Intel Core i9 9900K benchmark leaks: Roughly 25% faster than i7 8700K
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i9 9900K benchmark leaks: Roughly 25% faster than i7 8700K on our message forum
Seikon
my 8600k @5ghz has a cpu score in time spy of 6k ish , this 9900k must be running @ really low speed .
Why would AMD fans comment on this ? the 9900k will be 80%(i bet my hair ) more expensive then a 2700x , so go figure a more expensive CPU is faster then a cheaper one , who knew.
But don't worry ZEN2 next year will make the 9900k look like a relic , since i am pretty sure the 3700x will have 12 cores and will probably reach over 4.5ghz +increased IPC.
Still i can't wait to see the complains of users that will have problems with VRM temps with the 9700k and 9900k on cheaper board's when overclocking , since my 5ghz 8600k when running prime 95AVX makes my extreme 4 from asrock beg for airflow on the VRM , and that board has a decent VRM compared to a lot of motherboards even in the same price bracket.
airbud7
80% more expensive is still faster....its gonna take Zen 4 to catch this bad boy! 😀
Killian38
Sorry y'all. That was just me playing with renaming my threadripper. 3Dmark is such a lush.
warlord
Nah 9900K is gonna cost exactly 50% more than 2700X. It is quite interesting why somebody would pay 50% more for the same amount of cores/threads. Intel needs to prove gaming AND productivity superiority this time around.
narukun
2700X all the way!
warlord
nizzen said: ↑
Asus Apex z370 will OC 9900k to the moon 😀
warlord said: [URL='https://forums.guru3d.com/goto/post?id=5569126#post-5569126']↑
[/URL]
What then for its younger brother z390? OC to the sun without liquid??? You see your wrong argument there... 😉
If you say old mobo would be able to OC this new beast so much, upcoming Z390 would overclock it even better without so much need of temperature control as previous models. Beyond comparison.
Killian38
Ryzen2 doesn't even need a motherboard. Less money to spend on the next build! I'll put that money toward a fence to contain it!
oxidized
I guess a fatherboard will do then 😕
airbud7
a downclocked 9900K to 1.9GHz would tie a 2700x
5Ghz FTW!
mtduongcl1
I am just a random Internet bypasser, but reading your comment with this level of stupidity really made me want to vomit. Plus since you are a senior member, is all Intel fanboy like this... cannot understand facts?
2700X at best turbos to 4.35 GHz. This 9900k turbos at 4.7 or so to speak. Not 3.1 GHz at this bench, learn the definition of Turbo Clock.
Math alone gives it 10% more clock speed, plus Intel now has an IPC advantage of 10% on top of that, and this 9900k scores 15% higher than 2700X. The benchmark scales not very well with cores, so I even expect 9900k to be 20% more powerful, with like 50% more the price.
But then so what. With no 10 nm node until late 2019, what can Intel do with Zen 3, when AMD will rollout 7nm, which rumored/reported to have 10-15% IPC bump, and can reach 5 GHz, and will add more cores to the mainstream like...ie 3700X.
Just let this sink in: Intel is losing this battle, and this 9900k proves that the math for Intel defeat is correct.
schmidtbag
What do they have to comment on? Take AMD out of the equation entirely and unless Intel releases it for less than $500, this is still a stupid CPU to buy even in Intel's own lineup. The only interesting things about the 9900K is that it comes with solder and will work on socket 1151 (and even then, on select few chipsets). Otherwise, we pretty much already know how fast it is, and it'll likely be too expensive and too demanding on 1151 VRMs to be worth anyone's interest. If you want 8c/16t from Intel with good OC potential, go for socket 2066.
The 9700K, meanwhile, is actually interesting. I'm not saying it's a good product or worth buying (we don't know enough about it yet), but it's definitely interesting.
KodiaKSE
I'm ready to upgrade. 8700k to 9900K on a Z370 Apex SLI Lightning Z's .. Board should slay this new chip.
KodiaKSE
Intel needs a mainstream 8 core to compete with the 2700x. While its possible the chip could be $550 to $650. I think $400 to $450 is more realistic. the 7820x 8 core x299 chip is $469. I am thinking the 9900k will literally make that chip obsolete from the HEDT lineup and move 8 cores to mainstream consumer products. leaving the 10 cores as the starting point for x299 now. Hopefully for Intel this will be the bridge gap to getting 10nm efficiency up to par and whatever Intel is working on with Jim Keller behind closed doors to market. This chip looks to be a beast and I hope it's still soldered.
Robbo9999
For clarity's sake there's a mistake in the article, when comparing 9900K to 8700K performance it says: "That's 25% more cores, and 25% more CPU performance.". Actually, it's 33% more cores and 35% more performance.
Looking forward to the reviews of this CPU, this along with the 9700K will make great gaming CPUs I bet.
Ryrynz
These "gains" as you put it are due to the extra cores almost exclusively, also no idea on the price, it's an i9 not an i7 so I kinda don't like how you worded this.
Intel was forced to add more cores, we knew this would happen.. they had no reason to do otherwise until AMD got it's sh!t together.
Crazy Serb
You just kinda described this CPU for us. Games are still limited by main thread and people who can utilize more cores already have choices with more cores so if you expect an elephant I hope you will not get disappointed when you get mouse instead.
Matt26LFC
My 8700K does 5.3Ghz at 1.35v and I'll still buy probably buy a 9900K, I also have the Apex X so hoping it'll work in there, see no reason why it shouldn't, other than Intel just not wanting it to of course lol
alanm
The "gains" based on title wording. Yes due to added cores, but thats what we mostly go by now, multi-core performance. Expected price around $450. Typically a part like this would have gone for $1000.
Luc
I wouldn't recommend this CPU over a 8700K for gaming, as I don't recommend upgrading from ryzen1 to ryzen2 (as every web arround).
Gaming depends on IPC, speed and cache's sizes/latencys. If these remain the same, the only possibility to see an improvement in gaming depends on games that use eight cores, because Intel's physical cores are much stronger than hiperthreaded, if we see an improvement at all.
I'll wait for zen2/ryzen3 more secure/cheaper/faster/stronger chips for gaming/working.
Bye/;)
Ricepudding
Well more and more games are using more cores, specially if you only play the triple A titles, extra cores also means that games that use DRM won't be as hit as those with less cores AC origins was a good example of that. But you;re right the improvements will be small for gaming, specially if you're playing on 1440p+ where cpu gains count for a lot less.
One nice thing about this chip over the 8700k though is the rumour it will be soldered, making it much better for overclocking, life longevity and it should in theory run a lot cooler.
Though i recommend no one pre-orders it as we wait for reviews to see where it truely stacks up, and if its worth the price per performance
