Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Generation CPU Review @ [H]

It may be that before people were more naive to it and it wasn't seen to be a factor, and reviewers probably didn't pay attention to it which maybe led to the market naivity. But the last few years in technology and automotive markets "efficiency" has become a very concerted market awareness, now reviewers are paying more attention to this and in turn people are becoming aware of it. This is just on the efficiency side.

As for Intel purporting stock results based on core policy manipulations, that is misrepresentation and touting but we know Intel has a rich history of believing rules and should I say International Rule of Law does not apply to them.
There is not a standard for "TDP" so you can call it anything you want. It may mean one thing to one company and something totally different to another, which is exactly what we have here.
 
It may be that before people were more naive to it and it wasn't seen to be a factor, and reviewers probably didn't pay attention to it which maybe led to the market naivity. But the last few years in technology and automotive markets "efficiency" has become a very concerted market awareness, now reviewers are paying more attention to this and in turn people are becoming aware of it. This is just on the efficiency side.

As for Intel purporting stock results based on core policy manipulations, that is misrepresentation and touting but we know Intel has a rich history of believing rules and should I say International Rule of Law does not apply to them.
Intel has a product line for energy efficiency, though. It's called Atom.
 
It does have some parallels with Netburst. Not in a direct way, but there we saw that the architecture became power limited - you could throw more whatevers at it, but ultimately you just couldn't escape a set power envelope inherent to the manufacturing process and design philosophy.

Intel dropped back and put a larger emphasis on power, rather than speed, and speed came back up as a result.

Now, I think we've found the edge of that envelope again, at least with Intel's current manufacturing and design. You could try to throw more cores, or more Ghz at it, but your just constrained by the power envelope no matter which way you move.

Shows how much the delay in 10nm is really hurting Intel right now. It ~may~ be possible to design around it, and with a new architecture wring some more speed out of the current process, but I'd put the return on that pretty low, and the effort/R&D required for that pretty high.
 
Having trouble with my 9900k. Started fine, loaded windows fine, gamed for an hour and a half and it hard locked. Windows couldn't boot. Today I've tried removing all but essentials, rolled the ram, replaced the Auros Pro with an MSI Carbon. Still getting WHEA uncorrectable error when trying to boot off usb or m2. Only other thing it could be is the RAM I can't try elsewhere/get other stuff, unlikely to have two dud sticks though.

Temps were quite fine, H110 was mounted well and had perfect mating. 40-50% cpu usage in game. Stayed below ~48c the whole time. Odd failure.
 
It's over 9000. Teehee!

itsover1000.jpg
 
Having trouble with my 9900k. Started fine, loaded windows fine, gamed for an hour and a half and it hard locked. Windows couldn't boot. Today I've tried removing all but essentials, rolled the ram, replaced the Auros Pro with an MSI Carbon. Still getting WHEA uncorrectable error when trying to boot off usb or m2. Only other thing it could be is the RAM I can't try elsewhere/get other stuff, unlikely to have two dud sticks though.

Temps were quite fine, H110 was mounted well and had perfect mating. 40-50% cpu usage in game. Stayed below ~48c the whole time. Odd failure.

This piece of advice might come several months late, but have you considered running Memtest86 at least for 1 pass to make sure your RAM isn't faulty?
 
So solders are not good on this samples? Ohh old good 2600k...
Are 5.2ghz freq achievable @ low temps @ good sample?
 
So solders are not good on this samples? Ohh old good 2600k...
Are 5.2ghz freq achievable @ low temps @ good sample?
The fastest 9900k at silicon lottery is 5.1ghz for $899, so I'm thinking you would have to have a golden sample to hit 5.2.
 
So only .2 ghz extra on all cores must be a golden sample? Mmm...
Exactly. There simply isn't much headroom past 5ghz on these chips. Also remember that the stock 5ghz boost is not for all core, the 9900k's all core boost is 4.7ghz so that makes a 5.2ghz a .5ghz better boost on all cores. True that isn't groundbreaking but that's all that can be expected for this chip.
 
Back
Top