add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

I Pre-Ordered the i9-9900k

Xx_Hemi_xX

15 months ago

I have never pre-ordered anything. I decided I would do it this time because I had 600 bucks in a secret PayPal account that was burning a hole in my monitor. Not spending the rent or taking groceries off the table. But I'm having 2nd thoughts of course and thought I'd solicit a few opinions on if I am being a shmuck. Should I cancel the pre-order or succumb to the lemming desire to have the latest but not necessarily greatest CPU. I have a few systems and my 8700k could move down the food chain. I hate having this hardware disease.

Comments

  • 15 months ago
  • 13 points

Cancel. That CPU makes little sense for anything at its price

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Could you tell me why? Just wondering

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Gaming wise given that the i7 8700K is super close to the 8600K adding more cores isn't going to really help gaming performance any so it makes zero sense to get for gaming.For heavily multithreaded stuff you have the option of either getting a 1920X/1950X or going with a 7820X/used Xeon or something similar. Both options have upgrade paths which is very useful when you are using programs that can use a ton of cores. You can go up to 32 cores and 18 cores respectively. Need great multithread performance on a budget? 2700X or 1700.

There really isn't a place for it with it costing so much. Its not a good choice for gaming, not a good choice for heavily multithreaded tasks which leaves it being good for little to nothing. Not sure what Intel was thinking by making it cost so much. If it was at like $350 like what is normal for a non HEDT i7 and made the "i7" 9700K into a i5 9600K they would be very competitive with Ryzen.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Why wouldn't it be good for multithreaded tasks compared to ryzen? They both now have 8 cores to match up.

  • 15 months ago
  • 3 points

It is, the thing is that it costs nearly twice as much as 2700X and therefore is not actually competing with it. Instead it is competing with Threadripper and Intels own Skylake-X

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

DAWs want clock speed and IPC before they want threads.

But to be fair, at that price you should be looking into the 9800X for all the extras you get on X299.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Spot on!

  • 15 months ago
  • 3 points

You should make a question to yourself.

Do you need an i7-8700K processor or similar processor?

Normally for gaming, a 6 core processor would be the most future proof choice, as some games today are already using more than 4 cores.

Now you should consider if you need indeed an 8 core processor for your tasks.

A 8 core processor would be an excellent choice for rendering and streaming for example.

So, do you have the intention to make use of those above tasks?

If not, consider that the i9-9900K will cost near to $600. (that's a bad price even for an 8 core Intel processor but that's the real situation anyway)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1435917-REG/intel_bx80684i99900k_core_i9_9900k_3_6_ghz.html

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117957

The i7-8700K in comparison costs almost $200 less.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07598VZR8/?tag=pcpapi-20

And actually, if you really want to render or even stream, there is a second choice that you may wanna consider...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B428M7F/?tag=pcpapi-20

So now tell me if its worth to pay an arm and a leg, only because Intel wants to keep up the "fight" with the existing 8 core consumer Ryzen processors, with a price that's not even close for being consumer friendly!

If you just play, spend those 200 dollars on a better GPU. That would be a worthwhile investment. :)

my 2¢

  • 15 months ago
  • 6 points

Normally for gaming, a 6 core processor would be the most future proof choice, as some games today are already using more than 4 cores.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but gotta once again point out that you can still run modern games off a modern Pentium and get over 60fps. People keep creeping this number up beyond what is reflected by reality; I suspect by this time next year, people will be saying that you need a 8 core or above to be "future proofed".

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Ha - Ha yes that's true.

It became mostly a myth those days that you need more and more cores for being able to play games decently.

So, no one seems to care about an 4 core processor (with or without Hyper threading) anymore. lol

I just replied to the OP with the condition that he wants to spend a huge amount of money only for a processor.

Some people just have locked their thoughts on a particular processor, and they don't accept anything less than that.

But even that should a have a limit, for being a reasonable solution.

You can spend a huge amount of money on a processor that has a huge amount of cores, only because you can afford it, or just to brag that you own a processor with as many cores as possible.

The real thing is, if you really need that kind of performance.

Because sometimes less, seems to be the better solution, especially for your wallet. lol

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

So, no one seems to care about an 4 core processor (with or without Hyper threading) anymore.

I know I'm late replying to this but as far as core counts go in gaming PCs I see it like this:

Back when sandybridge was released there had already been some 4c/4t and 4c/8t cpus out prior but many people building gaming PCs then on a budget got the i3 CPUs over the i5 or i7. Most games only could scale to 2 cores anyhow so buying an i5 or i7 was to future proof yourself but the i3 was a perfectly capable gaming CPU for its time. Of course game development progress takes time and they want to program their games to be compatible with the largest number of potential customers as possible. Of course they also want to have the ability to add that eye candy to appease people with higher than average systems too.

As time progressed when games like GTA V and other triple A game titles came out they scaled wonderfully with 4 core CPUs. They still played well on a dual core chip but got better performance out of a 4 core CPU. So people who bought the i3 were still able to play all the games rather well but people who spent that extra bit on the i5 or i7 had a better experience later on.

Fast forward to today. Ryzen has been pushing higher cores now for the last year and a half and coffeelake jumped up to 6 cores and now 8 from developers. Steam statistics still shows most people on 4 core CPUs and now has doubled dual cores but 6 cores is under 8% overall. Right now it feels to me the 4 core CPU is in the same position the i3 was in 2012. Some games can use more than 4 cores but many scale best with 4 cores still. Buying that mid range 6 core CPU from either Ryzen or Intel is also like buying an i5 in 2012. Over the next few years I can see more and more games scale best on a 6 core CPU but still be more than playable on a 4 core CPU.

Basically I agree 4 core CPUs are not trash and should not be underestimated for gaming. Though going for a 6 core CPU now is for more future proofing in games. I don't really see games changing to scale with as many cores someone has due to how game engines need to be programmed and how it would effect low core count systems. Game developers want a larger customer base rather than crippling it by setting the bar too high for only a small portion of the possible market.

I would not recommend 8 or more cores to someone unless they had a workload that could actually flex that power already, not just "what ifs down the road" when thinking of usage changes.

So after reading how I look at it how much of this do you agree/disagree with?

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, i agree with your above statement, and thanks for sharing your precious knowledge with us!

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Its all about the benchmarks. Hell I don't do much gaming anymore. Not until something worth while comes out. I like building them and then stressing them. OCD for the OC I guess. There are worse habits lol.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes, and it gets worse if you wanna build your first gaming computer, and you saved a lot of money only because of this.

Even the alphanumeric scheme from those new Intel CPUs is very tempting.

Because to be honest, an i9-9900K sounds much better than a i7-8700K. lol

Of course on such a situation, you have two more options.

The first one would be, to get an Ryzen 2700X processor for getting an 8 core processor that you always dreamed off.

And secondly, if you prefer Intel (as the i9-9900K costs an arm and a leg), you could just settle down for an i7-9700K. That's also an 8 core processor.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Yes its extreme over clocking and I don't have a can of LN2 in my basement but Stepongzi and GN reported the 9900k hit 6.8 Ghz on all cores with more to come. Is that not impressive?

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

I would have spent it on something else if you already have the 8700k. That chip will last another 5 years at least.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Man I'm running a 6700K and I expect that to last another 5 years.

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

The funny thing about the GPU is the 600 bucks was originally going towards a RTX2080ti. But since the pricing is even more ridiculous than the 9900k I figured I choose the lessor of the two evils. Now that I have given it more thought maybe I'll use the cash for a console. : O

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

yeah get a ps4 or something if you have the extra $$$. Spiderman is cash B. It's actually so worth it if you're into yeeting around new york.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Depends. 0:

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

oh lord, please cancel. There's massive instability in the industry and the one thing you don't preorder is something that has a testing embargo UNTIL it's released world wide.

If you don't believe me just go watch gamer nexus deconstruct why it's a bad idea and how they're lying about benchmarks. Don't trust them. Also Ryzen is set to release its new 7nm architecture next year (probably april) while Intel is still on 14nm... Please just wait.

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

haha I posted a link to GN's video

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Prediction:

Xx_Hemi_xX's 9900K is going to come in, and be a golden chip that overclocks to 5.6GHZ with ease.

Worth it. ;)

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Just don't, don't waste that money. You have an 8700k, that will last another few years, and the 9900k is just useless and when benchmarked literally has the same numbers as the 8700k. Its a waste, spend it on something else.

  • 15 months ago
  • 3 points

The benchmarks were fudged. It might even have worse benchmarks or something like 1% bonus. Not worth it.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

But the 2 extra cores and all those glorious threads and look at all the 9's in the name I9-9900k it's beautiful. And don't forget the big *** box you get. Not as big as AMD's but still, its a big *** box.

  • 15 months ago
  • 3 points

LOL, common who cares about the Box. :-P

As far as i Intel know, i wouldn't be surprised if they are charging quite a bit for that Box!

[comment deleted]
  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Wow! It gets even better.

But i think, you should place the Box over your Case for getting that advantage, if you have read the manual.

The Box transmits sort kind of waves, that stimulates the core of the CPU (but it works on one single core only) and thus you are getting an extra 1 GHz of speed.

Not bad Intel, not bad...

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

I believe if you wear a foil cone shaped hat you will get the full effect.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh! i didn't know that.

Thanks for the info!

Now, i may even consider to get that i9-9900K processor from Intel. :-P

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

I ordered it because it seemed to have the same performance as an 8086, but it was soldered and had two extra cores for 40 bucks less. I hope I can justify it... after all I am upgrading to a 1440p 144hz system from my old 1080 60 setup with an i5 and 1060 3gb.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

I ordered it because it seemed to have the same performance as an 8086, but it was soldered and had two extra cores for 40 bucks less.

The i7-8086K is over $100 cheaper than the i9-9900K, at least in the US.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Not from what I say, at least. The 8086 was priced at 440 on newegg, and the 9700k was 400 on BH

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

OP is talking about the i9-9900K, which is $580.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Ooohhhhhh you were talking about the i9. My bad.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Well I think that newegg charging an extra $50 over the other retails deserves a cancel, provided that you preordered from the Egg. To me, newegg charging %50 for the 9900k right off the bat was a slap in the face. The price I had in my head was $480 to $530 to make the i9-9900k worth my while, which is in the range of what B&H and amazon originally charged for the 9900k. So I could see keeping it if you're going to overclock it and you only paid what amazon ($499) and B&H ($529) originally charged for this CPU.

I don't expect it to be any better than the 8086k in games and if it does overclock better then it would be by 100mhz. IMO, I don't think there's any shame in preordering the 9900k but only because it's reasonably easy to make a guess as to how it will perform. It's not like the RTX 2080ti that should have been 50%-60% faster than the GTX 1080ti for the price that was charged for it. Preordering the 2080ti was a little bit different because no one really knew how it would perform. About the most you could hope for with the 9900k is a Golden Sample/Silicon Lottery winning chip being able to hit 5.5ghz.

Personally I think Intel choose to go with the Solder because the 9900k would have got too hot with the TIM. I don't think Intel did this to be good to their customers. The box makes me mad, I don't like it. The 2 extra cores are great and it would be cool to take all 8 cores to 5.3ghz if possible but that would be for the sport of overclocking.

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Its been shown already with extreme overclocking to run at 6.8 GHz.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

I mean, the 8700K and 8086K have both broken 7GHz by a fair margin. Extreme overclocking doesn't really matter for any practical purpose, besides eliciting a "cool" response as you browse tech news. lol

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

It was a video lol, I didn't know they had gotten that far with the 8700k. More **** to read great!!

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

But that's with extreme voltage.

What can it do at 1.35v with decent cooling? I'm thinking of the 24/7 number which it can run at for years.

Most people can get one of these 8th Gen chips up to at least 5ghz while using the AVX offset. My 8600k which is an average chip can do 5ghz at 1.32v while using AVX offset -2. Then my daughter's build has an 8700k, which I preordered, that can do 5.2ghz at 1.3v offset -2 but it get too hot so I had to scale it back to 5.1ghz. If the average 9900k could do 5.3ghz then that would be cool. The solder would help and it would be interesting to see if it could obtain 5.5ghz to 5.6ghz with 2 cores disabled.

The only thing I'm really waiting to see if those rumors about the 9700k being able to hit 5.5ghz are true.

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Did you delid to achieve those overclocks? What kind of cooling are you using? Just curious =)

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

No delid on either CPU. I have the Rockit88 kit and the Conductonaut to do so but I just haven't got to those yet. I did delid a 6700k and a 3770k that I bought used. The results for the 6700k were stellar with a 30c drop at 4.7ghz but the 3770k was in the 10c-12c range at 4.5ghz. For some reason I just haven't touched the Coffee Lake processors yet.

With the 8600k I'm using an old H100 w/ the Corsair ML120 fans. 5.0ghz with non-AVX workloads and 4.8ghz with AVX workloads. At first I manually ramped the voltage up to 1.3v but according to CPU-Z and HWMonitor I'm at 1.32v-1.33v when I'm running a stress test like Prime95 Blend. Eventually I matched it with offset voltage at .025v. Temps have hit 89c when I stress test and that's usually when the wattage is very high. The board is the Asus Prime Z370-A. LLC-6, 130% CPU current capability. The memory was clocked to 2400mhz and I did not touch the VCCIO or VCCSA voltages.

With the 8700k I first used a custom loop (Triple HWLabs Radiator 360mmx60mm and a Supremacy EVO block) and even then the temps would hit as high as 96c when running Prime95, at 5.2.ghz non-AVX and 5.0ghz AVX. Chiefly I tested the CPU at AVX workloads using Prime95, but then I tested the non-AVX workloads. In the BIOS I set the VCore to 1.29v but I would show up at a higher number in CPU-Z/HWMonitor. CPU current capability at 140%, LLC-5. The thing was I was able to get it to pass Prime95 26.6 and the newer version while enabling XMP 3200mhz cl16, but I had to give the VCCIO and VCCSA a slight increase.

With the 8700k I ended up putting giving that to my daughter. Right now it's paired with an EVGA CLC140 and at 5.1ghz (non-AVX) it will hit maybe 92c while running a stress test.

What I found to be frustrating with this is the custom loop really didn't perform all too well. I originally built it to overclock a 2600k that was a good overclocker and with a good overclock at 4.9ghz the custom loop was 12c-15c better than a very large twin tower cooler like the IFX-14 with a triple fan setup.

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Wow, Great write up, thanks!

  • 15 months ago
  • 1 point

Not exactly pertaining to your question, but did you see on Gamer's Nexus where they took the 9900K to 6.0 GHz on LN2. They were talking about them having had taken to 6.8 GHz previously. Makes me wonder if one could make a miniaturized LN2 evaporation system that was able to increase potential clock rates by taking temps to extreme lows. Seems like most of what I see are people pouring LN2 directly on it from time to time with no real control method.

  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

Are you talking about someone producing a mass-market LN2-based cooling system? Seems volatile.

EDIT also I haven't looked no, but Hemi mentioned the chip was taken to 6.8GHz already.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 15 months ago
  • -2 points

The benchmarks are likely AMD's own fault in a way.

Conclusion #1: Dual rank DIMMs (yellow) offered the best performance amongst “set and forget” (light blue, orange, yellow) memory configured automatically by XMP profiles.

Conclusion #1a: But the increased overclocking headroom of single rank modules was more than enough to overpower the benefits of rank interleaving, so manually-tuned single rank DDR4-3200 and 3466 won the day (dark blue and green).

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/07/14/memory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings

Very few users ever bother to go in and manually handle timings and overclocking for RAM, they set a preset profile and let it run. Which is what the company running the benchmarks did, the looser timings applied on dual rank DIMMs are a platform problem across AMDs entire line-up which was omitted in the above breakdown which ran both single and dual ranked DIMMs at CL14.

  • 15 months ago
  • -1 points

And doesn't disprove my point above.

Very few users ever bother to go in and manually handle timings and overclocking for RAM, they set a preset profile and let it run. Which is what the company running the benchmarks did, the looser timings applied on dual rank DIMMs are a platform problem across AMDs entire line-up which was omitted in the above breakdown which ran both single and dual ranked DIMMs at CL14.

They likely did look up RAM scaling with Ryzen and worked off of the above Blog post but overlooked a single crucial aspect.

The problem for what they did is in that blog they use the same timings for both single and double ranked kits and draw the conclusions off of that data.

The problem is in reality not a lab many AM4 platforms when running double ranked kits at higher speeds will loosen timings in order to lower stress on the memory controller which isn't mentioned in the above article or anywhere for that matter unless you start digging into RAM timings with a double ranked kit.

There is good reasons many say stay away from double ranked kits with Ryzen and it isn't to do with performance, which as the Blog shows is better then single ranked if you can achieve the same timings, it is that all too many motherboards will ruin the performance by auto assigning poor timings and killing performance.

It shows the group doing the testing has no clue about how to set up a Ryzen system, but flip side of that is it also highlighted several aspects of the platform which are likely in use on many Ryzen systems, Game Mode for example, set and forget XMP profile, improper RAM selection.

And you can even find AMD references to back up those bad choices for a system.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 15 months ago
  • 2 points

It's no more garbage then insisting that the AM4 platform in the tests get special consideration that the other three platforms did not get.

Nobody is up in arms over the X399 being run the same way.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube