New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

[HTC]

The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).

As a fellow TPU member put it in an unrelated (GPU card) topic, the fastest comes with a premium ...

As i replied in that same topic, there's premium, and theres "premiumed" premium ...

@ the very least, these "new performance numbers" are much more inline with what we'd expect before that whole "PT botched job".

 

[Frick]

In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.

By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.

 

[HTC]

Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.

Very seriously doubt this.

Don't this it's possible but, if it were, what could really up the performance of AMD's chips is decoupling the Infinity Fabric from the RAM frequency to a divider that gave an extra ... say ... 1/8 th more speed. This by itself would boost performance and the benefits could by higher then going from 2133 average timings to 3200 "Stilt" timings, but it would also boost power consumption by as much as that 20W mentioned, if not more.

Enough OT.

What i'll be looking forward to with interest is the IPC change VS older / competition platforms: if @W1zzard would be so kind as to test all the CPUs planned for the review @ a suitable speed, without turbo / XFR, while having good RAM timings, i'm sure we TPUers would all appreciate it.

 

[StrayKAT]

By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.

I imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

intel helped AMD with free ads ... AMD owe to PT and of course to intel

 

[_Flare]

and please do a verification @baseclock if intel holds its 95W TDP

 

[Hossein Almet]

In Australia it is a 83% pricier: $859 vs $469.

 

[kastriot]

Money is meant to be spent especially when you have alot of it, so who cares about prices except XX% of people who don't have it..

 

[Athlonite]

In Australia it is a 83% pricier: $859 vs $469.

meanwhile ya neighbours in New Zealand are paying absurd prices

Intel i9 9900K $948.99NZD (inc GST 15%) vs AMD Ryzen 7 2700X $508.99 (inc GST 15%) all prices in NZD and exclude shipping cost

 

[StrayKAT]

Looks like Aussies are in the same place we were in the 80s/early 90s. I wouldn't want it to get worse for them.

Seems like all of the dealing for slave wages mostly benefits us Americans. I don't like it, personally.

 

[Mr.Mopar392]

thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.

then stick to Intel, no one needs your opinion to buy whatever they want to buy. or you salesman man or something.

 

[yeeeeman]

and please do a verification @baseclock if intel holds its 95W TDP

Intel TDP is specified for base clock (3.6Ghz). You can imagine how much it will consume/dissipate at 4.7Ghz all cores. And no, the increase is not linear.

 

[SIGSEGV]

so, 5Ghz vs 4.3Ghz and 12% improvement... looks hilarious. I don't know why to feel like I'm so proud to myself that I made the right decision to buy 2700X.

 

[phill]

I do wonder if the game tests were all run at 1080P as that would make the biggest difference. As I couldn't see any hardware settings for the two systems used, they might have not set memory timings, could have used different ram, so I'm going with the why the heck would I pay 66% more for only 12%??

My 5960X is still running perfectly fine and I'm very excited for AMD's next CPUs that are to be released at some point... The CPU war is back where it should be and with the shortages that Intel are facing with their CPUs becoming more and more expensive, I don't see anyone really buying Intel if they want price/performance.

I'll just point you here.... with results from a rather overclocked Ryzen... I know it's only CB 15 and I know you'd never be able to use the CPU at these speeds day to day (LN2 or whatever was used isn't cheap at all and not really idea for 24/7 conditions!! ) but just goes to show how good AMD's Ryzen can be... Thanks to @Johan45 for sharing his results

 

[newtekie1]

Obviously comparing just gaming on a 8-Core chip is not telling the whole story. If you just want gaming, buy the i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K, the i9 isn't really going to benefit you.

 

[M2B]

5GHz is not possible with Zen+ on 12nm.

 

[skline00]

Let me begin my comments by saying I go back to the days of owning a Gateway 2000 386DX33 which I "hopped up" with an AMD 386-40? to gain a bit so I understand the philosophy of wanting the fastest.

I also own a Intel 5960xOC'd to 4.4 under custom water with a Gigabyte Aorus GTX1080TI with a waterblock; AMD 2700X stock under custom water with a GTX1080 under water and an EK block and finally an AMD 2600x with AIO cooler and GTX1070TI (the VR box portable).

No one doubted the 9900k would be the fastest gaming cpu. What is sad is the way Intel allowed a paid third part to test and release the final results without having the Intel engineers who know the true numbers check over the testing procedure first. GOOD GRIEF! Is the marketing department that strong that they put the clamps on the engineering department? What a screw up. Perhaps panic mode has Intel not executing properly.

Let's look a pros and cons.

PROS:
9900K will be the fastest gaming cpu for now.
CON
It will be @$200 more expensive than the 2700X
PRO
It will use the latest Intel mb/chipset
CONS
You will have to buy the 390 mb to get the most out of the 9900K
Your 8700K mb will accept the 9900k but depending upon it's quality may not OC as well.
The AMD370 chipset (which I have) supported the 1800X which I upped to the 2700X AND will support at least the upcoming Zen2.

This thread will go on and on and on.

When Zen2 comes out, and it will, I wonder how much I will pay for the fastest chip and I wonder if it will match or beat the 9900K?

 

[dj-electric]

You will have to buy the 390 mb to use the 9900K

9900K is fully supported on Z370 and H370, as well as B360 and H310 boards.

 

[StrayKAT]

Let me begin my comments by saying I go back to the days of owning a Gateway 2000 386DX33 which I "hopped up" with an AMD 386-40? to gain a bit so I understand the philosophy of wanting the fastest.

I also own a Intel 5960xOC'd to 4.4 under custom water with a Gigabyte Aorus GTX1080TI with a waterblock; AMD 2700X stock under custom water with a GTX1080 under water and an EK block and finally an AMD 2600x with AIO cooler and GTX1070TI (the VR box portable).

No one doubted the 9900k would be the fastest gaming cpu. What is sad is the way Intel allowed a paid third part to test and release the final results without having the Intel engineers who know the true numbers check over the testing procedure first. GOOD GRIEF! Is the marketing department that strong that they put the clamps on the engineering department? What a screw up. Perhaps panic mode has Intel not executing properly.

Let's look a pros and cons.

PROS:
9900K will be the fastest gaming cpu for now.
CON
It will be @$200 more expensive than the 2700X
PRO
It will use the latest Intel mb/chipset
CONS
You will have to buy the 390 mb to use the 9900K
Your 8700K mb will not accept the 9900k but the AMD370 chipset (which I have) supported the 1800X which I upped to the 2700X AND will support at least the upcoming Zen2.

This thread will go on and on and on.

When Zen2 comes out, and it will, I wonder how much I will pay for the fastest chip and I wonder if it will match or beat the 9900K?

Zen2/7nm @5ghz sounds pretty sweet if that happens.. even to my Intel owning self. And a Vega 7nm would be the nice icing on the cake.

edit: By the time that comes out though, I think Intel will be just right behind with another product lineup too.

 

[skline00]

dj-electric you are correct and I have corrected my post.
What I misread was the overclocking ability of the Intel 370 mbs. BTW the same can be said for AMDs 370/470 mbs.

StrayKAT, I think Zen2 will be @4.5 to at most 4.6OCd while the 2700X is 4.2 to 4.3 MAX. The difference may also be the number of cores of the highest end Zen2. At least 8C/16T but rumors seem to be as high as 12C/24T. If AMD can release at stock a 12C/24T Zen2 stock that OCs to 4.5 look out.

What is also missing in this thread is that Jim Keller, of Ryzen renown, is now on Intel's payroll.
I doubt he had much, if anything to do with the 9900K but he sure knows how to bring people together to design a solid cpu lineup.

 

[B-Real]

9900K is fully supported on Z370 and H370, as well as B360 and H310 boards.

With the only exception you cannot OC it, only in Z motherboards. Yet your first comment was about the 9700K be able to be OCd to 5,5GHz. You are so funny trying. Anyway, how can anyone convince someone who has a 9900K and a 2080Ti LOL. You can't even give a single reason why you bought the 9900K with a 2080Ti as I assume you are not playing on a FHD monitor. On upper resolutions, that 12% difference disappears. That's the fact.

 

[Vayra86]

Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.



I can confirm we will have a day-one review.

Right. I know you've got red tinted glasses (Even if you don't put 'editorial' on your content, its obvious) but this is just the same old AMD fan utopia we've seen for decades and it never works that way, never will, and its clear as day Ryzen will need much more than 125W to hit 5 Ghz. Even a 6-core 8700K needs 130W+ in most cases to get there.

I think you can count yourself lucky if they can put 4.6 Ghz on the box.

Obviously comparing just gaming on a 8-Core chip is not telling the whole story. If you just want gaming, buy the i7-9700K or even the i5-9600K, the i9 isn't really going to benefit you.

Thank you! Common sense...

 

[CandymanGR]

As i've said before... intel. The white dove on innocence. The company that respects the clients. Pricing is so wise. Thank god for intel.

P.S. The benchmark comparison of processors from different brands, must be made based on price. Only.

 

[siluro818]

"There is no bad hardware. Only bad prices."

 

[dj-electric]

Yet your first comment was about the 9700K be able to be OCd to 5,5GHz. You are so funny trying

Huh?! where did i claim that?