The 9900KS might pose challenges for buyers, so it's wise to consider carefully.
The 9900KS might pose challenges for buyers, so it's wise to consider carefully.
I question the 9900Ks negating the 9900k claim. It looks probable they’ll position the chips nearer to the center, if anything. It seems more about providing an overclock boost than fine-tuning for efficiency and reduced heat. This suggests they’re offering a straightforward upgrade rather than deep optimization. For those avoiding complex tuning, this model offers reliability or they can return it for a replacement if needed.
Intel can just walk away now. AMD is finally entering the fray, acting like they're losing their mind and running on autopilot. They're making hasty choices, like this one. Paying a high price for the KS edition is really unnecessary. If the 3700X delivers solid performance at a reasonable cost, why not offer it at a better price?
Additionally, I’m unsure about your other applications. A 9700 would be ideal for gaming and office tasks.
I understand. In fact, I misunderstood the meaning of that sentence, and I just rephrased it using better language.
I just got mine in August. I can barely hold 4.9 at 1.285 VRin (which I've been told is the best VCORE on Aorus Z390). My actual Vcore is set to 1.3 and holds at 1.32 VCCIN in HWINFO. My temps hold exactly 100C on a Noctua D15 with it's 2 stock fans and the noctua paste. Reapplication didnt improve these. I idle in the high 30s. I still get crashes even though I pass x264 bench, realbench and blender bench for an hour each. The crashes are in DCS world, which is a full fidelity flight simulator so the single thread CPU abuse is higher than any other game i've come across. Also Aces High III which is another sim, occasionally I crash esp in VR. This is with my 2080ti on stock settings so it's not the card, since the card can pass Heaven and Superposition for hours at a time at a +150/+650 OC. I think I just got a poor silicon lottery result, but of course if intel is scraping off the top 30% (according to Silicon lottery 30% hit 5ghz) then everyone else is going to get 4.9ish at best and i've seen a few forum records of 4.7 all core being an issue at times. Side Note: I do plan to get myself a 9900KS to replace this. I dont know why, but I'm obsessed with having that 5GHZ number show up... Esp since the majority of games I play are CPU limited with the 2080TI and all the details cranked in VR.
I've never encountered a post or video showing the i9 9900k hitting 5GHz across all cores. This differs from the i7 8700K and i7 8086K. My i7 8086K would likely be a more suitable choice for achieving higher speeds. Essentially, it's a better starting point for those willing to invest more. For gaming, this might not be worthwhile because the 6-core version struggles with diminishing returns beyond 5GHz up to around 5.35GHz. If it reached that speed naturally, I'd consider getting two units.