Intel Core i9-9900K, Unlocked Desktop Processor with 8 Cores & 16 Threads

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.

I9-9900K is suitable for use as workstation CPUIt 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.

I like the price that was advertised, and the overall quality of the product, but the potential for extra heat was a surprise to me. It works much better than the item it replaced and is smoothly fast and pleasant to use. The temperature under load according to the software monitors, are somewhat alarming, without a superior air or liquid cooler (105c) .