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

[bit_user]

Intel will have 10nm CPU's in 2019. (which quarter in 19' is not known ATM)

Rumors are that they're cutting corners on their 10 nm process, just to get the darned thing up and running. It will not perform as originally planned.

They'll probably initially focus on lower cost, lower clocked, and lower power CPUs. Not unlike what they did with Broadwell - their first 14 nm CPU.

 

[darknate]

your math in the article is horrible.

oc 9900k -> oc 2700x = 10.96% (not 13.6%. thats a score of about 1862)
oc 9900k -> st 2700x = 13.83% (not 16.5%. thats a score of about 1816)
oc 9900k -> oc 8700k = 28.4% (not 31.4%. thats a score of about 1610)
oc 9900k -> st 8700k = 46.64% (not 50.1%. thats a score of about 1410)

 

[bit_user]

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....

That's great if you're charging by the hour, for some work where you're frequently CPU-limited. But let's face it - that's a small minority of the people who'll buy this CPU.

What ratios tell you is what's the best value. That's not a bad way to think about things, when your hardware budget is competing with other productive uses of your limited funds. Speaking only about hardware budgets, a lot of people would be better off spending big on the GPU, and getting a CPU that's a couple notches down.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@darknate it looks like a result of a typo. The graph shows a score of 2116 for the OC 9900k, but the article text says 2166. If you use the latter value, the math works.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

Is the performance gain percentage of the 9900k over the 2700X actually lower than the percentage of clock speed advantage?

 

[redgarl]

16% faster OC... and and 27% more expensive... honestly, not the same category of product obviously.

 

[redgarl]

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....

Seriously? If you need computing all the time, there is better alternative than this... like an HEDT platform with 32 cores you know....

Let's be honest, this chip is designed as a conventional desktop gaming CPU. It will not be in offices.

 

[redgarl]

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.

You might be right on this. Their 14nm++++ is the best of the industry, no question about that.

 

[fireballorama]

Overclocked water cooled vs stock air cooler processor. Nice comparison. Just like intels 28 core CPU I guess. To the end user, it will hardly be noticed. And if someone depends on their PC to make a living, there's always Threadrippers.

Either way, I don't think AMD is too threatened. Remember what their CEO said - we count on our competitors to be good, but us to be better.

 

[Crazyjay53]

Overclock intel vis amd stock ,haha that sound funny about intel having hard time beating amd stock speed ,winner is amd ,just wait for 2800x n it will blow intel door off

 

[bustedbuddha]

Wow, so an overclocked top line chip can beat a stock upper-midranged chip? I know I'm shocked. Of course one has to wonder why the hell Tom's Hardware published this, as comparing overclocked to stock is obviously uninformative and if anything deceptive. This article shouldn't have been published, let alone here. I know between this and the article about the 20xx cards from Nvidia I will probably not be trusting Tom's as a source moving forward.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@ the last 3 commenters, did you only read the title and not the article? They do go on to compare performance against an OC'd (liquid cooled) 2700X.

Also, even though there may be a substantial difference in price, I think it's still a valid comparison as both CPUs represent the top of the line for each company's mainstream platform.

 

[l.r.gardner]

It's probably even faster (the 9900K). THIS is why there is no Ryzen 2800X

 

[michaelmok5]

AMD Ryzen 1700x scored a R15 score of 2,363pts when all cores were at 5.20ghz. If the Clock was the at 5ghz on a 2700x second gen ryzen i think the score would still have been better if not even. And AMD cost less. the tricky part is getting the ryzen to 5ghz on all cores with out liquid nitrogen.

 

[bit_user]

I think it's still a valid comparison as both CPUs represent the top of the line for each company's mainstream platform.

How do you know the i9-9900K isn't LGA 2066, like their previous i9's? If so, then it should be compared with TR.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@bit_user I thought it was common knowledge at this point that 9900K is coming to LGA 1151 along with with rest of the coffee lake refresh/9000 series. Hence the line in this article: "the Core i9-9900K, Intel's first mainstream eight-core processor.".

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-9000-series-cpu-faq,37743.html

 

[bit_user]

@bit_user I thought it was common knowledge at this point that 9900K is coming to LGA 1151 along with with rest of the coffee lake refresh/9000 series

Thanks. I just figured the i9 name pointed to LGA 2066, plus the decision to withhold HT from the traditional flagship SKU seemed only justifiable on the basis of TDP, which is higher in the LGA 2066 platform.

Anyway, I wonder what they could squeeze out of that die with a bigger power/thermal envelope.

I guess it's too much to ask that they bring any kind of consistency to their product names, like mapping i9 to the LGA 2066 platform. That would probably make too much sense.

 

[Geef]

Yeah hopefully this time Intel didn't cool their chip with nitrogen while doing the benchmarks like they did last time.

 

[Karadjgne]

The cost difference is honestly negligible. It's a 1 time price that split up into the 2 years that Intel rotates its platforms will cost less than $2 a week. That's 1 extra large coffee skipped, 1 redbull not drunk in a week. For what you'll get out of that i9 vrs the 2700x $2 a week is chump change. Is that extra $200 initial purchase a deal breaker? For some, yes, as they can get the 2700x in budget with $200 extra for a better class of gpu since the speed difference won't affect games much, if at all. For some it's a no, that 17% being worth $200 in time saved every day, which could be put to more productive use. Even if it only saved 1 man-hour worth of time per week, at $2 a week in cost that's a huge savings over a yearly average.

Guess it all boils down to perspective whether it's worth it or not.

 

[brunis]

Ya'll forgot to add the price of water cooling .. otherwise it's just $150 more for the same performance.

 

[RememberThe5th]

Haswell devil canyon, never saw big improvment from that point. Except 2 additional cores and 4 threads, but still on pair with i7-8700k on same overclock 5ghz.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@Karadjgne if you're going to compare an OC'd 9900k against a stock 2700x, the price difference isn't just going to be the price difference of the chips themselves. You're going to need a high end liquid cooler and a more expensive motherboard as well. You're also going to have significantly higher power draw, which increases the yearly cost of ownership (although probably only a bit, unless you live somewhere with expensive electricity).

 

[lhughey]

Are we comparing an expensive product with the added expense of watercooling to a stock CPU? Lets do apples to apples.

 

[mereguyfawkes]

Yup not worth it. The saved money can go towards a nice cooling solution, a better motherboard, 16GB more RAM or any number of other nice things. It's also priced the same as a TR 1920X (obviously the motherboards for TR4 are more expensive than Z370, but still), so yea.. I'd rather pay a bit more for my motherboard and get a 12-core if I'm going for that multi-threaded performance.

 

[Karadjgne]

Like I said, depends on perspective. There's programs that for some reason do better on Intel than amd, and vice versa. Autocad likes Intel. So amount of amd cores won't change that. To someone making the money some of these Autocad users make, going Intel is a no brainer and the added expense is made up for in time saved over a period of time. When time is money, faster = cheaper overall. When I retrofitted Cracker Barrel corporate offices, half the pc's were amd, the other half Intel, but they were all the same per department. Except for the web design who used Mac. This was done to apply specific strengths of the pc to the needs of the user. If you only saved 1 minute of time for a single user doing a project, doesn't seem like a lot. Do that for 100 ppl in the department and that changes the game, overall.

Perspective. Ya'll are basing the initial outlay, even including the cooling and mobo, vrs 2 individual prices. Not taking into consideration the possible/probable differences the platform will create over the 2-5 years of use.

Yes a 6cyl truck is quite cheaper than an 8cyl diesel. But I tow a camper and live in the mountains. Diesel = better overall, despite being far more expensive initially.