Last year, Intel showcased a CPU during its keynote a processor with all of its cores at 5 GHz. Today, that becomes a reality – Intel is set to launch a processor that promises that frequency in any scenario. The new Core i9-9900KS is an 8-core processor that will run at 5.0 GHz during single core workloads and multi-core workloads.

That demo last year was on an overclockable 28-core Xeon CPU, but in reality was clocked way lower. There was even a good amount of controversy, as Intel didn’t state at the time they were using a sub-zero chiller to achieve that result. But this year we’re getting something a little more realistic. The new Core i9-9900KS uses the same silicon currently in the i9-9900K, but selectively binned in order to achieve 5.0 GHz on every core, all of the time.

Technically the CPU has a base frequency of 4.0 GHz, however it will only ever go down to that amount based on a default Intel BIOS (no consumer board uses the base BIOS specifications). The new CPU will be enabled in the same motherboards as the Core i9-9900K, but with a small firmware update. The CPU also has the same integrated graphics as the Core i9-9900K.

Intel did not tell us the TDP yet, but we will update this article when we know. Pricing and the launch date are also an unknown, however Intel SVP and GM Gregory Bryant is running a keynote here at Computex in a couple of days, and we expect to have the details then.

Update 05/28: As part of his Computex keynote, Gregory Bryant has confirmed that the processor is launching in Q4 of this year. Pricing and TDP will presumably be announced much closer to the actual launch.

Intel 9th Gen Core 8-Core Desktop CPUs
AnandTech Cores Base
All-Core Turbo Single
Core Turbo
i9-9900KS 8 / 16 4.0 GHz 5.0 GHz 5.0 GHz UHD 630 2666 ? ?
i9-9900K 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 4.7 GHz 5.0 GHz UHD 630 2666 95 W $488
i9-9900KF 8 / 16 3.6 GHz 4.7 GHz 5.0 GHz - 2666 95 W $488
i7-9700K 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.6 GHz 4.9 GHz UHD 630 2666 95 W $374
i7-9700KF 8 / 8 3.6 GHz 4.6 GHz 4.9 GHz - 2666 95 W $374

The main difference compared to the Core i9-9900K is currently that all-core turbo value, which is a flat 5.0 GHz, a 300 MHz increase. There's a slight chance Intel might have increased the TDP, especially given that the base frequency (which TDP is built on) has increased 10% from 3.6 GHz to 4.0 GHz.

Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected: TDP and Turbo Explained

Intel did have a demo system for us to look at, which used a standard off-the-shelf motherboard and a closed loop liquid cooler. Intel confirmed that the chip is soldered, and that this is just simply the same silicon as the 9900K but better binned.

More info in a couple of days.

Want to keep up to date with all of our Computex 2019 Coverage?
Follow AnandTech's breaking news here!
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Irata - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link

    True, but how meaningful is that Information for a CPU sold / advertized as running all cores at 5 Ghz all the time ?
  • Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link

    Questions that have been asked and answered since the begining of time. It's 2019 and this guy is still whining about base vs turbo. Hes a little slow.
  • BushLin - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link

    Maybe they ask because Intel don't tell you how much power your CPU will actually be using: you're officially given a misleading figure instead.
  • schujj07 - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link

    Intel's TDP is about as useful as a 3rd thumb. They will market it as a 95/100W CPU and people will expect to have 5GHz at that level and Intel will make sure that places like Forbes says "we can do 5GHz on all cores for only 100W" which is completely false. This will have an actual TDP of ~225W, it is in essence Intel's FX9590. With this CPU you know Intel is worried about Zen 2.
  • Opencg - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link

    AMD has everyone worried. It takes years to put these products on the shelves. AMD is STILL catching the competition unprepared. Expect alot more refreshes and special versions of existitng products from intel and nvidia.
  • Flying Aardvark - Sunday, May 26, 2019 - link

    I don't think Nvidia is behind anyone. Intel is the only player here that has very little interesting product available. Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs just as AMD is for CPUs.
  • Opencg - Monday, May 27, 2019 - link

    they are about to be far behind on value. nobody will buy a 2070 anymore when amds navi is the same performance for half the price.
  • jospoortvliet - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link

    We will see what the perf per mm2 and perf per watt is in reality, but NVIDIA will continue to have features AMD doesn’t, and the absolute performance crown. That last point is just that - a point - and should be meaningless on lower price points but in reality it means NVIDIA can charge more for ~same performance. And perf per watt matters too - in the same way. So the real question is: as NVIDIA can charge more at the same performance level, is AMD’s GPU smaller and thus cheaper to produce at each cost and performance level? Until now, that wasn’t the case, so amd could only undercut NVIDIA so much without losing money on the chips. NVIDIA in that situation can set the price that maximizes sales & profit, essentially putting them in charge of what happens in the gpu market. Not a good spot for amd to be in. (Or for us as consumer for that matter)

    While navi looks nice, we will see if it is good enough to give amd any control over the market or if it is still a larger (thus more expensive to make), less energy efficient chip. Given NVIDIA has a very strong brand, large market and mind share and big software ecosystem, amd would really need to be some 10-20% better in several metrics (perf per mm2 per watt) to retake the initiative. It would be great but I’m not holding my breath.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, May 28, 2019 - link

    Flying Aardvark " Nvidia is currently the best choice for GPUs " maybe if you have more money then brains... :-)
    nvidia can charge more like you say... but at the same time.. they also have priced A LOT of people out of the market.. if navi is even a few % less in performance then say the 2070 amd says navi is at.. but charge 500 or less, then which video card do you think most would buy ?
  • PeterSun - Friday, May 31, 2019 - link

    Maybe you need a brain to know that brains and money are not comparable? AMD needs to make something real, not makes beautiful PPT sides. If AMD NAVI charges less for almost the same performance, that would be a good news, but AMD needs to make the card available on market first.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now