45
5,690
174
Yeap. Get the 9700k for max ST performance, or buy AMD right now is how I see it. I bought and returned a 9900k just to check, I got 200mhz higher OC with my 9700k, so I saved myself over 200 dollars and got MORE performance in gaming, as SMT doesn't matter much, and single threaded performance is more frequency dependent than anything else (though Intel nerfed the cache a bit on purpose to try to retain some interest in the 9900k vs the 9700k, made up by the extra 200mhz easily).
Totally agree with you. The only reason I went with Ryzen over something like the 9700K was that I need the extra threads as I do a lot of "productivity" based applications. I do a fair amount of rendering/ editing/ converting video and the extra HP with SMT comes in very handy.

I am really impressed with Ryzen 3000 and the 3800X. On early bios I wasn't getting the performance I was really hoping for and really had times I wished I had gone with the 9900K, but with every agesa/ bios update the performance has increased and the overclocking has gotten better. On release bios the 3800X could only hit 4.3Ghz all core on around 1.4V, with the latest bios I'm running better than 4.4Ghz (each CCX module can be overclocked individually) and am using 1.33V. My Cinebench R20 score is 5420, my Geekbench score is 1346 SC and 10667 MC, my blender score is 204.4 BMW and 670 classroom and my best Time Spy CPU score is 10722. From what I have seen the 9900K would have to be clocked at 5Ghz to get around the same performance.

For gaming and gaming alone, it is really hard to argue against the 9700K. Its very solid, has great price to performance and incredible overclocking ability. In gaming it is really hard to beat.
 
Last edited:

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
503
199
19,160
0
Exactly. You basically have to buy the largest cooler possible to cool those frequencies. I would have been happy to see it sell for the SAME price as the 9900k, but with an increase in price for an already overpriced chip (if you MUST buy Intel just get the 9700k instead), it is getting silly. shrugs ... I actually thought the 8700k was a great chip as the price didn't go up, and the power consumption was under control (the 8700k unlike the 9900k doesn't use double the power AMD's chips use), but the 9900k has always struck me as a terrible purchase.
Yeah I see some articles and commenters noting how wonderful it is this can "OC to 5.3 on air!". That cooler is better than the majority of 240mm AIOs. 83 degrees is acceptable, but cinebench is a very short run.

The problems with the 9900 series is they can't boost for very long and I imagine the KS variant is no better in this regard. I would like to see the chip tested in sustained 16thread workloads and see if it can compare with a 3800x or 3900x for those type of loads @ 5.3. (just to see if its all core (more than two minute) boosting behaviour is any improvement over 9900k. Not that I'll ever buy one, just curious.

But sadly most people who buy this will be gamers, paying extra money for extra cores and threads they will never use ... so maybe the cooling and boosting will never be a problem for them because they'll never be using the CPU to any actual capacity.

Save you money people and get a better GPU ... CPUs that aren't bottlenecked (AKA paired with a 2080ti @ 1080p - pretty much any other combo will not bottlenck any CPU).

9700k makes so much more sense for gamers who want to play with a bottlenecked CPU.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS