Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS

Updated:03:04 PM CET Nov,03

NEWS / RSS
CHEATS

REVIEWS

ARTICLES

HARDWARE

DEMOS

FORUMS

LINKS (new)

66 lottery login

91 club

okwin

bdg game

55 club

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Gameguru Mania News - Oct,28 2019 -

Intel Announces Core i9-9900KS - tech
(hx) 09:09 PM CET - Oct,28 2019 - Post a comment / read (21)
Intel today announced full details and availability for the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Delivering up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency out of the box for the ultimate gaming experience, the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS will be available beginning Oct. 30, with recommended customer price starting at $513. This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only and can be found at retailers worldwide. "Intel has raised the bar for desktop gaming with the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Based on the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K architecture, it's the world's best gaming desktop processor made even better and created specifically for extreme gamers who want the most performance possible. This processor demonstrates another innovation milestone for Intel, following last year's limited edition 8th Gen Intel Core i7-8086K," said Frank Soqui, Intel vice president and general manager of the Desktop, Workstation and Channel Group. The i9-9900KS processor is unlocked and boasts eight cores and 16 threads, up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes for gaming and overclocking. Key Features and Capabilities:
Up to 5.00 GHz all-core turbo frequency; up to 4.00 GHz base frequency, which allow games to run faster when they scale across more cores for higher frame rates
Eight cores, 16 threads, 127 W TDP, 16 MB Intel Smart Cache, and up to 40 platform PCIe lanes
Compatible with existing Z390 motherboards
Up to 27% faster mega-tasking when you simultaneously game, stream and record compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 35% more frames per second compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 17% faster 4K video editing compared with the previous generation and up to 78% faster compared with a 3-year-old PC
One-year warranty
Overclock confidently with new and enhanced features like Intel Performance Maximizer, which makes it easy to dynamically and reliably custom-tune the unlocked processor based on the processor's individual performance DNA

last 10 comments:

Csimbi

(08:30 AM CET - Oct,29 2019 )

quote:
Up to 27% faster mega-tasking when you simultaneously game, stream and record compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 35% more frames per second compared with a 3-year-old PC
Up to 17% faster 4K video editing compared with the previous generation and up to 78% faster compared with a 3-year-old PC
Those are extremely poor stats.
Performance should have doubled each year (if it was not for Intel's greedy strategy).
2x2x2=8x, so we should be seeing 800% performance increase.
Instead, we are seeing 17-79%, which is "up to", meaning "if you are lucky".

After I relidded my 4790K, I ran some AIDA benchmarks on it.
It consistently beat the 6700K and in some tests even "faster" processors.
And that's at standard clock speeds (without overclocking anything).

Gamers don't need high performance CPUs, they need high clock speeds and fast graphics cards.
I guess that's the reason Intel is advertising this as a gaming CPU; high clocks for high single-core performance demands from the games.
I would not mind that at all, make me a 4/8 core CPU. But then make it 12Ghz, as it should be.

I am not sure what others are thinking but Intel has been fucking everyone over for the past few years.
For that reason, I would not mind them going bankrupt.

gx-x	(01:38 PM CET - Oct,29 2019 )
do you seriously think that deliding your cpu magically made it faster? AIDA? dude...So many variables...Granted, if I had 4790 I wouldn't bother with getting skylake for ~5% perf. increase overall, but still.... Also, doubling performance of the cpu each year is very unrealistic. That task can't be done with GPU, let alone with CPU...It doesn't matter if it's intel or amd.

Csimbi

(02:20 PM CET - Oct,29 2019 )

gx-x> do you seriously think that deliding your cpu magically made it faster? AIDA? dude...So many variables...Granted, if I had 4790 I wouldn't bother with getting skylake for ~5% perf. increase overall, but still....

I did not say that. I said I ran some benchmarks after.
I did not bother with them before the relid.
And, when I saw the benchmark results, I was positively surprised so I thought I would share that fact.

But, seeing in AIDA how the CPU was throttled down due to overheating, I think yes, I can confidently say that it does run faster.
Have a look at the second chart and the reds - there's a 13% down throttling on average (as it's getting close to 100 Celsius, which takes approx. 30 seconds or so).

Variables? What variables?
It's one system's performance vs. other systems' performances using the same software version and the same benchmark. As is, right now.

gx-x> Also, doubling performance of the cpu each year is very unrealistic. That task can't be done with GPU, let alone with CPU...It doesn't matter if it's intel or amd.
Not really. Intel's the only one that does not keep to their own "law", lol
Have a look at the last few years on this chart here.
They simply stopped making stronger chips and they did not make the clock speeds higher, either. (Well, they dud but 1GHz over 3 years is really nothing.)

gx-x

(03:11 PM CET - Oct,29 2019 )

I have no clue why your cpu ran that hot. It's not supposed to. Especially in AIDA test that is quite mild tbh.

AIDA's benchamrks are stupid, there is no better way to put it. Look at the memory configurations of systems you are competing against. for dd4 there are even 2133 and 2400 RAM modules on HEDT cpu's and X motherboards. Then my CPU is often faster than higher clocked hyperthreaded i7 8700K (I have i5 9400 lol) because r am is at 2400, mine is at 3333 and like I said, a lot of variables.
It's fine just don't take it too seriously.

As for performance doubling in CPU industry, they can't do that within the year even if they wanted to throw everything they made last year into trash. It took AMD 10 years and everything they had to make Ryzen. And do you see 100% perf. increase in ryzen, say, 2800 over 1800? 3800 over 1800? Nope. You wont see it on 5800 vs 1800 either. It impossible. It requires whole new fab, new chip design etc. Intel has been toying with similar chip design since first "I" series. Now they are at the end of the road, and AMD is going to be doing the same thing with Ryzens for years to come.

PS. Some bigger improvements on intel you see only under some circumstances. I had IvyBridge i5 @4.4GHz. When I upgraded to this i5 9400, I was actually amazed at how much better some games played (much more fps, like, going from "medium" to "very high" settings, same GPU. Some games just worked the same so...yea.

Csimbi

(10:14 AM CET - Oct,30 2019 )

Just run it like I did - Stress FPU only; that makes is the hottest.

AIDA might look stupid to you, but taking memory speeds into account does give a better reflection of a systems' overall performance.
You can shove your fast CPU up where the sun don't shine if you have a weak memory controller or cheap RAM.
Another good test I use to compare is the WinRAR benchmark - that is sensitive to memory speeds, too.

gx-x

(12:21 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )

they are just outdated synthetic tests. There is no real life scenario where Opteron from 2000s is going to be actually faster than any ryzen or i5/i7 8xxx, yet, it rules supreme in several AIDA tests...

PS. Memory Controller is on a CPU, both on intel and AMD. AMD Bulldozer and chips before it had it on motherboard chipset, but you don't need any test to tell you what trash they are.

PPS. Just ran stress test, FPU only, ~50C . LinPack or Lynx easily push it into 70s

tub0rg69

(05:47 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )

Neither Intel nor AMD have been able to double permance for about 15 years now.
not because they do not want to, believe me they would love to make a 3 year old pc obsolete if they still could.

They cant increase frequencies anymore, we had 4ghz 20 years ago,
and they cant drop voltages anymore, we ran around 1.3 vcore 15 years ago.

That is why they started throwing cores at the problem. Remember Adding cores to cpus costs them money the dies become bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller. Is having 2x 3ghz better then having one core running 6 ghz for a cpu? no of course not but it was the only way they still could increase performance in a meaningfull way. well at least for things that can run parallel.

Microprocessor running doped silica chips, like harddrives using magnetic metal disk are at the end of their development. to really increase the performance a new technology insteat of an iterrated will be required. for hdds its probably going to be ssd drives, for Microprocessor it remains to be seen.

doodah	(09:48 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )
Moores law says nothing about performance, what the heck are you on about? Processors only doubled in MHz back in the early 00's but that didn't double their performance..

tub0rg69	(10:41 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )
Who is talking about Moores law? they didnt double in mhz only in the 00s, they pretty much did since the 70s. and they have not increased since around 2005. if you compare 2 cores of the same architecture double frequency equals double performance. since they cant do that since 2005 they started doubling cores instead, that works for somethings, not for all.

gx-x	(10:57 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )
the problem is "not for all". The software witch doesn't benefit from more threads is either at limit, or needs to be re-written. It's akin to having two 1TB drives, 2TB total. You can store a bunch of small files on them, but you can't store one 1.2TB file. In this scenario the drives represent the cpu with 2 threads, and the 1.2TB file represents a code written by a monkey.

tub0rg69	(11:07 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )
sure but of course there are many things that can not be parallelized and more cores or "drives" mean more power and material comsumption. further increase of density and frequency would be more desirable.

gx-x

(11:20 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )

I am pretty sure that almost everything can be parallelized. I am not sure everything needs to be tho.
Most things are parallelized fortunately so with each core we add, we do get more performance out of such applications. Up until a point where some application simply do not benefit from more cores because instructions hit bottleneck somewhere else in the system, or in the CPU. But anyway, I am pretty sure that latest intel i5 is at least twice as fast as the first intel i5 was (overall).

tub0rg69	(11:52 PM CET - Oct,30 2019 )
any serial calculation by defalult can never be parallelized because you need the last result for the next step. and even if you can parallelize something it does not mean it will benifit greatly. Amdahl's law and Gustafson's law for refrence. clock for clock that may be true for the i5 but that still is only a doubling in 10 years, before 2005 a decade would have seen a tenfold increase.

gx-x

(02:15 AM CET - Oct,31 2019 )

I didn't mean just clock for clock. It is clock for clock and you now have 6 cores, not 4, and things work faster across the board. Adobe package which a lot of people use for living - works a lot better. Sony vegas too. Games...3D modeling and rendering...it's all waaay ahead oh 2005 i5/7.

Sure, windows calc.exe doesn't need more performance, but even archivers (multi thread) benefited from faster CPUs. Hell, I'd hard to press what did not.

tub0rg69

(04:31 AM CET - Oct,31 2019 )

i dont get the argument. faster cpus are faster?
sure they are, its not like i am arguing there is no performance increase. but the reason we dont have the performance increases we had befrore 2005, neither multi nor single threaded is not because intels greed. sure they are greedy, but they would have made more money if they could go on doubling frequency instead of cores. but they cant because of RC-delay.

while you might get twice the performance with double the cores, you are guarenteed it with double frequency. and all diminishing returns of multithreading get worse the more cores you have.

that problem was even well understood before 2005 thats why intel was ready to go multicore when they hit the 4 ghz barrier in their pentium 4s.
if you want check "The end of Dennard Scaling" "Beyond CMOS" "MOSFET"
"RC time constant"

with this technology we wont see a 100 or 1000 fold increase in performance per watt anymore. of course you can add thousends of cores but in the end you just keep using increasing amounts of power to gain decreasing amounts of acceleration.
of course something else will come, but its unclear right now what that will be.

gx-x	(10:50 AM CET - Oct,31 2019 )
my argument is similar to yours, I agree with "post 2005" argument in particular. My point was, with parallelization more cores and threads were the way to go, they still are. People expecting 100% perf. jump are unrealistic, unless they mean twice more cores. In that case, HEDT is there, intel had 16/32 thread cpu long before AMD conceived Ryzen.

Csimbi	(11:50 AM CET - Oct,31 2019 )
You guys know that there are transistors out there with way higher switching times, right? Think 50-60GHz and beyond. IBM made 210Ghz, see? This one is 604Ghz and it's from 2005! So don't come mumbling about any barrier at a measly 5Ghz. There is a vast amount to headroom to grow into.

gx-x

(12:11 PM CET - Oct,31 2019 )

those are singular units, one switch, one transistor. Now put several billion of them, supply them with power, and cool them.

Besides, IBM said that they will have 100GHz operational in 2 years. that was supposed to be in 2007.

You could have said "there is quantum CPU working right now" instead. :)

So, you can either postpone the upgrade until nanotubes become a thing, or just upgrade already :D

Csimbi	(12:52 PM CET - Oct,31 2019 )
I was going to tell Intel back in 1999 about cooling the shit out of CPUs. They did not want to talk to me, they were "not interested" in the design. They still struggling with heat, to date. Fuck Intel, I hope they go bankrupt over their greed.

Tom

(02:49 PM CET - Oct,31 2019 )

Csimbi> I was going to tell Intel back in 1999 about cooling the shit out of CPUs.
They did not want to talk to me, they were "not interested" in the design.
They still struggling with heat, to date.
Fuck Intel, I hope they go bankrupt over their greed.

You don't even lie well. Most people who are going to really push their system wont be relying on some oem fan. Total non-issue. Only a hater like you could come up with the bullshit you do. Go back to your flipping burgers job at McDonalds.

Csimbi	(09:20 PM CEST - Apr,18 2024 )
Tom> You don't even lie well. Most people who are going to really push their system wont be relying on some oem fan. Total non-issue. Only a hater like you could come up with the bullshit you do. Go back to your flipping burgers job at McDonalds. Who said anything about an oem fan? lol I was going to cool the cpu without a fan. You assume wrong.

All comments

Add your comment (free registration required)

Related news:

HW News - RIP Internet, RAM Prices Skyrocket from AI Demand, Intel B580 Price Drops - tech (Oct 24 2025)

Does 200S Boost Fix Intel Arrow Lake? Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs. Core Ultra 9 285K - tech (Oct 22 2025)

Huge Arc B580 News! Intel Fixes CPU Overhead Problem - tech (Oct 04 2025)

Best Laptop CPU? Ryzen 9 9955HX3D vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX - tech (Aug 15 2025)

Intel might just... give up. - Tech News July 27 - tech (Jul 29 2025)

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX vs AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX - Which CPU is Best? - tech (Jul 19 2025)

Zen 6 might just finish Intel off... - tech (Jul 13 2025)

See Intel's Next-Gen CPU In Action - tech (May 21 2025)

Intel Arc GPU Graphics Drivers 101.6793 Beta Released - tech (May 14 2025)

Dear Intel New CEO Guy, KEEP MAKING THESE! - Battlemage for a Month Part 2 - briefly (May 02 2025)

I ACTUALLY Bought An Intel Ultra CPU In 2025... - tech (Apr 27 2025)

Intel Improves 285K Performance with a Big Update - tech (Apr 22 2025)

Ryzen 9 9950X3D vs. Intel Ultra 9 285K | Comparison in 11 Games (1080p) - briefly (Mar 16 2025)

This CPU is a Problem for Intel - The Fast AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D - tech (Mar 13 2025)

Weekly Q&A: Why is the 10th generation Intel processor faster than newer processors in everyday use? - tech (Feb 19 2025)

Microsoft Drops Support for Intel 8th, 9th, and 10th Gen CPUs for Windows 11 24H2 - briefly (Feb 18 2025)

Intel Went Too Far - tech (Feb 12 2025)

Arrow Lake H: Intel Fires Back - tech (Feb 11 2025)

Intel Core Ultra 200S: 104 Days Later - Final Review - tech (Feb 07 2025)

I Stuffed Up By Testing 50 Intel Z890 Motherboards! FML - tech (Jan 28 2025)

Intel Core Ultra 200S Saga: 3 Months of Fixes Benchmarked! - tech (Jan 26 2025)

Does PCIe 3.0 Affect Intel ARC Performance? Tested with Resizable Bar On and Off… - tech (Jan 21 2025)

I Bought The Intel ARC B570, Here are my Honest Impressions - tech (Jan 19 2025)

Intel Arc B570 Review, The New $220 GPU! 1440p Gaming Benchmarks - tech (Jan 17 2025)

9800X3D vs. R5 5600, Old PC vs. New PC: Intel Arc B580 Re-Review! - tech (Jan 10 2025)

Intel Arc GPU Graphics Drivers 101.6449 WHQL - tech (Jan 04 2025)

Intel Arc B580 Overhead Issue! Upgraders Beware - tech (Jan 03 2025)

The Intel ARC B580 is Broken...on Older Systems - tech (Jan 03 2025)

Intel Arc B580 Review, The Best Value GPU! - tech (Dec 12 2024)

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs. Intel Core i9 14900K, 45 Game Benchmark - tech (Dec 11 2024)

Intel's New Budget GPU changes EVERYTHING (Hopefully) - tech (Dec 05 2024)

Intel Arc Battlemage B580 & B570 GPU Specs, Price, & Release Date - tech (Dec 04 2024)

Intel Selling Offices, B580 GPU Leak, 5090 Imminent, & AMD 9950X3D Rumors - tech (Nov 27 2024)

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, 45 Game Benchmark - tech (Nov 16 2024)

Best CPUs of 2024 (Intel vs. AMD): Gaming, Production, Budget, & Efficiency - tech (Nov 16 2024)

AMD RYZEN 7 9800X3D vs INTEL i9-14900K | Test in 6 Games - tech (Nov 07 2024)

9800X3D Results are in.... Intel is irrelevant - tech (Nov 07 2024)

Fixing Intel Core Ultra Gaming Performance - RAM Speed Scaling & Core Isolation Tested - tech (Oct 30 2024)

Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Benchmarks, Oddly Slow For Gaming! - tech (Oct 28 2024)

Intel just isn't for Gamers right now... 285K Review and Benchmarks - tech (Oct 26 2024)

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Review, vs. 7800X3D, 5800X3D, 14700K + More - tech (Oct 25 2024)

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D in Gaming - 40 Games & 3 Resolutions Tested - tech (Oct 25 2024)

Thank You for Trying, Intel - Core Ultra 285K & 245K Review - tech (Oct 25 2024)

Intel ditches Hyper-Threading! - Core Ultra Details! - tech (Oct 11 2024)

Intel Arrow Lake: Slower at Gaming? - tech (Oct 10 2024)

Breaking Down Intel's Strategy For Core Ultra 200S - tech (Oct 10 2024)

Best Budget Gaming Laptop GPU? NVIDIA RTX 2050 vs Intel Arc A530M - tech (Oct 04 2024)

Intel Arrow Lake (15th Gen, Core Ultra): Leaks, Release Date + - tech (Sep 30 2024)

Did Intel Just Save x86? - tech (Sep 28 2024)

Intel is FINALLY Doing Something Different - tech (Sep 23 2024)

related cheats/trainer:

A.I.M. Artificial Intelligence Machine [trainer +7]
Intelligence Operation [Trainer +3]
Intellivision Greatest Hits [trainer +2]

Search results for -Intel- :

GamingIntel - Gaming INTEL is your source for all the latest gaming news, covering Call of Duty WW2, Destiny 2, The Last of Us 2, GTA 6, Battlefield 1 & More! (7744 hits)
Installing an Intel 1366 Core i7 LGA Processor - The purpose of this article is to illustrate the proper way to install a Core i7 LGA 1366 processor. Overall the process is really not difficult and once you understand the mechanics you'll be a pro in no time. (1279 hits)
Dominant Species - In this 3D strategy game, you take the role of a powerful alien intelligence, a Mindlord, engaged in a constant and deadly conflict with other hives on your home world, Mur. Your struggle is over the possession of Anima, the precious substance that sustains all life in your world. (1130 hits)