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: Integrated Graphics
Despite being the ultimate joke at any bring-your-own-computer event, gaming on integrated graphics can ultimately be as rewarding as the latest mega-rig that costs the same as a car. The desire for strong integrated graphics in various shapes and sizes has waxed and waned over the years, with Intel relying on its latest ‘Gen’ graphics architecture while AMD happily puts its Vega architecture into the market to swallow up all the low-end graphics card sales. With Intel poised to make an attack on graphics in the next few years, it will be interesting to see how the graphics market develops, especially integrated graphics.
For our integrated graphics testing, we take our ‘IGP’ category settings for each game and loop the benchmark round for five minutes a piece, taking as much data as we can from our automated setup.
Finally, looking at integrated graphics performance, I don’t believe anyone should be surprised here. Intel has not meaningfully changed their iGPU since Kaby Lake – the microarchitecture is the same and the peak GPU frequency has risen by all of 50MHz to 1200MHz – so Intel’s iGPU results have essentially been stagnant for the last couple of years at the top desktop segment.
To that end I don’t think there’s much new to say. Intel’s GT2 iGPU struggles even at 720p in some of these games; it’s not an incapable iGPU, but there’s sometimes a large gulf between it and what these games (which are multi-platform console ports) expect for minimum GPU performance. The end result is that if you’re serious about iGPU performance in your desktop CPU, then AMD’s APUs provide much better performance. That said, if you are forced to game on the 9900K’s iGPU, then at least the staples of the eSports world such as World of Tanks will run quite well.
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?