Monday, October 28th 2019

Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS, World's Best Processor for Gaming Made Better

Intel today announced full details and availability for the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Delivering up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency out of the box for the ultimate gaming experience, the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS will be available beginning Oct. 30, with recommended customer price starting at $513. This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only and can be found at retailers worldwide.

"Intel has raised the bar for desktop gaming with the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Based on the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K architecture, it's the world's best gaming desktop processor made even better and created specifically for extreme gamers who want the most performance possible. This processor demonstrates another innovation milestone for Intel, following last year's limited edition 8th Gen Intel Core i7-8086K," said Frank Soqui, Intel vice president and general manager of the Desktop, Workstation and Channel Group. The i9-9900KS processor is unlocked and boasts eight cores and 16 threads, up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes for gaming and overclocking.
Key Features and Capabilities:
  • Up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency; up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, which allow games to run faster when they scale across more cores for higher frame rates
  • Eight cores, 16 threads, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes
  • Compatible with existing Z390 motherboards
  • Up to 27% faster mega-tasking when you simultaneously game, stream and record compared with a 3-year-old PC
  • Up to 35% more frames per second compared with a 3-year-old PC
  • Up to 17% faster 4K video editing compared with the previous generation and up to 78% faster compared with a 3-year-old PC
  • One-year warranty
  • Overclock confidently with new and enhanced features like Intel Performance Maximizer, which makes it easy to dynamically and reliably custom-tune the unlocked processor based on the processor's individual performance DNA
Gamers and overclocking enthusiasts will be able to take performance to the max with the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Only select chips from Intel wafers can achieve this specification to run up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo. Quantity is limited for this special edition product.The Small Print:
Performance results are based on testing as of August 10, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See configuration disclosure for details. No product can be absolutely secure. Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. For more complete information about performance and benchmark results, visit http://www.intel.com/benchmarks.
As measured by in-game benchmark mode performance (score or frames per second) where available, or frames per second where benchmark mode is unavailable. PC Gaming Processors Compared: 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS, 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K, Intel Core i9-9980XE Extreme Edition, Intel Core i9-9960X X-series, Intel Core i9-9940X X-series, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. Prices of compared products may differ. Configurations: Graphics: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 or 4x4GB DDR4 (2666, 2933 or 3200 per highest speed of the corresponding processor), Storage: Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS Windows 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6). Results: 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS scored better on the majority of the 20+ game titles tested.Intel Core i9-9900KS is a special edition of Intel Core i9-9900K, with even better performance.
1Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.
2As measured by gameplay FPS on PUBG (Season 4 - "PC Update 4.1") - 1080p High Settings comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
3As measured by gameplay FPS on Total War: 3 Kingdoms - Campaign - 1080p High Settings comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
4As measured by Adobe Premiere Pro CC Transcode4Kvideo SW workload comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. Intel Core i7-8700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-8700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 6C12T, Turbo up to 4.7GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105
5As measured by Adobe Premiere Pro CC Transcode4Kvideo SW workload comparing 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS vs. 6th Gen Intel Core i7-6700K. Measured on platforms with: Intel Core i9-9900KS Processor, PL1=127W TDP, 8C16T, Turbo up to 5.0GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z390 A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 2x8GB DDR4 2666, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 1105 vs. Intel Core i7-6700K Processor, PL1=95W TDP, 4C8T, Turbo up to 4.2GHz, Motherboard: MSI Z170MPLUS A Pro, Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 2080Ti, Gfx version: 430.86, Memory: 4x4GB DDR4 2133, Storage: 480GB Intel Optane SSD 900P, OS: Windows* 10 Pro 1903 v175 19H1(RS6), BIOS Version 3805
6Intel is providing a one-year warranty on both the box and tray versions of this processor due to its limited volume.
The Recommended Customer Price ("RCP") is pricing guidance for Intel products. Prices are for direct Intel customers and are subject to change without notice. Taxes and shipping, etc. not included. Prices may vary for other package types and shipment quantities, and special promotional arrangements may apply. Listing of these RCP does not constitute a formal pricing offer from Intel. Please work with your appropriate Intel representative to obtain a formal price quotation. Purchases of Intel products are subject to Intel's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale.
Add your own comment

130 Comments on Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS, World's Best Processor for Gaming Made Better

#26
GorbazTheDragon
E-curbi
...
Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off :)

Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...
Posted on Reply
#27
EarthDog
GorbazTheDragon
I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...
LOL, No you wouldn't.
Posted on Reply
#28
E-curbi
GorbazTheDragon
Don't let the "buying 10 $500 processors to get a 100MHz faster one" put you off :)

Not really sure why I would run a top 1% CPU for daily anyway, I'd be off to hwbot grabbing ambient WRs right and left...
LOL, 5.3Ghz or 5.4Ghz 9900KS. I'd only spend the extra dollars for a workstation "Return On Investment" build or if you're really INTO Speed Parts as a hobby. lol :)

Average daily use? Um NO! :p
Posted on Reply
#29
Konceptz
Intel doesn't handle defeat well......
Posted on Reply
#30
Tomgang
So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

And it's not like 9900ks is massively faster than 9900k. Base clock is bumped 400 mhz while max all core boost is measly 300 mhz, so yeah 9900ks is a bit faster, but far from a game changer.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.
Posted on Reply
#31
EarthDog
Tomgang
So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.
In anything else that uses more than 8c/8t, yep!
Posted on Reply
#32
sam_86314
Tomgang
So for the same price you can get either I9 9900KS or ryzen 9 3900X.

Now the question is, what do you prefer?

I think I can honestly say 3900X seems more interesting. Sure 9900ks will be a bit faster in games, but in any thing else 3900X will destroy 9900ks and even throw I do game, I am also doing other things on my pc.

Keep trying Intel, some day they are bound to admit 14 nm is no longer up to date.
9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.
Posted on Reply
#33
GorbazTheDragon
And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL
Posted on Reply
#34
E-curbi
EarthDog
In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!
Exactly. If your working apps only utilize for example 6threads or 8threads or 10threads at maximum design, your workloads will run faster and complete sooner with a higher frequency - higher clocking CPU. 8700K or 8086K or 9900KS.

BUT if your work apps can utilize MORE than 16threaded workloads continuously, then a better choice is the Ryzen 3000 CPUs. :)

A simple rule of thumb for work computers.

Not certain why the common theme for creators and workstation computers seems to be 28cores or 36cores - more cores the better, when many of us use single and slightly-threaded work apps all day long and benefit more from higher frequency capable processors.

----

For play computers - the best rule of thumb = buy whatever turns you on and makes you happy. :)


This video, the Intel guy explains 9900KS internal binning:


Posted on Reply
#35
PerfectWave
sam_86314
9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.
it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited
Posted on Reply
#36
EarthDog
PerfectWave
it is faster in 1080p gaming if u play qhd or 4k the difference is really limited


Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...
Posted on Reply
#37
PerfectWave
EarthDog
Another obvious thing to point out is over 63% of people (that use Steam) sport a 1080p monitor. Over 85% are there or LESS. About 7% run 2560x1440 or higher...
Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....
Posted on Reply
#38
Tomgang
EarthDog
In anything else that uses more than 8c/16t, yep!
I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.

sam_86314
9900KS is faster in games.

3900X is faster in everything else and still good enough in games.

Since I do video transcoding, emulation, and occasional 3D graphics, I'd need the extra cores over the higher clocks.
Exactly my point. 9900KS wins in most games, but as a cpu needed for for every thing. 3900X is a better all over performer and also if you stream your gaming then 3900X is also a better solution.
Posted on Reply
#39
EarthDog
PerfectWave
Steam survive is total usless asked me few times to get my pc information on my virtual machine....
Steam survive????????????????

Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?

Tomgang
I will say it depends on the task at hand. If the software is optimized for Intel, then yeah it will be faster. But in over all performance even in a 8 core challenge, I don't think 3900X will be dramaticly slower. Cause yes core clock is lower, but in return zen 2 has better IPC over intels 14 nm proces. And over 8 cores 9900KS is bound to lose over 3900X.
Last I recall IPC was around the same. Give or take. WHere AMD does shine is when it can use SMT. Its' SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.
Posted on Reply
#40
Tomgang
EarthDog
Steam survive????????????????

Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh?


Last I recall IPC was around the same. Give or take. WHere AMD does shine is when it can use SMT. Its' SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.
As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.
Posted on Reply
#41
EarthDog
Tomgang
As far i know, IPC is a bit higher but not by much. Can't say about SMT as I have not spend much time on research smt over ht. Just over all glad that we finally have some som good and interesting cpu that doesn't cost 2000 USD or more to get a good amount of cpu cores. 2019 is gonna be a great year for cpu upgrades, well at least in the end of the year.
Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.

I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.
Posted on Reply
#42
AddSub
GorbazTheDragon
And in many older games the 3900X will win because of the cache LOL
No. It wont.

I don't really post anymore but, I do own (not owned, OWN) every CPU from 80486DX through 8xxx Intel and Ryzen. I benchmark as a hobby, and have for decades, mostly retro benchmarking lately.... anyway, not to get off track too much, but Ryzen is severely deficient at feeding those frames at the lower end such as 1024x768 (3DMark 2001 SE and games from the Dx7-8 era). In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580. Think about that, a 10 year old GPU.

Now you guys may continue with the corp A vs. corp B silliness. Just had to correct that little bit of nonsense.
Posted on Reply
#43
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Drivel attempt from intel
Posted on Reply
#44
Tomgang
EarthDog
Right. I covered that (give or take). SMT efficiency was tested at various other sites, so I was talking out of what I am sitting on.

I agree whole heartedly that thanks to AMD finally being competitive in performance as well as price, this forced the mighty intel to do a bit of re-thinking.
Ah yeah give or take.

Oh yeah Intel got a much needed wake up call from amd that technology doesn't stay still. And yeah thanks to AMD I can now get me a 16 core cpu for half the price of intels i9 9960X and funny that Intel does not have a 16 core in there 10000 series line up this time. No matter what, it's a good time to be replacing my old i7 980x cpu.
Posted on Reply
#45
trog100
"Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "

maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..

trog
Posted on Reply
#47
EarthDog
trog100
"Sure, friend. The point is that an overwhelming majority still use a CPU bound resolution in 1080p. Very few use anything higher. Capeesh? "

maybe not cpu bounds with a lesser gpu.. the steam stats seem to be about money.. or how little you can spend and still play games..

trog
Yes trog, sure, you will not be limited by using a potato for a GPU... which makes complete sense when buying the 'fastest' gaming CPU around...

Anyone can find reasons to bunk anything... if you want to hang your hat on the edges and make that a reality for the majority, go right on ahead. :)
Posted on Reply
#48
E-curbi
eidairaman1
Drivel attempt from intel
That's all they got right now. I'm also feeling a bit same ol same ol with 14nm so the waiting game continues, lol :oops:

No single-core performance improvements over an 8086K (from 2018) capable of 5.5Ghz 6c/12t all day long until Rocket Lake 2021?(14nm reverse ported from 10nm?). Geez, and that's a LONG wait and a BIG maybe.

Unless AMD's pulls off a miracle next year 2020 with Ryzen 4000, and they may do just that. :)
Posted on Reply
#49
GorbazTheDragon
AddSub
In fact I've had my Ryzen @ 4.1GHz bottleneck my GTX 580.
All of those older rendering benchmarks are just CPU benchmarks when run with modern GPUs, happens with both xLake and ryzen.

You aren't specifying what ryzen chips you are running, but you have to keep in mind there is a massive difference in smoothness between the zen2 and zen/+ chips though, again a lot down to the cache sizes, but also zen2 has a better front end in general, so the prefetching and scheduling is better than zen/+.

zen/+ I wouldn't recommend for 144hz, but the 3600 is effectively on par with the intel parts in the vast majority of games. The other thing is that in a lot of games where the zen2 parts struggle to pull 144hz, xLake parts do as well.
Posted on Reply
#50
EarthDog
GorbazTheDragon
The other thing is that in a lot of games where the zen2 parts struggle to pull 144hz, xLake parts do as well.
I think the point is, however, to remove the glass ceiling. I'd still rather run 130 fps than 120 in a quest to reach 144... no? That is the point here.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment