Intel Core i9-9900K benchmarks show it easily outperforming Ryzen 7 2700X and i7-8700K

[midian182]

Highly anticipated: Information on Intel’s 9th-generation processors has been leaking online since last November, but the chips finally look set to launch sometime over the coming weeks. The flagship Core i9-9900K is the processor most people are excited about, and if its performance benchmarks in 3DMark are to be believed, the hype is justified.

While the database entry lists the processor as “not being recognized,” the specs suggest this is the Core i9-9900K: 8 cores, 16 threads, and a Turbo clock of 5GHz. It’s also expected to come with 16 MB of L3 cache, a TDP of 95W, and an Intel UHD 620 graphics chip.

In 3DMark's Time Spy test, the CPU scores 10719 and 9862 overall. It achieved this using an Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Strix Gaming motherboard with 16GB of G.Skill DDR4-2666 memory, a 500GB Samsung 960 Evo SSD, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. This does suggest the 8-core/16-thread chip is compatible with Z370 mobos—probably through a BIOS update—as well as the upcoming Z390 chipset, which might end up being a rebranded Z370.

Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X (overclocked to 5GHz), the 9900K is way ahead of the AMD chip's score of 9387 points. Intel's own 6-core/12-thread i7 8700K is also lagging behind with 8935.

One thing that must be noted: the specs list the Core i9-9900K as having a base clock of 3.1GHz, which is a lot lower than the previously reported 3.6GHz. The most likely reason is that this is an engineering sample not representative of the final model, but it could also mean previous rumors were wrong, or the software couldn’t accurately detect the CPU’s speed. Alternatively, it might not actually be a Core i9-9900K, so a slight dose of salt could be in order.

Last week brought more news regarding the 9th-gen Intel chips. It’s rumored that the Core-i9 series will be the only ones in the new lineup to feature Hyperthreading. German site Goldem.de, meanwhile, claims that both the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K will be using a soldered IHS, with the rest of the chips featuring a TIM solution.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75715-intel-core-i9-9900k-benchmarks-show-easily-outperforming.html

 

[dirtyferret]

OC the chip on the soldered IHS will be interesting. I look forward to the reviews!

 

[enemys]

"Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X (overclocked to 5GHz), the 9900K is way ahead of the AMD chip's score of 9387 points."
Um, so clock for clock it's 5 percent faster. That's hardly "way ahead". Of course you can't possibly run Ryzen at 5GHz on a regular basis - which makes the whole comparison not only greatly exaggerated on one hand, but just plain rididiculus on the other. It's not like anyone expected performance parity - I doubt we'll get an i9 in a price similiar to a R7 2700, though.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Why is it that a 1080Ti and 4.4 GHz Ryzen 7 2700 (https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3771579) gets the following Time Spy scores then:

CPU Score 10594
3DMark Score 11183

The 3DMark overall score is whatever but the Ryzen just a hair behind this supposed 9900K in the CPU score in this case, 10719 vs 10594. 4.3GHz Ryzen 7 2700Xs in other runs are in the 103xx range. Not so far behind. Of course this Intel CPU hasn't been overclocked yet...

 

[Sausagemeat]

So AMDs 8 cores perform closer to Intels 6 cores than Intels 8 cores. Now we have core parity Ryzens poor IPC and clock speeds are being shown up.

Expect price cuts for the Ryzen line up and the Ryzen 2 hype train to get into full locomotion.

 

[dakram7]

Its good to see Intel come out with a better performing processor but this will likely cost about 40-50% more than the Ryzen 7 2700x which you can buy now for under $300. Intel's current best i7 chip is $400 and doesn't come with an adequate cooler.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Its good to see Intel come out with a better performing processor but this will likely cost about 40-50% more than the Ryzen 7 2700x which you can buy now for under $300. Intel's current best i7 chip is $400 and doesn't come with an adequate cooler.

The 8700K is for overclockers. If you want Intel's best i7 at stock then buy the 8700 that comes with a cooler. It's also $50 cheaper than the 8700K....

 

[Vulcanproject]

Considering this is basically Intel's 8 core answer to finally have parity with AMD's 8 core desktop consumer Ryzen series on core counts, the 'woe is Intel' and the negativity around the problems they have with their 10nm process seem somewhat overblown.

So it'll take yet another generation of Ryzen next year on a brand new 7nm process to properly match this donkeys old Intel 14nm process (albeit highly refined) on core for core performance.

The intel chip also has a big fat IGP on board as well taking up a crap load of transistors and die area, whereas 2700X does not.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Why is it that a 1080Ti and 4.4 GHz Ryzen 7 2700 (https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3771579)
gets the following Time Spy scores then:

CPU Score 10594

Could be a few reasons but it also could be that the Ryzen in your test link is apparently running with 3532MHz memory.

This 9900k test was performed with just 2666 RAM.

An 8700K gains a few hundred timespy points going from average 2666MHz to decent 3200MHz RAM. I haven't tried with anything faster, but I imagine the gains are noticeable on that test having memory running nearly 1GHz faster, especially for Ryzen oft being memory sensitive.

 

[Evernessince]

OC the chip on the soldered IHS will be interesting. I look forward to the reviews!

I wouldn't count on it given the chip is already pretty much tapped out at 5 GHz with 5.3 GHz being the absolute ceiling. You are looking at a 5.6% overclock with the best cooling possible.

Considering this is basically Intel's 8 core answer to finally have parity with AMD's 8 core desktop consumer Ryzen series on core counts, the 'woe is Intel' and the negativity around the problems they have with their 10nm process seem somewhat overblown.

So it'll take yet another generation of Ryzen next year on a brand new 7nm process to properly match this donkeys old Intel 14nm process (albeit highly refined) on core for core performance.

The intel chip also has a big fat IGP on board as well taking up a crap load of transistors and die area, whereas 2700X does not.

Well first, this is rumor. Second, it doesn't explain whether it uses mesh or ringbus which impacts gaming performance. The only 8 core CPUs Intel has right now are mesh are they loose their gaming performance advantage.

Take rumors with a grain of salt.

 

[Dave Hartnell]

"Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X (overclocked to 5GHz), the 9900K is way ahead of the AMD chip's score of 9387 points."
Um, so clock for clock it's 5 percent faster. That's hardly "way ahead". Of course you can't possibly run Ryzen at 5GHz on a regular basis - which makes the whole comparison not only greatly exaggerated on one hand, but just plain rididiculus on the other. It's not like anyone expected performance parity - I doubt we'll get an i9 in a price similiar to a R7 2700, though.

5ghz is a typo I think. 4.5 is the most a 2700x will do.

 

[Puiu]

Why are people arguing so much over a CPU that's a long way from being released? It's just rumors so far.

 

[EEatGDL]

So AMDs 8 cores perform closer to Intels 6 cores than Intels 8 cores. Now we have core parity Ryzens poor IPC and clock speeds are being shown up.

Expect price cuts for the Ryzen line up and the Ryzen 2 hype train to get into full locomotion.

Calm down, bro, you seem butt-hurt. AMD followers have been bullying you lately? Let's lalk about this when we have prices and actual performance numbers, don't go overboard because of some leaks, which I believe could actually be real but still.

I moved from a X99 platform with 6C/12T that just between mobo + CPU costed about USD $600, the board died on me in less than two years -if you require specifics, you may ask. Ryzen came as a blessing, since I could replace that for USD $250 and really me and my brother don't notice a difference in games, video editing. I use a Samsung 950 PRO (NVMe SSD), 64 GB of DDR4, and GTX 1070 with a 60 Hz full HD monitor (so I don't care about FPS above 60 at this moment, which seems to be the territory where Intel does a difference).

Almost all my friends will be moving to AMD since their Intel platforms are too old and updating to new good Intel is too expensive for them. If me and also colleagues from work (you can check where I work in my profile) are migrating to AMD, there must be some great value there. I'm not preaching AMD, each person can do an assessment and pick accordingly to their features-performance-budget expectations; just be objective and chill out, mate.

 

[Mahone]

So AMDs 8 cores perform closer to Intels 6 cores than Intels 8 cores. Now we have core parity Ryzens poor IPC and clock speeds are being shown up.

Expect price cuts for the Ryzen line up and the Ryzen 2 hype train to get into full locomotion.

They're already selling the R7 1st gen for almost 40% off . Used 1800x which were going for close to 500€ for early adopters last year (half a year later for close to 400€ here in Europe -Mindfactory) are being sold on Ebay for Under 200€ - crazy right ?

 

[Sausagemeat]

Calm down, bro, you seem butt-hurt. AMD followers have been bullying you lately? Let's lalk about this when we have prices and actual performance numbers, don't go overboard because of some leaks, which I believe could actually be real but still.

I moved from a X99 platform with 6C/12T that just between mobo + CPU costed about USD $600, the board died on me in less than two years -if you require specifics, you may ask. Ryzen came as a blessing, since I could replace that for USD $250 and really me and my brother don't notice a difference in games, video editing. I use a Samsung 950 PRO (NVMe SSD), 64 GB of DDR4, and GTX 1070 with a 60 Hz full HD monitor (so I don't care about FPS above 60 at this moment, which seems to be the territory where Intel does a difference).

Almost all my friends will be moving to AMD since their Intel platforms are too old and updating to new good Intel is too expensive for them. If me and also colleagues from work (you can check where I work in my profile) are migrating to AMD, there must be some great value there. I'm not preaching AMD, each person can do an assessment and pick accordingly to their features-performance-budget expectations; just be objective and chill out, mate.

Have AMD fans been bullying me? I don’t know any AMD fans mate, they are quite difficult to find. I am quite chilled actually. I’m looking forward to reading more entertaining butt-hurt comments like yours; “all my friends and colleagues are migrating to AMD so there” lmao!

No doubt you will be clutching at the price and the “I don’t care about gaming” straw. The thing is, when it comes to flagship CPUs people often would rather pay a little more to have the best. It’s a different story on the midrange tier and budget tier. And lets face it people spend their own money on a gaming machine and let their boss buy them a work machine, hence why the 8700K sold so well. My boss gave me and everyone else in the NOC an 8 core Xeon paired with a Quadro, I wouldn’t dream of spending my on cash at work, ironically I think my boss probably should have bought TR instead but it’s his money and I don’t care that much.

I think you will find a lot of people have been holding out for this Intel part will pounce on it after seeing these numbers. But you know, neither of us know what the market is going to do. I would definitely rather an i9 that clocks to 5ghz over a 2700x that gets to 4.2ghz every single day of the week. Who in their right mind wouldn’t!

So I guess we are back to waiting for Zen (2) again. I genuinely hope it’s not savagely delayed again. I also hope they can teach Intel a lesson in the department that matters most at this point - IPC/clock speed. We’ve all got more than enough cores now.

 

[EClyde]

Why are people arguing so much over a CPU that's a long way from being released? It's just rumors so far.

Why not? It's Sunday

 

[Paul Prochnow]

Whistle. T for time out.

You skipped the ThreadRipper 1950.....or did I just speed read this all wrong.
? ? ?
I see a fanboi fight.....SO wassa i9-9900x run when it comes out?

 

[Dave Hartnell]

"Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X (overclocked to 5GHz), the 9900K is way ahead of the AMD chip's score of 9387 points."
Um, so clock for clock it's 5 percent faster. That's hardly "way ahead". Of course you can't possibly run Ryzen at 5GHz on a regular basis - which makes the whole comparison not only greatly exaggerated on one hand, but just plain rididiculus on the other. It's not like anyone expected performance parity - I doubt we'll get an i9 in a price similiar to a R7 2700, though.

5ghz is a typo I think. 4.5 is the most a 2700x will do.

And this will be significantly more expensive than AMD to the point that the extra performance is not worth the cost. There will always be takers for it but market share gains in recent times shows AMD is on the right track.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Whistle. T for time out.

You skipped the ThreadRipper 1950.....or did I just speed read this all wrong.
? ? ?
I see a fanboi fight.....SO wassa i9-9900x run when it comes out?

You wouldn't compare a desktop CPU to an HEDT CPU. Different markets.

 

[ZychoLogic]

Well of course it out performs, your comparing the wrong levels of chips, that's like comparing a GTX 1080ti to a GTX 1070. They should have tested the core i9 against the real equal in AMD, the Threadripper 1950x but the scores would be too similar. Who ever wrote this article is obviously not a tech type person. How about Comparing TR 1950x vs i9-9900k, the i7-9700k is what you would compare to Ryzen 7 2700x.

 

[EEatGDL]

Have AMD fans been bullying me? I don’t know any AMD fans mate, they are quite difficult to find. I am quite chilled actually. I’m looking forward to reading more entertaining butt-hurt comments like yours; “all my friends and colleagues are migrating to AMD so there” lmao!

If you have done a quick check of "where" me and my colleagues work, as I suggested [because I won't be writing it down explicitly in a comment], you would have a different perspective of whom it is coming from. And I don't know why you mention a boss and a company covering the cost [hint: the company I work for will never provide systems with anything other than Intel, ever]; I thought it was clear I was talking about their PCs for personal use.

If you think my comment was "butt-hurt", then you can't realize how emotional you are in both your comments, you even write as if it is something affecting you personally to wish things going bad for "x" company. Even quoting my own words, word by word, is childish; you show to be offended, even if you say you aren't. I only stated reasons and scenarios pro-AMD, to give you a big picture so that you could understand the other side, nothing personal against you or Intel, I'm not even mad my Intel board died on me so quickly. Another hint for you: if I could buy a X99 mobo + an Intel Extreme CPU, brand new for $600 total, more than a year ago... I don't think you realize that the retail prices don't add up (yes, it would have been even more expensive).

Well of course it out performs, your comparing the wrong levels of chips, that's like comparing a GTX 1080ti to a GTX 1070. They should have tested the core i9 against the real equal in AMD, the Threadripper 1950x but the scores would be too similar. Who ever wrote this article is obviously not a tech type person. How about Comparing TR 1950x vs i9-9900k, the i7-9700k is what you would compare to Ryzen 7 2700x.

Why it would be fair, for you, to compare a 8C/16T CPU to a 16C/32T CPU? If you want to show the strength of core-for-core, clock-for-clock the closest thing is Core i9 9900K (8C/16T) to Ryzen 7 2700X (8C/16T). In case you don't know this, according to the leaks: Core i9 9900K is a 8C/16T CPU, while the Core i7 9700K is a 8C/8T CPU (yes, no hyper-threading).

 

[Benjiwenji]

So AMDs 8 cores perform closer to Intels 6 cores than Intels 8 cores. Now we have core parity Ryzens poor IPC and clock speeds are being shown up.

Expect price cuts for the Ryzen line up and the Ryzen 2 hype train to get into full locomotion.

You know this is a rumor, right. Probably should slow down that train there.

I do love competition.

 

[pcnthuziast]

I expect the 9700 to retail for 449-499 and the 9900 for 749-799.

 

[Sausagemeat]

If you have done a quick check of "where" me and my colleagues work, as I suggested [because I won't be writing it down explicitly in a comment], you would have a different perspective of whom it is coming from. And I don't know why you mention a boss and a company covering the cost [hint: the company I work for will never provide systems with anything other than Intel, ever]; I thought it was clear I was talking about their PCs for personal use.

If you think my comment was "butt-hurt", then you can't realize how emotional you are in both your comments, you even write as if it is something affecting you personally to wish things going bad for "x" company. Even quoting my own words, word by word, is childish; you show to be offended, even if you say you aren't. I only stated reasons and scenarios pro-AMD, to give you a big picture so that you could understand the other side, nothing personal against you or Intel, I'm not even mad my Intel board died on me so quickly. Another hint for you: if I could buy a X99 mobo + an Intel Extreme CPU, brand new for $600 total, more than a year ago... I don't think you realize that the retail prices don't add up (yes, it would have been even more expensive).



Why it would be fair, for you, to compare a 8C/16T CPU to a 16C/32T CPU? If you want to show the strength of core-for-core, clock-for-clock the closest thing is Core i9 9900K (8C/16T) to Ryzen 7 2700X (8C/16T). In case you don't know this, according to the leaks: Core i9 9900K is a 8C/16T CPU, while the Core i7 9700K is a 8C/8T CPU (yes, no hyper-threading).

Lol, so now you’re arguing with me and asserting to me that I’m butt hurt? Desperate stuff! But why exactly? I’m not an AMD or an Intel fan specifically, surely only AMD fans have a reason to be upset as their chips are now facing new, rather collosal looking competiton and have lost their core count advantage.

Nobody cares where you work mate. And nobody cares if they are all switching to AMD. It’s not proper evidence of market share, it’s just anecdotal evidence in a comment written by a rather upset TechSpot member. It means nothing.

I’m actually finding all this rather amusing pal.

 

[Jyrkz]

In the end, most of us just follow the price
cough..cough.. amd ^^