be quiet Pure Loop 2 FX 280mm LCS review
HP FX900 1 TB NVMe Review
Scythe FUMA2 Rev.B CPU Cooler review
SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD Review
Corsair K70 RGB PRO Mini Wireless review
MSI MPG A1000G - 1000W PSU Review
Goodram IRDM PRO M.2 SSD 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
Posted by: on: 10/19/2018 03:00 PM [
314 comment(s) ]
In this review we take the new flagship mainstream processor for a test-drive, meet the premium Coffee Lake-S eight-core processor that has been discussed so abundantly lately. This little beast has eight cores, sixteen threads and gets turbo bins that reach 5.0 GHz. Pair it with a nice Z390 motherboard and you will be looking at mighty fine performance and a downright excellent gaming processor.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
intel,
Core i9 9900K processor review
pages « < 5 6 7 8 > »
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11573
Senior Member
Posts: 11573
Posted on: 10/19/2018 04:21 PM
Everyone knows at 4k+ that even a dual core i3 will not be the bottleneck in most cases.
Do you really need a review to show that all CPUs perform the same there?
1280x720??? 1920x1080??? Really? Did Intel suggest those resolutions to test it's top of the line chip? Who is going to buy a 9900K stick a 2080ti in the box and play ANY game at those resolutions? Wow. Where are the 4K gaming tests?
Everyone knows at 4k+ that even a dual core i3 will not be the bottleneck in most cases.
Do you really need a review to show that all CPUs perform the same there?
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 6282
Senior Member
Posts: 6282
Posted on: 10/19/2018 04:23 PM
Worth more than twice the price of the 2700X, I think not.
Worth more than twice the price of the 2700X, I think not.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 44306
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 44306
Posted on: 10/19/2018 04:27 PM
Intel did not suggest anything, and if they did I'd still do it my way.
Back in the days when I did not test 720p I got crap from readers for not posting them as that's where CPU scaling is visible. These days I do post them and I now get attitude for posting them? You guys requested it, and as such, it was implemented a long time ago. Ultra HD testing makes little sense, we'd be showing GPU limited performance e.g the CPU could go faster, the GPU is holding things back. That's the classic bottleneck. Go think a little more about to what you are actually seeing in the charts from 720p up to 1440p until you realize that what I am showing is the effect of raw CPU performance, not being restricted by a GPU.
1280x720??? 1920x1080??? Really? Did Intel suggest those resolutions to test it's top of the line chip? Who is going to buy a 9900K stick a 2080ti in the box and play ANY game at those resolutions?
Intel did not suggest anything, and if they did I'd still do it my way.
Back in the days when I did not test 720p I got crap from readers for not posting them as that's where CPU scaling is visible. These days I do post them and I now get attitude for posting them? You guys requested it, and as such, it was implemented a long time ago. Ultra HD testing makes little sense, we'd be showing GPU limited performance e.g the CPU could go faster, the GPU is holding things back. That's the classic bottleneck. Go think a little more about to what you are actually seeing in the charts from 720p up to 1440p until you realize that what I am showing is the effect of raw CPU performance, not being restricted by a GPU.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 3935
Senior Member
Posts: 3935
Posted on: 10/19/2018 04:28 PM
After reading the review for me the most interesting CPU is the 9700K, lots of performance for a "reasonable" price followed by the 9600K as a more budget oriented part. The 9900K offers great performance but the price difference between it and the 9700K is simply too much.
Too bad i don´t have the chance of buying one of those because Intel decided the Z170/270 boards can´t use them...
Great review as always!!
After reading the review for me the most interesting CPU is the 9700K, lots of performance for a "reasonable" price followed by the 9600K as a more budget oriented part. The 9900K offers great performance but the price difference between it and the 9700K is simply too much.
Too bad i don´t have the chance of buying one of those because Intel decided the Z170/270 boards can´t use them...
Great review as always!!
pages « < 5 6 7 8 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2494
I don't get it - what was Intel so afraid of? This is a pretty solid CPU (performance wise) in every category, what made them think they had to go through with all that shady business with PT?
The only thing that's especially crappy about this CPU is the price, which is the one thing Intel could easily change.
{bringing out that old saw}
because Marketing is in control at Intel.
imho, they don't care to listen to the engineers... who could say "i told you so" all day long about every aspect of the I-9 9900k.
and since they don't understand, they think they don't have a sexy story to tell.
but to most of us here, HH's test results are sex appeal enough.
but we are geeks.
the entire 9th gen (especially after a years delay) is a hard sell at the price, compared to AMD to the average consumer.
the avg. guy will go "moar cores, less money" and realize that they can now get a better gpu for the price differential or just save the money.