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
29a - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
"The $374 suggested retail price is a bit easier to digest for sure, with the user safe in the knowledge that no two threads are sharing resources on a single core."If that statement isn't putting lipstick on a pig then I don't know what is. That is some major spin right there, you should think about being a politician. I generally feel safe that the scheduler will take care of what treads go to which core.
Nikorasu95 - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Did I just fu*king downgrade by purchasing the i9 9900K when I have the i7 8700K? Like WTF? Some gaming results show the i7 is beating the i9. Like what is going on here? The i9 should be ahead of both the i7 8700K, and 8086K in all gaming tests considering it has 2 extra cores. Once again WTF is going on here with these results? They are inconsistent and make no sense!mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Honestly this is why one should never preorder, wait for reviews. You could also just do a return, go back to 8700K, save the money for a future GPU upgrade which would be better for gaming anyway.dustwalker13 - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
i9900K is a strange animal.if i want workloads, i can get a threadripper for basically the same price with better performance in that area.
if i want gaming i can get a 2700X for much less (plus savings on motherboard and cooler) and get a better gpu for that money, netting me higher fps total.
this part only makes sense if i want to check one single box: get all the parts that net me the absolute highest fps in gaming exclusively, without any compromise, no regard for cost/performance ratios and no other usage scenario like productivity in mind.
the potential customer group seems very limited in that respect. the i9900k just does not make sense for anyone but a statistics crazy gamer with too much money on his hand. for everything else - and especially anyone who does a basic value comparison even on the high end side of gaming - the 9700K and especially 2700X are just hands down the better picks.
jabber - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Yeah to be honest Intel is just redundant price wise. As you say I'd rather save $200-$250 and put the money into say an extra $50/$60 each on Ram/GPU/Motherboard and SSD.jabber - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
So looking at those graphs, AMD at around $360 is the sweetspot.daxpax - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
its funny how there is no 2700x included in benchmarks where it tops Intel. this is as deceptive as previous principle technologies benchmark. haha i thought you were transparent reviwerdaxpax - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
this is clearly intel paid article and you at anand tech should told us this is paid article. shame on youAutomaticTaco - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Seems like a balanced article to me.mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Do you think it's balanced to refer to MSRP rather than typical retail pricing?