Core i9-9900K Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.0 GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W

This CPU was a monster when it came out. Intel was finally forced by Ryzen to put more than 4 cores on consumer chips and we got the 8700K and 9900K, two of the best CPUs ever for their respective eras. That Coffeelake was also the best IPC jump Intel had since Haswell made it a great platform. Both were fast enough to keep up for several generations. And being 8c16t, 9900K still has very relevant performance today. It still performs well in the latest titles excepting a few broken ones; especially so when overclocked. All that being said this was where Intel started to hit the wall with 'Lake' architecture, and it is a fairly power hungry CPU. With even a mild overclock to 4.9GHz this chip uses around 180-200W to achieve what a 5700X or 5800X can do at 65W and 105W respectively. The Ryzen chips even outperform it in emulators and in many modern PC games. Also, at the time anyway, this CPU was not a worthwhile upgrade over 8700K unless you had a specific use-case. The 8700K with an overclock got pretty much identical performance in most things and threw WAY less heat into the room. For me 9900K gave a nice boost in RPCS3 and a few compression related things and not much else. I ended up moving on from it earlier than planned and jumping to a 7900X3D. 3D V-cache gaming performance, combined with the high clock scaling of the non-3D CCD, in a 12c24t CPU makes it a perfect jack of all trades. Nearly twice as fast as 9900K in a few scenarios. That it can do all this at 120W makes the 9900K seem very silly indeed. Granted Zen 4 is a newer CPU by a few years, but that was the comparison I experienced. 10th and 11th gen only got hotter and more power hungry and Zen 4 spanks them pretty hard too. I used this CPU to push a 3080 and then a 3080Ti at 1440p and it did the job wonderfully. I'd still be using it if it weren't for emulators. The 9900K still gave me top-tier performance in most dedicated PC titles and did workstation tasks very nicely. My 7900X3D absolutely mauls it in RPCS3 and Dolphin though. And those are applications where CPU performance legitimately matters and can make a difference between playable and unplayable. Nowadays I wouldn't recommend buying this CPU new OR used. It's still expensive and you can match or beat its performance with a 5700X/3D or 5800X/3D for much cheaper, using less power, and on a platform with newer capabilities. If you can get it very cheap however, or are still using one, there's not an urgent need to get anything better. Particularly if you only use a mid-range GPU like a 4070 or game at 4K where the chance of a CPU bottleneck is less.

At first I ordered the 9700k and Asus Z390 Prime-A motherboard. You may ask Why ASUS board why not Gigabyte etc? I used to use Asus all my life (beginning from core 2 duo processors or even Pentium 4). So, the system was ready to go and it was fast, quiet desktop with Fractal Design R4 case and Noctua D15 cooler( with two fans). No more fans than stock ones in my FD case (one for intake and other for outtake at the back). I OCed the system to 48Ghz at 1.26 Adaptive voltage or so (I don't remember exact number of voltage but 100% it was lower than 1.3v). And I created my computer and I looked at it and it was nice :) But then I started to view benchmarks, assessments in syntetic tests and noticed that 9700k is faster than 8700k in most cases. It faster than 7820x in most scenarios but.... But 9900k is much more faster in rendering, photo editing and streaming tasks. In two words, in those cases where multithreading takes place and all real cores + virtual cores are used at their 100%. And ... I made a decision to purchase 9900k. It's a costly investment but I thought I would sell my current X99 5820k computer + sell 9700k processor. It's as good as done. My 9900k was in my hands and.... And only then I discovered from various reviews about bad VRMs out there for medium line ASUS Z390 boards. I was frustrated. How come? Why ASUS did so? Should I buy new motherboard now? My Z390 Prime-A is a medium line MB (in one line with Strix and maybe a little worse than Z390 Maximus Hero). I started to research and came to conclusion (having tons of sources in the net, including video reviews + comments to them, articles, reviews from community etc etc) that my ASUS Z390 Prime-A will be suffice for 9900k with moderate OC. To which extent - this is the question. Will I surrender or try? Am I a risky person? No I am not. But... how hard I wanted to try... I could not control myself and I did it. So... ASUS z390 Prime-A + 9900k + 32Gb 4x8 Corsair Vengence + Noctua D15 + PSU Corsair 650X + two more 140mm fans for my case (one for upper outtake and one additional for front intake) Thermal paste I applied to the processor is Arctic MX2 Also, I must specifically note for people who will use the config. I used discreet graphics card (XFX RX 580), I did not use internal graphics. Maybe usage of internal graphics may cost you more in temperatures and wattage. When I first started my computer I entered BIOS and I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU TO IT: TURN MCE OFF IN BIOS. This is the most important thing you can do. Why? Main reason to do so is the MCE puts very high default voltage to the processor. Then increase power limits: Long Duration Package Limit is 190W Package power time window is 2sec Short duration power limit is 220W. Current CPU capability is 170% CPU SVID support Enabled VRM Spread Spectrum Disabled SVID Behaviour Typical Scenario IA AC and IA DC load lines to 0.01 CPU Load Line Level 5 (not sure this parameter works at all due to set previous ones to 0.01) VT-D enabled (ignore if you don't use virtual machines like VmWare or Virtualbox) VMX enabled (ignore if you don't use virtual machines like VmWare or Virtualbox) Now, I played a lot with core multipliers and voltages and came to these results: Core mutlipliers for 2 first cores: 50 Core mutlipliers for another 6 cores: 49 Cache multiplier 43 AVX offset: 3 (I strongly recommend to put this offset) Voltage: Adaptive (I know, many reviewers and commenters do not like adaptive voltage. I like it.) Adaptive Additional Turbo voltage 1.25 Adaptive Offset : +0.015 For memory I set XMP I profile (3200Ghz 16-18-18-36 2T) For your system these voltages may not be appropriate, all depends on your die's quality. Also I played a lot with offset for the Adaptive voltage (see below why). Now the system is ready to go. My ambient temperature in room is 22 C Tests I used: 1/ Prime95 Small FFT non-AVX version. 30 minutes with 4900 on all cores. CPU package temp (hottest core as usual): 75 C Total power to processor according to hwInfo utility: 177W (max) 2/ Prime 95 Small FFT AVX version 30 minutes with 4600 on all cores CPU package temp (hottest core as usual): 76 C Total power to processor according to hwInfo utility: 179W (max, though I notices some peaks to 181W rarely) Where I played the most was the Prime95 with AVX enabled. The issue was that some cores stopped intermittenly (one or two cores) during full load (in 5 minutes or even in 15 minutes). The community recommend to increase VCore a bit in that case. In the continuous process of playing with all this I came the above voltages. I suppose I could put 50 to all cores and 3 AVX offset and get 80 C temperatures but I did not do it as I don't like so high temps. Of course, with regular apps and even other stress testing apps like Cinebench, Realbench, Aida or Asus Exteme Tuning Utility you do not get those temps at all. I double you can actually load the processor that hard (16 threads with 100% load) with any regular app. Let alone for so continuous time... Also I tuned my fan curves so they spin at 90% when CPU temp goes upper than 65 C. So at high load even so super silent case like Fractal Design R4 is loud like a rocket. This all makes me conclude that all those talks about loose VRMs on these boards are no more than just talks. Of course I don't know for how long the processor + MB will last in my scenarios but it works nice so far (3 weeks) with regular loads: compilation, photo editing, virtual machines etc. From this point I can compare my old computer (Asus X99-E + 5820k overclocked to 4200Ghz) to this new one. Forgot to mention, by the way, I use NVME Samsung 960 EVO 500Gb drive in my system. On older one I used Samsung 860 EVO 500Gb. Everything runs faster, and works blaze faster on newer PC. The system with 5820k even OCed at 4200 was somewhat meditative at moments (maybe old Win7 OS with bunch of trash slowed it down or what). I will make additions to the review when I will have something to add.

First, I'd like to start off by saying gaming isn't my primary focus. I use my builds for work first, gaming second (a very close second). I've gone through 3 different CPU's in the past year. Started off with a I7-3960x, then to an I7-8700k, then to a I9-7900x, and then finally landed on the I9-9900k. Seeing as how Xeon's are out of the question both in price and practicality; higher end consumer chips are a good bargain for people like me. I work primarily with Autodesk Maya and use Arnold or V-Ray as my renderer of choice. So core count and freq are important to me. Since I focus on viewport performance, single threaded performance is paramount for me as it's key for great gaming as well. The 9900k does this beautifully. Logic would have dictated that the 8700k would have worked just fine....and it did but, those 6 cores really showed it's weakness when V-Ray rendered out particle simulations such as smoke. Thats when I figured I'd get the 7900x as it's got 10 cores and it should shred through renders; and it did but, I lost out on single threaded performance in viewport and while animating. So, intel released this bad boy; it seemed to good to be true and required me to lose pcie lanes and switch back to z series chipset. For me it was a worthwhile expenditure. Cinebench scores for me were the deciding factor. My 7900x ran a 2243 @ 4.5ghz on all cores (custom loop). The 8700k ran a 1400 -1500 on a dark rock pro 4 @ 4.7ghz on all cores. My 9900k @ 5ghz on all cores on a dark rock pro 4 ran a 2086. That was impressive to me; sure the temps were a bit uncomfortable for me as anything over 65c to me is close to tjunc (I know I'm dramatic) but, when I leave a render on for hours or even days I want the assurance knowing my build isn't going to fry. So backing down the 5ghz OC on the 9900k to 4.7ghz all core, I'm at a comfy 65-70c on AIR. The performance gain while working in viewport in maya is NOTICEABLE and worth the expenses. Most who purchase this CPU aren't doing my line of work and want it for gaming; at least from my research and for gaming. This CPU crushes anything I've thrown at it. I have this cpu paired with a EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3 in a Fractal Meshify C Mini and neither of my components have hit over 70c while gaming on my X34P on any game I've played at Max! Subnautica 144 hz Avg HIGH Preset/Filmic Filter GR Wildlands 100hz AVG Very High OW 160Hz Avg Epic/100% Scale BO4 140 hz Avg Very High MHW 90 hz Avg High Preset (also MHW doesn't support 21:9 if anyone knows how to get it to please let me know) In closing: Pros - -Exceptional single threaded performance for workstation and gaming loads -16 Core turbo 4.7ghz on air stable AF render performance in Arnold is Amazing! Cons - -16 Pcie lanes -Gets a bit hot for my comfort Final thoughts: Unfortunately technology isn't where we'd all like it to be right now. We want 24 Cores @ 7ghz no OC running at 30c on a hyper 212. So for now, keep your expectations in check understand what you're purchasing and you won't be disappointed. I know I'm not.

I9-9900K is suitable for use as workstation CPU It took me a long time to receive the product. I mainly use it to do the creative work of animation special effects content, so I will focus more on this product. First of all: the 9th generation CPU can still be used on the Z370 motherboard (users need to update to the latest BIOS); but if the result you want is the pleasure of overclocking, it is recommended that you replace the high-end Z390 motherboard, or you use the very expensive Z370 motherboard (such as MSI's Z370 Godlike motherboard, which is super-high. The Z370 motherboard at the end provides better CPU power supply capability). Second: Although the 9th generation has replaced better thermal conductive materials, a set of radiators with good heat dissipation performance is still the preferred condition. When I do pre-crushing calculation or heavy load rendering, the temperature is still very high. Well, the radiator I use is the X61 of NZXT. Third: If users use ordinary Z370 motherboard, my personal suggestion is to work at the default frequency as far as possible. I have tried to test FPU in 5G state, and the motherboard will actively interrupt the process. I think the maximum power consumption has exceeded the capacity of the motherboard. Although this Z370 motherboard can let me another I7-9700K work at 5.1G frequency and pass various stability tests, but for I9-9900K 5G pressure, the motherboard is powerless. Fourth: The multi-threaded rendering score of I9-9900K test CineBench R15 at default frequency is about 2000 +, instant overclocking to 5G, and the score is only increased to 2100 +. The fever is not proportional to the increase of power consumption. In other words, the dividend of overclocking is far less surprising than expected, so I would personally suggest if It's a job requirement. By default, it has performed very well. It's not even different from the default frequency I9-7900X. Unless you're really a user who lives on overclocking, it's still a good way to use it by default. Fifth: If the purpose is simply to play games and get a higher number of game frames, it is more reasonable to invest in a high-end video card than to buy a CPU, or to use I7-8086K and I7-9700K, you will find that there is no obvious difference between them in the course of the game. Finally, I9-9900K is more suitable for building a primary workstation. It has good rendering ability and high frequency support for single-threaded computing. In this respect, I think this is a very good CPU. One of the screenshots is a test map, and the other is a screenshot of the working modeling status. Forgive my chattering and thank Amazon for his customer service efforts. Goodbye.

Got it 3 days sooner than expected. Great condition didnt even look used, same packaging, no damage, everything intact. Write reviews people boost these guys up they work hard and deliver quality stuff. My pc runs great now a much needed upgrade!

The cpu came in today and was installed and running fine. Very fast as expected. Thank You for a speedy delivery on the replacement package. A+A+

Works fantastic, easily clocks to 5ghz on all cores, however be prepared for some serious heat, especially under load and/or bench-marking. Make sure you have a decent sized AIO water cooler or a super awesome amazing air cooler before attempting to overclock or push this chip. Performance wise my focus is purely gaming, and it eats games for breakfast. Playing at 100fps on brand new titles like Assassin's Creed Odyssey like it's nothing, plenty of headroom to spare. Barring any massive game changing development in the next few years (DDR5 ram er, maybe?) this should future proof you about as well as any chip could, probably 3 to 5 years depending on what next gen consoles launch with (Meaning if PS5 launches with 16 cores (very doubtful) that may become the standard for games and your 8 core 16 thread pc starts looking old hat (even more doubtful). ANYway, barring something totally left field like that, I can't see anything gaming wise this thing won't be able to devour for years to come. I'm satisfied with my purchase, and the price (bought at $530) IS high but doesn't bother me too much because they have a price point for most everyone, with 9700k, 9600k, 8700k, all more than capable of fantastic gaming performance at lower price points. Let's be clear, I'm of the opinion you don't buy this for gaming because you need it, you buy it because it's the best (mainstream) cpu out there, and because you feel future-proofed (maybe, possibly, you never know). I like knowing I've got tons of power to spare for that next big game coming next year. If you feel the same, then go for it, you'll likely love it. If you have budget constraints and need to choose between this or a great gpu, definitely prioritize the gpu and buy a 9700k, 9600k, or even the 8700k or 8600k depending on how much you have left. And also the packaging is pretty so you can display it and show it off to your friends. 0.o

First off let me say I was one that paid well over $500 for the Intel Ivy-Bridge E 4930K back in the day, so to fast forward and find myself paying just short of $500 again for the 9900K was no surprise. However, this thing is expensive considering it's place in the market amongst same or similar performing products. I had a Ryzen 3700x in hand before I chose the 9900K and I switched because there was very little to no overclocling headroom, too many hoops that had to be jumped through, and excessive thermal issues with the Ryzen die to deal with. The 3700x performed very well out of the box and made for a snppy experience, but in the end it just wasn't for me. In came the 9900K and the MSI Meg Z390 Godlike with 32GB of Corsair 3600mhz Vengeance RGB Pro memory. The first boot was a game changer and it has been changing the way I play my games ever since. It's fast. Very fast. And low and behold it is highly customizable which means it's easy to overclock. At first I had it overclocked to the well saut after 5.0Ghz on all cores with a core voltage of 1.267 under full load and my temps sitting between 75-80c. Then I started playing with the Ring Ratio and memory overclocking. Now I'm sitting at 5.0Ghz all cores, 0 Avx offset, 4.7Ghz Ring Ratio, 4000mhz on the memory while still using it's cl18 timing and 1.36v, and higher than I'd like SA and IO Voltages at 1.280 and 1.200 respectively, all at 1.308v and the CPU hitting 85-90c under full load with synthetic benchmarks. Gaming? Everything is a breeze and temps stay in the 50-65c range. Mind you I have this paired with an EVGA 2080 Ti Hybrid so I'm sure that has something to do with the gaming experience, but the high cpu usage games do seem to benefit greatly. Overall the pc seems to be much snappier and responsive and I'm a very happy customer. I do see the 14nm process of this cpu needing an end as there is just no more room for improvement in the way of thermal efficiency. This chip does run hot. Very hot! Thus the 4 stars. I have it hiding under a Kraken x72 360mm AIO and it, similarly to the Ryzen 3700x, still gets toasty even at idle although not near as bad as the Amd chip. With the Windows Balanced power plan and C1e enabled with C States the processor will idle between 33-40c depending on room temperature. However it takes close to nothing for it to spike into the 50-60 range for a couple seconds at a time. With the Ultimate Power plan where it stays at 5.0Ghz all the time it still sits around 40c at idle and will occasionally hit 55c with a sudden 5-15% load depending on what it is. I am using Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut as my Tim of choice. I may way WAY down the road try to lap the IHS on the die to make for a more even distribution of the CPU cooler but for now this processor is a win.

Is it i9. Don't make me laugh, if tou use your SL no and batch no. In intel site then there is only 2.7 years of warenty. And if you benchmark it then it performs like a i5. We know that there is a shortage, but bro you chose a wrong person to sell this overpriced processor. I have already filed a complaint. But there is so much delay in processing that. Let's see what will happen

Works as intended, slightly pricey especially with the multiple high end options available nowadays but fantastic performance.

Reduje 40% el tiempo de render

Ahora que ha salido la décima generación supongo que habrá bajado de precio si lo pillas en torno a los 350 euros es un micro increíblemente bueno, me decante por este y no por AMD Ryzen porque lo tengo montando en un Hackintosh y va como la seda, atentos con las temperaturas, yo lo tengo a sus frecuencias nominales nada de overclock pero me consta que sube muy bien todos los cores, eso si, si vas a necesitar un buen disipador, no viene incluido, yo lo tengo con una refrigeración liquida y no me pasa de los 35 grados trabajando con el en programas de edición

Good product! I'm Using Since 2020 Still No Issue