Intel Core i9 9900K benchmark leaks: Roughly 25% faster than i7 8700K

just saying

crank up the rez with a new 1080ti....we're all equal then

 

Yep. This is a great chip for people who are spending $450+ on a CPU so they can run games at 720p. Even at 1080p we hit very similar frame caps on every CPU from the Ryzen 1600 up, and at 1440p and up you see basically no gain at all.

It's why I am still rocking a 4 year old i7 4700k - I upgraded to a 1080ti last year, and I only get below 60fps on the most extreme games at 2560x1080 (Acer Z35). There's just not enough gain to be worth upgrading, especially as the top-end chips slowly get more expensive. I wouldn't recommend getting anything more expensive than a 2600x or i5 8400 for gaming. Save the $200 and put it towards something else instead.

 

I'm guessing the heat-spreader is gonna be soldered on these new puppies so expect even higher price than normal.

 

Maybe its time to upgrade to timespy extreme? Its made for high core CPUs. We can then accurately compare Threadripper against the i9 9900k.

 

I smell that they'll not be even in same price category for comparison to be considered sane. But I smell something else too:
"But it's over 9000."

"Accurately" in there means, comparing few specific instructions at certain ratio "ex Futuremark" used to code it. Performance of Instructions which are not much used there (or at all) will not show any impact. That's what Geekbench is for. (If Accurately is what you are looking for.)

 

33% more cores and 25% more performance talks 6% lower turbo clocks for all cores turbo, lets talk about temps and power draw where these numbers?

greetings!

 

It's actually 33% more cores & 35% more performance based on the Timespy CPU test scores between 8700K and 9900K - the % figures in the article are incorrect (someone did the maths wrong!).

 

this is a nice cpu. this is no doubt the acme of the 14nm process.
it will be mandatory for e-sports, but has a very limited life otherwise, simply because it will be price competitive with the threadripper 2950x.
the 2950x will blow it out of the water @ 125(ish) wpc.
i've been present during the benching of an engineering sample and preliminary numbers are better, final version to be even better.

 

i like the fact free humor.
the fact of the matter is quite simply "waste of time" is in the eye of the beholder. and ya'know...financials do not lie.
we are all enthusiasts here, so i understand where you're coming from (i have a gtx 1080ti). but the reality is very different. AMD has been doing an old Intel trick (tick-tock)
Zen 2's already been optimized and process shrunk (Zen, Zen +) while Intel is still re-optimizing their process.
this is not hating on Intel, it is the truth.

 

Be interesting to see how this reactionary thing by Intel will behave on a stock cooler... At least Ryzen can reach decent clocks with a Wraith.

 

These numbers are coming when the cpu are released. What do you think?

 

What is stock cooling?

 

it's not going to cost that much....9900k is a mainstream 8-core CPU.

The Core i9-9900K looks set to be the fastest mainstream desktop CPU

 

Thats it? For the price thy will charge..

 

Cooling which is designed for TDP of given heat producing device.
So, if CPU is officially designed to produce 125W under default full load, then it is cooling solution designed to dissipate heat produced by 125W Device like CPU.

I bet you heard about intel's TDP and SDP. And I expect you to know difference between those values and real world behavior of their chips. It is quite day and night difference once compared to AMD. Because for AMD 95W TDP APU/CPU does anything to stay within that limit. It will downclock/enter empty cycles if needed. But TDP for them is maximum, that's how they behave for very long. One needs MB with BIOS capable to change this limit, otherwise OC may produce little to no positive results.

Intel... don't even get me started about overshooting.

@BLEH! certainly expected those chips coming w/o boxed cooler. And likely knew about thermal behavior too.

 

the question is what will the price be, if its priced as high as the skylake-x cpus, I dont know if you can still call it "mainstream" , you can find x299 boards for ~$200usd, sometimes less, which makes it much less appealing imo.

 

I think around $379/$399 ...but yea, if it cost as much as a threadripper/ well that's a no-brainer.

 

Yea^....Agree.... https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/guru3d-pc-buyers-guide-summer-2018,1.html

 

I only game and browse, still on 1080p @60z, I have zero intention of upgrading my 3770k @4.5, 16gb ram, Samsung evo SSD.... almost 5 years now, the only thing I'm interested in at the moment is a new graphics card and monitor, and Zen2 in a couple of years time!?

 

So it's clocking somewhere around the region of 8700k it seems. Not a bad 8-core. Wouldn't change platform for it tho since negligible improvement with most likely higher power usage numbers.

I won't even guess on what AMD can do with Zen2. If they get clocks as high as intel we could see parity in gaming. Else nope.

The damn cpu for sure ain't running 3.5ghz in the tests here Intel wouldn't suddenly improve their IPC by that much lol.