Intel Officially Launches 9th Generation Processors Including the 8-Core / 16-Thread Core i9-9900K

[kings]

The 9900K will stomp everything in the mainstream, many cores/threads and excellent clocks. The problem is that it will reach in EU 600€ or close to that.

It will not be easy to recommend when a 2700X costs basically half and although it´s not the best CPU in absolute performance, it offers more than enough performance for most people.

I think the i9 will end up being a niche CPU, the sales champion should be the 9700K, now also with 8 cores (but lacking HT). I'm curious to see how it will behave compared to the 6C/12T of the 8700K.

 

[trog100]

"I'm curious to see how it will behave compared to the 6C/12T of the 8700K "

very similar i would think..

trog

 

[notb]

It will not be easy to recommend when a 2700X costs basically half and although it´s not the best CPU in absolute performance, it offers more than enough performance for most people.

Neither of these CPUs is made "for most people".

Intel is better and more expensive. Simple as that. And the difference should be easily noticeable.

I think the i9 will end up being a niche CPU, the sales champion should be the 9700K, now also with 8 cores (but lacking HT). I'm curious to see how it will behave compared to the 6C/12T of the 8700K.

Similar on average. HT is giving around 40-50% boost.
That's why we're not getting 6C/12T anymore in desktops.

That's a bad analogy. Cinebench isn't made for that.

Not made for idealized benchmarking? So what is it good for?

Anyway, we've seen both Intel and AMD launching their products with a "50% better than competitor" slogan.
AMD used a synthetic benchmark for a best-case multi-thread performance, because they had a core count advantage.
Intel used a particular setup that pronounces their advantage in single-thread performance, but they used a more real-world test (games).

Let's be honest: Intel simply asked a company to make a very specific product test that will show it's strengths. It's not an objective review or scientific research. It's just marketing. It's no different from how antiperspirant makers "prove" that it works for 24h and washing powders remove 99% of stain types.

One thing I'd have to mention is the XMP issue, i.e. Ryzen results in this comparison being lower due to bad memory setup.
A situation when a casual PC user has to care about things like memory frequency and timings is just repulsive.

 

[GlacierNine]

Anyway, we've seen both Intel and AMD launching their products with a "50% better than competitor" slogan.
AMD used a synthetic benchmark for a best-case multi-thread performance, because they had a core count advantage.
Intel used a particular setup that pronounces their advantage in single-thread performance, but they used a more real-world test (games).

Let's be honest: Intel simply asked a company to make a very specific product test that will show it's strengths. It's not an objective review or scientific research. It's just marketing. It's no different from how antiperspirant makers "prove" that it works for 24h and washing powders remove 99% of stain types.

One thing I'd have to mention is the XMP issue, i.e. Ryzen results in this comparison being lower due to bad memory setup.
A situation when a casual PC user has to care about things like memory frequency and timings is just repulsive.

You're massively misrepresenting what intel did.

AMD did pick a test that advantaged it's product, yes. But they didn't intentionally hobble the Intel Hardware to exaggerate that result.

Intel did. They picked a set of tests they already knew they would win, but then they also:

1 - Used 4 sticks of memory instead of 2, to hobble the AMD platform's timings.
2 - Didn't apply XMP timings to AMD's sticks when they did to their own.
3 - Used superior cooling to AMD (A Noctua NH-14S versus a Wraith) in order to reach their maximum boost clocks, when we all know that the boost TDP of that chip (Which is not 95W, as Intel measures TDP at base clocks, not boost) would overwhelm a solution that was actually equivalent to a wraith, leading to throttling.

Additionally, Intel's performance numbers were presented as if an objective review of the product, despite being released weeks ahead of the NDA for real reviews.

This isn't the same thing as AMD deciding to only promote the results of it's best event. This is Intel making AMD run the 100m sprint uphill when Intel ran down.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Neither of these CPUs is made "for most people".

Intel is better and more expensive. Simple as that. And the difference should be easily noticeable.

Similar on average. HT is giving around 40-50% boost.
That's why we're not getting 6C/12T anymore in desktops.

Not made for idealized benchmarking? So what is it good for?

No, it's supposed to be made to represent exactly what you see it doing, multimedia work. It's only now that since AMD excels at it (especially due to superior multithreading) that it's called into question. For the rest of history it's been sponsored and fine tuned for intel, so suddenly, it's now a BS benchmark. In reality, it's always been BS.

 

[GlacierNine]

One thing I'd have to mention is the XMP issue, i.e. Ryzen results in this comparison being lower due to bad memory setup.
A situation when a casual PC user has to care about things like memory frequency and timings is just repulsive.

I think maybe you're just too used to how easy overclocking is on Intel platforms after 10 years of it being done exactly the same way, and so many little things being introduced to make it easy - on top of the fact the ring-bus architecture (Possible due to intels monolithic dies, which are very much hitting their limits in terms of practicality, hence the wider move to MCM or chiplet designs of CPU) - so many things are done for you on Intel to get performance, from being able to simply enable XMP to being able to turn on MCE in the BIOS to overclock even a locked CPU. Auto voltages and even voltage/frequency curves in automated OC utilities. Hell, EVGA are shipping built in OC tools and stress testing in their latest BIOS.

It was never this easy in the past, and all platforms have quirks that users need to account for to obtain the best performance. Most of the time we just learn, get used to it, and move on. It becomes considered "common knowledge" after a while. Take Dual vs Single Channel Memory for example. That didn't used to be a thing, and when it became a thing it was a quirk like memory performance affecting CPU scores is a quirk. What about on X58, where we could potentially run Triple channel? That quirk came and went and was unique to that platform. I remember back in the day when people didn't understand Dual Channel. These days any idiot knows that if your RAM sticks are in adjacent slots you're running them suboptimally (Well, unless you're making a video for The Verge...)

What about Netburst architecture, where your overclock was determined by the combination of your FSB and Multiplier, and your FSB was actually really important in determining your final clocks? These days if you OC, you don't need to touch the equivalent BCLK at all, and if you do you rarely change it more than 2 or 3MHz at the most extreme. Back in the Netburst/K8 days, FSB overclocking was the norm and you had to fiddle for ages, figuring out if you could reach your next CPU speed step at a given FSB or if you had to try and reach it at a lower FSB with a higher multiplier, etc.

Having to remember to turn on XMP to get the best performance out of your Ryzen Platform is an extremely minor niggle compared to the practical nightmares that have been normal in the past in order to get a system working it's best. Especially when you remember that high end memory overclocking used to mean buying things like THIS to get more voltage through your DIMMs - http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/227/OCZ-DDR-Booster-Review/0

These days the limitation for memory overclocking is how much voltage you can put through the IMC of your CPU. Why? Because we don't have Northbridge/Southbridge in systems anymore, which is another thing that's been simplified since the "Bad old days".

 

[Melvis]

And AMD or Nvidia haven't? And what about your favourite brand of washing powder?
Sometimes I do feel like some people on this forum are totally detached from reality. This is an Intel advertisement. It's no different from advertisements made by any other company. It's not fake (that's illegal), but it's usually based on a best case scenario.

Remind me, just how well Cinebench multi-thread reflects typical software run on consumer PCs?

Umm this is intel, do you not know how much lies and BS they have passed onto all of us over the yrs? Nvidia and AMD dont even come close! (yes they do mislead but not like Intel) to how misleading and straight out lies that Intel have done, I guess you wasnt around for the 478/939 days which intel fooled alot of people that there P4's where faster then AMD's which where not even on the same lvl. Did you not watch the video? maybe you should watch the video and listen to what Steve has to say..

 

[GlacierNine]

Umm this is intel, do you not know how much lies and BS they have passed onto all of us over the yrs? Nvidia and AMD dont even come close! (yes they do mislead but not like Intel) to how misleading and straight out lies that Intel have done, I guess you wasnt around for the 478/939 days which intel fooled alot of people that there P4's where faster then AMD's which where not even on the same lvl. Did you not watch the video? maybe you should watch the video and listen to what Steve has to say..

Let's not forget that Intel are a successful company quite literally due to the fact they welched on the technology sharing agreement they originally signed with AMD.

The profit they reaped from doing that enabled them to drag the court case out for over a decade until eventually they were found guilty and fined a colossal amount of money - but in the meantime they'd made so much money that they were able to simply pay the fine and move on, when it SHOULD have crippled their business if they'd paid an amount proportionate to the deceit.

That plus their agreements with Dell, paying them off to not sell products with competitors processors in - another court case they ended up losing.


Intel's record of lies and deceit is long and well documented. AMDs? Sure, they've pulled bullshit. Nowhere near on the same scale as Intel though.

 

[the54thvoid]

A situation when a casual PC user has to care about things like memory frequency and timings is just repulsive.

A casual PC gamer won't build their own system. If you do, you're a hobbyist. If you're a hobby builder, then at least you ought to know what you're getting into.

A casual PC gamer will buy a pre-built, or have one built for them. They don't worry about timings. They'll simply enjoy gaming on a competent platform.

And that's from me, a first generation 1700x owner with 3200Mhz memory at 14 timings. And I'm barely competent.

 

[TheTechGuy1337]

I just recently did an old 2600k pc rebuild and honestly I'm still impressed with sandy bridge performance for today's standards. Is it the fastest? Hell no, but can I maintain above 60 fps with a medium level graphics card at 1080p and 1440p? Yep. Does a gamer require more then that? Only you as an individual can answer that question. We all have different needs, but add an ssd to sandy bridge, overclock it, and you can still have a great gaming experience dirt cheap.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

£599.99 for a mainstream processor, you've got to be joking

 

[Sasqui]

£599.99 for a mainstream processor, you've got to be joking
View attachment 108340

It's $488 for the CPU and a whole bunch more for the cool looking Dodecahedron box.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

It's $488 for the CPU and a whole bunch more for the cool looking Dodecahedron box.

Pfft. Best part is the free postage, can't beat that AMD

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Soldered TIM across the lower end parts too? Interesting...

Well, these "lower parts" costs as much as or more than the higher parts of the Intel 8000-generation and AND Ryzen 2s.

 

[trparky]

What the hell Intel? Obvious paid results is obvious.

 

[Captain_Tom]

LOL I find it funny that they are showing stupidly high framerates. The only way they can pretend the new chips are any better at gaming is if you use ridiculously low settings and resolutions. Yawn.

 

[GoldenX]

*Obi-Wan's voice* You were supposed to lower the cost of multi-core processors and bring balance, not throw them into the $600 darkness!

 

[Zyll Goliat]

 

[notb]

You're massively misrepresenting what intel did.

No, you are.

You still don't get this. It was a marketing exercise, not an objective review. Intel asked an external company to give them a number for a "up to $this % faster than 2700X".
It's a "cleans your teeth 62% more effective than other toothpaste" kind of thing.

Everything else is just a result of you misunderstanding what this comparison was about.

1 - Used 4 sticks of memory instead of 2, to hobble the AMD platform's timings.

There are 4 slots on that motherboard. A user may use them. [*]

2 - Didn't apply XMP timings to AMD's sticks when they did to their own.

A user may or may not use XMP. I bet most don't know what it is. [*]

3 - Used superior cooling to AMD (A Noctua NH-14S versus a Wraith) in order to reach their maximum boost clocks, when we all know that the boost TDP of that chip (Which is not 95W, as Intel measures TDP at base clocks, not boost) would overwhelm a solution that was actually equivalent to a wraith, leading to throttling.

9900K user may buy a Noctua (and, let's be honest, he most likely should) and 2700X user may keep the Wraith. It's a plausible situation.

Additionally, Intel's performance numbers were presented as if an objective review of the product, despite being released weeks ahead of the NDA for real reviews.

Just like with the toothpaste.
Problem here is just that PC people are too hooked up on quantitative tests. You need some distance.

Intel didn't gimp AMD performance in any way. They didn't disable boost or XFR. They used the bundled cooler (not a bad one) instead of something worse. Once again: it's a plausible situation.
Hence, the conclusion is true:
"Intel’s Core i9 9900K is up to 50% faster than AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X in games."

[*] I repeat what I said earlier. It's appalling that you have to know so much about RAM tweaking to get competitive results from Ryzen. Not all gamers are PC geeks.

And here's an interesting twist!
As you said: utilizing 4 sticks of RAM takes away some performance of AMD CPUs. But hey... there are 4 slots, so I'd imagine some users will use all of them. Agree?
In that case aren't pretty much all CPU reviews helping AMD?
For example: good gaming performance reviews usually report an average of many runs. So if, for example, 1 in 5 real users has 4 RAM sticks instead of just 2, shouldn't we do that in 20% of runs as well? ;-)

*Obi-Wan's voice* You were supposed to lower the cost of multi-core processors and bring balance, not throw them into the $600 darkness!

"Thank you AMD!"

 

[GlacierNine]

Problem here is just that PC people are too hooked up on quantitative tests. You need some distance.

I think this line tells anyone reading this thread anything they need to know about how far you'll go to defend your delusional, insane belief that this was somehow OK.

For everyone else, I will simply *also* leave this 30 minute video of Steve from Gamer's Nexus absolutely obliterating Principled Technology's testing methodology bit by bit, as Zyll did.

 

[notb]

I think this line tells anyone reading this thread anything they need to know about how far you'll go to defend your delusional, insane belief that this was somehow OK.

I just look at this as on the toothpaste thing. And it's OK. They wanted to have an "up to X better" figure.
Come on. CPU is just a product like everything else. Why are you so serious?

Do you have a car? Check what the manufacturer claims about fuel consumption.

I admit Intel made a mistake here. They're mostly concerned about business and OEM clients. But since this time they've launched a typical geek product, they should have done it appropriately.
This will hurt them, but not because of some legal issues (because, as I've said, this exercise is 100% legit and correct). But all this bad PR really takes eyes away from the product itself. 9900K is pretty great, but everyone is talking about a poor PR stunt.

 

[kajson]

No, you are.

You still don't get this. It was a marketing exercise, not an objective review. Intel asked an external company to give them a number for a "up to $this % faster than 2700X".
It's a "cleans your teeth 62% more effective than other toothpaste" kind of thing.

Everything else is just a result of you misunderstanding what this comparison was about.

There are 4 slots on that motherboard. A user may use them. [*]

A user may or may not use XMP. I bet most don't know what it is. [*]

9900K user may buy a Noctua (and, let's be honest, he most likely should) and 2700X user may keep the Wraith. It's a plausible situation.

Just like with the toothpaste.
Problem here is just that PC people are too hooked up on quantitative tests. You need some distance.

Intel didn't gimp AMD performance in any way. They didn't disable boost or XFR. They used the bundled cooler (not a bad one) instead of something worse. Once again: it's a plausible situation.
Hence, the conclusion is true:
"Intel’s Core i9 9900K is up to 50% faster than AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X in games."

[*] I repeat what I said earlier. It's appalling that you have to know so much about RAM tweaking to get competitive results from Ryzen. Not all gamers are PC geeks.


"Thank you AMD!"

Please explain the not gimping in any way when the actual used 2700X results were way worse then the results the factchecker got by using the exact same setup.

 

[OutThereSomewhere]

8 Cores, I think I'll pass. Not worth the upgrade from my i7-8700k.

 

[GoldenX]

I'm with notb on this, it's freaking marketing, of course it's going to be biased, it's not like Intel is saying that there are weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
The real bad part is settings pre orders with no real reviews available.
And the worst of this, is that it opens AMD the option to rise prices if the performance is close enough. We got the1800x down from 500 at Ryzen's launch, to 350 IIRC, we may lose that.

 

[cadaveca]

For everyone else, I will simply *also* leave this 30 minute video of Steve from Gamer's Nexus absolutely obliterating Principled Technology's testing methodology bit by bit, as Zyll did.

I watched the entire video, and paid close attention to everything that was said. My eyes have yet to roll back forward so I see right. That sounded like my 17-year-old son complaining because I wanted him home at 1 AM on a Saturday night. This guy really needs to work on his presentation skills as he might have some valid points, but he ends up sounding like a whining child, like I find many forums posters do from time to time. That's not how you get people to listen to what you have to say.

A better video would have been one that had a similar-spec'd system, and showed how to set it up properly, gone though the BIOS options, and then showed the difference in benchmarks, rather than standing there and yelling into the camera about how things were done wrong.


A nice black box showed up on my doorstep today...