• expired

Intel Core i9-9900k $745.77 + $36.70 Delivery (Free with Prime) @ Amazon US via AU

170

Cheapest I've seen this. $825 on staticice, $889 on eBay. Don't forget 5% on cashrewards.
Note that the new R0 stepping is due, and it's not noted if this is P0 or R0.

In stock on April 19, 2019.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Amazon Global Store
Amazon Global Store

closed Comments

  • -1 vote

    Awesome price

  • +2 votes

    decent price but still way too expensive

    still annoyed how they posted initial benchmarks which show the 9900K much better than their AMD counterpart

  •  

    9900k is nice but very few games need it yet, wait till next gen consoles hit ;)

    • +9 votes

      FYI, there are other uses for this CPU other than just gaming.

      • +2 votes

        Gamers don't understand that, Lorindor.

        Their use is the only use that means anything…

        • +1 vote

          you can use a PC for something other than playing games?.

          What the….

      • +4 votes

        amd is more cost effective there

        • -2 votes

          If you need all the performance you can get from a consumer chip, there's no alternative.

            • -1 vote

              @jasswolf: How'd I know you were going to bite? Talk ill of AMD and the wolf comes out of the woods.

              The Threadripper equivalent of this chip (1950X) is actually ~$300 more than the i9-9900k, and according to this (which was updated today), it has a lower 'value' score, with only a marginally higher CPU mark score.

              Will it be more cost effective in the near future? Maybe, but right now this wins hands down, especially if you intend to use it for anything other than just workstation purposes, all at half the TDP to boot!

              • +2 votes

                @magic8ballgag: The TR equivalent is in fact the 1920X or 2920X, and I'll just leave this here:

                https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/446778

                You really might want to sit down and look at peak power values for the i9 before you mention TDP again…

                In case you were still wondering: I pop up when you're spouting nonsense. All of these CPUs have their use cases, and the i9 is not at the top of the affordability tree when it comes to entry level workstation performance.

                • -1 vote

                  @jasswolf: You're assuming I was only referring to purely productivity-based use.

                  And I never stated that it was at the top of any tree, but it's certainly excellent at everything; in which the TR is not.

                  • +2 votes

                    @magic8ballgag: You literally said there's no alternative. These are all consumer-level chips at consumer-level prices. TR has a gaming mode to shut off cores and boost clocks, which I'd imagine is going to make 3rd gen extremely appealing.

                    Unless someone needs to buy right this second, and has to game on a 240Hz monitor on all their competitive games, there's no justification for paying these inflated prices with Zen 2 4-8 weeks away.

    • +2 votes

      "next gen" consoles i.e. last gen reject CPUs

      • +1 vote

        Well I suppose Navi and Zen 2 will be a year old by then, but I don't think you'll mind given they should be capable of providing the performance for a 4k120 fps console.

        •  

          consoles won't be able to get close that for a long time, 2080ti's can't get close to that.

          •  

            @PhatSunt: You're forgetting that consoles do 4k60 today on a souped-up RX 580.

            The equivalent Navi is expected to offer 2070 level performance, which one you consider clocks, IPC increases and new and better supported architectural features like primitive shaders, should offer a doubling in performance, perhaps higher (allowing for a lesser Navi chip to be used).

            •  

              @jasswolf: If the next generation of consoles can offer me 120 frames at native 4k resolution I would probably stop the majority of gaming on the PC and switch over as I like my couch a lot more.
              But that should also mean they will support 8k at a stable 60 fps which will be the next benchmark.

              So does one prefer a higher resolution at 60 frames or a lower resolution at much higher frames.
              I think for the next three years this will be the two options gamers will be faced with just as it has been when 4k was released.

              The only point where frames will catch up with resolution is when we get to resolutions that cannot be differentiated between by the human eye, so they will stop making high resolution screens and allow graphic processors to catch up and maximise frames.

              I saw a video on youtube where the guy was saying we can't even comprehend 4k resolution and the human eye is blah blah ect. But here we are with 8k televisions announced at this years CES. When will it end and we swap completely to VR?

              •  

                @hey aj:

                But that should also mean they will support 8k at a stable 60 fps which will be the next benchmark.

                No, doubling the dimensions quadruples the resolution (2x2 = 4, 4x4 = 16). If you have sufficient VRAM, rendering scales similarly under today's techniques, though machine learning is finding a relatively lossless way to speed this up (again, subject to VRAM).

                The only point where frames will catch up with resolution is when we get to resolutions that cannot be differentiated between by the human eye, so they will stop making high resolution screens and allow graphic processors to catch up and maximise frames.

                Apple's Retina rating is considered the basic angular resolution for indistinguishable pixels, but perceived realism has been shown to keep increasing as your increase resolution further. Natural motion is described at 1000Hz if you're using today's sample and hold techniques (i.e. no black frame insertion, or backlight strobing). 480Hz with good BFI or strobing should be adequate for most people's thirst for smooth motion if the monitor is sufficiently bright (think MicroLED).

                In today's terms, a 27" 1440p screen is retina at a 81 cm, and a 32" 4k screen is retina at 64 cm, which is the normal range of sitting distances for most people in front of a computer. So between that and 480 Hz panels being just around the corner (at least at 1080p), we're approaching a point where most people will be happy with what they get out of a monitor.

                The rest of the progress is about having a fancy wall TV you can show off to your friends, and exceptionally detailed VR. For the former, you're obviously not struggling as much with rendering requirements if it's just video (bandwidth requirements may pose a challenge initially though), and for the latter you can 'cheat' a bit by using eyetracking to deliver lossy versions of variable rate shading, which is available on Turing and will be available on next-gen consoles via Navi.

                By the end of the next decade, we should be at a point where screen technology is sufficiently natural for most use cases.

    •  

      very few games need it yet

      No games need it yet - you can run just about any game on a modern i5. You really don't need an i9 for gaming unless you want to be using the same processor in 8 years time.

      • +2 votes

        More number = betterer

      •  

        That depends on where multithreaded optimisation goes at a variety of levels, and isn't necessarily down to the original implementation by the game developers.

        Then there's how future games make use of this additional performance budget.

      •  

        I was thinking of competitive gaming, e.g dota/pubg can make use of the extra cores. But you're right you can run pretty much anything satisfactorily with an i5.

        next gen consoles will likely use zen 2 cores… and that's going to be a lot of compute power, pretty much just lower clocked desktop cpu's and anywhere from 8-16 threads, that is scary. imo current 6 thread i5's will start to struggle then

  • +4 votes

    I want it just for the box :D

  •  

    I think I will get one, thanks op.

    Hmm need to choose a motherboard now…

  •  

    Batteries 1 Lithium ion batteries required.

  •  

    What's warranty like when purchasing from overseas?

    Can it directly be logged with Intel in Australia?

    •  

      If you're purchasing on Amazon AU (inclusive of items listed as 'shipped from US', then usual Australian Consumer Law still applies. If you were buying directly from the Amazon US site, then that wouldn't be the case.

      https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?node...

      You can choose to pursue warranty claims through the retailer (Amazon Australia) or through the manufacturer (Intel), it's up to you. In my experience, dealing with Amazon is a pretty good experience overall.

      • +1 vote

        Intel is international warranty anyway, and they're quite good with RMA's.

  •  

    Great price. Been holding off on a new build for some time and if these continue to drop might have to pick one up soon!

  • +1 vote

    I have been using 9900K since November,2018. Beware it runs very hot even without any OC. My 240mm AIO (Corsair H100i Pro)is struglling and is not enough to cool it. You will hit 100-110 degrees if you try Prime95. If you OC to 5GHz, you will hit 115 degree, the hard limit, and it will throttle for protection.You need at least a 360mm AIO to release its potential.

    •  

      You can actually think this CPU as a Factory OCed one. The temprature has never been like this even on a moderately OCed CPU in the past.

  • +1 vote

    What's the deal with these running to hot? I saw der8auer delid these and it was still running so hot on stock clocks.

    •  

      5GHz is still generally regarded as a gold standard for overclocking and this 8-core CPU comes with a 5GHz tuning out of the box.

      I doubt air cooling solutions would be enough to keep this cool and I even doubt some smaller AIO water solutions would suffice either. If your not comfortable with an open loop system I would not go smaller than a 360mm AIO cooling unit to tame those temperatures.

      People are blaming the thickness of the chip for why the temperatures are so high, they went from a 300mm to 450mm chip and to keep engineering rigidity this meant it had to be thicker to support its own weight.

      Just sand it down bro :P

      •  

        Air cooling a 9900K is fine with a decent cooler. I have a NH-D15 tower cooler on mine as do many others at 5GHz on all cores. Big tower coolers like the D15 are pretty well equivalent to around 280mm AIOs.

        9900K does run hot, but it’s seriously overstated.

        •  

          Have you ever tried to get it passed 5GHz? Is this CPU at its limitation out of the box or is their more wiggle room for higher clocks?

  •  

    Computer Alliance has it on their ebay store for $789 AU https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/173652646058?ul_noapp=true

    •  

      Amazon price has changed to $766.76, please update title OP.

  •  

    Ordered one thanks

  •  

    If you're gaming at 1440P or above the 2700X performs neck to neck and becomes more GPU bound according to hardware unboxed Bench marks

  •  

    damn when are they posting this site just changed to:

    In stock on April 23, 2019.

  •  

    Arriving Wednesday same time as the ram I've ordered