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: Rendering Tests
Rendering is often a key target for processor workloads, lending itself to a professional environment. It comes in different formats as well, from 3D rendering through rasterization, such as games, or by ray tracing, and invokes the ability of the software to manage meshes, textures, collisions, aliasing, physics (in animations), and discarding unnecessary work. Most renderers offer CPU code paths, while a few use GPUs and select environments use FPGAs or dedicated ASICs. For big studios however, CPUs are still the hardware of choice.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
Corona 1.3: Performance Render
An advanced performance based renderer for software such as 3ds Max and Cinema 4D, the Corona benchmark renders a generated scene as a standard under its 1.3 software version. Normally the GUI implementation of the benchmark shows the scene being built, and allows the user to upload the result as a ‘time to complete’.
We got in contact with the developer who gave us a command line version of the benchmark that does a direct output of results. Rather than reporting time, we report the average number of rays per second across six runs, as the performance scaling of a result per unit time is typically visually easier to understand.
The Corona benchmark website can be found at https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark
Corona is a fully multithreaded test, so the non-HT parts get a little behind here. The Core i9-9900K blasts through the AMD 8-core parts with a 25% margin, and taps on the door of the 12-core Threadripper.
Blender 2.79b: 3D Creation Suite
A high profile rendering tool, Blender is open-source allowing for massive amounts of configurability, and is used by a number of high-profile animation studios worldwide. The organization recently released a Blender benchmark package, a couple of weeks after we had narrowed our Blender test for our new suite, however their test can take over an hour. For our results, we run one of the sub-tests in that suite through the command line - a standard ‘bmw27’ scene in CPU only mode, and measure the time to complete the render.
Blender can be downloaded at https://www.blender.org/download/
Blender has an eclectic mix of requirements, from memory bandwidth to raw performance, but like Corona the processors without HT get a bit behind here. The high frequency of the 9900K pushes it above the 10C Skylake-X part, and AMD's 2700X, but behind the 1920X.
LuxMark v3.1: LuxRender via Different Code Paths
As stated at the top, there are many different ways to process rendering data: CPU, GPU, Accelerator, and others. On top of that, there are many frameworks and APIs in which to program, depending on how the software will be used. LuxMark, a benchmark developed using the LuxRender engine, offers several different scenes and APIs.
Taken from the Linux Version of LuxMark
In our test, we run the simple ‘Ball’ scene on both the C++ and OpenCL code paths, but in CPU mode. This scene starts with a rough render and slowly improves the quality over two minutes, giving a final result in what is essentially an average ‘kilorays per second’.
POV-Ray 3.7.1: Ray Tracing
The Persistence of Vision ray tracing engine is another well-known benchmarking tool, which was in a state of relative hibernation until AMD released its Zen processors, to which suddenly both Intel and AMD were submitting code to the main branch of the open source project. For our test, we use the built-in benchmark for all-cores, called from the command line.
POV-Ray can be downloaded from http://www.povray.org/
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
leexgx - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Can you please stop your website playing silent audio, very annoying as it stops playback on my other phone (dual connection headset)moozooh - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
To be fair, the 9900K seems like a suboptimal choice for a gaming rig despite the claims—the extra performance is marginal and comes at a very heavy price. Consider that in all the CPU-bound 95th percentile graphs (which are the only important ones in this context)—even in the more CPU-intensive games—the 9700K was within 5% of the 9900K, sometimes noticeably faster (e.g. Civ6 Low). And its overclocking potential is just *so* much better—all of this at ~3/4 the price and power consumption (and hence more relaxed cooling requirements and lower noise). I cannot possibly envision a scenario where a rational choice, all this considered, would point to 9900K for a gaming machine. The at most 5% extra performance just isn't worth the downsides.On a sidenote, I'd actually like to see how an overclocked 9700K fares against overclocked 8700K/8086K (delidded for fair comparison—you seem to have had at least one of those, no?) with regards to frame times/worst performance. For my current home PC I chose a delidded 8350K running at 4.9 GHz on 1–2 cores and at 4.7 GHz on 3–4, which I considered the optimal choice for my typical usage, where the emphasis lies on non-RTS games, general/web/office performance, emulation, demoscene, some Avisynth—basically all of the tasks that heavily favor per-thread performance and don't scale well with HT. In most of the gaming tests the OC 8350K showed frame times about on par with the twice more expensive 8700K at stock settings, so it made perfect sense as a mid-tier gaming CPU. It appears that 9700K would be an optimal and safe drop-in replacement for it as it would double the number of cores while enabling even better per-thread performance without putting too much strain on the cooler. But then again I'd be probably better off waiting for its Ice Lake counterpart with full (?) hardware Spectre mitigation, which should result in a "free" minor performance bump if nothing else. At least assuming it will still use the same socket, which you never can tell with Intel...
R0H1T - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Ryan & Ian, I see that the last few pages have included a note about Z390 used because the Z370 board was over-volting the chip? Yet on the Overclocking page we see the Z370 listed with max CPU package power at 168 Watts? Could you list the (default) auto voltage applied by the Asrock Z370 & if appropriate update the charts on OCing page with the Z390 as well?Total Meltdowner - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Ryan, you do great work. Please don't let all these haters in the comments who constantly berate you over grammar and typos get you down.Icehawk - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
Ryan, I still haven't been able to find an answer to this - what are your actual HEVC settings? Because I've got an 8700 @4.5 no offset and it does 1080p at "1080p60 HEVC at 3500 kbps variable bit rate, fast setting, main profile" with passthrough audio and I get ~40fps not the 175 you achieved - how on earth are you getting over 4x the performance??? The only way I can get remotely close would be to use NVENC or QuickSync neither of which are acceptable to me.phinnvr6@gmail.com - Wednesday, October 31, 2018 - link
My thoughts are why would anyone recommend the 9900K over the 9700K? It's absurdly priced, draws an insane amount of power, and performs roughly identical.DanNeely - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Have any mobo makers published block diagrams for their Z390 boards? I'm wondering if the 10GB USB3.1 ports are using 2 HSIO lanes as speculated in the mobo preview article, or if Intel has 6 lanes that can run at 10gbps instead of the normal 8 so that they only need one lane each.repoman27 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
They absolutely do not use 2 HSIO lanes. That was a total brain fart in the other article. The datasheet for the other 300 series chipsets is available on ARK, and the HSIO configuration of the Z390 can easily be extrapolated from that.HSIO lanes are just external connections to differential signaling pairs that are connected internally to either various controllers or a PCIe switch via muxes. They’re analog interfaces connected to PHYs. They operate at whatever signaling rate and encoding scheme the selected PHY operates at. There is no logic to perform any type of channel bonding between the PCH and any connected ports or devices.
TEAMSWITCHER - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
My big question ... Could there be an 8 core Mobile part on the way?Ryan Smith - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
We don't have it plotted since we haven't taken enough samples for a good graph, but CFL-R is showing a pretty steep power/frequency curve towards the tail-end. That means power consumption drops by a lot just by backing off of the frequency a little.So while it's still more power-hungry than the 6-cores at the same frequencies, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Though base clocks (which are TDP guaranteed) will almost certainly have to drop to compensate.