richintheveins

I decided to build a purely gaming pc with the best gaming cpu possible, so I purchased the 9900k two weeks ago. I'm about to send both cpu and mobo back before the return period expires..  Now that the 10900k was announced, I might as well see how it performs before deciding on cpu/mobo. 

That is a good question and its entirely subjective. Whatever you create should be tailored to what you do; however, I must say that AMD CPU's are really good in gaming as well. Price to performance the 3700x and 3800x are really good value and do really well in gaming. If your main focus is gaming then the 9700k is awesome and will edge out the prior mentioned cpus in gaming alone; however, you are paying a premium and the 3800x will give you good gaming and excellent multi core performance plus all the ryzen chips are future proofed with their new 7 nm architecture that offers more L3 Cache and PCIe 4.0.  
 
If you want the best of  both worlds (outside of the pricey 3950x) then currently the 3900x gives you amazing gaming performance plus amazing multi core performance so if you are streaming it will handle that with ease due its 12 core/24 threads. 
 
Now if all you care about is FPS. I mean literally ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS FPS. and you plan to play on either a 240 hz monitor or a ultra wide/super ultra wide and (this is important) you plan to purchase a 2080 ti. If all of those are checked then go with an high end intel chip. 
 
Me personally I love clock speed and gaming performance. I'm rocking a 9900KS with a 2080 ti connected to a  LG38GL950G. I did this to be able to put out as many Frames as possible while playing Modern Warfare, Division 2, Resident Evil 2/3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order etc on ULTRA. I don't care about synthetic multi core performance as to me my cpu does amazing in adobe premier and various other things I do for work. 
 
So to get through this long message building a PC is a huge decision. If you like clock speed, overclocking, your main focus is gaming, and you plan to build an expensive gaming rig with all the highest end parts then WAIT and see what this 10900k will do. It should perform better than the 9900k and will offer better multi core performance at the same price point as the 9900k today.
 
I'm sure its clear as mud. lol 
 
But that's the beauty of today's market there are so many options and really in the DIY space the options are plentiful. 
 
Enjoy building its one of my favorite past times. 

I agree with you, but of course sometimes all sense is thrown out the door and you buy the most powerful mainstream gaming CPU and put it in your rig just because you can.
AKA the i9 9900K
 
****Its a beautiful thing to play AAA titles on Ultra and consistently get 80-120 FPS.**** 🙂
 
There will be people who will buy this CPU (pending Benchmarks and reviews) just to do that. 

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but given this is nothing actually new, it's more than reasonable to assume performance based on what we know about coffeelake.
 
That said, it's more of the same. Again.

I think its an interesting product stack, and honestly more than I was expecting from intel (which wasnt a lot!).  Will be interesting to see if this "up to" stuff pans out and the ability to actually get a high all core OC.
 
I think they will continue to sell out despite AMD's better performance per dollar, with the condition that they maintain the halo effect of the significantly higher core clock.  The combination of best in gaming, highest core clock, and ability to actually tinker meaningfully in overclocking is the only saving grace of the intel high end.  
 
I remember seeing a lot of "9900k is stupid, who is this part for, bad price/performance"...then I couldnt find a 9900k anywhere...then all those youtubers put 9900k in every single gaming max rig they made...  Now its still selling above MSRP to this day.  9900KS was laughed off as a joke and desperate marketing gimick (which isnt untrue!) but sold out instantly, and you cant find one on the interwebs for less than 200% markup.  The effect of "best in gaming" and overclockable is seriously the main thing saving these chips at this point; but it still works.  I suspect the same will continue with the 10900k.  Every youtuber building a min/max "best gaming build" will do it with SLI 2080ti (or soon to be 3080ti) and a 10900K (or KS lol).
 
The mid range i5, if it has decent performance, may make a comeback especially if they can be overclocked well.  However, AMD's next launch could very well completely crush this product stack so that will be interesting to see too.
 
Looking forward to the guys putting all these through their paces and seeing if they are worth anything.
 
 
 
 

I would say hold on to it. If you are a gamer/light content creator, it would be better to buy a 9700K or 9900K as these would drop the price after the release of 10900K. If you actually have a workload that requires 10 cores 20 threads, then you would almost certainly need something else that the mainstream chipset can't provide, such as enough PCI-E lanes, or ECC memory support. In that case LGA2066 or even LGA3647 is the right way to go. I just don't see a 'mainstream' 10 core CPU with over 200W+ power draw would make sense at this point, 

I'm an outlier, I really don't care about the process node. I find Intel's stuff more fun (I ran the best AMD had to offer back with a 2700X on a Crosshair VII Hero with a Vega Frontier Edition, switched back to an X58 setup with a 1080 Ti lol), and their Sandy-Ivy 32nm/22nm chips and 22nm/14nm Haswell-Broadwell chips were faster than the 12nm/14nm Zen/Zen+ chips prior to spectre/meltdown nerfs, Intel's current 14nm stays competitive with AMD's 7nm performance wise too so eh, why does it really matter. The process nodes aren't directly comparable anyways lmao, AMD's 7nm is about as dense as Intel's (mostly failed) 10nm IIRC. I don't care about heat/power consumption, I have a beefy Noctua, AIO/CLC, and custom loop to deal with the heat. And then high wattage PSUs + cheap power so power draw is mostly a non-issue. I don't do anything that actually needs high core counts (my getting a 6950X soon is purely because I want the best in socket chip for X99, not because I can even use my current 5960X's cores/threads lol) so AMD having more to offer there doesn't matter at all. 

If you're into purely benchmark numbers per dollar, AMD is very tasty right now. If not, just buy quality stuff you're familiar with, both platforms have plenty to offer depending on what you, specifically, want from them. 

Up to 250W at stock. If it's anything like any other Intel CPU ever, that'll go much higher once you start messing with voltages. 
 
To answer the OP, eh. For people who like Intel it's a solid upgrade in multicore perf over a 9900K, given the higher clock headroom (will be interesting to see what they can put out on all-core with a manual OC too) they'll likely slightly outperform older chips in games, and keep that top end lead over Ryzen (it only really comes into play at like, 240Hz, but there are people who do play at that). The new CPUs are also a far better value at MSRP than the older stuff, same as 10-series X299 chips. 

 

TDP is 125W, there was a thread about it yesterday. On the other hand, we all know that the 9900K's "95W" was more like 175W, so I'd expect this to be somewhere along the lines of 225.

Well it's a better buy than the 9900K so at least there's something, but nobody should really have been buying the 9900K anyway, so there's little reason to buy this new one, especially factoring in the monster cooler you're going to need.
I'm eagerly awaiting independant benchmarks and power draw numbers. 300W under load wouldn't surprise me.

Stability can be defined in many was, one is by the things you use the system for, but I chose to define it as achieving the same stability as the CPU ships from Intel with. Can a system be overall unstable while being stable for you use case? Yes, it can, but to me and most folks, that is not "stability". Intel and all chip manufacturers engineer and ship products that will run at 100% load within acceptable thermal limits for the life of the chip which is why I test my systems as such. Is a AIDA64 test indicative of a normal home user use case, no, absolutely not. But is it indicative of an enterprise use case or a render farm use case, likely yes, it in fact it may not even be true real world use case as the PCIe lanes are not being stressed via massive NVMe IOPS or other PCIe device loads places on the PCIe controller. We do testing in these worst case scenarios because that is how Intel engineers their chips to work... testing in any less demanding way is just accepting that you have in fact created an unstable system. This may be acceptable to you, but that is a judgement call.
 
A good example is a buddies 4U homelab with all 24 hhd sleds populated, dual socket x58 xeon and 128 GB of RAM. Very much accidentally, mostly at my own fault since I am his "hardware guy" I had the rear exhaust fans off which are responsible for a large chunk of the CPU cooling in a 4U case, especially considering the fan wall behind the HDD's had its fans running very slowly for noise constraint issues at the cost of HDD and CPU heat. Server ended up kicking out a over temp warning after a few months when the drives were doing ZFS scrubs which lead us to investigate and figure out the fan RPM issue stated above. I couldn't physically put my hands on the CPU heatsinks they were so hot, and the system ran like this for upwards of 6 months without a single perceivable issue. I 100% do not advice such a test, this could have been catastrophic, but, it goes to show that a system working as designed does ultimately retain 100% uptime stability even in a horrible situation that the safe guards of the chassis had no power in overcoming as I had intentionally added resistors to the fan cables for the noise reduction necessary. Granted, yes, this isn't a "home PC" used for gaming, its a homelab running ESXi with multile VM's and FreeNAS running under it, but to him, this system also means a lot more then his 8700k "home PC". This is once again an assumption of acceptability vs risk. He knew the risks of intentionally killing fan RPM for noise reasons, but I did make a mistake in verification of RPM after this choice was made. Parallels can be drawn to overclocking. Overclocking is inherently introducing risk to stability and uptime, but if you test in the worst case situation and the system can handle it, then you can have ultimate confidence it won't give you trouble in a "normal every day" use case.
 
Really long explanation to simply say: test in the worst way possible to ensure the tasks you do day in and day out will not have stability issues. Hope that makes sense...

It could be some weird memory controller thing... Remember, you are overclocking your memory controller via pumping the RAM speed, and 4000 is pretty high. When you run your AIDA64 run, I would stress not just the memory, but the entire suite of CPU tests as well. Load the CPU up with as much as you can, RAM as well, basically all the default checked boxes in AIDA's torture test to make sure the CPU can actually handle that RAM speed when the entire chip is being slammed to the max.
 
This is akin to a few years ago people with 6700k's had issues running "fast RAM" like 3200 MHz in a 4 DIMM config AND overclocking the core maybe say 4-4.2 GHz all core boost. Its just a crap shoot with silicon lottery... Some chips don't have an issue, my 6700k did decently well, but others were not as lucky. This is just a single example, but all CPU's are similar. I am not sure what the probability of issue is on a 9900ks when running 4 dimms of fast RAM is, but I am sure its not a 100% guarantee to work, and its very possible slight timing, voltage, or some tertiary timing/voltage/clock speed can result in instability.
 
Another good but not exactly "applicable" example is my current 8700k. Silicon lottery is really all there is to it, but my 8700k is freakishly good with voltage. 1.300v for a 5 GHz all core OC is a solid .05v bellow what most folks need... I just got a really lucky chip. My OG i7 920 did 3.86 GHz up from 2.66 on LESS THAN STOCK votls, talk about a golden chip. It wouldn't go a MHz higher, but it ran that speed with sub stock votls for YEARS without a single BSOD... Weird things can happen, and its really just statics/luck.

3200Mhz has always been the ideal in terms of value/performance for gaming, anything above that and the differences are negligible, though 3rd Gen Ryzen does benefit somewhat by going with 3600Mhz but they both perform very good.
 
anything above 3600Mhz has little to no effect on gaming performance. 

What really matters is 1/frequency *latency, this gives the most comprehensive "speed" number of the RAM.
increasing frequency increases bandwidth, but that's not very useful.
 
I'm running quad channel so bandwidth is no issue, thus 3200 cl14

Personally i will never make my PC looks like a Bimbo 

If this is the same set I have, which also has XMP profiles at 3600 and 4000, you might find that it actually gives better performance at 3600. I'm only running two sticks, and found this behaviour consistent on both Intel and AMD systems. My suspicion is they had to relax some timing too much to reach 4000, that 3600 with tighter timings wins out. This even applies to Prime95 which is bandwidth starved.

Try taking two of them out first and if it works then put them back and increase the VCCSA and VCCIO to 1.2-1.25 and increase the DRAM Voltage to 1.38-1.4, if it works then figure out which of these voltages are causing the instability to avoid unnecessary overvolting.
 
Technically though you only need to touch VCCIO to stabilize the RAM but it wouldn't hurt to test.

From the ROG forums:
 
I would recommend following the link at the top of this comment.

Additionally: https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?98041-Understanding-and-using-XMP
 
You can try what @_Syn_ suggested as well

A different cable isn't going to change anything. Fiber optic DP cables will run at the same rate as copper ones.
 
32.4 Gbit/s is the raw bit rate, which is what your copper cables are already running at. The data rate (after line code overhead) is 25.92 Gbit/s. Doesn't matter if it's copper or fiber.

Micro Center and Amazon at the moment, but be warned the price is inflated. Many people are saying don't buy it but the masses have ignored and have sold out at the semi reasonable price point of $513-$524. The pre-orders had them sold out on release date. Since then, the price has skyrocketed to a minimal price of $569.99 on Newegg ( which has been sold out since yesterday afternoon) and Amazon which is @ $614 USD. You can score this for $599.99 through Micro Center, but imo get this only if you have an RTX 2080 ti, a high end monitor, and can score this at the suggested MSRP (that's the only way you will get value for gaming). It's limited for the holiday season, but its not worth it @ $600 USD.
 
To sum this up....
 
When you should consider to buy?
If you already have a Z390 Motherboard, a high end GPU, a high refresh Monitor, a high end cooling solution, and don't want to touch overclocking settings then consider the 9900ks at no more than $529. Of course there is a bit of "fun" value for overclockers as reports have shown that you gain a little performance if you overclock it further and many have been able to hit 5.2 ghz stable.
 
I wouldn't Buy it if....
You are building from scratch. At this point AMD has the crown and you will have way more value/performance if you purchase a 3900x or wait for the 3950x and build around that platform. 
 
In short....
The 9900ks is a bragging rights cpu to say you have the best one you can buy for the Z390 platform. As minimal as it may be some of us tech heads only need this validation and I can respect that (i'm that person). 
 
Of course this is all my opinion....Do whatever makes you happy. As I always tell people its just money and if you have it enjoy it. YOLO

Unless you want a collector's item no, they're the same thing with just different stock settings.

More info:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14980/the-intel-core-i9-9990xe-review/ https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i9/i9-9990xe

And Intel's even priced it reasonanbly(ish).I'd say I'm surprised, but between this, Cascade Lake-X, and Skylake-X rumors, it's pretty clear that competition is finally beginning to make Intel budge.

Considering this. That was my question. How far can you overclock stably (with good temps) and what is the performance increase? I plan on picking one up and not opening it until some real gaming benchmarks come out with the max average overclock. 5.3 ghz all cores is promising.......

Here's a reference for all games that support UW
 
https://www.wsgf.org/mgl/uws