Far Cry New Dawn PC graphics performance benchmark review
WD Black SN750 NVME SSD (1TB) Review
Battlefield V: DLSS PC Performance Update
Metro Exodus: PC graphics performance benchmarks
Team Group Delta S TUF RGB SSD Review
T-Force Delta TUF Gaming RGB Memory Review
AMD Radeon VII 16 GB review
DeepCool Captain 240 PRO review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2019
Combo deal: Office 2016 Pro and W10 for $34
Intel Core i9-9900K 5GHz with Cinebench R15 test
It looks like Intel is seeding the new 9000 series processors like candy, well to some at least. A new video surfaced on youtube where a Core i9-9900K at 5GHz processor has been tested. This one holds a CB15 score.
Cinebench 15 is of course 'the benchmark' that is easy to run. The proc scores a nice 2000+ points. Not bad at all. The Core i9-9900K is an eight-core proc with 16 threads. The video is from
Intel Core 9x00 Processor Prices Listed at Singapore Distributor - 09/12/2018 07:22 AM
We've seen some early price leaks on the Core i5 and i7 9000 series processors a couple of times already, however things are starting to solidify a bit more as distributor BizGram in Singapore is li...
AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K? - 09/10/2018 01:42 PM
Do you remember when Ryzen 2000 (Zen+) launched with the flagship processor being the Ryzen 7 2700X? We all felt that was a little weird, as the previous generation had a Ryzen 7 1800X. In my 2700X re...
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 ...
ASRock's 300 series motherboards now support Intel Core 9000 series processor - 08/09/2018 04:09 PM
Last but not least, ASRock's 300 series motherboards now support the new support Intel Core 9000 series processor family. via new BIOS update. they also confirm the 8-core processor....
Shuttle Launches 1.3-litre XPC Barebone DH310 PC for 8th-gen Intel Core processors - 08/03/2018 08:08 AM
Following the launch of the first XPC cube for Intel’s latest processor generation, now the product family of XPC slim Mini-PCs in a 1.3-litre format welcomes a new member....
MK80
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 2017-09-11
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 2017-09-11
#5584574 Posted on: 09/14/2018 05:34 PM
1.248V idle and 1.28V full stress cineb???
1.248V idle and 1.28V full stress cineb???
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8545
Joined: 2006-10-29
Senior Member
Posts: 8545
Joined: 2006-10-29
#5584580 Posted on: 09/14/2018 05:47 PM
That same score of CBR15 of 2166 points i have done it at a mere 4654Mhz on my Ryzen 2700x
, so this is not looking good lol , http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz = i9 9900K at 5000Ghz :p
That same score of CBR15 of 2166 points i have done it at a mere 4654Mhz on my Ryzen 2700x
, so this is not looking good lol , http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz = i9 9900K at 5000Ghz :p
las
Senior Member
Posts: 125
Joined: 2013-03-18
Senior Member
Posts: 125
Joined: 2013-03-18
#5584585 Posted on: 09/14/2018 05:57 PM
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
That same score of CBR15 of 2166 points i have done it at a mere 4654Mhz on my Ryzen 2700x , so this is not looking good lol , http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz = i9 9900K at 5000Ghz :p
, so this is not looking good lol , http://hwbot.org/submission/3935111_ Ryzen 2700x at 4654Mhz = i9 9900K at 5000Ghz :pi9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5584586 Posted on: 09/14/2018 05:57 PM
^ Gotta be throttling back because of the heat then. I mean 5 GHz on 8 cores on that size of chip, even with solder, is some going.
Edit: Oh it wasn't OC to 5 GHz on all cores then, my bad (miss read it)
^ Gotta be throttling back because of the heat then. I mean 5 GHz on 8 cores on that size of chip, even with solder, is some going.
Edit: Oh it wasn't OC to 5 GHz on all cores then, my bad (miss read it)
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8545
Joined: 2006-10-29
Senior Member
Posts: 8545
Joined: 2006-10-29
#5584595 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:05 PM
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
So by your statement i9 9900K at 4.7Ghz = Ryzen 2700x at 4.6Ghz
, i smell a little fanboyism based on your choice of words lol
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
So by your statement i9 9900K at 4.7Ghz = Ryzen 2700x at 4.6Ghz
, i smell a little fanboyism based on your choice of words lol
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5584598 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:07 PM
^ That would mean the IPC are about the same!
Come on AMD I want Zen 2 NOW!
^ That would mean the IPC are about the same!
Come on AMD I want Zen 2 NOW!
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5584600 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:09 PM
Doesn't the video show 5 GHz across all cores?
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Doesn't the video show 5 GHz across all cores?
Paulo Narciso
Senior Member
Posts: 1207
Joined: 2007-02-21
Senior Member
Posts: 1207
Joined: 2007-02-21
#5584604 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:17 PM
Curious about the price of these. I want to upgrade my haswell. Also wanted to give a chance to AMD, but the upgrade would cost me more with AMD and it's slower.
Curious about the price of these. I want to upgrade my haswell. Also wanted to give a chance to AMD, but the upgrade would cost me more with AMD and it's slower.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5584607 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:21 PM
?? Do you live in an alternate universe, AMD dearer than Intel?
Curious about the price of these. I want to upgrade my haswell. Also wanted to give a chance to AMD, but the upgrade would cost me more with AMD and it's slower.
?? Do you live in an alternate universe, AMD dearer than Intel?
Paulo Narciso
Senior Member
Posts: 1207
Joined: 2007-02-21
Senior Member
Posts: 1207
Joined: 2007-02-21
#5584609 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:24 PM
A 2700x cost 30 Euros less than 8700k, MB is about the same, but ryzen need faster Ram, b-die samsung cost 80 Euros more, my existing archon sb-e x2 is not am4 compatible, so more 60 for a new good cooler.
A 2700x cost 30 Euros less than 8700k, MB is about the same, but ryzen need faster Ram, b-die samsung cost 80 Euros more, my existing archon sb-e x2 is not am4 compatible, so more 60 for a new good cooler.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5584615 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:29 PM
Oh I see your problem. The 2600X would make more sense on a purely cost basis then. (I know the 8700K is better performance wise because of it's OC'ing ability, mind you a delid maybe required!)
Oh I see your problem. The 2600X would make more sense on a purely cost basis then. (I know the 8700K is better performance wise because of it's OC'ing ability, mind you a delid maybe required!)
maur0
Senior Member
Posts: 739
Joined: 2009-07-25
Senior Member
Posts: 739
Joined: 2009-07-25
#5584616 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:37 PM
is same result compared to 2 x xeon e5-2670
is same result compared to 2 x xeon e5-2670
neikosr0x
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 2014-04-04
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 2014-04-04
#5584618 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:38 PM
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
did you took your time to at least check the screens or the video? The 8 cores were running at 5ghz all the time as reported on CPU-Z all cores were boosting to 5ghz stable. The only scenario where the i8700k beats the R2700x is gaming at 1080p. You can compress faster on the i8700k but thats it.
i9-9900K stock is only 5 GHz on a single core. Meaning it's running 4.7 GHz in CineBench, all core clock.
Wait till people are running this chip at 5.2-5.4 on all cores. You'll see much higher CB results + 230-240 ST result. Ryzen is 180ish here. Big part of why gaming perf is so bad on Ryzen. Single thread performance is on Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge level.
CineBench does not represent real world usage. 8700K already destroys 2700X in most workloads and especially gaming. Even i5-8600K shits on 2700X in games.
Besides, 4650 MHz on Ryzen is hardly 24/7 stable.
did you took your time to at least check the screens or the video? The 8 cores were running at 5ghz all the time as reported on CPU-Z all cores were boosting to 5ghz stable. The only scenario where the i8700k beats the R2700x is gaming at 1080p. You can compress faster on the i8700k but thats it.
illrigger
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2017-02-16
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2017-02-16
#5584625 Posted on: 09/14/2018 06:48 PM
Nothing really surprising here. I'd like to see what cooling solution they used - nothing less than a 360mm CLC, probably would be pushing that pretty hard to get an 8-core 5GHz clock on what is essentially optimized Kaby Lake cores.
And then there's the price. They wouldn't have renamed what was the i7 to i9 if they weren't planning a price hike. I wouldn't expect these to retail for less than $450, and I am leaning towards closer to $500.
Nothing really surprising here. I'd like to see what cooling solution they used - nothing less than a 360mm CLC, probably would be pushing that pretty hard to get an 8-core 5GHz clock on what is essentially optimized Kaby Lake cores.
And then there's the price. They wouldn't have renamed what was the i7 to i9 if they weren't planning a price hike. I wouldn't expect these to retail for less than $450, and I am leaning towards closer to $500.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6970
Joined: 2014-09-27
Something like this will be what most people would get for a powerful rig, but it still has that desperation aftertaste.
If AMD decides that their 7nm building block is 12 or 16 core for Zen 2, this will be more or less DOA for people with common sense (ie, people without 144Hz displays. Also, people with 144Hz displays, I hope you realize that they are not for generalized use).