Intel Core i9 9900K dates leak, surfaces on eBay

LemmingOverlrd

Posts: 86   +40
Highly anticipated: The Core i9 9900K is rapidly reaching 'leaky sieve' status as the worst kept secret in the semiconductor business. However, the anticipation is reaching fever pitch as consumers' expectations to perform are matched only by others' expectations to have it fail against AMD's best.

We've come across some more information that's floating around on the Internet, on Intel's upcoming launch of the eight-core, sixteen-thread Core i9 9900K CPU. After one notorious twitter user published what looked like an internal memo on the availability of Intel's CPU, with a set of presumptive dates for the NDA, review and shipment dates, we went out looking for a bit more and came up with an interesting (albeit, predictable) find.

The leaked memo, if authentic, says the CPU (presumably with other 9th generation CPUs) will be announced on the 8th of October, and Press reviews will break cover on the 19th, the same day the CPUs are put on sale. On the other hand, if you're eager to get your hands on these CPUs, you should know someone has put them on sale on eBay.

It turns out that someone has started taking pre-orders on Intel's Core i9 9900K. This is a fairly common practice when enthusiasts have high expectations on some new piece of tech, and has happened to previous CPUs (including Intel's 8086K) and smartphones (like most iPhones), where a seller has secured access to some stock and is able to sell them on the side. It does seem they had access to some of Intel's marketing materials, beforehand, which makes the ad look a little 'safer' but it can still be a hoax.

The Buy It Now listing, seen below, states the seller is taking pre-orders for Intel's latest and greatest, in both tray and boxed format (with the boxed CPUs coming in a fancy new packaging as revealed by Tom's Hardware), and will deliver from the 18th of October, which matches the leaked memo. The price, however, is a punch to the family jewels: a whopping $1,099.99, considerably more than the $582 from the Amazon leak, but expected as these are listings made by speculators trying to turn a quick profit and aimed at fringe enthusiasts, those who are willing to take risks for Intel's highest tier CPU.

Despite some really strict conditions, some of which might drive off potential buyers, the seller is very unambiguous about what they're selling.

Take it all with a huge grain of salt: this is a no returns, no cancellations (on the buyers' side) deal. This being eBay, either the seller is 100% legit or you'll need to collect on that eBay buyer protection.

It's some scary stuff, considering the amounts involved.

All things considered, the industry is holding its breath to see what Intel can squeeze out of its 14nm++ process, and reviewers to face it off with their resident Threadripper kits.

Permalink to story.

 
Don't see the value at this price. Gamers how need the most frames can buy the 8700K and people who need 8 cores can buy the 2700X for $320, a fraction of the price. >3x the price for ~10% more performance. I'm sure Intel's pricing will be lower then this.
 
I'm pretty sure everyone without bias wants Intel to flop for a change. AMD have seriously shaken things up and nobody in their right mind can think that's a bad thing.
When companies compete the cunsumer wins. I thought that was common knowledge but when you hear a news report regarding the FCC you know there are still some morons out there.
 
Don't see the value at this price. Gamers how need the most frames can buy the 8700K and people who need 8 cores can buy the 2700X for $320, a fraction of the price. >3x the price for ~10% more performance. I'm sure Intel's pricing will be lower then this.
I don't understand your sentiment. You're saying you don't think this will outperform the 8700k in games?

Surely there's a whole market for people that would be interested in BOTH gaming performance AND multithreaded performance?

I'll be getting one because it's a drop in upgrade from my 8700k and should offer more performance. I'm sure lots of people are in the same position.
 
I'm pretty sure everyone without bias wants Intel to flop for a change. AMD have seriously shaken things up and nobody in their right mind can think that's a bad thing.
When companies compete the cunsumer wins. I thought that was common knowledge but when you hear a news report regarding the FCC you know there are still some morons out there.

I don't see how wanting them to flop is good, or that is shows a lack of bias. I want both intel and AMD to put out the best possible products they can so they can compete with each other. I don't want either to flop.
 
I don't see how wanting them to flop is good, or that is shows a lack of bias. I want both intel and AMD to put out the best possible products they can so they can compete with each other. I don't want either to flop.

Well it's always nice when the arrogant top dog is dropped down a peg or two.
See Microsoft E3 2013 and how much things have changed and features we've gained as they've tried desperately to get back some of the marketshare and trust lost. Even the recent groundbreaking PS4/XBOX crossplay can traced back to that fateful moment.
 
Anybody aware of how Intel's CPUs have performed recently are aware that the 9900K will come out on top in most measures over the 2700X, but at a considerable price premium. Just compare the 2600x to the 8700K and the 2700X vs. 9900K will be pretty similar. Once again Intel will have the small but useful performance edge and AMD will have the considerable price/performance edge.
 
Don't see the value at this price. Gamers how need the most frames can buy the 8700K and people who need 8 cores can buy the 2700X for $320, a fraction of the price. >3x the price for ~10% more performance. I'm sure Intel's pricing will be lower then this.
I don't understand your sentiment. You're saying you don't think this will outperform the 8700k in games?

Surely there's a whole market for people that would be interested in BOTH gaming performance AND multithreaded performance?

I'll be getting one because it's a drop in upgrade from my 8700k and should offer more performance. I'm sure lots of people are in the same position.

The people interested in gaming and multi-threaded should be invested in AMD's platform. This CPU is only catching up to AMD in core count and will fall behind again when AMD releases Zen 2. If you were really interested in Multi-thread and gaming performance, you would have bought Ryzen+ which provided both far before this processor was rumored and at a fraction of the cost.

Let's be honest at this point, the only reason you are buying the Intel processor is for single IPC bragging rights. Otherwise there is no reason to leave your wallet so light for an increase in FPS that isn't even visible on a 144 Hz gaming monitor.
 
Breaking the barrier unleashing the power of CPU. My CPU choices are neutral when it comes to build quality speed has always been it for me.. OC on CPU or APU pushing it to the max. I like the AMD line 32-cores sounds great, but I want a MOBO that can take it on dish it out in extreme pipeline.. There shouldn't be any bottlenecks. Now looking at these newer CPU from both Intel and AMD the cost of these systems are a lot higher than a early 90s system were 4K now these system are almost at that mark.

Announcing 1024-bit
10 GHZ CPU `128 Cores / 256 Threads L1 128G, L2 128 GB L3 256 GB
RAM DDR 10 2TB

I see some mention to why we don't have 10GHz still toying with the idea of 3.9GHz , 4GHz and 5GHz. If the head is the issue then build about the idea to come up with a better cooling system. FANS, liquid cooling or introduce some sort of Freon process. There was a guy on youtube once had pushed the CPU with freon or liquid nitrogen at the time. We should be at 10 GHZ stage it's 2018. Max this system I have can do it 3.9 GHz even with all the RAM I have on this 32 GB Windows 10 is only using 2.5 GB. Turn off VRM (aka swap file) system streams away.. But the way OS requires and memory hold and lock still uses a VRM file.

Anyway that's my two cents on this subject. I hold out until current systems start fall apart.. Like the quote from Star Trek She'll fall apart Captain let her fall about! I keep my systems running at peak and keeping them so..
 
The "dodecahedron"(?) design of the package, to me at least, looks for all the world like the floaty thing in the old time, "Magic Eight Ball".

magic-8-ball.png


Well sort of anyway. With only triangular sides,I guess the 8 Ball didn't have as many cores, and certainly not as many threads.

But then again, Intel's packaging looks a lot nicer than that AMD "eyeball" sh!t. :rolleyes:

(I guess that remark will start a war) Sic:. AMD's box is BETTER...., :mad: YER BLIND, INTEL's box is way more BETTER.....:p
 
Last edited:
...Announcing 1024-bit
10 GHZ CPU `128 Cores / 256 Threads L1 128G, L2 128 GB L3 256 GB
RAM DDR 10 2TB...

This reminds me the TV series Town Called Eureka where the guy had a 1 ZetaHZ CPU in his LAPTOP (probably we will have quantum PCs earlier available for average customer than 1 ZetaHZ cpu) :D
But in the future I can imagine that we have more than 2 threads for one core like 3-4 who knows.

Intel will be more expensive even with the small 5-10% performance difference in games.
At some point comparing 90 to 100 is pointless (at 60hz) unless you have higher refresh rate monitor like 120/144hz or having more pixels but depends on the GPU, too. IMHO
 
Beast? It can't manage 4K 60fps in any benchmarks and isn't that much faster that the 1080Ti. 20xx is a joke. Raytracing should have been released on separate card if there's nothing else they can add.
It’s still an upgrade for me going from a 1080
 
Sure it will outperform the 8700K, but I won't bet it will be more than 10% in most cases.
I've see somewhere it will cost $523, but still a lot more than AMD offerings.

I'm sure by now only enthusiasts with no budget constrains would be jumping from Intel generation to next generation... Anyone who is in gaming that is with a 7th generation hardware have no plausible gains to get to 8th/9th generation.

Still, from a build from scratch point of view, AMD would still be king in cost vs benefit scenario.

Intel can be performance king, but it's price prohibitive.
 
I'll be replacing my 8700K with the 9900K and passing down my 8700K to my HTPC build. My 8700K is currently in my gaming only machine.
 
Beast? It can't manage 4K 60fps in any benchmarks and isn't that much faster that the 1080Ti. 20xx is a joke. Raytracing should have been released on separate card if there's nothing else they can add.

Well, if it isn't a joke price to performance now just wait till the 25% tariff kicks in. Not only will the price for Americans raise but the companies moving product to Taiwan and other places will pass those moving costs onto all their consumers. Just saying $1,500 USD after the tariff for the 2080 Ti.
 
Sure it will outperform the 8700K, but I won't bet it will be more than 10% in most cases.
I've see somewhere it will cost $523, but still a lot more than AMD offerings.

I'm sure by now only enthusiasts with no budget constrains would be jumping from Intel generation to next generation... Anyone who is in gaming that is with a 7th generation hardware have no plausible gains to get to 8th/9th generation.

Still, from a build from scratch point of view, AMD would still be king in cost vs benefit scenario.

Intel can be performance king, but it's price prohibitive.

You'd be lucky to get 3% extra gaming performance over the 8700K. If you are shooting for gaming it would be better to simply buy a binned 8700K that can do 5.3 GHz.

I'll be replacing my 8700K with the 9900K and passing down my 8700K to my HTPC build. My 8700K is currently in my gaming only machine.

That's a beast of a HTPC
 
Don't see the value at this price. Gamers how need the most frames can buy the 8700K and people who need 8 cores can buy the 2700X for $320, a fraction of the price. >3x the price for ~10% more performance. I'm sure Intel's pricing will be lower then this.
I don't understand your sentiment. You're saying you don't think this will outperform the 8700k in games?

Surely there's a whole market for people that would be interested in BOTH gaming performance AND multithreaded performance?

I'll be getting one because it's a drop in upgrade from my 8700k and should offer more performance. I'm sure lots of people are in the same position.

The people interested in gaming and multi-threaded should be invested in AMD's platform. This CPU is only catching up to AMD in core count and will fall behind again when AMD releases Zen 2. If you were really interested in Multi-thread and gaming performance, you would have bought Ryzen+ which provided both far before this processor was rumored and at a fraction of the cost.

Let's be honest at this point, the only reason you are buying the Intel processor is for single IPC bragging rights. Otherwise there is no reason to leave your wallet so light for an increase in FPS that isn't even visible on a 144 Hz gaming monitor.

I'm picking up a 4k 144h gaming monitor and will be getting a 9900k specifically because it seems like the best option to get those extra frames.


even my current 1440p144 monitor feels like it could benefit from more CPU power.
 
I'm picking up a 4k 144h gaming monitor and will be getting a 9900k specifically because it seems like the best option to get those extra frames.


even my current 1440p144 monitor feels like it could benefit from more CPU power.

"feels like" isn't a very objective standard. Benchmarks clearly show that both the 8700K and 2700X are more then enough for 4K. In fact you could buy a midrange CPU and be completely fine at 4K because the bottleneck is heavily on the GPU at that point. Getting a 9900K for 4K is a prime example of "e-peen", in that CPUs less then half the price will net you the same results. Just for reference, the 8700K is within margin of error of the 2700X at 4K.

Throwing a more expensive CPU like the 9900K at a GPU bottleneck make zero sense.
 
Beast? It can't manage 4K 60fps in any benchmarks and isn't that much faster that the 1080Ti. 20xx is a joke. Raytracing should have been released on separate card if there's nothing else they can add.

Nice trolling here, grade A.
 
Back