9900k : $500+ for the THIRD best gaming CPU?

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,129
Understandably, I might catch some heat for this, but it is NOT a troll thread.

It is interesting reading the 9900k as it is an impressive CPU, so I did a search with it as a title. Surprisingly, almost all of the threads are about not getting good overclocks or stability problems ignoring those based on things like new builds and compatibility questions.

In short, do you guys think that review samples were cherry picked, or at least more so than usual? A quick browse of the *reviews shows most reviewers getting 5.1 to 5.2 ghz. Even those that were getting 5.0 ghz were often at 1.25v. Some here are struggling with 4.8 ghz with 1.35v! I realize there are alot of variables in things like cooling used, but if these OPs are [H] members, I would like to think they know to use good cooling, paste application, and o/c technique.

So how would you guys HONESTLY rate this CPU for gaming using O/Cs that are more in line with post-launch (4.9 ghz average?) Would it fall short in most games to the 9700k that seems to hit 5.0 ghz much easier as well as the 8086k that hits 5.2 ghz on a large percentage of its CPUs?

Still the best in modern titles, a close 2nd, or a costly bronze winner?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
I could afford a 9900k, and have a board I could drop one into- but really have no interest.

What the 9900k brings isn't just gaming performance- it's top-end performance in a consumer socket period. I.e., better multi-threaded performance and better gaming performance than anything else Intel or AMD makes in a consumer socket.

That also makes it less useful for those that are focused primarily on gaming performance versus the mentioned 8086k or 9700k. More expensive for very little gain, or again as mentioned, more difficulty with respect to overclocking. And hell, if you're looking for inexpensive compute, you're going to gain much over a 2700X- and would likely be better off with a Threadripper.

I'll just say that I'm glad that the 9900k exists, and I hope that Intel keeps pushing the top-end, and that AMD is able to start meeting them there.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,129
I could afford a 9900k, and have a board I could drop one into- but really have no interest.

What the 9900k brings isn't just gaming performance- it's top-end performance in a consumer socket period. I.e., better multi-threaded performance and better gaming performance than anything else Intel or AMD makes in a consumer socket.

That also makes it less useful for those that are focused primarily on gaming performance versus the mentioned 8086k or 9700k. More expensive for very little gain, or again as mentioned, more difficulty with respect to overclocking. And hell, if you're looking for inexpensive compute, you're going to gain much over a 2700X- and would likely be better off with a Threadripper.

I'll just say that I'm glad that the 9900k exists, and I hope that Intel keeps pushing the top-end, and that AMD is able to start meeting them there.

Agreed, but with the seemingly lower average overclocks than expected, it starts to make a tough argument over a delided 7820x or 9820x. CPU and MBs seem to be close in the 2 setups with the latter having way more I/O and upgrade options.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
Agreed, but with the seemingly lower average overclocks than expected, it starts to make a tough argument over a delided 7820x or 9820x. CPU and MBs seem to be close in the 2 setups with the latter having way more I/O and upgrade options.

Think memory is the biggest delta there; you'll want four channels (I stopped short of saying 'need') for the HEDT setup, and that puts more pressure on clocks and timings, for whatever performance metrics they're worth, but there's certainly some additional cost as you basically need to run 4x8GB just to populate the channels.

Outside of that, yeah, the 9900K is probably priced as high as it can be given the value of some of the HEDT solutions, and really if a user wanted to get 'all they can' out of a 9900K, they'd probably be better served by the extra connectivity that HEDT provides.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
636
Understandably, I might catch some heat for this, but it is NOT a troll thread.

It is interesting reading the 9900k as it is an impressive CPU, so I did a search with it as a title. Surprisingly, almost all of the threads are about not getting good overclocks or stability problems ignoring those based on things like new builds and compatibility questions.

In short, do you guys think that review samples were cherry picked, or at least more so than usual? A quick browse of the *reviews shows most reviewers getting 5.1 to 5.2 ghz. Even those that were getting 5.0 ghz were often at 1.25v. Some here are struggling with 4.8 ghz with 1.35v! I realize there are alot of variables in things like cooling used, but if these OPs are [H] members, I would like to think they know to use good cooling, paste application, and o/c technique.

So how would you guys HONESTLY rate this CPU for gaming using O/Cs that are more in line with post-launch (4.9 ghz average?) Would it fall short in most games to the 9700k that seems to hit 5.0 ghz much easier as well as the 8086k that hits 5.2 ghz on a large percentage of its CPUs?

Still the best in modern titles, a close 2nd, or a costly bronze winner?

Went 9900k for my build.
First 9900k chip was hot as fuck, sent it back. Couldn't even get to 4.8.
Second 9900k currently sitting at 5ghz stable @ 1.34.

Temps don't go above 50-60C~ tops in gaming at 3440x1440. Extremely stable.
9900k is worth it for people who know what they're doing with it, and it is also available now. I max out the settings in all of my games, stream daily, play MMO's and mobile games on my desktop at all once.
This system hasn't budged under any of the above load at all and I'm extremely happy with it. There's still a fucking TON of power left in this machine. It's a winner chip for me.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,977
For the price of a 8086k, it's tough to beat as it's essentially a pre-binned chip. I've seen them here for $320-340 used. I doubt you'd ever see $150 of value of the 9900k in gaming (and arguably in mainstream tasks), even less if you plan on buying one pre-binned.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,977
does the extra 100-250mhz make THAT much of a difference for the money? (he asks as he prepares to delid his cpu for an extra 100-200mhz...)

In the used market, there really isn't a big difference in price between the two if you find the right deal.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,129
For someone pretending they are not trolling, you title is more than obvious a sad troll/flaming attempt.
Things never change I guess....

Oh give me a break - overreact much?

People have bias towards a company and that's ok in my book. But now we have a specific CPU Fanboyism around here.

The title was pretty mild-mannered. It is not as if it read "LoL, $500 Intel CPU gets owned in gaming, total garbage!!!"
 
Top