be quiet! Dark Rock PRO TR4 review
MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Gaming Z review
Palit GeForce RTX 2060 GamingPro OC review
Promo: MS Office 2016 Pro Plus Key For $31.5
Corsair IronClaw RGB mouse review
Corsair Harpoon RGB Wireless mouse review
Corsair M65 RGB ELITE game mouse review
GeForce RTX 2060 review (founder)
WD Black NVME SSD (1TB) Review
Seasonic Focus SGX-650 Power Supply review
Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
Posted by: on: 10/19/2018 02:00 PM [
318 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 1 2 3 4 > »
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:21 PM
The 9900K review, page 19, that´s unknown card for me...
Haven´t read all 3 reviews yet, but man that 9900K is doing good job.
Thanks again for the Reviews!
The 9900K review, page 19, that´s unknown card for me...
Haven´t read all 3 reviews yet, but man that 9900K is doing good job.
Thanks again for the Reviews!
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 6273
Senior Member
Posts: 6273
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:23 PM
excellent review....
I really like your final words ...>"I am liking that Core i5 9600K just for what you can achieve with it (gaming wise)"
Grrrrrrr......you just give me a big upgrade itch that I can't scratch off!...:p
excellent review....
I really like your final words ...>"I am liking that Core i5 9600K just for what you can achieve with it (gaming wise)"
Grrrrrrr......you just give me a big upgrade itch that I can't scratch off!...:p
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:26 PM
Well, 9900k is a weird CPU as far as I can tell.
Even in 720p benchmarks doesn't make it shine (pure CPU cap).
However Intel finally created a consumer CPU that doesn't lose to Ryzen in raw power. And overclock make the gap further.
So it could a good CPU for 144fps+ gaming AND content producing. We'll see how it gonna age.
Well, 9900k is a weird CPU as far as I can tell.
Even in 720p benchmarks doesn't make it shine (pure CPU cap).
However Intel finally created a consumer CPU that doesn't lose to Ryzen in raw power. And overclock make the gap further.
So it could a good CPU for 144fps+ gaming AND content producing. We'll see how it gonna age.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 15895
Senior Member
Posts: 15895
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:26 PM
9900k looks ok, but pricing.. oh well.. geizhaltz has them listed from 600€+, avg more around 700-750€.. lol good luck with that.
Like I said few times, Icelake or ryzen 2 for me. Maybe I'm leaning towards Icelake more because of ddr5, I know ryzen2 will still be ddr4.
9900k looks ok, but pricing.. oh well.. geizhaltz has them listed from 600€+, avg more around 700-750€.. lol good luck with that.
Like I said few times, Icelake or ryzen 2 for me. Maybe I'm leaning towards Icelake more because of ddr5, I know ryzen2 will still be ddr4.
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:35 PM
Why didn´t Intel release a 6c/12t version? Or upcoming later on?
Why didn´t Intel release a 6c/12t version? Or upcoming later on?
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 15895
Senior Member
Posts: 15895
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:36 PM
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
Why didn´t Intel release a 6c/12t version? Or upcoming later on?
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 6273
Senior Member
Posts: 6273
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:39 PM
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
Darkiee is in the dark....:p
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
Darkiee is in the dark....:p
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 8133
Senior Member
Posts: 8133
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:40 PM
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
I think it is because they need to sell a lot of chips which have goo under IHS.
It already did? 8700k.
It's the same architecture, it would be pointless to release the same CPU again under different name/number.
I think it is because they need to sell a lot of chips which have goo under IHS.
Netherwind
Senior Member
Posts: 6006
Senior Member
Posts: 6006
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:40 PM
Great review HH!
9900K looks nice but the price, damn! You can almost buy two Ryzen 2700X for that price. Let's hope that this is the last time we see Coffee Lake and that Intel sorts out it's problems with 10nm.
Great review HH!
9900K looks nice but the price, damn! You can almost buy two Ryzen 2700X for that price. Let's hope that this is the last time we see Coffee Lake and that Intel sorts out it's problems with 10nm.
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:41 PM
Riight, yh, i´m the dark...
Riight, yh, i´m the dark...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3509
Senior Member
Posts: 3509
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:52 PM
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.
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.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2537
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2537
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:53 PM
Hey thanks Hilbert.
Still i dont see a reason to upgrade yet.
Hey thanks Hilbert.
Still i dont see a reason to upgrade yet.
Srsbsns
Senior Member
Posts: 123
Senior Member
Posts: 123
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:53 PM
So from Hilbert's data 2700X vs 9900K the IPC is within 3%. The power usage of both CPUs at max load is essentially the same but AMD has much lower clocks. Looks like all AMD needs is 7nm to get clocks up?
So from Hilbert's data 2700X vs 9900K the IPC is within 3%. The power usage of both CPUs at max load is essentially the same but AMD has much lower clocks. Looks like all AMD needs is 7nm to get clocks up?
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 1892
Senior Member
Posts: 1892
Posted on: 10/19/2018 02:56 PM
I'm very happy that I waited for your 9600K review, it seems to be surprisingly good and it looks like I will once again have to put my Ryzen upgrade plans on ice.
I don't care about who manufactures the "best" CPUs or not as long as I can feed my 1080p (144hz) monitor and maintain high frames, but the 2700X just doesn't seem up for the task.
However Intel treating Hyper Threading (HT) as an exclusive, just doesn't make sense, but then again I don't render videos 24/7 for a living...
I'm very happy that I waited for your 9600K review, it seems to be surprisingly good and it looks like I will once again have to put my Ryzen upgrade plans on ice.
I don't care about who manufactures the "best" CPUs or not as long as I can feed my 1080p (144hz) monitor and maintain high frames, but the 2700X just doesn't seem up for the task.
However Intel treating Hyper Threading (HT) as an exclusive, just doesn't make sense, but then again I don't render videos 24/7 for a living...
swISS
Senior Member
Posts: 395
Senior Member
Posts: 395
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:02 PM
You seemed to have the temps fairly in check, even at 5.2. And yet der8auer findings is completely different. Hmm...
Different work loads, sure. I'm wondering if Roman made a mistake.
You seemed to have the temps fairly in check, even at 5.2. And yet der8auer findings is completely different. Hmm...
Different work loads, sure. I'm wondering if Roman made a mistake.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1366
Senior Member
Posts: 1366
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:03 PM
Pretty much what was expected; no surprises here. Good to finally see a real review.
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.
You just said it: the price. Intel knew a $500 price tag would be a tough sell (and that's not factoring in retailer price hikes) so they had to ham it up.
Pretty much what was expected; no surprises here. Good to finally see a real review.
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.
You just said it: the price. Intel knew a $500 price tag would be a tough sell (and that's not factoring in retailer price hikes) so they had to ham it up.
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:04 PM
The issue with 9600k is that it's not Hyper threaded. We already saw how short lived i5 with 4 threads. CPU intensive games like BF5 will overload them and cause lag spikes.
For gaming I will take Ryzen 2700x over 9600k, cause 2700x will be able to sustain frame rate, while 9600k might just drop a ball.
With games being more optimized for threads, it's too late for 9600k debut with shy 6 threads. Average FPS might be high, but you have to account for lag spikes.
Just my opinion.
I'm very happy that I waited for your 9600K review, it seems to be surprisingly good and it looks like I will once again have to put my Ryzen upgrade plans on ice
The issue with 9600k is that it's not Hyper threaded. We already saw how short lived i5 with 4 threads. CPU intensive games like BF5 will overload them and cause lag spikes.
For gaming I will take Ryzen 2700x over 9600k, cause 2700x will be able to sustain frame rate, while 9600k might just drop a ball.
With games being more optimized for threads, it's too late for 9600k debut with shy 6 threads. Average FPS might be high, but you have to account for lag spikes.
Just my opinion.
warezme
Senior Member
Posts: 164
Senior Member
Posts: 164
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:04 PM
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?
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?
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 771
Senior Member
Posts: 771
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:06 PM
hey Hilbert, idk where you find the time but a huge thank you. i love your methodology and detail.
the I-9 imho, is the only "winner" in this line-up and it's 10-15% overpriced (Intel always charges premium). there is no doubt we all should applaud AMD for forcing Intel to release a chip that honestly should've already been here last year.
the I-5 is in serious trouble and only because of Intel's market penetration will it sell. it is outclassed by Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 will be on the shelves by the time it hits its stride (distribution wise).
making things worse for the I-5, the Qualcomm 845 (10nm) is already in the market with the 850 (7nm) in production now for next year's models of laptops and phones. it will be the first mobile processor over 4mhz and it will equal the ipc of Intel's 8th gen...for far less money and far less power. the current Qualcomm laptops are only a proof of concept by comparison.
hey Hilbert, idk where you find the time but a huge thank you. i love your methodology and detail.
the I-9 imho, is the only "winner" in this line-up and it's 10-15% overpriced (Intel always charges premium). there is no doubt we all should applaud AMD for forcing Intel to release a chip that honestly should've already been here last year.
the I-5 is in serious trouble and only because of Intel's market penetration will it sell. it is outclassed by Ryzen+ and Ryzen 2 will be on the shelves by the time it hits its stride (distribution wise).
making things worse for the I-5, the Qualcomm 845 (10nm) is already in the market with the 850 (7nm) in production now for next year's models of laptops and phones. it will be the first mobile processor over 4mhz and it will equal the ipc of Intel's 8th gen...for far less money and far less power. the current Qualcomm laptops are only a proof of concept by comparison.
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Senior Member
Posts: 436
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:07 PM
There are WQHD results. It would nice to see more games tested on that resolution.
And i´m also perfectly fine with my 2700X.
There are WQHD results. It would nice to see more games tested on that resolution.
And i´m also perfectly fine with my 2700X.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3509
Senior Member
Posts: 3509
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:09 PM
Except price has never been an issue from Intel getting sales, and I'm sure Intel could've dropped the price by at least $50 without having supply issues. Intel themselves don't need the extra profit; they have more money than they know what to do with. As far as I'm concerned, shareholders are the only reason why Intel has this priced the way it is, but the irony is Intel lost shareholders by pulling that scheme with PT.
You just said it: the price. Intel knew a $500 price tag would be a tough sell (and that's not factoring in retailer price hikes) so they had to ham it up.
Except price has never been an issue from Intel getting sales, and I'm sure Intel could've dropped the price by at least $50 without having supply issues. Intel themselves don't need the extra profit; they have more money than they know what to do with. As far as I'm concerned, shareholders are the only reason why Intel has this priced the way it is, but the irony is Intel lost shareholders by pulling that scheme with PT.
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Senior Member
Posts: 4482
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:10 PM
Run games with Nvidia GTX1030 and you get those results. Why you want see GPU benchmarks in CPU benching, make your mind if you want GPU or CPU results.
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?
Run games with Nvidia GTX1030 and you get those results. Why you want see GPU benchmarks in CPU benching, make your mind if you want GPU or CPU results.
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 432
Senior Member
Posts: 432
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:12 PM
Problem with that is at 4K games are often GPU bound not CPU bound meaning the differences would be very close to 0-1%. 720p is one of the few places realistically to see CPUs not be bound by the GPU.
It's true that yeah no-one would run this at 720p and maybe not even 1080p, but there are 1440p results and you can see how much the fps in games diminishes should show you that at 4K it would diminish much further
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?
Problem with that is at 4K games are often GPU bound not CPU bound meaning the differences would be very close to 0-1%. 720p is one of the few places realistically to see CPUs not be bound by the GPU.
It's true that yeah no-one would run this at 720p and maybe not even 1080p, but there are 1440p results and you can see how much the fps in games diminishes should show you that at 4K it would diminish much further
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 432
Senior Member
Posts: 432
Posted on: 10/19/2018 03:13 PM
Nice Review HH
Do these CPU's work with the Z370 boards? or only 390... be interesting to know, Mind you the 9900k Is quite insanely priced, But the idea of having a soldered CPU again sounds nice
Nice Review HH
Do these CPU's work with the Z370 boards? or only 390... be interesting to know, Mind you the 9900k Is quite insanely priced, But the idea of having a soldered CPU again sounds nice
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 542
Thank you for the review
Now we wait for Asus z390 Apex to arrive.