Does it make any difference by choosing i9 9900kf over i9 9900k

[Akshay Patil]

Hi i was just going through the product and then this question came into my head is it really worth buying i9 9900K for 50000 Rs (apprx 704.68 USD) and not buy i9 9900KF which is for 38500 Rs (apprx 542.60 USD).

I know i9 9900k has got integrated graphic but is it that important, that is my question.

 

Please comment below so that i know the importnace if there is any.

[Akshay Patil]

@Wh0_Am_1 

I think you would this answer well.so adding you in this conversation.

[DoctorNick]

Get the KF! That price difference is huge. Who needs integrated graphics anyway.. Guess you plan using a dedicated gpu, then integrated graphics is useless and disabled. For testing it's ok or if you are building a small machine that doesn't need the graphic horsepower.

[Akshay Patil]

1 minute ago, DoctorNick said:

Get the KF! That price difference is huge. Who needs integrated graphics anyway.. 

I am not buying any though but in future if i would buy them i would want if there is anything else I am missing about them.

[minibois]

1 minute ago, DoctorNick said:

Get the KF! That price difference is huge. Who needs integrated graphics anyway.. 

People who want to use the Quicksync functionality of their Intel CPU.

 

The difference between the 2 CPU options is the iGPU being there or not, the price and as I have heard, the KF can be overclocked a little easier.

If you will use the Quicksync function (e.g. through rendering in Adobe Premiere), the K is the way to go. Other the KF.

Or a 3900X, if you can get your hands on it.

 

[Spotty]

Moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory.

 

1 minute ago, DoctorNick said:

Get the KF! That price difference is huge. Who needs integrated graphics anyway.. 

There are some tasks that can utilise the integrated graphics to improve performance. Some editing software can use the integrated graphics to accelerate it. It's also really useful if you are doing CPU intensive tasks and won't benefit from having a dedicated graphics card.

[DoctorNick]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

Moved to CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory.

 

There are some tasks that can utilise the integrated graphics to improve performance. Some editing software can use the integrated graphics to accelerate it. It's also really useful if you are doing CPU intensive tasks and won't benefit from having a dedicated graphics card.

Yes but if you got a dedicated nvidia card for example would you not use that instead?

[Akshay Patil]

This 

Just now, DoctorNick said:

Yes but if you got a dedicated nvidia card for example would you not use that instead?

Correct me if i am wrong but then having an integrated graphics and a separate graphics will have a bit of a difference in its performance. (I may be wrong about it)

[Akshay Patil]

3 minutes ago, minibois said:

People who want to use the Quicksync functionality of their Intel CPU.

 

The difference between the 2 CPU options is the iGPU being there or not, the price and as I have heard, the KF can be overclocked a little easier.

If you will use the Quicksync function (e.g. through rendering in Adobe Premiere), the K is the way to go. Other the KF.

Or a 3900X, if you can get your hands on it.

 

You have a point

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, DoctorNick said:

Yes but if you got a dedicated nvidia card for example would you not use that instead?

You're not using the iGPU for display functionality, you're using it for hardware acceleration to achieve this kind of ludicrous performance bump in selected scenarios:

Spoiler

 

[SupaKomputa]

$100 more for an integrated gpu, you can buy a better gpu for the same price.

That is if you're not using quicksync.

[DoctorNick]

16 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

You're not using the iGPU for display functionality, you're using it for hardware acceleration to achieve this kind of ludicrous performance bump in selected scenarios:

  Hide contents

 

CUDA acceleration. I guess quicksync is better then? 

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, DoctorNick said:

CUDA acceleration

Quicksync works alongside CUDA where it's supported, you're not choosing one or the other:

The blue bar is the i7 8700K rendering with both CUDA + Quicksync while the red bar is CUDA only and at the bottom you see what happens when you eliminate CUDA.

 

So you can stack it up, defeating your argument.

[Kilrah]

Here the difference is 25 bucks, so I don't know who would want the KF. Even if you have no use for QuickSync you'll be happy to have a backup iGPU one day should your graphics card have issues or for troubleshooting. For $150 it's different though, but in OP's case the 9900K is just being way overpriced by whatever seller he's been looking at.

I just precisely went with a 9900K for my mini-ITX build instead of AMD in order to have an iGPU the few days I'll need to remove the GPU temporarily to use another pcie card. 

[Founders]

Integrated graphics is nice to have but if it means that much of a price premium I would go with the KF. I can’t get over that price, I can go to my local Micro Center and pick up a 9900k for $450 + tax.

[Wh0_Am_1]

6 hours ago, Akshay Patil said:

@Wh0_Am_1 

I think you would this answer well.so adding you in this conversation.

There are programs which are accelerated by Intel HD graphics as was mentioned earlier in this conversation, but generally speaking at the moment it is not worth the price bump from the KF especially in with how you specified that you would be using this computer for software development, as I imagine that the programs that you will be working with will not be optimized to take advantage of the Intel HD graphics. At that price you could likely just pickup a used or new backup GPU with better overall performance, not to mention the fact that the iGPU may to some small extent slow down the rest of the processor in intensive applications that can't take advantage of it. In the end I would recommend going the KF route or picking up that 3800x that I included in the previous build that I recommended to you.

[Akshay Patil]

10 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

There are programs which are accelerated by Intel HD graphics as was mentioned earlier in this conversation, but generally speaking at the moment it is not worth the price bump from the KF especially in with how you specified that you would be using this computer for software development, as I imagine that the programs that you will be working with will not be optimized to take advantage of the Intel HD graphics. At that price you could likely just pickup a used or new backup GPU with better overall performance, not to mention the fact that the iGPU may to some small extent slow down the rest of the processor in intensive applications that can't take advantage of it. In the end I would recommend going the KF route or picking up that 3800x that I included in the previous build that I recommended to you.

Yes I am going for ur Config that u said. This was just a question in my mind that i had. I am not going to go for intel any soon.

 

[Wh0_Am_1]

On 10/24/2019 at 11:59 PM, Akshay Patil said:

Yes I am going for ur Config that u said. This was just a question in my mind that i had. I am not going to go for intel any soon.

 

Ok, good to know, I hope you enjoy the config!

[Akshay Patil]

On 10/26/2019 at 1:54 PM, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Ok, good to know, I hope you enjoy the config!

Yet to be delivered to me. I hope it comes soon.