• 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 Shows That Their 9th Gen Core CPU Lineup Is Faster Than AMD Ryzen 3000 In Everything Except Cinebench

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kedas

Member
Dec 6, 2018
127
85
61
If they think they are better because of a few percent in some single thread tests then maybe they should demo 8 single thread applications running at the same time ;)
I mean Real-World Usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and JPB

Atari2600

Senior member
Nov 22, 2016
901
914
106
Does anyone still give intel the benefit of the doubt over this?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-cpu-5ghz,37244.html

Intel's recent demonstration of a 28-core processor running at 5GHz has certainly stirred the pot here at Computex, particularly because the presentation appeared to imply this would be a shipping chip with a 5.0GHz stock speed. Unfortunately, it turns out that Intel overclocked the 28-core processor to such an extreme that it required a one-horsepower industrial water chiller. That means it took an incredibly expensive (not to mention extreme) setup to pull off the demo. You definitely won't find this type of setup on a normal desktop PC.

We met with the company last night, and while Intel didn't provide many details, a company representative explained to us that "in the excitement of the moment," the company merely "forgot" to tell the crowd that it had overclocked the system. Intel also said it isn’t targeting the gaming crowd with the new chip.
 

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,010
779
106
I'm honestly disappointed in Intel. They made a big deal about needing "real world benches" that better reflect actual usage, a lofty goal I thought. This is really all that "effort" amounted to?
 

PotatoWithEarsOnSide

Senior member
Feb 23, 2017
663
686
106
I'm honestly disappointed in Intel. They made a big deal about needing "real world benches" that better reflect actual usage, a lofty goal I thought. This is really all that "effort" amounted to?
In the real world, granny opens up a separate Internet browser for each and every page.
She also 3 instances of solitaire running.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
186
106
76
In the real world, granny opens up a separate Internet browser for each and every page.
She also 3 instances of solitaire running.
That is true, most of the time most people don't know they have so many apps running at once, so that type of "Real World" usage will benefit Amd CPUs.
 

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
186
106
76
This just shows, Intel knows Ryzen 3xxx are quite good. Nice seeing some competition again.
Zen 2 in competitive in Desktop, but it straight up Curb Stomping Intel Xeons American History X style in Data Center/Server workloads and HEDT will be somewhat of a middle ground between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,207
2,767
136
Oh dear.

@nicalandia

I think the moderator wanted you to describe the link you pasted instead of just making your entire post a link. Or maybe say something else to go with it.
 

mtcn77

Member
Feb 25, 2017
77
15
51
Ho! Easy there fella, no insulting farm animals while domestic violence is revelled as history. America, the land of the strange.:)

Please keep it on topic, this isn't the Social forums.

Daveybrat
AT Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

amrnuke

Member
Apr 24, 2019
194
166
76
1) The 9900K is the best CPU available at this time.
2) The 9900K and 9700K are awful value for gaming or basic office productivity, the target of this "advertisement" of Intel's.

The only Intel CPUs that beat the $199 3600 in CPU tests (which include Octane, Kraken, WebXPRT, Word, etc) are the 8700K, 9700K, 9900K, which retail for $350, $350, and $489. So yeah, they are better by 1.7%, 2%, and 15.9% respectively in CPU tests (via techpowerup), but they also cost 175%, 175%, and 246% as much, respectively. And gaming at 1440P, the difference is within 3% between the top Intel chips and AMD's entire Zen 2 line.

This comparison is stupid by Intel because anyone with half a brain would realize the terrible value proposition they're painting for these fringe chips. Most people in the market for a $350+ CPU are either competitive gamers (who already know the 9900K is the top chip) or need high-end productivity, usually multithreaded, where AMD leaves Intel in the dust.

This is also incredibly smart by Intel because apparently most people don't have half a brain and are apparently targeting 9700K and 9900K and 3900X for web browsing and Office and casual gaming where a 3600 or a 9400F/9600K are more than sufficient.

I'm not sure whether to applaud them or laugh at them.
 

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
186
106
76
I'm not sure whether to applaud them or laugh at them.
I will answer this with your own quote:
This is also incredibly smart by Intel because apparently most people don't have half a brain and are apparently targeting 9700K and 9900K and 3900X for web browsing and Office and casual gaming where a 3600 or a 9400F/9600K are more than sufficient.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,207
2,767
136
1) The 9900K is the best CPU available at this time.
Seems like you've fallen victim to Intel's own benchmarks. Best for what exactly? I looked for numbers for WebXPRT in Intel's press mess and didn't actually find any. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough? Techreport says a 9900k scores 272:

https://techreport.com/review/34192/intels-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/

My 3900x scores 305:

Code:
Test Item,Value
Test,WebXPRT_v 2.93
Test ID,240753
Date,2019-08-26 15:08:25
Browser,Firefox 56
Test Item,Value,Variance
Overall Score,305,6
Photo Enhancement,233,1.2%
Organize Album using AI,1240,1.34%
Stock Option Pricing,165,1.93%
Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan,994,0.26%
Sales Graphs,343,1.82%
Online Homework,980,1.17%
Capability,Present
Canvas,yes
CanvasText,yes
Canvas2DContext,yes
WebGL,yes
Audio,yes
Video,yes
Ogg,yes
H264,yes
WebM,yes
GeolocationAPI,yes
LocalStorage,yes
SVG,yes
WebWorkers,yes
Uint32ArraySupport,yes
Should I re-run that with Edge? Maybe that'll lower my score a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moinmoin and Mk pt

amrnuke

Member
Apr 24, 2019
194
166
76
Seems like you've fallen victim to Intel's own benchmarks. Best for what exactly? I looked for numbers for WebXPRT in Intel's press mess and didn't actually find any. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough? Techreport says a 9900k scores 272:

https://techreport.com/review/34192/intels-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/

My 3900x scores 305:

Should I re-run that with Edge? Maybe that'll lower my score a bit.
I know you're poking fun. But...

- Per TPU WebXPRT: 3900X at 269 and 9900K at 275.
- Per TechReport WebXPRT: 3900X at 271 (and the re-run 9900K at 287)

Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K. It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests (as run by TechPowerUp, who unabashedly recommend basically all the Zen 2 CPUs), and is faster in gaming.

In real life, it depends which games, which applications, which productivity suites, and what budget.
 

UsandThem

Super Moderator
May 4, 2000
11,303
1,854
136
Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be either the 9900K or 3900X.
I fixed the bolded portion of your quote above. :p
It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests (as run by TechPowerUp, who unabashedly recommend basically all the Zen 2 CPUs), and is faster in gaming.
In gaming, you are 100% correct. While there is not much of gap any more above 1080P, there still is a small deficit. However, since you referenced TechPowerUp being very AMD friendly with their Zen+ reviews, they stated this concerning Zen2:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/23.html
Looking at our performance testing, we see the Ryzen 9 3900X beat Intel's Core i9-9900K in applications with a 13% lead. Our mix of applications includes tests that are highly threaded, somewhat threaded, and single threaded. If you focus only on higher-threaded applications, that lead would be even bigger. Still, the Ryzen 9 3900X does fall behind a bit in single-threaded application, like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop, because Intel still has the higher single-threaded performance, mostly thanks to their much higher boost clock speeds on premium parts.
Both CPUs are good choices, as neither one of them have a real "weakness". It all comes down to what the person does with their PC, and what the
$ / performance is (unless someone is a die-hard AMD or Intel supporter, and then all logic goes out the window).
 

nicalandia

Member
Jan 10, 2019
186
106
76
my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K. It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests .
Such as? Surfing he Web? Open up Task Manager and looking at the 16 "Cores"? What Consumer apps beside Games is the 9900K trading blows with 3900X?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,207
2,767
136
Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K.
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on that one. Even with the bad boost behavior of current UEFI revisions on a lot of boards right now, the 3900x is solidly beating the 9900k in everything but 1080p gaming. 1440p and up it's a wash. In applications, 3900x is ahead. You've got to look for specific niches (such as what Intel is obviously doing) to make the 9900k out to be a better applications processor. I think @UsandThem laid it out pretty well, but there are other reviewers who are basically saying the same thing. Unless you care about 1080p gaming, certain oddball games that just love Intel CPUs for whatever reason (Starcraft 2?), or um . . . maybe WebXPRT (but it seems like my 3900x is faster than the reviewed ones?) then the 9900k makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guachi

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
638
178
116
Anyway... my point should have been that for the vast majority of people, the absolute best consumer CPU, price-no-object, would be the 9900K. It trades blows with the 3900X for most mainline consumer tests (as run by TechPowerUp, who unabashedly recommend basically all the Zen 2 CPUs), and is faster in gaming.
Nope. Using your own words - the 3900X trades blows with the 9900K in gaming, and is clearly faster in mainline consumer tests as well as productivity apps.

The 9900K is a very nice chip, but the use case where it is superior to the 3900X is very small.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY