The Intel Core i9-9900KS Review: The 5 GHz Consumer Special
by Dr. Ian Cutress on October 31, 2019 10:45 AM ESTTest Bed and Setup
As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
| Test Setup | |
| Intel 9th Gen | Intel Core i9-9900KS |
| Motherboard | MSI Z390 Gaming Edge AC (A.60 BIOS) |
| CPU Cooler | TRUE Copper |
| DRAM | Corsair Vengeance 2x8 GB DDR4-2666 |
| GPU | Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests) |
| PSU | Corsair AX860i |
| SSD | Crucial MX200 1TB |
Many thanks to...
We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds. Some of this hardware is not in this test bed specifically, but is used in other testing.
| Hardware Providers | |||
| Sapphire RX 460 Nitro | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X OC | Crucial MX200 + MX500 SSDs |
Corsair AX860i + AX1200i PSUs |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| G.Skill RipjawsV, SniperX, FlareX |
Crucial Ballistix DDR4 |
Silverstone Coolers |
Silverstone Fans |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
235 Comments
View All Comments
mikato - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
Is it just me or does it seem like the 3700X wins all those tests?Sivar - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
I am pretty sure it's just you. The 3700x won exactly one test case: Strange Brigade on low detail.AshlayW - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
In terms of value, yeah it pretty much does. It beats Intel's entire lineup. -5-10% performance, (even in gaming), -40% price, and +30% efficiency, includes a cooler too. The thing is, the Ryzen 5 3600 does it, and then some.Sivar - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link
The Ryzen 5 3600 is probably overall the "Smart person's CPU" while those that don't know how money works, like myself, quibble over a few % difference across $500 CPUs.Death666Angel - Saturday, November 2, 2019 - link
Or if you do any sort of work or intensive stuff with your PC besides game. :)The_Assimilator - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
Imagine if Intel had spent as much time and effort on fixing their 10nm process, as they're spending on binning and advertising 5GHz 14nm++++ chips./sarc
Jorgp2 - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
Any idea when cascade lake drops?nathanddrews - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
Seems like a beast CPU, not sure why all the haters.TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
I think there are a set of AMD propaganda artists that like to hit pieces like this. You see the same comments in lots of different articles.Alistair - Thursday, October 31, 2019 - link
It isn't AMD propaganda, one of the problems is the way people perceive written communication with strangers, you can't share ideas with people you don't know, especially contrary ones.If I check my Asus motherboard and 9700k, it uses 170W at default settings. Then it drops to 3.9ghz and uses exactly 95W. So it is a 170W CPU with all those benchmarks you see out there, that is highly misleading. I'd expect this new one to use more. People have been angry at Intel for some time for not listing their turbo power as TDP.
If I check my 3700x, it uses 65 watts. So my 9700k uses 2.6x times more power, and yes, it is faster (not in MT, but in ST) than my 9700k. That's all fair to point out, and not propaganda.
I think the 8700k was a genuinely good processor, with a large cache (not artificially limited like the 9700k) and 50 percent more speed for the same money. Now we have the 9900k only 33 percent faster at best, and WAY more expensive and much too power hungry. I haven't built any 9900k computers, and only have one 9700k computer (I bought the CPU used for a low price).