Intel Core i9-9900K Re-Review: Performance unleashed, but also leashed

Interesting article Steve, though could you please restore the idle power charts in all your CPU reviews? After including them as standard for years, for some reason you stopped using them from around April this year, ie, you included them on 2200G / i3-8100 review but not 2700X / i7-8700K reviews onwards despite the fact actual power draw vs claimed rating disparities become more exaggerated the more cores you add?

Eg, "95w" i7-8700K = 214w load - 68w idle = 146w load vs and "105w" R7 2700X = 209w load - approx 65w idle = 144w load, whilst both R3 2200G and i3-8100 65w are actual "for real" 65w class chips. Having comparible idle power and delta's in one place just makes things a lot easier than trying to pull them "piecemeal" from 5 different year old reviews then "guestimating" the missing ones. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs
So, they are cheating to be able to beat AMD, Ryzen has done more than we even though to Intel, they freaked out and fired the CEO and are making rushed 48 cores announcement one day before. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs and HardReset
ShObiT said:
So, they are cheating to be able to beat AMD, Ryzen has done more than we even though to Intel, they freaked out and fired the CEO and are making rushed 48 cores announcement one day before. lol
Click to expand...


Cheating? Nah they can beat AMD at 95w just not by a huge margin. The only thing that hurts is the price. If they were at the same price level the 9900K would be the default pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hahahanoobs and Sausagemeat
Pointless re-review if you ask me. 9900K buyers aren’t likely to be interested in TDP. Those people are interested in just how much they can squeeze out of the product. Buyers aren’t interested in value for money either. This is a true enthusiast part that is worth many times that of a 2700X if you’re the sort of person who wants to push the limits. A 2700X by comparison is a fit and forget part and great for those what want performance but don’t care to tinker.

I’d pick the 9900K over anything else out there every single day of the week. And I don’t think it’s too bad a price, it’s no where near as expensive as the currently sold out 2080ti which should shed some light onto how many people there are out there who are happy to pay for the best.

Also to everyone hurling abuse at Intel for their pricing, Intel should not be criticised for selling at high prices, if they sell their parts then those prices are justified. these are absolute luxury parts and no one is entitled to them. Intels pricing is your problem and not theirs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jonny93
@Steven Walton - Great re-review Steve.

Average of 10+% reduction means the 9900K is JUST faster across all workloads and SLOWER in some at default; for £300+ more ( £692 on Amazon UK !!! ) than the 2700X ( £289 on sale currently ).

Why, would you or anyone buy this? Seems like a mugs game Intel are playing with their customers.
Please keep up these excellent articles Steve, and include a disclaimer at the start of each review when O-O-B setup is used, as by default this is overclocking and not to spec.

Thanks dude :) excellent read!
 
ShObiT said:
Yeah, and charge $500 for 10% more performance over a $225 AMD CPU. I like your Fanboy Bias
Click to expand...

Wait what? I said if the pricing would be the same for both camps... and your argument is .... this? Lol, nice one, do you even bother reading the whole comment?
 
I see whats happening now. So intel lists specs that motherboard makers dont follow. I see it as a deliberate 'oops, our bad' on both parts because intel tested internally and realized they did not have the 2700x killer they were hoping for..... Unless overclocked. I know intel works with the major players like dell and hp to figure out power envelopes and heat dissipation. So intel wrote the white paper and then told the aib's to 'fudge this part of it when you set the firmware' in order to inflate its performance in reviews and for us enthusiasts, at least beyond its white paper specs. Is it a shame on them moment? Yes for bad marketing tactics, but its because intel has to justify the inflated price. Is the 9900k a great chip? Absolutely. Is it a better product than amd's? Onve again absolutely, but because of its potential oc potential, but some of that depends on the silicon lottery of manufacturing. I think this has been more an exercise in the dishonesty of current marketing departments to justify the inflated price of this chip compared to its competition. And I wrote that previous statement correctly, using the general in the beginning because marketing departments across the board are just bad, trying to shove anything they can down our throats to justify whatever. Im sure though that 'board of directors' saying 'just make it work' dosent help either. Broken corporate culture. Google's walkout just shows how broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShObiT and Sausagemeat
System power consumption
9900K (supposedly 95 W) - 181
2700X (TDP 105 W) - 205

24 W difference, not 10 W.

Meaning AMD does the same. Will we see 2700X limited to 105W?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hk2000
I use XFR2 manual PPT mode to cap my 2700 at 115W at the wall (probably around 80W on the socket), and only lose around 10% in performance. The threadrippers are even more impressive. I do the same thing on the 2990WX with the power capped at 215W at the wall. Everything runs cool as a cucumber. It works extremely well on the AMD platform because most of the performance is gained via XMP (memory overclocking) and not CPU overclocking. Memory overclocking does not appreciably change the power consumption at the wall, so its literally a free performance booster.

Intel's marketing message has always been better single-core and better clocks. But that message has driven Intel into a corner as consumers continue to demand more CPU cores because there is nothing magical about their fab that allows them to eat their cake and have it to. You can have clock, or you can have cores. You can't really have both without power consumption getting completely out of control.

Power efficiency for both AMD and Intel is really, really amazingly good when you set a lower power cap for the device. Of course, this is a problem for Intel because anyone actually doing that would have no justification whatsoever to buy either 8xxx or 9xxx series CPUs. The 7xxx series CPUs are just as good... and the AMD parts in that mode of operation are not only just as good, but cheaper to boot.

-Matt
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheAudience
user01 said:
System power consumption
9900K (supposedly 95 W) - 181
2700X (TDP 105 W) - 205

24 W difference, not 10 W.

Meaning AMD does the same. Will we see 2700X limited to 105W?
Click to expand...

Read the article

"The short version of this is that motherboard makers are currently getting blamed for running the 9900K out of spec"

Boards partners are running the 9900K out of Intel specifications. AMD board partners are not. It has nothing to do with checking to make sure Intel / AMD are meeting TDP.

The sum of the article is that if you are buying a 9900K make sure you buy a motherboard that can handle it. No point in paying so much money for a processor that is going to be throttled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: senketsu and Reehahs
This is bad reporting. All a 95W TDP means is you should be able to handle 95W. Here is a link to a Coolermaster 212X http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-air-cooler/hyper-212x/. The buy now button shows a $35 price. http://www.coolermaster.com/tdp-and-socket-compatibility/ This page lists a 150W TDP for that processor. In no way are you running that processor out of spec if you run it all the way to 150W or even beyond. Your conclusion regarding work loads is completely wrong. Put adequate cooling on your CPU and it will be fine. The job of a system builder is to choose the right components. A $500 unlocked processor targeted at enthusiasts and high end users limited to 95W, indicates you either don't understand what TDP is or you are intentionally cobbling the 9900K so you can say the 2700X is as fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sausagemeat, user01, hahahanoobs and 1 other person
I would be feeling a bit conned had I invested in this system. Those are huge temperature differences.
 
Evernessince said:
user01 said:
System power consumption
9900K (supposedly 95 W) - 181
2700X (TDP 105 W) - 205

24 W difference, not 10 W.

Meaning AMD does the same. Will we see 2700X limited to 105W?
Click to expand...

Read the article

"The short version of this is that motherboard makers are currently getting blamed for running the 9900K out of spec"

Boards partners are running the 9900K out of Intel specifications. AMD board partners are not. It has nothing to do with checking to make sure Intel / AMD are meeting TDP.

The sum of the article is that if you are buying a 9900K make sure you buy a motherboard that can handle it. No point in paying so much money for a processor that is going to be throttled.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy a 9900k and couple it with a low-end motherboard so that argument is pretty weak. And even the 8700k which has 4 threads less draws 20w watts more and no one said anything about the 8700k power consumption when it came out. Seems like someone is either being paid by AMD to make Intel look bad or they are just pure AMD fanboys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hahahanoobs, user01 and Philip T
Philip T said:
This is bad reporting. All a 95W TDP means is you should be able to handle 95W. Here is a link to a Coolermaster 212X http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-air-cooler/hyper-212x/. The buy now button shows a $35 price. http://www.coolermaster.com/tdp-and-socket-compatibility/ This page lists a 150W TDP for that processor. In no way are you running that processor out of spec if you run it all the way to 150W or even beyond. Your conclusion regarding work loads is completely wrong. Put adequate cooling on your CPU and it will be fine. The job of a system builder is to choose the right components. A $500 unlocked processor targeted at enthusiasts and high end users limited to 95W, indicates you either don't understand what TDP is or you are intentionally cobbling the 9900K so you can say the 2700X is as fast.
Click to expand...

+1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sausagemeat and hahahanoobs
For perspective here is the definition for TDP from the 9900K spec page.

"
TDP
Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements."

From this https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html you can find the heatsink specs Thermal Solution Specification PCG 2015D (130W) this is the intel spec for the 9900K heatsink. Notice it says 130W not 95W? Seems a bit like calling the kettle black? https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-9900k-benchmarks/ this is your article questioning misleading benchmarks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sausagemeat and hahahanoobs
Jonny93 said:
I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy a 9900k and couple it with a low-end motherboard so that argument is pretty weak. And even the 8700k which has 4 threads less draws 20w watts more and no one said anything about the 8700k power consumption when it came out. Seems like someone is either being paid by AMD to make Intel look bad or they are just pure AMD fanboys.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't low end motherboards. Many of the expensive motherboards also cannot feed the 9900K either. You pretty much have to do research to find which motherboard has a good enough VRM, which isn't something you'd find in most motherboard reviews (although is becoming more common).

AMD had a similar problem with it's higher wattage CPUs back in the day, only AMD handled it by simply locking motherboards to a max TDP and making that limit clear. Intel should have done the same here. Simple communication can make all the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs
TDP isn't supposed to be the limit though. Even at stock.

The variance is on the motherboard manufacturers, because performance can range quite a bit. MSI is the "worst" and eVGA being the "best" according to GN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sausagemeat and Philip T
Azshadi said:
Still fun to see how even gimped the performance is still there. The only thing that hurts is the damn price... get your **** together Intel....
Click to expand...


Meanwhile amd lead engineers see this and laugh halfway into the night.
Bumping fist, quick joke jabs among themselves, and watching their money still roll in easily.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...CcUbibF6Y2tmRa-kl5kaAr8tEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

VS

https://www.microcenter.com/product...per-2990wx-30-ghz-32-core-tr4-boxed-processor

Sorry but when you really think about it someone has lost big. =/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs. Intel Core i9-9900K: 8-Core CPUs, 4 Years Later
Replies
8
Views
528
ddferrari
ddferrari
TechSpot
  • Locked
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-14900K
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Strawman
S
TechSpot
The Upgrade Path: AMD Ryzen 3700X to 5800X3D vs. Intel Core i9-9900K
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Khamul
K

Latest posts

Back