F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop 9900K vs 9900KS

9900K vs 9900KS

9900K vs 9900KS

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
M
71
11-03-2018, 08:58 PM
#1
The 9900KS is on its way. For those who own the 9900K, is it worth the upgrade? Although the performance numbers are identical except for the 5.0Ghz All Core Turbo Boost Clock, the 9900K can achieve the same results by adjusting a setting in the BIOS. This is similar to how I turned Enhanced Multi-Core Performance on in my Gigabyte Z390 Aurus Master, where all eight cores reached 5.0Ghz as reported by HWiNFO64.
M
monkeygaminghd
11-03-2018, 08:58 PM #1

The 9900KS is on its way. For those who own the 9900K, is it worth the upgrade? Although the performance numbers are identical except for the 5.0Ghz All Core Turbo Boost Clock, the 9900K can achieve the same results by adjusting a setting in the BIOS. This is similar to how I turned Enhanced Multi-Core Performance on in my Gigabyte Z390 Aurus Master, where all eight cores reached 5.0Ghz as reported by HWiNFO64.

S
SupportUNIT99
Junior Member
1
11-03-2018, 09:24 PM
#2
Later Intel will launch a 9900KT model, which will reach 5.1GHz right out of the box. Many will wonder if upgrading from 9900KS to 9900KT is beneficial.
S
SupportUNIT99
11-03-2018, 09:24 PM #2

Later Intel will launch a 9900KT model, which will reach 5.1GHz right out of the box. Many will wonder if upgrading from 9900KS to 9900KT is beneficial.

M
MyNameIsNoOne
Member
109
11-05-2018, 08:26 AM
#3
Same processor running at 5GHz right from the start—no additional modifications.
M
MyNameIsNoOne
11-05-2018, 08:26 AM #3

Same processor running at 5GHz right from the start—no additional modifications.

A
Abyswalker
Member
60
11-05-2018, 09:15 AM
#4
With the 9900K it's not a good deal. Whether your 9900K reaches 5Ghz with all cores depends a lot on chance. You might end up with a less favorable silicon outcome. In those situations, the KS might be better than the regular K. But even then, if you're unlucky and your 9900K only goes up to around 4.6Ghz with all cores, the gap won't be significant compared to the 9900KS. Unless you're willing to sell your 9900K and buy a KS for a reasonable price, it's not worth it.
A
Abyswalker
11-05-2018, 09:15 AM #4

With the 9900K it's not a good deal. Whether your 9900K reaches 5Ghz with all cores depends a lot on chance. You might end up with a less favorable silicon outcome. In those situations, the KS might be better than the regular K. But even then, if you're unlucky and your 9900K only goes up to around 4.6Ghz with all cores, the gap won't be significant compared to the 9900KS. Unless you're willing to sell your 9900K and buy a KS for a reasonable price, it's not worth it.

1
1234qaz12qaz
Posting Freak
773
11-05-2018, 05:56 PM
#5
I wonder if they're using the name KT for low-power CPUs, as that could sound confusing given Intel's naming style. The 'T' usually stands for unlocked multiplier, and sometimes higher TDP is associated with it. It's a helpful comparison.
1
1234qaz12qaz
11-05-2018, 05:56 PM #5

I wonder if they're using the name KT for low-power CPUs, as that could sound confusing given Intel's naming style. The 'T' usually stands for unlocked multiplier, and sometimes higher TDP is associated with it. It's a helpful comparison.

J
JuanNWD2
Junior Member
12
11-05-2018, 08:22 PM
#6
It relies on the cost. If Intel raises the 9900KS price by $150, then...it’s definitely Intel.
J
JuanNWD2
11-05-2018, 08:22 PM #6

It relies on the cost. If Intel raises the 9900KS price by $150, then...it’s definitely Intel.

G
GoonerOliver
Member
206
11-07-2018, 08:19 PM
#7
Only beneficial if you're aiming for at least 5.0 OC and switching from a weaker CPU (not the 9900k). There are still some 9900k models stuck at 4.8 or 4.9 because of bad luck. That doesn't justify the upgrade cost unless you already own one. It remains a very strong, fast CPU at its original price, though it's a disappointment if you can't apply any overclocking.
G
GoonerOliver
11-07-2018, 08:19 PM #7

Only beneficial if you're aiming for at least 5.0 OC and switching from a weaker CPU (not the 9900k). There are still some 9900k models stuck at 4.8 or 4.9 because of bad luck. That doesn't justify the upgrade cost unless you already own one. It remains a very strong, fast CPU at its original price, though it's a disappointment if you can't apply any overclocking.

X
XxPandaxX_74
Member
179
11-15-2018, 01:01 AM
#8
In the past at Haswell, the suffix indicated 84w, S meant 65w, T meant 35w. The way they named it has already caused issues.
X
XxPandaxX_74
11-15-2018, 01:01 AM #8

In the past at Haswell, the suffix indicated 84w, S meant 65w, T meant 35w. The way they named it has already caused issues.

T
The_real_Bacca
Junior Member
23
11-16-2018, 01:25 AM
#9
Notably, enabling Enhanced Multi-Core Performance with Auto activates all cores at 4.7Ghz. Switching it to On increases them to 5.0Ghz as reported by HWiFO64. Activating it also pushes idle temperatures near the 40°C range.
T
The_real_Bacca
11-16-2018, 01:25 AM #9

Notably, enabling Enhanced Multi-Core Performance with Auto activates all cores at 4.7Ghz. Switching it to On increases them to 5.0Ghz as reported by HWiFO64. Activating it also pushes idle temperatures near the 40°C range.

I
ItzOprayHD
Member
173
11-16-2018, 07:24 PM
#10
This method isn't possible with certain processors, such as the 8700 or 9400F, even if you're using a different motherboard.
I
ItzOprayHD
11-16-2018, 07:24 PM #10

This method isn't possible with certain processors, such as the 8700 or 9400F, even if you're using a different motherboard.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next