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

[Zucker2k]

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!

You're welcome. Good luck on getting anything close to 4.8GHz on anything other than Intel. Poor gaming performance relative to what? The 1800x fared worse in almost every metric compared to the 7820x but didn't stop a lot of enthusiasts on this forum from gobbling them up at $500 a pop. Crazy, isn't it? And where's the 1800x now, one year after it's debut?

 

[tamz_msc]

You're welcome. Good luck on getting anything close to 4.8GHz on anything other than Intel. Poor gaming performance relative to what? The 1800x fared worse in almost every metric compared to the 7820x but didn't stop a lot of enthusiasts on this forum from gobbling them up at $500 a pop. Crazy, isn't it? And where's the 1800x now, one year after it's debut?

It is obvious that you are unaware of the price history of the 1800X compared to the 7820X, otherwise you would not have made that statement.

 

[beginner99]

Hrmmm, I can play any game perfectly fine, so I am not sure how you measure "a lot worse".

Depends on what you mean by "just fine". If you game at 4k 60hz, then yes, most cpu can play it just fine. But you could have paid a lot less.

performance/$

For cpu, mobo and RAM. I mean yeah you don't need to run Quad-channel but why then buy into this platform to begin with? There is simply only disadvantages to it for gaming. Of course if you mainly use it for business and some gaming on the side, then it's a different question.

performance/watt:

is also worse but I don't consider that all that important, it's just adds to the fact HEDT makes little sense now for gaming.

 

[Zucker2k]

It is obvious that you are unaware of the price history of the 1800X compared to the 7820X, otherwise you would not have made that statement.

Please elaborate. Not sure where you're going with this.

 

[Edrick]

Depends on what you mean by "just fine". If you game at 4k 60hz, then yes, most cpu can play it just fine. But you could have paid a lot less.

You made the statement "while using a mesh which is a lot worse for gaming". I would like some data to back up that claim. Take a 8 core CPU (without mesh) and take a 7820X (with mesh), clock them at the same speed and then run them on a high end GPU (say 1080Ti), then show me how the 7820X is a "lot worse".

For cpu, mobo and RAM. I mean yeah you don't need to run Quad-channel but why then buy into this platform to begin with? There is simply only disadvantages to it for gaming.

Sure, the platform costs more, but you also get more. More PCIe lanes, quad channel RAM, etc. Granted quad channel plays a larger roles in applications outside games (some love quad channel), but that does not mean it is a "disadvantage" in gaming just because gaming does not fully utilize it (yet). I expect that Cascade Lake will offer some higher core counts and higher clocks (due to 14++) for the HEDT platform. I could easily drop in a 10,12, or 18 core CPU into my build. HEDT is a much more flexible platform. But if all you do is game, then sure, you don't need it.

 

[tamz_msc]

Please elaborate. Not sure where you're going with this.

Right now you can have the 1800X for half the price of the 7820X. At the time of launch, the 7820X was 600$, while the 1800X had already been on sale a number of times, making its 500$ sticker price irrelevant. Not to mention that the 1800X's successor is superior in every way.

 

[beginner99]

then show me how the 7820X is a "lot worse".

As I said, it costs more while offering no benefit for gaming. I mean we all remember the reviews from back then AFAIK anandtech never even showed gaming benchmarks because they were so poor but let's assume it actually matched a much cheaper 7700k or still cheaper 8700k. Why would you pay more? You could have also gotten a 1700(x) if you really need the 8 cores for similar gaming performance and "HEDT" performance at a fraction of the cost.

Simply said the 7820x wasn't really a efficient choice unless you need a gazillion pice lanes.

 

[Thunder 57]

You made the statement "while using a mesh which is a lot worse for gaming". I would like some data to back up that claim. Take a 8 core CPU (without mesh) and take a 7820X (with mesh), clock them at the same speed and then run them on a high end GPU (say 1080Ti), then show me how the 7820X is a "lot worse".

That seems to be one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people accept it as fact. The new HEDT chips are worse than the old ones and the mainstream CPU's in some applications, and better in others. This is almost certainly due to the major changes in cache structure. Bigger L2, smaller, non-inclusive L3.

 

[Edrick]

As I said, it costs more while offering no benefit for gaming. I mean we all remember the reviews from back then AFAIK anandtech never even showed gaming benchmarks because they were so poor but let's assume it actually matched a much cheaper 7700k or still cheaper 8700k. Why would you pay more? You could have also gotten a 1700(x) if you really need the 8 cores for similar gaming performance and "HEDT" performance at a fraction of the cost.

Simply said the 7820x wasn't really a efficient choice unless you need a gazillion pice lanes.

I fully agree with you that HEDT is not the best choice (for gaming) when taking price into consideration. If that was the point of your original post then we will leave it at that.

 

[Edrick]

That seems to be one of those things that has been repeated so many times that people accept it as fact. The new HEDT chips are worse than the old ones and the mainstream CPU's in some applications, and better in others. This is almost certainly due to the major changes in cache structure. Bigger L2, smaller, non-inclusive L3.

Most of those tests were done immediately following the release of Skylake-X. With the major changes to the architecture (mesh, cache system, etc.), it had to be expected that it would suffer slightly in some benchmarks and in software not optimized for it. If I remember correctly, Ryzen suffered the same fate and it took a few months of BIOS updates and software updates before it reached its true potential. I think the problem here is that Skylake-X is a much smaller market segment than Ryzen, so updated tests have not been performed to see if the situation has improved. That, and like you said, most people just accept it as fact now.

 

[FlanK3r]

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

IPC will be propably very similar, 9900K is still based on Skylake architecture. Current Pinnacle Ridge is clock to clock only little slower than Coffee (and sometimes is Pinnacle better in multithread clock to clock). I do not belive, we will see next year somethng as 16 cores in mainstream (propably 8/16 and maybe in theory up to 12/24). It is not logic (Threadripper will be still up to 32 cores on 7nm).

 

[epsilon84]

IPC will be propably very similar, 9900K is still based on Skylake architecture. Current Pinnacle Ridge is clock to clock only little slower than Coffee (and sometimes is Pinnacle better in multithread clock to clock). I do not belive, we will see next year somethng as 16 cores in mainstream (propably 8/16 and maybe in theory up to 12/24). It is not logic (Threadripper will be still up to 32 cores on 7nm).

14% is not a 'little slower'. Those aren't my numbers about the relative IPC, they are the findings of forum member 'the stilt'

The lower IPC is compounded by the fact that AMD is currently a whole 1GHz lower in terms of clockspeed headroom and that is a lot of ground to make up for one node shrink.

Like Zucker2K said, I don't think AMD will necessarily have the IPC and clockspeed advantage with 7nm so the easiest way to beat a 9900K is obviously... Moar cores!

 

[Abwx]

14% is not a 'little slower'. Those aren't my numbers about the relative IPC, they are the findings of forum member 'the stilt'

!

3.9 all cores turbo R5 2600X is 10% slower than the 4.3 all core turbo i7 8700K, so how can one "find" that it s 14% clock/clock if not by using conveniently set benches.??
At this rate the 2600X should be 25% behind in these benches.

Notice the softwares used, and the fact that the two archivers are tested only in compression, wich favour Intel :

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

 

[looniam]

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.

it would help me to understand if you could specify if pineapples are involved in your analogy.

j/k i get it; also feel the same in the graphics department.

 

[RichUK]

So what have we concluded, chaps?

9900k will spank the 2700x?

 

[ub4ty]

So what have we concluded, chaps?

9900k will spank the 2700x?

For sure. There's no question about that. The issue has always been cost. If 9900k were to cost as much as a 2700x, there's no question which processor I would buy : The 9900k. The problem has and always will be from this point on and for some time : price/performance.

I paid $170 for a 1700. A 9900k is coming nowhere near the price/performance ringing in at $450. Adding in a cooling solution, that's almost triple the cost of a 1700. For what? 50% more performance (throwing the 9900k a bone)? Triple the cost, 50% gain in performance.

LOL, slap me with a bag of rocks for making such a decision.
It's the same reason I wouldn't buy a 1800x. It was essentially double the price

 

[maddie]

For sure. There's no question about that. The issue has always been cost. If 9900k were to cost as much as a 2700x, there's no question which processor I would buy : The 9900k. The problem has and always will be from this point on and for some time : price/performance.

I paid $170 for a 1700. A 9900k is coming nowhere near the price/performance ringing in at $450. Adding in a cooling solution, that's almost triple the cost of a 1700. For what? 50% more performance (throwing the 9900k a bone)? Triple the cost, 50% gain in performance.

LOL, slap me with a bag of rocks for making such a decision.
It's the same reason I wouldn't buy a 1800x. It was essentially double the price

Agreed, but you can't go around forums saying, "LOOK AT ME, I HAVE THE TOP DOG,THE 9900K".

 

[ub4ty]

Agreed, but you can't go around forums saying, "LOOK AT ME, I HAVE THE TOP DOG,THE 9900K".

I wouldn't. If the price of the 9900k were the same as the 2700x, it wouldn't have to be stated. Everyone would just buy it instead. It's not, it doesn't have the price/performance ratio as say a 1700 which is why people don't buy it. This is why people have to go out of their way to justify the purchase and say things like : "I have the top dog, the 9900k". Meanwhile everyone is quietly thinking :
but dude.. you paid triple what I did. I sure hope you have the top dog. kek

This is this thread in a nutshell :
There's no doubt that the 9900k will be the top dog but breh, you're paying almost triple or double for max 50% performance difference.

 

[Thunder 57]

Like Zucker2K said, I don't think AMD will necessarily have the IPC and clockspeed advantage with 7nm so the easiest way to beat a 9900K is obviously... Moar cores!

The "moar cores" days are over, I hope. AMD wants to compete with Intel core per core. Zen was a superb start. I'm not too concerned about the clocks. Everyone knows Zen is clock limited by the process. They have two 7nm options to get higher clocks. So, if they can get a solid IPC boost with Zen 2, AMD should catch up to Intel.

 

[PeterScott]

For sure. There's no question about that. The issue has always been cost. If 9900k were to cost as much as a 2700x, there's no question which processor I would buy : The 9900k. The problem has and always will be from this point on and for some time : price/performance.

Price/performance almost always gets worse the further up the performance ladder you climb.

We are only taking $100 delta over an 8700K which was the most popular CPU at a large German retailer(IIRC). Even at $450, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Intel's most popular processor.

It's obviously not for everyone, but I don't think there will be any shortage of buyers.

 

[pj-]

Agreed, but you can't go around forums saying, "LOOK AT ME, I HAVE THE TOP DOG,THE 9900K".

I will probably buy a 9900k, assuming ryzen 2 doesn't beat it in games, and I don't give a turkey about showing off. My current PC was pretty high end when I made it and it's in a windowless case under my desk.

I enjoy knowing being able to play games at the highest settings, resolution, and framerates. PC gaming is a relatively cheap hobby, even at the high end, so 3x the cost of a 1700 for a CPU/cooler wouldn't deter me if it allows for the best possible experience. My entire PC cost less than the Lava Orange paint color option on the cheapest Porsche model. There are much worse ways to spend a few hundred bucks than on the best CPU.

 

[epsilon84]

For sure. There's no question about that. The issue has always been cost. If 9900k were to cost as much as a 2700x, there's no question which processor I would buy : The 9900k. The problem has and always will be from this point on and for some time : price/performance.

I paid $170 for a 1700. A 9900k is coming nowhere near the price/performance ringing in at $450. Adding in a cooling solution, that's almost triple the cost of a 1700. For what? 50% more performance (throwing the 9900k a bone)? Triple the cost, 50% gain in performance.

LOL, slap me with a bag of rocks for making such a decision.
It's the same reason I wouldn't buy a 1800x. It was essentially double the price

Here is the thing though - your cut price 1700 doesn't invalidate the rest of the industry. There are many reasons beyond bragging rights why someone may want something other than a 1700. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 9900K as the alternative, of course. It could simply be an i5 8400 for $170 because all they want to do is game, for example.

I'm all for price/performance too, but sometimes you just have to spend that bit more if you want the best experience for your particular usage, or just simply want a more 'future proof' system.

No one is arguing the 9900K is the best value for money, but in the context of 'flagship CPUs' it's actually pretty reasonably priced IMO.

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.

 

[whm1974]

Price/performance almost always gets worse the further up the performance ladder you climb.

We are only taking $100 delta over an 8700K which was the most popular CPU at a large German retailer(IIRC). Even at $450, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Intel's most popular processor.

It's obviously not for everyone, but I don't think there will be any shortage of buyers.

Most folks would actually be better served with the i5-8400 or the Ryzen 5-2700. Or that matter even the i3-8100 and R3-2200G quad core CPUs depending on usage. The money saved can be used for other parts of the system.

Even now I've seen systems with an high end CPUs but crippled with a low amount of memory, low end videos cards, and having HDDs instead of SDDs for staorage.

 

[ub4ty]

Price/performance almost always gets worse the further up the performance ladder you climb.

We are only taking $100 delta over an 8700K which was the most popular CPU at a large German retailer(IIRC). Even at $450, I wouldn't be surprised if it's Intel's most popular processor.

It's obviously not for everyone, but I don't think there will be any shortage of buyers.

Unless I'm a shareholder that somehow profits from the way consumers spend their money as such, I frankly don't care what is more popular. As an intelligent mindful consumer, I care what has the most reasoned price/performance value for my needs. However, you are absolutely correct and I agree with everything you just stated for the general market of consumers. AMD was outselling Intel all over the stack when Ryzen came out. Then the 8700k arrived and it began blowing AMD apart on sales namely because most people use their PCs for gaming when they begin targeting such expensive processors and the 8700k is the defacto best performing gaming CPU. This legacy will be extended into the 8-core realm no doubt with the 9900k. As my needs are different (hpc/scientific computing) and I already have a quad-core intel CPU that is perfect for gaming, ryzen 8/16 core got my $$$. I acknowledge and agree, this is a niche category for computing and there's solid reasons why the 8700k/9900k dominate and they mostly have to do w/ gaming rigs. I guess I grew a little confused by the commentary here in which people chimed in about non-gaming demand for such 8700k/9900k. I had to step away and remind myself that the majority are buying it for gaming purposes. I actually reviewed a number of benchmarks for the work I would be centered on and the Ryzen beats the 8700k in them. This is contrary to gaming where the 8700k beats the ryzen. I expect the 9900k to finally beat the ryzen for the workflows I conduct but I'm not paying 3x as much as I did for my 1700 for such a processor. That's just stupid in my mind as I have no need for the marginal gain at such an expense. I instead spent that money on NVME drives ($200 a pop) and other hardware that will boost my overall system performance.

 

[ub4ty]

I will probably buy a 9900k, assuming ryzen 2 doesn't beat it in games, and I don't give a turkey about showing off. My current PC was pretty high end when I made it and it's in a windowless case under my desk.

I enjoy knowing being able to play games at the highest settings, resolution, and framerates. PC gaming is a relatively cheap hobby, even at the high end, so 3x the cost of a 1700 for a CPU/cooler wouldn't deter me if it allows for the best possible experience. My entire PC cost less than the Lava Orange paint color option on the cheapest Porsche model. There are much worse ways to spend a few hundred bucks than on the best CPU.

If it were that serious to me, I'd go with a 8700k or a 9900k for a gaming rig. Where I began getting confused was the idea that the are widely popular beyond this use case.
I unironically game on an Intel based rig. It's a quad core and more than sufficient.