Intel Core i9-9900K Tested in 3DMark Clocking Up To 5ghz ,faster than Ryzen 2700

[happy medium]

Intel Core i9-9900K Flagship CPU Performance Benchmark Leaked – Blue Team’s 8 Core is Way Faster Than Red Team’s 8 Core.

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-8-core-benchmark-3dmark-performance-leak/

Z370 motherboard compatibility confirmed.

 

[PhonakV30]

Intel Core i9-9900K Flagship CPU Performance Benchmark Leaked – Blue Team’s 8 Core is Way Faster Than Red Team’s 8 Core.

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-8-core-benchmark-3dmark-performance-leak/

Z370 motherboard compatibility confirmed.

hmm, Your Title and post tells me that You're very excited.

 

[IEC]

I'm not sure how anyone can legitimately claim "way faster" despite a lack of real-world results to prove this claim. With those clocks I'd expect a small bump over the stock i7-8700K, but that's not any better for gaming than an OC'd i7-8700K considering >99% of chips can hit 4.7GHz+ all-core. At 50% higher price.

In any event, I would hope the performance is "way faster" given that the anticipated $450 price of the i9-9900K is double that of the R7 2700 (it was $224 on Prime Day).

Positives would be the rumored backwards-compatibility with Z370 boards and solder on the top SKUs. If that turns out to be true, I might pick one up and give someone a good deal on an i7-8700K.

 

[UsandThem]

In terms of pricing, I personally expect the chip to cost between 400 to 450 USD. It may even be priced to match the 8700K which retails for around $350 US but we have to wait and see whether Intel is thinking to go as competitive in the pricing department as AMD went with their desktop Ryzen processors.

Speaking of the lazy journalism I was talking about in the Intel stock thread. This statement seems to just come from nowhere.
And even suggesting that Intel would even consider pricing this CPU at $350? Not going to happen.

 

[Markfw]

No benchmarks, just saying "1500 points higher than 2700x" and in one benchmark.

I will wait until we get real benchmarks, and real prices before I say anything real about this.

 

[RichUK]

The 9900k should slam the 2700x

 

[Abwx]

The 9900k should slam the 2700x

It wont, unless they increse TDP drastically, and even then the difference will amount to the frequency advantage.

At stock and assuming that it s the same "95W" as a 8700K it shouldnt get higher than 3.8 turbo for all cores, if they push up to 125W this will be barely 10% faster than a stock 2700X, even in games....

Use the 8700K as reference in the charts below and draw your own conclusions :

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-17/indices-performance.html

 

[happy medium]

It wont, unless they increse TDP drastically, and even then the difference will amount to the frequency advantage.

At stock and assuming that it s the same "95W" as a 8700K it shouldnt get higher than 3.8 turbo for all cores, if they push up to 125W this will be barely 10% faster than a stock 2700X, even in games....

Use the 8700K as reference in the charts below and draw your own conclusions :

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-17/indices-performance.html

9900k will turbo to 4.7 all cores.

 

[happy medium]

hmm, Your Title and post tells me that You're very excited.

it was a simple copy and paste from article.

 

[whm1974]

I'm not sure how anyone can legitimately claim "way faster" despite a lack of real-world results to prove this claim. With those clocks I'd expect a small bump over the stock i7-8700K, but that's not any better for gaming than an OC'd i7-8700K considering >99% of chips can hit 4.7GHz+ all-core. At 50% higher price.

In any event, I would hope the performance is "way faster" given that the anticipated $450 price of the i9-9900K is double that of the R7 2700 (it was $224 on Prime Day).

Positives would be the rumored backwards-compatibility with Z370 boards and solder on the top SKUs. If that turns out to be true, I might pick one up and give someone a good deal on an i7-8700K.

Due to the price and much lower TDP, I rather have the 2700 instead anyway. Not everyone want to deal with a hot running CPU that requires a massive and noisy HSF to use.

 

[epsilon84]

It wont, unless they increse TDP drastically, and even then the difference will amount to the frequency advantage.

At stock and assuming that it s the same "95W" as a 8700K it shouldnt get higher than 3.8 turbo for all cores, if they push up to 125W this will be barely 10% faster than a stock 2700X, even in games....

Use the 8700K as reference in the charts below and draw your own conclusions :

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-17/indices-performance.html

Isn't TDP derived from the base clock? Pretty sure a 4.7GHz 9900K would pull more than 95W under full load - a 8700K already does that. Simple maths suggests it could be a 125W chip as you said, perhaps a bit more since its also running at higher clocks than the 8700K.

WR to performance, if the final clockspeeds are indeed 4.7GHz ACT, I struggle to see how you it wouldn't be significantly faster than a 2700X, which turbos to 4GHz ACT. Intel also enjoys an IPC advantage, so I'd expect it to beat a 2700X by an average of 20% or more in applications.

According to your charts, even a 7820X already beats the 2700X slightly, and that is clocked at the same 4GHz as the 2700X. Compared to the 7820X, a 9900K has a larger cache (16MB vs 11MB), 17.5% higher clocks and is ringbus based, which helps latency sensitive apps and gaming. Speaking of gaming, don't think we will see it perform much better than a 8700K, and most of those gains will probably be due to the higher clocks rather than the extra 2 cores / 4 threads.

 

[Markfw]

9900k will turbo to 4.7 all cores.

Not at 95 watt TDP. It does not matter what the article says, its not a real benchmark, and we nothing about the testing conditions.

As I said, until a REAL benchmark comes out (like from Anandtech), I will reserve judgement.

 

[The Stilt]

Without major process level efficiency improvements the CPU should be drawing around 140W.
Will be interesting to see how Intel does that, since previously the stated TDP has been the sustained power limit (PL1).
It would be pretty sad to see if they start understating the power consumption in the same way AMD does with Pinnacle Ridge.

If it draws 140W at the advertised specs, then advertise it with 140W TDP as well goddammit.

 

[epsilon84]

Not at 95 watt TDP. It does not matter what the article says, its not a real benchmark, and we nothing about the testing conditions.

As I said, until a REAL benchmark comes out (like from Anandtech), I will reserve judgement.

Neither does the 2700X, it can draw in excess of 140W despite a '95W TDP'.

TDPs are mostly meaningless anyway since they are derived from the base clock.

 

[epsilon84]

Due to the price and much lower TDP, I rather have the 2700 instead anyway. Not everyone want to deal with a hot running CPU that requires a massive and noisy HSF to use.

Price? I'll give you that, nobody ever said the 9900K was going to win any price/performance awards.

TDP? I would take the '65W TDP' for the 2700 in the same way as the '95W TDP' of the 9900K - with a mountain of salt. Neither are accurate reflections of what the true power consumption would be under sustained full load.

I do think people exaggerate how hard it is to cool a ~125W CPU though, or even 150W. A decent HSF will suffice, and you can always buy silent fans if noise bothers you.

 

[whm1974]

Price? I'll give you that, nobody ever said the 9900K was going to win any price/performance awards.

TDP? I would take the '65W TDP' for the 2700 in the same way as the '95W TDP' of the 9900K - with a mountain of salt. Neither are accurate reflections of what the true power consumption would be under sustained full load.

I do think people exaggerate how hard it is to cool a ~125W CPU though, or even 150W. A decent HSF will suffice, and you can always buy silent fans if noise bothers you.

TDP is a measure of how much heat the cooling system is designed to handle, not energy usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

[epsilon84]

TDP is a measure of how much heat the cooling system is designed to handle, not energy usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

So why do you care about TDP so much then? I never said it indicated power consumption - far from it, in fact. Its just an arbitrary figure, and there isn't even an industry standard for this - AMD and Intel derive their TDPs differently anyway.

Maybe its useful for OEMs to decide what cooling to use on particular chips, but for enthusiasts its mostly a meaningless figure.

 

[moonbogg]

Of course it will be faster. Not sure how many people will care though considering the almost $500 price tag. However, It's interesting how this chip will almost beat a 7900X in productivity and handily beat it in everything else at half the cost. I have to point out how Intel's own chips are making their X299 basically useless, something they would obviously have never done before now. Wondering how many think Intel was on track to release these chips regardless of AMD. Intel just does Intel?

 

[jpiniero]

Well, if it doesn't get cancelled there will be a refresh of Skylake-X soon with more cores/mhz/tdp. And then the Super HEDT.

 

[epsilon84]

Of course it will be faster. Not sure how many people will care though considering the almost $500 price tag. However, It's interesting how this chip will almost beat a 7900X in productivity and handily beat it in everything else at half the cost. I have to point out how Intel's own chips are making their X299 basically useless, something they would obviously have never done before now. Wondering how many think Intel was on track to release these chips regardless of AMD. Intel just does Intel?

$450 for a 9900X vs $330 for an 2700X isn't that bad of a deal IMO.

For an extra $120 you get
*4.7-5.0 vs 4.0-4.3 turbo clocks
*higher IPC (14% according to The Stilt)
*better overclockability

Probably doesn't ship with a cooler which is a tick in the 2700Xs box value wise, though based on Intel's history with stock coolers that's probably a good thing. You wouldn't want your shiny flagship throttling in reviews haha

The simple fact that we have a halo product aka i9 below $500 is a testament to the more competitive landscape in the CPU market right now. Without Ryzen Intel would probably charge $1000 for this chip, or maybe not even release it at all

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'm not sure how anyone can legitimately claim "way faster" despite a lack of real-world results to prove this claim. With those clocks I'd expect a small bump over the stock i7-8700K, but that's not any better for gaming than an OC'd i7-8700K considering >99% of chips can hit 4.7GHz+ all-core. At 50% higher price.

In any event, I would hope the performance is "way faster" given that the anticipated $450 price of the i9-9900K is double that of the R7 2700 (it was $224 on Prime Day).

Positives would be the rumored backwards-compatibility with Z370 boards and solder on the top SKUs. If that turns out to be true, I might pick one up and give someone a good deal on an i7-8700K.

Cmon, that is cherry picking prices. Right now the 2700x is 330.00 on amazon, only about 35% cheaper than the 9900k at 450.00. With the clockspeed and ipc advantage, performance should be close to 20% faster, so the price seems quite reasonable to me.

Edit: guess Epsilon beat me to the post, but great minds think alike (relax joking).

 

[epsilon84]

Cmon, that is cherry picking prices. Right now the 2700x is 330.00 on amazon, only about 35% cheaper than the 9900k at 450.00. With the clockspeed and ipc advantage, performance should be close to 20% faster, so the price seems quite reasonable to me.

Edit: guess Epsilon beat me to the post, but great minds think alike (relax joking).

Exactly, no one called the 1080 Ti overpriced compared to Vega 64, and we are talking about a similar gulf in price/performance here.

If its a market leading CPU it will be priced to match, I call it the 'flagship tax'. In fact I'm somewhat surprised at the $450 price point, I was expecting it to be in excess of $500, especially with the i9 moniker

 

[UsandThem]

In fact I'm somewhat surprised at the $450 price point, I was expecting it to be in excess of $500, especially with the i9 moniker

Intel never announced the prices yet, so there's still time

Everything up until Intel announces prices is just speculation.

 

[ub4ty]

The problem with this discussion is that it actually is about price/performance value. As we have crossed into a new norm where 8 core processors are ubiquitous and affordable (set upon by AMD), the discussion in my mind is always about price/performance value. AMD set a new benchmark and Intel is trying to catch up. Intel has been notorious for milking and absurdly pricing their processors. Intel has an alphabet soup of processors with all sorts of gotchas and gimps. Meanwhile, AMD's lineup is clear, simple, affordable, and contains no gimmicks/gotchas. So, as a consumer, I have to ask : what do I get for an intel tax? I just paid $170 for another Ryzen 7 1700. It OC's out the box on a stock cooler just fine. That's 8 cores at 3.7Ghz. DDR4-3200 CL14 and nvme. What exactly else do I need that justifies paying double or triple this amount? Absolutely nothing. RAM now costs more than the processor. Storage even can too. I paid about $200 for my NVME drive (which is literally a computer itself with an arm multi-core processor). The processor standard has been set by AMD at the high and low end on price/performance value. AMD broke the PCI-E lane count gimmick Intel used to play. Intel now has to beat AMD.. By beat I mean it has to cut its premium because it no longer is a premium product in my mind. I own several intel based machines and several AMD machines so I have no bias. However, the days of paying $400+ for basic desktop processor are over for me. I'll splurge on a HEDT processor and have for my thread ripper but that's because I get 64 PCI-E lanes .. more than even some XEON processors. The processor is no longer the crown jewel of a computer. It splits is fame w/ high speed storage NVME, GPU, and RAM now.

Any consumer is entitled to make up their own mind where they want to spend their money. I simply am not buying the idea that Intel is premium anymore. I got an 8 core processor, motherboard, ram, and PSU for the price that this processor is going to go for. I'm not thirsty for performance on an 8 core processor. Not at 3Ghz and most certainly not when its OC'd to 3.7Ghz. For more serious work, I want more cores and I/O not clocks.

Oh and there's absolutely zero bringing me to the buying table until 7nm processors come out w/ PCIE 4.0 and PCIE 4.0 GPUs come out with a serious die-shrink. Yes, the GPUs that Nvidia plans to release this year are write-off.

The big game changers have been :
> High speed RAM
> High speed storage NVME
> Core count
The next ones will be :
> 7nm
> PCIE 4.0
> Even higher core count
> Even faster nvme via more layers and faster arm processors

I'm settled until 2019. Intel is behind the ball, arriving as late as ever, and still behaves like it can charge a premium... This is how you drastically fall behind in tech w/ serious consequences

 

[epsilon84]

The problem with this discussion is that it actually is about price/performance value. As we have crossed into a new norm where 8 core processors are ubiquitous and affordable (set upon by AMD), the discussion in my mind is always about price/performance value. AMD set a new benchmark and Intel is trying to catch up. Intel has been notorious for milking and absurdly pricing their processors. Intel has an alphabet soup of processors with all sorts of gotchas and gimps. Meanwhile, AMD's lineup is clear, simple, affordable, and contains no gimmicks/gotchas. So, as a consumer, I have to ask : what do I get for an intel tax? I just paid $170 for another Ryzen 7 1700. It OC's out the box on a stock cooler just fine. That's 8 cores at 3.7Ghz. DDR4-3200 CL14 and nvme. What exactly else do I need that justifies paying double or triple this amount? Absolutely nothing. RAM now costs more than the processor. Storage even can too. I paid about $200 for my NVME drive (which is literally a computer itself with an arm multi-core processor). The processor standard has been set by AMD at the high and low end on price/performance value. AMD broke the PCI-E lane count gimmick Intel used to play. Intel now has to beat AMD.. By beat I mean it has to cut its premium because it no longer is a premium product in my mind. I own several intel based machines and several AMD machines so I have no bias. However, the days of paying $400+ for basic desktop processor are over for me. I'll splurge on a HEDT processor and have for my thread ripper but that's because I get 64 PCI-E lanes .. more than even some XEON processors. The processor is no longer the crown jewel of a computer. It splits is fame w/ high speed storage NVME, GPU, and RAM now.

Any consumer is entitled to make up their own mind where they want to spend their money. I simply am not buying the idea that Intel is premium anymore. I got an 8 core processor, motherboard, ram, and PSU for the price that this processor is going to go for. I'm not thirsty for performance on an 8 core processor. Not at 3Ghz and most certaintly not when its OC'd to 3.7Ghz. For more serious work, I want more cores and I/O not clocks.

Price/performance never scales linearly with flagship products, by your very same comparison a 2700X at $330 is also grossly overpriced compared to a $170 1700, you're paying almost double for a 15% performance boost?

In a high end PC, let's say one costing $2000, a CPU might account for 20 - 25% of the overall cost of the system. If paying an extra 5% in overall cost lets you have the best in class processing power, then I'd argue it's worth paying the premium, as that could net you 20% better performance when CPU bound.