Intel Core i7-9700K review posted ahead of launch

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
816
8
136
#1
https://videocardz.com/77872/intel-core-i7-9700k-review-posted-ahead-of-launch

Intel Core i7-9700K: 8-cores and no Hyper-Threading


We have been asked by our Spanish friends to share a story with you. Apparently, they managed to secure an engineering sample of yet unreleased Intel Core i7-9700K processor and thought it would be a good idea to test it.

What makes this particular leak interesting is the fact that they even used an unnamed Z390 motherboard (to protect their source).

When it comes to overclocking, the CPU only managed to hit 5.0 GHz at 1.4V, which is probably not as high as we expected. We were told to share as many charts as we like, but I encourage you to check the full review as we are only sharing three.








 

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,718
162
136
#2
Based on this, it seems disappointing, but obviously should be taken with a large grain of salt.
 

EXCellR8

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2010
2,906
72
126
#3
Seems it could be credible, at least to some extent. If retail numbers are similar, this isn't a great pick for gaming over previous generations.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,443
201
126
#4
Looks okay to me given it's an ES and only has 8 threads.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#5
If that holds up, you can see why they killed 6c/12t, it's way too close in performance.

Gaming benchmarks are GPU limited with the GTX 1070 though.
 

Dayman1225

Senior member
Aug 14, 2017
819
44
96
#6
I'd wait for more "official" and better reviews, these guys had similar leaks around 2700x and whatnot and some of the results were way off.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,882
176
126
#7
I dont see what more you were expecting from an 8C 8T at almost the same clocks and same mArch.

Its a coffeelake with two more cores + soldered, the only performance increases im expecting to see are in MT workloads from the 9900K. Gaming performance should be almost identical to CoffeeLake at the same clocks.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
919
5
106
#8
What I was expecting would be the i9 9900k being sold as the 9700k for $350...8/16 threads like AMD has been doing for approaching 2 years.
Business wise it is smart by intel as they can get away with it, but it is a bit of a rip off in some respects, even if I think i9 looks well worth 450$ in current climate.
 

mikk

Platinum Member
May 15, 2012
2,396
25
126
#9
This is a poor review, all gaming tests are bottlenecked from the GPU, this is a waste.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,882
176
126
#10
Even with GTX1080Ti , what more do you expect from a 5GHz 9700K over a 5GHz 8700K ??? At same clocks they will perform almost identical in games.
 

mikk

Platinum Member
May 15, 2012
2,396
25
126
#11
I would expect something better than an i7-6700k, this is a useless gaming test.
 
Jun 8, 2003
14,097
117
126
#12
1 .4 volts at 5ghz was with voltage set at auto .
1.29 volts at 5ghz with manual overclock.
That's impressive.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
66
126
#13
If that holds up, you can see why they killed 6c/12t, it's way too close in performance.

Gaming benchmarks are GPU limited with the GTX 1070 though.
Yea, that is true. The hole in the line up IMO is that there should be a 9900 non-k (analogous to the i7-8700) with 8 cores and hyperthreading, but at 300-350.00. Otherwise if you want more threads you can just move up to more cores, but the only way to get 16 threads is with the balls to the wall 9900k.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
226
96
#15
Yea, that is true. The hole in the line up IMO is that there should be a 9900 non-k (analogous to the i7-8700) with 8 cores and hyperthreading, but at 300-350.00. Otherwise if you want more threads you can just move up to more cores, but the only way to get 16 threads is with the balls to the wall 9900k.
Well since it looks like they will charge ~$350 for the 9700K 8c/8t, and probably a locked 9700 8c/8t for ~$300, so the above pricing is clearly out.

I guess they could have a cheaper locked i9-9900 8c/16t for ~$400. This might happen, just not a price you like.

Disliking prices is common now. DRAM have doubled, new generation GPU and new generation CPUs are more expensive...
 

moinmoin

Senior member
Jun 1, 2017
687
193
96
#16
Rising prices with minor upgrades are becoming more common right now in all areas of technology. If the upgrades don't reach the masses, to then keep the margins high one increases the prices to milk the hardcore audience instead.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
66
126
#17
I dont see what more you were expecting from an 8C 8T at almost the same clocks and same mArch.

Its a coffeelake with two more cores + soldered, the only performance increases im expecting to see are in MT workloads from the 9900K. Gaming performance should be almost identical to CoffeeLake at the same clocks.
The 9700 cinebench still seems low though.
Well since it looks like they will charge ~$350 for the 9700K 8c/8t, and probably a locked 9700 8c/8t for ~$300, so the above pricing is clearly out.

I guess they could have a cheaper locked i9-9900 8c/16t for ~$400. This might happen, just not a price you like.

Disliking prices is common now. DRAM have doubled, new generation GPU and new generation CPUs are more expensive...
Well that price was just off the top of my head. Make it 375 to 400 then. I have no problem with the 9900k pricing, I have even been defending it in the other thread. Problem is, they have no direct (or even slightly more expensive) competitor to the 2700x in multi-threaded workloads. 9700k, will lose stock, plus I assume it has no cooler. If you overclock to 5ghz, it might be very close (and win single thread of course), but with extra hassle, extra expense of a cooler, and high power usage at 5+ ghz. I will stick by my claim they need a locked, cheaper 8 core 16 thread chip to better compete with 2700x.
 
Feb 14, 2005
10,283
16
126
#18
I don't think performance of 9th gen 8 core should be much of a surprise, it should be fairly easy to extrapolate from 8th gen.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,795
37
106
#19
This is a poor review, all gaming tests are bottlenecked from the GPU, this is a waste.
This kind of stuff drives me crazy.
 

Dave3000

Senior member
Jan 10, 2011
868
0
81
#20
A good game to test CPU performance on is X-Plane 11 at 1080p. I can dip below 20 fps in a few instances and often below 30 fps on that game when flying the Zibo 737-800 on my system with a i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 Ti and that's with reflections on minimum and scenery shadows turned off at 1080p. X-Plane 11 is probably the most CPU intensive game there is. My next CPU upgrade will be whatever CPU performs better in this game.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,197
137
106
#21
A good game to test CPU performance on is X-Plane 11 at 1080p. I can dip below 20 fps in a few instances and often below 30 fps on that game when flying the Zibo 737-800 on my system with a i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 Ti and that's with reflections on minimum and scenery shadows turned off at 1080p. X-Plane 11 is probably the most CPU intensive game there is. My next CPU upgrade will be whatever CPU performs better in this game.
You mean unoptimized/single-thread limited. No CPU can hold 60 FPS in this game and OpenGL just makes it worse. There are far better games with which to test multi-core CPUs than X-Plane 11.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,443
201
126
#22
A good game to test CPU performance on is X-Plane 11 at 1080p. I can dip below 20 fps in a few instances and often below 30 fps on that game when flying the Zibo 737-800 on my system with a i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 Ti and that's with reflections on minimum and scenery shadows turned off at 1080p. X-Plane 11 is probably the most CPU intensive game there is. My next CPU upgrade will be whatever CPU performs better in this game.
Looking at some benches, it seems like the 8700K already smacks the 4930K around?
 

Hans Gruber

Senior member
Dec 23, 2006
468
19
91
#23
A good game to test CPU performance on is X-Plane 11 at 1080p. I can dip below 20 fps in a few instances and often below 30 fps on that game when flying the Zibo 737-800 on my system with a i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 Ti and that's with reflections on minimum and scenery shadows turned off at 1080p. X-Plane 11 is probably the most CPU intensive game there is. My next CPU upgrade will be whatever CPU performs better in this game.
You are running it all wrong. You can run X-plane 11 @ 4k with no problem. Check your settings. Some of the settings kill performance on xplane 11. I run 4k with a GTX 970 and 3570k @ 4.5ghz. FPS goes as high as 60 and as low as 30fps.
 

Dave3000

Senior member
Jan 10, 2011
868
0
81
#24
I don't think I'm doing anything wrong in X-Plane 11 that is causes those times when it dropped below 20 fps, it not often it happens, and usually stays between 20-30 fps in huge cities and 30+ over rural areas and small cities. With the stock Cessna 172 the fps are higher in those same situations. I don't want to lower anymore settings. I already minimized reflection details, disabled scenery shadows, and disabled AI aircraft. Sure I could lower more settings to get better performance but I don't think it's worth lowering more settings. 4k should not stress on the CPU more than 1080p because resolution is all GPU. I also have my CPU at stock settings. I plan on upgrading to an i9-9900k.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS