Question The Intel 9900

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Does the non-k version come with a cooler? Also, why in the world is there zero reviews of it on newegg and amazon and cpubenchmark and passmark, when it's been out for like 3 months?

I am not a pc gamer and I have all parts except my case, mobo, and cpu. I am deciding between 9900 and z390.... which there will be deals on or get the amd 3800x and be out more money, actually, given that intel will have all of the deals.

I wonder if the whole spectre and meltdown patches will make the 9900 even below the 3800x level?

 

[TJ Hooker]

I am not a pc game

What do you plan on using your PC for?

Yes, it comes with a cooler. I doubt it'll do a very good job under any sort of sustained heavy load though.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

What do you plan on using your PC for?

Yes, it comes with a cooler. I doubt it'll do a very good job under any sort of sustained heavy load though.

Mostly just everyday casual stuff, plus programming, plus occasionally could want to do 4k video editing… thus why I did go overboard on specs even though it would be rare, ad it's POSSIBLE I'd game occasionally. But just saying I am not going to constantly be pushing it.

I just don't get why there are no benchmarks on the 9900 yet where I can see how far below the 9900k it would be. If I knew it would be mighty close to the 3800x, even with those annoying patches, it would be a no brainer to get the intel, since there are tons of z390 sales lately and my RAM is more likely to be fine with intel. But my assumption is 3800x will beat it.

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

So cofused. I keep lookign and looking through search results and still not a single review or bench of it shown anywhere, yet it's available in stores and even on sale at one.

Does anyone know if it's supposed to fit between the 9700k and 9900k in performance? Hard to know what to do when it doesn't have the reviews out. It also mentions fixing meltdown and spectre issues, but is it still talking about a non-hardware fix, ie a slowdown?

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

Btw, no issue with the following build that pcpartpicker is somehow not picking up on, is there? https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NfJztg

(obviously that mobo is if I build amd. I actually started the process to return it, but am waiting before shipping it off, to be sure.)

Also, I wonder why it won't let me add the inland premium ssd to that list? Maybe because the mobo knocks the gpu into x8 mode if you use 2 nvme ssds, so it doesn't consider it totally compatible? I'm pretty sure I removed the mobo and tried again and still it wouldn't show up in the list, though.

Some claimed only experts should build itx, but notice the case I am planning on using isn't itx, just the mobo is and the case is matx.

I am a beginner... if it would really be some ordeal, I could get an atx mobo instead and then switch to the define c case instead of the mini... only 2 inches height difference and 1 pound weight difference. But I did get a good deal on this mobo.

 

[-Fran-]

It is in Intel's best interest to not benchmark the 9900 with the stock cooler, as it would fail miserably every test compared to AMD's current lineup I'd say.

Also, I did not know there even was a 9900 non-K. For the amount of money you'll have to spend on an aftermarket cooling solution for it, you're better off buying the K version. Unless there's a lot of difference in price. Otherwise, I'd even argue the 8700 non-K is a better CPU for the money.

Cheers!

 

[DefinitelyNotTom]

It is in Intel's best interest to not benchmark the 9900 with the stock cooler, as it would fail miserably every test compared to AMD's current lineup I'd say.

Also, I did not know there even was a 9900 non-K. For the amount of money you'll have to spend on an aftermarket cooling solution for it, you're better off buying the K version. Unless there's a lot of difference in price. Otherwise, I'd even argue the 8700 non-K is a better CPU for the money.

Cheers!

well, if the cooler sucks, as is usual for intel ones, I might as well stick with the 3800x then because I don't OC and the stock cooler will be good enough on that. The whole reason I even started wanting amd was to avoid having to get an aftermarket cooler. One less thing to worry over for a first build when I am already stressing over everything as it is.

If I do go with amd I just have to decide mighty quickly keep b450 or return and either get an x470 or x570... but x570 is so expensive, probably passing. That b450 is considered a quite good mobo for a b range one.

 

[-Fran-]

You can lock Intel CPUs so their TDP=Power Consumption, but that sacrifices a LOT of performance as they won't go above the base clocks often, if at all. That's why I say it is in Intel's best interest to not allow reviewers to show the world how much their CPUs suck when thermally constrained.

Here's the long answer to what I'm talking about: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

Cheers!

 

[TJ Hooker]

I just don't get why there are no benchmarks on the 9900 yet where I can see how far below the 9900k it would be. If I knew it would be mighty close to the 3800x, even with those annoying patches, it would be a no brainer to get the intel, since there are tons of z390 sales lately and my RAM is more likely to be fine with intel. But my assumption is 3800x will beat it.

In the absence of benchmarks, I think your best bet is to assume it performs approximately on par with the 9900K, assuming adequate cooling (so probably not the stock cooler, at least for heavy multi core loads like video encoding). It has the same single core boost clock, so I would think the multi core boosts would be the same or similar. The lower base clock just reflects what would be required to actually run at the rated TDP, but most boards (especially Z390s) will happily ignore the rated TDP and allow it to boost to its max boost frequencies.

All that being said, even if you knew exactly how it performed you're still stuck waiting for the 3800X to be released and reviewed to see how it compares.