The Intel 9th Gen Review: Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K Tested
by Ian Cutress on October 19, 2018 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Coffee Lake
- 14++
- Core 9th Gen
- Core-S
- i9-9900K
- i7-9700K
- i5-9600K
Test Bed and Setup
As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible.
It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
Test Setup | |||||
Intel 9th Gen | i9-9900K i7-9700K i5-9600K |
ASRock Z370 Gaming i7** |
P1.70 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
Intel 8th Gen | i7-8086K i7-8700K i5-8600K |
ASRock Z370 Gaming i7 |
P1.70 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
Intel 7th Gen | i7-7700K i5-7600K |
GIGABYTE X170 ECC Extreme |
F21e | Silverstone* AR10-115XS |
G.Skill RipjawsV 2x16GB DDR4-2400 |
Intel 6th Gen | i7-6700K i5-6600K |
GIGABYTE X170 ECC Extreme |
F21e | Silverstone* AR10-115XS |
G.Skill RipjawsV 2x16GB DDR4-22133 |
Intel HEDT | i9-7900X i7-7820X i7-7800X |
ASRock X299 OC Formula |
P1.40 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
AMD 2000 | R7 2700X R5 2600X R5 2500X |
ASRock X370 Gaming K4 |
P4.80 | Wraith Max* | G.Skill SniperX 2x8 GB DDR4-2933 |
AMD 1000 | R7 1800X | ASRock X370 Gaming K4 |
P4.80 | Wraith Max* | G.Skill SniperX 2x8 GB DDR4-2666 |
AMD TR4 | TR 1920X | ASUS ROG X399 Zenith |
0078 | Enermax Liqtech TR4 |
G.Skill FlareX 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
GPU | Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests) |
||||
PSU | Corsair AX860i Corsair AX1200i |
||||
SSD | Crucial MX200 1TB | ||||
OS | Windows 10 x64 RS3 1709 Spectre and Meltdown Patched |
||||
*VRM Supplimented with SST-FHP141-VF 173 CFM fans ** After Initial testing with the ASRock Z370 motherboard, we noted it had a voltage issue with the Core 9th Gen processors. As a result, we moved to the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC for our power measurements. Benchmarking seems unaffected. |
We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds. Some of this hardware is not in this test bed specifically, but is used in other testing.
274 Comments
View All Comments
BloodyBunnySlippers - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
The big take away for me: As resolution rises above 1080P, the performance differences narrows to almost nothing. And there is the Ryzen 5 2600x beating the 2700x (in gaming). I can get that at Micro Center for $190. That looks like a great performance/price ratio there.Achaios - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
QUOTE So we are on Skylake Refresh Refresh Refresh UNQUOTEWake me up when they release new tech.
/thread
dan_ger - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
It is just stupid to pay an extra $200 to have the best 1080p frame rates. What idiot buys an 9900k to game at 1080? Anyone with 1/2 a brain puts the extra $200 toward a better video card and plays at higher resolutions. The bottleneck here is the graphics card, not the cpu. A 2700x and a better graphic card is the best value.GreenReaper - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
The idea with those tests is that they are trying to identify how the CPU performs in games when the video card is not a bottleneck, on the grounds that this may reflect performance after a future GPU upgrade.FlanK3r - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Ian, u forgot on graphs with Cinebench! :)Good review, as always. Glad you found same power consumption results as me (and not as many web magaiznes and bulshits in graphs :-) )
lefty2 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Does anyone know why the Chrome compile results bounce around so much? In the original 2700x review the 2700x trounced the 8700k, but then those results were "corrected" and then the 8700k beat the 2700X (23.7 to 21.68). Now they are both at 21.9.Now, these new results show the 2700X and 8700K with same performance
zangheiv - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
You have to be either be a total fanboy, or be fooled into buying this CPU. i9 9900K is made for the intel fanboys that are willing to pay a $300 premium for a soon to be obsolete part. It's definitely not a winner in the 'productivity' department since it's far better to go with a lower cost threadripper 1920X and have a tremendous upgrade path. Unless you have a high-end Crossfire or SLI setup for your GPUs and are playing older titles that have no interest in multi-core support, the i9 9900K is the choice, albeit a very idiotic one still. It's a desperate attempt by Intel catering to the desperate fan-club.eva02langley - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Review shall never used the MSRP, it shall use the street prices. It gives bogus sense of value.The street price is 580$.
mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Almost $800 equivalent in the UK. 2700X costs 50% less even from the same seller.BOBOSTRUMF - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
I would love that you retest the CPU with a 95 watt cooler as advertised by Intel :)