Monday, September 10th 2018
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1738672025795.png)
First Intel Core i7-9700K Review Surfaces
Spanish language tech publication El Chapuzas Informático published the first almost-complete review of Intel Core i7-9700K processor. Without Intel disclosing the pricing of this chip, the review doesn't include price/performance numbers or a conclusion that explores the competitive landscape. You still get a sumptuous serving of 14 tests, from which 9 are some of the latest AAA games.
The bottom-line is that the i7-9700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 2700X in most multi-threaded tests except Cinebench nT; and owing to its high clock speeds, it will end up as the fastest gaming processor around the $350-400 mark. Interestingly, the i7-9700K isn't 33% faster than the i7-8700K despite 33% more cores, because HyperThreading is sorely missed. The distinction could be reserved for the Core i9-9900K, although samples of that chip are far too rare.More graphs follow.
Source:
El Chapuzas Informático
The bottom-line is that the i7-9700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 2700X in most multi-threaded tests except Cinebench nT; and owing to its high clock speeds, it will end up as the fastest gaming processor around the $350-400 mark. Interestingly, the i7-9700K isn't 33% faster than the i7-8700K despite 33% more cores, because HyperThreading is sorely missed. The distinction could be reserved for the Core i9-9900K, although samples of that chip are far too rare.More graphs follow.
88 Comments on First Intel Core i7-9700K Review Surfaces
I'm unimpressed, I'm not wooed and certainly not going to rush out and buy a new 9700k or even a 9900k because of any of these results.. That said I have just gone out and bought two Ryzen 1700X CPUs for £150 and to me, that's amazing value. The 2700X being about £300 or so (double the price) does not give me double the performance and is certainly not double the value of money considering the 1700X's cost. Even more so for the systems these two CPUs will be used in will be complete overkill as it is.. But on the plus when I do ever upgrade them, I'm not going to have to change the socket/board and spend even more.. But I digress.. Another boring CPU release from Intel... again....
yea i get they are faster then Ryzen ... but the value is not. Ryzen can still game fine with A good GPU .. its not like you wont be getting your 60+ FPS.
I am self am looking for 16 thread CPU for VM - ESXi or UNRAID Server to replace A few computers. If its 500+ for the CPU .. i would just jump to A threadriiper 2950x .
As far as gaming goes ... my 4790k is till crushing all these new games ... no need.
....
90-95% of the FPS in games is from the GPU,
intel having 5-10% more FPS I barely noticeable at best... I mean sure it's up to 10% but if you're doing literally anything else than gaming on your computer AMD crushes Intel in pretty much every professional use.
Also Memory speed has little to no effect on Intel CPU, you can be having 2600Mhz or 4266Mhz you gain what ... 5% , while It does a lot for AMD, with a 4266Mhz combined with an AMD 2700x there's literally less than 5% difference in games, your GPU is the real bottleneck for games, I really thing that AMD has a better long game approach to its lineup.
I had Intel for like 10 Years (after switching from AMD when I had an Athlon FX) so little evolved in 10 years, AMD is coming back like a bullet, and 2700X being already good. (its actually my next upgrade for Xmas)
Now Ryzen 7nm is on the horizon, probably going to support ddr5 at some point, which will Obviously boost even more its perf if Intel doesn't changes its Arch, I honestly thing that by 2019 AMD will severely crush any Intel on any workload.
EPYC is already destroying Intel for server area at any workload, Threadripper just put all the X gen of intel to shame both in Performance and Price/perf. so I wouldn't be surprise if ryzen 7nm does it too.
As for those who claim "a i7 2600K is good enough for modern GPUs", tests do show that "good enough" is dependent on how good your GPU is. A 7700K at 5.0GHz is actually slow enough to bottleneck a GTX 1080 ti at resolutions up to 4K depending on the game. The CPU needs to be fast enough to not bottleneck the GPU until the GPU has hit it's peak performance. With the imminent release of the RTX 20x0 series, the older i7 CPUs are just not going to cut it if the performance of the GPUs is a good 20%-30% over the 10x0 series as is claimed by Nvidia.
*edited* fixed a brainfart with the 7700K clock speeds lol
It will sell well if they price it right.
C'mon Intel, one single jab and you're on your knees with the referee counting to 10? We need competition, do better than this.
I hope 10nm is not just another Haswell to Beoadwell.
Actually, these results are pretty impressive given it is an 8c/8t competing successfully enough with 6c/12t and sometimes with 8c/16t competition.
www.techpowerup.com/forums/members/dwade.106554/
Sneekypeet removed my post criticising him and ignored him - what a joke.