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

[Admin]

Multiple retailers have listed the Intel Core i9-9900KS, which gives us a general idea of the processor's possible pricing.

The Intel Core i9-9900KS Will Probably Cost $600 : Read more

 

[logainofhades]

More proof that Intel still doesn't get it. Their chips are not worth the premium, that they are asking for.

 

[TerryLaze]

More proof that Intel still doesn't get it. Their chips are not worth the premium, that they are asking for.

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.

 

[logainofhades]

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.

There is not a single 9900k that won't do 5.0 all core now, with a simple multiplier change. This chip is the FX 9xxx series all over again, and should not exist. It is not worth it's asking price, period.

 

[TerryLaze]

There is not a single 9900k that won't do 5.0 all core now, with a simple multiplier change. This chip is the FX 9xxx series all over again, and should not exist. It is not worth it's asking price, period.

According to silicon lottery only 30% reaches 5Ghz and that at 1.3V.
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
And their asking price for a guaranteed 5Ghz one is $580 ,as far as I know they are a profitable company meaning that there are people that do disagree with you.
If you need the speed the extra cost is reasonable.
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/9900k50g

 

[TJ Hooker]

According to silicon lottery only 30% reaches 5Ghz and that at 1.3V.
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
And their asking price for a guaranteed 5Ghz one is $580 ,as far as I know they are a profitable company meaning that there are people that do disagree with you.
If you need the speed the extra cost is reasonable.
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/9900k50g

I wouldn't necessarily use SL's prices as an example to justify pricing. As far as I can tell their entire business model is catering to 'enthusiasts' with more money than sense. I guess Intel's pricing makes sense if they're only targeting that niche market.

Also, SL's limit of only using 1.3V for their 5.0 GHz binned chips seems kind of arbitrary.

 

[King_V]

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.

Exactly where are you getting this "25% faster clocks" number from?

9900K and KF have a 3.6GHz base clock. 9900KS has 4.0. That's 11.1% faster clock.
9900K and KF have a 5.0GHz boost clock for 1-2 cores. 9900KS is the same.
9900K and KF have a 4.8GHz boost clock for 3-4 cores. 9900KS keeps the 5.0GHz speed. So, only 4.2% faster clock.
9900K and KF have a 4.7GHz boost clock for 5-8 cores. 9900KS keeps the 5.0GHz speed. So, only 6.4% faster clock.

In terms of actual real-world performance, you get less total performance increase than you do in clock-rate increase.

And, for $600, you get that paltry bit, but wait, there's more! It's also got an "official" TDP of 127W. And we've learned about how reliable Intel's official TDP declaration is compared to the real world for at least the 8th and 9th generation chips.... and all for only 20% more money!! Whatta deal!


This chip is for people with more money than brains.

 

[TerryLaze]

Exactly where are you getting this "25% faster clocks" number from?

Context.
I was answering to logainofhades who claimed that intel doesn't get it and that intel's premium isn't worth it,well against AMD's best product the kfc will be at least 25% faster in clocks...guaranteed to run at 5Ghz in most if not all workloads.

In terms of actual real-world performance, you get less total performance increase than you do in clock-rate increase.

First of all we don't know how much more it will be for sure, $600 is just a guess right now, but even if it is 20% more price for 11% better base and 6% better turbo that's 17% better performance for 20% more money.

This chip is for people with more money than brains.

So is any chip above a 2c/4t because you can run anything you want with that and anything more is just a luxury making things "smoother" or faster or whatnot.
Yes this chip is not for the normal person looking at emails and facebook.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

Lol. Not worth it in any regard.

 

[mdd1963]

I might not think it is worth it for that sort of premium over a 9900K or KF, but, I'll bet they will sell every single one they make quite quickly.

It has no competitors.

 

[jpe1701]

I might not think it is worth it for that sort of premium over a 9900K or KF, but, I'll bet they will sell every single one they make quite quickly.

It has no competitors.

It has no competitors in gaming and single core stuff but with gaming you're going to need a high end gpu to notice the difference.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

The bs in here is about ten feet deep! No competitor? Hahahahaha. At least I know who to ignore now. Fanbois

 

[logainofhades]

It has no competitors in gaming and single core stuff but with gaming you're going to need a high end gpu to notice the difference.

Actually, Ryzen 3000's IPC is better, and Intel has to crank up the clocks to compete. It really is the FX 9xxx scenario all over again. Competition is good, and the tables are turned. Intel, once again, got complacent, like they did during the P4 days, and Athlon 64 x2 walked all over them. On the flip side, AMD did the same thing, prior to Core 2. Core 2 came out, and they weren't prepared. I admit that I am an AMD fan, but I am also on my first AMD rig, for my main rig, in over a decade. My money goes to performance/$. Intel's price/performance is simply not good.

A Ryzen 5 3600/x, can hold its own, vs a stock 8700k, and costs considerably less. It beats the 9600k, in modern titles, due to frametime variance, aka min frames. The 3700x out multitasks the 9700k, and still offers up great gaming performance, while costing less. For a pure high end gaming only rig, the 9700k is probably the best price/performance, as Intel has slashed their prices, for the first time ever. For those that stream, or do content creation, though, the 3700x is the better option. The 9900k and 9900ks pricing is absurd.

 

[King_V]

Context.
I was answering to logainofhades who claimed that intel doesn't get it and that intel's premium isn't worth it,well against AMD's best product the kfc will be at least 25% faster in clocks...guaranteed to run at 5Ghz in most if not all workloads.

Ryzen 7 3800X = 3.9GHz base, 4.5GHz boost. 5.0GHz is only 11.1% more than that. Your math is atrociously wrong.

First of all we don't know how much more it will be for sure, $600 is just a guess right now, but even if it is 20% more price for 11% better base and 6% better turbo that's 17% better performance for 20% more money.

Holy crap, dude, you just simply added up the clock speed gap under different scenarious. That's NOT how math works. And, clock speed increase is NOT equal to performance increase.

LOL, that's like saying that "Well, there are 20 scenarios where the Ryzen is 8% faster, therefore the Ryzen is 160% faster than Intel."

So is any chip above a 2c/4t because you can run anything you want with that and anything more is just a luxury making things "smoother" or faster or whatnot.
Yes this chip is not for the normal person looking at emails and facebook.

Now you're ignoring everything that's being said. Nobody tried to compare it to a 2c/4t chip, or say that no performance gain is ever needed. The post is about the miniscule gain for a huge price premium. Stop making straw-man arguments.

 

[cryoburner]

...but even if it is 20% more price for 11% better base and 6% better turbo that's 17% better performance for 20% more money.

Ignoring the nonsense of adding base clocks to boost clocks (that's not how it works), base clocks simply don't mean much at all unless your processor is overheating. Under normal operation, a processor will near-instantaneously switch to boost clocks as soon a core starts getting actively used, so increasing base clocks by 11% doesn't matter in the least, unless your CPU is thermal throttling, and if that were happening, you would likely get more performance out of a far less expensive processor (like a 3700X) that has lower heat output, making it less likely to throttle.

Assuming the processor has sufficient cooling, what matters is boost clocks. And as far as boost clocks are concerned, compared to a 9900K at stock clocks, the 9900KS should be 0% faster at tasks involving 1-2 cores, up to 4% faster at tasks utilizing 3-4 cores, and up to 6% faster at tasks involving additional cores. Throw overclocking into the mix, and the performance difference is likely to be smaller still. I do suspect these chips may overclock slightly higher than the 9900K though, since Intel has likely been stockpiling the best-binned chips for the eventual release of this higher-priced part. A possible few-percent higher overclock is unlikely to matter in the grand scheme of things though, as that is unlikely to result in any perceptible performance difference at anything.

It's also worth pointing out that even when paired with an enthusiast-level graphics card like a 2080 Ti, anyone gaming at a resolution higher than 1080p isn't likely to see any noticeable difference in frame rates between a 9900K/KS and a Ryzen 3700X. And for anyone not planning to put a 2080 Ti into their system, those extra hundreds of dollars would likely be better put toward graphics hardware instead.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I would estimate you are likely getting maybe 300mhz more and a 5% performance increase in the best case.

So in addition to paying 20% more, you also will have 25% higher power consumption. All for a 5% performance increase at best. OUCH!
Also consider the 9900ks is just a 9900k overclocked 5.0ghz, which ALL 9900k CPUs can do.

The I9 9900ks simply doesn't deserve to exist. Harsh, but true.

 

[TerryLaze]

Actually, Ryzen 3000's IPC is better, and Intel has to crank up the clocks to compete.

AMD's IPC is "better" (they just have more) for distributed/ very parallel code.
Intel's IPC is better for gaming low IPC code, at 4Ghz it's 10% better as long as the GPU allows.

Ryzen 7 3800X = 3.9GHz base, 4.5GHz boost. 5.0GHz is only 11.1% more than that. Your math is atrociously wrong.

Yeah the only tiny little problem with your math is that ryzens single core boost is exactly that, it only works if you close down everything that is running and you use your 16 thread monster to run only one single thing with one single thread.
Ryzens all core boost is at 4Ghz for most people and only very few get 4.1 or even rarer 4.2,intel's 5Ghz + is 25% more.

Holy crap, dude, you just simply added up the clock speed gap under different scenarious. That's NOT how math works. And, clock speed increase is NOT equal to performance increase.

You have four people cleaning a car and 3 people walking dogs it's still 7 people total even if they are in different scenarios even if they are not on the same planet.

You will have 11% better performance at base and 6% better at boost,if you will use your CPU in both scenarios you will get both benefits.

Now you're ignoring everything that's being said. Nobody tried to compare it to a 2c/4t chip, or say that no performance gain is ever needed. The post is about the miniscule gain for a huge price premium. Stop making straw-man arguments.

Even 11% is not miniscule,even 6% is not miniscule.
How much the price premium will be is still unknown but even $100 for a $1000 + system is not that much.
It all depends on what someone wants from their machine.

Ignoring the nonsense of adding base clocks to boost clocks (that's not how it works), base clocks simply don't mean much at all unless your processor is overheating.

You are looking at it form the overclockers perspective.
Base clocks are relevant for people that want to run the CPU at locked TDP for whatever reason, and in that case the ks will be 11 and 6% faster.

 

[logainofhades]

AMD's IPC is "better" (they just have more) for distributed/ very parallel code.
Intel's IPC is better for gaming low IPC code, at 4Ghz it's 10% better as long as the GPU allows.

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

 

[King_V]

You have four people cleaning a car and 3 people walking dogs it's still 7 people total even if they are in different scenarios even if they are not on the same planet.

You will have 11% better performance at base and 6% better at boost,if you will use your CPU in both scenarios you will get both benefits.

And NOBODY will be done 17% faster.

Even 11% is not miniscule,even 6% is not miniscule.

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.

 

[AlistairAB]

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.

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.

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. 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.

 

[Ninjawithagun]

Definitely NOT worth it. I was lucky enough to pick up a 9900KF on sale for $419 a few weeks ago - thank you Newegg!! No way in hell is the 9900KS worth $160-180 more.

 

[tom1111]

Every 9900K can do 5 GHz allcore, at least mine.
But it is running very hot. You need a serious custom water cooler.
Otherwise the Power Limit has to be adjusted accordingly to lower the temperatures.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Yea a 9900ks will draw 250w (same as a 5ghz all core 9900k) and run hot.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I wouldn't necessarily use SL's prices as an example to justify pricing. As far as I can tell their entire business model is catering to 'enthusiasts' with more money than sense. I guess Intel's pricing makes sense if they're only targeting that niche market.

Also, SL's limit of only using 1.3V for their 5.0 GHz binned chips seems kind of arbitrary.

And this is catering to that exact crowd. Its just like when AMD released the FX 9590. No regular enthusiast would buy that chip. However they knew their diehard crowd would buy it and even at the asinine original price tag of $920 bucks, and it couldn't even maintain its rated clock speeds with top end cooling but marketing is marketing.

This CPU is for those who want the stock 5GHz no questions asked and will buy it. Otherwise its just another pointless release in the long wait for something more meaningful from Intel.

 

[j3ster]

the 9900KS is so funny to me even as a 9900k user, but hey it will still sell.
but i do think that its "reasonable" for people who really dont want AMD or those who are afraid to run into said Ryzen 3rd gen "problems", and are in the process of looking for a next big purchase the 9900KS would offer them what they need, a processor that goes 5GHz out of the box.