BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Intel Core i9-9900K Review: Ridiculously Fast But Better Than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X In Games?

Following
This article is more than 5 years old.

The last 18 months has been a blur of activity from both Intel and AMD as each wrestles with higher and higher core counts, frequencies and increasing numbers of CPUs in their product stacks. However, today, things have come to a dramatic head in the mainstream desktop market as Intel has yet again increased core counts for its mainstream flagship, pitching the 8-core, 16-thread Core i9-9900K against's AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X.

Antony Leather

Intel's launch has been marred by some concerning pre-launch benchmark results, but today I can finally reveal just how fast Intel's new flagship is and whether you should buy it.

Specifications

Base Freq Max Freq TDP Cores/threads L3 Cache

Soldered

Heatspreader (STIM)

Price
Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz 5GHz 95W 8/16 16MB Yes $580
Core i7-9700K 3.6GHz 4.9GHz 95W 8/8 12MB Yes $420
Core i5-9600K 3.7GHz 4.6GHz 95W 6/6 9MB Yes $280
Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 4.7GHz 95W 6/12 12MB No $390
Core i5-8600K 3.6GHz 4.3GHz 95W 6/6 9MB No  $280

I should add that the pricing for the three 9000-series CPUs above is based on pre-order pricing, which was current on Newegg when I wrote this, but I'll update the prices if they change significantly within the first week of launch. For now, let's talk about pricing and specifications. It's fairly obvious that the Core i9-9900K that I'm reviewing today is hugely expensive. It's nearly $200 more than the Core i7-8700K and nearly $300 more than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X, which also sports 8 cores and 16 threads.

Intel

Specifications have changed considerably in Intel's product stack this time too. We now have two 8-core CPUs, but while the Core i9-9900K features hyper-threading, giving it 16 threads, the Core i7-9700K, only has 8 threads from its 8 cores, lacking hyper-threading. It seems that Intel is moving away from offering hyper-threading with its desktop Core i7 CPUs, although it's still likely to be a faster processor, especially in multi-threaded workloads, than the similarly-priced Core i7-8700K. It's then quite a step down to the Core i5-9600K, which only has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Antony Leather

The Core i9-9900K, in addition to two more cores compared to the Core i7-8700K, also gets 4MB more L3 cache and it's worth noting that the Core i7-9700K actually has less cache per core than both it's Core i9 sibling and the Core i7-8700K. I'll hopefully be looking at the Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K soon. Some significant advantages the Core i9-9900K has over both the Core i7-8700K and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, though, are stock speed frequencies. Unlike the old Intel 6-core CPU, the new Core i9 can reach 5GHz on not one, but two cores at the same time in turbo boost. It also has a monstrous 4.7GHz all-core boost, which is 400MHz faster than the Core i7-8700K, 700MHz higher than the Core i9-7900X and roughly the same over the Ryzen 7 2700X depending on worldload. So, in multi-threaded tasks such as 3D modelling and video editing, it should be a beast.

Solder is back along with thicker CPUs

Intel

Intel is re-introducing solder with all new K and X-series CPUs - that includes the three 9000-series CPUs listed above and the seven new X-series models due later this year. Intel had ditched solder as the material sitting between the CPU heatspreader and CPU core way back with Ivy Bridge CPUs in its mainstream platform and since then, de-lidding - removing the heatspreader and applying high-performance thermal paste has very popular as Intel's non-soldered CPUs appeared to run much hotter, with big drops in temperature seen after de-lidding. This is a good move by Intel, although the jury is out on just how much of an impact it will have. I've managed to reach 5GHz when overclocking with my Core i9-9900K and temperatures seem to be a little lower than my Core i7-8700K at the same settings so given the new CPU has two more cores, it does seem to be running a little cooler.

Antony Leather

Intel has also used thicker CPU substrates with its 9th gen processors. The sandy-colored plate into which the core sits beneath the heatspreader thinned with Skylake, which was released in 2016. However, numerous reports surfaced of the substrate bending under pressure from some CPUs coolers as you can see in the image below via PC Gamer. This should now be a thing of the past.

PCGamer

Z390 Chipset

There are numerous Z390 motherboards already available, but you don't need one to use any of Intel's trio of 9th gen CPUs as they're also backwards compatible with chipsets that support last generation Coffee Lake 8th gen CPUs too, such as Z370 and B360. The Z390 chipset does add a couple of features, though, namely integrated 802.11ac WiFi and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support, but apart from that there's little reason to upgrade. If you do intent to use a 9th gen CPU in an older motherboard, then you'll also likely need to update its BIOS and that may mean using an 8th gen processor to do so depending on whether the board has some kind of USB BIOS flashback.

Intel

Performance

Common test hardware included a Corsair RM850i PSU, Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD and a Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! graphics card along with an NZXT Kraken X42 cooler, while I used an X52 cooler for the high-end desktop CPUs. I used 3,000MHz memory with identical timings across all systems, with the only difference being a 16GB dual-channel kit was used with the mainstream platforms and a 32GB quad-channel kit was used with the high-end platforms. I used MSI's MEG Z390 Ace for Intel CPU testing and Gigabyte's X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming for AMD CPUs.

Antony Leather

Game benchmarks were a mix of built-in benchmarks that I found to be consistent enough for testing and timed runs using fraps (World of tanks and Ashes of the Singularity). The content creation benchmarks include both timed benchmarks and built-in test scores, which are indicated in each graph. I should add that not all CPUs appear in all graphs for the simple reason I don't have constant access to all of them, namely the Core i7-8080K, which I obtained with a short-term loan a few months ago and wasn't able to re-test in some of my new benchmarks.

Overclocking

There doesn't seem to be much headroom with the Core i9-9900K with my own sample and those of several other enthusiasts I've spoken to reaching a limit at around 5GHz, with significantly more voltage needed to get any higher, where I was met with excessive temperatures too. In the end I settled on 5GHz with a vcore of 1.26V, which is typically what I used with the Core i7-8700K as well. Temperatures here was a little lower at around 80-85°C with the new CPU too, despite the fact it has two more cores. However, 300MHz is fairly poor overclocking headroom and I suspect this is just down to Intel reaching the limits of this architecture and 14nm (14nm++) manufacturing process, especially as we now have soldered heatspreaders again.

Content creation and rendering

Antony Leather

With 4K content becoming more mainstream, the time it takes to export a project is becoming more of an issue. This test looks at exporting a project combining several short 4K video clips with some basic effects applied and the time taken to complete the export is shown above. Amazingly, the Core i9-9900K matches Intel's Core i9-7900X at stock speed - a CPU that costs hundreds of dollars more and has two more cores. It's also 17% quicker than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X a little quicker than the Threadripper 1920X too.

Antony Leather

PC Mark 10's image editing test does seem to love AMD CPUs and it's the only test where the Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms the Core i9-9900K. I should point out that this is unlikely to be the case across all image editing benchmarks so I'll be doing some investigating soon and hopefully including more popular applications such as Gimp or Lightroom.

Antony Leather

The popular video encoding application HandBrake loves cores so it's no suprise to see both Threadripper CPUs at the top of the graph. However, despite a four-core deficit, the Core i9-9900K still matched the Threadripper 1920X and again it beats the Core i9-7900X until the latter is overclocked. It's also 18% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X and a massive 31% faster than the Core i7-8700K.

Antony Leather

Cinebench is a real-world 3D modelling application and again it's software that scales well with cores and threads. AMD has a distinct advantage here with the Threadripper 1920X outperforming the Core i9-9900K convincingly while the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 13% slower. The Core i9-7900X is again slower than the Core i9-9900K until the former is overclocked.

Antony Leather

Single core performance can also be measured in Cinebench and its no surprise to see the Core i9-9900K sitting at the top of the graph here along with the rest of Intel's CPUs as they enjoy a healthy lead in frequency over AMD.

Gaming

Far Cry 5 performance

I've added a couple of new tests to my benchmarks this time including Far Cry 5. Interestingly there was quite a bit of variation here between CPUs at 1,920 x 1,080, so if you like high frame rates the graph is quite telling. There AMD struggles here, but so too does the Core i9-7900X until it's overclocked, pointing at Far Cry 5 simply favoring high frequencies and lightly-threaded performance. Even so, Intel's mainstream CPUs I tested were fairly dominant, managing a 26% faster minimum frame rate compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Antony Leather

CPU-bound games are fairly rare and in most that kind of a gap is rare too, and there are plenty of games that don't appear to see gains between the CPUs I tested here, World of Tanks' eNcore benchmark being one of them.

Antony Leather

Shadow of the Tombraider also didn't yield sgnificantly more performance between the cheapest and most expensive CPUs here, even at these modest settings that give the graphics card a fairly easy ride.

Antony Leather

Another game that does still see some advantage for Intel over AMD is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, but it's also one that see's AMd gain ground with the Ryzen 7 2700X, which performs even better with faster memory than I used here. However, The core i9-9900K didn't extend the lead I'd seen with Coffee Lake CPUs, instead sitting amongst them. No gains here.

Antony Leather

The final game test is Ashes of the Singularity, which is another game that AMD has been looking to boost Ryzen performance in. Intel enjoys a 22% advantage in the CPU benchmark here using the same memory, but again, that gap is closed using faster memory with AMD Ryzen CPUs.

Antony Leather

The Superposition benchmark is more GPU-bound but I like to include it with CPU benchmarking anyway. There's next to no difference between the CPUs I tested and only the Threadripper 1920X and Core i9-7900X fall outside the margin of error in the scores with somewhat low results.

Antony Leather

Antony Leather

Power consumption is usually way down the priority list for PC enthusiasts and there were few surprises here with the Core i9-9900K drawing noticeably more power than the Core i7-8700K and around 50W more than the Ryzen 7 2700X under load, likely down to its much higher boost frequencies. As I onlt managed to add 300MHz to the all-core frequency when overclocked, the power consumption only rose by 30 W or so.

Conclusion

I can't help but be impressed by the Core i9-9900K in that it's simply a monstrously powerful all-round CPU. It's top in games that exhibit degrees of CPU-bound performance thanks to its high boost speeds and the fact it can boost all eight cores to 4.7GHz out of the box means it's not only much quicker than the Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X, but actually managed to better Intel's own Core i9-7900X 10-core CPU in multi-threaded tests such as HandBrake, Adobe Premier Pro and Cinebench. Not only is that CPU much more expensive and has two more cores, but the platform cost is more expensive too with pricier motherboards and memory. The issue is compounded by the fact that the Core i9-9900K's awesome stock speed performance can be achieved on cheap previous-generation motherboards too making its appeal much wider, especially as, unlike Ryzen CPUs, you don't need a discrete graphics card if you're not gaming either.

While the Core i9-9900K appears to be a better-value option to the Core i9-7900X, if you don't need quad-channel memory and additional PCI-E lanes, of course, it's price doesn't paint a particularly good picture elsewhere. While it was anywhere between 12 and 26% faster in games and content creation than the Ryzen 7 2700X, that's clearly not justifying the fact the AMD chip can be had for $300, which is just over half that of the current pre-order price of the Intel CPU.

Antony Leather

The performance scaling with price argument, though, is an idiotic one for the simple reason it rarely if ever works - AMD's Ryzen 2700X isn't 50% faster in games than the Ryzen 5 2600X, for example, despite costing 50% more. However, while there are some big gaps between Intel and AMD's mainstream flagships, the fact the core i9-9900K currently costs close to $600 means that both the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K are much better value both for gaming (especially with the 8700K) and content creation.

There's another CPU that makes a compelling case at its current price too - AMD's Threadripper 1920X, which is why I added to my benchmark line-up. You can currently pick it up for around $400, making a $150-200 saving compared to pre-order pricing of the Core i9-9900K. A cheap X399 motherboard, 16GB quad-channel memory and the Threadripper 1920X currently cost $845 on PCPartpicker. However, a similar system with a decent Z370 motherboard for overclocking the Core i9-9900K costs $874, and that's with Amazon's new pricing for the CPU at $529.99 that hit just before I published this article (incidentally, it was out of stock too). You're looking at over $900 with the previous pricing. Sure, the Intel CPU is much quicker in games, but for a pure content creation system the Threadripper CPU makes a strong argument.

Ultimately I hope this downward price trend continues for Intel. $600 is too much, but if it dips below $500, while still nearly $300 more than the Ryzen 7 2700X, you're getting a CPU that's noticeably quicker than any other mainstream CPU in content creation and one that grabs the top spot in every game too. The fact that you can use it with a fairly cheap motherboard if you won't be overclocking is appealing too. Whether that big premium is worth paying depends on your own needs and budget, of course, but the Core i9-9900K is without doubt the fastest ever mainstream desktop processor.

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website