Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Gen CPU Review: Fastest Gaming Processor Ever

Power Consumption

Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky, but as long as the 12V supply (EPS) readings and the sensor values ​​of the power supply of the mainboard plus voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we again rely on the pure package power to avoid possible influences from the motherboard. The values ​​of the PWM controller are really very reliable if taken as averages over a period of a few minutes.

At idle, everything is perfectly fine. Both the stock and overclocked Core i9-9900K sip power. The fact that the Ryzen 5 2600X lands at the top of our chart is confirmed by our bad sample. This is definitely not a general AMD problem though, as the Ryzen 7 2700X shows. In general, however, all the CPUs are quite economical.

Both -9900K configurations are still in good shape during the CAD workload: the chip's power consumption is only slightly higher than the Core i7-8700K. So far, the very high voltage needed for stable operation does not make a disturbing impression. Everything is still in the green.

Power consumption is also within the expected values during the gaming loop, especially since the game does not fully utilize all cores. Although a comparison test with Assassin's Creed Origins did yield much higher values (up to 20W more), that game is so poorly optimized that we measure completely different values each time.

Five measurements with five strongly diverging results are not something that would be apt for a fair comparison. However, at 5 GHz, the Core i9-9900K never really crossed the 100W limit, so it was still cool enough to make ends meet. At least for games.

But power becomes more of an issue in some productivity applications because a constant load on all cores at high clock rates is almost too much. And to be clear, the Core i9-9900K gets super hot faced with Prime95 and AVX instructions (205W stock, 250W overclocked), exceeding the specified TDP.

We measured 137W (232W) during the Cinebench test, and we topped 145W (241W overclocked) under the larger Blender workload. We even pushed past 120W (198W overclocked) with various CAD plug-ins for Creo and SolidWorks. The limits of normal all-in-one compact water cooling solutions are in sight during standard operation at 4.7 GHz on all cores, but you can easily overwhelm cheaper AIOs during overclocking.

Finally, and because we like the additional detail, here are the line charts corresponding to our long-term measurements.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
148 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • s1mon7
    Wait, so it performs within a spitting distance of the 2700x with DOUBLE the power consumption and price? Holy smokes, I thought Intel will be able to easily take on AMD after they launch their 8-cores. I have to say that these results were very surprising to me, since I believed in this being the ace up Intel's sleeve. This is really interesting, and a big win for AMD. The 9900K goes through twice the power just to squeeze out that extra clock speed edge to outperform the 2700x by a mere 10%, at double the price, mind you.

    Intel clearly needs 10nm and a new architecture to go back into the game. As is, I struggle to think of any reason to buy the 9900k.
  • littleleo
    Did I miss it? I don't recall seeing the 50% better performance that "Principled" Technologies found over the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. I do see the Ryzen 7 2700 selling for $249.53 and the Ryzen 7 2700x selling for $305, and the Intel i9-9700K selling for $410, and the i9-9900K is $580. I don't see the value of paying $105 or $275 more vs the R7-2700x for the increase in performance shown.

    I can put that money towards a better GPU, though I'm not seeing any value in buying the Nvidia RTX hype train either. So what is going on here? Did Nvidia & Intel see the insane prices some people were paying during the crypto mining craze and think they would cash in by making these ridiculously over price pieces of silicon? News flash Intel & Nvidia we want value for our green stamps and the price to value ratio from Intel & Nvidia has not been so good with their latest releases. No one beating down the door this week looking for these or the RTXs. I'm hoping this isn't another bad launch.
  • Other Comments
  • dlim389
    "The better the cooling, the better power consumption"? What?! This doesn't make sense at all. You meant the better the cooling, the lower the temperature.
  • siman0
    "Redefine" at double the price of a 2700x it needs to do more than that. The price diffrence is more than enough to go up another GPU tier ie 1070ti to a 1080ti. Id rather have more pcie bandwidth and the ability to upgrade my cpu till 2020. The only way Id recommend a upgrade to something close is if you already have the motherboard. But even then Id say the 9700k.
  • s1mon7
    Wait, so it performs within a spitting distance of the 2700x with DOUBLE the power consumption and price? Holy smokes, I thought Intel will be able to easily take on AMD after they launch their 8-cores. I have to say that these results were very surprising to me, since I believed in this being the ace up Intel's sleeve. This is really interesting, and a big win for AMD. The 9900K goes through twice the power just to squeeze out that extra clock speed edge to outperform the 2700x by a mere 10%, at double the price, mind you.

    Intel clearly needs 10nm and a new architecture to go back into the game. As is, I struggle to think of any reason to buy the 9900k.
  • TCA_ChinChin
    Interesting chip from Intel, but if you are looking at CPUs from a performance per dollar point of view, its rather disappointing. The real disappointment is the 9700k which is more expensive than the 8700k but performs basically the same on average.
  • Adrian Ocampo
    As a gamer, why would I buy a 9700K when an 8700K trades blows with the 9900K in both gaming and productivity. It just doesn't make sense. Its like its just competing with its own product as this point. I would be better off buying an 8700K deliding it, put liquid metal and overclock to 5.0Ghz for a much lower price than a 9900K.
  • gfaiii
    Guys just as a heads up you should say second generation 1151 socket, these are NOT compatible with 200 series boards that have 1151 sockets (without modding)
  • sonichedgehog360
    Ladies and gentlemen, Intel’s FX 9000 series.

    (By the way, I totally saw this coming what with the crazy clock speeds they were pushing.)
  • Johnpombrio
    I was surprised on how well the i9-9900K did on stock clocks. I may not even bother with overclocking as it does well even without it and I may be able to use air cooling that way. Compared to my Kaby Lake i7-7700K, it definitely is a big step up. I already have the ASUS Strix Z380 mobo, 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum memory kit and have preordered the CPU.
  • sstanic
    how is this an editor's choice is beyond me. but not beyond marketing people, is it?
  • redgarl
    For the money, you can buy a motherboard, a CPU and a 1080 GTX for the same price as the 9900k with it's motherboard.

    Also, you tested this system on a 600$ motherboard... 600$ and a prenium cooling solution.

    This system is above the 2000$ threshold compared to an AMD one barely hitting the 1000$.
  • lperreault21
    This is a terrible cpu. How much did Intel pay you to give it a 4.5/5. Yet anothrt reason to not trust Tom's with anything
  • jimmysmitty
    Anonymous said:
    Wait, so it performs within a spitting distance of the 2700x with DOUBLE the power consumption and price? Holy smokes, I thought Intel will be able to easily take on AMD after they launch their 8-cores. I have to say that these results were very surprising to me, since I believed in this being the ace up Intel's sleeve. This is really interesting, and a big win for AMD. The 9900K goes through twice the power just to squeeze out that extra clock speed edge to outperform the 2700x by a mere 10%, at double the price, mind you.

    Intel clearly needs 10nm and a new architecture to go back into the game. As is, I struggle to think of any reason to buy the 9900k.


    Torture loop power numbers are hard to use as a real definition of power draw as most no one maxes any CPU out 100% 24x7. Add in the clock speed difference and thats makes it look worse than most people will veer experience.

    Anonymous said:
    For the money, you can buy a motherboard, a CPU and a 1080 GTX for the same price as the 9900k with it's motherboard.

    Also, you tested this system on a 600$ motherboard... 600$ and a prenium cooling solution.

    This system is above the 2000$ threshold compared to an AMD one barely hitting the 1000$.


    Only if you plan to only get the top end $500 dollar motherboards for the Intel system then cheap out for Ryzen boards. If you compare apples to apples there are equivalent Ryzen motherboards that are the same price and offer similar features apart from the different sockets and chipsets.

    It always amuses me when people compare systems then for one they go with a $150 dollar board thats obviously an inferior product.
  • AgentLozen
    Thanks for the review guys. I agree with your conclusion that the 9900k is in a league of its own. Do you think someone could cool a 9900k system (effectively) with a big Noctua air cooler if you're not overclocking?
  • mgallo848
    I think Intel failed trying to market this CPU to gamers. The price/performance does not justify it at all. In multi-threaded editing applications it looks much more impressive.

    For editing applications yes, for gamers no.
  • Gurg
    This is first CPU that would even remotely justify upgrade from my 5820k running OC @4.2. 77% Time Spy increase vs 52% increase in CPU plus motherboard cost from what I spent on 5820K.

    The cost numbers in this review look far worse by TH pairing this with the MSI Godlike $599 vs the ACE $289 Z390 mb.
  • levijonesm
    "The $263 Core i5-9600K at stock settings regularly beat an overclocked $378 Ryzen 7 2700X in games"

    Please correct the typo on 2700X pricing. Should be $329 MSRP, but currently can be bought for $300 or lower.
  • Brian_R170
    In theory, a i9-9900K with Hyper-Threading disabled in the BIOS should perform slightly better than the i7-9700K in the benchmarks where the 9700K took the lead due to the higher clock speeds and larger cache, right?
  • AgentLozen
    Brian_R170 said:

    In theory, a i9-9900K with Hyper-Threading disabled in the BIOS should perform slightly better than the i7-9700K in the benchmarks where the 9700K took the lead due to the higher clock speeds and larger cache, right?


    That's a good question. I'd like to see a separate article that examines the performance difference between the 9900k and the 9700k with hyper threading turned on and off. It would be a good chance to see how much power overhead hyper threading requires and it could answer what the value proposition of hyper threading really is.

    Is it even worth having hyper threading turned on while you're gaming?
  • delaro
    Not much of a performance difference over an 8700K at least not enough to warrant $499. For that matter, it makes a Ryzen 2700x @ $289 look like an even better deal considering the performance gap from this review isn't that huge. The next version of Ryzen shouldn't have an issue with matching the same performance at a much lower cost.
  • logainofhades
    Price/performance wise, I still think I would till rather have a 2700x.