The Intel 9th Gen Review: Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K Tested
by Ian Cutress on October 19, 2018 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Coffee Lake
- 14++
- Core 9th Gen
- Core-S
- i9-9900K
- i7-9700K
- i5-9600K
Gaming: Civilization 6 (DX12)
Originally penned by Sid Meier and his team, the Civ series of turn-based strategy games are a cult classic, and many an excuse for an all-nighter trying to get Gandhi to declare war on you due to an integer overflow. Truth be told I never actually played the first version, but every edition from the second to the sixth, including the fourth as voiced by the late Leonard Nimoy, it a game that is easy to pick up, but hard to master.
Benchmarking Civilization has always been somewhat of an oxymoron – for a turn based strategy game, the frame rate is not necessarily the important thing here and even in the right mood, something as low as 5 frames per second can be enough. With Civilization 6 however, Firaxis went hardcore on visual fidelity, trying to pull you into the game. As a result, Civilization can taxing on graphics and CPUs as we crank up the details, especially in DirectX 12.
Perhaps a more poignant benchmark would be during the late game, when in the older versions of Civilization it could take 20 minutes to cycle around the AI players before the human regained control. The new version of Civilization has an integrated ‘AI Benchmark’, although it is not currently part of our benchmark portfolio yet, due to technical reasons which we are trying to solve. Instead, we run the graphics test, which provides an example of a mid-game setup at our settings.
| AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List | ||||||||
| Game | Genre | Release Date | API | IGP | Low | Med | High | |
| Civilization VI | RTS | Oct 2016 |
DX12 | 1080p Ultra |
4K Ultra |
8K Ultra |
16K Low |
|
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
| Civilization 6 | IGP | Low | Medium | High |
| Average FPS |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 95th Percentile |  |
 |
 |
 |
Continuing the theme we’ve seen thus far, Civilization 6 is another game where the 9900K does provide some benefits, but not under all circumstances. The game is not particularly GPU-intensive to begin with, so at just 4K Ultra we’re still not entirely GPU limited; but past a Ryzen 7 2700X or so, all the CPUs start running together. We have to drop to 1080p Ultra to really pull the CPUs off of the dogpile, at which point the 9900K comes out in the lead.
This is another game that doesn’t seem to care about core counts so much as it does frequencies. So the 9900K has the strongest position here, while the 9700K brings up second place. But neither are very far from the 8700K, with Intel’s latest coming in at just 12% faster than their former flagship even at these CPU benchmarking sympathetic settings.
Curiously we also see the 9900K fall behind the 9700K at 4K and higher. The difference is easily close enough to be noise, but it might be a very slight impact of the lower-tier chips not having to share their cores with hyper-threading.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
ChefJoe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
I have two wants.1 - I really want to see the overclocked 9600k vs overclocked 8600k, as the chart differences of it in this early draft of your 9900k-focused review are likely the wildly different clock speeds of the 86 and 96 parts.
2 - I still want to hear what happens when you drop one of these refresh parts in an older z370 board with an older bios. Do boards that were ok with 8600k refuse to boot a 9600k?
ChefJoe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
ack, 9700k-focused at this point. The 9900k overclock part of the review (and presumably 9600k eventually) is still pending.Ghan - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
My plan was to upgrade from my current i7 6700k to the i7 9700k, and this article seems to confirm that my plan is a decent one. Doubling the core count from 4 to 8 is a decent value. I don't really see the point in paying an extra $100+ just for HT and slightly more cache.This release seems a bit tarnished by the fact that it is still the same process node we've had for years now. Addition of cores is great, but it's not without some cost. Still, perhaps we wouldn't even have this improvement if it weren't for AMD's strong return to the enthusiast CPU market. Hopefully the next year will be even more interesting.
Arbie - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
"Addition of cores is great, but it's not without some cost. Still, perhaps we wouldn't even have this improvement if it weren't for AMD's strong return to the enthusiast CPU market."It's actually with a LOT of cost. And you should consider whom you're going to reward with your business: the big fat company that milked us for ten years and did everything legal and illegal to crush their competition, or the struggling firm that miraculously came from behind and reignited the market. Make your own choice, but if you buy Intel merely to have the fastest today, you're voting for sad tomorrows.
Lazlo Panaflex - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Well said, Arbie. Ryzen 2600 (non X) with decent stock cooler for $160 at Newegg = epic win.mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
My next new build will definitely be AMD. Looking forward to it.billin30 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Maybe I am just slow in my upgrading, but my 4770k is still going strong. I am in the market for an upgrade, but I would like to see what sort of difference in performance I can expect. Its nice to see all the latest CPU's on this list, but you don't get a ton of deviation when you have CPU's that are so close in performance. It would interesting to see some benchmarks based on the previous generations top performing CPU's so we can see what sort of performance improvements we would get when moving up from past generations. I feel like a lot of people hang onto their core system components for many generations and it would be beneficial for those people to see these numbers.DanNeely - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
This is a new set of CPU benchmarks and Ian hasn't had time to retest his other 50+ CPUs yet. From prior history that should happen as he has time and will show up as additional data points in bench.I don't think you're particularly slow about upgrading. For gaming purposes a high end CPU is reasonable to keep for 6-10 years now; possibly even a bit longer if you're only using a midrange GPU and are willing to accept the higher risk of having to build a new system with zero notice because something dies unexpectedly. I'm in a similar spot with my 4790k; and unless games needing more than 4/8 cores start becoming common am planning to keep it for at least 2 or 3 more years.
That should hopefully be long enough that Spectre stops generating frequent new exploits and mitigation is fully in hardware, that PCIe4 (or 5), DDR5, and significant numbers of USB-C ports are available. Also possibly out by then, widespread TB3, or DMI being less of a potential bottleneck on intel CPUs (either a major speedup or additional PCIe for SSDs on the CPU). Also by then either Intel should finally have it's manufacturing unfubarred or if not, AMD will likely have captured the single threaded performance crown while holding onto the multi-threaded one meaning I can have both the ST perf that many games still benefit from and the MT perf for my non-gaming uses that can go really wide.
wintermute000 - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
I'm haswell at 1440p too and the charts have confirmed that I'm holding on for another generation. No sense paying 1500 (32gb RAM) for a platform upgrade to get a few % more frames (and it's fine for my productivity tasks, still faster than new laptops lol)Icehawk - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
I only upgraded from my 4770 to an 8700 because my wife’s i5 4xxx rig died and it gave me an excuse to upgrade my encoding power. I see no difference gaming with a 970. Also I don’t notice increased performance really anywhere except encoding and decompressing during my daily use.