• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

9900KS...

StriderX said:
...In gaming, which the 9900K already achieves, so?

Also how long do those boosts last? Seconds or milliseconds?
Click to expand...
Actually they are Consistent on 4 cores. Thats AMD's boosts that are mcroseconds on 1 best core from all my 12 cores. Not even seen it EVER hit that 4600 single core EVER. Even if intel hits that for 1 second its still more legit boost than AMD's lies.



Depends on motherboard and bios. How boost is and how VRM is ect. But You can have 5ghz constant.
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
Ryzen tested with 3200Mhz RAM? Nice impartial review :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No one gives two shinny **** about Ryzen in this thread............ Its cheap.... Thats all you can say..... and its for this reason alone general customers forgive the fact that it does not even reach the boost frequency advertised in around 80%+ of cases (Online pole as evidence).. Well for me its 95% of cases and I tested a lot of these things....SO why the hell does anyone care about memory frequency at all....

The fact should be does the Intel work at stock as advertised oh yes it does (Well mine do)..... Does the AMD .. Oh no it does not!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's funny didn't AMD release a bios fix that fixed the boosting issues, oh yes they did and it was verified working by all the major tech sites. Don't let the Intel bias get in the way of facts.
 

So you still need to disable the standard power limits for the chip to actually run at 5 GHz (and thus 127 W) for sustained periods on motherboards that don't ignore Intel guidelines. Basically you can't have both, either you get the 5 GHz clocks with high power consumption (as with an overclocked i9-9900K), or lower clocks while sticking to the advertised (already high) TDP. For @Cooper, this is why Intel still being on 14nm is a problem.

For rendering, it sits either just below the R7 3700X/3800X when sticking to TDP or just above it, while using up to twice the amount of power. Remember that this chip is at a significantly higher price point than either of those chips. For gaming, it sits around the top of the tree in synthetic benchmarks (1080p with a 2080 Ti), beating Zen 2 particularly in average FPS.
 
Last edited:
Never ceased to be amazed at the amount of people willing to throw money away on this forum...

...£150 extra, for nothing.

Stupid is, stupid does.
 
Well it seems like the 9900KS is not worth the extra cost.

Winner of 2019's Most Boring CPU Award

Well this is awkward...My golden sample 9900K BEAT the 9900KS
 
I own an 8700K and was a bit interested in this as the last new CPU available for my motherboard, but we obviously aren't at the point where two extra cores makes a real difference for gaming. The upgrade itch will have to wait a year.
 
Lets not forget though. There is a strain of people out there who don't want to sit there and tinker for hours on end with a 9900K to get it up to 5Ghz.
This chip is the niche for that niche of people, 5Ghz capability out of the box, no faffing required. Some are happy to pay the hassle free tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom