Friday, September 27th 2019

Intel Core i9-9900KS to Cost around $600

Australian e-tailer MWave has put up their product page for the Intel Core i9-9900KS processor that Intel announced earlier this year, but with no actual product in sight. The merchant's listing is showing an AUD 899 price for SKU BX80684I99900KS, which converts to USD 605. The new Intel processor, is basically a binned eight-core Coffee Lake Core i9-9900K, which runs at 4.0 GHz base clock (up by 400 MHz) and 5.0 GHz all-core Turbo (300 MHz increase). Single-core maximum Turbo remains at 5.0 GHz (just like on the Core i9-9900K).

Just earlier this week, ASUS posted a BIOS update note, mentioning in it that the Core i9-9900KS will have a 127 W TDP. It looks like Intel can definitely defend the gaming performance crown with the Core i9-9900KS, mostly thanks to its high clock speeds. However, since most of the improvements are in multi-core workload boost clocks, and single-threaded clocks are identical to 9900K, I'm having some doubts whether the processor can really make any substantial difference — it's definitely not going to beat the $100 cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in Cinebench, and the 127 W TDP limit might mean that the 5.0 GHz all-core Boost will end up being active only for a short amount of time.
Add your own comment

73 Comments on Intel Core i9-9900KS to Cost around $600

#51
Vayra86
notb, post: 4123723, member: 165619"
So why do people OC their 9900K?
Bragging rights, fun, mostly.
Posted on Reply
#52
notb
Vayra86, post: 4123725, member: 152404"
Bragging rights, fun, mostly.
True!
And do you think having an expensive, slightly faster, limited CPU won't cut it? :-)
Posted on Reply
#53
Vayra86
notb, post: 4123757, member: 165619"
True!
And do you think having an expensive, slightly faster, limited CPU won't cut it? :)
Touché
Posted on Reply
#54
evernessince
Arc1t3ct, post: 4123469, member: 190440"
I see this as a gaming specific component, so...

- Recycled technology: How? It's just a new addition to the current lineup
- Still 8 core: It's more than enough for gaming
- High price compared to competition: What competition? The 9900K? Amd can't compete with either in gaming
- Still has security issues that haven't been fixed: Yep, Just like all other Intel CPUs
- other things that at the moment doesn't come to mind.: There are MANY but NONE related to this part's intended market. Gaming...
I agree with the other guy, when you can get a 3900X for $500, why in the world would you spend $600 on an 8 core. Best in gaming? Don't know about that. Yeah, sure the 9900K might get higher FPS (and increasing the core clock yields very little benefit for this processor and by extension this 9900KS) but you completely forget that minimums are more important then highs.



Battlenonsense did a video on this, a GPU or CPU that is completely pegged produces higher input lag and a worse gaming experience. So which would you rather have? The slightly higher FPS of the 9900KS or the smoother, more consistant gaming experience of the 3900X? Not even considering that the 3900X absolutely smokes the KS in every metric including price and performance, the 9900K is literally only the winner in spitting out more frames. Heck, a year from now even that single last advantage could dissappear as games utilize more CPU resources.

If Intel wants to compare "real life" results like their marketing suggests, perhaps they should start looking more then just max FPS numbers and examine input lag numbers and CPU usages which indicate actual experience much more.
Posted on Reply
#55
csendesmark
What a waste of money,
This cpu is decent for this time, but only worth around $400~450 max
Also would add, in gaming - CPU limitation is not really a problem these days.
Posted on Reply
#56
Arc1t3ct
evernessince, post: 4123759, member: 165920"
I agree with the other guy, when you can get a 3900X for $500, why in the world would you spend $600 on an 8 core. Best in gaming? Don't know about that. Yeah, sure the 9900K might get higher FPS (and increasing the core clock yields very little benefit for this processor and by extension this 9900KS) but you completely forget that minimums are more important then highs.



Battlenonsense did a video on this, a GPU or CPU that is completely pegged produces higher input lag and a worse gaming experience. So which would you rather have? The slightly higher FPS of the 9900KS or the smoother, more consistant gaming experience of the 3900X? Not even considering that the 3900X absolutely smokes the KS in every metric including price and performance, the 9900K is literally only the winner in spitting out more frames. Heck, a year from now even that single last advantage could dissappear as games utilize more CPU resources.

If Intel wants to compare "real life" results like their marketing suggests, perhaps they should start looking more then just max FPS numbers and examine input lag numbers and CPU usages which indicate actual experience much more.
W1zzard did a review of the 3900X and found that on average it performed worse than the even the i5 9400F in 1440p gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/23.html

Posted on Reply
#57
notb
evernessince, post: 4123759, member: 165920"
I agree with the other guy, when you can get a 3900X for $500, why in the world would you spend $600 on an 8 core.
There are some objective reasons, but anyway: this is not the question you should be asking. Business is not philosophy or religion (although reading comments from some people on this forum may confuse...).
You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?".
And 9900KS will sell.

You may say it's mostly for Intel fanboys or idiots. Well. Some people are fanboys and some people are idiots. Why not sell them something?
Heck, a year from now even that single last advantage could dissappear as games utilize more CPU resources.
You're way to eager to assume this will happen.
What if it doesn't? What if most games will keep using 4-6 cores? :-)
Posted on Reply
#58
ratirt
notb, post: 4123708, member: 165619"
Well you've just admitted that you're not criticizing this CPU because you think it is bad. You're simply against the company that makes it.
Of course we all know that, but it's nice to see you honest for once.

Putting all other things aside, this really is a simple situation.

AMD has two 8C/16T CPUs that differ by clocks with everything else being equal: 3700X and 3800X.
3800X is ~5% faster - a privilege for which AMD wants you to pay 21% more (329 -> 399 USD).

After 9900KS launches, Intel will also have two 8C/16T that differ only by clocks.
Judging by 9900K OC benchmarks, 9900KS will also be around 5% faster - a privilege for which Intel (likely) will want you to pay ~25% more (479 -> 600 USD).

You praise AMD.
You criticize Intel.
What else is there to say?
Praise AMD? I cheer for Intel to get on It's feet, pull together and get something worth noticing.
BTW. I can say same about you. Praise Intel, Criticize AMD, what else to say?
You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. You are prejudice either to me or Your own thoughts.
There's a difference in launching a processor that is supposed to be the top notch for such a price giving basically nothing. Lame for Intel with this and that's my opinion. Of course you have different because why not?
Your 3700x and 3800x is not a good example. these are a lineup of AMD's portfolio. How many times do i have to say that huh? The KS isn't a line up but it goes as a premium for whatever reason.
Intel's KS is different and i guess you see it just don't want to admit it. You are not being fair and you don't see the bigger picture.
9900KS will be 5% better than 9900K? Where did you get that? These are the same processors and dont tell me because it will be binned better. 9900k are binned better as well. Silicon differs. What is different on the other hand is, Silicon Lottery wont have the privilege to sell higher binned 9900k because these are going to be KS now. I hope the KS will deliver these mere 5% although I doubt it with the advertised TDP is rather wishful thinking. Having 5Ghz all cores for fraction of a minute to satisfy the statistics is not ground breaking or worth noticing.
Buckle up Intel.

notb, post: 4123795, member: 165619"
There are some objective reasons, but anyway: this is not the question you should be asking. Business is not philosophy or religion (although reading comments from some people on this forum may confuse...).
You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?".
And 9900KS will sell.

You may say it's mostly for Intel fanboys or idiots. Well. Some people are fanboys and some people are idiots. Why not sell them something?
and these reasons are?
Don't tell people what questions they should ask dude. :) That's pathetic :D They know what to as just the answer sucks. kinda like yours btw. If you got input or your point of view share.
Posted on Reply
#59
Midland Dog
and they fucked it, mind my french but i was hoping for 9900kf 429usd 9900k 459usd and 9900ks 500usd
Posted on Reply
#60
Minus Infinity
If it's $899AUD, that's more like $499US, we have a imbecile tax to take into account, because that's how foreign companies treat us in Australia with their price gouging. Just look at those third party AIB 5700XT, boards that cost $10-20US more cost $130-150 more in Australia on top of our already rip-off price mark up, well above currency conversion rates. We are being charged $720-750 for AIB 5700XT's.
Posted on Reply
#61
KarymidoN
notb, post: 4123687, member: 165619"
It will be just as hot as an overclocked 9900K. And many people own overclocked 9900K, so clearly: it's not impossible to sustain.
Imagine paying 600 bucks on a processor + Absurd Cooling and Deliding and talking about value, oh and we're not even talking about power draw, yikes.
Posted on Reply
#62
Xx Tek Tip xX
KarymidoN, post: 4124091, member: 153998"
Imagine paying 600 bucks on a processor
People spend 600 bucks on a processor, and more than that even :roll:
KarymidoN, post: 4124091, member: 153998"
Absurd Cooling
If you've got the money for a 9900KS you've got the money for a decent cooler.
KarymidoN, post: 4124091, member: 153998"
Deliding
This CPU is soldered, there is no need to delid.
Posted on Reply
#63
notb
KarymidoN, post: 4124091, member: 153998"
Imagine paying 600 bucks on a processor + Absurd Cooling and Deliding and talking about value, oh and we're not even talking about power draw, yikes.
As far as power draw and heat: this CPU is (at worst) identical to a popular 9900K. There's really nothing to add.

Price is $100 more than 9900K. Maybe for you $600 is a huge sum and that's why you have to imagine it. But many people spend so much and way more.
More importantly: this is just $100 over a standard 9900K and I've already said why that seems like a fair price.
ratirt, post: 4123871, member: 165024"
BTW. I can say same about you. Praise Intel, Criticize AMD, what else to say?
I'm openly mocking AMD as a company. They are a mess. I've been saying that for way over a decade.
But I'm honest and you're not. That's the difference.
There's a difference in launching a processor that is supposed to be the top notch for such a price giving basically nothing. Lame for Intel with this and that's my opinion. Of course you have different because why not?
It's a top-quality binned CPU. That's the added value.
Your 3700x and 3800x is not a good example. these are a lineup of AMD's portfolio. How many times do i have to say that huh? The KS isn't a line up but it goes as a premium for whatever reason.
You're trying to build your argument on naming differences. That's... weird.
3700X and 3800X have different second digit, to they magically create "a lineup". That's why it's OK for AMD to ask 20% more for extra 5% performance.
9900K and 9900KS have the same second digit, so they aren't "a lineup" and so: Intel shouldn't be allowed to ask a premium for the faster variant.
Right?
9900KS will be 5% better than 9900K? Where did you get that? These are the same processors and dont tell me because it will be binned better.
I said this is based on results of overclocked 9900K.
9900K@5GHz (all core) is roughly 5% faster than 9900K left on factory setting. So I expect 9900K to achieve similar performance. Acceptable?
Don't tell people what questions they should ask dude. :) That's pathetic :D
Hmm... low cognitive skills?
My comment was:
[ICODE]Business is not philosophy or religion (...) You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?" [/ICODE]
It was an obvious figure of speech. I didn't mean @evernessince should go out and ask people "will this sell? will this sell????"
Posted on Reply
#64
Berfs1
I estimate Intel's MSRP on this CPU will be 589$-599$ USD. Tray and boxed.
Posted on Reply
#65
trog100
one thing to take into account is that all the better 9900k samples will be pillaged for the 9900kS..

which is why i bought a 9900K two or three months back hopefully before the pillaging happened.. :)

trog
Posted on Reply
#66
notb
trog100, post: 4124225, member: 21545"
one thing to take into account is that all the better 9900k samples will be pillaged for the 9900kS..
Of course. Just like all the better 8-core Zen2 are 3800X, not 3700X. Just like it always is with Intel as well.
The only really new thing is that for few generations Intel offered just a single unlocked CPU in each segment.

To be honest, it might soon turn out 9900K will become obsolete and Intel will end production.
The overclocking, high-spending crowd will go for the 9900KS anyway.

Intel already launched 9900, so that's where all the 5GHz-unable samples can go. OEMs are already offering 9900-powered workstations (and getting A LOT of orders from what I've heard).
Retail availability of boxed chips is second half of October. Right in time for 9900KS.
which is why i bought a 9900K two or three months back hopefully before the pillaging happened.. :)
You're running yours at 4.7GHz. The "lower tier" 9900K will still be able to do that. :-)
Posted on Reply
#67
efikkan
trog100, post: 4124225, member: 21545"
one thing to take into account is that all the better 9900k samples will be pillaged for the 9900kS..

which is why i bought a 9900K two or three months back hopefully before the pillaging happened.. :)
It's quite likely that Intel have put these "golden samples" aside all along. We can't know for sure how they do their binning process, but I assume they started a good while before they announced i9-9900KS.

notb, post: 4124259, member: 165619"
Just like all the better 8-core Zen2 are 3800X, not 3700X.
Or, probably the best end up in Threadrippers.

notb, post: 4124259, member: 165619"
To be honest, it might soon turn out 9900K will become obsolete and Intel will end production.
A good portion of the production capacity have probably already shifted to Comet Lake.

notb, post: 4124259, member: 165619"
The overclocking, high-spending crowd will go for the 9900KS anyway.
They may, but I would still contest that these chips make sense for overclockers, when the overclocking potential is probably even less.
I may be old school, but overclocking used to be about buying a cheap CPU and getting a lot of "free" performance out of it. Buying an i9-9900KS(4.0/5.0 GHz) and perhaps getting another 200 maybe 300 MHz out of it, I don't see the point. Granted it will be slightly better dies than i9-9900K, but still the difference will be fairly small in maximum overclocking.
Posted on Reply
#68
notb
efikkan, post: 4124266, member: 150226"
It's quite likely that Intel have put these "golden samples" aside all along. We can't know for sure how they do their binning process, but I assume they started a good while before they announced i9-9900KS.
Or the manufacturing is so polished by now that making chips run at 9900KS specs is not a big deal.
Or, probably the best end up in Threadrippers.
I find that really unlikely. TR had a bit of traction until now, but that's because AMD was still targeting mostly enthusiasts and fanboys back then.

The increasing market share of AMD is happening in consumer segment. TR platform will become less and less significant - up to a point where it'll be just for showing off (just like Intel HEDT).

As usual with AMD - it's hard to guess what they're up to (I'm not sure they know...), but it seems plausible that the best chips will be saved for the flagship consumer chips. It's really obvious they need 3950X more than an update to Threadrippers. Especially when 3950X is replacing the well-received 2950X (with roughly the same specs and pricing; just on a smaller socket).
I may be old school, but overclocking used to be about buying a cheap CPU and getting a lot of "free" performance out of it.
That's the economical aspect. Yes, there was a time when you were actually rewarded by the learning and work put into overclocking.
You bought a cheap CPU and a good heat sink (which back then used to cost $40) and you could get 30-40% more performance.

That's not happening today. Boosting killed the "mainstream" overclocking. Going beyond needs very expensive cooling and almost never makes any sense other than fun from rivalry in benchmarks.

So yeah, I strongly believe overclockers will vote with their wallets for the CPU that gives them higher absolute - rather than relative - figures.
Getting a 9900K to 5GHz won't be fun anymore when your neighbour has an identical Cinebench score from a 9900KS and he doesn't even know what BIOS is.
Posted on Reply
#69
trog100
notb, post: 4124259, member: 165619"
Of course. Just like all the better 8-core Zen2 are 3800X, not 3700X. Just like it always is with Intel as well.
The only really new thing is that for few generations Intel offered just a single unlocked CPU in each segment.

To be honest, it might soon turn out 9900K will become obsolete and Intel will end production.
The overclocking, high-spending crowd will go for the 9900KS anyway.

Intel already launched 9900, so that's where all the 5GHz-unable samples can go. OEMs are already offering 9900-powered workstations (and getting A LOT of orders from what I've heard).
Retail availability of boxed chips is second half of October. Right in time for 9900KS.

You're running yours at 4.7GHz. The "lower tier" 9900K will still be able to do that. :)
i recon i have a reasonable chip.. :)



i do have HT off though.. 8 real cores is plenty for gaming..

trog
Posted on Reply
#70
evernessince
notb, post: 4123795, member: 165619"
There are some objective reasons, but anyway: this is not the question you should be asking. Business is not philosophy or religion (although reading comments from some people on this forum may confuse...).
You don't ask "why would people buy this?" but "will this sell?".
And 9900KS will sell.

You may say it's mostly for Intel fanboys or idiots. Well. Some people are fanboys and some people are idiots. Why not sell them something?

You're way to eager to assume this will happen.
What if it doesn't? What if most games will keep using 4-6 cores? :)
Will it? Margin of error to the 9900K and $100 more. It's not technically better in any way and that all core speed will make 0 difference in most games. None of my comment was philosophy, it was all logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out +100 to the price and +0 to the performance = bad product. The all core overclock will help multi-thread and that matters squat as people buying for that are 100% going to buy AMD. The 3900X dominates it in that regard and is still $100 cheaper.

What if most games keep using 4-6 cores? Hello, is this UserBenchMark speaking? Intel is releasing a 10 core consumer processor in the not too distant future. The original Ryzen 1000 series launched 3 years ago and we already have games utilizing 8 core CPUs. The fact that my prediction draws suspicion is funny in the least, I simply predicted things progress as normal for the PC space. You know, when we aren't mired in an Intel monopoly. It is not hard to comprehend that games can advance as fast with CPUs as they do with GPUs. People have clearly been far too trained by Intel to expect a slow trickle, which is funny given the pace GPUs have been moving at (well at least before turning, which is fairly dissapointing but you can once again blame lack of competition for that one).
Posted on Reply
#71
Vayra86
evernessince, post: 4125370, member: 165920"
Will it? Margin of error to the 9900K and $100 more. It's not technically better in any way and that all core speed will make 0 difference in most games. None of my comment was philosophy, it was all logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out +100 to the price and +0 to the performance = bad product. The all core overclock will help multi-thread and that matters squat as people buying for that are 100% going to buy AMD. The 3900X dominates it in that regard and is still $100 cheaper.

What if most games keep using 4-6 cores? Hello, is this UserBenchMark speaking? Intel is releasing a 10 core consumer processor in the not too distant future. The original Ryzen 1000 series launched 3 years ago and we already have games utilizing 8 core CPUs. The fact that my prediction draws suspicion is funny in the least, I simply predicted things progress as normal for the PC space. You know, when we aren't mired in an Intel monopoly. It is not hard to comprehend that games can advance as fast with CPUs as they do with GPUs. People have clearly been far too trained by Intel to expect a slow trickle, which is funny given the pace GPUs have been moving at (well at least before turning, which is fairly dissapointing but you can once again blame lack of competition for that one).
CPU performance for games scales with the consoles. And given the current and coming console crop's performance, there is absolutely no need for anything more than 6-8 much faster PC cores in the foreseeable future; consoles target 30 or 60 FPS as well. The only reason to get something faster for a PC (and that mostly relates to clock speed / IPC, and not many cores) is high refresh rate gaming.

On all other points, you're absolutely correct. But predicting 'you might need those cores soon' has never really worked out well for gaming wrt CPUs. Games follow the common denominator, not the bleeding edge of CPU performance. For GPU, its somewhat different because the visual difference is much more pronounced. That can be recognized by the updated PS4 and X1 that mostly boosted the graphics department. Consoles generally have a cycle of 5-6 years, I do reckon that is about the time frame for people to do a new PC build or serious upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#72
notb
evernessince, post: 4125370, member: 165920"
Will it? Margin of error to the 9900K and $100 more. It's not technically better in any way and that all core speed will make 0 difference in most games. None of my comment was philosophy, it was all logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out +100 to the price and +0 to the performance = bad product. The all core overclock will help multi-thread and that matters squat as people buying for that are 100% going to buy AMD.
First of all: it seems the actual price will be $560, so +$70. If +5% performance guess turns out to be correct, this will be almost identical to 3700X-3800X relation. :)
The 3900X dominates it in that regard and is still $100 cheaper.
Actual transaction prices are way above MSRP, so for gaming it has more or less the same "value" as 9900K.

However, supply of 3900X is still very limited.
Yes, it's a very good CPU. Yes, AMD's recommended price is very attractive. But AMD took a step beyond technical capabilities of production lines. It gives them a big win in reviews, but it doesn't mean a win in sales.

And apparently there are quite a lot of gamers willing to spend $500-700 on a CPU, so (assuming everyone wants to buy 3900X) few lucky % will get what they want. With that unique CPU out of the question, people will choose between 9900K(S) and 3700X / 3800X. So many will end up buying 9900K(S) anyway.
Intel knows this and they know how to price their products. They may not win reviews, but they'll still make a ton of money.
Intel is releasing a 10 core consumer processor in the not too distant future.
Intel will sell everything they can make money on. That's how they got to their billions.
The original Ryzen 1000 series launched 3 years ago and we already have games utilizing 8 core CPUs.
In 2017 we had games that could utilize 8 cores - AMD used them in Ryzen campaign. It's naive to think there weren't any earlier.
And today we have games that hardly go past 3-4.

To prove a hypothesis like yours (that in last few years core utilization in games increased), one would have to do a proper test. You know: choose a basket of 20 mainstream series and show that there's a significant difference between versions released just before Ryzen and today. Maybe someone did that - I have no idea.
But the argument that "there exist something that does something" is irrelevant.
I simply predicted things progress as normal for the PC space.
How can you say what is "normal"? You have no statistics. No point of reference even. We live in a world with 2 major x86 CPU manufacturers. This is the only observable reality we have.
And for decades it's been an Intel monopoly. They know how to make CPUs, they know how to position them and make money. They've been doing it for 50 years.
From time to time AMD manages to make a decent CPU line. And because they can afford a risk Intel can't, they briefly lead in innovation. Intel catches up, so AMD loses momentum and soon money ends.
Yes, it would be healthier to have 2 CPU makers with 50:50 share. But:
1) it would not lead to quicker CPU evolution, because that's limited by more fundamental aspects (semiconductor research mostly),
2) AMD isn't willing to play ball. They could sell 3800X for $500 and gradually build an image of a serious, business-oriented enterprise. In 5-10 years they could get to 30% market share while still having a stable and profitable business. But they don't want to do that. Well, it's their choice.
At least this time, when AMD goes back to being a tiny company with no profits and outdated lineup, we'll remember them for an interesting Zen idea, not a Bulldozer disaster. :)
People have clearly been far too trained by Intel to expect a slow trickle, which is funny given the pace GPUs have been moving at (well at least before turning, which is fairly dissapointing but you can once again blame lack of competition for that one).
This is where people like you make a big mistake.
If Bulldozer was a success and we would have had 2 large CPU makers competing on the market, CPUs in 2019 would be... just as fast as they are. :)
Posted on Reply
#73
ratirt
notb, post: 4125671, member: 165619"
First of all: it seems the actual price will be $560, so +$70. If +5% performance guess turns out to be correct, this will be almost identical to 3700X-3800X relation. :)
Here if you'd like to read this.
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/core-i9-9900ks-spotted-at-etailer-costs-679-euros.html

notb, post: 4125671, member: 165619"
Actual transaction prices are way above MSRP, so for gaming it has more or less the same "value" as 9900K.

However, supply of 3900X is still very limited.
Yes, it's a very good CPU. Yes, AMD's recommended price is very attractive. But AMD took a step beyond technical capabilities of production lines. It gives them a big win in reviews, but it doesn't mean a win in sales.

And apparently there are quite a lot of gamers willing to spend $500-700 on a CPU, so (assuming everyone wants to buy 3900X) few lucky % will get what they want. With that unique CPU out of the question, people will choose between 9900K(S) and 3700X / 3800X. So many will end up buying 9900K(S) anyway.
Intel knows this and they know how to price their products. They may not win reviews, but they'll still make a ton of money.
No supply problem in Norway. All PC build vendors must have got their 3900x supplies. besides the Pc build companies were offering this processors for over a month now if not more.
So I disagree with the supply issues. Consumer market is the last to get these.
Intel knows this. AMD knows this as well. Any company knows this if they are in the industry for some time. These two companies been here for a long time.
Time will tell if any of these two companies was right about their predictions and planning.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment