9900K vs 9900KS

[TigerClaw]

So the 9900KS is coming out. For those who already have the 9900K. Is it worth the upgrade? Even though the specs are the same except for the 5.0Ghz All Core Turbo Boost Clock.

The 9900K can literally do the same exact thing by just changing a setting in the Bios. Like when I set Enhanced Multi-Core Performance to On in my Gigabyte Z390 Aurus Master. All 8 cores Turbo Boost to 5.0Ghz according to HWiNFO64.

[Deli]

Sometime later Intel will release a 9900KT. Which will boost to 5.1GHz out of the box. And people will come and ask the same question. Is it worth to upgrade from 9900KS to 9900KT?

[WereCat]

It's the same CPU but on 5GHz out of the box... no other changes 

[minibois]

If you have the 9900K it is definitely not worth the upgrade.

Whether your 9900K can hit 5Ghz All cores is kind of based off luck. As in, you might get unlucky and get a poorer silicon lottery result.. In those cases, the KS can be worth it over the normal K.

 

But even if you got unlucky and have a 9900K that can only do up to - I dunno - 4.6Ghz All cores, the difference won't be huge between that and the 9900KS. So unless you - in that case - could sell your 9900K and get a KS for a decent price.. Not worth it.

[minibois]

2 minutes ago, Deli said:

Sometime later Intel will release a 9900KT. Which will boost to 5.1GHz out of the box. And people will come to ask the same question. Is it worth to upgrade from 9900KS to 9900KT?

I hope they don't have it named KT, since that would be an oxymoron (kind of) in terms of Intel naming. T being lower power CPU's, K being unlocked multiplier (and often higher TDP for example).

But that's a good analogy.

[Deli]

3 minutes ago, minibois said:

If you have the 9900K it is definitely not worth the upgrade.

Whether your 9900K can hit 5Ghz All cores is kind of based off luck. As in, you might get unlucky and get a poorer silicon lottery result.. In those cases, the KS can be worth it over the normal K.

 

But even if you got unlucky and have a 9900K that can only do up to - I dunno - 4.6Ghz All cores, the difference won't be huge between that and the 9900KS. So unless you - in that case - could sell your 9900K and get a KS for a decent price.. Not worth it.

It depends on the price. If Intel prices the 9900KS for $150 more, then.....you know It's Intel.

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, TigerClaw said:

All 8 cores Turbo Boost to 5.0Ghz according to HWiNFO64.

no that's not all core turbo boost. 9900k's all core turbo is 4.7GHz. What you did is locking single core turbo to all cores, which counts as an overclock.

 

9900KS should be more capable tho, Tom's Hardware's sample (it could be a super good bin tho, not enough data) reached 5.2GHz all core at 1.36V and power draw is lower than 9900k at same frequency as a result. Hardware exploit fixes seems to drop IPC a tad bit compared to 9900k pre patch, but is better than 9900k post patch

 

Is it worth upgrading? Depends on what you think about the Skylake X Refresh CPUs when they came out... If you're the minority who think those are good CPUs, the 9900KS is totally for you.

[Zberg]

Only worth it if intent on a minimum of 5.0 OC and are upgrading from a lesser CPU (not the 9900k).  Definitely some 9900k out there stuck at 4.8 or 4.9 due to terrible lottery.  But that isnt worth the upgrade cost IMO if you already have it.  It is still a very fast, good CPU at stock (although a bummer if you cant do any OC).  

[Jurrunio]

5 minutes ago, minibois said:

in terms of Intel naming. T being lower power CPU's

back in Haswell days no suffix means 84w, S means 65w, T means 35w... So the KS naming has done damage already

[TigerClaw]

6 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

no that's not all core turbo boost. 9900k's all core turbo is 4.7GHz. What you did is locking single core turbo to all cores, which counts as an overclock.

 

9900KS should be more capable tho, Tom's Hardware's sample (it could be a super good bin tho, not enough data) reached 5.2GHz all core at 1.36V and power draw is lower than 9900k at same frequency as a result. Hardware exploit fixes seems to drop IPC a tad bit compared to 9900k pre patch, but is better than 9900k post patch

 

Is it worth upgrading? Depends on what you think about the Skylake X Refresh CPUs when they came out... If you're the minority who think those are good CPUs, the 9900KS is totally for you.

Interesting. Because having Enhanced Multi-Core Performance set to Auto has all the cores boost to 4.7Ghz. But when I set that to On. It shows all cores going to 5.0Ghz according to HWiFO64. Having that set to on raises the idle temps around the 40c marks.

[Jurrunio]

9 minutes ago, TigerClaw said:

Interesting. Because having Enhanced Multi-Core Performance set to Auto has all the cores boost to 4.7Ghz. But when I set that to On. It shows all cores going to 5.0Ghz according to HWiFO64. Having that set to on raises the idle temps around the 40c marks.

just a different form of auto overclocking. You can't do this for example in locked CPUs like the 8700 or 9400F regardless of motherboard you're using.

[TigerClaw]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

just a different form of auto overclocking. You can't do this for example in locked CPUs like the 8700 or 9400F regardless of motherboard you're using.

In other words. If you already have a 9900k that can overclock to 5.0Ghz just fine. Then you don't need the 9900KS. Even if it goes to 5.0Ghz out of the box.

I'm sure that these benchmarks will show that the 9900K and the 9900KS will be tied when both are clocked at 5.0Ghz.