I9 9900k Official Reviews from Anandtech, Tomshardware. Add your own links to others !

[french toast]

Until EMIB arrives though...

Intel looks like it is going to release 8 core "mobile" parts. So the IGP will be useful there.

This is not a discussion about igpu and their usefulness in general...this is about a ~$600 enthusiast desktop CPU.

 

[jpiniero]

This is not a discussion about igpu and their usefulness in general...this is about a ~$600 enthusiast desktop CPU.

It's gotta share with the eventual mobile parts though.

 

[SirDinadan]

The reason their highest end consumer chip has an iGPU is because every other chip is cut down from it. From the 8+2(8 CPU cores + GT2 GPU core) they make 6+2, 4+2, 2+2, and 2+1.

While cutting to make a smaller chip is easier than making a bigger one, they still need to justify the existence of such a chip. That market will be a lot smaller. If you are suggesting they make a 10+0 chip, it won't happen without having a 10+2 chip and you'll complain again. They'll not consider making an iGPU-less die because the effort and cost involved is greater than having it in.

Of course I know this, but this doesn't make my statement misguided. Yes, Intel is making one chip and the huge die space where the IGP resides is good for nothing - just for trouble shooting, 2D raster and video encoding.

Many people are out there that wants and/or needs the fastest GPU without needing a discrete GPU. iGPUs are perfect for them. If they take out the iGPU then it'll be artificially locking such markets out.

Again, how does this make sense? Once again, we are talking about 300$+ CPUs, not low-cost budget builds or office PCs. If you want to use 3D in any meaningful way, you will buy a dedicated GPU.
The same UHD 630 is inside the i9-9900K and the i3-8000. A sub-100$ GT 1030 with GDDR5 is running circles around it.

On a positive note, the DXR samples are running without trouble on Intel Graphics, that cannot be said about AMD ...

 

[french toast]

It's gotta share with the eventual mobile parts though.

The 9900k is going into mobile? Really??...it is going to to be one of those mid 90s laptop affairs.
And EMIB? Where does that fit in here?...

Edit; Besides the igpu is not a selling point for the product called ' i7 9900k '...which is what the poster was saying, of course understand why the igpu is on the die in the first place, just it's irrelevance to this product and this discussion.

 

[jpiniero]

The 9900k is going into mobile? .

As I said, Intel is going to ship 8 core Coffee Lake Refresh parts.

 

[french toast]

As I said, Intel is going to ship 8 core Coffee Lake Refresh parts.

Fair enough, but that is besides the point entirely, you are never going to use the igpu on a 9900k..so it adds next to zero value.
Which is the context of was mentioned in.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I have to say that the issue of PL2 power/voltage settings varying based on board has made reviewing 9th-gen Intel chips a nightmare. It seems to be strange that jacking up the PL2 settings to 200+W does very little for the default performance of the 9900k while still greatly increasing power usage.

If we really want good power measurements for this chip, we need two serieseseses (?!?) of tests: one showing the chip operating at clockspeeds from 4.7 GHz on up to 5.2 GHz (or higher) with the same fixed voltage required for the top clockspeed tested, and then another with vcore tuned to the lowest stable possible for any given clockspeed (same clocks, just tuned voltages). Because right now, we are getting highly-variant performance and power consumption for the chip, just based on the motherboard.

Also I am a little surprised by the number of people trying to compare the 9900k to first-gen TR CPUs when TR2 is on the market and doesn't cost that much except for the WX chips.

Finally, good luck buying the 9900k, since it's OoS everywhere except eBay. It will be awhile before we can get more tests run with actual retail samples instead of golden review samples.

 

[Zucker2k]

I am sorry but this whole post is complete nonsense...when you are bigging up a ~$600 processor about being 'pregnant with an igpu' that it is the 'icing on the cake' and 'creams everything' ...needing 'expensive fuel'...
Honestly...

You make it sound funnier than it actually is, but yeah, it depends on which side of the fence one is sitting. A sizable amount of these chips are going to be used for all kinds of scenarios outside of gaming. Some are also going to be used for gaming - old titles, online games, and thousands of others that don't require a GTX 2080. You can downplay this all you want but the value of an igp cannot be ignored. People can build these systems and use them for day to day tasks without spending a cent on a graphics card. That's value.

 

[AtenRa]

I would like to see a review with Ryzen R7 2700X + B450 motherboard with the default HSF vs the Core i9 9900K with a 95W TDP HSF + B360 motherboard.

 

[Zucker2k]

Fair enough, but that is besides the point entirely, you are never going to use the igpu on a 9900k..so it adds next to zero value.
Which is the context of was mentioned in.

This is not true. Other members have pointed out the usefulness of an igp outside mainstream gaming, but you insist it has "zero value." Are you suggesting everybody who buys this chip is going to use it for gaming?

 

[french toast]

This is not true. Other members have pointed out the usefulness of an igp outside mainstream gaming, but you insist it has "zero value." Are you suggesting everybody who buys this chip is going to use it for gaming?

Not necessarily, but I also imagine a discrete GPU would be part of your $1500+ PC....even if it is an old one from a previous rig or a low end one.

It has some value, like the bundled cooler that can hit all turbo's with the 2700x ....I wonder why intel didn't bung a free appropriate cooler in?

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Buying a 9900k for day to day use, sans GPU, and that's somehow value?
A 9900k for day to day use.
Think about that.
£600 for a day to day use CPU.
Value?
I'm gonna guess that you live in Canada. Reasons.

 

[french toast]

Buying a 9900k for day to day use, sans GPU, and that's somehow value?
A 9900k for day to day use.
Think about that.
£600 for a day to day use CPU.
Value?
I'm gonna guess that you live in Canada. Reasons.

He needs a beefy CPU but only a igpu because he wants to play Tetris at 600fps while streaming.

 

[Zucker2k]

Not necessarily, but I also imagine a discrete GPU would be part of your $1500+ PC....even if it is an old one from a previous rig or a low end one.

It has some value, like the bundled cooler that can hit all turbo's with the 2700x ....I wonder why intel didn't bung a free appropriate cooler in?

Same reason the 1800x didn't come with one maybe?

 

[french toast]

I would like to see a review with Ryzen R7 2700X + B450 motherboard with the default HSF vs the Core i9 9900K with a 95W TDP HSF + B360 motherboard.

LOL..yes please.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Whilst Canada is cold, one cannabis smoking 9900k user isn't going make the winters any warmer. Two though...global warming.

 

[Markfw]

Did any reviewer check SSD performance of 9-series vs 8-series and if the mentioned hardware fixes bring it back up again?

Off-topic

 

[epsilon84]

I would like to see a review with Ryzen R7 2700X + B450 motherboard with the default HSF vs the Core i9 9900K with a 95W TDP HSF + B360 motherboard.

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-cpu-test/2/

Well, computerbase.de actually tested the 9900K at the 95W TDP limit as well. Overall application performance goes down 8%. I actually think there is merit at running the 9900K at this setting if you are worried about thermals. An 8% reduction in performance for a ~50% drop in power consumption is a good result in terms of performance/watt.

Anyhow, performance figures with the 9900K (stock) normalised to 100%:

9900K (stock) 100%
9900K @95W 92%
2700X (stock) 82%
9700K (stock) 81%

So the 9900K still has a sizeable gap, even limited to 95W power setting, compared to the 2700X and 9700K.

The 'good news' for gamers is that gaming performance is virtually untouched at the 95W limit, going down 1% overall. This is probably what I would suggest for people without strong cooling (lets say a 100W rated HSF) that is using the 9900K predominantly as a gaming CPU but with the occasional productivity workload thrown in.

 

[epsilon84]

Also I am a little surprised by the number of people trying to compare the 9900k to first-gen TR CPUs when TR2 is on the market and doesn't cost that much except for the WX chips.

Because some reviewers are comparing the 9900K to the first gen TR chips like the 1920X, and the overall performance is comparable? It's not like the 2950X wasn't used in comparison as well, but at $900 I don't think it's exactly directly comparable to the 9900K.

The 2920X, which is supposed to be $650 and thus the most comparable 2nd gen TR chip to the 9900K, hasn't actually been officially launched.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

So you need +70% power to get that extra 8-9%...?
In the real world, the 9900k is only 12-13% ahead of the 2700x.
If that's the target, Zen 2 cannot lose; it'll meet the real world 9900k performance, and come in a lower power envelop. At that point you'd have to be seriously reaching to still maintain that a 9900k was anywhere near on a par to a Ryzen 3700x. It'd be similar performance at at least double the power, and nearly double the price, on a node that has reached beyond its limits, and a socket with zero upgrade path.

 

[Zucker2k]

So you need +70% power to get that extra 8-9%...?
In the real world, the 9900k is only 12-13% ahead of the 2700x.
If that's the target, Zen 2 cannot lose; it'll meet the real world 9900k performance, and come in a lower power envelop. At that point you'd have to be seriously reaching to still maintain that a 9900k was anywhere near on a par to a Ryzen 3700x. It'd be similar performance at at least double the power, and nearly double the price, on a node that has reached beyond its limits, and a socket with zero upgrade path.

You speak in absolute terms. Do you know something the rest of the industry doesn't? AMD shares are down (11%?). They could do with some positive news about their upcoming chip right now.

 

[Kenmitch]

This is not true. Other members have pointed out the usefulness of an igp outside mainstream gaming, but you insist it has "zero value." Are you suggesting everybody who buys this chip is going to use it for gaming?

The value is in the dead silicone space. If ut wasn't there temps would be even higher.

How bought some max overte clock cpu/iGPU 720p gaming benchmark rev it ews? I predict crazy high temps if done.

 

[epsilon84]

So you need +70% power to get that extra 8-9%...?
In the real world, the 9900k is only 12-13% ahead of the 2700x.
If that's the target, Zen 2 cannot lose; it'll meet the real world 9900k performance, and come in a lower power envelop. At that point you'd have to be seriously reaching to still maintain that a 9900k was anywhere near on a par to a Ryzen 3700x. It'd be similar performance at at least double the power, and nearly double the price, on a node that has reached beyond its limits, and a socket with zero upgrade path.

Using the same review from Computerbase.de, its 184W system power for the *stock* 9900K in Cinebench vs 196W for the 2700X: https://www.computerbase.de/2018-10/intel-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-cpu-test/3/

If there is a further 70% reduction in power consumption for the 9900K as you claim, then it actually has incredible performance/watt at the 95W mark considering the relative performance.

The only scenario where the 9900K power is at insane levels is P95 AVX2 stress testing - it's basically the 'Furmark' for CPUs. I don't know of any 'real world' applications that can come close to replicating the power levels shown in P95 though - do you?

I have no idea about absolute performance about Zen 2,, apart from that tweet about a 13% boost in scientific applications (you seem to know for certain though, maybe you know something we don't)
You'd pretty well hope a Ryzen 3000 can beat a 9900K in performance/watt though, considering its on a 7nm node compared to 14nm. Would be a massive fail from AMD if it doesn't - I'm sure that won't happen.

 

[UsandThem]

So you need +70% power to get that extra 8-9%...?
In the real world, the 9900k is only 12-13% ahead of the 2700x.
If that's the target, Zen 2 cannot lose; it'll meet the real world 9900k performance, and come in a lower power envelop. At that point you'd have to be seriously reaching to still maintain that a 9900k was anywhere near on a par to a Ryzen 3700x. It'd be similar performance at at least double the power, and nearly double the price, on a node that has reached beyond its limits, and a socket with zero upgrade path.

I don't understand about CPUs that aren't here. If you want to argue the value proposition of Intel's just launched CPUs, that's fair game. Intel pumped up how much faster their new CPUs would be over Coffee Lake, and most of us see how well that went. The same could happen with AMD's next CPU. Until legit benchmarks hit, it's all hype.

You speak in absolute terms. Do you know something the rest of the industry doesn't? AMD shares are down (11%?). They could do with some positive news about their upcoming chip right now.

I mean their stock, even with the 11% drop on Friday, is still up over 166% over the last six months. There's a lot more variables to stock prices other than Intel's new CPUs. I know you are a very pro-Intel person from your posts, but try to dial it back a notch or two.

 

[Elfear]

By the way, why is everyone pretending the 9900K is the only competitor to the 2700X? I find that rather perculiar. There is the 9700K/8700K which by virtue of pricing alone (as well as overall performance) is a much closer match to the 2700X.

I agree, the 9700k and 8700k are both closer to the price of a 2700X and would be a better comparison from a value perspective. I was just replying to Mr. Slashy who said:
"A lot of reviewers are comparing it to the 2700x, sorry but you can't make that comparison. The 9900k is on another level of performance."

At lower res and low to medium settings you can say it's on another level of performance. I was just pointing out that at more common high-end gaming settings, the difference is negligible.

Well if you play at 4k the 2200g is 88% and the g4560 is 92% of the 9900k ,so what does that mean?

See above, I was specifically responding to the assertion that the 9900k is on another level of gaming performance than the 2700X.

To your point though, you are absolutely correct. There are a number of CPUs on TPU's chart that would be indistinguishable from one another at high-end game settings. If someone games at 1440p Ultra or 4k, they could save themselves some money going with an i5 8400 or Ryzen 2600.