"In a bid to maintain an intrigue, Intel did not disclose TDP of its new product." Its TDP will only depend on the +400 MHz base frequency anyway, so assuming a fine binning it will probably be around 125W to 140W. However, the all-core full boost clock "TDP" must be in the 250W to 300W range, even with the best possible binning.
I am also curious what the "sufficient cooling" would be. Probably not a commercial chiller this time around but I wonder if it will be able to sustain these speeds for a meaningful time (or even reach them at all) on air.
Also curious which mainboards will support it considering that the max power draw will probably be on the high side.
The big question is what voltage do they hit 5ghz stable at? Most 9900k can hit 5ghz if you are willing to potentially turn the voltage as high as 1.36v. I run my 9900k at 4.8ghz -2avx and 4.5uncore at 1.27v. If the KS needs too much voltage then it isn't worth it imo.
TDP really doesn't matter when you buying these CPU anyway. What i find silly is that the KF and non-KF version cost the same price. If they priced the non KF cheaper because no graphics be a much better deal for people.
Not like it matters, every 9900K and KF are selling out of stock for months now.
TDP matters, likely always will, however, when the manufacturer does NOT stick to even their own TDP (or give high hell to ODM that go above and beyond spec) then if does not
LMAO....I guess as well not really matter if your "box cooler" can barely handle 45-65w range.
IMO truth in numbers, if it CAN hit 220w power/TDP put on the box electrically milted to never exceed X.....they do not do this, really about the closest ever was, has always been AMD, when say TDP x or BOARD POWER x, they are very much in that range (or substantially below this prior to overclock to hell and back .. still using my 7870 rated for 180w, LOOOOOL...most I ever got was 170w and I was anything but stable (overclock like crazy)
Other notable was ofc Nv 1xxx generation, quite good power for performance given (even if a good chunk of it was psuedo performance i.e BS tricks to appear as quick as did/does/still do, their business is built on it...
That being said, if Intel does this, they not cook themselves constantly has performance to back up core/thread count AND hardened security (fix all the nasty crud they have allowed at silicon level for decades really) then it might be ok, provided they also not use toothpaste thermal glue nor slap big nasty price tag on (like it is anyone but INTEL FAULT that they royally screwed the pooch for years....all chasing a nm class that has eluded them big time...now we have kind of 10nm that will kind of be more pricey than by all rights should be.
Never underestimate the stupidity and wallets of Intel diehards. I have literally seen 2 guys buying CFL i5s at a local PC store with the entire 3rd gen Ryzen lineup already sit on the shelves, and they also seem to care more about RGBs than getting the best performance for their dollars.
Thanks to the same people, I was able to sell my 8700K + Z370 and was able to upgrade to a 3700X + B450M Mortar for a mere $50.
For some people it is though. That's why top of the line products usually are disproportionally more expensive than mid range products.
Some people want the fastest / best and are willing to pay.
Then there are those people who get the bottom end version but still feel like they share in the top end version's power - kinda like having a 4 cylinder Camaro but feeling like you're actually owning a Corvette ZR1.
Halo products are useful at attracting this kind of customer.
I work for a major retailer. People walk in and buy i5s and i7s as if AMD didn't exist. Not because they're fanboys, but because they don't know. They know i7 means "pretty fast" and i5 means "probably fast enough".
Also 3900X don't exist outside of pre-orders. And never have since launch. Once they do (and AMD does find those 100-200mhz boost most are lacking) things might change.
I feel like I need to clarify. By don't exist outside of pre-orders I mean the few we get every now and then all go towards pre-orders and pre-built systems.
"Also 3900X don't exist outside of pre-orders. And never have since launch"
Sure they do---you have to be vigilant in checking newegg, micro center, etc. and either clicking 'order' or getting to the store location in time. Thats how i got mine a week or so ago.
But demand definitely still outstrips supply. As for the reason people ignore AMD is that up until now, it seems major box stores like best buy only put AMD cpus in their low and lower-mid range systems, so by default the average consumer believes Intel=premium.
Plus whatever the sufficient cooling solution costs. Sadly, this is most of the time not included in the price shown / included for reviews.
My point being that if you need to purchase a $100+ cooling solution in order to run the CPU at advertized speeds vs. another product that already includes an HSF, then the former's actual price is retail price plus cooling solution price.
Kind of a nice insult to everyone who bought a 9900K in the last 3-4 months, innit?
Ah, well, I got mine for a fair bit less than the going rate back then and still less than today, and it does what I want. I’m wondering if they improved the STIM in addition to the binning.
They better to release CML-S next month. At least mainstream i5 and i7. Zen 2 turn to be very expensive for those who switching from Intel, but i can't wait forever to change my 2500K.
when you have 2 generations of CPUs in one socket on a good day and then you have platforms from intel where even next gen CPU requires new motherboard? Explain how it is more expensive if you have to change RAM, mobo and CPU?
You still have to change motherboard if you have A320 or most X370.
But that's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about those who are buying full new platform, either having Intel or old AMD. X570 motherboards are 35 to 40% more expensive than Z390 counterparts. And there are no any good X470 motherboard with BIOS Flashback in retail except very expensive Asus Crosshair. B450 is not enough for me. I need 2 working PCIe x1 slots and 6 SATA ports.
Mine is 7,5 years old, purchased in march 2011. There are no AMD motherboards from 2011 or 2012 that i would still use with Zen 2 as well.
Like getting blood out of a stone. Silicon technology hit the wall many years ago at 4-5ghz and Moore's Law which gave us double the CPU power every 18 month at the same price died long ago. Intel once promised a 10ghz CPU :) No significant performance jumps will be seen until we find a silicon replacement which, if found, may take a decade to reach the market. Other than higher cost and heat consumers will see little difference between this and a stock 9900K reaching 4.8-4.9ghz with minimal tweaks. Few single user apps can even use 8 core/16 threads. 16, 32, 64 cores great for multi-users/servers but actually slower for single users. AMD 7nm tech reduces power for mobile devices but having problems even reaching advertised clock speeds. M/Boards are pricey with PCIe 4 so Ryzen 3000 not really much cheaper. Leakage becomes a serious problem at 7nm and we have yet to see how long they will last when overclocked. Desktop market is shrinking. Lots of marketing hype to get us to keep spending more money with little or no real benefit. "Much ado about nothing"
OMFG!! WTF? Don't tell me they're actually going to use the *same* packaging for it! This is a disgrace!
Man... for the $1k they're prolly gonna charge for this thing, that fancy box should have a couple propellers and fly itself out of the shipping box and right onto your workbench/table.
...but they prolly won't... Lazy, stingy Intel, thinking they can just give us a few more clocks and just recycle the same old box, while still pocketing our hard-earned cash. Oh God! The injustice! The indignity!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
Santoval - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
"In a bid to maintain an intrigue, Intel did not disclose TDP of its new product."Its TDP will only depend on the +400 MHz base frequency anyway, so assuming a fine binning it will probably be around 125W to 140W. However, the all-core full boost clock "TDP" must be in the 250W to 300W range, even with the best possible binning.
Irata - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
I am also curious what the "sufficient cooling" would be. Probably not a commercial chiller this time around but I wonder if it will be able to sustain these speeds for a meaningful time (or even reach them at all) on air.Also curious which mainboards will support it considering that the max power draw will probably be on the high side.
Opencg - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
The big question is what voltage do they hit 5ghz stable at? Most 9900k can hit 5ghz if you are willing to potentially turn the voltage as high as 1.36v. I run my 9900k at 4.8ghz -2avx and 4.5uncore at 1.27v. If the KS needs too much voltage then it isn't worth it imo.Maxiking - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
Once you have enough money to buy any Intel K cpu, you won't make such stupid statements.Maxiking - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
My 9900k @5.1ghz 1.34v consumes 170w in Prime95 small fft non avx, and 220w with -1 AVX offset in the same test.imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
TDP really doesn't matter when you buying these CPU anyway.What i find silly is that the KF and non-KF version cost the same price. If they priced the non KF cheaper because no graphics be a much better deal for people.
Not like it matters, every 9900K and KF are selling out of stock for months now.
Dragonstongue - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
TDP matters, likely always will, however, when the manufacturer does NOT stick to even their own TDP (or give high hell to ODM that go above and beyond spec) then if does notLMAO....I guess as well not really matter if your "box cooler" can barely handle 45-65w range.
IMO truth in numbers, if it CAN hit 220w power/TDP put on the box electrically milted to never exceed X.....they do not do this, really about the closest ever was, has always been AMD, when say TDP x or BOARD POWER x, they are very much in that range (or substantially below this prior to overclock to hell and back .. still using my 7870 rated for 180w, LOOOOOL...most I ever got was 170w and I was anything but stable (overclock like crazy)
Other notable was ofc Nv 1xxx generation, quite good power for performance given (even if a good chunk of it was psuedo performance i.e BS tricks to appear as quick as did/does/still do, their business is built on it...
That being said, if Intel does this, they not cook themselves constantly has performance to back up core/thread count AND hardened security (fix all the nasty crud they have allowed at silicon level for decades really) then it might be ok, provided they also not use toothpaste thermal glue nor slap big nasty price tag on (like it is anyone but INTEL FAULT that they royally screwed the pooch for years....all chasing a nm class that has eluded them big time...now we have kind of 10nm that will kind of be more pricey than by all rights should be.
^.^
Slaps - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Let me guess, 5GHz meaning 500 USD?Targon - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
The normal 9900k has a price of $488, so this cherry picked version has to be at least $588 if not $688.Alistair - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
They have to reduce prices, since the 3700X is only $330 and about the same. 10 percent faster isn't worth double the price.blppt - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Heck, the 3900X is about the same price as the regular 9900K now. Well, that is if you can find one in stock.StrangerGuy - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Never underestimate the stupidity and wallets of Intel diehards. I have literally seen 2 guys buying CFL i5s at a local PC store with the entire 3rd gen Ryzen lineup already sit on the shelves, and they also seem to care more about RGBs than getting the best performance for their dollars.Thanks to the same people, I was able to sell my 8700K + Z370 and was able to upgrade to a 3700X + B450M Mortar for a mere $50.
Irata - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
For some people it is though. That's why top of the line products usually are disproportionally more expensive than mid range products.Some people want the fastest / best and are willing to pay.
Then there are those people who get the bottom end version but still feel like they share in the top end version's power - kinda like having a 4 cylinder Camaro but feeling like you're actually owning a Corvette ZR1.
Halo products are useful at attracting this kind of customer.
Ratiofarming - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
I work for a major retailer. People walk in and buy i5s and i7s as if AMD didn't exist. Not because they're fanboys, but because they don't know. They know i7 means "pretty fast" and i5 means "probably fast enough".Also 3900X don't exist outside of pre-orders. And never have since launch. Once they do (and AMD does find those 100-200mhz boost most are lacking) things might change.
Ratiofarming - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
I feel like I need to clarify. By don't exist outside of pre-orders I mean the few we get every now and then all go towards pre-orders and pre-built systems.You can't walk in and buy one.
blppt - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
"Also 3900X don't exist outside of pre-orders. And never have since launch"Sure they do---you have to be vigilant in checking newegg, micro center, etc. and either clicking 'order' or getting to the store location in time. Thats how i got mine a week or so ago.
But demand definitely still outstrips supply. As for the reason people ignore AMD is that up until now, it seems major box stores like best buy only put AMD cpus in their low and lower-mid range systems, so by default the average consumer believes Intel=premium.
Irata - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Plus whatever the sufficient cooling solution costs. Sadly, this is most of the time not included in the price shown / included for reviews.My point being that if you need to purchase a $100+ cooling solution in order to run the CPU at advertized speeds vs. another product that already includes an HSF, then the former's actual price is retail price plus cooling solution price.
schujj07 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Actual footage of someone turning on a desktop powered by the 9900kshttps://youtu.be/inWKw8nqQlI
LoneWolf15 - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
Kind of a nice insult to everyone who bought a 9900K in the last 3-4 months, innit?Ah, well, I got mine for a fair bit less than the going rate back then and still less than today, and it does what I want. I’m wondering if they improved the STIM in addition to the binning.
Karmena - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
don't sweat, that is a good CPU. But at this moment I would not recommend it as you get more for your money. Sidegrades are not fun.regsEx - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
They better to release CML-S next month. At least mainstream i5 and i7. Zen 2 turn to be very expensive for those who switching from Intel, but i can't wait forever to change my 2500K.Karmena - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
when you have 2 generations of CPUs in one socket on a good day and then you have platforms from intel where even next gen CPU requires new motherboard? Explain how it is more expensive if you have to change RAM, mobo and CPU?regsEx - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
You still have to change motherboard if you have A320 or most X370.But that's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about those who are buying full new platform, either having Intel or old AMD. X570 motherboards are 35 to 40% more expensive than Z390 counterparts. And there are no any good X470 motherboard with BIOS Flashback in retail except very expensive Asus Crosshair. B450 is not enough for me. I need 2 working PCIe x1 slots and 6 SATA ports.
Mine is 7,5 years old, purchased in march 2011. There are no AMD motherboards from 2011 or 2012 that i would still use with Zen 2 as well.
AlSpaeth - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
Like getting blood out of a stone. Silicon technology hit the wall many years ago at 4-5ghz and Moore's Law which gave us double the CPU power every 18 month at the same price died long ago. Intel once promised a 10ghz CPU :)No significant performance jumps will be seen until we find a silicon replacement which, if found, may take a decade to reach the market. Other than higher cost and heat consumers will see little difference between this and a stock 9900K reaching 4.8-4.9ghz with minimal tweaks.
Few single user apps can even use 8 core/16 threads. 16, 32, 64 cores great for multi-users/servers but actually slower for single users.
AMD 7nm tech reduces power for mobile devices but having problems even reaching advertised clock speeds. M/Boards are pricey with PCIe 4 so Ryzen 3000 not really much cheaper. Leakage becomes a serious problem at 7nm and we have yet to see how long they will last when overclocked.
Desktop market is shrinking.
Lots of marketing hype to get us to keep spending more money with little or no real benefit.
"Much ado about nothing"
magreen - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
They found the replacement for silicon long ago. Just that transparent aluminum is really hard to fab.ajp_anton - Thursday, September 5, 2019 - link
So what's the logic behind using the low-power -S suffix for this very much not low-power CPU?mode_13h - Friday, September 6, 2019 - link
OMFG!! WTF? Don't tell me they're actually going to use the *same* packaging for it! This is a disgrace!Man... for the $1k they're prolly gonna charge for this thing, that fancy box should have a couple propellers and fly itself out of the shipping box and right onto your workbench/table.
...but they prolly won't... Lazy, stingy Intel, thinking they can just give us a few more clocks and just recycle the same old box, while still pocketing our hard-earned cash. Oh God! The injustice! The indignity!