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

[ub4ty]

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.

This is because people don't know how to spec a computer from all aspects for their particular work flow.. That or they run out of money (which is common in the enthusiast world). Spending more money on their cooling system than RAM, storage, or processor has to be the ultimate comedy.

 

[ub4ty]

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.

Gaming... That's where the conflicts arose.
I began to think from people's commentary that there was some major use case beyond this.
It's an enthusiast gaming CPU. It beats the whole ryzen lineup in this use case because that's what Intel designed it to do. I have no arguments against this. I don't use my 1700 for gaming. I likely wouldn't buy a 1700 if HC gaming was my use case.

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.

I hear you and have no argument against this.
I just needed to accept that the 8700k/9900k's major use case is gaming.
My major use case is hpc/scientific computing. The 1700 beats the 8700k in that. The 9900k isn't even on my radar because I'd jump into the HEDT segment where AMD dominates if I needed more power.

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.

Flagship gaming CPU

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.

The only reason this changed is because AMD body slammed their whole lineup from mobile to desktop to Server with the Ryzen architecture. I'm glad those days are long gone and I'm glad competition is back. My last Intel quad core costs me ~$400. The motherboard was $200+. Intel's never getting me back until their prices are in line w/ AMD's price/performance. I don't care that their prices fell from $1000 to $500. The new benchmark on price/performance has been set by AMD. If Intel wants my money, they better act like they're playing catchup vs. leading.

My 1700 costs 1/2 as much as a 8700k and beats it in the workflows I conduct.
Intel is behind not leading or the flagship for my workflows. Way behind.

Ringbus is also likely dead after this processor. Intel yet again milking the past at a premium.

 

[whm1974]

This is because people don't know how to spec a computer from all aspects for their particular work flow.. That or they run out of money (which is common in the enthusiast world). Spending more money on their cooling system than RAM, storage, or processor has to be the ultimate comedy.

I have an i5-4670 with 16GB of memory and two 1TB M500 SSD along with a GTX 970. Currently I have no need to upgrade. And with he 970 play my games at 1600p just fine. The video editing that I do is nothing major. And I'm using the stock cooler with no problems with cooling at all.

And I have no plans to upgrade anytime soon.

 

[ub4ty]

I have an i5-4670 with 16GB of memory and two 1TB M500 SSD along with a GTX 970. Currently I have no need to upgrade. And with he 970 play my games at 1600p just fine. The video editing that I do is nothing major. And I'm using the stock cooler with no problems with cooling at all.

Intel i7- 4 core / 8 thread
32GB ram
Maxwell 2gb ngreedia card
No problem here either even at 2560x1440.

It was my last Intel build.
Runs like a champ. Only fire it up for vidya.
Main drive is : SSD
Games are stored on Spinning Rust.

I'm sure i'd get a major performance boost from using SSD for game storage but it's my bastard box. Only my other machine's hand me downs drift into it.

 

[epsilon84]

Gaming... That's where the conflicts arose.
I began to think from people's commentary that there was some major use case beyond this.
It's an enthusiast gaming CPU. It beats the whole ryzen lineup in this use case because that's what Intel designed it to do. I have no arguments against this. I don't use my 1700 for gaming. I likely wouldn't buy a 1700 if HC gaming was my use case.


I hear you and have no argument against this.
I just needed to accept that the 8700k/9900k's major use case is gaming.
My major use case is hpc/scientific computing. The 1700 beats the 8700k in that. The 9900k isn't even on my radar because I'd jump into the HEDT segment where AMD dominates if I needed more power.


Flagship gaming CPU


The only reason this changed is because AMD body slammed their whole lineup from mobile to desktop to Server with the Ryzen architecture. I'm glad those days are long gone and I'm glad competition is back. My last Intel quad core costs me ~$400. The motherboard was $200+. Intel's never getting me back until their prices are in line w/ AMD's price/performance. I don't care that their prices fell from $1000 to $500. The new benchmark on price/performance has been set by AMD. If Intel wants my money, they better act like they're playing catchup vs. leading.

My 1700 costs 1/2 as much as a 8700k and beats it in the workflows I conduct.
Intel is behind not leading or the flagship for my workflows. Way behind.

Ringbus is also likely dead after this processor. Intel yet again milking the past at a premium.

It's a general purpose CPU, there is no such thing as a gaming CPU. The fact that it happens to beat AMD at gaming is a possible reason why it may be preferred, but it is by no means the only reason why someone may want a 9900K. For example, Adobe products have been slow to adapt their software to fully utilise modern multithreaded CPUs and generally run better on Intel due to better per core performance. Anything that heavily involves AVX2 will also likely run much better on Intel.

I will laud AMD for bringing affordable hex and octo core CPUs to the market, but this thread really isn't about that.

We get that you don't want to pay the 'flagship tax' but there are many others, particularly enthusiasts, who do. Price/performance is a factor for us, but for others its merely an afterthought.

Some people also simply have the means to splurge on the latest tech, $500 for some may mean a weeks earnings while for a high earning exec that may represent an hours pay... That is the world we live in, so we shouldn't judge those who buy 'overpriced' hardware even if it makes little sense to you.

 

[ub4ty]

It's a general purpose CPU, there is no such thing as a gaming CPU. The fact that it happens to beat AMD at gaming is a possible reason why it may be preferred, but it is by no means the only reason why someone may want a 9900K.

Everyone here knows what a CPU is I'd hope. Do you game on a Server grade Xeon processor? No you don't. The architecture is not tuned for gaming thus it's not a gaming CPU. An 8600k/9900k is which is why its more performant for such workflows. This is why it is popular among gamers and sells/will sell alot. I hope you understand that.

For example, Adobe products have been slow to adapt their software to fully utilise modern multithreaded CPUs and generally run better on Intel due to better per core performance. Anything that heavily involves AVX2 will also likely run much better on Intel.

Adobe : There are several publications that beg to differ and many professional reviewers who put Ryzen performance ahead . AVX on CPUs is a meme.

We get that you don't want to pay the 'flagship tax' but there are many others, particularly enthusiasts, who do. Price/performance is a factor for us, but for others its merely an afterthought.

You don't get it because that's not the reason for me foregoing the purchase. Please don't make assumptions. My profile pic should be a hint about my capacity to pay a 'tax'. My 1700 actually outperforms an 8700k for my workflow which is why I bought it. I'm not paying a 'tax' that equates to double the cost of my current processor for less performance.

Some people also simply have the means to splurge on the latest tech, $500 for some may mean a weeks earnings while for a high earning exec that may represent an hours pay... That is the world we live in, so we shouldn't judge those who buy 'overpriced' hardware even if it makes little sense to you.

Some people are hardcore gamers. For them, the 8700k and likely the 9900k will make sense.
The majority of people who game aren't high earning execs. They're teenagers and everyday people who, if you frequent such forums, can barely afford such rigs. We live in a consumerist world (at least in the west) where a large number of people, due to splurging, are broke. We don't live in a world where everybody is an exec with money pouring out of their ears. The exec is investing his money in Intel's shares profiting from the 'splurge' purchases of people w/o money who don't care how skewed price/performance ratios are.. This is where profits are made. This is why the exec grows wealthy with time whereas a wage earner grows poor.

> Avg person with a decked out PC Gaming rig is an exec...
Laugh of the day. Meanwhile on reddit : Guys, I just bought an 8700k. Hopefully in 2 more months I'll have enough saved up to buy a motherboard. There's a sale on /r/buildapcsales right now but I have no money in the bank.

> mfw should have bought a Ryzen

 

[scannall]

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.

Global Foundries 7nm is an IBM node. As such, it *should* clock very well indeed. Of course none of us will know until the chips are actually out, but the potential is there. Let's see if it's realized. Fun times ahead that's for sure.

 

[USER8000]

Most gamers are better served by a Core i5 8600K(or a Core i5 8400/Ryzen 5 2600) and a better graphics card than this CPU.

You can see that in the benchmarks of the Core i5 against the Core i7 or the Ryzen 5 against the Ryzen 7 in games.

 

[USER8000]

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.

Techspot has done tests with loads of games on the 7800X.

If the 6 core 7800X cannot beat any of the 6 core Ryzen 5 models,the 8 core is probably not going to be worth it,and the 6 core Core i5 models edge out the Ryzen 5 CPUs in pure gaming too.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Depends on how often you upgrade i guess. If you want to only upgrade once every five years, then i would go for the most expensive CPU i can afford. i5-8400 is indeed an excellent gaming cpu but will it be in four years time when the PS5 and the new Xbox are mature in the market? I expect those to pack 8 core cpu's with pretty good IPC.

 

[USER8000]

Depends on how often you upgrade i guess. If you want to only upgrade once every five years, then i would go for the most expensive CPU i can afford. i5-8400 is indeed an excellent gaming cpu but will it be in four years time when the PS5 and the new Xbox are mature in the market? I expect those to pack 8 core cpu's with pretty good IPC.

Going for the most expensive CPU means zero,unless you go for an expensive graphics card too. Spending all your pennies on a Core i9 9900K,and then using a GTX1050TI is pointless.

Its still pointless with a GTX1060 or RX580. For gaming a Core i7 9700K will be very close,just as the Core i5 8600K is close to the Core i7 8700K. The Ryzen 5 CPUs are close to the Ryzen 7.

The fact of the matter,is vast percentages of gamers are more GPU limited. I am running an old Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770. A GTX1080 netted me a big upgrade in all games I played at 1440p. The only games I am CPU limited in,are those which are single thread bottlenecked.

Also,this is an additional issue - if you really want more cores,AMD Ryzen version 3 and the 10NM Intel CPUs next year,will most likely up core counts even more. So,I would think even if you think many more cores are the way forward for games,whether its worth skipping this current generation.

Personally,after all the Spectre/Meltdown problems,I would rather skip the current Ryzen and Coffee Lake generations,and wait one more year for the new cores on 7NM and 10NM. In the context of 4 years,1 year more is worth it,and my current CPU is practically ancient in enthusiasts terms.

 

[PeterScott]

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.

Unless I find a pile of extra money, I will be aiming lower. I will most likely be deciding between Ryzen 2600 and some Intel 6 core.

Price performance really isn't that different between Intel and AMD, in this range, and Intel has a few advantages for me: Gaming is one of the more CPU taxing thing I do. Hackintosh is less hassle on Intel, and I have been thinking of giving that a shot on the next PC, and having an IGP lets me postpone buying a GPU until I find the right deal that.

 

[ub4ty]

Unless I find a pile of extra money, I will be aiming lower. I will most likely be deciding between Ryzen 2600 and some Intel 6 core.

Price performance really isn't that different between Intel and AMD, in this range, and Intel has a few advantages for me: Gaming is one of the more CPU taxing thing I do. Hackintosh is less hassle on Intel, and I have been thinking of giving that a shot on the next PC, and having an IGP lets me postpone buying a GPU until I find the right deal that.

Sounds good to me.
I bought my present quad core Intel for a hackintosh/gaming rig.

 

[PeterScott]

Everyone here knows what a CPU is I'd hope. Do you game on a Server grade Xeon processor? No you don't. The architecture is not tuned for gaming thus it's not a gaming CPU. An 8600k/9900k is which is why its more performant for such workflows. This is why it is popular among gamers and sells/will sell alot. I hope you understand that.

The core architecture is the same, and lot of Xeon chips have been good for gaming. It's just recently that Intel introduced Mesh that creates latency that impacts games, while consumer desktop chips are still on ring bus. Ring Bus doesn't mean it's a gaming chip. Ring bus is just faster for lower core counts.

The 9900K won't only be great at gaming. It will be pretty dam great an just about any load you could throw at an 8 core CPU.

Adobe : There are several publications that beg to differ and many professional reviewers who put Ryzen performance ahead . AVX on CPUs is a meme.

A couple of the Tech Tube channels are switched to Intel Coffee Lake desktop CPU for Adobe premiere. Hardware Canucks switched from a Ryzen 1700 to an Intel 8600K, because he was having many issues with Adobe software and ryzen.

Gamers Nexus followed up with their own test:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen

The short version is that Adobe Premier uniquely leverages the iGPU in Intel desktop chips to improve rendering time, and note this when it is already leveraging the discrete GPU card with CUDA.

Desktop Coffee lake with iGPU active was in the ballpark of ThreadRipper 1950x, and Intel 7980XE (18 core).

Making Intel Desktop Coffee Lake with iGPU something of an Adobe Premier bang/buck champ right now.

 

[AtenRa]

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.

That is not what I mean,

Im saying that when we get to 7/10nm in 2019-2020, the 8Core SKUs will cost the same as todays 4 cores.

 

[tamz_msc]

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.??

Hardware.fr were one of the most trustworthy reviewers, but a lot of the benchmarks in their test suite are out of date. Since they've folded, one can no longer expect an update from them. In the meantime, look at the Stilt's testing, with the most up-to-date and varied benchmarks. Skylake is ~7-8% ahead of Zen IPC and the gap becomes 14% once you include AVX2.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Still dont see all the angst about the price of the 9900k. Percentage price difference for the cpu alone does not tell the whole story. One does not buy a cpu in isolation to let it sit on the bench and look at it. In the context of an entire system, with an expensive gpu and lots of ram, total system cost could easily reach 1500 to 2000 dollars. An extra 200 dollars for the 9900k is only 10 to 13 percent of the total system cost, in line actually with a conservative estimate as to how much faster it will be. The only flaw I see in the pricing is that there is not a locked, lower clocked 8 core model with hyperthreading enabled for those that want 8/16 without going all out for the 9900k.

 

[Abwx]

Hardware.fr were one of the most trustworthy reviewers, but a lot of the benchmarks in their test suite are out of date.

They updated all theirs sofwares when Summit Ridge was released....

Since they've folded, one can no longer expect an update from them. In the meantime, look at the Stilt's testing, with the most up-to-date and varied benchmarks. Skylake is ~7-8% ahead of Zen IPC and the gap becomes 14% once you include AVX2.

I see that he use, among others, Embree, wich use an intel designed engine, also are softs unrelated to IPC the best way to test IPC.?

Eigen indeed appears to be totally memory latency bound, as there is basically no scaling from the CPU frequency either.

Beside, what is the value of using ST results of softwares that are used only in MT.?
That s artificial numbers that have no existence in real usage.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The only flaw I see in the pricing is that there is not a locked, lower clocked 8 core model with hyperthreading enabled for those that want 8/16 without going all out for the 9900k.

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.

 

[tamz_msc]

They updated all theirs sofwares when Summit Ridge was released....

No they didn't, for example the latest builds of x265 have preliminary AVX512 support as well as improved AVX2 support, which Hardware.fr doesn't use.

I see that he use, among others, Embree, wich use an intel designed engine, also are softs unrelated to IPC the best way to test IPC.?

So take it out of the average, since difference is so small, the average wont change much.

Beside, what is the value of using ST results of softwares that are used only in MT.?
That s artificial numbers that have no existence in real usage.

The whole point of IPC testing is to generate artificial numbers that only indicate real-world performance. At the end of the day, the only real-world metric that matters is wall time. Loading up a single core is the correct way to measure IPC, since it results in maximum power draw per-core and therefore highest possible per-core throughput.

 

[ub4ty]

The core architecture is the same, and lot of Xeon chips have been good for gaming. It's just recently that Intel introduced Mesh that creates latency that impacts games, while consumer desktop chips are still on ring bus. Ring Bus doesn't mean it's a gaming chip. Ring bus is just faster for lower core counts.

My reference was far more technical as are the difference. They many times have completely different L1/L2/L3 cache sizes, cache polices, micro-architectural details, pipeline stages/ordering/etc. They are actually very different beasts as you'd expect as they are suited for very different workflows/tasks/markets. While a specific Xeon might perform great for gaming the reverse is not true and it is not true along all Xeon classes especially the ones with micro-architectures families that aren't tuned towards desktop function. This is why there are a whole slew of Xeon families.. The higher end ones married to micro-architectures that aren't that great at gaming performance vs. others. I don't speak as an average consumer on these matters. Here's your Xeon processor from the CoffeeLake family. Notice it is called Xeon E :
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12199/intel-launches-coffee-lake-xeon-e-entry
E being for entry level. Desktop processors tuned for gaming don't perform that hot in the server world. They most certainly don't scale that well in core count in the server world. You're actually making my point without recognizing it and it seems I'm speaking a completely different language than most commenters here.

What's different between Intel and AMD is that AMD didn't have the room to so savagely break up their processor line. So, you indeed are getting something more closer to a server grade chip cut down to a Desktop computer. This is clear even at a high level view with the way a Ryzen chip is structured as CPU complexes that can be scaled. This no doubt will have suffered performance for the gamer. But this shines for serious multi-threaded professional tasks. This is exactly why Intel with far more budget focuses and tunes a specific architecture on gaming. I wasn't hunting for a gaming processor when I bought my Ryzen. AMD actually had the best performing processor for my workloads. It's why, after getting a 1700 and seeing how great it performed, I bought a 1950x. The scaling it almost perfect.

The 9900K won't only be great at gaming. It will be pretty dam great an just about any load you could throw at an 8 core CPU.

Price/performance.
$450
9900k will beat Ryzen's 8 cores no doubt. But at what cost?
16 PCIE lanes.

A couple of the Tech Tube channels are switched to Intel Coffee Lake desktop CPU for Adobe premiere. Hardware Canucks switched from a Ryzen 1700 to an Intel 8600K, because he was having many issues with Adobe software and ryzen.

Gamers Nexus followed up with their own test:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen

The short version is that Adobe Premier uniquely leverages the iGPU in Intel desktop chips to improve rendering time, and note this when it is already leveraging the discrete GPU card with CUDA.

Desktop Coffee lake with iGPU active was in the ballpark of ThreadRipper 1950x, and Intel 7980XE (18 core).

Making Intel Desktop Coffee Lake with iGPU something of an Adobe Premier bang/buck champ right now.

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.

Lets hug it out .
I own a K variant from a previous era. It has served me well in gaming. I have no hate against intel. I actually debated whether or not to sell it when I just completed my second Ryzen 7 build but there's something about having it around . Intel lost this battle for me. I can see myself coming around in the future but not on yester-years micro-arch being sold at a premium with two cores slapped on. For this same reason 32 core Threadripper doesn't appeal to me at all. It's a frankenstein.. two dies w/ no I/O access. I'd just buy a legit Epyc. I don't buy such products no matter what the company.

Gotta hold off to 7nm my dudes if you can.
Even Nvidia's upcoming release is a joke. I'm riding my 1070s/1080s until 2019 when they release a real product.

 

[ub4ty]

The whole point of IPC testing is to generate artificial numbers that only indicate real-world performance. At the end of the day, the only real-world metric that matters is wall time. Loading up a single core is the correct way to measure IPC, since it results in maximum power draw per-core and therefore highest possible per-core throughput.

^this man gets it,

I have no clue who made up this meme that became so prevalent that it causes my brain to lock up because I think people are referring to interprocess communication and still can't shake the conflict.

Something of significant value was lost in computing once it went mainstream and e-celebs hunting for view counts took over.

The K.I.S.S principle and conveying valuable information was abandoned for trying to appear intellectual, edgy, and get more clicks.

 

[Ranulf]

Going for the most expensive CPU means zero,unless you go for an expensive graphics card too. Spending all your pennies on a Core i9 9900K,and then using a GTX1050TI is pointless.

Its still pointless with a GTX1060 or RX580. For gaming a Core i7 9700K will be very close,just as the Core i5 8600K is close to the Core i7 8700K. The Ryzen 5 CPUs are close to the Ryzen 7.

Past history has shown that the i7 class cpu is the better long term investment, no matter the gpu. In most cases the gpu will be replaced at least twice. I regret now buying the 2500k over the 2600k even though I game at 1080p.

 

[VirtualLarry]

A couple of the Tech Tube channels are switched to Intel Coffee Lake desktop CPU for Adobe premiere. Hardware Canucks switched from a Ryzen 1700 to an Intel 8600K, because he was having many issues with Adobe software and ryzen.

Gamers Nexus followed up with their own test:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen

The short version is that Adobe Premier uniquely leverages the iGPU in Intel desktop chips to improve rendering time, and note this when it is already leveraging the discrete GPU card with CUDA.

Desktop Coffee lake with iGPU active was in the ballpark of ThreadRipper 1950x, and Intel 7980XE (18 core).

Making Intel Desktop Coffee Lake with iGPU something of an Adobe Premier bang/buck champ right now.

That's actually REALLY interesting, as that was AMD's whole idea behind HSA, and their iGPUs, being able to leverage the iGPU for FP calculations, rather than the CPU core's FPU, to get more work done per unit time. Shame that AMD dropped the ball on that initiative, and hasn't courted (or more likely, paid for) developers to utilize that feature.

I still don't have an AMD driver version that lets me run NiceHash on the iGPU on a Ryzen APU. Keep getting OpenCL error when it starts.

 

[TheGiant]

How much impact can 12MB L3 on 8C/8T CPU have vs 16MB L3 on 8C/16T ?

Excel calculations mainly