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

[Insert_Nickname]

Maybe the younger folk don't remember this but Intel used to charge $1000 for their 'Extreme Edition' chips. I'm glad those days are long gone.

I'm old enough. But then again now they charge $1999 for an Extreme Edition. So I suppose that's an improvement.

https://ark.intel.com/products/126699

Is it worth the $1300 premium compared to a 1950x? I don't think so, but EE has never been about value for money...

 

[TheGiant]

I am glad the EE editions (Intel or AMD) have something really more than just frequency. As I remember the P4EE, core 2 extreme (at launch 2,93GHz and pretty much every c2d oced 3+GHz easy), AMD FX (the cache wasn't really worth the price) etc...

now we got what?? MOAR COARZ

 

[epsilon84]

I'm old enough. But then again now they charge $1999 for an Extreme Edition. So I suppose that's an improvement.

https://ark.intel.com/products/126699

Is it worth the $1300 premium compared to a 1950x? I don't think so, but EE has never been about value for money...

Damn, didn't know the EE was still a thing! In fairness that CPU has over twice the cores of the upcoming 9900K, but still exorbitantly priced! Definitely would get the 1950X over that unless I had more money than sense or just ran AVX code all day long.

IIRC the P4 EEs of yesteryear just had larger caches and slightly higher clockspeeds, and cost 3 times that of a normal P4... was right around the time when the A64 was dominant, I have no idea how Intel justified those prices considering it wasn't even the fastest CPU at the time.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Source: https://hk.xfastest.com/11058/intel-new-raodmap-2018-2019-i9-9900k-i7-9700k/

 

[PeterScott]

You're grasping at straws now. A lack of optimization in one's software package is nothing to be proud of. Your own link :
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen
but the cost isn’t justifiable when an 8700K performs within 10% of the $2000 7980XE for our tasks
Seems AMD isn't the only one with issues. Seems Adobe just hasn't updated their software to be optimized for new processors. It is quite costly to do so I'm not surprised. Intel usually sends a team of people over for such 'optimizations'. I'm in a completely different segment and have little dependencies on whether or not a software vender decided to optimize for Ryzen.

Wait, is your argument about the price/performance of Intel desktop chips. Or is it just looking for an angle to argue "Intel is bad".

The point is Adobe was brought up, and I followed up by pointing out that: Intel desktop chips have the best price/Performance ratio for Premiere because you can uniquely leverage the CPU + iGPU + Discrete GPU, to match HEDT chips from both Intel and AMD.

So instead of conceding that in Adobe Premiere, Intel Desktop chips have the best price/performance, you instead switch to attacking Intel HEDT chips.

IMO, that is arguing in bad faith.

 

[Zucker2k]

Wait, is your argument about the price/performance of Intel desktop chips. Or is it just looking for an angle to argue "Intel is bad".

The point is Adobe was brought up, and I followed up by pointing out that: Intel desktop chips have the best price/Performance ratio for Premiere because you can uniquely leverage the CPU + iGPU + Discrete GPU, to match HEDT chips from both Intel and AMD.

So instead of conceding that in Adobe Premiere, Intel Desktop chips have the best price/performance, you instead switch to attacking Intel HEDT chips.

IMO, that is arguing in bad faith.

His has got to be the greatest rant-fest about nothing since I signed up on here. He's been going around in circles trying to convince everyone Intel is evil. Shaking my head in amusement. The Ryzen 7 1800x was $499 on launch. Please spare the thread, you've done enough already.

This chip is going to sell like hotcake. It has longevity written all over it. Besides gamers, coders, and all those who need and rely on desktop chips for their habits and work, the long-termers should be licking their chops. This could easily be the fastest desktop chip (frequency-wise) for while, especially with the problems Intel is having with 10nm. As I've said somewhere already, I don't see AMD upending this chip in the frequency department, but we'll have to wait and see.
If I was looking to build something with the perfect mixture of ipc/cores/frequency for my computing needs, with an eye towards longevity, say 4-5 years, I'll be all over this, no questions asked.

 

[frozentundra123456]

They probably couldn't fit one of those in 65W, without totally hobbling the clocks, and making it so that people wouldn't even want it.

Not so sure about that. After all the i7 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3 and a 65 watt tdp. I would think they could do an all core turbo of 3.8 to 4 ghz and a singe or two core turbo even higher with a 65 watt tdp. Very close to Ryzen clocks. Or hell, even make the tdp 95 watts, or somewhere in between and make the clocks higher.

 

[frozentundra123456]

His has got to be the greatest rant-fest about nothing since I signed up on here. He's been going around in circles trying to convince everyone Intel is evil. Shaking my head in amusement. The Ryzen 7 1800x was $499 on launch. Please spare the thread, you've done enough already.

This chip is going to sell like hotcake. It has longevity written all over it. Besides gamers, coders, and all those who need and rely on desktop chips for their habits and work, the long-termers should be licking their chops. This could easily be the fastest desktop chip (frequency-wise) for while, especially with the problems Intel is having with 10nm. As I've said somewhere already, I don't see AMD upending this chip in the frequency department, but we'll have to wait and see.
If I was looking to build something with the perfect mixture of ipc/cores/frequency for my computing needs, with an eye towards longevity, say 4-5 years, I'll be all over this, no questions asked.

The ignore option is there for a reason.

 

[ub4ty]

Wait, is your argument about the price/performance of Intel desktop chips. Or is it just looking for an angle to argue "Intel is bad".

The point is Adobe was brought up, and I followed up by pointing out that: Intel desktop chips have the best price/Performance ratio for Premiere because you can uniquely leverage the CPU + iGPU + Discrete GPU, to match HEDT chips from both Intel and AMD.

So instead of conceding that in Adobe Premiere, Intel Desktop chips have the best price/performance, you instead switch to attacking Intel HEDT chips.

IMO, that is arguing in bad faith.

Someone makes shitty software that underperforms on a better processor and you want a pat on the back?
You want to throw around performance but you're not interested in why it performs better? You're acting in bad faith and grasping at straws and I'm done trying to educate someone on details they don't care for. That goes for the other group of people who seem to think you have a point. If you acting in good faith and had the understanding I did, this debate would have never occurred. Why i compared the Intel 8700k to the Intel 7980XE in Premiere was to show you what a piece of garbage it was wrt scalin even within Intel's line. See comment below :

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2489931
Let's put it this way, 2700x is the better CPU but for now Premiere likes faster cores rather than more cores.
If it were to compare a core i9 7980XE with 8700k, the 8700k would win in warp stabilizing or even timeline playback of some files, but this is isolated to Premiere and Adobe software in general, switch to another software like davinci resolve or sony vegas and the 2700x or 7980XE would obliterate 8700k.
Another example would be Apple products, you know those expensive imac's with 12-18 xeon cores, 128gb ram, cost as much as a car, a lame *** youtuber benchmarks in premiere, conclusion, 7700k or 8700k is better than a 13000$ imac in Premiere.
The moment they switch to Final cut the 8700k gets obliterated even by old imac's.
Upgrading for Premiere is like gambling with your money, it's possible it might work for 4k or not and you just lost a few thousand $.

I'm done.

I have no idea how Intel justified those prices considering it wasn't even the fastest CPU at the time.

Because there's clearly a group of people who buy their overpriced hardware no matter what and will go the extra mile to try to justify. Anyone who says different is ranting and amusing. I thank such people for enriching my pocket as a shareholder over the years. One aspect of my investment strategy is to find out what company rips off its customers the most and which customers are dumb enough to keep coming back for it. Profit...

 

[Zucker2k]

Not so sure about that. After all the i7 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3 and a 65 watt tdp. I would think they could do an all core turbo of 3.8 to 4 ghz and a singe or two core turbo even higher with a 65 watt tdp. Very close to Ryzen clocks. Or hell, even make the tdp 95 watts, or somewhere in between and make the clocks higher.

The skylake arch is very efficient at Ryzen clocks.

The reverse is the problem.

/jk

 

[Abwx]

After all the i7 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3 and a 65 watt tdp..

But it consume as much as a 8700K..

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-4/core-i7-8700.html

So much for the "65W" TDP...

 

[JoeRambo]

All those TDP, CDP and whatever posts need to die. Neither manufacturer and their ODMs care about enforcing those limits, so why should we?

 

[Zucker2k]

It's called "Turbo" bins but some people have a hard time accepting it. Plus, TDP is not peak power consumption.