Intel 9900K Reviews

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

So much negative talk about power and thermals.  Everyone forgot to mention it is a VERY fast chip...

Not really...... In gaming its an 8086k.

 

In productivy its an 7700k x2

[TahoeDust]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Not really...... In gaming its an 8086k.

 

In productivy its an 7700k x2

So in gaming it is the fastest in the world, and in productivity it is twice as fast as a two gen old flagship?...Like I said, VERY fast.

[GoldenLag]

Might need to start making coolers for Cases.

 

An 9900k + 2 RX Vega 64.

[TahoeDust]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

it's fast because it eats a lot

it eats a lot because it's fast

it's hot because it's fast and has been eating a lot

 

so yeah. I wouldn't say it's negative.

Exactly.  Do people think performance is free in terms of power needed and power dissipated?

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

So in gaming it is the fastest in the world, and in productivity it is twice as fast as a two gen flagship?...Like I said, VERY fast.

Fastest in gaming by a few percentiles 

 

Idk an 1920x is much nicer for productivity. And thats a gen and a half ago. 

 

Im not saying it isnt fast, im saying its underwhealming.

 

Also 2 gens ago might awell be Sandybridge.......(under exotic cooling)

Edited October 19, 2018 by GoldenLag

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Exactly.  Do people think performance is free in terms of power needed and power dissipated?

No, but sometimes people think competing with a 32 core in terms of powerdraw is a bit over the top.

 

Its a very nice chip. And powerdraw was expected to increase

[TahoeDust]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Fastest in gaming by a few percentiles 

 

Idk an 1920x is much nicer for productivity. And thats a gen and a half ago. 

 

Im not saying its fast, im saying its underwhealming.

 

Also 2 gens ago might awell be Sandybridge.......(under exotic cooling)

1920x is such shit in single core performance and so many things for daily use still depend on a single core.  It is hard for me to get past that.

[7nationarmy]

Well there is no denying that it is fast, but seems like Intel have messed up the thermal setup of this gen (see der8auer's video). I'm really curious to what Intel's reasoning is behind the increased die thickness.

 

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

come to think of it, if the 2990WX could survive running at 5.2 on all cores, what would the power draw be like O_O

I'm definitely no expert on this, but if I had to guesstimate, it would be exponential. Something along the lines of 350 to 500 max (which would probably render the chip useless, unless you genuinely want a good heater for your home during winter)

[schwellmo92]

13 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Exactly.  Do people think performance is free in terms of power needed and power dissipated?

They completely fucked up the thermal transfer with the twice as tall die. I don't think too many people are worried about the power usage (even though it is very high), but the temps are alarming.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

come to think of it, if the 2990WX could survive running at 5.2 on all cores, what would the power draw be like O_O

Um, damn that would be radiating Xrays at that point. 

 

6 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

1920x is such shit in single core performance and so many things for daily use still depend on a single core.  It is hard for me to get past that.

Singlecore isnt amazing, but trading it for a longer living plattform, more PCIe lanes overall better productivity

 

Its not a consumer chip, but comparing pricing to the 9900k, it might aswell be.

[TahoeDust]

Just now, schwellmo92 said:

They completely fucked up the thermal transfer with the twice as tall die. I don't think too many people are worried about the power usage (even though it is very high), but the temps are alarming.

I am curious why Intel did it the way they did, that being said, as long as the CPU is running below thermal max, I don't really see the problem.  Intel knows their safe operating temps.  People have this imaginary "safe" number in their heads...safe is what intel says it is.  They are the ones making the chip.  If it was not safe to run over 80c, that is where intel would have set thermal max.

[D13H4RD]

42 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

So much negative talk about power and thermals.  Everyone forgot to mention it is a VERY fast chip...

Uh, because it IS fast?

 

Its just not that much faster in comparison to the 8700K and 8086K in gaming, which I guess shouldn’t be surprising since they’re basically identical minus better multicore performance on the 9700K/9900K, which given its higher core count, also shouldn’t be surprising.

 

I just don’t think we’ll see a bigger leap in performance until games are less reliant on clockspeeds and such

[Taf the Ghost]

42 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Intel is back with its interpretation of AMD's Bulldozer Architecture. Now with 220W real consumption under load...

5 Ghz and over 200w. At least they got the theme down properly.

 

More seriously, the 9900k is a great CPU for streaming. Not that the cost differential between it and a 8700k system is probably enough to build a dedicated capture system...

[Taf the Ghost]

16 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

come to think of it, if the 2990WX could survive running at 5.2 on all cores, what would the power draw be like O_O

Given the way the graph for power draw works on the 14nm GloFo process, somewhere in the 1500w range, I believe.

[Klovnious]

Has anyone seen any CS:GO benchmarks?

[porina]

51 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

So, I have seen Hardware Unboxed and HW Canucks so far. I see the 9900k doesn't OC well.. so how does it compare to an OC 8700k?

Haven't had a chance to look at all reviews yet, but Anandtech got 5.3 all cores on theirs with air cooling, which puts it about the same level as the best 8000 series CPUs. My 8086k for example would only do 5.2 all cores.

 

The only way OC might be considered relatively poor is in the same way Ryzen does it, the CPU is offered out of the box closer to its limit.

45 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

So much negative talk about power and thermals.  Everyone forgot to mention it is a VERY fast chip...

Some performance-per-watt would help put it in context, but it would probably still be not the best in that respect as it is more aggressive on the curve than previous.

[schwellmo92]

23 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

I am curious why Intel did it the way they did, that being said, as long as the CPU is running below thermal max, I don't really see the problem.  Intel knows their safe operating temps.  People have this imaginary "safe" number in their heads...safe is what intel says it is.  They are the ones making the chip.  If it was not safe to run over 80c, that is where intel would have set thermal max.

We're talking about temperatures in the 80's at stock, with overclocks at or very close to tj max with high end cooling, in temperature controlled areas. It's not normal. And as a result of the higher temps it's leaking a lot of power which is making power consumption look poor.

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Klovnious said:

Has anyone seen any CS:GO benchmarks?

More frames than actually matter. 

[jones177]

The only positive review I have seen so far is from The TechReport. 

 

https://techreport.com/review/34192/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed

 

For some reason the left out their i7 8086k results. Maybe it was because the i7 8086k got the same Cinebench single thread score.

 

 

This early test shows the difference in gaming.

 

 

Basically in gaming, the i7 9900k has about the same gains as a i7 8086k over a i7 8700k making it more than pointless.

[Klovnious]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

More frames than actually matter. 

That's the fun part.

[pas008]

are there any multitasking comparisons in these reviews?

[TahoeDust]

Interesting what Logan has to say about temps here a little after the 9:00 mark...

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

32 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Interesting what Logan has to say about temps here a little after the 9:00 mark...

 

 

Because of where 5 Ghz is on the 14nm++ process, with regards to the efficiency curve, it looks a lot like motherboard & silicon lottery are going to play a big role. Some parts are going to do 5.3 Ghz while others are going to get really hot under custom loops at 5 Ghz. That's not unexpected, but it also means we're seeing a lot of variance between review sites.

[yian88]

This clearly shows how good Ryzen chips are, while the 9900k/9700k at stock with good coolers hit 84C with solder wtf? and thats only blender load if you hammer it with OCCT/Prime95 it will burn in 0.1seconds after clicking run, and ryzen chips are built on inferior 14/12nm from GF. Judging by HWU review these 8 core chips have no OC potential .... so if you do decide to buy one buy a locked model and save some money since you wont be overclocking these without a massive custom water loop. Even if you do manage to OC them if you reach beyond 80C then thats really bad your chip will die quite fast, in the video 360mm water cooling is at 89C at 5ghz thats just retarded. And now you cant delid it easy, theres a high chance you destroy the die when deliding which is not the case with TIM paste. So if you buy one of these chips youre fucked. 

 

Intel just fucked themselves with this release since 9900/9700k have a turbo to 4.7-5.0 ghz so you will hit those very high temps, you will have to invest a massive ammount ~200$+ into good custom watercooling just to use your cpu daily LOL.

 

I wouldnt buy these chips even for half their price.