Do we need to re-review the Core i9-9900K?

[Sausagemeat]

Comparisons to the FX9590 are laughable. Both chips run hot and clock high whilst drawing a lot of power. The similarities end there, the 9900K comes in as the worlds fastest consumer grade CPU at a cheaper price than the FX9590 came in it and was an i5 contender at best and even was shown up by the at the time current gen dual core i3 in some tests. The FX9590 was also notorious for burning out even certified compatible motherboards.

I also find it amusing how people criticise Intel for using the same architecture. Despite the fact that their architecture is objective provably superior to that of Ryzens. Compared core for core and clock for clock Intel scoop almost every test including power consumption as demonstrated on this site;

https://www.techspot.com/amp/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/page4.html

Intel’s problem is that they charge heinously for their cores. Or rather it’s our problem as Intel seem to have no problems shifting their products at these prices. Giving them zero reason to cut their prices. AMD only cut prices because they are trying to generate sales. You have to be awfully naive to believe they would cut prices if they had strong sales and market dominance.

 

[Philip T]

No, you shouldn't retest using the TDP limit. This CPU is targeted at high end systems. I would expect most systems running a 9900K to either use a high end air cooling system or water cooling. Setups like this should be able to handle far beyond a 95W TDP. Unless your system was unstable, why would you artificially limit performance? I think the MBP performance issues adequately show that a poorly cooled system will throttle itself. I would hope your testing on all processors, would show what a good system builder can get when optimizing settings and using good hardware. I'd even go as far as saying you are doing a disservice if you don't show the highest stable settings on an unlocked CPU. I hope nobody leaves an unlocked CPU running stock (if it can go higher) without good reason.

 

[Eldritch]

In my opinion I-9 9900k is meant more for retention of title of fastest processor and not really for consumers at large. Its very poor availability and very high temperatures clealry point to this fact.
TDP suppression is a fair point and it is done most likely to show the 'efficiency' of their chip but the more shocking thing for me is how hot these processors run. Youtubers and techsites are gleefully doing overclocks by utilizing extremely costly and convoluted custom liquid coolings and even outright immering it in liquids. These are not feasible or desirable for even most hardcore gamers. The CPU can be overclocked but due to its high temp the overclocks are being done by ridiculos methods and CPUs who normally and consistently reach 90°c are just utter garbage in my opinion.

 

[paul s2]

It matters that intel doesnt stay in spec and it needs to be listed as so.
bench in spec and out of spec. but needing 50% more power to get 11% gains is not worthwhile.
not all whom own a k series overclock. I own a 4770k and dont over clock cause I see no need to yet. they just need to tell the truth. teh amd 2600 looks like a great chip and the X variants look better as higher sku's for more dollars. IMO test at 95W so you have a baseline without overclocking. and then test out of power spec.
you would be upset if you bought a new car and the speedo was 11% off and burned 50% more fuel then expected.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I just want all motherboards to perform the same on auto. And if they go beyond spec, then I want it clearly stated on the box/in the product description.

The 9900K could easily be hot because Intel added two cores to a chip on a manufacturing process that was supposed to be replaced by 10nm chips by now. I'm not ready to go head hunting just yet.

PS, lol@at the couple comments above accusing Intel of doing what AMD has already done!

ie: "Intel creating their own FX 9590, and Intel releasing chips with questionable overclocking headroom. Aye yi yi....

 

[Stryc]

YES!!! NO ONE has done a 9900k 4k CPU scaling test on 2080 TIs in NVlink! Are the 2080 TIs in NVlink finally powerful enough to show CPU scaling between the 9900k, 8700k, an AMD? We need this review.

 

[Tonkan]

Good point further investigation is important as ita unfair to amd that making big sale by abusing tdp limit. Mothboard should enforce this. I think amd should know about this article. High end cooler and tdp and clock frequency save their ***. Amd zen 2 has real ipc improvements of over 20 percents. Above 1080 intel 9900k was bottlenecks. They should get lawsuit deception customers and their fans

 

[Knot Schure]

Intel hasn't done anything to improve their architecture in years...they are basically factory overclocking their CPUs to keep pace with AMD...This dumpster fire CPU is literally two 7700k CPUs slapped together...and the power consumption shows it...if you test it with the intended TDP, AMD 2700x is hands down the better CPU.

You can say that if you like, but my mother's 8th Gen Intel machine feels snappier than my 4th Gen Haswell...

 

[Knot Schure]

This is intel version of FX 9590

Except this is very fast and good

Quoted TDP is a bunch of nonsense and has been for years with most high end consumer desktop parts.

If you're buying a platform and CPU for servers you better take careful note of true performance per watt but if you're buying high end for consumers then really, who cares.

The 9900k when overclocked reaches 80-90c even with a custom loop water cooling setup...it's a garbage slap job of a CPU that Intel put out to screw their customers.

That must be some garbage water-loop you saw there....

My E5-2690 v4 (14c/28t) can run with all 28 Threads maxed-out for WEEKS on end (compute stuff), and never hit more than 42c. That is on a 480mm all copper radiator.

So when I see reviews now, that show CPUs, on water, hitting high temps, I shake my head and think 'you are not doing it right'.

 

[GreenNova343]

If you're buying a "K" series CPU, you bought it to overclock. If you're overclocking, you don't care about TPD. DUH!

Not really true. You care about TDP for a couple of reasons:

1) If you don't have a good estimate of your TDP, then you can't plan on how large of a PSU to buy...unless you just decide to keep throwing money away & buy a monster 1500W PSU "just in case".

2) You will especially care about TDP if you bought a "discount" overclocking board that has low-grade VRMs & keeps throttling your CPU.

3) The more TDP your system has, the more aggressive your cooling system has to be. Picking a low-end closed-loop, or even worse picking a low- to mid-range air cooler, you'll quickly find yourself either OCd much lower than you'd hoped to achieve, or you'll see your system constantly throttling down just to handle the heat.

#3 is the real kicker here. As has been pointed out, the 9900K already runs hotter even without attempting to OC it... and liquid nitrogen cooling is (& almost certainly will remain so for decades to come) a proof-of-concept method that has little to no real-world application.

 

[Philip T]

You guys misunderstand why a company provides a TDP number. Think of TDP as "You must be this tall to ride". TDP says to get the performance listed you need to provide x watts of cooling. Read the wikipedia page on TDP. After you do, answer me this. What doesn't Intel put in the box with a 9900K? A cooling system! They make you buy one. I appreciate that. If I just spent $500+ on a cpu, I don't want a stock cooler that I won't use. If you want to see how slow you can run a 9900K, why not passive cooling or no cooler at all. Is that useful? No, and neither is benchmarking at 95W TDP, because a typical system builder isn't going to build a system with a 95W TDP. http://www.coolermaster.com/tdp-and-socket-compatibility/

 

[Aux101]

I would like to see the 95-watt limited results with according temps.

 

[Julio Franco]

Update: We have re-reviewed the i9-9900K.

 

[Aux101]

Update: We have re-reviewed the i9-9900K.

Oups! Thanks for the input!