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

Great review, as always. Had to read it twice through to really understand the deltas here.

I think the truly interesting comparo will be between the new 9th gen i5 and the 2700X. If you factor in $40 for the Wraith cooler these are the same price. Given that, and given the benches in this review, that i5 will be at a huge disadvantage from a value perspective, which is the very thing an i5 is supposed to represent.
 
Great review mate, shame about the OC potential. Still seems like you pay out the rear end for top performance, albeit not as badly as for a 2080 ti. Do you plan on doing any delidding testing with Liquid metal?
 
From Tom’s on OCing:
“We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests.”

^^ There ya have it. The deets I needed. Can’t run 5.0 without an AVX offset. been spoiled by the 8086Ks I have. I know the 9700Ks will do it.
So...
Max Performance OCd on H115iv2 AIO.. 9900K or 9700K... tough choice. I think the 9700K will best the 9900K in most all games. In heavy multithreaded loads, what’s the point if the 9900K is throttling all over itself?
 
Last edited:
med1kl said:
Great review mate, shame about the OC potential. Still seems like you pay out the rear end for top performance, albeit not as badly as for a 2080 ti. Do you plan on doing any delidding testing with Liquid metal?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I am not sure about that right now. If I saw a lot of our community willing to do this, I think I might, but I am not so sure a lot of folks are going to want to go the distance on the 9900K. First there is a good chance of fracturing that die delidding the CPU. Then you are talking about sanding the die itself...again very risky. Surely it can be done, but I am not sure a lot of folks are going to want to take it down that road. Dunno.
 
Brahmzy said:
From Tom’s on OCing:
“We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests.”
Click to expand...
We use Prime95 because it has an AVX workload. It is basically the worst possible scenario. In CC loads at STOCK clocks we are seeing about ~150w CPU package power recorded. Looking at OC numbers now.
 
Thanks for the review Kyle.

The CPU seems to run ALOT hotter than anyone expected. Also, this CPU needs some serious vrm support to prevent throttling.

So dropping $500+ on the CPU is only part of the equation. It seems you need one hell of a cooler and a very good MB to get the most if the CPU.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Looking forward to seeing an i7-9700K review: I won't be surprised if the non-HT part OC's better and is the top gaming CPU.

Edit: From Anandtech: "For the Core i7-9700K, we hit 5.3 GHz very easily, for a small bump in power and temperature."
Click to expand...


Same , for my gaming machine all I ever run other than the actual game at the same time is Discord/Vent etc at most. Nothing remotely close for games that will require more than 8 real cores , and 8 real cores at 5.3 ghz I think will be the top of gaming for a while.
 
The other knock on the i9-9900K is going to be the price. As of typing this, the 9900K is selling for $530.
Click to expand...

I saw that price on launch day, but even by the end of the day, the prices had gone up. As of today, they're still selling for $580 basically everywhere:

Amazon: $580 https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-9900K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B005404P9I/
NewEgg: $580 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957&cm_re=9900k-_-19-117-957-_-Product
BHPhoto: $580 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1435917-REG/intel_bx80684i99900k_core_i9_9900k_3_6_ghz.html

I may be pissing sour grapes, but the value from $530 to $580 (~10% higher cost) is notably lower, at least for me. But between this and nVidia's situation, it appears the kings of performance get to make whatever prices they want and let the market decide.

On the performance side, I'm curious how the 9700k vs the 8700k stack up at typical overclocks due to the OC walls reviewers seem to be hitting. Clearly the 9900k with 8 cores and hyperthreading is today's Intel performance king, but apples to apples, last gen to this gen, I'm more interested in.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Great review, and I'm glad to see Intel finally pushing their products to the raggedy edge. The high boost clocks, sTIM (even if kind of shitty), all point to Intel getting off the ass and pushing the envelope. Were I building today, it would be 9900k all day - or a 2950X. I'd have a hard time on that decision. But this is an excellent product. As it stands, though, it's not worth a platform switch from my 2700X for ~16%. And there's Zen 2 to consider in the near-ish future.

Still, an excellent CPU. Well worth the gold award.
 
great review. I already run with undervolted 2700x so I'm not in the market. If intel could/wanted to solve the price/value problem, I do like that their chips have the iGPU even if it sucks. Its a good backup if you have issues with your dGPU and have no extra gfx cards laying around to troubleshoot with. I found this out with the 2700x, so I would like to see AMD add some rudimentary gfx to the Zen2 high end, just as a fallback.
 
I’m seeing quite the spread of experiences on the various review sites. LOTS of variables at play. Early mobo firmware, different coolers, different testing methods...
I think Kyle did a worse-case conservative OC while others are more best case - especially where AVX is in play..
 
TahoeDust said:
Power hungry, hot, expensive, but fast as hell. Is this not what everyone expected?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I might be the only one here that want to get this CPU, but then I need it more for content creation than games (3D and heavy photo editing) where the 9900K should fly.

I actually like that Intel has more or less made an optimal overclock OOB for me. :rolleyes:

Excellent value in the AMD camp, but I want to make a Windows / Hackintosh dual boot machine, so AMD is a no go, unfortunately.

That high full load temp is something to consider in regards to cooling though.
 
Brahmzy said:
I’m seeing quite the spread of experiences on the various review sites. LOTS of variables at play. Early mobo firmware, different coolers, different testing methods...
I think Kyle did a worse-case conservative OC while others are more best case - especially where AVX is in play..
Click to expand...
I get BSODs pushing to 5.24GHz with the same settings just running Cinebench.

That said, we have used Prime95 as our base bulletproof overclocking test for over a decade. I really do not see changing that now because a CPU has less OC headroom.
 
8C/16T without sacrificing the per core performance of the 8600K.

It seems like the holy grail of CPU's if not for one small detail...

The fact that it only has a gimped number of PCIe lanes (16) takes this from a "must buy immediately" product to a "no interest under any circumstance" product.

I just can't bring myself to buy any CPU/motherboard combo with fewer than 40 lanes. I currently have 40 lanes on my i7-3930k and Asus P9X79 WS, and I actually use most of them.


upload_2018-10-19_13-0-33.png


Slot 1: GPU (16x)
Slot 2: No slot, and covered by GPU
Slot 3: Empty (if populated, slot 1 would drop to 8x)
Slot 4: 10G Base T NIC (4x)
Slot 5: Creative Titanium HD Sound Card (1x)
Slot 6: 1TB Samsung 970 EVO with PCIe Adapter(4x)
Slot 7: 400GB Intel SSD 750 (because it is has a boot ROM) (4x)

Well, I at least I use 29 of them.
 
vegeta535 said:
Same as always been with mainstream Intel system. Ryzen also has 16.
Click to expand...

No. Ryzen also has too few lanes, but they have 50% more of them at 24 lanes.

I understand that mainstream parts have always had fewer PCIe lanes than the -E parts, it is an 8C/16T 5Ghz monster really a mainstream part?

If this CPU were an LGA AS 2066 part with 40+ lanes I'd be in.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
No. Ryzen also has too few lanes, but they have 50% more of them at 24 lanes.

I understand that mainstream parts have always had fewer PCIe lanes than the -E parts, it is an 8C/16T 5Ghz monster really a mainstream part?

If this CPU were an LGA AS 2066 part with 40+ lanes I'd be in.
Click to expand...
OK, we go it, can we talk about what it is, rather than what it is not?
 
Bumping actual vCore to 1.26v and just running Cinebench on a COLD system from idle immediately locks up after about a couple of seconds. Look at where these per core temperatures go to. And this is hardly and AVX workload.

IMG_20181019_123115.jpg
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
8C/16T without sacrificing the per core performance of the 8600K.

It seems like the holy grail of CPU's if not for one small detail...

The fact that it only has a gimped number of PCIe lanes (16) takes this from a "must buy immediately" product to a "no interest under any circumstance" product.

I just can't bring myself to buy any CPU/motherboard combo with fewer than 40 lanes. I currently have 40 lanes on my i7-3930k and Asus P9X79 WS, and I actually use most of them.


Slot 1: GPU (16x)
Slot 2: No slot, and covered by GPU
Slot 3: Empty (if populated, slot 1 would drop to 8x)
Slot 4: 10G Base T NIC (4x)
Slot 5: Creative Titanium HD Sound Card (1x)
Slot 6: 1TB Samsung 970 EVO with PCIe Adapter(4x)
Slot 7: 400GB Intel SSD 750 (because it is has a boot ROM) (4x)

Well, I at least I use 29 of them.
Click to expand...

you get 16x pcie lanes DIRECTLY to the CPU, however the chipset also have other 24x PCIe-Lanes for a total of 40 usable.. this has been this way since skylake IIRC. so you can still have your GPU in fully x16 and drive the other components by the mobo chipset.
 
vegeta535 said:
Performance is not surprising but a 2700 can be had at almost half the cost.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for most folks 2700 or 2700X is a great buy but if you want the absolutely best without going to HEDT territory, then I can see value of a 9900K. That being said, if a person spends 500 bucks, said person might as well consider 1950X.
 
I am thinking that a 9800x would be a better bet than than the 9900k for those that want the best gaming with plenty of threads.

From what we have seen with the 7820x, clocks should be similar now that it is using stim. Also, temps should be lower since it has such a bigger surface area. Finally, price of the CPU and motherboard should be similar considering the cost of the a Z-390 that can handle those clocks. Never mind you also get way more I/O.

Both the 9800x and upcoming 2920x seem like better ways to go.
 
Brahmzy said:
From Tom’s on OCing:
“We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.
Click to expand...

Egads.... 85c under water?

My god... my 9590 runs right at 50c under full load at 5Ghz with a 110i. Yea I know how much slower it is... but cmon Intel. That's got to be like 1000 BTU. You'll heat a room with that, during the winter, with the furnace out.
 
Nightfire said:
I am thinking that a 9800x would be a better bet than than the 9900k for those that want the best gaming with plenty of threads.

From what we have seen with the 7820x, clocks should be similar now that it is using stim. Also, temps should be lower since it has such a bigger surface area. Finally, price of the CPU and motherboard should be similar considering the cost of the a Z-390 that can handle those clocks. Never mind you also get way more I/O.

Both the 9800x and upcoming 2920x seem like better ways to go.
Click to expand...

Maybe that will help with better heat dissipation :D
 
Spirit_Retro said:
Egads.... 85c under water?

My god... my 9590 runs right at 50c under full load at 5Ghz with a 110i. Yea I know how much slower it is... but cmon Intel. That's got to be like 1000 BTU. You'll heat a room with that, during the winter, with the furnace out.
Click to expand...

Intel is going into the HVAC sector. ;)

They're really running the edge here to compete with (and beat!) AMD, I like it. Never a bad thing, competition.

Should be interesting to see what they release as a proper response when they take the time to do it right.
 
Inacurate said:
Intel is going into the HVAC sector. ;)

They're really running the edge here to compete with (and beat!) AMD, I like it. Never a bad thing, competition.

Should be interesting to see what they release as a proper response when they take the time to do it right.
Click to expand...

I like the competition as well. I just took so many shots for going with a 9590 it was time to have a little fun :)
 
Holy crap... Looks like I will have to delid my 9900K even though its soldered and then lap it down .20mm

This is a very good video talking about thermals of the 9900K

Skip to 11:15 .... the most important chart in the video.

 
What we do know is that at a full 16 thread load is that the 9900K shows a ~31% power usage increase compared to the 2700X, which greatly outpaces its performance increases shown in our benchmarks (16% average).
Click to expand...

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooly shit, AMD beating Intel on performance per watt. 37 more watts at full thread load? Shit, the world is over
 
Araxie said:
you get 16x pcie lanes DIRECTLY to the CPU, however the chipset also have other 24x PCIe-Lanes for a total of 40 usable.. this has been this way since skylake IIRC. so you can still have your GPU in fully x16 and drive the other components by the mobo chipset.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 24 lanes that bottleneck into 4.
 
Even If you do want one, it appears as of right now you'll be waiting until December.

Was going to put one together, but Intel made up my mind for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top