Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Corsair Void RGB Elite Wireless Headset review
Team Group PD400 Portable SSD review
AMD Athlon 3000G review
Team Group T-Force Delta Max 1 TB SSD review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - November 2019
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore review
Toshiba RC500 500GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Core i7 9700K Results Spotted in Geekbench Database
Little is left to explain as to what the new Core i9-9900K and i7-9700K series processors will be and bring. Over the weekend i7-9700K results have been spotted at Geekbench.
Geekbench, the i7-9700K results have now been published, the cpu shows a single-core score of 6,297 and a multi-core score of 30,152. To compare a bit, the i7-8700K has a single and multi-core score of ~5,830 and ~24,450 points respectively. The Core i5-9600K, i7-9700K, and i9-9900K will likely officially launch in October.
It is expected that three new Intel processors in the 9000 series launch October 1st, the Core i9 9900K and i7 9700K. Intel's soon the be most high-end desktop processor the Core i9-9900K is the same 8-core part, yet now with HyperThreading enabled (16-threads). This processor has some interesting stuff, it can do 5.0 GHz on a single and dual-core turbo frequency. Also really interesting, it'll do a boost up to 4.7 GHz on all cores.
The Core i7 9700K is an eight-core and eight-thread processor (that's right no Hyperthreading) with a boost up to 4.9 GHz on one single-core. However, it can turbo at 4.6 GHz maximum on all cores. The Core i5 9600K is the 6 core 6 threaded part (no Hyper threading either) running 3.7 and 4.6 base /turbo frequencies.
Intel Core i7 9700K Spotted Overclocked on Z370 to 5.5 GHz - 08/26/2018 09:57 AM
Somewhere in Asia engineering samples of the pending Intel Core i 9000 series processors have surfaced. Someone grabbed a Core i7 9700K somehow and placed it into a Z370 motherboard with the latest ...
Intel 8 Core, 16 Thread Coffee Lake-S CPU Spotted Again - Lets call it a Core i7 8800K - 06/22/2018 09:49 AM
Well, we know it's coming, it's more a question of when? Intel has been working on a Coffee lake based 8-cores and a 16-threads processor for ages now. Yet still hasn't released it. Some had hoped ...
Unannounced Intel Core i7 8086K Spotted - 04/15/2018 04:38 PM
Yes, you read that right, an 8086 processor. So then, Intel might be planning a special processor to be released with the 40th anniversary of the 8086 processor?...
Retro review: Core i7 2600K Tested in 2018 - Time to upgrade? - 03/22/2018 09:09 AM
A much-seen comment in our forums is' I'll stick to my Sandy Bridge processor' for a while longer. Others ask, is it time to upgrade? Well, in today's article we hope to answer that question for y...
Intel Announces 8th Gen Core i7 Processor with Radeon Vega M Graphics - 01/08/2018 08:56 AM
Intel is launching a first-of-its kind processor: the 8th Gen Intel Core processor with Radeon RX Vega M Graphics. Packed with features and performance crafted for gamers, content creators and fans of...
warlord
Senior Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 2012-10-22
Senior Member
Posts: 2432
Joined: 2012-10-22
#5580853 Posted on: 09/03/2018 04:12 PM
Nope, 9700K is just much more efficient. Gaming wise it seems it will be also a superior choice. Less and more powerful threads. That is what we really want. After single threaded performance the most important factor is the distributed power between cores/threads.
I'm quite surprised to see such a clear win for the 9700K over the 8700K in this benchmark for the multi-threaded portion, because the 8700K has 12 threads vs only 8 for the 9700K, I thought that in multicore tests they would be closer to each other with maybe a very slight win for the 8700K. Maybe Geekbench doesn't use 12 threads effectively, like maybe there's a ceiling for the number of threads it can use, don't know?
Nope, 9700K is just much more efficient. Gaming wise it seems it will be also a superior choice. Less and more powerful threads. That is what we really want. After single threaded performance the most important factor is the distributed power between cores/threads.
Pimpiklem
Senior Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 2018-06-15
Senior Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 2018-06-15
#5580854 Posted on: 09/03/2018 04:12 PM
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6657
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 6657
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5580856 Posted on: 09/03/2018 04:17 PM
i7 8700k is what... 4.2 or 4.3 GHz on all cores
i7 9700k is 4.6 GHz @8-cores
i7 8700k is what... 4.2 or 4.3 GHz on all cores
i7 9700k is 4.6 GHz @8-cores
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1692
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1692
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5580858 Posted on: 09/03/2018 04:22 PM
9600K seems pointless compared to the other two. But I guess they need it for the full lineup.
9600K seems pointless compared to the other two. But I guess they need it for the full lineup.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5580865 Posted on: 09/03/2018 04:40 PM
I'm quite surprised to see such a clear win for the 9700K over the 8700K in this benchmark for the multi-threaded portion, because the 8700K has 12 threads vs only 8 for the 9700K, I thought that in multicore tests they would be closer to each other with maybe a very slight win for the 8700K. Maybe Geekbench doesn't use 12 threads effectively, like maybe there's a ceiling for the number of threads it can use, don't know?
Geekbench3 did not support SMT. Likely nothing changed with Geekbench4.
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
I think you missed the point in toothpaste. They made it with Ivy. Compare its thermals with Sandy...
Sandy @4,5GHz ~60-62°C under full load and all cores (with good air cooling). Maximum OC around 4,8-5,0GHz before thermals/power consumption was an issue.
That's for chips sold as 3,3~3,4GHz guaranteed once all cores are under load.
Ivy changed that. Not so easy, not so cool. Intel dropped toothpaste and went metal solder at time when toothpaste had too little thermal headroom. They would have trouble delivering those stock clocks with toothpaste.
And in this situation, they are risk-free from repeating another Sandy which lasted 5 years before stock CPUs started to outperform them.
Now you have chip with little OC headroom. And next chip can keep same clock, just improve IPC by 5% and it wins by that margin. Or they bump clock by 5%.
I'm quite surprised to see such a clear win for the 9700K over the 8700K in this benchmark for the multi-threaded portion, because the 8700K has 12 threads vs only 8 for the 9700K, I thought that in multicore tests they would be closer to each other with maybe a very slight win for the 8700K. Maybe Geekbench doesn't use 12 threads effectively, like maybe there's a ceiling for the number of threads it can use, don't know?
Geekbench3 did not support SMT. Likely nothing changed with Geekbench4.
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
I think you missed the point in toothpaste. They made it with Ivy. Compare its thermals with Sandy...
Sandy @4,5GHz ~60-62°C under full load and all cores (with good air cooling). Maximum OC around 4,8-5,0GHz before thermals/power consumption was an issue.
That's for chips sold as 3,3~3,4GHz guaranteed once all cores are under load.
Ivy changed that. Not so easy, not so cool. Intel dropped toothpaste and went metal solder at time when toothpaste had too little thermal headroom. They would have trouble delivering those stock clocks with toothpaste.
And in this situation, they are risk-free from repeating another Sandy which lasted 5 years before stock CPUs started to outperform them.
Now you have chip with little OC headroom. And next chip can keep same clock, just improve IPC by 5% and it wins by that margin. Or they bump clock by 5%.
Barry J
Senior Member
Posts: 2769
Joined: 2006-02-23
Senior Member
Posts: 2769
Joined: 2006-02-23
#5580868 Posted on: 09/03/2018 05:00 PM
I have my i7 8700k @ 4.9ghz all cores on air @ 1.35v for everyday use
I have my i7 8700k @ 4.9ghz all cores on air @ 1.35v for everyday use
reix2x
Senior Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 2010-01-20
Senior Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 2010-01-20
#5580870 Posted on: 09/03/2018 05:18 PM
3.5v on core? your heatspreader most be like a car on size jaja ( i suppose it is 1.5v)
I have my i7 8700k @ 4.9ghz all cores on air @ 3.5v for everyday use
3.5v on core? your heatspreader most be like a car on size jaja ( i suppose it is 1.5v)
GREGIX
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: 2004-09-20
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: 2004-09-20
#5580873 Posted on: 09/03/2018 05:23 PM
probably 1.35v
my sons 8700k runs 4.7Ghz 1.255v all day long so it is probably that.
probably 1.35v
my sons 8700k runs 4.7Ghz 1.255v all day long so it is probably that.
MK80
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 2017-09-11
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 2017-09-11
#5580878 Posted on: 09/03/2018 05:35 PM
probably 1.35v
my sons 8700k runs 4.7Ghz 1.255v all day long so it is probably that.
My 8700K runs 4.9Ghz 1.26 super stable...
probably 1.35v
my sons 8700k runs 4.7Ghz 1.255v all day long so it is probably that.
My 8700K runs 4.9Ghz 1.26 super stable...
Darksword
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2014-09-01
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 2014-09-01
#5580889 Posted on: 09/03/2018 05:48 PM
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
fabtech
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2018-08-30
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2018-08-30
#5580894 Posted on: 09/03/2018 06:02 PM
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
Yes this is indeed a nice single score, but not that great in Multicore. But I really do not like GeekBench, especially when you see some scores from mobile phones that can be as good as an i7 8xxx. I don't really rely on this Benchmark test, I prefer to see real benchmark like Cinebench, Blender, X264, X265, After Effects... they are more real life usage.
My best scores on GeekBench on single core is just 5244, and the Multithread score is just 39210. On Cinebench I get 182cb / 2316cb, Blender Ryzen Logo : 17 sec.
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
Yes this is indeed a nice single score, but not that great in Multicore. But I really do not like GeekBench, especially when you see some scores from mobile phones that can be as good as an i7 8xxx. I don't really rely on this Benchmark test, I prefer to see real benchmark like Cinebench, Blender, X264, X265, After Effects... they are more real life usage.
My best scores on GeekBench on single core is just 5244, and the Multithread score is just 39210. On Cinebench I get 182cb / 2316cb, Blender Ryzen Logo : 17 sec.
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 1005
Joined: 2016-08-01
Senior Member
Posts: 1005
Joined: 2016-08-01
#5580895 Posted on: 09/03/2018 06:03 PM
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
well multiply your score with 1.08 and you will see the diference is really between 8~9% .....so really will you even notice comparing to what you have ?
Those single core scores are making me jealous.
My 7820X @ 4.7Ghz only gets 5786/32375
well multiply your score with 1.08 and you will see the diference is really between 8~9% .....so really will you even notice comparing to what you have ?
OrdinaryOregano
Senior Member
Posts: 426
Joined: 2012-10-11
Senior Member
Posts: 426
Joined: 2012-10-11
#5580902 Posted on: 09/03/2018 06:34 PM
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
"We don't need solder"
Yeah no that's not what they said. They published a paper that said Solder has a chance of cracks and that means it can break within the warranty period and... a company shipping millions of processors has to account for the number of processors it will have to replace, the defect %
Now whether it was actually something that ended up mattering is a different matter but don't misrepresent the argument with populist sentiments.
All these years Intel saying paste is fine we dont need solder.
Lets see if they apologise and admit they were mistaken and man up.
Lets see if they deserve any respect and admit when they are wrong.
Lets just see.
"We don't need solder"
Yeah no that's not what they said. They published a paper that said Solder has a chance of cracks and that means it can break within the warranty period and... a company shipping millions of processors has to account for the number of processors it will have to replace, the defect %
Now whether it was actually something that ended up mattering is a different matter but don't misrepresent the argument with populist sentiments.
JOHN30011887
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2014-10-26
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2014-10-26
#5580912 Posted on: 09/03/2018 07:12 PM
Im defo switching my 8700k for the 9700k
Aslong as it performs same or better than what iv got then im happy, cause the 8700k gets stupid hot in some games and i dont ever want water cooling
Im defo switching my 8700k for the 9700k
Aslong as it performs same or better than what iv got then im happy, cause the 8700k gets stupid hot in some games and i dont ever want water cooling
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1348
Joined: 2012-10-07
I'm quite surprised to see such a clear win for the 9700K over the 8700K in this benchmark for the multi-threaded portion, because the 8700K has 12 threads vs only 8 for the 9700K, I thought that in multicore tests they would be closer to each other with maybe a very slight win for the 8700K. Maybe Geekbench doesn't use 12 threads effectively, like maybe there's a ceiling for the number of threads it can use, don't know?