Yesterday I previewed Intel's Core i9-9900KS - a new flagship mainstream CPU that the company announced back in May at the Computex technology show. It's essentially a cherry-picked or 'binned' Core i9-9900K, with the main difference between the two CPUs being that the new model can hit 5GHz on all cores at the same time during boost. The older CPU could only do this on up to two cores and when all eight cores were loaded, that frequency falls back to 4.7GHz. The question is, just how much faster will it be, is it worth the premium, and can it reign in AMD's current Zen 2 Ryzen CPUs?
Intel's Core i9-9900KS
In lightly-threaded applications, there's not likely to be much of an improvement seeing as the Core i9-9900K can already hit 5GHz on two cores. Multi-threaded tasks, though, will benefit from a 300MHz Clock speed boost. That's the limit of the advantages, though, and even before we look at the performance numbers, it's fairly clear that Intel is still going to struggle against the might of the 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X in multi-threaded workloads.
Boost frequencies of the Core i9-9900KS versus the Core i9-9900K
The new CPU will come with a higher TDP of 127W compared to 95W for the Core i9-9900K and is slated to retail for around $513, which is about $40 higher than the current price of the Core i9-9900K.
Test system
CPU test system
CPU test system
I've rebuilt my test systems so they use cutting-edge components and also fully up to date versions of Windows 10 with the May 1903 update along with all the various security patches - both from motherboard manufacturers and Microsoft as these are known to have impacted on performance making any data obtained prior to these updates incomparable and unrepresentative.
I should also point out that I've used 3466MHz memory with all my systems now as this worked with older AMD CPUs as well as new ones, painting them in their best light, especially given memory prices are so low at the moment. You may see slightly better performance using faster memory, but you'll be unlikely to get that working on 1st Gen Ryzen CPUs.
Overclocking: I managed to overclock the Core i9-9900KS to 5.1GHz with a vcore of 1.28V. Other CPU overclocks I've included in the graphs include: Ryzen 7 3800X to 4.4GHz, Ryzen 5 3600: 4.25GHz, Ryzen 5 3600X: 4.25GHz, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: 4.3GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X: 4.3GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 1800X: 4GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X: 4.2GHz, AMD Threadripper 2920X: 4.2GHz, Intel Core i9-9900K: 5GHz, Intel Core i7-9700K: 5.1GHz, Intel Core i5-9600K: 5GHz, Intel Core i7-8700K: 5GHz.
Common components: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3466MHz memory, Nvidia RTX 2070 Super, Samsung 970 Evo 2TB M.2 SSD, EK Waterblocks EK-MLC Phoenix 240 liquid cooler, Corsair RM850i PSU
AMD systems
Socket AM4: MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon AC (Ryzen 7 1800X), Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (2nd and 3rd Gen Ryzen)
Socket TR4: MSI MEG X399 Creation (Threadripper 2920X)
Intel systems:
LGA1151: MSI MEG Z390 Ace
LGA2066: MSI MEG X299 Creation
Gaming Benchmarks
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
I use the built-in benchmark results here as it provides an in-depth look at performance, but it does use a 95th percentile rather than the 99th percentile I use in my other games' manual tests. The difference is usually negligible, but bear that in mind. Intel was strong already here but even at 1080p with a $500 graphics card, the wasn't much more to be had from the higher frequencies, yet plenty of scaling further down the graph moving up through the ranks. The Core i9-9900KS is faster, but only by a few frames per second compared to the Core i9-9900K.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark
Far Cry 5
The Core i9-9900KS was noticeably quicker than the Core i9-9900K here adding 4fps to the 99th percentile minimum frame rate, but not much to the average. Overclocking the new CPU also saw it leapfrog AMD's 8 and 12-core Zen 2 CPUs, but only by single digit frame rates.
Far Cry 5 benchmark
Dota 2
The higher frequencies and lower latency offered by the Core i9-9900KS certainly seems to build on Intel's dominance in DotA 2m albeit with tiny gains at stock speed over the Core i9-9900K. Only when overclocked did it edge out much of a lead.
DotA 2 benchmark
Dota 2 is an easy game to run but is a good example of what happens at high frame rates that are likely to appeal to those with high refresh rate monitors.
Content creation benchmarks
Adobe Premiere Pro
The Ryzen 9 3900X is still king for your cash here, knocking at least 10 seconds off the Core i9-9900K's export time of this this comparatively short 4K project. It's also worth noting that the much cheaper Ryzen 7 3800X performed similarly to the new Intel CPU so for Premiere, it's clear where your cash should go.
Adobe Premiere Pro benchmark
Cinebench R20
The Ryzen 9 3900X still holds on to its single-threaded performance crown in Cinebench R20, but only just. However, it's clear that Intel will need to do more here to get anywhere near what AMD offers in bang for your buck as getting all cores up to 5GHz on the Core i9-9900KS only added a couple of hundred points to the score of the Core i9-9900K while the Ryzen 9 3900X was a couple of thousand points ahead.
Cinebench R20 single-threaded benchmark
Cinbebench R20 Multi-threaded benchmark
HandBrake
Again, it's small gains with the new Intel CPU - certainly not enough to warrant an upgrade and nowhere near enough to dislodge the Ryzen 9 3900X
HandBrake benchmark
PC Mark 10 Image Editing
There were some reasonable gains in the PCMark 10 image editing test and these are edging towards justifying the extra premium the Core i9-9900KS demands over the 9900K. However, if cintent creation is your primary concern, it's AMD that deserves your cash still.
PCMark 10 Image Editing
Power Consumption
The stock speed power consumption rose by over 50W from the stock CPU, but that's to be expected due to the higher stock speed frequency and different BIOS, which seemed to push the Core i9-9900KS to 5GHz most of the time.
Load power consumption
Conclusion
While Intel is clearly having some fun here and cherry-picking the very best silicone to offer a faster product - that's essentially all the Core i9-9900KS is - a cherry-picked, special edition that may or may not be widely available depending just how many cherry-pickable dies it's able to produce.
There's no real change to my recommendation compared to AMD's offerings - it's just not quick enough compared to the Core i9-9900K to swing things in Intel's favor, at least in content creation. Games are a different matter, though, and there are some noticeable gains here, but they'll only concern you if you were in the market for a Core i9-9900K anyway. If that's you, the price difference may well be worth shelling out for - just - as soon as that difference tops $50 or so, which initial pricing is suggesting, the Core i9-9900K becomes better value, especially if you're willing to overclock it. For its mainstream lineup at least, we'll have to wait for 10th generation CPUs to land for anything more noteworthy from Intel.
Check out my other recent CPU reviews
Follow me here on Forbes or Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Reddit for more PC hardware news and reviews.
