[SOLVED] If the 9900k is 20% faster than the 2700x, then if you overclock the 2700x by 20%, will it equal the 9900k?

[SeriousGaming101]

Overclocked 2700x CPU by 20% = 9900k base performance?

 

[TerryLaze]

Where did you come up with the 20% difference?
Also the 2700x does not have any o/c headroom.

 

[vMax]

Overclocked 2700x CPU by 20% = 9900k base performance?

The 9900K is anywhere between 5% to 20% faster depending on the application or game. This is also dependant on what stock actually means. Stock for the Z390 motherboards tend to mean a slight out of the box overclock whether you like it or not. If you are running the 9900K with MCE Multi-core enhancement enabled on the Z390 then it will be running a lot faster than stock.

If on the other hand you stick to the 95w TDP limit then it is very close to the 2700X and only tends to lead in games...with applications very close though overall still int he 9900K's favour..but at the price that is not really a win!! Though let's be honest, who buys a 9900K to run it at stock 95w TDP?

The 2700X does not really have any overclocking headroom and an all core overclock stalls at around 4.1 to 4.2GHz and funnily the XFR auto overclock tends to do a better job of overclocking.

Finally, if you do get a 9900K and good enough cooling, then it can do 5GHz all core and then it is one hell of a CPU though again badly loses out on price to performance....

For a balanced CPU the 2700X is overall much better especially if you are gaming at 1440p or 4K...If on the other hand you want high refresh rate gaming and maximum FPS then anything from the 8600K through to the 8700K will pretty much be on par with the 9700K and 9900K...Pound for pound the 8700K is the best option if gaming is the primary focus....

I should also have mentioned the performance across workloads like editing, encoding, decompressing etc also apply in the same way with the 9900K coming out on top if allowed to run with MCE or any sort of an overclock where it will be better, though price to performance it loses out big time....

 

[Peter Martin]

Great post vMax. I wish I could upvote that more. I wonder how the 2800 X is going to fare

 

[vMax]

Great post vMax. I wish I could upvote that more. I wonder how the 2800 X is going to fare

Thanks Peter, Intel have some how walked down a dead end road on the 14nm ++ architecture which is now at its end with every last ounce squeezed out with the 9900K....More importantly they do not seem to learn anything from AMD and Ryzen/Threadripper when it comes to competition as they should have reduced the price to at least $400 on the 9900K and increased the TDP limit to say 130w TDP...No one would be arguing and Intel would at least been in a better place with the customers...

With AMD and specifically Ryzen and Threadripper performing so well and finally bring real competition to Intel's door, Intel's miss-step in not getting on top of 10nm has cost them pretty badly...Good on AMD for catching up in what looked like a monumental task...

As to the 2800X, if it does release and is even 10% better than the 2700X, then Intel will be in an even worse situation. I think for Intel, 10nm has to work and it has to be out by the mid 2019 if they are going to stem the tide that is AMD's favour right now....I won't be surprised if Intel's 10nm is as good as AMD's 7nm but boy with there pricing Intel do need to rethink the customer end of the marketing...

And most importantly, we should all really be happy as we finally have competition across all price points and it looks like it is only going to get better for us the consumer...I cannot go in for the AMD versus Intel thing or AMD versus Nvidia thing as people are more than entitled to spend there money how they want without getting into a slanging match about which is better...I have been an Intel Customer, then AMD in the good old Athlon days and then back to Intel as I only buy on what suits my use case and most importantly how much money I have to spend..

 

[TerryLaze]

Overclocked 2700x CPU by 20% = 9900k base performance?

The 9900K is anywhere between 5% to 20% faster depending on the application or game. This is also dependant on what stock actually means. Stock for the Z390 motherboards tend to mean a slight out of the box overclock whether you like it or not. If you are running the 9900K with MCE Multi-core enhancement enabled on the Z390 then it will be running a lot faster than stock.

If on the other hand you stick to the 95w TDP limit then it is very close to the 2700X and only tends to lead in games...

Anandtech did the comparison with the 9900k at 95w TDP ,and you can easily tell this by how the 9700k is faster at lower threaded tests, the difference ranged from 25-30% for a lot of stuff up to 50% for a reasonable amount of stuff and up to even 85% at heavy avx stuff.
Where do you guys come up with 5-20% ??? Seriously anybody got any links?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/9
3dpm 53%
y-cruncher 85%
lux opencl 48%
handbrake hevc 48%
7zip 1805 43%
winrar 54%
WOT 45% - 95th 53%
Ashes 95th 44%

Tom's got higher results when overclocked to 5Ghz.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847-9.html
Autocad 54% stock
blender 58%