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

[Jimster480]

Will be interesting to see what AMD has in store with the Ryzen 2.

Good job for Intel if the 9900k performs this well.

Looks like it might be 16c for Ryzen 2, which would really flip Intel upside down.
But overall while competition is so good, I don't know how long this can continue because I cannot see even the average power user having use for 16 cores.
But I guess as computers have more cores overall, applications will be able to use more cores on average and as such everything will be faster. Atleast that's got to be the philosophy that they are following anyway.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Actually just the truth. Please name a time that they have innovated successfully in any of their markets.

Nah! I love reading about people badgering tire manufacturers. Because they haven't been innovative, and their tires are still round.

Tell me why exactly should Intel innovate? When it took AMD 10+ years to make a competing CPU.

I really am happy for all you AMD fans. You now at least think you have something to be proud of. I might would even be proud with you, if you didn't badger Intel for no reason. Keep on badgering Intel because you are only strengthening the walls that divide.

 

[funkydmunky]

A near 2GHz boost? LOL!
This is Intel's answer to its fail 28 core 5GHz joke. It very well might hit on its i9 specs, but will require exotic cooling to do so.
Why do you need such a gap on boost speeds? Are we playing core count games, TDP games?
Something is up. Intel isn't going anywhere at there current tech level. Still a good chip, but Intel will charge their usual for its "top gun" which will be a throttling highly binned beast that will require exotic cooling on top.

 

[Danny101]

An overclocked chip touted against another overclocked chip for a niche situation. The navel gazing is strong with this one. IMO, until the next generation die-shrink is rolled out, neither brands is worth buying. Ryzen 2 offered what...a 5 percent improvement over Ryzen? Unless you missed the first iteration or have money to burn, it was just more of the same. Just to keep folks looking I suppose.

 

[Jimster480]

An overclocked chip touted against another overclocked chip for a niche situation. The navel gazing is strong with this one. IMO, until the next generation die-shrink is rolled out, neither brands is worth buying. Ryzen 2 offered what...a 5 percent improvement over Ryzen? Unless you missed the first iteration or have money to burn, it was just more of the same. Just to keep folks looking I suppose.

What?
Zen+ was more than a 10% overall jump, especially with clockspeed increases across the board.
3% more IPC, but upto 20% more performance (task oriented obviously) and really 10%+ more clockspeed vs Zen.

 

[Mike dreams]

I 9900k Only 16 PCI Lanes..... Seriously?

 

[amghwk]

C'mon guys.. start arguing AFTER the CPU is released with comprehensive benchmarks.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Intel is a garbage company that hasn't ever innovated... they always look at the other side, copy what they do (AMD) and then market the hell out of it while also being anti-competitive vs AMD and others.
Their Atom is a great example of what happens when Intel tries to innovate, they couldn't even develop their own architecture without falling back on copying AMD (I bet you didn't know that all modern Atoms past time they were based on P3 are a Clustered multi-threading "CMT" Design very similar to bulldozer but with macro ops instead of normal op decoding). And Atom was so bad that it literally needs a 1ghz advantage to beat Jaguar, but Intel decided to give away 7 Billion dollars worth of Atoms (Contra revenue) to prevent AMD from gaining marketshare with Jaguar. But thankfully AMD landed the contract for Xb1 & PS4 and used Jaguar for that, so the architecture became quite a bit more mainstream.
Then to make matters worse, Atom chips have a fatal flaw that makes their clocks break after ~2 years of service, causing them not to boot and basically to become doorstops. Most Atom's (and Celeron/Pentium N) are affected by this bug, even though its very hard for the average person to find where Intel has marked these bugs, since they aren't public about it (you won't easily find it around the net without searching the exact right keywords) and they are still selling all these Atom boards and laptops today w/ Celeron & Pentium N that are flawed and will break.

As far as thermal throttling:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3599511/8700-stock-cooler-question.html
^here is one such link talking about throttling but literally....
https://www.google.com/search?q=8700+stock+cooler+throttle

And oh look... plenty of threads scattered about with people having throttling issues under actual load!
Amazing what you can find if you actually put something into google.

The 8700 has a base clock speed way under that of the 8700k and when you are actually playing games, the chip will not stay at turbo speed the entire time. https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k
^Read about how the turbo actually works.

Therefore the performance of the 8700 in real world tasks isn't close to the 8700k, only in things like benchmarks where the turbo can outlast the benchmark (depending on the benchmark).

lol@that opening sentence. I should run now, but I have some down time to dip into this with you again.

Your source link is a ONE PAGE forum post with two people in it?! The one guy with "the" issue was doing photo editing work, so I wouldn't call that a complete representation of what other users are experiencing. Certainly not enough to reach the headlines of tech sites with equipment to investigate claims. Hence why I asked you to find one. Clearly you failed. All you've done was find a couple forums and posted it to me as proof it's a wide spread issue. Still not convinced, sorry! You'll keep trying though....

 

[HardReset]

I 9900k Only 16 PCI Lanes..... Seriously?

Same as every other LGA115x CPU has. Problem? Buy AMD Threadripper and get 64!

 

[Danny101]

What?
Zen+ was more than a 10% overall jump, especially with clockspeed increases across the board.
3% more IPC, but upto 20% more performance (task oriented obviously) and really 10%+ more clockspeed vs Zen.

It's not bad and there's nothing wrong with it. I already dumped money into the first iteration and this isn't enough for clock chasing. I actually low-balled the processor. It went with Ryzen 3 1200 which was a leap from what I had, Phenom II 940 X4 3 Ghz. Yep that ten years. I did go with a Asus X370 mainboard, though. I'll drop in what will likely be the max for the X370 chipset,a Ryzen 2 3700X for the AM4 socket. I fully expect AMD to move on to a new socket after that. In hindsight, I think I should have went with a cheaper motherboard and a nominally better cpu. I could have sold off that combo, or handed it down in a couple of years, after the Ryzen platform matures. Oh well, I'm stuck with it now unless I'm come into some money. The biggest upgrade was the case, SSD's, WD Black HDD's. USB 3.0, monitor; the ancillary stuff that'll I'll be hanging onto for the next ten years. I try to repurpose as much as I can to keep the e-waste to a minimum. Linux to the rescue.

 

[Jimster480]

lol@that opening sentence. I should run now, but I have some down time to dip into this with you again.

Your source link is a ONE PAGE forum post with two people in it?! The one guy with "the" issue was doing photo editing work, so I wouldn't call that a complete representation of what other users are experiencing. Certainly not enough to reach the headlines of tech sites with equipment to investigate claims. Hence why I asked you to find one. Clearly you failed. All you've done was find a couple forums and posted it to me as proof it's a wide spread issue. Still not convinced, sorry! You'll keep trying though....

I mean I think it would be obvious that the 8700 is a very unpopular chip, there is literally no reason to buy it considering how badly Ryzen kicks its *** for a lower price... The 8700k is the only chip that competes because it can be overclocked so far, to a lesser extent the i5 8600k version can also compete due to the clockspeed possibilities.
Because you didn't feel like forum posts were enough doesn't mean that it doesn't overheat, forum posts are proof enough that it overheats. It either does overheat or it doesn't overheat, running heavy tasks on your CPU and making it thermal throttle means that the cooler is insufficient. Therefore the problem will exist for every person who has one of these chips with the stock coolers (which is even a smaller percentage since Intels run so hot everyone knows to get aftermarket coolers).

It's not bad and there's nothing wrong with it. I already dumped money into the first iteration and this isn't enough for clock chasing. I actually low-balled the processor. It went with Ryzen 3 1200 which was a leap from what I had, Phenom II 940 X4 3 Ghz. Yep that ten years. I did go with a Asus X370 mainboard, though. I'll drop in what will likely be the max for the X370 chipset,a Ryzen 2 3700X for the AM4 socket. I fully expect AMD to move on to a new socket after that. In hindsight, I think I should have went with a cheaper motherboard and a nominally better cpu. I could have sold off that combo, or handed it down in a couple of years, after the Ryzen platform matures. Oh well, I'm stuck with it now unless I'm come into some money. The biggest upgrade was the case, SSD's, WD Black HDD's. USB 3.0, monitor; the ancillary stuff that'll I'll be hanging onto for the next ten years. I try to repurpose as much as I can to keep the e-waste to a minimum. Linux to the rescue.

I bought the R5 1600 at first, but then bought Vega when it came out and got a bundle. I kept the 1700x from that bundle and put it in my motherboard which is a B350 Tomahawk Arctic. Really this motherboard isn't capable of handling the OC'd 1700x under full load for long periods of time. Meaning that I would only crash it with long renders which I don't typically do.
Even so I have recently bought a Biostar x370 for $75 on sale on Newegg and I'll swap that in and sell my Arctic Tomahawk since they seem to be pretty popular on ebay typically fetching over $100 (I think it has to be purely for color scheme purposes since there isn't much that is fully white like this arctic version).
I was considering the 2XXX series but there really isn't a need, so I'll probably wait until the 3XXX gen and then drop in a better CPU.

I have built a couple R3 1200 machines and they really do kick *** for people who just game all day. 3.7-3.9ghz OC on a b350 and a $25 cooler, it runs nice and cool and stable. I upgraded my friends 860k machines that they have been using the past years (the previous budget king for gaming). I recently upgraded my HTPC from a x4 845 to a Ryzen 3 2200G and then built my mom a PC with the x4 845 and she loves it (Upgrading her old X2 4400+ machine from 2007).
My Atom powered NAS just died too and I rebuilt it using my old A4-3400 HTPC mobo/CPU and now it flies compared to the Atom haha (although I'm sure its pulling a bit more wattage). That system will also be upgraded to a Ryzen after the Athlon 200GE comes out.

All in all my Ryzen 7 1700x machine (originally ryzen 5 1600) literally replaced 2x Intel i7 desktops (i7 Haswell ES @3Ghz & Xeon 1241v3 @3.9Ghz). The haswell ES went to my grandma to upgrade her Athlon II X4 620 primary machine, for her the 3ghz haswell is overkill, she has it paired with a 74XX/R7 240 Radeon I think just to drive her Ultrawide monitor.

Overall I can't be happier with the state of the market, let the Intel fanboi's claim whatever they want but literally 18+ months ago the desktop was stuck on quad cores and 8 cores cost $700+ and were virtually inaccessable to the average consumer. AMD Delivered Haswell i5 performance for $100 with the R3 and 5820k performance for $200 with the R5 1600/x and 4770k performance for ~$160 with the R5 1500x.
AMD made the i3 irrelevant and the i5 noncompetitive and only the top K SKU i7 comparable just due to overclocking (especially for those on Haswell or earlier).

 

[EndRessentiment]

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.

All of the above is a gross overstatement, it's like you're THAT exuberant because of one benchmark. In fact, the 2700X is just barely closer in performance (in this specific benchmark) to the 8700K than it is to the 9900K. The difference in the distances between the pairs is insignificant.

 

[Sausagemeat]

All of the above is a gross overstatement, it's like you're THAT exuberant because of one benchmark. In fact, the 2700X is just barely closer in performance (in this specific benchmark) to the 8700K than it is to the 9900K. The difference in the distances between the pairs is insignificant.

It’s not an overstatement at all. It’s a fact. Yes Intel will charge more for their 8 cores than AMD do. That isn’t a surprise based on the performance difference expected. And yes it is based on one benchmark. I will however be surprised if the 2700X properly beats Intel at any benchmark, games and productivity included, they might come close or even win within margin of error but that’s it.

It comes down to what’s more important, utmost value or utmost performance. I think when people are buying flagship CPUs people tend to value performance more. If value is what people are after far better can be had further down the product stack usually. It also depends on other factors, if comparing by value then if you are happy to give up a little productivity performance to have the best gaming and overclocking performance then Intel is better and if you’re happy to give up best gaming and overclocking performance for a little bit more rendering performance then AMD is better. Although those who want the best of both won’t have an AMD option as AMD don’t have a CPU that costs as much as a 9900K nor one that performs as well.

People are speculating some wild numbers for pricing. My personal prediction is that the 9700K will retail for $350 and the 9900k will retail for $450. With $50 off for the non K variants. These prices will come down in the new year no doubt. Unless of course Zen 2 is delayed.

Personally I hope Zen 2 improves on IPC/clock speed. These core wars don’t mean anything to me. I’d buy a quad core with a 30% IPC improvement on today’s IPC (more if clocks are low) over any AMD or Intel 8 core right now. I understand more cores do mean something to others...

 

[HardReset]

People are speculating some wild numbers for pricing. My personal prediction is that the 9700K will retail for $350 and the 9900k will retail for $450. With $50 off for the non K variants. These prices will come down in the new year no doubt. Unless of course Zen 2 is delayed.

That pricing essentially makes Intel's $1000 CPU obsolete https://ark.intel.com/products/1236...-series-Processor-13_75M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

And also this one too https://ark.intel.com/products/1237...X-X-series-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

So predicting prices is not that easy.

Desktop Zen2 comes somewhere 2019. I except March 2019 like Zen.

 

[Jimster480]

It’s not an overstatement at all. It’s a fact. Yes Intel will charge more for their 8 cores than AMD do. That isn’t a surprise based on the performance difference expected. And yes it is based on one benchmark. I will however be surprised if the 2700X properly beats Intel at any benchmark, games and productivity included, they might come close or even win within margin of error but that’s it.

It comes down to what’s more important, utmost value or utmost performance. I think when people are buying flagship CPUs people tend to value performance more. If value is what people are after far better can be had further down the product stack usually. It also depends on other factors, if comparing by value then if you are happy to give up a little productivity performance to have the best gaming and overclocking performance then Intel is better and if you’re happy to give up best gaming and overclocking performance for a little bit more rendering performance then AMD is better. Although those who want the best of both won’t have an AMD option as AMD don’t have a CPU that costs as much as a 9900K nor one that performs as well.

People are speculating some wild numbers for pricing. My personal prediction is that the 9700K will retail for $350 and the 9900k will retail for $450. With $50 off for the non K variants. These prices will come down in the new year no doubt. Unless of course Zen 2 is delayed.

Personally I hope Zen 2 improves on IPC/clock speed. These core wars don’t mean anything to me. I’d buy a quad core with a 30% IPC improvement on today’s IPC (more if clocks are low) over any AMD or Intel 8 core right now. I understand more cores do mean something to others...

I'm not sure where this comes from but basically as more cores become available, then more software will be multithreaded.
We have basically reached the limitations for IPC on the x86 architecture itself I believe, without using different instruction sets (which historically have poor adoption rates) there isn't any magic to make it 30% faster per clock.
If you take a look at Ryzen vs Coffee Lake; Ryzen is actually better at EVERYTHING but gaming when compared on the same product stack. Infact when you look at many benchmarks, you will find the 2700x to be closer to the 7820x than the 8700k. This shows that from a non-gaming standpoint, basically the Ryzen is more like a HEDT Intel. And on top of that the HEDT intel's trail behind the mainstream platforms by relatively the same percentages in gaming that Ryzen chips do. Meaning that there is really no reason to by the 8700k unless gaming is the ONLY thing you do and you need that performance specifically for meeting some 144hz fps requirement in a specific title where it has an advantage...
If you look at the 5960x from a couple years ago, its absolutely obliterated by the 2700x and thats 8c vs 8c.
For the i9-9900k I'm sure they will be charging atleast $450 if not $500 due to how their die's work. They have to fab a full 8c die vs 2x 4c dies and that brings yields down, on top of that they need only the best possible bins because they have to hit every chip at the absolute maximum clockspeed their architecture can push.

This chip is likely to be very hot, and draw tons of power.

 

[Danny101]

From an experience perspective I use AMD because it's less expensive, have a performance reference point, and have consented to the limitations. I enjoy the news, the reviews, and even the arguments. Intel and AMD have both done a great job providing us with powerful hardware and are mostly underutilized by today's software. Software developers, especially gaming and OS developers are lagging in their use of multi-cores. Simply put: a 8-core 2 Ghz machine should be equal to a 4-core 4Ghz machine. Intel and AMD have resorted to processor jujitsu schemes that are inherently insecure to extract performance to fill in the gaps left by the developers. We need an overhaul of software development and instill better standards and cooperation. The future is multi-core, not faster clock cycles. It will certainly be more energy efficient and negate the need for wild cooling methods.

 

[Sausagemeat]

I'm not sure where this comes from but basically as more cores become available, then more software will be multithreaded.
We have basically reached the limitations for IPC on the x86 architecture itself I believe, without using different instruction sets (which historically have poor adoption rates) there isn't any magic to make it 30% faster per clock.
If you take a look at Ryzen vs Coffee Lake; Ryzen is actually better at EVERYTHING but gaming when compared on the same product stack. Infact when you look at many benchmarks, you will find the 2700x to be closer to the 7820x than the 8700k. This shows that from a non-gaming standpoint, basically the Ryzen is more like a HEDT Intel. And on top of that the HEDT intel's trail behind the mainstream platforms by relatively the same percentages in gaming that Ryzen chips do. Meaning that there is really no reason to by the 8700k unless gaming is the ONLY thing you do and you need that performance specifically for meeting some 144hz fps requirement in a specific title where it has an advantage...
If you look at the 5960x from a couple years ago, its absolutely obliterated by the 2700x and thats 8c vs 8c.
For the i9-9900k I'm sure they will be charging atleast $450 if not $500 due to how their die's work. They have to fab a full 8c die vs 2x 4c dies and that brings yields down, on top of that they need only the best possible bins because they have to hit every chip at the absolute maximum clockspeed their architecture can push.

This chip is likely to be very hot, and draw tons of power.

You’re incorrect. I just checked the review of the 2700X published on this website. Ryzen isn’t better at everything but gaming at all. PC Mark, Handbrake, Adobe PP are won by the 8700K. And some more applications are won once the 8700K is overclocked, the 8700K practically clean clean sweeps the gaming tests by more than it loses the multithreaded tests by. It does all this whilst using less power;

https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/page2.html

Check your facts before posting mate! Of course the 8700K was last year’s chip. The 2700X real competitor is about to drop...

 

[Sausagemeat]

That pricing essentially makes Intel's $1000 CPU obsolete https://ark.intel.com/products/1236...-series-Processor-13_75M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

And also this one too https://ark.intel.com/products/1237...X-X-series-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

So predicting prices is not that easy.

Desktop Zen2 comes somewhere 2019. I except March 2019 like Zen.

It’s just my personally prediction on pricing. Intel haven’t been afraid to “obsolete” their higher HEDT components in the past, although people buying HEDT often do so for other reasons outside of core count. Let’s see what the market brings shall we .

As for Zen 2 arriving in March 2019, let’s hope so. But it’s not like AMD haven’t delayed in the past. In fact in recent memory the Zen refresh is the one of the only competents they haven’t delivered late for years! Il believe it when I see it.

 

[HardReset]

As for Zen 2 arriving in March 2019, let’s hope so. But it’s not like AMD haven’t delayed in the past. In fact in recent memory the Zen refresh is the one of the only competents they haven’t delivered late for years! Il believe it when I see it.

Problem is that Zen2 "Epyc" is probably launching early 2019, but Zen2 "Ryzen" is currently unknown. So this time Zen2 launch is not equal to Ryzen launch. It's also unknown if Zen2 "Ryzen" will be TMSC or GlobalFoundries.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I mean I think it would be obvious that the 8700 is a very unpopular chip, there is literally no reason to buy it considering how badly Ryzen kicks its *** for a lower price... The 8700k is the only chip that competes because it can be overclocked so far, to a lesser extent the i5 8600k version can also compete due to the clockspeed possibilities.
Because you didn't feel like forum posts were enough doesn't mean that it doesn't overheat, forum posts are proof enough that it overheats. It either does overheat or it doesn't overheat, running heavy tasks on your CPU and making it thermal throttle means that the cooler is insufficient. Therefore the problem will exist for every person who has one of these chips with the stock coolers (which is even a smaller percentage since Intels run so hot everyone knows to get aftermarket coolers).

I bought the R5 1600 at first, but then bought Vega when it came out and got a bundle. I kept the 1700x from that bundle and put it in my motherboard which is a B350 Tomahawk Arctic. Really this motherboard isn't capable of handling the OC'd 1700x under full load for long periods of time. Meaning that I would only crash it with long renders which I don't typically do.
Even so I have recently bought a Biostar x370 for $75 on sale on Newegg and I'll swap that in and sell my Arctic Tomahawk since they seem to be pretty popular on ebay typically fetching over $100 (I think it has to be purely for color scheme purposes since there isn't much that is fully white like this arctic version).
I was considering the 2XXX series but there really isn't a need, so I'll probably wait until the 3XXX gen and then drop in a better CPU.

I have built a couple R3 1200 machines and they really do kick *** for people who just game all day. 3.7-3.9ghz OC on a b350 and a $25 cooler, it runs nice and cool and stable. I upgraded my friends 860k machines that they have been using the past years (the previous budget king for gaming). I recently upgraded my HTPC from a x4 845 to a Ryzen 3 2200G and then built my mom a PC with the x4 845 and she loves it (Upgrading her old X2 4400+ machine from 2007).
My Atom powered NAS just died too and I rebuilt it using my old A4-3400 HTPC mobo/CPU and now it flies compared to the Atom haha (although I'm sure its pulling a bit more wattage). That system will also be upgraded to a Ryzen after the Athlon 200GE comes out.

All in all my Ryzen 7 1700x machine (originally ryzen 5 1600) literally replaced 2x Intel i7 desktops (i7 Haswell ES @3Ghz & Xeon 1241v3 @3.9Ghz). The haswell ES went to my grandma to upgrade her Athlon II X4 620 primary machine, for her the 3ghz haswell is overkill, she has it paired with a 74XX/R7 240 Radeon I think just to drive her Ultrawide monitor.

Overall I can't be happier with the state of the market, let the Intel fanboi's claim whatever they want but literally 18+ months ago the desktop was stuck on quad cores and 8 cores cost $700+ and were virtually inaccessable to the average consumer. AMD Delivered Haswell i5 performance for $100 with the R3 and 5820k performance for $200 with the R5 1600/x and 4770k performance for ~$160 with the R5 1500x.
AMD made the i3 irrelevant and the i5 noncompetitive and only the top K SKU i7 comparable just due to overclocking (especially for those on Haswell or earlier).

Sadly, AMD's current marketshare and Intel's $17b Q2 revenue (record) fails to support your claims of AMD's world domination.

Moms and dads don't need more cores.
i5's are enough to challenge Ryzen 2700X in gaming and day to day use. 80% of consumers don't need Ryzen. Any of them.

Radeon is a sinking ship. Intel will buy RTG in 2019-2020.

PS, where's Navi?

 

[EndRessentiment]

It’s not an overstatement at all. It’s a fact. Yes Intel will charge more for their 8 cores than AMD do. That isn’t a surprise based on the performance difference expected. And yes it is based on one benchmark. I will however be surprised if the 2700X properly beats Intel at any benchmark, games and productivity included, they might come close or even win within margin of error but that’s it.

It comes down to what’s more important, utmost value or utmost performance.

A statement can easily be both "factual" and an overstatement. Those two categories don't exclude eachother at all. Your post is a perfect example. In fact, when you take into account error margins of the benchmarks, the difference is probably absent entirely.

As for utmost performance, that may definitely be interesting to some. But in the light of the use you will get from a consumer processor with the "utmost performance", the diminishing returns hit very hard. What's the point in paying hundreds of dollars more for just a bit more of performance? It only makes sense if you have skewed priorities or need to get rid of money. Upgrading more quickly makes more sense then, besides being content with just a bit less performance.

 

[LemmingOverlrd]

Intel is a garbage company that hasn't ever innovated... they always look at the other side, copy what they do (AMD) and then market the hell out of it while also being anti-competitive vs AMD and others.
Their Atom is a great example of what happens when Intel tries to innovate, they couldn't even develop their own architecture without falling back on copying AMD (I bet you didn't know that all modern Atoms past time they were based on P3 are a Clustered multi-threading "CMT" Design very similar to bulldozer but with macro ops instead of normal op decoding). And Atom was so bad that it literally needs a 1ghz advantage to beat Jaguar, but Intel decided to give away 7 Billion dollars worth of Atoms (Contra revenue) to prevent AMD from gaining marketshare with Jaguar. But thankfully AMD landed the contract for Xb1 & PS4 and used Jaguar for that, so the architecture became quite a bit more mainstream.
Then to make matters worse, Atom chips have a fatal flaw that makes their clocks break after ~2 years of service, causing them not to boot and basically to become doorstops. Most Atom's (and Celeron/Pentium N) are affected by this bug, even though its very hard for the average person to find where Intel has marked these bugs, since they aren't public about it (you won't easily find it around the net without searching the exact right keywords) and they are still selling all these Atom boards and laptops today w/ Celeron & Pentium N that are flawed and will break.

As far as thermal throttling:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3599511/8700-stock-cooler-question.html
^here is one such link talking about throttling but literally....
https://www.google.com/search?q=8700+stock+cooler+throttle

And oh look... plenty of threads scattered about with people having throttling issues under actual load!
Amazing what you can find if you actually put something into google.

The 8700 has a base clock speed way under that of the 8700k and when you are actually playing games, the chip will not stay at turbo speed the entire time. https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k
^Read about how the turbo actually works.

Therefore the performance of the 8700 in real world tasks isn't close to the 8700k, only in things like benchmarks where the turbo can outlast the benchmark (depending on the benchmark).

Hi.

It seems that the 8700K threads on throttling are related to one of three things: overclocking, glitchy BIOSes or poor quality VRMs. When it happens it ends up not being a CPU issue but a cheapskate mobo maker who didn't put in the time into the motherboard it made.

At least that's what I gleaned from the situation.

 

[Mackstrife]

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.

I'll save everyone looking at his profile. He works for Intel.

 

[Sausagemeat]

A statement can easily be both "factual" and an overstatement. Those two categories don't exclude eachother at all. Your post is a perfect example. In fact, when you take into account error margins of the benchmarks, the difference is probably absent entirely.

As for utmost performance, that may definitely be interesting to some. But in the light of the use you will get from a consumer processor with the "utmost performance", the diminishing returns hit very hard. What's the point in paying hundreds of dollars more for just a bit more of performance? It only makes sense if you have skewed priorities or need to get rid of money. Upgrading more quickly makes more sense then, besides being content with just a bit less performance.

We are both speculating about how much something is worth. I guess it depends on the final prices, how rich you are and how much you value tech. It’s subjective. What isn’t subjective is performance and it appears that with juese

I'll save everyone looking at his profile. He works for Intel.

Haha, if I actually worked for Intel I would be prohibited on making comments about their products. You’d know this if you understood the industry.

Just out of curioisty, what makes you think I do work for Intel? Nothing I have stated is factually inaccurate and my opinions are based on fact and are hardly irrational. Why don’t you try and challenge any of my facts or opinions?
.

 

[WolfMonster]

A near 2GHz boost? LOL!
This is Intel's answer to its fail 28 core 5GHz joke. It very well might hit on its i9 specs, but will require exotic cooling to do so.
Why do you need such a gap on boost speeds? Are we playing core count games, TDP games?
Something is up. Intel isn't going anywhere at there current tech level. Still a good chip, but Intel will charge their usual for its "top gun" which will be a throttling highly binned beast that will require exotic cooling on top.

Intel's FAILED 28 core joke (CPU was never meant for consumer use, cooling was custom AND extreme) did exactly what Intel wanted it to do, distract from AMD's 32 core 64 thread ThreadRipper. They knew what they were doing, they knew they'd be busted too, that wasn't the concern... Their end goal was to distract us from the AMD announcement of a 32 core, 54 thread CPU.

With that in mind, This i9-9900K "leak" is probably more about trying to upset AMD's gain on market share than it is about real performance.