• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel Core i7-9700K review posted ahead of launch

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
834
339
136
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

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
3,400
3,554
136
Based on this, it seems disappointing, but obviously should be taken with a large grain of salt.
 

EXCellR8

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2010
3,887
787
136
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.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NTMBK

Dayman1225

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2017
1,007
591
106
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.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,554
2,536
126
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
984
810
136
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.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,554
2,536
126
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

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,041
838
136
I would expect something better than an i7-6700k, this is a useless gaming test.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
471
126
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
641
126
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epsilon84

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
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

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,292
2,747
106
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
641
126
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.
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,318
672
126
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Dave3000

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2011
1,038
37
91
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
2,802
2,475
136
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.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,570
126
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

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,050
310
136
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

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2011
1,038
37
91
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