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: Far Cry 5
The latest title in Ubisoft's Far Cry series lands us right into the unwelcoming arms of an armed militant cult in Montana, one of the many middles-of-nowhere in the United States. With a charismatic and enigmatic adversary, gorgeous landscapes of the northwestern American flavor, and lots of violence, it is classic Far Cry fare. Graphically intensive in an open-world environment, the game mixes in action and exploration.
Far Cry 5 does support Vega-centric features with Rapid Packed Math and Shader Intrinsics. Far Cry 5 also supports HDR (HDR10, scRGB, and FreeSync 2). We use the in-game benchmark for our data, and report the average/minimum frame rates.
| AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List | ||||||||
| Game | Genre | Release Date | API | IGP | Low | Med | High | |
| Far Cry 5 | FPS | Mar 2018 |
DX11 | 720p Low |
1080p Normal |
1440p High |
4K Ultra |
|
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
| Far Cry 5 | IGP | Low | High |
| Average FPS |  |
 |
 |
| Minimum FPS |  |
 |
 |
Far Cry 5 is another game that at reasonable 1080p settings actually shows some CPU differentiation. To really drive a wedge between the CPUs we do need to drop to 720p Low, but still, in both cases the 9900K comes out on top. And in this case the performance gap between it and the 8700K is actually a bit larger than normal at 12%. Still, this is a game that’s if it’s not GPU-bound is closer to being bounded by a limited number of threads, so the lack of major clockspeed gains for the 9900K keep it from pulling too far ahead. It also keeps the 9700K from falling too far behind.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
The funny part is that, for productivity, one can pick up used top-end older hw for a pittance, have the best of both worlds. I was building an oc'd 3930K setup for someone (back when RAM prices were still sensible, 32GB DDR3/2400 kit only cost me 115 UKP), replaced the chip with a 10-core XEON E5-2680 v2 which was cheap, works great and way better for productivity. Lower single-threaded speed of course, but still respectable and in most cases it doesn't matter. Also far better heat, noise and power consumption behaviour.Intel is already competing with both itself (7820X) and AMD with the 9K series; add in used options and Intel's new stuff (like NVIDIA) is even less appealing. I bagged a used 1080 Ti for 450 UKP, very happy. :)
vanilla_gorilla - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
So the "Best Gaming CPU" really only has an advantage when gaming at 1080p or less? Who spends this much money on a CPU to game at 1080p? What is the point of this thing?TEAMSWITCHER - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Many benchmarks show the 9900k coming "oh so close" to the 10-core 7900X. I'm thinking that the "Best Gaming CPU" is Intel's wishful thinking for Enthusiasts to spend hundreds more for their X299 platform.HStewart - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Of course at higher resolution it depends on GPU - but from the list of games only Ashes is one stated not top of class for 4k.If you look at conclusion in article you will notice that most games got "Best CPU or near top in all" which also means 4k CIV 6 was interesting with "Best CPU at IGP, a bit behind at 4K, top class at 8K/16K" which tells me even though it 4k was not so great - but it was even better at 8k/16k
vanilla_gorilla - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
At 4K every CPU performs at almost the exact same frame rate. Within 1fps. Why would anyone pay this much for a "gaming CPU" that has no advantage compared to CPUs half the price over 1080p? This is insanity.If you are a gamer, save your money, buy a two year old intel or Ryzen CPU and spend the rest on a 4K monitor!
CPUGuy - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
This CPU is going to be amazing at 10nm.eastcoast_pete - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Yes, a fast chip, but those thermals?! This is the silicon equivalent to boosting an engine's performance with nitrous: you'll get the power, but at what cost? I agree with Ian and others here that this is the chip to get if a. bragging rights (fastest gaming CPU) are really important and b. money is no objective. In its intended use, I'd strongly suggest to budget at least $ 2500 -3000, including a custom liquid-cooling solution for both the 9900K and the graphics card, presumably a 2080.In the meantime, the rest of us can hope that AMD will keep Intel's prices for the i7 9700 in check.
Arbie - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
In the meantime, the rest of us can buy AMD, as anyone should do who doesn't require a chip like this for some professional need.eastcoast_pete - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
@Arbie: I agree. If I would be putting a system right now, I would give first consideration to a Ryzen Threadripper 1920X. The MoBos are a bit pricey, but Amazon, Newegg and others have the 1920x on sale at around $470 or so, and its 12 cores/24 threads are enough for even very demanding applications. To me, the only reason to still look at Intel ( i7 8700) is the superior AVX performance that Intel still offers vs. AMD. For some video editing programs, it can make a sizable difference. For general productivity though, a 1920x system at current discounts is the ruling Mid/High End Desktop value king.mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
The exception is Premiere which is still horribly optimised.