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

[CHADBOGA]

This is the worst year in history to build a high end gaming rig.

Rtx crappy gpus for mega money and 4 year old cpu tech for huge premiums.

I'll wait a year or so till this madness ends

I agree completely and am very happy I haven't needed to upgrade in recent times.

Also one thing you forgot to mention is wildly inflated ram prices too.

 

[Pandamonia]

You may have a valid point but I kind of have no choice but to build right now, I need a computer for business, work and everyday tasks within the next month or so, can't really wait 6-12 months for the "madness" to end.

My advice would be to build on cheaper parts that you can upgrade when this madness ends with newer models in the future. I'd even say just get a budget amd rig for now with a half decent gpu. Anything new from Intel and nvidia will be obsolete in less than 12 or 18 months.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[ttechf]

My advice would be to build on cheaper parts that you can upgrade when this madness ends with newer models in the future. I'd even say just get a budget amd rig for now with a half decent gpu. Anything new from Intel and nvidia will be obsolete in less than 12 or 18 months.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I have to disagree unfortunately as I think the i9-9900k isn't going to be "obsolete" in 18 months, lol. Processor technology isn't, especially it's speed isn't improving THAT MUCH. I also don't want to go AMD. So when it comes to Intel there is no "upgrade path" really. Whenever I upgrade in the future, I'll need a new motherboard and processor.

 

[Pandamonia]

I have to disagree unfortunately as I think the i9-9900k isn't going to be "obsolete" in 18 months, lol. Processor technology isn't, especially it's speed isn't improving THAT MUCH. I also don't want to go AMD. So when it comes to Intel there is no "upgrade path" really. Whenever I upgrade in the future, I'll need a new motherboard and processor.

The next 10nm intel 8 core will be faster and cooler and more future proof and new technology. Not old crap running at 100c for £600.

With amd on their heels they have to do something special next time around or amd will catch them and take the performance crown back. It's just a matter of time.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

When has it ever been the case that when upgrading Intel you didn't also need a new motherboard? Especially if you reject upgrading to something that would be obsolete in 12-18 months.

Intel has a history of new sockets when it feels like it. Your upgrade path is rarely ever more than 1-2 generations even if you bought immediately into a new socket.

 

[Ottonomous]

When has it ever been the case that when upgrading Intel you didn't also need a new motherboard? Especially if you reject upgrading to something that would be obsolete in 12-18 months.

Intel has a history of new sockets when it feels like it. Your upgrade path is rarely ever more than 1-2 generations even if you bought immediately into a new socket.

A new motherboard is worth the incremental single-core perf increase, I have the money, the 9900K will last me through at least 4 chipset upgrades so its no biggy, same applies for the 9600K silly /s

 

[ttechf]

The next 10nm intel 8 core will be faster and cooler and more future proof and new technology. Not old crap running at 100c for £600.

With amd on their heels they have to do something special next time around or amd will catch them and take the performance crown back. It's just a matter of time.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Intel's 10nm 8 core won't be that much faster than the current model. It'll probably run cooler, but that's about it. And I've seen enough reviews that for general computing, you aren't going to hit 100c on the processor. maybe 85-90c for demanding things that keep your processor taxed. No one will ever use their processor the way it's tested in AIDA64 for example and stress it that bad. It's really difficult to abuse your processor like that with real world computing.

Also, people talk about all this AMD vs Intel and that Intel is "worried" and such, lol. C'mon, let's be real. Intel has over 5 BILLION operating income. AMD is ALL IN on this 7nm technology. I mean, ALL IN. I think AMD only has like 100 million operating income at the moment. Intel is not afraid of AMD in any single way. Trust me. Intel can't even meet demand with their processors. They just had the most successful quarter in their companies' history. And sure, Intel haven't done much in a few years, but you know what they say? You shouldn't wake a sleeping giant. And Intel is one massive giant.

Anyhow, my purchase for the i9-9900k simply can't wait. I have bought everything for my build besides the processor. I could get away with an i7-9700k no problem but it doesn't future proof me as much as the i9-9900k and I like having the best of both worlds - hyper-threading and cores.

Take care.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Not being able to meet demand is not the holy grail in any way shape or form; AMD can't meet their own demand either.

 

[PeterScott]

Not being able to meet demand is not the holy grail in any way shape or form; AMD can't meet their own demand either.

I know there is a lot anti-Intel thoughts around here, but with continued record quarters and the fastest mainstream socket CPU at just about everything, Intel is far from hurting.

The 9900K is a fantastic desktop CPU.

The only real downside is pricing, which is high because it can be. It really doesn't cost more to produce than the equivalent Ryzen.

 

[ttechf]

Not being able to meet demand is not the holy grail in any way shape or form; AMD can't meet their own demand either.

I can buy a 2700x today right now easily. I can't buy an i9-9900k today. Lol.

 

[ttechf]

I know there is a lot anti-Intel thoughts around here, but with continued record quarters and the fastest mainstream socket CPU at just about everything, Intel is far from hurting.

The 9900K is a fantastic desktop CPU.

The only real downside is pricing, which is high because it can be. It really doesn't cost more to produce than the equivalent Ryzen.

I can agree with this statement.

 

[Ottonomous]

I know there is a lot anti-Intel thoughts around here, but with continued record quarters and the fastest mainstream socket CPU at just about everything, Intel is far from hurting.

The 9900K is a fantastic desktop CPU.

The only real downside is pricing, which is high because it can be. It really doesn't cost more to produce than the equivalent Ryzen.

Consumers like you are the sole raison d'etre for Intels business model, minimal enhancements because some impressionable kids feel good winning along with their team.

 

[Pandamonia]

Intel has record quarters not because of desktop chips. People have not needed to upgrade since sandybridge.

Intel has more competitors than ever. Not to mention that mobile is all arm and mobile is taking over the Web.

Just because its making money today doesn't mean its in a good place for tomorrow. In technology you can be out of favour very quickly.

Any company that had the same design for 4 years in technology is in a different kind of trouble.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[TheGiant]

This is the worst year in history to build a high end gaming rig.

Rtx crappy gpus for mega money and 4 year old cpu tech for huge premiums.

I'll wait a year or so till this madness ends

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I am going to buy 9900K when the problems of availability/board-bios versions/coolers etc ends. If there will be a nice Christmas bundle....
There is some truth to your statement. But that is where the desktop market goes. Moar coarz.

There is another "problem" with 9900K. It is too fast. In fact it is so fast I imo you won't need anything else in a few years from pure performance perspective. Maybe power draw of zen2/2+/some maybe more+lake will be lesser but the pure performance especially when overlocked is too high.
It is simply too fast to change when you buy it. It reminds me of the situation when I bought c2d e6300(default 1,86GHz and oced to 3,4GHz on air). It was so fast I didn't have any reasons really for general stuff to buy anything else until 2012. 6 years omg.
We need more competition. It is good ARM is in the ultrabook market now. In 2 years, the SW and HW will perform better and if it can play crysis ...Intel/AMD needs to respond.
I am also expecting a little more from the iGPU. Intel did fantastic job to 6xx series with HW modern codecs decoding.

 

[ttechf]

Intel has record quarters not because of desktop chips. People have not needed to upgrade since sandybridge.

Intel has more competitors than ever. Not to mention that mobile is all arm and mobile is taking over the Web.

Just because its making money today doesn't mean its in a good place for tomorrow. In technology you can be out of favour very quickly.

Any company that had the same design for 4 years in technology is in a different kind of trouble.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I'm not worried about Intel in the least. Lol.

 

[PeterScott]

Consumers like you are the sole raison d'etre for Intels business model, minimal enhancements because some impressionable kids feel good winning along with their team.

Not really. I am frugal, so I won't buy one, short of some kind of unexpected cash windfall.

But I recognize that their is also a significant premium market segment for people that chase the best option, not the best bang/buck option.

 

[ttechf]

Consumers like you are the sole raison d'etre for Intels business model, minimal enhancements because some impressionable kids feel good winning along with their team.

This is also false. I just trust Intel more so than AMD at the end of the day. AMD has failed me in the past. Intel never has. I don't mind paying $200 - $300 more when I am already spending $2,500 on a PC for something I trust. Just how I see it. The same can be said with a lot of things in life, not just computers or tech.

 

[Ottonomous]

This is also false. I just trust Intel more so than AMD at the end of the day. AMD has failed me in the past. Intel never has. I don't mind paying $200 - $300 more when I am already spending $2,500 on a PC for something I trust. Just how I see it. The same can be said with a lot of things in life, not just computers or tech.

Why do you trust Intel more? (specifically with and beyond the failures)

 

[Ottonomous]

Not really. I am frugal, so I won't buy one, short of some kind of unexpected cash windfall.

But I recognize that their is also a significant premium market segment for people that chase the best option, not the best bang/buck option.

12% advantage isn't a lot of premium, but I understand if you consider it so

 

[Vattila]

I'm not worried about Intel in the least. Lol.

You probably don't own shares then.

Seriously, I guess you are just talking about different things. Of course, Intel isn't in danger of collapsing as a business. However, just a slight fall in their financial performance and share price can have devastating effect on investors and employees, especially higher management with big stock compensation packages. Regarding market capitalisation, Intel is actually valued lower than many of its peers, despite making solid money. The reason is that their bread and butter still comes from the stagnant PC market. Any problems on the horizon that put that cash cow in danger depresses the stock. AMD is now in come-back mode, with Zen 2 just around the corner. TSMC has delivered 7nm. Meanwhile Intel has struggled for years and years behind schedule on 10nm, needing another year to deliver delayed products on a relaxed process. So Intel's profit margins may soon be under pressure. Their CEO has already been shown the door.

Regarding i9-9900K, to get back on topic, the question is where Intel goes from here. In a separate speculation thread here, I postulate that it may be Intel's last hurrah, and that 7nm Zen 2 will overtake them next year (with 7nm+ Zen 3 following relentlessly in 2020). That proposition now has 45% in favour, 38% against (down from 50% against, when the thread was started).

In short, the competitive landscape does not look good for Intel's continuing dominance of the PC and server markets. They may have to cede significant share. Hopefully, they'll find growth in other areas.

AMD has failed me in the past. Intel never has.

Have you considered that this may be down to chance?

Intel has had their fair share of mishaps, issues and even recalls in their history. AMD is no worse. Personally, I've run my independent software development business on AMD-based computers since the late 1990s. I've never had reliability or performance issues. That includes K6, Athlon, Athlon 64/X2, Phenom and Ryzen (all architectures except Bulldozer). The only irritating thing was the stock fan noise on my Phenom II X4 965 when I taxed the computer. My latest AMD CPU — Ryzen 1700 — has run quietly and flawlessly for well over a year now, and that includes heavy workloads, such as software compilation that maxes out all cores for a prolonged period of time.

 

[ttechf]

I don't really have the time nor effort to type up long winded responses so I'll keep this short. I prefer Intel at the end of the day. AMD could be 50% better than Intel and I'd still buy Intel. I don't care about performance per dollar or value like so many others. Anyway, that's it.

 

[Ottonomous]

I don't really have the time nor effort to type up long winded responses so I'll keep this short. I prefer Intel at the end of the day. AMD could be 50% better than Intel and I'd still buy Intel. I don't care about performance per dollar or value like so many others. Anyway, that's it.

Okay thanks for being honest, hope you win the lottery with your 9900K

 

[TheGiant]

You probably don't own shares then.

S I've never had reliability or performance issues. That includes K6, Athlon, Athlon 64/X2, Phenom and Ryzen (all architectures except Bulldozer). The only irritating thing was the standard fan noise on my Phenom II X4 965 when I taxed the computer. My latest AMD CPU — Ryzen 1700 — has run quietly and flawlessly for well over a year now, and that includes heavy workloads, such as software compilation that maxes out all cores for a prolonged period of time.

I have the same experience except one. The Athlon. The socket A with kt133 (or so) chipset from VIA.

I had a Celeron 300A@450 on 440BX chipset with SB AWE64 ISA slot and riva tnt 2. At that time I played competitive q3a (which was running on low 40 fps on the Celeron) and counter strike 0.6 up to 1.0. The games low fps needed an upgrade.

So there was and option - Athlon or the p3 ( at that time Coppermine 700E 100MHz fsb that could be oced to 133MHz and have a 933MHz p3 was nice.
So I bought the Athlon with VIA (we called later shitset) that corrupted my first digital camera photos. The problem was widely known and even the KT266A had it with Athlon xp.
So maybe not AMD, but the platform failed miserably. Then there was the time with p4 and RDRAM with cost the computer itself. But that is another story.

 

[Pandamonia]

I don't really have the time nor effort to type up long winded responses so I'll keep this short. I prefer Intel at the end of the day. AMD could be 50% better than Intel and I'd still buy Intel. I don't care about performance per dollar or value like so many others. Anyway, that's it.

I buy who ever has the best product. Price comes second usually.

Buying a 50% less performing product based on brand makes no sense what so ever. But looks like marketing brainwashing works on you. Embarressing

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[ttechf]

Okay thanks for being honest, hope you win the lottery with your 9900K

Eh, I don't care about winning the "lottery" with it. I'm only putting all cores at 5Ghz. It's more for stability than trying to squeeze out every last performance drop out of the hardware and such. I use my computers for business and stability is key. If they had released a i9-9900 NON K version, I would of bought that but I doubt that will even be released.

Take care.