• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core i9-9900K

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,986 (3.74/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Today, Intel released their new flagship processor for the LGA 1151 platform. The Core i9-9900K finally comes with eight core and 16 threads, reaching parity with AMD's Ryzen offerings. Maximum Boost Clock has been increased as well, now to a staggering 5 GHz.

Show full review
 
Last edited:
Great performance, relatively speaking, below average temps & worse power consumption. I think if you own this you may not want to upgrade your gaming rig for the foreseeable future.
Also I don't see OCed temps, are they listed anywhere :confused:
 
W1zzard said:
Intel's own marketing paraded the Core i9-9900K as the best processor for gamers. While that is technically true, the differences are rather slim in our own testing. For example, at 1080p resolution, with all games set to highest details, the difference between i7-8700K and i9-9900K is just 2%.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Intel is not happy about this statement.
 
Also I don't see OCed temps, are they listed anywhere
OC temps on air 5.0 were right below throttle, with a medium-high quality air cooler. Didn't measure temps for water, probably somewhere between 60 and 70

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Intel is not happy about this statement.
I know, but what else should I say, given the numbers. No we're not gonna switch from "ultra" to "high" for our testing.
 
Power consumption is shockingly high once overclocked, I really did not expect that.
 
Wow, only skimmed through all the performance tables but this CPU looks pretty damn good. Now to go look at pricing...

$660 on Newegg Canada, a little bit more than what I paid for the 3930k. I could live with that if I ever move on from my 4790k.
 
It's not intel's fault that today's games do not fully utilize an eight core CPU.
same for the 2700X.
there is nothing intel can do about gaming perfomance at this point, but 9900K will show its true benefits for gaming over years.
 
For those of us who prefer high refresh rate gaming, is there any way you could include minimum frames or an average of the minimums in future benchmarks? I feel like this would further highlight the differences in CPUs for gaming.
 
Power consumption is shockingly high once overclocked, I really did not expect that.
I'm not surprised, there's eight cores in there! That's a lot of processor to power. As for the heat, again... not surprised. Intel is most definitely pushing 14nm to the breaking point (perhaps past it) with the 9900K.
 
OC temps on air 5.0 were right below throttle, with a medium-high quality air cooler. Didn't measure temps for water, probably somewhere between 60 and 70


I know, but what else should I say, given the numbers. No we're not gonna switch from "ultra" to "high" for our testing.
Is there any way you could? Other reviewers are find that even with a water cooler the 9900k is just stupid hot.
 
My prediction of under 10% performance advantage over the 2700X in 1080p gaming was spot on. It's also only 1.9% faster or identical for all intents and purposes to an 8700K showing games do not scale well past 6-cores 12-threads as predicted.

With these figures it's one of the most overpriced CPUs I can remember at £600 here in the UK.
 
My prediction of under 10% performance advantage over the 2700X in 1080p gaming was spot on. It's also only 1.9% faster or identical for all intents and purposes to an 8700K showing games do not scale well past 6-cores 12-threads as predicted.

With these figures it's one of the most overpriced CPUs I can remember at £600 here in the UK.

Yeah sure. Average fps. If they had 1% low at least, ryzen would be crushed.
 
Weird... how consumption of the 9900k can be less than the 8700k?
 
I think it would be great hit for 299$.
 

Unbelievable

So let me get this right, even when they decided to solder the IHS they still somehow managed to do a bad job ?
 
I am going to say it up front, I prefer Intel over AMD. But looking at these benchmarks and going over the price difference, it makes me sad to admit that

I play my games at 1440p and when I compare the performance differences between the 9900k and 2700X, I just can't figure out the insane price difference

1440p:

i9-9900k vs AMD 2700x

AC:Origin
77.2 vs 74.5

Battlefield 1
134.4 vs 126.1

Civilization VI
130.5 vs 113.2

F1 2017
138.5 vs 133.3

Far Cry 5
113.0 vs 102.8

I could go on but I think you get my point. These FPS are so high that 1% difference that is happening makes no improvement during gameplay. But the 50%-60% increase in price, is just down right unbelievable

Yes, I am only looking at this from the gamer view point and I don't care about the other settings because at the end of the day my machine is for gaming
 
I'm sure some fan boy will come and say how its future proofing to buy this CPU (maybe Toms will will even write an article) but in the future I would expect more from $500 CPU. Maybe there will be a rush of used 8700k for cheap on ebay from this....

relative-performance-games-1280-720.png
 
Yay, someone found out that more cores doesnt mean more of everything in games. :D

It would be nice piece for OC, provided you get one thats soldered right. And probably wait till it gets cheaper (if it gets cheaper at all).
 
Back
Top