Thursday, September 5th 2019

Intel Core i9-9900KS to be Available from October

Intel's panic response to the 3rd generation Ryzen processor series, the Core i9-9900KS, will be generally available in October. The company will extensively market it as the best processor money can buy for gaming, and the specs to support that claim are formidable - 8-core/16-thread, with an all-core Turbo Boost frequency of 5.00 GHz. Intel will also actively publicize the growing clamor against real-world boost frequencies of 3rd gen Ryzen processors falling short of what's advertised, as detailed in the slide below. "5 GHz means 5 GHz" could be a prominent catchphrase of the chip's marketing, highlighting the all-core boost clocks. This chip is based on the existing 14 nm++ "Coffee Lake Refresh" silicon, but is likely its topmost bin.

Intel didn't, however, specify the TDP or pricing of the processor. The TDP is bound to be higher than that of the i9-9900K, as it would take a lot more power to sustain 5.00 GHz across all 8 cores. Intel may also try to retake the $499 price-point. The company may time the launch of this chip to closely follow AMD's flagship Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core/32-thread processor launch, which is due later this month. Intel's performance numbers for the i9-9900KS focus squarely on gaming and applications relevant to home users or PC enthusiasts. The i9-9900KS ships in a similar-looking acrylic case as the i9-9900K, with "Special Edition" branding on the front face. The retail package continues to lack a cooling solution.
Source: Guru3D
Add your own comment

159 Comments on Intel Core i9-9900KS to be Available from October

#51
Bwaze
In aplications where 9900K beats 3900X, the 9700K is also very close to 9900K - it's mainly low threaded "Real World" applications like games, Word, Powerpoint... So 5 GHz won't do much here - there are plenty of gaming benchmarks showing that overclocking 9900K to all core 5 GHz does absolutely nothing for a lot of applications and games.

On the other hand, applications that use more than a couple of threads are much faster on 3900X - up to 50% than on 9900K in some cases (rendering for instance). And by the time Intel introduces 9900KS, AMD 3950X will be available - with up to 100% faster multicore results than 9900K.

What usage will then 9900KS have? In low threaded applications it will be similar to 9900K, and 9700K. And in really multithreaded applications it will still be way slower than new 12 an 16 core AMDs.

I can practically smell Intel brewing a special 16-threaded AVX 512 benchmark just for this case. Because 16 threads is magical number, and it's way more "Real World" than 24 or 36 threads...
Posted on Reply
#52
Turmania
Bwaze, post: 4111129, member: 178959"
In aplications where 9900K beats 3900X, the 9700K is also very close to 9900K - it's mainly low threaded "Real World" applications like games, Word, Powerpoint... So 5 GHz won't do much here - there are plenty of gaming benchmarks showing that overclocking 9900K to all core 5 GHz does absolutely nothing for a lot of applications and games.

On the other hand, applications that use more than a couple of threads are much faster on 3900X - up to 50% than on 9900K in some cases (rendering for instance). And by the time Intel introduces 9900KS, AMD 3950X will be available - with up to 100% faster multicore results than 9900K.

What usage will then 9900KS have? In low threaded applications it will be similar to 9900K, and 9700K. And in really multithreaded applications it will still be way slower than new 12 an 16 core AMDs.

I can practically smell Intel brewing a special 16-threaded AVX 512 benchmark just for this case. Because 16 threads is magical number, and it's way more "Real World" than 24 or 36 threads...
I love to drink what you are drinking. I don't see AMD 8 core-16 thread cpu reaching 5ghz on all cores even with their 7nm die shrink.in fact they do not even boost to their on the label speeds....
Posted on Reply
#53
TheinsanegamerN
Turmania, post: 4111136, member: 182201"
I love to drink what you are drinking. I don't see AMD 8 core-16 thread cpu reaching 5ghz on all cores even with their 7nm die shrink.in fact they do not even boost to their on the label speeds....
So? You didnt read Bwaze's comment at ALL, did you? He NEVER said that AMD would hit 5 ghz.

What he DID say, and pay attention to this bit; was that in single threaded workloads, the 9900k was often right next to the 9700k, because these applications are not demanding enough to load the cores to the point the extra clock speed makes sense. When OCed to 5 ghz, there is almost no difference in performance, because the single thread software can only do so much.

Let's cut to the chase here, AMD is beating Intel in productivity benchmarks with a 1 GHz clock deficit. That is MASSIVE. In games, often the 5 GHz Core i5/i7 is only a handful of FPS faster then a 4.1 GHz r5 3600. That extra clock speed is meaningless, because performance isnt scaling with it.

Intel fans miss this point. Having the highest number doesnt mean anything if it cant perform. AMD has taken back the IPC crown with ryzen, and intel should be scared that AMD already has zen 3 nearly finished, and zen 4 on the way.
Posted on Reply
#54
Turmania
TheinsanegamerN, post: 4111144, member: 127292"
So? You didnt read Bwaze's comment at ALL, did you? He NEVER said that AMD would hit 5 ghz.

What he DID say, and pay attention to this bit; was that in single threaded workloads, the 9900k was often right next to the 9700k, because these applications are not demanding enough to load the cores to the point the extra clock speed makes sense. When OCed to 5 ghz, there is almost no difference in performance, because the single thread software can only do so much.

Let's cut to the chase here, AMD is beating Intel in productivity benchmarks with a 1 GHz clock deficit. That is MASSIVE. In games, often the 5 GHz Core i5/i7 is only a handful of FPS faster then a 4.1 GHz r5 3600. That extra clock speed is meaningless, because performance isnt scaling with it.

Intel fans miss this point. Having the highest number doesnt mean anything if it cant perform. AMD has taken back the IPC crown with ryzen, and intel should be scared that AMD already has zen 3 nearly finished, and zen 4 on the way.
Yeap I'm sure both Intel & Nvdia wetting themselves.
Posted on Reply
#55
TheinsanegamerN
Turmania, post: 4111147, member: 182201"
Yeap I'm sure both Intel & Nvdia wetting themselves.
Both have reason to be concerned.

Nvidia is watching AMD GPU shipments grow despite not having a 2080 or 2080ti competitor, and their RT cores are driving up costs and not delivering for most people. Consumers are very split on the RT issue. AMD has cemented control of the two big home consoles. Next gen cosnoles, if they have RT, will be using AMD RT hardware, not nvidias.

Intel has been watching with utter incompetence as AMD take one bite after another of intel's markets. They still have no real answer to the Zen problem except to throw more 14nm at it. 10nm has been a trainwreck for intel, and they are not one to give up an investment until it is well and truly buried.

AMD has manged this with a fraction of the budget. Imagine what they are going to manage as revenue continues to increase, as does their R+D budgets? The titans of the market, despitte arguably having superior tech and budgets, have sat idly and allowed AMD to return.
Posted on Reply
#56
Bwaze
- "But it has five jiggahurtz! It's what applications crave!"

- "Well, some highly threaded applications can run faster on..."

- "But it has five jiggahurtz! It's what applications crave!"
Posted on Reply
#57
Turmania
I keep on hearing how power hungry and hot the 9 series Intel chips are.well according to this site reviews on say ryzen 3700x which is supposedly be a 65W cpu.8 core 16 threads with new 7nm process. Runs hotter and more power hungry then i9 9900k which is now being manufactured at 14nm process. Can someone explain please?
Posted on Reply
#58
yakk
More competition the better!

IMO this 9900ks part is pretty irrelevant beyond giving the opportunity to Intel to charge more for their better binned chips while degrading their lesser SKU silicon, but it'll keep pushing AMD which is better for consumers.
Posted on Reply
#59
Ravenas
Just a launch to compete with the 3950x launch.
Posted on Reply
#60
techmagnet
biffzinker, post: 4110859, member: 163731"
I'd rather wait for 10nm, and Sunny Cove than a warmed over Skylake.
There is nothing to wait for Intel's 10Nm in desktop.
Posted on Reply
#61
techmagnet
Turmania, post: 4111203, member: 182201"
I keep on hearing how power hungry and hot the 9 series Intel chips are.well according to this site reviews on say ryzen 3700x which is supposedly be a 65W cpu.8 core 16 threads with new 7nm process. Runs hotter and more power hungry then i9 9900k which is now being manufactured at 14nm process. Can someone explain please?

Hearsay
Posted on Reply
#62
trparky
btarunr, post: 4110841, member: 43587"
Intel didn't, however, specify the TDP or pricing of the processor.
Yeah, because it's got to be stupid high. They don't want to scare people off.
las, post: 4110914, member: 111974"
Even 9700K rapes the 3900X here. For less money.
OK sure, go Intel and get five to eight percent more performance while paying nearly thirty percent more. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. NOT!

Not everyone needs ultra-extreme high FPS, that's something that only the top one percent of gamers want; the rest of us will get what offers the best bang for the buck and that's AMD.
las, post: 4111098, member: 111974"
9900K can run 5 GHz on all cores using cheap 240 aio or dual tower air coolers like nh-d14/d15.
What's your definition of cheap? Money doesn't grow on trees for many of us.

Now that I've seen benchmarks of Ryzen 3000 I really do have to admit that going with the 8700K was a mistake. The Z370 chipset is essentially dead and so I have no upgrade path, thanks a lot Intel.
Posted on Reply
#63
Turmania
If you are playing at 4K, every 1% in performance matters. I agree at 1080p or even at 2K not so. According to TPU's own review on here about 3700x not even mentioning 3800x.which is a 65W chip runs hotter and consumes more power to 9900k.Not even mentioning the not being able to hit the on the label speeds. I understand some are fanboys for either camp but be honest.
Posted on Reply
#64
Xmpere
Can someone explain to me why Ryzen does poorly in Emulator? I thought it would do well as Intel when playing Emulating games.
Posted on Reply
#65
trparky
Turmania, post: 4111272, member: 182201"
I agree at 1080p or even at 2K not so.
Yep. That's what's making Intel scared, with AMD Zen 2 you no longer have to buy Intel to get good gaming performance. Now if you want the best of the best performance then yes, you're going to have to buy Intel but in doing so, be prepared to pay for that so-called "best of the best performance". This is, of course, going to relegate Intel into being in a niche market for those who absolutely must have the best performance and that's scaring Intel right now. These PR pieces plainly show that Intel is scared.
Turmania, post: 4111272, member: 182201"
If you are playing at 4K, every 1% in performance matters.
Unless you're made of money, 4K gaming is out of reach for a majority of us.
Posted on Reply
#66
kapone32
trog100, post: 4111004, member: 21545"
intel are going to have to do something magical to run 8 cores 16 threads at 5 g without some supper expensive cooling solution..

i am gonna believe it when i see it..

trog
That's probably why they don't include a cooler
Posted on Reply
#67
trparky
trog100, post: 4111004, member: 21545"
intel are going to have to do something magical to run 8 cores 16 threads at 5 g without some supper expensive cooling solution..
Probably something similar to a nuclear power plant cooling tower. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#68
Chloe Price
trparky, post: 4111279, member: 170376"
Unless you're made of money, 4K gaming is out of reach for a majority of us.
Playing at 4K doesn't mean that it should be 144+ fps with maximum settings.
Posted on Reply
#69
yakk
The GPU is more the limiting factor for 4k FPS, not the CPU...
Posted on Reply
#70
trparky
Chloe Price, post: 4111287, member: 123719"
Playing at 4K doesn't mean that it should be 144+ fps with maximum settings.
But why would you want to take such a hit to both FPS and on-screen detail just to get 4K resolution when 2K essentially provides the best of both worlds? Right now 2K gaming provides for decently high resolution along with high detail and high FPS, the best of both worlds.
yakk, post: 4111289, member: 158293"
The GPU is more the limiting factor for 4k FPS, not the CPU.
Yes, right now we don't have enough GPU power to really do 4K gaming the right way. 4K gaming isn't ready and won't be ready until you don't have to nerf yourself in the process.
Posted on Reply
#71
efikkan
Intel's panic response to the 3rd generation Ryzen processor series, the Core i9-9900KS, will be generally available in October.
Traditionally, in journalism personal opinions are separated from news reporting.

-----

I do wonder if the i9-9900KS will reach widespread availability, or if this is going to be another limited "PR stunt" like i7-8086K and various other "anniversary" products from other parties.
Posted on Reply
#72
Turmania
trparky, post: 4111279, member: 170376"
Yep. That's what's making Intel scared, with AMD Zen 2 you no longer have to buy Intel to get good gaming performance. Now if you want the best of the best performance then yes, you're going to have to buy Intel but in doing so, be prepared to pay for that so-called "best of the best performance". This is, of course, going to relegate Intel into being in a niche market for those who absolutely must have the best performance and that's scaring Intel right now. These PR pieces plainly show that Intel is scared.

Unless you're made of money, 4K gaming is out of reach for a majority of us.
Used to be the cost of a system for AMD was a lot cheaper.but problematic memory pickings and even a mid range x570 now costs about 250 USD! Not to mention a small whining fan on those chips!which will break in 2-3 years max.I bought a gigabyte z390i and itx board for 160 the AMD equivalent x570 is 230! Where is the cost and system saving on that? Please explain.
Posted on Reply
#73
yakk
trparky, post: 4111291, member: 170376"
Yes, right now we don't have enough GPU power to really do 4K gaming the right way. 4K gaming isn't ready and won't be ready until you don't have to nerf yourself in the process.
Agree on 2k gaming being the best option right now. Still similar situation for being more GPU restrained than CPU which is secondary unless streaming too then more cores are still better.
Posted on Reply
#74
trparky
Turmania, post: 4111295, member: 182201"
problematic memory pickings
Now you're reaching, Zen 2 has basically solved the memory issue in which you can pick just about any memory kit and have it work. Hell, I built a Ryzen 2600X system for my father and I put some basic GSkill DDR4-3000 memory in it and it worked fantastically. I did have to downclock it to DDR4-2933 to gain system stability but the performance difference is negligible. So yeah, the days of having to really be worried about compatible memory are gone.
Turmania, post: 4111295, member: 182201"
mid range x570 now costs about 250 USD
What are you talking about? You can get an ASUS Prime X570-P AMD AM4 ATX Motherboard for $170 USD, that's a decent mid-range motherboard with a good VRM setup according to Hardware Unboxed.

And just wait until we have B550 boards out, going AMD will be even cheaper for those who don't absolutely need PCIe4.
Posted on Reply
#75
diatribe
trparky, post: 4111306, member: 170376"
What are you talking about? You can get an ASUS Prime X570-P AMD AM4 ATX Motherboard
ASUS Prime are low-end motherboards.

Prime < TUF < STRIX < ROG
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment