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

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 MX2Also, 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 andI 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 190WPackage power time window is 2secShort duration power limit is 220W.Current CPU capability is 170%CPU SVID support EnabledVRM Spread Spectrum DisabledSVID Behaviour Typical ScenarioIA AC and IA DC load lines to 0.01CPU 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: 50Core mutlipliers for another 6 cores: 49Cache multiplier 43AVX 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 1.25Adaptive Offset : +0.015For 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 CTests I used:1/ Prime95 Small FFT non-AVX version.30 minutes with 4900 on all cores.CPU package temp (hottest core as usual): 75 CTotal power to processor according to hwInfo utility: 177W (max)2/ Prime 95 Small FFT AVX version30 minutes with 4600 on all coresCPU package temp (hottest core as usual): 76 CTotal 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.

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.

Five years ago (December 2019), I ordered the parts needed to build the "dream system" I had been waiting for. It consisted of this processor, Asus ROG Strix LC240, an Asus ROG Hero Maximus XI motherboard, an Asus ROG Strix 2080ti and 16GB of memory. The memory was quickly upgraded to 32GB but everything else has been a permanent staple in my gaming/streaming/rendering/office activities and I couldn't be happier with my choices. I'm thinking that with minimal upgrades such as 64GB+ of RAM and faster NVMe drives this configuration could last me another 5 to 10 years. This system even survived a cross-country road trip in the back of a RAV4 and is still kicking strong! Take care of your computer parts and they will take care of you back for generations. Excellent processor, highly recommended if you can pick one up for a good price. Probably not worth the current retail price in comparison to more current processors, but if you already have it or can get one for a discount it's definitely worth it.