News The Intel Core i9-9900KS Will Probably Cost $600

[NightHawkRMX]

"reasonable"

The cost isnt really reasonable. The tier of motherboard and cooler required arent very reasonable. The power consumption isnt reasonable.

But I can certainly see the appeal of a regular 9900k, but not the KS. If I won the lottery, i'd probably buy a 9900k, then buy a 64 core Epyc CPU because its just so Ludacris.

 

[j3ster]

The cost isnt really reasonable. The tier of motherboard and cooler required arent very reasonable. The power consumption isnt reasonable.

But I can certainly see the appeal of a regular 9900k, but not the KS. If I won the lottery, i'd probably buy a 9900k, then buy a 64 core Epyc CPU because its just so Ludacris.

well im just pointing out that there are people who probably saved up for a big upgrade for them something like this is great, they dont have to waste time to get stable 5Ghz and just plug and play its obviously not meant for enthusiast more for the type of people with deep pockets and lazy.

also knowing for a fact that there are people who really dont want to go team red and just stick with intel no matter what the product wil still sell sadly no matter how bad the reviews would be. a friend of mine who cant do 5ghz at 1.35v is quite tempted to get this adds to the fact that it will still sell funnily enough.

 

[valeman2012]

Hey if at least 25% faster clocks is worthless to you that's ok,it will be to quite a few people, but don't make it out as if it really is worthless,at least 25% is a huge difference and worth every penny especially since that at least 25% is exclusive to intel and can't be achieved with anything else.
Anything premium demands a premium in price.

Yea, It at least it will hit the advertised clock speed out the box without require users to update soo much bios just to "fix a clock speed issue" costing possibly more time and money if it goes dead.

So what if its 14nm+++ while the other side 7nm? Performance matters on the i9 9900K would crush i9 9900K for sure.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel's advantage, in games, is more to do with latency, which Ryzen 3000 significantly improved on.

But is still 10% behind in and latency is still a part of the CPUs performance,latency is incredibly important when switching between tasks.

And NOBODY will be done 17% faster.

And NOBODY said that they will,performance and max performance are different things.

11% higher clock speed and 6% higher clock speed do not ever translate to 11 or 6 percent higher actual performance in a system doing real world tasks. The CPU does not work in isolation from the rest of the system.

They do translate all the time, there is plenty of things that scale one to one from javascript to strategy games.

More proof that TerryLaze doesn't get it? There is so much falsehood in every pro Intel thing he has said. I have a 9900k, and guess what? Like for everyone else, it can reach 5ghz already. Silicon Lottery is not a good guide, as if you can't reach 5ghz at 1.3 volts, then try 1.32 volts, or 1.35 volts etc. Since anything under 1.45 is very safe with cooling.

It doesn't matter how safe it is,it is still voiding your warranty,for AMD as well as for intel,let alone the fact that it is not guaranteed to be 100% free of issues,with a system you O/C yourself you have no way of knowing if a blue screen or any kind of problem comes from the O/C or not.

The only use case Intel has is high frequency gaming, and the slide that Terry posted has Intel ahead of AMD by 2.5 percent in IPC. That's because Intel has two different memory topologies, one for their HEDT and one for their consumer level chips. AMD uses the HEDT appropriate memory topology for every chip, so they lose a bit due to some memory latency, but it is barely noticeable. That's why AMD crushes Intel in server and HEDT applications, as Intel cannot use the ring bus that they use for gaming, with high core count CPUs. The rest I'm not going to comment on. Too much crap on here.

Yes max fps, how could I be so blind?! The FPS you get when looking at the ground from close up that's what matters most...
Max FPS could very well be the limit of what the GPU can do,in min FPS as in the lowest guaranteed FPS you will get intel is 10% ahead at the same clocks with another 25% to go,intel is so far ahead in speed that it's not even funny anymore it's a completely different league.
You can use this speed difference today to run more stuff while gaming and you will most definitely use it in the future with faster cards.

And b.t.w., I'm going to sell my 9900k to some sucker for the 3950x as soon as it comes out. I tried it and I don't particular care about having an extra few percent of FPS, since the real issue with CPU power is bad programming code, not power. Not even a 6ghz Intel will make emulation better, or fix Magic Arena, or indeed solve random frame rate changes at high frame rates. Good code solves those issues.

Yes go and sell your imaginary 9900k that you don't own...I am sure the ryzen will run the bad code much better?!?! Is that your point?

The other problem is our GPU's are laughable slow compared to vs. previous generations. We need a 3080 ti with double the performance, stat. CPU is irrelevant until we see massive increases in GPU power.

Hey you even know it yourself that max FPS is being limited by today's GPUs...
Go spend $500 on a CPU only capable of today's needs.

 

[Danra]

You can bet with 100% certainty that Tom'sHardware got a golden of the golden hand picked CPUs. Just like any 9000 series CPU the silicon lottery is still in play and how perfectly the STIM is applied will make a difference in performance including heat.

 

[TerryLaze]

You can bet with 100% certainty that Tom'sHardware got a golden of the golden hand picked CPUs.

Yes, in fact you won't be betting at all if you get one, this is what you are paying for.
Intel even said as much,this is just an uber binned 9900k.

Just like any 9000 series CPU the silicon lottery is still in play and how perfectly the STIM is applied will make a difference in performance including heat.

No the ks will go through higher tier binning that's the whole/only point of this CPU.

 

[Danra]

Yes, in fact you won't be betting at all if you get one, this is what you are paying for.
Intel even said as much,this is just an uber binned 9900k.

No the ks will go through higher tier binning that's the whole/only point of this CPU.

While you have the right to disagree with me or anyone else. However, I wonder how you know with absolute certainty that silicon lottery does not apply to binned CPUs or heat output. You are saying that everyone that purchases an i9 9900KS will have the exact same silicon quality as the one tested by Tom's.

 

[TerryLaze]

While you have the right to disagree with me or anyone else. However, I wonder how you know with absolute certainty that silicon lottery does not apply to binned CPUs or heat output. You are saying that everyone that purchases an i9 9900KS will have the exact same silicon quality as the one tested by Tom's.

Hm maybe you got the wrong thread by mistake?
All the article is saying is general stuff,tom's doesn't claim to have one and neither did they post any numbers other than 5Ghz all core and that's guaranteed,if there is any lottery involved in getting 5Ghz there is gonna be chaos.

 

[Danra]

There will be no lottery involved to get to 5GHz. The lottery comes into play with variations in heat [and thus required cooling] and to some extent overclock ability, as the latter will probably be a consideration by prosumers that get the satisfaction of hitting 5.2GHz or whatever the world record in on air or water cooling is.

 

[usla]

Intel still has the best gaming cpu and you have to give credit to AMD for Intel's x2 price cuts and remember that competition with capitalism leads to innovation and leaps in technology no matter the company that represents it.