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

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
936
375
136
Its not a contradiction if you look Slightly further than cherry picking the one thing he mentioned in his post, overlooking the performance increase he is wanting to achieve with his oc in the first place! Once again, achieved performance matters, not clocks.
In which gaming segment is an overclocked 3600 a better performer than an overclocked 8700k?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Glo.

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
936
375
136
He said his 8700k was a lemon as far as overclocking goes.
I know what he said, and went to the trouble of checking: he runs his 8700k on a Z370M and doesn't overclock it anyway. Heck, 4.7GHZ All Core Turbo is only a click away (MCE). His post history is full of clues as to why he'll be struggling to overclock that 8700k if he even tried.

My bare requirements are only MATX/ITX with at least 2x/4x USB3/2 back ports and USB3 front header. I could care less for multi-GPU, multiple PCIE slots, beefy VRMs, CPU OCing since 2014, excessive # of fan headers/SATA/USB/Ethernet, Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, onboard audio quality, RGB leds, or even M2 slots. That's why I'm happily running a $330 CPU on a $70 ITX board for 3+ years.

I'm only looking at Z370 now not because I want to OC my 8700K but rather only for the DDR4-2666+ support. If the H-chipsets can run DDR4-3200 for cheaper I wouldn't bother with the Z370.
I wonder if you overclock at all?

Yeah, I don't see the point OCing mainstream Intel i7s since 4790K when they are already clocked so high with little headroom that they are already running close to their thermal limits at stock. A ~10% OC with a ton more power draw for an imperceptible real world impact isn't my cup of tea. The main reason to get a Z-board is now for DDR4 >2666 than actual CPU OCing.
Looks like all you needed was the necessary cooling to take that chip to 5GHz like most everyone else, failing which a 4.3GHz ACT and 4.7GHz STT is already in bye bye territory for a 3600.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glo.

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,948
6,272
136
I know what he said, and went to the trouble of checking: he runs his 8700k on a Z370M and doesn't overclock it anyway. Heck, 4.7GHZ All Core Turbo is only a click away (MCE). His post history is full of clues as to why he'll be struggling to overclock that 8700k if he even tried.


I wonder if you overclock at all?


Looks like all you needed was the necessary cooling to take that chip to 5GHz like most everyone else, failing which a 4.3GHz ACT and 4.7GHz STT is already in bye bye territory for a 3600.
So even though he likes his 3600, you belittle him for NOT liking his 8700k ?

Thats rude to say the least, if not insulting and trolling.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,416
114
106
My 8700K at 4.3GHz on Cryorig H7 needed an -60mV offset just to stay under 95C under running P95 AVX small FFT at 30C ambient drawing 120W. The thermals are even worse than my already bad 4790K.

And don't begin to lecture me about using "more realistic" crappy stress test apps like realbench etc instead where they can run forever on systems that fail P95 small FFT within minutes.

I'm entertained by how much I struck a nerve on some peeps though. Hey look, I got enough spare cash to buy 100 9700Ks now if I wanted, but I don't feel the need to act insecure.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,659
3,043
136
Try clocking that 3600 anywhere near those 8700k clocks. Goodluck!!!
He doesn't need to. It will already run extremely well with an all-core clock of 4.2 GHz, which is achievable on a lot of chips. Coffeelake has jumped the shark, sorry.
 
Jan 17, 2019
173
30
61
My 8700K at 4.3GHz on Cryorig H7 needed an -60mV offset just to stay under 95C under running P95 AVX small FFT at 30C ambient drawing 120W. The thermals are even worse than my already bad 4790K.

And don't begin to lecture me about using "more realistic" crappy stress test apps like realbench etc instead where they can run forever on systems that fail P95 small FFT within minutes.

I'm entertained by how much I struck a nerve on some peeps though. Hey look, I got enough spare cash to buy 100 9700Ks now if I wanted, but I don't feel the need to act insecure.
You're being kind of ridiculous here honestly. You stress test on one of the most difficult tests that is way overkill for gaming or even doing encoding. It's also well known that the 8700k needs a delid if you want to really push it.

Not to mention you're OCing on a low-end board. Just all kinds of fail really.

I should note I'm no intel fanboy by any means, if I bought today I'd probably go AMD. But the 8700k is still a great CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
45,709
4,124
126
He doesn't need to. It will already run extremely well with an all-core clock of 4.2 GHz, which is achievable on a lot of chips. Coffeelake has jumped the shark, sorry.
My chip must not be that great at clocking, I have trouble getting a stable all-core of 4.0Ghz @ ~1.35V. (Edit: On 240mm water, with 65-70F ambients.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,416
114
106
My chip must not be that great at clocking, I have trouble getting a stable all-core of 4.0Ghz @ ~1.35V. (Edit: On 240mm water, with 65-70F ambients.)
I got 4.2GHz on auto 1.4V, got 1631 MT on CB15, P95 small FFT temps at 80C/100W. Havent bothered to undervolt yet.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,659
3,043
136
My chip must not be that great at clocking, I have trouble getting a stable all-core of 4.0Ghz @ ~1.35V. (Edit: On 240mm water, with 65-70F ambients.)
You're running a PrimeGrid workload that is heavy AVX2. Try running something else, like CBR15 or CBR20 and see what you can get. And I still say your voltage is too high.
 

JoeRambo

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
730
365
136
Still not sure how people can compare 4-4.2Ghz CPUs vs ones that have 400-1000mhz more and claim with a straight face they are equal.
4-4.2Ghz are Nehalem era clocks, sure AMD has same IPC as Skylake, but I would not rest if i knew there is CPU with 25% more clock available. That is non trivial amount of performance difference.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Zucker2k and ZGR

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,002
1,232
136
Still not sure how people can compare 4-4.2Ghz CPUs vs ones that have 400-1000mhz more and claim with a straight face they are equal.
4-4.2Ghz are Nehalem era clocks, sure AMD has same IPC as Skylake, but I would not rest if i knew there is CPU with 25% more clock available. That is non trivial amount of performance difference.
What matters is performance which is combination of IPC, frequency and core count. At the same price of a 9900k AMD is selling a Ryzen 9 3900x which is superior in content creation applications (by > 35% in most cases) and very close in gaming (5-7% slower).

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/3/#diagramm-test-performancerating-fuer-anwendungen-multi-core

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/amd-ryzen-3000-test/3/#abschnitt_benchmarks_in_games_fhd__uhd

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#abschnitt_die_amd_ryzen_9_sind_die_neuen_chefs_der_gehobenen_mittelklasse
 

JoeRambo

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
730
365
136
What matters is performance which is combination of IPC and frequency. 3700x and 3800x compete very well with 9900k in real world applications Blender, Cinebench, Handbrake, V-Ray, 7-Zip, Adobe Premiere.
Outside of compression with WinRAR I am not using any of these apps and could not care less about them. And reality is that most people browse web, watch videos, use office tools and game on their PCs and for these tasks up to 25% higher clocks kick in all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k and pcp7

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,002
1,232
136

amrnuke

Senior member
Apr 24, 2019
320
282
96
Outside of compression with WinRAR I am not using any of these apps and could not care less about them. And reality is that most people browse web, watch videos, use office tools and game on their PCs and for these tasks up to 25% higher clocks kick in all the time.
Are you just parroting Intel's marketing?

When you compare a 3900X to a 9900K...

Web (Anandtech link) - used instead of TPU because they used the re-ran test using updated BIOS after 7/7
3900X is better at:
WebXPRT 3
WebXPRT15
Speedometer 2
Google Octane 2.0
Mozilla Kraken 1.1

9900K is better at:
?

Office-type apps (TPU link) - this is without the BIOS update; unfortunately Anandtech didn't run extensive office tests
3900X is better at:
Excel

9900K is better at:
Word
PowerPoint

This is despite the 9900K at 5.0 GHz and the 3900X at 4.6 GHz. So... LOL?

Edit:

Forgot you mentioned WinRAR

The 3900X wins there as well. And it also wins in 7-zip, AES encoding, etc.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,948
6,272
136
Are you an Intel marketing employee?

When you compare a 3900X to a 9900K...

Web (Anandtech link) - used instead of TPU because they used the re-ran test using updated BIOS after 7/7
3900X is better at:
WebXPRT 3
WebXPRT15
Speedometer 2
Google Octane 2.0
Mozilla Kraken 1.1

9900K is better at:
?

Office-type apps (TPU link) - this is without the BIOS update; unfortunately Anandtech didn't run extensive office tests
3900X is better at:
Excel

9900K is better at:
Word
PowerPoint

This is despite the 9900K at 5.0 GHz and the 3900X at 4.6 GHz. So... LOL?
How many times do we have to say "its not all about ghz". The 9900k crowd (or the 5 ghz crowd) doesn't get it.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
21,002
525
136
You're being kind of ridiculous here honestly. You stress test on one of the most difficult tests that is way overkill for gaming or even doing encoding. It's also well known that the 8700k needs a delid if you want to really push it.

Not to mention you're OCing on a low-end board. Just all kinds of fail really.

I should note I'm no intel fanboy by any means, if I bought today I'd probably go AMD. But the 8700k is still a great CPU.
I take no exception to this post, and you are not entirely wrong. However, it brings me to an observation, and that is: Man, how the worm turns.

Dead platform lacking the newest features the competition's boards have. Check

Need for aftermarket cooling and even physical mods. Check

Also requires the more expensive boards. Check

CPU maker spreads disinformation and/or misinformation trying to make their products look better than they are. Check

How many times do we have to say "its not all about ghz". The 9900k crowd (or the 5 ghz crowd) doesn't get it.
Oh they get it. But it serves the purpose of obfuscating what this discussion is actually about. I.E. Intel going full Baghdad Bob again.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,303
1,522
136
How many times do we have to say "its not all about ghz". The 9900k crowd (or the 5 ghz crowd) doesn't get it.
Its just downplaying one part of "performance affector" equation.

Yes, its not only about GHz. But saying that it is now meaningless is at the very least short sighted.
 
Jan 17, 2019
173
30
61
I take no exception to this post, and you are not entirely wrong. However, it brings me to an observation, and that is: Man, how the worm turns.

Dead platform lacking the newest features the competition's boards have. Check

Need for aftermarket cooling and even physical mods. Check

Also requires the more expensive boards. Check

CPU maker spreads disinformation and/or misinformation trying to make their products look better than they are. Check

Oh they get it. But it serves the purpose of obfuscating what this discussion is actually about. I.E. Intel going full Baghdad Bob again.
What? Come on now... There is no stock cooling provided with the 8700k. There is no need for extra mods running the cpu at stock speeds. Does not require expensive boards unless you want to really push the CPU OC. So basically If you want to do the enthusiast stuff it's available for people like me, if you don't nbd, get a non-k ideally.

I didn't comment on intel trying to make their cpu's look good, but spreading misinformation is never good.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,303
1,522
136
What? Come on now... There is no stock cooling provided with the 8700k. There is no need for extra mods running the cpu at stock speeds. Does not require expensive boards unless you want to really push the CPU OC. So basically If you want to do the enthusiast stuff it's available for people like me, if you don't nbd, get a non-k ideally.

I didn't comment on intel trying to make their cpu's look good, but spreading misinformation is never good.
Even funnier, 8700K at stock speeds is still slightly faster in general than 3600. Not by huge margin, but still faster.

And OC's better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k and pcp7

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
21,002
525
136
Even funnier, 8700K at stock speeds is still slightly faster in general than 3600. Not by huge margin, but still faster.

And OC's better.
Yeah it's hilarious. The 8700K with a decent cooler for OC is approx. $400 U.S. only a 100 percent markup for barely double digit gains in most areas.
The 3600 owner will be laughing all the way to the bank, and have an upgrade path and more modern features.

And just to remind everyone reading, particularly lurkers, this thread is about Intel being disingenuous and deceptive. They were not railing against the benchmark suite when they were on top. That is all you need to know. I am done here.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,303
1,522
136
Yeah it's hilarious. The 8700K with a decent cooler for OC is approx. $400 U.S. only a 100 percent markup for barely double digit gains in most areas.
The 3600 owner will be laughing all the way to the bank, and have an upgrade path and more modern features.

And just to remind everyone reading, particularly lurkers, this thread is about Intel being disingenuous and deceptive. They were not railing against the benchmark suite when they were on top. That is all you need to know. I am done here.
Will he laugh the same way, when he sold 8700K, bought slower CPU, and clocking worse, than 8700K?

I do enjoy fanboyism in both ways for AMD, and for Intel, for comedy reasons, but come on guys. He got a downgrade in every way, apart from maybe power consumption. 3600 is essentially 8700K. But still is slower, and has worse OC capabilities.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY