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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
896
96
Yeah, and Intel could have done this a long time ago, so to be quite honest, Intel can kiss my white, hairy ass. I'm so pissed at Intel for holding out, I swear I don't think I can get over it. $400 quad cores for a decade, then AMD makes a good chip and now all of a sudden we have EIGHT CORES on the mainstream platform for under $500 and the non HT version for $350-ish? Oh I swear to God they can go to hell.
Sounds like my sentiments coming off my last intel build and into ryzen. Literally laughing my ass off at the $400 quad core mention because that's right about what I paid. I also had the pleasure of spending $218 on a mobo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonbogg

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
Yeah, and Intel could have done this a long time ago, so to be quite honest, Intel can kiss my white, hairy ass. I'm so pissed at Intel for holding out, I swear I don't think I can get over it. $400 quad cores for a decade, then AMD makes a good chip and now all of a sudden we have EIGHT CORES on the mainstream platform for under $500 and the non HT version for $350-ish? Oh I swear to God they can go to hell.
AMD wasn't competitive for a decade, plus Intel's delays with 10nm meant this is a Plan B chip - a pretty good plan B still, mind you, but had 10nm actually rolled out in 2015 or 2016 as planned I'm sure we would have got 8 cores sooner. If nothing else, so Ryzen couldnt steal their thunder and literally double their core count on the desktop and remain unchallenged for 6 months.

Anyway, I don't get you moonbogg, I swear a few months ago you said an 8/16 high clocking Intel chip would be your next upgrade to the 6800K that you own - now that it's actually coming you're still unhappy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo and CHADBOGA

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
My unsubstantiated FUD has to do with the kind of workloads that involve the other half of computing : What general purpose processors were made for and excel at : Branching and random memory access.
I'll leave it up to you to find out what benchmarks and workloads this refers to. Spoiler : It's the set of benchmarks in which a 1700x beats a 8700k hands down by double digits and clock scaling is more inline with what I stated. It's why server processors chase cores and not clocks. An 8-core processor is a server grade processor in my mind. A desktop processor still idles in the 4-core to 6-core region for 'power users'. Hilariously, a dual core/4 thread processor still handles what a majority of people do on a desktop : browse web/shat post/consume (not produce) media.

So name the applications. Show us the comparison tests.

You keep alluding to the mysterious applications that are somehow have terrible clock speed scaling, but great core scaling, and for some reason even have terrible IPC on Intel in general? This is seeming more and more far fetched the further we go down your FUD rabbit hole.

As much as you now seem to want to make this about servers, we are talking about premium consumer desktop products, and I am betting whatever you come up with will be a practically non existent use case for desktop computers.

IOW just more irrelevant FUD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,008
1,796
126
AMD wasn't competitive for a decade, plus Intel's delays with 10nm meant this is a Plan B chip - a pretty good plan B still, mind you, but had 10nm actually rolled out in 2015 or 2016 as planned I'm sure we would have got 8 cores sooner. If nothing else, so Ryzen couldnt steal their thunder and literally double their core count on the desktop and remain unchallenged for 6 months.

Anyway, I don't get you moonbogg, I swear a few months ago you said an 8/16 high clocking Intel chip would be your next upgrade to the 6800K that you own - now that it's actually coming you're still unhappy?
That's right. Accepting this Intel 8 core is like accepting a delicious slice of pizza from an evil villain. You want the pizza, and nothing against the pizza, but SCREW THAT because it's being handed to you by an evil villain. You might still take it if you want it bad enough, but you'll be cursing them out as you walk away eating your pizza. Now if you still can't understand that, then I'm afraid I can't help you.
 

Sable

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2006
1,116
66
91
I'm not reading all this back and forth drivel. A gaming benchmark? Yup, I'm fairly sure the i9 will take it. The current i7 8700k already wins you nutters. It's about price/performance for your SPECIFIC USE CASE!!! Games vs gaming + transcoding stuff b2b vms. (which mostly none of you do).

Ryzen is great. i9 will be greater. what we need is graphics progress. zzzz
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
OK, then, Ryzen
My i7-8700K sustains 120W+ package power under AVX loads at 4.7GHz all-core with a -50mV undervolt, zero AVX offset. It can be considered a good sample in that respect.

If the all-core turbo for the i9-9900K is truly 4.7GHz, I'd expect 140W+, easily. As good as Intel's 14nm+++(+) process is, you're not getting 2 additional cores for free.



There is no "X" in my post. See the thread title? It has no "X" either. The 2700 is the same silicon as the 2700X and many people opted for slightly lower maximum boost clocks in exchange for better efficiency. It's still $230 after bundle discount at Microcenter, and that includes a decent stock cooler.




Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/8

Obviously, the i9-9900K will retain the performance crown (at least, until Zen 2 in 1H2019) but it requires certain sacrifices in perf/W and perf/$. Which is the point that several people are making in this thread.
OK then, the 2700 *non X* is still almost 300.00 on New egg. Far more than half the cost of the projected 450.00 for the 9900k. Microcenter is an outlier, certainly not available to everyone, and they have deals on intel processors as well, so I would assume after the initial demand wears off they will have significant discounts of the 9900k as well.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
896
96
So name the applications. Show us the comparison tests.

You keep alluding to the mysterious applications that are somehow have terrible clock speed scaling, but great core scaling, and for some reason even have terrible IPC on Intel in general? This is seeming more and more far fetched the further we go down your FUD rabbit hole.

As much as you now seem to want to make this about servers, we are talking about premium consumer desktop products, and I am betting whatever you come up with will be a practically non existent use case for desktop computers.

IOW just more irrelevant FUD.
The topic area you're looking for : Scientific & Engineering Computations And HPC

AMD’s Ryzen generally does well with these types of tasks. Overall, we’re left with the impression that AMD’s boiled down a server CPU to the desktop level.

It's ok that you're unaware of this as you likely know nothing about NUMA configurations or micro-architectural design suited for such tasks. However, this concludes my exchange with a group of people who likely know nothing about this area of computing yet speak with such arrogant authority.

The grand majority of desktop users are consumers not producers.
Dual/Quad-core has served them for a number of years and will continue to.
If you are unaware that 8 core processors center on server related designs, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you have never done a scientific/engineering workload in your life, it explains why you have no clue what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,008
1,796
126
OK, then, Ryzen

OK then, the 2700 *non X* is still almost 300.00 on New egg. Far more than half the cost of the projected 450.00 for the 9900k. Microcenter is an outlier, certainly not available to everyone, and they have deals on intel processors as well, so I would assume after the initial demand wears off they will have significant discounts of the 9900k as well.
That's an exciting thought, but if waiting for that to happen and then you buy it, those 9 months will fly by so fast, and then its just about time for 7 and 10nm already. Hard to get overly excited about yet another 14nm CPU when some real IPC increases might be right around the corner, finally.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
The topic area you're looking for : Scientific & Engineering Computations And HPC

AMD’s Ryzen generally does well with these types of tasks. Overall, we’re left with the impression that AMD’s boiled down a server CPU to the desktop level.
No need to shout. Is that to distract from not linking the proof, yet again? You said "1700x beats a 8700k hands down by double digits" I would like to see that. Is it so obscure that it isn't on the Internet?


The grand majority of desktop users are consumers not producers.
Dual/Quad-core has served them for a number of years and will continue to.
So your argument is now that Desktop user's should just stick with dual and quad cores. That kind of negates Ryzen desktops entire competitive advantage.

Your rationalizations, while entertaining seem to have nothing to do with the premium desktop CPU market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,564
96
No need to shout. Is that to distract from not linking the proof, yet again? You said "1700x beats a 8700k hands down by double digits" I would like to see that. Is it so obscure that it isn't on the Internet?




So your argument is now that Desktop user's should just stick with dual and quad cores. That kind of negates Ryzen desktops entire competitive advantage.

Your rationalizations, while entertaining seem to have nothing to do with the premium desktop CPU market.
I myself consider modern 4/4 CPUs to be the minimum processor one should get when building/buying a system. Along with at least 8GB of memory.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
I myself consider modern 4/4 CPUs to be the minimum processor one should get when building/buying a system. Along with at least 8GB of memory.
Agreed. I bought a quad core in 2008, and I certainly wouldn't suggest a dual core to anyone today, or less than 8GB of ram.

I definitely want 6 cores minimum for my next machine. There is a little bit of the future proofing element for those of us who don't upgrade computers every year or two.

But really, 9900K is THE premium desktop part, so what the average person needs is irrelevant. This is the part for enthusiast who the best, and it should deliver on that.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,984
347
126
6700K OC to this since 2015, not sure how I feel about it, the prior 3 years looked more exciting in terms of evolution from Intel, even if they were stuck with 4 cores,

but it is impressive if you can take good advantage of all the cores, which most people won't be doing for while, even the typical buyer of this price range I don't think.

it just makes me wonder if the next 3-5 years will stay at 8 cores for this sort of part and focus more on IPC again, of if it will keep scaling the cores, or both....
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,571
2,606
126
Personally I believe that 8 cores will become the new 4cores when we reach 10/7nm in 2019-2020.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,045
824
136
The speed of the storage medium and the main memory would be just as a big of as a factor of not more so so then the clockspeed of the CPU used in servers.
Ofc, no doubt about it. That's why i used "in quite some". Hard to generalize when there are so many types of "servers" and tasks. But for application servers, facing clients, one usually needs to serve the users in reasonable amount of time ( and sometimes those times are codified in SLA ).
Even database servers, once you have "enough" memory, become CPU bound, query times scale with clock if there are no (soft or God forbid hard) page faults involved.

I/O used to not care about CPU so much, but nowadays with NVM they do matter a lot as, we haven't tested Intel Optane, but as media access latencies go down, CPU speed becomes even more important.

Right now in our business, the only thing that would not care about slower CPU is static content caching, there is clear bound by network and CPU speed could go down and core counts could rise.

But this is very offtopic to discussion about future desktop CPU, where clock speed is king for sure in every task the user does.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,045
824
136
I'll leave it up to you to find out what benchmarks and workloads this refers to. Spoiler : It's the set of benchmarks in which a 1700x beats a 8700k hands down by double digits and clock scaling is more inline with what I stated.
Please do share it and enlighten us with the estimate of how many desktop users will ever run that task LOL.
 

Jackie60

Member
Aug 11, 2006
118
46
101
I really want a 9900K with solder and 5Ghz but I really can't condone Intel's behaviour in holding out so long on offering a competitive 8 core CPU. 9900K looks a like a good CPU but how many PCIe lanes does it have and is it hobbled in any other way. It's only thanks to AMD that we have this competition so I'm going to hold out for AMD's 7nm offering and buy that if it's competitive. I'm going to use my cash to try and level the playing field and punish Intel for their complacency ( I bet they're already quaking) and also because I haven't had an AMD CPU since 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonbogg

FlanK3r

Senior member
Sep 15, 2009
312
36
91
9900K seems is CPU for next at least one year. Of course, after 1/2 years it will be better than "old" Ryzen 7 2700X. But in H1 2019 we will have Ryzens 3000 at 7nm and this will be a problem for Intel for longer time (7nm vs 14nm, Intel will launch first 10nm desktop CPU late in 2019)
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,370
714
136
I really want a 9900K with solder and 5Ghz but I really can't condone Intel's behaviour in holding out so long on offering a competitive 8 core CPU. 9900K looks a like a good CPU but how many PCIe lanes does it have and is it hobbled in any other way. It's only thanks to AMD that we have this competition so I'm going to hold out for AMD's 7nm offering and buy that if it's competitive. I'm going to use my cash to try and level the playing field and punish Intel for their complacency ( I bet they're already quaking) and also because I haven't had an AMD CPU since 2008.
It's called 7820X, and you could have gotten it over a year ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
9900K seems is CPU for next at least one year. Of course, after 1/2 years it will be better than "old" Ryzen 7 2700X. But in H1 2019 we will have Ryzens 3000 at 7nm and this will be a problem for Intel for longer time (7nm vs 14nm, Intel will launch first 10nm desktop CPU late in 2019)
We don't know how AMD 7nm will compare with Intel 10nm, it's not like AMD is releasing 7nm tomorrow, it's around 1H 2019 at this stage, so around 6 months before Intel releases 10nm and a new uarch, which will arrive in 2H 2019, assuming no more delays.

There are just so many unknowns, a lot of people think (or hope) Ryzen 2 aka 3000 series will have +15% IPC and 5GHz clocks. Of course we have nothing to back this up at this stage.

Quite frankly we don't even know if AMD Ryzen 3000 or whatever it's called will beat the 9900K, at least in terms of IPC and clocks. Of course if AMD increases the core count they can reclaim the MT performance crown even if they are still a bit behind in IPC and/or clockspeed
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,370
714
136
We don't know how AMD 7nm will compare with Intel 10nm, it's not like AMD is releasing 7nm tomorrow, it's around 1H 2019 at this stage, so around 6 months before Intel releases 10nm and a new uarch.

We don't even know if AMD Ryzen 3000 or whatever it's called will beat the 9900K, at least in terms of IPC and clocks. Of course if AMD increases the core count they can reclaim the MT performance crown even if they are still a bit behind in IPC and/or clockspeed
My bet is on core count. The inherent low power benefits of AMD's 7nm process over Intel's 10nm is more plausible than an inherent fmax advantage, imo. The other foundries have yet shown they can beat Intel in the all important GHz category with anything but high voltages and exotic cooling.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
641
126
Personally I believe that 8 cores will become the new 4cores when we reach 10/7nm in 2019-2020.
Maybe for this forum crowd, but for the overall cpu market, (educational, enterprise, normal consumers) I highly doubt it. As a matter of fact, I think 4/4 will be plenty for most users for a couple of years, and then *maybe* six cores. I have an i5 2320, which is 4/4 with low clockspeed relative to today's quads, and it is more than enough for daily use, although I am having some hitching in gaming since I got a new gpu, which is probably cpu related. Of course, with the new die shrinks, OEMs may just stick in more cores as a marketing gimmick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

Jackie60

Member
Aug 11, 2006
118
46
101
It's called 7820X, and you could have gotten it over a year ago.
Apart from very few samples can do 5ghz, 4.6-4.8 seems the typical maximum and that's consuming 250-400W and I don't want to use
liquid Nitrogen every day to cool it. As said above the platform is overly expensive and it's gaming performance isn't where I need it. Oh and it's neutered with 28PCIe lanes so hobbled. Intel's market segmentation, the need to always buy a new mobo when upgrading, the lack of PCIe lanes, cheaping out with TIM not solder are all reasons why I want AMD not Intel next. Apart from all
the glaringly obvious differences which amount to being not at all what I'm after you're right I could have got something quite different a year ago.
Thanks for the heads up!
 
Last edited:

eek2121

Senior member
Aug 2, 2005
800
895
136
Maybe for this forum crowd, but for the overall cpu market, (educational, enterprise, normal consumers) I highly doubt it. As a matter of fact, I think 4/4 will be plenty for most users for a couple of years, and then *maybe* six cores. I have an i5 2320, which is 4/4 with low clockspeed relative to today's quads, and it is more than enough for daily use, although I am having some hitching in gaming since I got a new gpu, which is probably cpu related. Of course, with the new die shrinks, OEMs may just stick in more cores as a marketing gimmick.
Depends on the use case and the market. College students, the family PC, etc. are likely to have 4-6 cores. However, developers, content producers, etc (i.e. a large portion of those of us with actual jobs that rely on computers) will want more cores, faster storage, and more memory.

Case in point, my PC has a 1950X, 32 GB RAM, and a GTX 1080ti. The family PC in the living room has a Pentium G2030, 8 GB RAM, 120gb SSD, and a GTX 750ti. It fits in a mini ITX case and does great with web browsing, light gaming, Microsoft office, etc. I will probably upgrade the GPU in it after the next round of refreshes, and I may pull my 2600k out of storage and pop it in, but other then that it won't need an upgrade for quite a while. It isn't used for high end gaming, nor professional use, so there is no need for tons of cores, memory, etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS