or save that $ for another yr & get the next gen cpu that has performance worth the extra cost.Is it worth the money? Well...$200 for a small percentage gain would say no, but in this age of record inflation, if you're financing it over 12 months, you could say that for the price of fast food twice a month (or even once a month in some places), you could instead have this processor, it puts it in a different light.
Not really, these are extremely "cherry picked" CPUs and they will definitely do more work at less power than the other models.No one who is interested in PPW will find much of interest here... Intel's back to "Damn the power budget, full speed ahead!"
9900KF 4.80GHz 4.60GHz 1.275V 100% 9900KF 4.90GHz 4.70GHz 1.287V Top 92% 9900KF 5.00GHz 4.80GHz 1.300V Top 37% 9900KF 5.10GHz 4.90GHz 1.312V Top 8% 9900KS 4.90GHz 4.70GHz 1.225V 100% 9900KS 5.00GHz 4.80GHz 1.250V Top 95% 9900KS 5.10GHz 4.90GHz 1.287V Top 28% 9900KS 5.20GHz 5.0GHz 1.325V Top 4%
You are of course free to believe that people will be paying a premium to buy these CPUs just so they can run them at lower MHz to conserve power if you like... I won't stop you. But if they don't want to run at 5.5GHz in order to conserve power, there are much better deals, even in the current Intel stack. So, I think it's fair to say that no one who is looking at PPW is going to be looking at one of these. I think that's a completely rational statement, as Intel isn't advertising this CPU as a 'power saver.' And as is true with all ultra-binned CPUs, YMMV as consistency will vary from chip to chip.Not really, these are extremely "cherry picked" CPUs and they will definitely do more work at less power than the other models.
We can see this by looking at silicon lottery numbers for their previous KS model.
You get more clocks for less Vcore ... until you hit the max clocks.
At the lowest tier you got 100Mhz MORE for 0.050V LESS