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

[LTC8K6]

The framing of this video is a bit misleading. It's not an issue of certain motherboards "throttling" the processor. Those motherboards are actually conforming to Intel specifications, by default, rather than using enthusiast settings.

This was complicated by the fact that Intel didn't disclose all-core boost this time around, likely because they knew the processor couldn't sustain 4.7GHz within the power envelope. ACT at 4.7GHz somehow became the gospel anyway.

Unfortunately for the average person (and tech YouTuber, apparently), it's an easy mistake to make.

To editorialize a bit, Intel was likely aware of the multicore enhancement backlash and chose to sneak around the issue this time by boosting power limits instead. I could be completely off-base, so apologies in advance.

Edit: And those motherboards with "only" 4-phase VRM (actually doubled to 8-phase) seemed to handle overclocked 8700K processors just fine.

Intel seems to have disclosed the all core boost as 4.7ghz at the 10/8 announcement:.

Per Core Turbo Ratios
Also in our list of information, we have the per-core Turbo ratios for each of the three overclocking-capable CPUs.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13401/intel-9th-gen-cpus-9900k-9700k-9600k

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[LTC8K6]

Nothing wrong with that, but it's a secondary source (and the only one I've seen?). The fact that Intel hasn't published that is telling. I could be an idiot so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm assuming the list was provided to Anandtech by Intel as part of the announcement package.

Also, the same turbo numbers were at wikichip for a long time before the announcement.

 

[Pandamonia]

So for 5ghz gaming.

Do you buy the 8700k 9700k or 9900k?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[scannall]

So for 5ghz gaming.

Do you buy the 8700k 9700k or 9900k?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

For purely gaming, the 9700K is likely a better choice. No HT overhead and enough real cores. Not to mention, no HT fixes a lot of Spectre issues.

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[coercitiv]

The framing of this video is a bit misleading. It's not an issue of certain motherboards "throttling" the processor. Those motherboards are actually conforming to Intel specifications, by default, rather than using enthusiast settings.

It's exactly an issue of throttling, that's how you keep a modern CPU within TDP. The term throttle is not used here to describe something that's running bellow spec, but rather the process of keeping something within spec.

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[DrMrLordX]

For purely gaming, the 9700K is likely a better choice. No HT overhead and enough real cores. Not to mention, no HT fixes a lot of Spectre issues.

Only downside is the 9700k has less cache than the 9900k.

 

[The Sauce]

I need help from smarter people. My take away from that video is not to buy the Maximus Hero that I was planning (for a 9700k) due to its wimpy VRM. Is that the correct interpretation of that video? If so is there a sub-$400 board that has the proper config?

There is no way I am buying a board that is referred to as "wimpy" or e-peen will shrivel and fall off. But I do not see any way to find the VRM quality of these boards, how to compare or what even is acceptable.

 

[StinkyPinky]

And here it is, Hardware Unboxed posted a new video to address the seemingly different thermal results reviewers got with the 9900K: based on the motherboard used in testing, the 9900K motherboard may or may not power throttle - it's all a combination of stock settings and motherboard VRM quality - leading to wildly different CPU thermals. Everyone who is interested in the 9900K from a power, thermal and overclocking point of view should watch this video.

What a mess.Just doesn't seem worth it.

I wonder if Intel will release a locked 9900. Drop the price by $100, have it boost to around 4.5 all cores. Would be enticing to some people.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

That motherboard is configured correctly, just that you need a motherboard that isn't configured correctly to get the 9900k to work at its best.
For clarity, the 9900k has a rated TDP of 95w, and the motherboards that are configured to operate properly are running at 4.2GHz ACT, not the 4.7GHz that gets mentioned elsewhere.
To get that 4.7GHz ACT you need an improperly configured motherboard, and a cooler that is well above the rated TDP.
But it's OK, stock doesn't mean stock anymore, so benchmarks can't ever be trusted again.

Edit: it still beats a 2700x when configured correctly, but not to the extent that it's worth the extra £200 or so, or *cough* the extra £100 on a cooler.
It's a design choice aimed at punking those that have more money than brains

 

[Zucker2k]

That motherboard is configured correctly, just that you need a motherboard that isn't configured correctly to get the 9900k to work at its best.
For clarity, the 9900k has a rated TDP of 95w, and the motherboards that are configured to operate properly are running at 4.2GHz ACT, not the 4.7GHz that gets mentioned elsewhere.
To get that 4.7GHz ACT you need an improperly configured motherboard, and a cooler that is well above the rated TDP.
But it's OK, stock doesn't mean stock anymore, so benchmarks can't ever be trusted again.

Edit: it still beats a 2700x when configured correctly, but not to the extent that it's worth the extra £200 or so, or *cough* the extra £100 on a cooler.
It's a design choice aimed at punking those that have more money than brains

95watts is PL1 (stock). PL2, or Turbo is 210watts (Intel recommended).

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[Zucker2k]

No, it's PL2 = 118.75W per Intel's own datasheet. I guess the misinformation campaign has worked. Sorry to bother everyone.

Well, the Anandtech review, and others online all state a PL2 of 210watts.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Someone mentioned previously that it's a motherboard manufacturer's race to the bottom/top. Not adhering to the recommended configuration simply because that makes their motherboards seem more performant. In reality it is more strapping a rocket to your backside for your casual cycle down the shop.
Of course, Intel doesn't complain about the extra performance because it can make the dubious claim that it meets the rated TDP at spec; what motherboard manufacturers do is their own business.
I'd hazard a guess that your warranty on your 9900k isn't valid if used on a motherboard that isn't configured correctly.
Smoke and daggers. Totally unnecessary too. All they needed to do was be honest about it, since we can all see that the actual performance is there.

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[coercitiv]

Well, the Anandtech review, and others online all state a PL2 of 210watts.

And the author of that article (Ian), is slowly putting the pieces together: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1054305509296275456

Yeah, I chuckled when I realized 210W is one typo away from 120W.

 

[alkdeixaddc]

...

 

[Hitman928]

Seems intel is sending mixed signals. They told Ian (and I'm assuming others based upon review content) directly that PL2 default is now 210 W. Then after seeing the updated documents which don't change the PL2 value, he is looking into it.

https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1053357591580082176

Seems like there is confusion within intel itself or kind of reading in between the lines, intel is keeping it officially at PL1 * 1.25 for compatibility purposes, but then telling everyone (reviewers and mobo makers?) it should be 210 W so they get the max performance possible.

 

[BrandonT]

So if one doesn't want MCE turned on with it cranking up voltages, etc., but has cooling to maintain 210w, what setting should one look for in the BIOS?

 

[Panino Manino]

"For clarity, the 9900k has a rated TDP of 95w"

I don't understand this.
So, if I believe Intel and buy that processor with a board made to provide only 95w, this means that this processor won't work at the advertised frequencies and can throttle at it's expected usage?
The point of that processor isn't to run at higher frequencies and not throttle?

 

[Campy]

So if one doesn't want MCE turned on with it cranking up voltages, etc., but has cooling to maintain 210w, what setting should one look for in the BIOS?

The way I understand it there is no MCE(overclocking), it's just a matter of power limits set in the BIOS. The chip is rated for 4.7GHz all core turbo at stock, however it can't do this in the real world with the stock 120W power limit, so motherboard manufacturers are setting it higher (possibly due to some internal confusion at Intel?).

 

[PhonakV30]

"For clarity, the 9900k has a rated TDP of 95w"

I don't understand this.
So, if I believe Intel and buy that processor with a board made to provide only 95w, this means that this processor won't work at the advertised frequencies and can throttle at it's expected usage?
The point of that processor isn't to run at higher frequencies and not throttle?

Maybe 95w means all cores run at 3.6ghz , for 210w I think up to 5ghz on all cores.