Intel Core i9-9900K 9th Gen Review

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Multicore cinebench scores mean very little to gamers. [/quotemsg]

You know gaming is 5% of cpu sales right?

also is that the best you can do? I point out how intel's are not worth it, even IF you played kids games, with the 300$ you saved buying an AMD you could bump up your video card substantially and get better gaming.

but that's all you can do? point out cinebench isn't a game? I pitty you.
 




You keep arguing that the i9-9900K is not the fastest processor, while it's faster than AMD's competitor the 2700X. It's faster at everything.

$269 i5-8600K will beat AMD's $300 2700X across 90%+ of games.

I honestly don't know what you guys are arguing about; I'm responding to people who are mad/upset that it's being said that the i9-9900K is the fastest gaming CPU in the world... it is.
 


virtually no cpu's are sold for gaming.
 


Not sure if you are trolling or..

There are hundreds of millions of PC gamers in the world. A good portion of those build their own gaming PC's, and even a portion of those build multiple gaming PC's just for fun or for a living. A lot of CPUs are sold for gaming.

https://www.pcgamer.com/there-are-711-million-pc-gamers-in-the-world-today-says-intel/

Maybe you meant virtually no CPUs are manufactured for gaming? Because I could see that I guess.. but I would argue against that because clearly Intel has marketed the i9-9900K to be the fastest gaming CPU in the world; so why would you say they did not make it for gaming?
 
i9-9900K is the fastest gaming CPU in the world... it is. [/quotemsg]

Ugh, first I love how you guys seem to live and die by they smallest segment of cpu sales; gaming. Second, It really isn't fastest because 99.99% of pc's are built to a budget.
For example:
2700 +1080ti = $1000
9900K+ 1070 = $1000

AMD powered gaming systems are going to be faster at gaming for this reason, not always, but in most cases.
when playing a game the video card is doing 90% the work, so spending $300 extra on the cpu to gain 10% of cpu power but LOSE 50% of gpu power will result in slower gaming.

 
Not sure if you are trolling or..

Gaming is the smallest segment of cpu sales, about 5%. Server is number 1, followed by workstation/office, followed by general use and home pc, followed by laptop.

I build pc's and about 1 in 100 is for gaming, yes that's anecdotal but nonethless. I'm not sure why you would think different.


Also they didn't "make it" for gaming. what do you think a cpu is? there's no such thing as a "gaming" cpu. you have an architecture, the 9900K is the same architecture they use in there other cpu's, and on a side note is a VERY old and ageing architecture compared to zen, but that's beside the point
 


As I said before, Intel i5 often beats Ryzen 7 2700X in gaming. You're still not winning that argument.

Fastest gaming CPU has nothing to do with budget. Best gaming CPU would, which is why the Ryzen 7 2700X won "Best gaming CPU of 2018".
 
[/quotemsg]

Fastest gaming CPU has nothing to do with budget.[/quotemsg]

I disagree vehemently, I have built hundreds of computers, never once, not even on 20 thousand dollar workstations has anyone ever said "no limit to budget" EVERY computer is built to a budget onto of that gamers don't have much money, most are a quad core and 1060 level budget if you look at steam surveys.what you are saying is theoretical because insult removed it's all you can think of. Meanwhile What I am saying is accurate and correct to the real world when I say AMD gaming machines are faster.
 


If you can't see the difference between the fastest gaming CPU and the best gaming CPU then I don't know what to tell you. Because the fastest gaming CPU is the i9-9900K (measuring performance) and the best gaming CPU is the Ryzen 7 2700X (measuring performance per dollar). (*or arguably the i5-8600K depending on whether you care about multi-tasking or streaming)
 
of course there's a difference but real world that's not how it works. Even your own examples work against you.

i5 8400 and ryzen 2600 are on par in gaming, when you factor in the 2600 is unlocked it is faster than an i5 in gaming PLUS costs $190 less,(which you could put into the video card) meaning AGAIN the AMD system would be way faster in the i5 budget range FOR GAMING.

You can't win, intel is not good for gaming, they are not good for anything at the moment. Maybe in two years after they find a CEO and get their 10nm + interposer working, but for now and the next 2 year AMD is way ahead. This isn't debatable and its why you are having such a hard time ice-skating up hill.
 


Ryzen 5 2600 is not faster than the i5-8400 in gaming and it isn't $190 in price difference. Overclocking would depend on the game, but when there is a difference the i5 is faster by a larger margin than the very few times the Ryzen 5 is faster.

I'm not skating uphill, you're just making stuff up and bringing other CPUs in to your argument. The topic is the i9-9900K is the fastest gaming CPU in the world. There's no way to disprove that. There is no CPU that will perform faster across the board in gaming.
 
whoops newegg brought up a compo price for me.

The thing I don't get is why are you arguing at what is real? so it's what if AMD is cheaper by 10% or 50% and better by 5% or 10 % the point is AMD is better at gaming. you sound heavily retarded, like relegious person retarded.
 


No that's how you sound. A $300K Ferrari is FASTER than a $30K Honda; yet the you say that's not true because the Honda is a better value. Now, how does that sound? Kinda retarded when we are discussing the fastest cars.
 
Nobody cares man...
my comment was the 9900K pulls double the wattage of AMD because intel has had to push its aging core architecture way past it's effective limits in order to compete with AMD. You, grasping at straws, decided to bring up theoretically intel could be faster to at playing kids games. Sure, you got me there bro. as I said before if that's all you can come up with intel is doomed.
 


A lot of people care. They want to know what is the fastest CPU hands down.

We don't give the 1st place trophy to the best value racer in NASCAR or Forumula 1 racing do we? We don't ask all the racers to give a budget report on how much they spend and then decide the winner on the person who spent the least amount do we? Or how much each athlete spent on training for the Olympics. It's about who is the fastest. Hate all you want but Intel is the fastest. AMD is the value king. That's just the way it is.
 
More intel bias from toms hardware what a surprise.
I will never recommend toms hardware to anyone as they are all paid intel shills
 
Intel biased nonsense (keep the language clean, please), the 9900K is twice the price of the 2700X which gives simular results
 
I guess these Review threads are always full of trolls.

A direct quote from the article:

Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream desktop processor we've ever tested. But it's also one of the most expensive. Knowing that Intel does not match AMD's value proposition, is the ultimate in desktop performance worth paying extra for? The new Core i9 was incredibly impressive through our benchmark suite. However, most users would be better served by cheaper alternatives
 


What numbers are off? Everyone knows the price is ridiculous and the performance does not reflect the price. The articles goes over that, as quoted above. Why are you saying Tom's Hardware is biased? Do you not know their 'Best Gaming CPU of 2018' was and still is the Ryzen 7 2700X?
 
@ Above,

Different people have different definitions of "best" gaming CPU, someone wants to have fastest, someone wants best bang for the money. Meaningless of further discussion. I9-9900k is fastest so far and Ryzen tends to be better bang for the money.
 


I wouldn't even go that far. No serious data-center is using this category of desktop chip, and Intel has other product lines for the serious HEDT workstation market. When you also consider that almost nobody needs or is consciously buying a 4.9Ghz i7 and the requisite heavy duty cooler to run Microsoft Office, or surf the web, then it becomes pretty clear who the major intended consumer is. What an inane comment, even if CPU's *are* an overrated component in today's GPU bound world.