I9 9900k Official Reviews from Anandtech, Tomshardware. Add your own links to others !

[Bouowmx]

Has any other reviewer replicated AnandTech's ~1.3 V, 5.3 GHz overclock?
Seems like the 'average' target is 5.1/5.2 GHz.

 

[Malogeek]

Really interesting video from der8auer on why 9900k seems to be quite hot.

• sTIM is quite thick and delidding then applying 3rd party solder resulted in better thermals
• 9600k is a 9900k with disabled cores
• CPU die is twice as thick as 8700k and grinding down 1/4 of the die gave even better thermals

 

[Hitman928]

Techpowerups sample apparently not maintaining full turbo boost on all cores. Not sure if it's an AVX load or not as they don't specify.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/17.html

 

[tamz_msc]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the 9700K, especially in Anandtech's system suite where the 9900K seems to take a hit due to HT. It seems to be a very capable at overclocking - which I expected given Silicon Lottery's recently released historical binning statistics.

One thing though, why does Silicon Lottery list the voltages much higher than what AT got with their 9700K overclock? Are they measuring different things or did the process node improve that much in a year? Maybe @The Stilt can provide more details.

 

[deathBOB]

Has any other reviewer replicated AnandTech's ~1.3 V, 5.3 GHz overclock?
Seems like the 'average' target is 5.1/5.2 GHz.

That was the 9700k.

The 9900k is never going to hit the power and temperature numbers being thrown around while gaming, so the load testing being done is useless to me.

 

[The Stilt]

Techpowerups sample apparently not maintaining full turbo boost on all cores. Not sure if it's an AVX load or not as they don't specify.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/17.html

Probably hitting IccMax (current limit).
Can be easily maxed out before hitting the "stock" PL2 limit of 210W.

 

[LTC8K6]

Probably hitting IccMax (current limit).
Can be easily maxed out before hitting the "stock" PL2 limit of 210W.

Wasn't it supposed to do 5.0 on two cores, though?

 

[Jimzz]

Wasn't it supposed to do 5.0 on two cores, though?

Yea Intel says 5Ghz on 2? Even toms reports thats the reported specs from Intel.
From the above chart its not even hitting the 4.8 numbers either. Maybe a cooling/throttling issue?

Core i9-9900K (GHz)

Base 3.6
1 Core 5.0
2 Cores 5.0
3 Cores 4.8
4 Cores 4.8
5 Cores 4.7
6 Cores 4.7
7 Cores 4.7
8 Cores 4.7

 

[LTC8K6]

Yea Intel says 5Ghz on 2? Even toms reports thats the reported specs from Intel.

Core i9-9900K (GHz)

Base 3.6
1 Core 5.0
2 Cores 5.0
3 Cores 4.8
4 Cores 4.8
5 Cores 4.7
6 Cores 4.7
7 Cores 4.7
8 Cores 4.7

Yeah, 4.7 max on two cores is not even close...

 

[inf64]

The 9900K is kinda pushover/pointless chip. It is way to expensive for the segment it's in and it is too damn hot (don't care for reasons, it's intel's decision to launch this product, they should have known better).

This image from THG sums it up perfectly:

On average you get 11% faster FPS in games Vs 2700X @ 4.2Ghz, while being OCed to max (5Ghz) and pushing thermals to the edge (literal edge). Oh and it costs 584 USD on newegg while 2700X costs 304 USD! You can almost get 2 x 2700x processors for the price of one 9900K. I get it that it's halo product and top of the range performance wise but the perf./dollar and perf./watt/dollar difference is insane.

The same goes when you compare it to 8700K, it gets even worse as this chip is even closer to 9900K in gaming while it can clock in the same range and costs 200 USD less! It's madness... 9700K is just a tad pricier than 8700K and it performs more or less the same. 9600K is having the best price/perf. ratio of all these chips but it is again hindered in some way to make it slower than 8700K (it lacks SMT and so it's not as future proof as ie. much cheaper 2600X).

 

[DrMrLordX]

So going back to AT's review: has anyone examined the power/threading graphic? At a thread count of 12, the 9900k consumed "only" 153W, but jack it up to 16t and it's the full 221W. What is up with that? Add +33% threads and pull +44% power?

 

[Zucker2k]

So, Intel raised the performance bar again, but that was to be expected. I'm especially happy to see they didn't trip a breaker while achieving it. The icing on the cake is actually seeing the 9900k @4.7Ghz drawing essentially the same power as the 2700x @4.2Ghz. I got into trouble for pointing out how inefficient the 2700x is when it launched so I feel vindicated about that. Overall, great job by Intel. Personally, I would've loved to see the 9900k at $399, but hey, it's Intel. Top of the line performance doesn't come cheap after all.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 9900K is kinda pushover/pointless chip. It is way to expensive for the segment it's in and it is too damn hot (don't care for reasons, it's intel's decision to launch this product, they should have known better).

This image from THG sums it up perfectly:

On average you get 11% faster FPS in games Vs 2700X @ 4.2Ghz, while being OCed to max (5Ghz) and pushing thermals to the edge (literal edge). Oh and it costs 584 USD on newegg while 2700X costs 304 USD! You can almost get 2 x 2700x processors for the price of one 9900K. I get it that it's halo product and top of the range performance wise but the perf./dollar and perf./watt/dollar difference is insane.

The same goes when you compare it to 8700K, it gets even worse as this chip is even closer to 9900K in gaming while it can clock in the same range and costs 200 USD less! It's madness... 9700K is just a tad pricier than 8700K and it performs more or less the same. 9600K is having the best price/perf. ratio of all these chips but it is again hindered in some way to make it slower than 8700K (it lacks SMT and so it's not as future proof as ie. much cheaper 2600X).

I5-8400 looks like a very good buy in that bunch at $199 and 65W. It's still hanging right in there with the big boys.

 

[RichUK]

So much for the solder - toasty chips.

 

[LTC8K6]

So much for the solder - toasty chips.

Weird huh?

Insult Intel, and beg and yell and scream at Intel for solder...for years...

Probably would have been just as well off with the toothpaste...

 

[Bouowmx]

The next logical step is demanding for direct die/no IHS.

 

[rainy]

The icing on the cake is actually seeing the 9900k @4.7Ghz drawing essentially the same power as the 2700x @4.2Ghz. I got into trouble for pointing out how inefficient the 2700x is when it launched so I feel vindicated about that.

I must admit, that you're pretty good at saying BS: 2700x is not inefficient, this is just weakness of so called 12nm of GF, which show their limits above 4 GHz clocks.

Btw, maybe you should comment that:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

 

[virpz]

What cooling solution did anandtech used for the 9900K ? Thermalright Truecopper?

 

[Qwertilot]

CPU die is twice as thick as 8700k and grinding down 1/4 of the die gave even better thermals

I had to watch it just to confirm that was actually what you meant. Goodness, that's a scary thing to do

 

[Malogeek]

I had to watch it just to confirm that was actually what you meant. Goodness, that's a scary thing to do

haha yeah, it's crazy. Don't grind down too far!

 

[StinkyPinky]

https://youtu.be/_I--zROoRws?t=822

Check out Hardware Unboxed putting the 9900k into mid range z370 boards. Not good.

The 9900k seems like a panicked release from a company that knows they're in trouble.

 

[jpiniero]

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10...0k-cpu-test/3/#diagramm-performancerating-fps

ComputerBase tested a 9900K with PL2 and PL1 set to 95W? The only notable difference in games was that Far Cry 5 was 8% avg and 6% 99pct faster with no limit. The others were only a couple percent max. Apps were 9% slower.

https://youtu.be/_I--zROoRws?t=822
Check out Hardware Unboxed putting the 9900k into mid range z370 boards. Not good.
The 9900k seems like a panicked release from a company that knows they're in trouble.

That's why I have always said upgrading a CPU with the same board is silly because you will want the board to be designed around it.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The 9900K is kinda pushover/pointless chip. It is way to expensive for the segment it's in and it is too damn hot (don't care for reasons, it's intel's decision to launch this product, they should have known better).

This image from THG sums it up perfectly:

On average you get 11% faster FPS in games Vs 2700X @ 4.2Ghz, while being OCed to max (5Ghz) and pushing thermals to the edge (literal edge). Oh and it costs 584 USD on newegg while 2700X costs 304 USD! You can almost get 2 x 2700x processors for the price of one 9900K. I get it that it's halo product and top of the range performance wise but the perf./dollar and perf./watt/dollar difference is insane.

The same goes when you compare it to 8700K, it gets even worse as this chip is even closer to 9900K in gaming while it can clock in the same range and costs 200 USD less! It's madness... 9700K is just a tad pricier than 8700K and it performs more or less the same. 9600K is having the best price/perf. ratio of all these chips but it is again hindered in some way to make it slower than 8700K (it lacks SMT and so it's not as future proof as ie. much cheaper 2600X).

That is what i expeced for gaming as well.
9900K competing with 8700K and 8086K.
Think of the PT report. Make ryzen 2700x look really bad, so people perhaps would not notice the minute difference between the 9900K and the 8700K or 8086K.
9900k would be overkill for some time to come.
If i would buy Intel, 8700K would be my favorite chip.

 

[krumme]

So, Intel raised the performance bar again, but that was to be expected. I'm especially happy to see they didn't trip a breaker while achieving it. The icing on the cake is actually seeing the 9900k @4.7Ghz drawing essentially the same power as the 2700x @4.2Ghz. I got into trouble for pointing out how inefficient the 2700x is when it launched so I feel vindicated about that. Overall, great job by Intel. Personally, I would've loved to see the 9900k at $399, but hey, it's Intel. Top of the line performance doesn't come cheap after all.

Cue up in line with the others that salute the avx256 performance but gladly omits it when it comes to power.

 

[Malogeek]

The gamers Nexus review focuses on gamer streaming which is really nice on the 9900k understandably.