Core i9-9900K At 5GHz Purportedly 16.5 Percent Faster Than Stock Ryzen 7 2700X

[Guest]

An overclocker on YouTube claims to have overclocked the Intel Core i9-9900K to 5GHz and posts a video of a Cinebench R15 test.

Core i9-9900K At 5GHz Purportedly 16.5 Percent Faster Than Stock Ryzen 7 2700X : Read more

 

[randomstuff7970]

This is going to be an amazing chip. Outstanding for gaming and servicable for those rare apps like video processing.

 

[kostarelosdimitris]

well...if it's 450$ , like 150 more bucks than 2700x then the price is not worthy it...perhaps if it's around 380 to 400...

 

[mlee 2500]

This is going to be an amazing chip. Outstanding for gaming and servicable for those rare apps like video processing.

Yeah I been looking forward to its release...been putting off a new build in anticipation, so hopefully it measures up.

I was going to wait for 10nm, but then someone pointed out that even when it's released the initial couple generations will be spent maturing beyond rough parity, as has been the case of previous shrinks.

 

[randomstuff7970]

This is going to be an amazing chip. Outstanding for gaming and servicable for those rare apps like video processing.

Yeah I been looking forward to its release...been putting off a new build in anticipation, so hopefully it measures up.

I was going to wait for 10nm, but then someone pointed out that even when it's released the initial couple generations will be spent maturing beyond rough parity, as has been the case of previous shrinks.

Yeah. Definitely advise against an 8086k build now when this is coming out in a month.

 

[mgallo848]

So:

Approx 16.5% faster then the R7 2700x
Costs approx 35-40% more than the R7 2700x

Threadripper 1920x price was lowered to $399 this week. I wonder how it compares to that for about the same money.

 

[Azilgath]

"...the Core i9-9900K clocked at 5GHz is basically 13.6 percent faster than a Ryzen 7 2700X at 4.2GHz."

Isn't 4.2 the boost mode on the Ryzen? What would be the results against intel if it was overclocked?

 

[racksmith101]

Probably only about 10%, and for twice the price? Wonder how hot it runs? I'm still can't see what all the hype is about. I also wonder how many security flaws will be found in this one.

 

[Shumok]

It will be top of the hill for about 6 months until AMD releases 7nm Ryzens. For dedicated Intel buyers, there won't be anything significantly better for 2-3 years. Intel is pushing every button they have on this one. Got to wait for something new from the architecture team.

 

[mgallo848]

It will be top of the hill for about 6 months until AMD releases 7nm Ryzens. For dedicated Intel buyers, there won't be anything significantly better for 2-3 years. Intel is pushing every button they have on this one. Got to wait for something new from the architecture team.

Sorry but that's not even close to being true. Intel will have 10nm CPU's in 2019. (which quarter in 19' is not known ATM)

 

[Tyler LM]

So the price of the 2700X is 300(ish) dollars, the i9-9900K will be 500 dollars... Why bother?

I would rather go with the slightly weaker CPU by 16.5% but save 40% cash..

 

[jeremyj_83]

19% clock speed advantage for 13.6% performance advantage. That means that at the same clock speed they would perform probably almost the same.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

The 9900k will need to have an MSRP of $399 to really peak my interest. Any higher than that and there are just too many alternatives.

 

[Kaz_2_]

marketing again more like 10 percent or less for doubling the price. not worth the buy with less pci lane etc. if 500 dollars is mainstream i will say no and wait for zen 2

 

[Kaz_2_]

and also the fact power efficney increased, motherboard will cost more due to change to 14nm node everything will become expensive for 10 percent more in performance.

 

[newsonline5000000]

Nah , AMD is still a winner here ...

unless Intel sells it for the same price then we can talk

 

[Kaz_2_]

if they were to sell at the same price this mean intel trying to become monopoly again and make amd bankrupt not a way to go . still buy AMD for future lowering price on cpu

 

[TJ Hooker]

"...the Core i9-9900K clocked at 5GHz is basically 13.6 percent faster than a Ryzen 7 2700X at 4.2GHz."
Isn't 4.2 the boost mode on the Ryzen? What would be the results against intel if it was overclocked?

4.3 GHz is the boost clock for lightly threaded loads. The stock all core boost is <4 GHz. 4.2 GHz on all cores is overclocked (it's the best Tom's could get without exceeding 1.4V with their review chip). Ryzen CPUs typically don't have a lot of OC headroom.

 

[quilciri]

Threadripper 1920x price was lowered to $399 this week.

My "want it" and "don't need it" are having a knife fight in a back alley right now.

 

[jpe1701]

Yeah I get 3.925ghz all cores stock with my 2700x and about 4.125ghz with precision boost overdrive enabled. That's with an x370, Toms stock cinebench r15 is much higher than mine though so I wonder if it's because they used x470.

 

[zfreak280]

And unfortunately, HPC and industry, who are the primary beneficiaries of high core count CPUs, don't overclock their CPUs and don't care how high your Cinebench scores are. They only care about cost-performance of stock CPUs.

 

[alan_rave]

Fast, but 10% speed for 40% more cash. It isn't worth it, maybe the price will be better in a few months.

 

[Shumok]

It will be top of the hill for about 6 months until AMD releases 7nm Ryzens. For dedicated Intel buyers, there won't be anything significantly better for 2-3 years. Intel is pushing every button they have on this one. Got to wait for something new from the architecture team.

Sorry but that's not even close to being true. Intel will have 10nm CPU's in 2019. (which quarter in 19' is not known ATM)

Their 10nm is not going to be an improvement. Unfortunately.

 

[Walter_35]

Fast, but 10% speed for 40% more cash. It isn't worth it, maybe the price will be better in a few months.

Ratios aren't always the best way to represent things. It cost you an extra $200, but if you get 10% more work done on it, and the value of your work goes from $100/hour to $110/hour, it doesn't take long to get that $200 bucks back. Heck, even if you're only using your chip 10% of the time, but it finishes 10% faster in those tasks, going from 100 to 101, is still only about a month of work/hours....

 

[dastiegen]

Intel = best IPC, best single-core scores, good multi-core scores, highest FPS, highest cost; milked the market for ten years.

AMD = very good IPC, good single-core scores, best multi-core scores, good FPS, highest value; bet the farm and made a miraculous comeback, reigniting competition and forcing Intel to produce, ensuring we will have great choices now and - if and only if AMD survives - tomorrow.

Considering that the differences in single-core / FPS are almost undiscernable both in apps and games - who are you going to support with your next CPU purchase?

As long as AMD can even come close to Intel's product - I'll buy AMD. To do otherwise would be a vote for the past, which none of us liked.