Article Tom's Hardware Core i9 9900KS Preview

[Zucker2k]

Power efficiency is incredible for 14nm.
Edit: Consumes 50 watts less than the i9 9900K @ 5GHz.



Link

 

[Zucker2k]

Here's a review of the Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE showing even better power efficiency as than the i9-9900KS...


This is going to get interesting very soon....

Link

 

[coercitiv]

Here's a review of the Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE showing even better power efficiency as than the i9-9900KS...

That graph shows peak system power consumption, not average power consumption, so there's zero correlation between those numbers and CPU efficiency.

From the article:

Consumul afisat in tabel este consumul intregului sistem si reprezinta cea mai mare valoare inregistrata de aparatul de masura in timpul testului respectiv.

translates into:

Power usage numbers shown in the table are for the entire system and represent peak values recorded by our measuring device during the test.

 

[amrnuke]

That graph shows peak system power consumption, not average power consumption, so there's zero correlation between those numbers and CPU efficiency.

From the article:

translates into:

Not only peak numbers during the test, but the test is Alien vs Predator, 1920×1200, 4xAA as well as Prime95, but the Romanian here specifically is unclear about whether they ran both at the same time, or ran them separately and reported the highest number.

Like, okay, this is good information to know how much the processor might use under peak loading, but doesn't tell me much about how efficient it is.

 

[Abwx]

Here's a review of the Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE showing even better power efficiency as than the i9-9900KS...
View attachment 12386

This is going to get interesting very soon....

Link

Best way to make a CPU look more efficient than it is is to use a set up that has very high idle power comsumption, so the delta due to the CPU will be less noticeable while differences between CPUs are leveled.

In this test the set up used for AMD, but not for Intel, for sure drain an excess of roughly 50W at idle.

This way under Prime 95 total power of the 3700X is measured at a dubbious 206W and this way the 9900K consume only 50% more for the whole system while it consume more than 2x at the CPU level...

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, 7 3700X & 5 3600 im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur, Effizienz

AMD Ryzen 3000 im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur, Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme im Leerlauf und unter Last

www.computerbase.de

See.?..
151W total system power under Prime 95 for the 3700X but curiously 281W for the 9900K, about as much as in the link you provided.

Prove that they hugely inflated the AMD power number at idle while using a decent set up for Intel since Computerbase has low idling power for the 9900K, and still the same max power as your phony site...

Actually you re right in your last sentence except for the timing, that is, interesting thing occurs already...

 

[Zucker2k]

Best way to make a CPU look more efficient than it is is to use a set up that has very high idle power comsumption, so the delta due to the CPU will be less noticeable while differences between CPUs are leveled.

In this test the set up used for AMD, but not for Intel, for sure drain an excess of roughly 50W at idle.

This way under Prime 95 total power of the 3700X is measured at a dubbious 206W and this way the 9900K consume only 50% more for the whole system while it consume more than 2x at the CPU level...

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, 7 3700X & 5 3600 im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur, Effizienz

AMD Ryzen 3000 im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperatur, Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme im Leerlauf und unter Last

www.computerbase.de

See.?..
151W total system power under Prime 95 for the 3700X but curiously 281W for the 9900K, about as much as in the link you provided.

Prove that they hugely inflated the AMD power number at idle while using a decent set up for Intel since Computerbase has low idling power for the 9900K, and still the same max power as your phony site...

Actually you re right in your last sentence except for the timing, that is, interesting thing occurs already...

Take a chill pill, and don't shoot the messenger, please. It's only hardware. This is the first cascade lake-x review in the wild. I'm sure your favorite review site will have theirs up soon enough.

 

[TheGiant]

Here's a review of the Cascade Lake-X Core i9-10980XE showing even better power efficiency as than the i9-9900KS...
View attachment 12386

This is going to get interesting very soon....

Link

well looks too good to me
wait for more reviews

 

[Abwx]

Take a chill pill, and don't shoot the messenger, please. It's only hardware. This is the first cascade lake-x review in the wild. I'm sure your favorite review site will have theirs up soon enough.

Guess that Compurebase or about anyone else will be far more accurate.
Looking more closely the only number that is more or less within error margin is the 9900K with 19W more than Computerbase, AMD CPUs are at 45-53W excesses and the 8700K is curiously 93W above the value at CPBase, for the 10980XE we ll know later, more reliably...

 

[jpiniero]

Toms says the release is on Wednesday and the RCP is $513. TDP is 127 W.

Edit: Curiously, the Intel PR says it's only a 1 year warranty instead of the usual 3. Does Intel think it will degrade quickly?

 

[coercitiv]

Edit: Curiously, the Intel PR says it's only a 1 year warranty instead of the usual 3. Does Intel think it will degrade quickly?

They will probably say it's a part built for overclockers, as opposed to 9900K which was meant more for mom and dad.

On a more serious note I hope it's just a typo / simple mistake.

 

[jpiniero]

They will probably say it's a part built for overclockers, as opposed to 9900K which was meant more for mom and dad.

On a more serious note I hope it's just a typo / simple mistake.

"Intel is providing a one-year warranty on both the box and tray versions of this processor due to its limited volume."

 

[Ajay]

Due to its limited volume - what a farce. It just begs the question you asked about reliability; this after Intel made noise about Ryzen's reliability. Nutz!

 

[thesmokingman]

Was reading same thread on tpu, and some noticed they reduced some metrics to "up to" on base clock and slashed the warranty as you guys noticed to. Bse clock is no longer guaranteed? And lol x2 for comparing it to a 6700K. That one way to make it look like its improved while it's being being neutered. And the most embarrassing is the "based on testing as of August 10, 2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates." smh

 

[ArchAngel777]

I have never used a CPU Warranty... I have never had a CPU die on me... Every time a new die shrink came out (130nm, 90nm, 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, 14nm) they kept saying how CPU's become more and more fragile. Basically each node shrink was "the next node won't be able to overclock"... I am sure there is some level of truth to this, but it really sounded like "the sky is falling" doomsayers. I always pushed voltage beyond the "suggested" limit, although nowhere near the crazy LN2 people. Still, I have yet to experience a failed CPU out of 20-30. Sure, my sample size is small and this is anecdotal, but my colleages have never had a chip fry on them either, at least not without user error. Until I have a CPU die on me, I probably won't care much about warranty, provided my chip came in a retail box. Certainly if someone was selling a used CPU, I'd be wary as hell that they abused it. But if it came in a retail box, I think if the chip were to last a few weeks, you would know it was free from "defect", just like most things. That is like, just my opinion man!

 

[jpiniero]

Was reading same thread on tpu, and some noticed they reduced some metrics to "up to" on base clock and slashed the warranty as you guys noticed to. Bse clock is no longer guaranteed?

The base is 4 Ghz. I imagine that is guaranteed. The up to of course might be because you need adequate cooling, etc, for to be able to boost to 5 Ghz on all cores.

I have never used a CPU Warranty... I have never had a CPU die on me...

Dying is one thing, but the cores might degrade to the point where all 8 cores can't maintain 5 Ghz for instance.

 

[thesmokingman]

The base is 4 Ghz. I imagine that is guaranteed. The up to of course might be because you need adequate cooling, etc, for to be able to boost to 5 Ghz on all cores.



Dying is one thing, but the cores might degrade to the point where all 8 cores can't maintain 5 Ghz for instance.

You'd imagine that, but the writing says UP TO.

 

[Kocicak]

I actually quite like, that processors are today sold closer to their performance limit than they used to.

But having to shorten the warranty, that sounds like one step too far, does it not? It looks like they went OVER some standards enabling long-term realiability of the product.

Why did they do it? Are they THAT MUCH desperate and frightened by the competing products?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Toms says the release is on Wednesday and the RCP is $513. TDP is 127 W.

That's interesting on two levels. First off, $513? Hmm. Thought it was supposed to be $580? Has Intel pulled a 5700XT on us? Or are we looking at a non-retail channel price?

Secondly, this launch is awfully low-key.

Edit: Curiously, the Intel PR says it's only a 1 year warranty instead of the usual 3. Does Intel think it will degrade quickly?

Hmmmmmmm.

Why did they do it? Are they THAT MUCH desperate and frightened by the competing products?

They have no new products to sell. That's the kiss o' death in the tech sector.

 

[jpiniero]

Why did they do it? Are they THAT MUCH desperate and frightened by the competing products?

Intel likes to release products every year. Since the K parts for Comet Lake-S aren't being released until sometime next year they decided to release something now, and this is what they came up with.

 

[TheELF]

I actually quite like, that processors are today sold closer to their performance limit than they used to.

But having to shorten the warranty, that sounds like one step too far, does it not? It looks like they went OVER some standards enabling long-term realiability of the product.

Why did they do it? Are they THAT MUCH desperate and frightened by the competing products?

How long ago did we first hear about itel starting to bin these CPUs?
Was it the beginning of the year?
If it took intel close to a year to bin enough CPUs to bring them to the market then it makes sense that they won't do a long warranty on them,they need to keep a stockpile of 9900ks as replacement units and with the current situation of intel selling more CPUs than they imagined possible they prefer to sell the CPUs instead of binning and stockpiling them.

There is zero possibility for a CPU that runs cooler with less power and less Vcore to have higher degradation....if they didn't reduce the warranty for the normal 9900k to one year they wouldn't do it for the 9900ks.

 

[Arkaign]

How long ago did we first hear about itel starting to bin these CPUs?
Was it the beginning of the year?
If it took intel close to a year to bin enough CPUs to bring them to the market then it makes sense that they won't do a long warranty on them,they need to keep a stockpile of 9900ks as replacement units and with the current situation of intel selling more CPUs than they imagined possible they prefer to sell the CPUs instead of binning and stockpiling them.

There is zero possibility for a CPU that runs cooler with less power and less Vcore to have higher degradation....if they didn't reduce the warranty for the normal 9900k to one year they wouldn't do it for the 9900ks.

Agree.

And with some mobos (and some users, lol) you can seriously overvolt your CPU if you aren't paying close attention. With proper settings, a 9900/k/kf/ks should be fine for years at rated clocks or a bit beyond provided the cooling is good. But things are finicky out there in the real world with different mobos, bioses, and user competency varying widely.

So keeping some spare units for replacement is probably to be expected. Personally, 1 year doesn't bother me, but I do expect availability to be limited for sure. It really does seem like golden binned 9900k is all this is, and that means limited numbers.

 

[maddie]

There is zero possibility for a CPU that runs cooler with less power and less Vcore to have higher degradation....if they didn't reduce the warranty for the normal 9900k to one year they wouldn't do it for the 9900ks.

I guess you are implying but not stating that this argument only applies to CPUs made on an identical process, at least I hope so.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that the reason for the reduced warranty, is so that they can offer these processors in the market, at a price that is at least remotely competitive to AMD. Remember, additional warranty length, means that it costs them more (after amortization of all costs related to servicing said warranty).

IOW, it may purely be a cost decision, and not actually directly related to processor longevity issues due to the high clock speeds.

Edit: This may also signify a worse and deeper problem. As modern processors with temp/voltage/power sensor networks are released, and the chips are clocked and volted right to the edge of the silicon's capabilities, leaving less "engineering margin" on the table, perhaps processor mfg's may choose to lower the warranty on retail CPUs down to only one year, in general, for their whole line-up. I mean, it happened with HDDs. (I'm sure that AMD's "Pro" line of processors, and Intel's Xeon line for workstations, will probably have longer warranties, but neither of those processor lines are really much sold at retail in boxes, instead, they are sold to OEM assemblers that sell them in complete systems, and the OEM warranty them.)

 

[Arkaign]

Larry, well yes, all of that, and the fact that I've seen my 8086k, 2700X, 3700X, and Threadripper all see excessive voltage from out of box motherboard settings. In every case I've had to manually adjust to get proper volts lol. And this has been a mix of Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, and ASRock.

 

[Dave3000]

But literally the only situation in which you could recommend a 9900KS is if that user is:
- not doing any tasks that benefit from increased scaling
AND
- playing only games
AND
- playing only games at a resolution of 1920x1080 on a single screen
AND
- needs the performance gained from 180 to 195 FPS.

Otherwise, save money by getting the 3700X or get more performance by getting the 3900X.


That is not hyperbole. Its fact. 9900KS is chasing the niche[1] of a niche[2] of a niche[3].


[1]1080p gaming
[2]Game only PC users
[3]High end PC users

I right now have an i7-4930k at stock settings and I'm planning on upgrading to an i9-9900KS and other associated hardware as well. I'm not going to get frame rates in the high 100's in X-Plane 11 no matter which CPU I upgrade to. I'm right now getting between 20-30 fps (with adaptive v-sync half refresh rate) in X-Plane 11 with HD Mesh 4.0 installed. I get usually low 20's at huge airports in huge cities where there are mountains nearby. I would like to see a minimum of 30 fps in those areas after a CPU upgrade with my current settings. There are some games that are a challenge to get even over 60 fps consistently and depend heavily on CPU core performance, and this is one of them. I think I choose a 9900KS over a 3900x for my next CPU upgrade.

 

[coercitiv]

I right now have an i7-4930k at stock settings and I'm planning on upgrading to an i9-9900KS and other associated hardware as well. I'm not going to get frame rates in the high 100's in X-Plane 11 no matter which CPU I upgrade to. I'm right now getting between 20-30 fps (with adaptive v-sync half refresh rate) in X-Plane 11 with HD Mesh 4.0 installed. I get usually low 20's at huge airports in huge cities where there are mountains nearby. I would like to see a minimum of 30 fps in those areas after a CPU upgrade with my current settings. There are some games that are a challenge to get even over 60 fps consistently and depend heavily on CPU core performance, and this is one of them. I think I choose a 9900KS over a 3900x for my next CPU upgrade.

You're actually reinforcing @Atari2600 's post, as you have just described yourself as part of a very narrow niche of PC gamers.