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

I only wanted to comment or vote to keep the 720p benchmarks. For me it is an important guage of unhindered CPU performance when the GPU is nearly unlimited - EG future GPUs or multi-GPU or DX12 mGPU support.

Those 720p results are a very VALID measure of raw potential gaming performance based on the above scenarios. It does help users to determine where to spend their money as a long term investment... look at those 2600K guys to see a valid consumer base... and I would hate to see this critical data set removed.

For those who wants to compare CPU at "useable" resolution, its still there. We can have both as a win win for all enthusiasts and consumers.

 

This^

More information is power to the consumer.

 

720p clearly isn't the lowest you can go, if you want it to be as cpu bound as possible why not 1024x768, then why not 800x600 , but even then we can go lower, why not 640x480, (you see it ends up being silly since 1080p is already cpu bound.)

obviously we need hilbert to add quake 3 arena at 640x480, to truly see the maximum possible framerate, ITs THE ONLY TRUE GAMING CPU TEST!

(*this post is meant to convey _sarcasm_)

 

No direct comparison with the 9600k to the 8600k...left out of the charts. Not surprising as it looks to perform about the same (going by my own 8600k performance). Still, seems strange you'd avoid including the 8600k in all the charts alongside the 9600k

 

Hi Hilbert,
Nice in depth reviews as always.
Is it possible for you to test the core i9 9900k with an z370 board? Possibly with thermal imaging of the vrm section down the road.
I am sure owners of Z370 boards (myself also) would like to know how they perform on them if they want to upgrade their cpu when or if prices come down.

 

A variety of subjective tests to try and create an overall picture, and adding/removing benchmarks based on what you think will help best depict that is key to any decent review of hardware, given that there is no standardised best practice. "Biased and misleading" is extremely accusatory to the hardworking guy, and particularly inclusion or exclusion of subjective data does not actually equal "will post biased and misleading benchmarking numbers". Changing the test setup may change the picture slightly, but little to see given the same differences are visible at 1080p. I agree that 720p still has its place to see what unbound hardware can do, probably for another generation or two, but perhaps games with heavier CPU use, like a large Civ 6 map (someone suggested this before) or a new game that supports 16 threads to see what we can expect when maxing out the cpu might also give some insight given how hardware is moving to cores rather than IPC improvements (using HH's own graphs).

 

you went full retard.

Below 720p or 900p or whatever depending on the game, there will be no difference in FPS, cause CPU is already capped.
You saw difference between 1080p and 720p cause GPU did affect performance.

Enjoy your 1080p GPU cap below (poor GTX1080 couldn't handle it):
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,23.html

 

Dude check the database! ....8600k is a bad azz MOFO!
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_8600k_processor_review,19.html
my Pentium 4 is not there either ...J/K....

PS: 8600k is identical to 9600k...why would he waste his time doing that?

Only the 8-core/16 thread processors is/are new.
Much like Sandy Bridge vs. Ivy Bridge with more cores....the only thing that can beat the 8700k is a 9900k.


AMD CPUs are considered a budget cpu...8 slow cores for $199...hard to beat,,,,Phenom days any one?

 

was not supposed to be serious , someone is eating onions

i will add _sarcasm_ to all future sarcastic posts

 

It's ok, cut your losses while you can

 

btw i just did a quick fps test with quake 3, fps decreases from 640x480 - 1280x960 linearly, despite being "cpu bottlenecked" i admit this is likely due to some of the effects being done on the cpu, but the point is it does scale.

would probably make for a good test for cpu scaling lmao.


(I think cpu bottlenecks at various resolutions, needs further investigation. it may not be so cut and dry )

 

U
Ubisoft and Activision will never abandon a quad core processor ....you people are crazy!


A Core i3-8350K CPU will kick the sh&t out of any amd processor @ Gaming!....regardless of resolution or graphics card!

why would they ever code a game that a Fast quad-core processor would not work for?
good grief y'all

and yes an intel 6 core will beat the crap out of your amd counterpart

get over it AMD fanboys! ....You got budget slow stuff!

 

if you don't have money for the best stop complaining!

slow is slow and fast is fast regardless of budget.

 

a brand new 2700X will never ever catch a 9900k and they are both 8/16!

Why is that? ...where are the AMD Fanboys now?

 

I think I need to bow out now! ....

my friend list just went down!....

 

You got 1440p and fps are already head to head, so make your math and guess what will happen @4k.

720p and 1080 are interesting coz you put the load on the CPU and not the gpu, so you see how fast each CPU is compared to the other ones. Not a real world test, but a test after all.

 

Nice review.

1. I get why people using 720p tests, but Im now fan of them. 1080p chart is plenty enough and it has real use. But hey, in my country the even do tests in DOSBox.
2. People are acting, like you cannot play on 2700x. The thing is you really can and pretty well. If you have 144Hz+ and 1080p res monitor, you should probably choose intel and that is fine. But with higher res, there is not that much the difference, is it worth up to 200+$?

aand there are people that need the best of the best (my son-in-law) no matter cost. Its probably connected with e-value thing

 

That's the thing. Not one of those intel's 9xxx CPUs is worth it over 2700X for me. Why? 9900K is too costly for that kind of upgrade. Rest have no HT (SMT) which I consider important now. So, I either overpay a lot, or I sacrifice productivity for gaming. (That being said, Since I have Freesync screen and AMD's card which is not exactly powerful... I am currently not in position to gain much from intel's CPU anyway.)
...I understand why 8700K now looks very attractive to many.

Btw. did anyone consider it funny that AMD took gaming seriously enough to release "Gaming Mode" for TR platform and is about to release new local mode in Ryzen Master next week? I mean, they seriously look at it.
So... 6 months from now when there are 7nm CPUs and GPUs, there may be something to check as meaningful upgrade.

 

Why your incessant sh*tposting is somehow accepted as the innocent musings of a lovable drunk on this site is beyond my comprehension.