Speculation: i9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Will Intel lose it's gaming CPU lead in 2019?


  • Total voters
    184
  • Poll closed .

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
981
688
136
Looks like OC 8700K and 9700K/9900K still rule the roost for 1080p high refresh rate gaming, but outside of that niche are increasingly harder to justify.
Which doesn't really change the status quo at all. Ryzen had already been better value for productivity long before this release. That lead is now extended, which was to be expected. What I didn't expect was the deficit in gaming, for all intents and purposes I thought Ryzen 3000 would at least bridge the gap, if not exceed Intel in gaming. Just look at the posts earlier in this thread...
 

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
658
262
106
Which doesn't really change the status quo at all. Ryzen had already been better value for productivity long before this release. That lead is now extended, which was to be expected. What I didn't expect was the deficit in gaming, for all intents and purposes I thought Ryzen 3000 would at least bridge the gap, if not exceed Intel in gaming. Just look at the posts earlier in this thread...
looks the same to me
we should thank the moronic fanboys
so no gaming destruction definitely, but unlike r1 or r2 lines, I wont have any problems recommending r3 line for gaming
 

gk1951

Member
Jul 7, 2019
62
39
51
Where the 9900k was an easy recommendation for the serious gamer who might do a bit of multi tasking on the side, the 3900x has really closed the gap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and DooKey

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
981
688
136
You wanted a flagship killer, AMD delivered a killer army: all Ryzen 3000 SKUs offer top gaming performance, including the R5 3600. It's a generation of many strengths and no particular weakness, unlike Zen 1.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you there. I was just hoping for at least parity on the gaming front especially after all the hype in the last few pages on this thread. As it stands they are still excellent all round CPUs, just not the absolute killer gaming CPUs many would have expected.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,653
1,009
136
Eh? Only chip Intel has right now to beat it in games is 9900k. The main weakness we're seeing is that boost clocks aren't going that high in games (compared to what is advertised). Is that due to the review samples, or will retail chips have the same problem?
Probably bios issues. Give it a few weeks. I'll buy them in a few months.
 

ondma

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2018
1,200
299
106
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you there. I was just hoping for at least parity on the gaming front especially after all the hype in the last few pages on this thread. As it stands they are still excellent all round CPUs, just not the absolute killer gaming CPUs many would have expected.
Pretty much what I expected, despite all the hype.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,481
937
126
Yeah this is almost exactly what I expected, perhaps a little bit worse actually.

If you look at most reviews, they pair the Intels with 2666 and don't have MCE/ACE enabled. And still lose against them despite the much faster memory in gaming. If it was only one site doing this I wouldn't be as suspicious, but it was probably heavily 'suggested' by AMD.

Both AMD and Nvidia have been similarly suspicious with GPU releases, as you constantly see to this very day and Navi the very heavy preponderance of Pascal FE cards, rather than the hugely more common and far superior AIB cards and 11Gbps variants that are ~10-20% faster. This helped Nvidia make a better case for RTX, but doesn't reflect what the real world is for people who own Pascal cards (outside of the handful of actual OG FEs).

I've said it for months now :

Adored is FUD
Ryzen is King of general computing CPUs
Ryzen will not be very interesting to primarily gamers who already own 8th/9th gen Intel's. And if you own a 8700k or better with a 5Ghz all core OC, you'd absolutely lose substantial performance by switching.

For a new build though, a Zen2+X470 Mobo is insanely good value, and unless you have money to burn, would let you pair with a better GPU on a limited budget.

Like a 3600x+470+RTX2060 would be cheaper and better than a 9700k+z390+1660.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
694
254
136
Pretty much as expected - Intel's 5ghz is just too high and they should be very grateful AMD's clocks aren't closer; but what do I know, I was cognitive dissonant. On the flipside, AMD should be grateful Intel shares their clock challenges for everything else in Intel's roadmap.

Positives -
- Zen 2 is much more stable than the original Zen launch
- there will be a nice performance boost in, for us, a short period of time as BIOS's improve and mature
- when AMD's mid-tier processors are very very close to Intel's flagship, it's a good day. Now the only viable Intel option, and only for gaming, is the 9700/9900 (and even then you're already at the end of road). Intel will need to firesale everything else - which brings a smile to my face.

I expect the Zen2+ clock improvements to be similar to how the 2700X's clock improved over the 1700X. Of course I'll be in the minority as the majority will take it as a given, again, that AMD will hit 5Ghz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and CHADBOGA

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,931
394
126
Yeah this is almost exactly what I expected, perhaps a little bit worse actually.

If you look at most reviews, they pair the Intels with 2666 and don't have MCE/ACE enabled. And still lose against them despite the much faster memory in gaming. If it was only one site doing this I wouldn't be as suspicious, but it was probably heavily 'suggested' by AMD.

Both AMD and Nvidia have been similarly suspicious with GPU releases, as you constantly see to this very day and Navi the very heavy preponderance of Pascal FE cards, rather than the hugely more common and far superior AIB cards and 11Gbps variants that are ~10-20% faster. This helped Nvidia make a better case for RTX, but doesn't reflect what the real world is for people who own Pascal cards (outside of the handful of actual OG FEs).

I've said it for months now :

Adored is FUD
Ryzen is King of general computing CPUs
Ryzen will not be very interesting to primarily gamers who already own 8th/9th gen Intel's. And if you own a 8700k or better with a 5Ghz all core OC, you'd absolutely lose substantial performance by switching.

For a new build though, a Zen2+X470 Mobo is insanely good value, and unless you have money to burn, would let you pair with a better GPU on a limited budget.

Like a 3600x+470+RTX2060 would be cheaper and better than a 9700k+z390+1660.
Maybe I'm not looking at the same reviews you guys are but Zen 2 seems to have reached parity with Coffeelake (within a few percent). At Computer Base the difference in 1080p gaming is minuscule (9900k is 4% faster than 3700X and 3% faster than 3900X).
Zen 2 Review.JPG

With frametimes the difference is even smaller

Zen 2 Review Pic 2.JPG

Zen 2 Review Pic 3.JPG

Haven't found any reviews yet with an oced 8th or 9th gen Intel yet.
 

ubern00b

Member
Jun 11, 2019
171
75
56
Maybe I'm not looking at the same reviews you guys are but Zen 2 seems to have reached parity with Coffeelake (within a few percent). At Computer Base the difference in 1080p gaming is minuscule (9900k is 4% faster than 3700X and 3% faster than 3900X).
View attachment 8124

With frametimes the difference is even smaller

View attachment 8125

View attachment 8126

Haven't found any reviews yet with an oced 8th or 9th gen Intel yet.
massive improvement from the 2700k in gaming, there's like 3% difference now compared to 15% previously
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,481
937
126
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
15,772
4,755
136
Looks like OC 8700K and 9700K/9900K still rule the roost for 1080p high refresh rate gaming, but outside of that niche are increasingly harder to justify.
I am not so sure about the 8700K. One thing is clear: had TSMC 7nm worked out well enough to allow boosting to 4.5 GHz (or higher) on a regular basis or if future UEFI updates allow this for Matisse, Matisse will start winning more gaming benchmarks.

Boosting to 4.3 GHz is not really going to be enough.

And I will freely admit, I bought into some of the non-Adored hype about 8c Matisse hitting all core clocks of 4.6-4.7 GHz and 6c/12c chips hitting maybe 4.8-5.0 GHz with good cooling. I want to see more OC results from non-review samples, but der8auer put to rest any hope of those clocks being attainable. 4.4 GHz looks like the ceiling, up a mere 100 MHz from GF 12nm.

Which doesn't really change the status quo at all.
I disagree. The lowly 3700x is way too close to a stock 9900k for Intel's comfort. You can go out and basically match the 9900k for $329. I would not be surprised if someone shows up doing this on one of the better B450 boards once they sort out the UEFI issue. There is almost 0 reason to buy a 9900k now, unless you are absolutely confident you are going to hit 5 GHz all-core and keep it there. Despite the 3700x needing more cooling than its 65W TDP would indicate, it still requires less than the 5 GHz 9900k.

If you look at most reviews, they pair the Intels with 2666 and don't have MCE/ACE enabled.
PBO isn't working yet, that's why. I'm not sure Matisse gains that much from running faster RAM either. But they're sticking with DDR4-2666 on Intel systems because that is what is "officially" supported for stock operation. Agree or disagree, that's what a user will get if they never go into the UEFI to tweak anything, enable XMP, etc.

Like a 3600x+470+RTX2060 would be cheaper and better than a 9700k+z390+1660.
3600x + x470 wouldn't be that much faster than 3600 + B450 either. Not if you're running stock. You could save more money and get into a card nicer than a 2060.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,931
394
126
Check Tom's. OC vs OC.
Some games there was quite a large difference between the 5.1Ghz 9700k and the 4.1Ghz 3700X/3900X. I'll be interested to see some consolidated results over multiple review sites after a few weeks of sorting out any teething issues since some sites show a bigger difference than others.
 

JoeRambo

Senior member
Jun 13, 2013
786
428
136
Check Tom's. OC vs OC.
Yeah, properly tuned Coffee Lake @ 5Ghz is a beast. Of course it needs 2080TI and fast memory to shine. Sadly AMD seems to have ~same IPC, but clock deficit is just too large to reign in gaming.

Real question about new chips is -> can AMD improve things with new AGESA versions and can faster, highly tuned DRAM ( talking 3600CL15 stuff ) help recover some of that gap.

So my conclusion is the same, for any OCed 8700K/9700K/9900K owner out there is no need to move anywhere, unless they really need more threads for content creation. In that case 3900x and 3950x will shine.

Personally i am a bit sad, i was sceptical, but the hype about the clocks was so easy to believe into. 4.6-4.7 would have put these chips in real good position vs Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epsilon84

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,931
394
126
That it does. The benches show 4.1 (stock) and 4.3 (OC) vs the competition in both stock and OC forms.
According to Tom's:

"Due to time constraints, we tested the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X with both automated overclocking features activated instead of with a manual all-core overclock. Several motherboard vendors have told us that overclocking headroom is extremely limited on the Ryzen 3000 processors, and that exceeding the boost clocks, or even meeting them, isn't possible for all-core overclocking. Our resident overclocking expert Allen 'Splave' Golibersuch has also spent time with early Ryzen 3000 samples and was unable to break the 4.1 GHz barrier without sub-ambient cooling.

In either case, the combination of PBO and AutoOC yielded improvements in some applications, but wasn't as impressive with the Ryzen 7 3700X as it was with the Ryzen 9 3900X. In some cases, the boost confers no benefit for the Ryzen 7 3700X in our application testing, and on a few occasions, we see performance regressions in lightly-threaded workloads compared to the stock configuration. We tested with multiple motherboards and met with the same result, which could boil down to the quality of our sample or motherboard firmwares. As with most processor launches, motherboard firmwares are still a work in progress, so there is hope that the situation will improve. We'll update our results when a fix becomes available, but we did encounter this issue the night before NDA lift, so hopefully a fix will come soon.

We regularly observed our Ryzen 9 3900X maintaining an all-core 4.1 GHz during our testing, while the Ryzen 7 3700X often peaked at 4.125 GHz."

Kinda sounds like PBO and AutoOC were borked. 4.1Ghz all-core is right about what the last gen 2700X did with PBO and XFR. And the fact that performance regressed in some cases when PBO and AutoOC were activated is a huge red flag.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,250
7,905
136
I have both a 9900k rig and a 2700x rig.
Today I would probably opt for the 3900x vs the 9900k.
I think this pretty much sums up the thread. Its still king in gaming by a LITTLE, but looses in so many others ways that the king is dead.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY