OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i9-9900K review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440PassMark multi-core score:18071N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):95 W

Intel Core i9-9900K Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 40 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-9900K
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

40%

6.1

Technical score

25%

6.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

10

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 53% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

60%

6.5

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 54%
6.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models

6.1

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.0

Average grade

20%

9.7

Popularity

Grades by review (40)
21 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 68%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i9-9900k
  • intel-core-i9-9900k
  • intel-core-i9-9900k
  • intel-core-i9-9900k
  • intel-core-i9-9900k
intel-core-i9-9900k
intel-core-i9-9900k
intel-core-i9-9900k
intel-core-i9-9900k
intel-core-i9-9900k
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i9-9900K

Based on 10 · 20

Reviewers praise its high clocks, strong productivity and overclocking, but agree it's poor value, with views on gaming and heat split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i9-9900K

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

83%positive7%mixed10%negative

Owners value its lasting speed and overclocking headroom, while high temperatures and premium pricing remain common frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Under heavy loads like Blender or Prime95, many owners see temperatures in the 90s C unless they use a strong custom liquid cooler.22
  • Owners say the chip costs a lot for the gain over cheaper rivals, especially for gaming alone.11
  • Budget boards with weak power circuits (VRMs) overheat or fail to hold 5GHz, so owners needed a better board.5
  • Some owners say the chip holds back newer GPUs like the RTX 3080 Ti or 4070 Super at 4K or in CPU-heavy games.4
  • Some owners see frame rate drops below 60 fps in demanding titles such as Starfield, Cyberpunk and Call of Duty at 4K.4
  • Some owners report overclocks that fail to stay stable, with clocks dropping or the system freezing.4
  • Owners say high clocks need a top-tier custom water loop, since a basic air or AIO cooler struggles to keep temperatures down.3
  • Some owners find fast memory hard to stabilise with the 9900K, and some 4000MHz kits fail to boot above 3600MHz.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-9900K

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

60%

6.5

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

6.1
Reviews score
6.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

7.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
Chipset
Z390, Z370, H370, B365, B360, H310
This processor supports Z390, Z370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 57% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 81.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
18,071
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 18,071 in PassMark, which is higher than 64.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
512 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 73.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
95 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 95 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
210 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 210 W which is higher than that of 92.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core i9-9900K vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 73.7% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,871 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,871 vs 2,804.5
  • 57.6% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,071 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,071 vs 11,469
  • 54.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,045 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,045 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 38.9% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 73.7% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,871 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,871 vs 2,804.5
  • 57.6% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,071 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    18,071 vs 11,469
  • 54.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,045 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,045 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 13.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,912 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,912 vs 2,558
  • 60% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (544 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    544 vs 340.075
  • 10.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,701 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,701 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 3.28x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (210 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    210 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 58.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (164.2 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    164.2 vs 398.015
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 9.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models

    6.1

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (40)
    21 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.1 vs 6.7
  • 9.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models

    6.1

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (40)
    21 reviews: 9 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.1 vs 6.7
  • 76% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-9900K is more expensive than the average processor (£440 vs £250).
    £440 vs £250
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    October 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 58.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (164.2 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    164.2 vs 398.015
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 1.9% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (180.3 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    180.3 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 3.28x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (210 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    210 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.11x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W
  • 2.11x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (95 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    95 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
02/12/2025
Long-term review · gaming tests, 7 years after launch
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is still decent for gaming, but the old 1151 platform is not worth buying into today.
5.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
11/12/2023
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and benchmarks in hindsight
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is impressive for productivity, but its weak gaming gains and better-value alternatives make it hard to recommend now.
6.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
15/12/2018
Hands-on review · purchase, benchmarks and power tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is a top performer, but it is overpriced, hot and power-hungry; AMD's 2700X is the better deal.
7.0
JayzTwoCents
≈ estimated
20/10/2018
Hands-on review · productivity tests and overclocking
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is the best mainstream chip if price is no concern, but AMD wins on value per dollar.
4.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks, temperatures and pricing
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is fast, but too expensive and power-hungry for most people, so the reviewer does not recommend it.
7.0
PCWorld
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Live review discussion · benchmarks against 8700K and 2700X
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K delivers top performance for heavy workloads, but its high price makes it hard to recommend to every buyer.
8.0
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Hands-on review · overclocking and value for money
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is expensive for the gain, but a good pick for enthusiasts who want the fastest chip and will overclock it.
5.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Hands-on review · gaming, power and overclock tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is the fastest gaming chip, but its price gap over cheaper chips is hard to justify.
9.0
The Tech Chap
≈ estimated
08/02/2019
Upgrade story · 4K editing speed test
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900K is worth it for heavy 4K editing and streaming, though it's overkill if you only game.
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
19/10/2018
Lab review · Mainstream desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream chip tested, with eight cores that boost to 5 GHz, but it runs hot and needs a strong cooler.
8.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
19/10/2018
Benchmark review · Desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is an 8-core chip that hits 5GHz on one or two cores and needs a strong motherboard to run at full speed.
6.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
05/11/2018
Lab test · Power and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is a fast 8-core chip that suits gaming and multi-threaded work, but it runs far hotter and draws more power than its 95W rating suggests.
8.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Lab test · Solder versus paste
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K reaches 5GHz on all eight cores; solder cools only modestly better than thermal paste, and it needs careful BIOS setup.
8.0
extremetech.com
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Benchmark review · 8-core mainstream CPU
Verdict
The Core i9-9900K is Intel's fastest mainstream chip, winning single- and multi-threaded tests, but gaming gains over the Ryzen 7 2700X are small.
9.0
techgage.com
≈ estimated
30/11/2018
Benchmark review · Workstation and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K keeps clocks high with all eight cores busy, but its dual-channel memory and limited PCIe lanes suit mainstream use better than heavy workloads.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
19/06/2019
Lab test · Gaming and encoding
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is a strong video encoder that runs cooler than its predecessor, but early tests showed little or no gaming gain over the Core i7-8700K.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
10/09/2019
Benchmark review · Creative and gaming
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is fast for creative and rendering work, but it barely beats its predecessor in games and needs a large liquid cooler.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Full review · 8-core mainstream CPU
Verdict
The Core i9-9900K is Intel's strongest consumer chip, yet it runs very hot under AVX load and needs a big water-cooling setup.
7.0
espacejeux.fr
≈ estimated
21/08/2019
Hands-on test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is a powerful 8-core chip for rendering and video editing, but in gaming it trails the Ryzen 7 2700X.
9.2
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
19/10/2018
Analysis · Architecture and platform
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K gives mid-range buyers eight cores and better heat transfer, but it uses last year's architecture, so gains are incremental.
9.1
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
19/10/2018
Lab test · 8-core mainstream CPU
Verdict
The Core i9-9900K packs eight cores and 16 threads into the mainstream platform and runs fast, but it draws 261 W at full load.
7.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Lab test · Overclocking and heat
Verdict
The Core i9-9900K is the most powerful consumer Intel chip so far, reaching 5.2 GHz with good cooling, but it runs hot and needs a high-end water cooler.
6.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
19/10/2018
Benchmark review · Clocks and cooling
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream desktop chip in these tests, hitting 5GHz on one or two cores, but it needs serious cooling.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-9900K

  • Exceptional single-core performance, achieving boost clocks up to 5.0GHz out of the box
  • Top-tier gaming performance, often cited as the fastest mainstream gaming CPU of its era
  • Significant multi-threaded performance boost for productivity tasks like video editing and 3D rendering
  • Uses Solder Thermal Interface Material (STIM) for improved heat dissipation compared to older thermal paste
  • Backward compatibility with many existing Z370 motherboards via BIOS updates
  • Hardware-level mitigations for specific security vulnerabilities like Meltdown and L1TF

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-9900K

  • Extremely high power consumption, especially when pushed to all-core turbo or overclocked
  • Requires premium, high-end cooling solutions to prevent thermal throttling under heavy loads
  • High retail price at launch compared to competitors offering similar core counts
  • Limited overclocking headroom for average users without specialized (e.g., liquid nitrogen) cooling
  • Limited to PCIe 3.0, which can bottleneck modern high-end GPUs or storage in newer builds
  • Requires a high-end motherboard with robust power delivery (VRMs) to maintain stability

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-9900K is a high-end 9th Gen Coffee Lake Refresh desktop processor featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a maximum turbo boost frequency of 5.0 GHz. Built on a 14nm++ process, it includes 16 MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 95W TDP, and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 while supporting up to 128 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory on the LGA 1151 socket. Main pros include its exceptional single-core performance for gaming, robust multi-threaded capabilities for content creation, and an unlocked multiplier that allows for easy overclocking. However, notable cons include its high power consumption and significant heat output under load, requiring a high-end thermal solution, as well as a lack of PCIe 4.0 support compared to modern alternatives.

Compare Intel Core i9-9900K with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i9-9900K and other processors

No results found