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
CPU Performance: Encoding Tests
With the rise of streaming, vlogs, and video content as a whole, encoding and transcoding tests are becoming ever more important. Not only are more home users and gamers needing to convert video files into something more manageable, for streaming or archival purposes, but the servers that manage the output also manage around data and log files with compression and decompression. Our encoding tasks are focused around these important scenarios, with input from the community for the best implementation of real-world testing.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
Handbrake 1.1.0: Streaming and Archival Video Transcoding
A popular open source tool, Handbrake is the anything-to-anything video conversion software that a number of people use as a reference point. The danger is always on version numbers and optimization, for example the latest versions of the software can take advantage of AVX-512 and OpenCL to accelerate certain types of transcoding and algorithms. The version we use here is a pure CPU play, with common transcoding variations.
We have split Handbrake up into several tests, using a Logitech C920 1080p60 native webcam recording (essentially a streamer recording), and convert them into two types of streaming formats and one for archival. The output settings used are:
- 720p60 at 6000 kbps constant bit rate, fast setting, high profile
- 1080p60 at 3500 kbps constant bit rate, faster setting, main profile
- 1080p60 HEVC at 3500 kbps variable bit rate, fast setting, main profile
7-zip v1805: Popular Open-Source Encoding Engine
Out of our compression/decompression tool tests, 7-zip is the most requested and comes with a built-in benchmark. For our test suite, we’ve pulled the latest version of the software and we run the benchmark from the command line, reporting the compression, decompression, and a combined score.
It is noted in this benchmark that the latest multi-die processors have very bi-modal performance between compression and decompression, performing well in one and badly in the other. There are also discussions around how the Windows Scheduler is implementing every thread. As we get more results, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Please note, if you plan to share out the Compression graph, please include the Decompression one. Otherwise you’re only presenting half a picture.
WinRAR 5.60b3: Archiving Tool
My compression tool of choice is often WinRAR, having been one of the first tools a number of my generation used over two decades ago. The interface has not changed much, although the integration with Windows right click commands is always a plus. It has no in-built test, so we run a compression over a set directory containing over thirty 60-second video files and 2000 small web-based files at a normal compression rate.
WinRAR is variable threaded but also susceptible to caching, so in our test we run it 10 times and take the average of the last five, leaving the test purely for raw CPU compute performance.
AES Encryption: File Security
A number of platforms, particularly mobile devices, are now offering encryption by default with file systems in order to protect the contents. Windows based devices have these options as well, often applied by BitLocker or third-party software. In our AES encryption test, we used the discontinued TrueCrypt for its built-in benchmark, which tests several encryption algorithms directly in memory.
The data we take for this test is the combined AES encrypt/decrypt performance, measured in gigabytes per second. The software does use AES commands for processors that offer hardware selection, however not AVX-512.
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.