Conclusion

The Intel Core i9-9900KS is Intel’s first consumer level all-core 5.0 GHz processor. Technically Intel has launched an all 5.0 GHz processor before: earlier this year the Core i9-9990XE was launched into the high-frequency trading market, which had 14 cores at 5.0 GHz, but that part is an auction only part for select business partners. What the Core i9-9900KS does is bring the same principle down to a more consumer friendly core count and a more consumer friendly price point. The tray price is set at $513, although it’s likely to be sold for much more than that.

Playing To Power

One of the key elements I wanted to test in this review is how the chip responds to Turbo. As we’ve discussed at length, and confirmed by Intel: the guidelines for the Turbo settings are not set in stone. Intel actively encourages its motherboard partners to increase these settings if the motherboards are over-engineered to be able to do so. This means that a high-end motherboard should be able to give a longer turbo than a cheap board.

A longer turbo might not mean much. When the turbo budget has run out, the system will limit the chip to the TDP setting in the BIOS (which should be the one on the box), and will try and maximise the frequency for the power limit. On a lot of chips, this means you still have a very high frequency, nowhere near the base frequency. But the power limit does have benefits such as acting as a thermal control at least.

In our test, we used MSI’s Z390 Gaming Edge AC. It’s a mid-upper motherboard, but it set our Core i9-9900KS to have a TDP and turbo power limit of 255W. Intel’s ‘guidelines’ state a TDP of 127 W and a turbo power limit of 159 W. When comparing the two, there are some distinct advantages for the 255W setting, such as 10%+ performance on rendering, but the 159W setting does afford 10C lower temperatures in those heavy workloads. Ultimately, as the name TDP = Thermal Design Power implies, it all comes down on your ability to cool the chip.

For gaming, the turbo budget didn’t seem to matter at all, except in a few tests at super low resolution and settings.

One question that does remain however, is which set of results should we keep? The 255W results are what we get out of the box, and the 159W results are only 'Intel guidelines that Intel expects none of the board manufacturers to keep to'. Ideally we keep both, but that's a mess in its own right.

Planning Against The Competition

There’s no getting around giving Intel kudos for binning enough processors to commercially sell an all-core 5.0 GHz chip. In our benchmarks, we see it steaming ahead of any other consumer grade processor when it comes to single core performance. Users are likely to be able to push that single (or dual) core turbo a bit higher as well, although the power limits should be monitored.

It should be noted that in most cases, the Core i9-9900KS either matched or excelled against the previous king of Intel’s consumer desktop line, the Core i9-9900K. There were a few select instances, namely benchmarks like Handbrake, DigiCortex, F1 2018, and 7-zip, where we did see performance regressions that we weren’t expecting. We’re going to have to go back to Intel to see exactly what these are. But they seem confined to very specific workloads.

Overall, the Core i9-9900KS is Intel’s best ever consumer processor.

In ST performance metrics, it wins. In variable threaded metrics, it either wins or does really well. In MT performance metrics, it depends on how strong AMD’s 12-core hardware really is, and how multithreaded the calculation really is. As Intel slowly adds AVX-512 to its consumer line, as it is with Ice Lake, then the MT competition is going to be really interesting.

Only Available For A Short Time Only

While the Core i9-9990XE is a 14-core 5.0 GHz chip, it is an OEM only part sold by Intel at auction only, whereas the Core i9-9900KS should experience wider availability at retail, albeit for a limited time.

Our colleagues at Tom’s Hardware reported that Intel stated in a promotional video that the processor would only be available during the holiday season of 2019 – or at least that the stock level would not be replenished after the holiday season. When we approached Intel asking for confirmation, we were told:

This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only. It can be found at retailers worldwide. We are not disclosing unit quantity information. However, the Core i9-9900KS will have very limited availability.

There is no doubt that there will be some CPUs available into 2020, however it would appear that Intel is only making one main batch of hardware, and once it has gone, it has gone. This might make the $513 tray price that Intel is putting on the part a bit of a misnomer, as retailers might take advantage of this. This will take the shine off the Core i9-9900KS a little, as at $529 or so it would easily be recommended over a Core i9-9900K. If it goes to $599 or $649 because of its limited release, then it becomes less of an interesting buy.

Ultimately the Core i9-9900KS is going to end up in the hands of enthusiasts who want nothing more than the best, but don’t want to jump to the high-end desktop platform. Despite the Intel chipsets for consumers, it’s still a shame that these processors only have 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, given the desire for direct attached PCIe storage in this market.

Gaming: F1 2018
Comments Locked

235 Comments

View All Comments

  • Agent Smith - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    Only one year warranty with this CPU, reduced from 3yrs. So it’s marginally faster, uses more power, offers no gaming advantages and it’s price hike doesn’t justify the performance gain and warranty disadvantage over 9900k.

    ... and the 3950x is about to arrive. Mmm?
  • willis936 - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    Counter strike really needs to be added to benchmarks. It’s just silly how useless these gaming benchmarks are. There is virtually nothing that separates any of the processors. How can you recommend it for gaming when your data shows that a processor half the price is just as good? Test the real scenarios that people would want to use this chip.
  • Xyler94 - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    It's more because you need a specific set of circumstances these days to see the difference in gaming that's more than margin of error.

    You need at least a 2080, but preferably a 2080ti
    You need absolutely nothing else running on the computer other than OS, Game and launcher
    You need the resolution to be set at 1080p
    You need the quality to be at medium to high.

    then, you can see differences. CS:GO shows nice differences... but there's no monitor in the world that can display 400 to 500FPS, so yeah... Anandtech still uses a 1080, which is hardly taxing to any modern CPU, that's why you see no differences.
  • willis936 - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    csgo is a proper use case. It isn’t intense, graphically, and people regularly play with 1440p120. Shaving milliseconds off input to display latency matters. I won’t go into an in depth analysis to why, but imagine a human response time has a gaussian distribution and whoever responds first wins. Even if the mean response time is 150 ms, if the standard deviation is 20 ms and your input to display latency is 50 ms then there are gains to cutting 20, 10, even 5 ms off of it.

    And yes, more fps does reduce input latency, even in cases where the monitor refresh rate is lower than the fps.

    https://youtu.be/hjWSRTYV8e0
  • Xyler94 - Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - link

    If you visually can't react fast enough, doesn't matter how quickly the game can take an input, you're still limited on the information presented to you. 240hz is the fastest you can go, and 400FPS vs 450FPS isn't gonna win you tournaments.

    CS:GO is not a valid test, as there's more to gaming than FPS. Input lag is more about the drivers and peripherals, and there's even lag between your monitor and GPU to consider. But go on, pretend 50FPS at 400+ makes that huge of a difference.
  • solnyshok - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    No matter what GHz, buying a 14nm/PCIE3 chip/mobo just before 10nm/PCIE4 comes to the market... Seriously? Wait another 6 months.
  • mattkiss - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    10nm/PCIe 4 isn't coming to desktop next year, where did you hear that?
  • eek2121 - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    The 3700X is totally trolling Intel right now.
  • RoboMurloc - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    I dunno if anyone mentioned yet, but the KS has additional security measures to mitigate exploits which are probably causing the performance regressions.
  • PeachNCream - Friday, November 1, 2019 - link

    I expect I will never own an i9-9900KS or a Ryzen 7 3700X, but it is interesting to see how close AMD's 65W 8 core chip gets to Intel's 127+W special edition CPU in terms of performance in most of these benchmarks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now