Expired Offers

Locked: Intel Core i9 9900KF $613.95

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 23rd, 2020 3:29 pm
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 16, 2001
15463 posts
2140 upvotes
Oshawa
ReggieG48223 wrote: Shoulda got a better vid card instead
Yeah, since you have to disable Hyperthreading anyway, the 9900 is particularly stupid.
NowJoJo wrote: Intel for life! I'm never going to buy AMD.
Enjoy your baked-in security holes.
Whenever someone asks a question that starts with "Why do they..." or "Why don't they...", the answer is always a) money, b) stupidity, or c) both.
Sr. Member
Dec 17, 2017
946 posts
987 upvotes
Jep4444 wrote: That's just stubborn for the sake of it but sure, spend more for less performance and poorer security.
It's to be expected. I'm surprised that the human race was able to exist this long, with people seemingly believing and holding onto whatever they want to believe while ignoring facts and figures.
Sr. Member
Sep 2, 2017
646 posts
517 upvotes
Ontario
Thought we loved poor security, that's why most people use Windows Face With Tears Of Joy
Member
Jul 31, 2016
424 posts
705 upvotes
Whitby
Jep4444 wrote: That's just stubborn for the sake of it but sure, spend more for less performance and poorer security.
I've tried many AMD's and they just over heat quicker. Last one I had was the 3600. I use my PC mainly for development and have to use a couple of monstrous Java based ides. Thanks JetBrains.
Deal Addict
Jan 6, 2006
2344 posts
609 upvotes
I switched to Amd 3900x. Couldn't be happier!
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2013
4445 posts
2251 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbo67 wrote: Thought we loved poor security, that's why most people use Windows Face With Tears Of Joy
OSX has had it's share of brutal security holes as well. My favorite was when you could click login a bunch of times and it eventually gave you root access.
Jr. Member
User avatar
Nov 3, 2010
191 posts
252 upvotes
Niagara Falls
JAC wrote: Yeah, since you have to disable Hyperthreading anyway, the 9900 is particularly stupid.


Enjoy your baked-in security holes.
According to whom?

No fanboy, but literally no one using their desktop for gaming gives a shit about security holes that amount to nothing for the average user.
If anything, the problems arise from patching the issue, which could cause performance problems with the chip.
if that's the case then buy an older "unpatched" 9900k. Though I doubt it will be much different.

These threads always devolve into pissing matches. If you don't want it, don't get it.

AMD overall is clearly the better buy right now, but this chip overclocked, old or not, still beats everything AMD has made in the last 4 years for gaming, and if you use your computer for that, it's justifiable.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2013
4445 posts
2251 upvotes
Toronto
ajacian81 wrote: I've tried many AMD's and they just over heat quicker. Last one I had was the 3600. I use my PC mainly for development and have to use a couple of monstrous Java based ides. Thanks JetBrains.
My 3800x doesn't overheat, it does run hot idle but that's because of PBO, if I disabled that, it wouldn't but it's not a big deal so I leave it. I don't know what chip you run but a 9900KF would be overkill for what you'e doing anyways so my point stands. Depending on price, I can see some justifications for cheaper Intel chips but more often than not, AMD is giving better performance in most price points.

PS that's why I hate dedicate IDEs. I'd rather just run everything in VSCode but I also rarely code in Java and when I do, it's mostly to help people out so I'm writing short programs. I mostly just code in JS and Python.
Sr. Member
Sep 2, 2017
646 posts
517 upvotes
Ontario
Jep4444 wrote: OSX has had it's share of brutal security holes as well. My favorite was when you could click login a bunch of times and it eventually gave you root access.
Yep, one of the many reasons why Linux is far more secure than both of those
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2013
4445 posts
2251 upvotes
Toronto
thatsnasty wrote: If anything, the problems arise from patching the issue, which could cause performance problems with the chip.
if that's the case then buy an older "unpatched" 9900k. Though I doubt it will be much different.
Hardware patches are far less impactful on performance than software ones are so why anyone would buy an older "unpatched" 9900k is beyond me lol.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2013
4445 posts
2251 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbo67 wrote: Yep, one of the many reasons why Linux is far more secure than both of those
Well that depends on distro but it's also mostly just a byproduct of having less attacks on Linux. That said, every-time I try to switch over, it's little things that eventually end up driving me crazy. Software incompatibility and just general bugs in software because companies invest less time in the Linux versions or they're written by one person who can't spend the time to keep patching the bugs.
Deal Addict
Dec 27, 2011
2106 posts
1647 upvotes
Vancouver
This makes me feel really good about that retail edge price haha
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 16, 2001
15463 posts
2140 upvotes
Oshawa
thatsnasty wrote: According to whom?
Literally every hardware and security site on the internet.
No fanboy, but literally no one using their desktop for gaming gives a shit about security holes that amount to nothing for the average user.
Except they can affect the average user. Sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing.
If anything, the problems arise from patching the issue, which could cause performance problems with the chip.
if that's the case then buy an older "unpatched" 9900k. Though I doubt it will be much different.
I really don't think you've been following or understand the issues.
AMD overall is clearly the better buy right now, but this chip overclocked, old or not, still beats everything AMD has made in the last 4 years for gaming, and if you use your computer for that, it's justifiable.
And for people with a RTX-2080Ti and a 144Hz monitor, I'm sure they'll be very happy with the extra few FPS they get. For everyone else, there's AMD.
Whenever someone asks a question that starts with "Why do they..." or "Why don't they...", the answer is always a) money, b) stupidity, or c) both.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2013
4445 posts
2251 upvotes
Toronto
JAC wrote: Except they can affect the average user. Sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing.
Doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who do it lol.
Jr. Member
User avatar
Nov 3, 2010
191 posts
252 upvotes
Niagara Falls
JAC wrote: Literally every hardware and security site on the internet.


Except they can affect the average user. Sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing.


I really don't think you've been following or understand the issues.


And for people with a RTX-2080Ti and a 144Hz monitor, I'm sure they'll be very happy with the extra few FPS they get. For everyone else, there's AMD.
5-15% with a 2080ti, and a "few fps" in every other game at every other resolution, it's ahead across the board.
You literally downplay the best part of the 9900k, while up-playing the security issue that does almost nothing for a gamer in the home environment ( you buy this chip for gaming remember? ).

Sticking your head in the sand is better than fear mongering something that is simply not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. This isn't true for everyone obviously, but we are speaking in context about a chip bought for gaming.

Once again, we get it, AMD is a better buy this generation, you're justifying your purchase with Jep4444 over here, I've already said that, and most people know it.
But spreading misinformation and shitting on the best gaming chip just because it doesn't meet the requirements for YOUR computer does not make any less than the best gaming chip, still, for everyone else who wants that.

Top