9900KS or?
9900KS or?
Consensus is forming that Intel should ramp up efforts, though the 3950x offers little new value right now. The 3900x already made a difference, and unless someone specifically targets a 3900x at similar pricing to the 9900k, they’re unlikely to consider the 3950x. I think they’d excel with a high-frequency, heavily binned 3700x (or even 3800x). This would significantly challenge the 9900k. Those eyeing a 9900k at this stage are likely aiming for gaming performance. The 3950x wouldn’t match the 9900k in that space, just like the 3900x didn’t surpass it before. It feels like overreaching in a category where the 3900x already held strong—especially for multithreaded workloads. At around $400–500, most people won’t buy a CPU unless they’re targeting HEDT, which suggests Intel needs to step up its game.
I delayed the 3900x since I expected a 16-core processor; the 3950x was a pleasant surprise and extra bonus. I’m okay with a slight slowdown, but I prefer using the 16 cores for work. Perhaps it’s just my opinion, though the 3900x didn’t seem very appealing.
I believed the 3900x targeted the sweet spot because it delivers essentially an HEDT (though on a consumer socket) that rivals Intel's entire HEDT lineup, almost matching the performance of the 9900k and comes with a cooler. If I return to heavy video rendering, my next setup might lean toward an AMD powerhouse, but currently the 9900k meets all my needs—mainly gaming, plus it handles weekly renders smoothly without feeling like a long wait. It also performs well in Photoshop, which is a nice bonus!
If you intend to overclock, there is no reason to play the lottery on saving $60 bucks on a 9900k versus a 9900KS, since most current R0 steppings now will overclock worse than the older P0 steppings, due to 9900KS binning. And the KS is the same price as the K was on release (when not price gouged). Biting the bullet now or later? Ask yourself: If your CPU too slow to enjoy your computer right now?