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

#126
Aerpoweron
The problem with my 9900K is, that i am having trouble for 9 month with it now. And after having Intel reproduce my issue, and they state that it has to be ironed out with the mainboard vendor, so they get to intel, i get kind of emotional.

And all the work i put into that, an piecing together why the cpu behaves that way, and why it gets so hot....

Personally i think, if you get such a CPU like the 9900K or 9900KS, you better utilize it to it's maximum, and don't waste if for games.
Posted on Reply
#127
Raendor
Chloe Price, post: 4110977, member: 123719"
I doubt that every overclocker is just playing games.
Overclocking in 2019 is pretty much dead. Autoboost on gpus and cpus replaced it.
Posted on Reply
#128
biffzinker
Raendor, post: 4112254, member: 164683"
Overclocking in 2019 is pretty much dead. Autoboost on gpus and cpus replaced it.
Overclocking still exists if you force a higher all cores clockspeed.
Posted on Reply
#129
trparky
biffzinker, post: 4112299, member: 163731"
Overclocking still exists if you force a higher all cores clock speed.
Multicore Enhancement comes to mind.

I remember when that was enabled by default, a lot of the YouTube tech stars hated that and lobbied the OEMs to quit doing that.
Posted on Reply
#130
trog100
the 9900k boosts to 5 g on a single core.. drops to 4.7 on all cores and then after 30 seconds it clocks down to 4.2..

or i think to stay in intel specs it should.. or have i got it wrong.. he he

trog
Posted on Reply
#131
trparky
Multicore Enhancement forces the chip to run at the single-core boost clock speed on all cores with no time limit. It's basically the equivalent of auto-overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#132
trog100
trparky, post: 4112309, member: 170376"
Multicore Enhancement forces the chip to run at the single-core boost clock speed on all cores with no time limit. It's basically the equivalent of auto-overclocking.
mine dosnt run at 5 g on all cores i think its 4.7.. to be honest without some very impressive cooling it almost impossible to run the chip at 5 g with all cores/threads working..

trog
Posted on Reply
#133
trparky
I've got my 8700K running at 4.7 GHz on all cores at all times, all I needed to do was enable MCE in UEFI and off to the races I went.
Posted on Reply
#134
trog100
trparky, post: 4112319, member: 170376"
I've got my 8700K running at 4.7 GHz on all cores at all times, all I needed to do was enable MCE in UEFI and off to the races I went.
my 9900k has 30% more cores than my 8700K.. sadly it generates 30% more heat.. the much hyped soldered tim hasnt achieved much..

trog
Posted on Reply
#135
Chloe Price
trog100, post: 4112468, member: 21545"
my 9900k has 30% more cores than my 8700K.. sadly it generates 30% more heat.. the much hyped soldered tim hasnt achieved much..

trog
The soldering is a joke, people have delidded those and even grinded the die and the same happens as before with temps.
Posted on Reply
#136
ToxicTaZ
9900KS so awesome!

Super Binned Ultra high yielding CPU that's cheaper than the 3900X and Siliconlottery.com.....

Have been waiting 4 months for this one.... Going to be amazing.....Basically 3800X Killer and the fastest 8 cores CPU factory production ever made, thus "Special Edition" it has the fastest single core IPC available.

Upgrading from my 8700K @5.1GHz AVX-1 to 9900KS. Expecting around 5.3GHz ....

9900KS is the last upgrade for all of us Intel 300 series boards (Z370 and Z390)

9900KS Cooled by EK setup....let the benchmarks begin!

I'm so excited!
Posted on Reply
#137
aaroliini1
las, post: 4111753, member: 111974"
Yes, I can easily tell the difference between 80-120 fps and 100-140 fps. Difference between fps drops to 80 and 100 is like night and day for me. The magic with a high refresh rate monitor happends at 100+ fps for me and pretty much everyone I know who also uses HRR monitors. I prefer 120 minimum tho and will most often lower graphical settings till this happends. I don't tolerate drops below 100, it feels like stuttering when this happends. FPS over IQ any day. Smoothness is number one. Something many Ryzen owners seems to not care about, and it's fine, some people just like putting everything at Ultra and stay in the 40-80 fps range (GPU BOUND). I simply won't.
I know diffenre between under 100fps and over 120 fps. But like i said we both have over 140 fps in games we play. We both also limit our fps to 180fps to limit heat output.
Stuttering is really an issue with ryzen. One game that really suffer is PUGB. And that we could mostly remove by tweaking memory. But sadly not all of it. That is only game where i can really say which is pc is my pc. If my customer wants PC just to play pubg. I recommend intel cpu.

las, post: 4111753, member: 111974"
When you run games like I do, and most serious or competitive players do, CPU will be the bottleneck, the end. Ryzen has much lower min, max and avg fps when CPU is bottleneck for gaming in pretty much every game outthere and this is a fact.

Go watch this video instead -

9700K easily beats 3900X in gaming. Especially in minimum fps. There is simply way too many games that perform much worse on Ryzen compared to Intel (when looking at CPU bound / high fps gaming instead of GPU bound). Yes, some games perform decent on Ryzen and people love to mention these titles, just like they love to talk about Cinebench numbers (except single thread it seems), in reality, the overall performance is lacking. With Intel you get solid performance across the board, not just in a few titles. There is not a SINGLE GAME where Intel CPU results in subpar performance. Every game performs flawless using an Intel chip, 8th + 9th gen at 5+ GHz, as good as it gets for gaming and emulation.
If i may ask what are these competive games. I have playad RS siege, pubg, LoL and overwathc. Only pubg show difference in between cpus with 144hz qhd screen. (Mainly memory problem)


las, post: 4111753, member: 111974"
This is why 120-240 Hz monitor owners should choose carefully. Nothing new here. Ryzen 3000 is doing better than 1000/2000 but Intel 8th/9th gen is beating Ryzen 3000. In some games we're talking 25-40% higher minimums (again, watch the 40 min video instead of simply denying this fact - Watch current fps instead of avg and watch carefully when he talks about minimums, AMD is simply not on par.) Avg. fps is "only" 10-20% better but minimum can be 25-50% higher at times, only for a few seconds sometimes, but you will feel it instantly. I know I will.

Watch how much behind the 2700X is too ... ALOT - And people claimed 2700X was only 5-10% slower in gaming ... Yeah right. 1st gen Ryzen was (and is) terrible for high fps gaming, 2nd gen was better but still much slower than newer Intel chips. 3rd gen Ryzen is somewhat "fine" but Intel is clearly still better, especially true if you're not a 30-60 fps gamer using a 60 Hz monitor.

High fps gamers knows what I'm talking about..
I'm high fps gamer. And my brother is . we both get higher fps than our display can show. I can't say anything about 240hz or fps gaming. Never seen one.
I never claimed that ryzen beats intel. Most players dont care if you get 120fps or 200fps in game. And there is lots of players still 60hz monitors. You said if only thing you do is game you should get intel. Thats not correct. If you play on highest level competive then you should get intel.

Aaro (english is my 3 language sry about mistakes)
Posted on Reply
#138
ToxicTaZ
trog100, post: 4112468, member: 21545"
my 9900k has 30% more cores than my 8700K.. sadly it generates 30% more heat.. the much hyped soldered tim hasnt achieved much..

trog
Hmm let's see AMD Ryzen 3000 series run any of their CPUs all cores @5GHz! See what happens!!

9900KS blows away all Ryzen 3000 series in all high-end gaming. That's the hole point of the 9900KS.
Posted on Reply
#139
EarthDog
ToxicTaZ, post: 4115081, member: 145598"
9900KS so awesome!

Super Binned Ultra high yielding CPU that's cheaper than the 3900X and Siliconlottery.com.....

Have been waiting 4 months for this one.... Going to be amazing.....Basically 3800X Killer and the fastest 8 cores CPU factory production ever made, thus "Special Edition" it has the fastest single core IPC available.

Upgrading from my 8700K @5.1GHz AVX-1 to 9900KS. Expecting around 5.3GHz ....

9900KS is the last upgrade for all of us Intel 300 series boards (Z370 and Z390)

9900KS Cooled by EK setup....let the benchmarks begin!

I'm so excited!
ToxicTaZ, post: 4115260, member: 145598"
Hmm let's see AMD Ryzen 3000 series run any of their CPUs all cores @5GHz! See what happens!!

9900KS blows away all Ryzen 3000 series in all high-end gaming. That's the hole point of the 9900KS.
ick..

Keep it in your pants, kiddo.
Posted on Reply
#140
ToxicTaZ
EarthDog, post: 4115266, member: 79836"
ick..

Keep it in your pants, kiddo.
Nothing touches the 9900KS!!
Enjoy your slower kids stuff!

I'll enjoy REAL world performance and the fastest Gaming CPU you can buy!

Let the benchmarks begin!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#141
ratirt
EarthDog, post: 4115266, member: 79836"
ick..

Keep it in your pants, kiddo.
I feel like in an amusement park :) he's not ToxicTaz he's HilariousTaz :)
Wouldn't you agree?
ToxicTaZ, post: 4115287, member: 145598"
Nothing touches the 9900KS!!
Enjoy your slower kids stuff!

I'll enjoy REAL world performance and the fastest Gaming CPU you can buy!

Let the benchmarks begin!!!!!
I haven't seen any difference between 9900KS and simple "k" version. So how's this one better?
Care to expand?
Thanks.
Posted on Reply
#142
trog100
ratirt, post: 4115291, member: 165024"
I feel like in an amusement park :) he's not ToxicTaz he's HilariousTaz :)
Wouldn't you agree?

I haven't seen any difference between 9900KS and simple "k" version. So how's this one better?
Care to expand?
Thanks.
better binning less heat means that the chip can be run all cores a bit faster.. and maybe the likes of me would not have to turn HT off.. :)

trog
Posted on Reply
#143
EarthDog
trog100, post: 4115312, member: 21545"
the likes of me would not have to turn HT off..
you dont have to in the first place. ;)
Posted on Reply
#144
TheMadDutchDude
Better binning? LOL. It’s the same CPU with the multi locked at 50 instead of 47 under load. It’s the exact same CPU that Intel feels they need to release to get sales up.

I’ve not run into a single story of a 9900K not managing 5 GHz by setting it to 50x and applying the appropriate voltage. Not one!

Just like I heard on the ‘net before. “KS” is just short for “Keep Spending” - it’s the exact same CPU, but sadly, people like Taz will fall for it and make it a viable proposition for Intel to sell their chips in this way.
Posted on Reply
#145
Darmok N Jalad
Has it even been reviewed yet? We don’t know if is any better of a bin, or if it’s just a 9900K with the TDP lifted. I suspect the latter, as Intel has to be bumping into process limitations already.
Posted on Reply
#146
kapone32
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4115375, member: 170588"
Has it even been reviewed yet? We don’t know if is any better of a bin, or if it’s just a 9900K with the TDP lifted. I suspect the latter, as Intel has to be bumping into process limitations already.
I am thinking you are exactly right a 9900K with TDP lifted up. Just like the Skylake-X 7980Xe vs the 9980XE. Maybe it may also be a 9900K with solder instead of thermal paste.
Posted on Reply
#147
trparky
ToxicTaZ, post: 4115260, member: 145598"
9900KS blows away all Ryzen 3000 series in all high-end gaming. That's the whole point of the 9900KS.
Considering that a 9900K costs nearly $500 USD on NewEgg.com (as of Thursday, September 12th, 2019) I can't imagine what the 9900KS is going to cost. If you thought that $500 for the 9900K was eye-watering, well... I don't even want to think about what the cost of the 9900KS is going to be.

Intel knows that if you guys want the best of the best of the best of the best (of the best) gaming experience you're going to be willing to fork out those extra Benjamins (that's cash, for those that aren't in-the-know about slang) just like how nVidia milked us all for their highest-end RTX 2000 series GPUs. The only thing that you're telling these companies (Intel and nVidia) is that it doesn't matter how high they price their highest-end stuff, you're going to be willing to pay for it.

So those that simply must have the best, get ready to pay even more. Meanwhile, the rest of us that don't have a Scrooge McDuck like money bin in our basement will be shit out of luck when it comes to buying high-end Intel and nVidia hardware. Unless of course, we're willing to sell our kidneys.

Oh well, there's always AMD. They may not give the best gaming performance but who cares? Their prices won't leave the rest of us with a credit card that's figuratively on fire.
Posted on Reply
#148
trog100
TheMadDutchDude, post: 4115348, member: 185664"
Better binning? LOL. It’s the same CPU with the multi locked at 50 instead of 47 under load. It’s the exact same CPU that Intel feels they need to release to get sales up.

I’ve not run into a single story of a 9900K not managing 5 GHz by setting it to 50x and applying the appropriate voltage. Not one!

Just like I heard on the ‘net before. “KS” is just short for “Keep Spending” - it’s the exact same CPU, but sadly, people like Taz will fall for it and make it a viable proposition for Intel to sell their chips in this way.
you quite clearly dont own a 9900K.. if you did and tried clocking it at 5 ghz you would know why it aint just as simple as changing the out of the box multiplier from 47 to 50..

you could could not do it with an 8700K and for sure with 30% more cores (heat) you cant do it with a 9900k..

i am skeptical that the KS will do it without some super cooling..

trog
Posted on Reply
#149
TheMadDutchDude
I said you’d have to apply appropriate voltage. And yes, it really is that easy. You may have to dial in the AVX offset if you’re using those workloads, but it will hit 5G all day, every day. You’ll need good cooling regardless of a K or KS chip is used.
Posted on Reply
#150
trparky
TheMadDutchDude, post: 4115540, member: 185664"
I said you’d have to apply appropriate voltage. And yes, it really is that easy.
I wouldn't say playing with voltages is exactly easy. I've heard of some people taking hours of painstaking benchmarking and stability testing to dial in just the right amount of voltage to allow for system stability while not cooking said processor to death. I've heard of people dialing in voltages to the thousandths place (third number after the decimal point). And then there's setting an appropriate AVX offset as well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment