Review: Core 9th Series 9900K, 9700K and 9600K Processors

Alright, thank you. I'm still happy with my 1080 too, and I only game at 1080p 60hz. Some games are coming down hard on my 2500k though, where I'm CPU bottlenecked and below 60 fps.

That's also something to consider. Maybe I should just get a 2700x now and upgrade later if something significantly better comes out while AMD is still on the current platform. Are the coolers that come with 2700x's sufficient if running at stock frequencies?

 

What a waste of money, Intel think they are the new apple. Two players is not enough we need a 3rd and a 4th.

 

It would give me 2 additional cores and +50% more CPU horsepower (with higher clock speeds) than what I have today and an additional +25% overhead if I were to manually overclock all cores.

Also probably worth mentioning is that by the time 8 cores even becomes relevant for modern games, a majority would have upgraded again anyway.

I much rather have that performance today and have the best experience and highest fps without compromise and 6 cores seems to be the sweet spot right now for gaming.

 

Perfect HH , we are merely visitors here . But ppl are hard to please . I remember last year ... all wanted 720p testing . Now ... " who games on that resolution " It's impossible to please everybody

 

I'm not sure why

Petr V
Joined: Aug 4, 2018
Messages: 41
Fukcs Received: 3


resulted in removing charts. That's a long way from the ignore button, and is conceding your power to a nitwit nobody. Those of us who know better don't complain about the charts. Those that don't, do. My thoughts anyhow.

 

People have been making that 'who games at '720' (mostly AMD fans) for years and for obvious reasons. It biases the results toward raw CPU power in which intel has had the advantage in IPC and clock speed. This makes AMD fans unhappy, so they demand removal of lower res benchmarks.

 

First people ask for 720p benchmarks (raw CPU power), but when it doesn't benefit their favorite CPU brand they want them gone?

 

To answer your question, yes. I built one for someone close to me and absolutely no problems with the wraith cooler at stock speeds. Not seen the pc downclock, case has reasonable airflow but otherwise nothing special, including during the summer just passed which was quite toasty.

 

It was kind of unrealistic and had minor meaning at times GPUs were not as strong as today. I'd say that with RTX 2080Ti on 1080p one is in similar scenario as were 720p tests 2 generations before.
And 2080Ti shows that difference very well on 1080p.

 

And the irony is, if you had both amd & intel systems playing side by side with no fps indicator showing you wouldn't even notice the difference!

Really can't wait to see what Zen 2 delivers in terms of ipc & clock speed gains.

 

I can tell difference between 110 and 150fps. 110 vs 130fps may be bit hard. But if I was to have each on screen side by side and had control over both, I would get pretty good scoring.
It is actually funny when you are used to high fps. For example, I did install new game which had fps reduced when game was not focused. And I was like: "Is that 2 fps?" No, OSD said 7. So I counted them and they really were.
Once used to higher fps, even 60fps is perceived as slow. You are consciously waiting for next refresh. But 100fps and more is very acceptable.

 

They are. But it's 2018 and there's not much of a gpu bottleneck for offline first person view games at 1080 if you are using a 1080TI or better. And honestly if there is a significant bottleneck with such a card at this resolution then they are overpriced a lot BTW my initial point was not to say testing the cpu in a non gpu bound test is not important (of course it is). Just that it's 2018 and that's pretty much what 1080p has become today. Pretty much any new cpu will be able to give playable performance at 1080p with a good enough card. So it's a good resolution to test the pure performance of the cpu when combined with a top of the line card and see if it can provides a stable 120+ fps. It also has the benefit to be a real gaming test (unlike 720p) because some people do have 120hz and 144hz 1080 monitor. But that's just my 2 cents it doesn't matter much and Hilbert is doing a great job he's one of the few i trust when i build a new pc.

 

That was part of my decision to go with AMD this time (i have been using Intel for like 15 years or so). I got burned the last time building a i5 computer that was not up-gradable (outside of i7 from the same gen) because Intel decided to support the socket for one generation of cpus only.

I'm an old middle aged man now and i don't want to build a new pc every 3 years. Installing a new cpu or a new gpu doesn't take much time. 15-20 minutes at most and if it doesn't work you know the new cpu or the gpu is at fault. When you build a brand new system if things go wrong it can be a nightmare. It takes time to buy all the new pieces and install them. Can waste an entire night if not an entire weekend if there's a problem.

So far i'm not disappointed. My MB supports Zen+ already and should even support Zen 2 according to what i've read. So i should be able to upgrade to Zen 2 along the road and keep having pretty good performance for a while.

 

Why are ppl crying about 720p results? Don´t look at it then, geesh...

 

I was one of your members asking for it and so I just wanted to reiterate how much I appreciate you adding it to your benchmarking process. I glance at other hardware reviews but guru3d is what I use to base my decisions on (I use other sites just to validate your data).

I won't comment on the obvious issue of GPU being a bottleneck for a CPU benchmark at high resolutions because you addressed that so well in your post.

I want to point out to the member you replied to that someone who bought a 2080 Ti or a 1080 Ti also likely doesn't want to buy the cheapest processor needed to get adequate performance at high resolutions. The typical purchaser of that type of GPU is probably not using that as their rationale. It is just as valid to state you don't need the best and most expensive GPU on the market to acceptably game at 1440P.

Also, you should consider that not everyone shares the same use case. I game on a 165 hz 1440P panel and clock frequencies are incredibly important for maintaining higher FPS. In addition to lower average FPS.. even more importantly, minimum FPS is typically significantly lower on AMD processors at 1440P.

Finally, the above member is essentially telling us that you should provide us less information simply because that member doesn't like what the information implies. I appreciate the fact that you do your best to provide all the data you can and to publish it fairly and as neutral as possible. You actually did publish 1440P benchmarks which do show that the 2700K is an acceptable option if budget conscious. Why does the above member believe you shouldn't also show benchmarks that exhibit the performance difference when not GPU constrained? I think we all know why...

Again. Thank you Hilbert. To the above poster, I'd like Hilbert to continue doing his best to provide us all the data points he can.. not just the ones that support your bias.

 

Hi! I have a question: should i upgrade my 6700k to a 9700k or should i wait till 10nm processors? Thanks!!!

 

^^ Wat!

 

if the 6700k already meets your needs, wait.
if you need a faster cpu get a new cpu.

 

Hilbert, why did you remove them? Those charts are useful datapoints. You include MANY synthetic non-gaming benchmarks that mean nothing to the vast majority of your members.

I find it hilarious that no one is complaining (Intel fanboys included) about those benchmarks that literally are meaningless "use cases" for the vast majority of your members but so many AMD fanboys are complaining about data points that DO have value simply because they make AMD processors look bad.

Hilbert, if you stop posting 720P CPU benches purely because AMD fanboys complain because it makes AMD processors look bad, you've lost me. I won't trust your site going forward because you will have made it clear you are curating your content to appease the most vocal complainers on this site versus doing what you did that drew me here and heir me here, giving us as much unbiased data as you can.

My two cents, very upset to read this post from you.

 

R5 1600 user here and i agree the 720p charts should remain to show the difference of cpu performance even if its a resolution that no one would use today. Thanks for the hard work Hilbert