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 i9-9900X review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£470PassMark multi-core score:21660N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA2066TDP (Thermal design power):165 W

Intel Core i9-9900X Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-9900X
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 55% of models
Score components

40%

6.6

Technical score

25%

6.6

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 55% 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%

8.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 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 62% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

7.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 62%
6.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.6/ 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 66% of models

6.6

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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 66%
?

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-i9-9900x
  • intel-core-i9-9900x
  • intel-core-i9-9900x
  • intel-core-i9-9900x
intel-core-i9-9900x
intel-core-i9-9900x
intel-core-i9-9900x
intel-core-i9-9900x
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-9900X

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

7.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

3.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.6
Reviews score
6.6
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%

8.0

Price

7.2
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA2066
This processor uses the LGA2066 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 73.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Chipset
X299
This processor supports X299 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 95.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.5 GHz which is higher than that of 53.9% of processors and equal to that of 5.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
10x 3.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 10x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 89% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
21,660
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 21,660 in PassMark, which is higher than 73.2% of processors.
Show more
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
19.25 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 19.25 MB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L2 cache
10 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 10 MB which is larger than that of 79% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
L1 cache
640 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 640 KB which is larger than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% 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)
2,666 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is higher than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
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
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
165 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 165 W which is higher than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
165 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 165 W which is higher than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
165 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 165 W which is higher than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i9-9900X vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (10 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    10 vs 4
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 88.9% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,660 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,660 vs 11,469
  • 28 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    44 vs 16
  • 73.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,034 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,034 vs 5,209
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 92.6% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,402 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,402 vs 2,804.5
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA2066 vs FP5).
    LGA2066 vs FP5
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • 6 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (10 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    10 vs 4
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 88.9% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,660 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,660 vs 11,469
  • 73.4% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,034 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,034 vs 5,209
  • 92.6% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,402 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,402 vs 2,804.5
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x3.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Intel Turbo Boost Max 3
    3 vs 2
  • 3.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (10 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    10 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 2.14x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (19.3 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    19.25 MB vs 9 MB
  • 66.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (640 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    640 KB vs 384 KB
  • 28 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (44 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    44 vs 16
  • 81.2% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (85 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    85 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 8 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (92 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    92 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 3.67x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2.58x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    165 W vs 64 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 59% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (163 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    163 vs 398.015
  • 2.73x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    484 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • 88% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-9900X is more expensive than the average processor (£470 vs £250).
    £470 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS 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
  • 59% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (163 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    163 vs 398.015
  • 6.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,431 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,431 vs 1,535
  • 2.73x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (484 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    484 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 3.67x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • 2.58x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (165 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    165 W vs 64 W
  • 3.67x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (165 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    165 W vs 45 W
  • 8 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (92 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    92 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

9.0
TechNolli
≈ estimated
17/07/2020
Hackintosh build · Logic Pro multitrack benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9900X delivers strong multi-core performance for heavy audio work, though single-core speed does not keep up with its core count.
Not graded
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-9900X

  • High multi-threaded performance suitable for 3D rendering, video encoding, and heavy production workloads
  • Supports quad-channel DDR4 memory for increased bandwidth
  • Large number of PCIe lanes (44) compared to mainstream consumer platforms, ideal for enthusiast builds with multiple GPUs or NVMe drives
  • Highly overclockable with an unlocked multiplier for enthusiasts
  • Exceptional workstation performance that excels in multi-tasking and professional applications like Premiere Pro and Photoshop
  • Solid drop-in upgrade path for users already on the X299 motherboard platform

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

  • Extremely high power consumption (165W TDP) which can lead to high operating costs and thermal stress
  • Requires high-end cooling solutions (preferably liquid cooling) to maintain performance and prevent throttling
  • Poor value for pure gaming compared to significantly cheaper mainstream alternatives like the i9-9900K
  • Outdated 14nm architecture lacks modern features like PCIe 4.0/5.0 and DDR5 support
  • High MSRP at launch made it difficult to justify against newer competition from AMD's Ryzen lineup
  • X299 platform motherboards are often expensive and can suffer from VRM overheating under heavy load

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-9900X is a high-end desktop (HEDT) processor from the Skylake X-series, featuring 10 cores and 20 threads with a base frequency of 3.50 GHz and a max turbo boost of up to 4.50 GHz via Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0. Built on a 14nm process for the LGA 2066 socket, it offers 19.25 MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports quad-channel DDR4-2666 memory up to 128 GB, and provides 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes for extensive system expandability. Its main pros include exceptional multitasking capabilities for content creation, support for AVX-512 instructions, and a high number of PCIe lanes for multiple GPUs or NVMe storage. However, its significant cons include a high 165W TDP that requires robust cooling solutions, the lack of ECC memory support, and a premium price point compared to mainstream alternatives that often offer better value for pure gaming.

Compare Intel Core i9-9900X 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 i9-9900X and other processors

No results found