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: Office Tests
The Office test suite is designed to focus around more industry standard tests that focus on office workflows, system meetings, some synthetics, but we also bundle compiler performance in with this section. For users that have to evaluate hardware in general, these are usually the benchmarks that most consider.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
PCMark 10: Industry Standard System Profiler
Futuremark, now known as UL, has developed benchmarks that have become industry standards for around two decades. The latest complete system test suite is PCMark 10, upgrading over PCMark 8 with updated tests and more OpenCL invested into use cases such as video streaming.
PCMark splits its scores into about 14 different areas, including application startup, web, spreadsheets, photo editing, rendering, video conferencing, and physics. We post all of these numbers in our benchmark database, Bench, however the key metric for the review is the overall score.
As a general mix of a lot of tests, the new processors from Intel take the top three spots, in order. Even the i5-9600K goes ahead of the i7-8086K.
Chromium Compile: Windows VC++ Compile of Chrome 56
A large number of AnandTech readers are software engineers, looking at how the hardware they use performs. While compiling a Linux kernel is ‘standard’ for the reviewers who often compile, our test is a little more varied – we are using the windows instructions to compile Chrome, specifically a Chrome 56 build from March 2017, as that was when we built the test. Google quite handily gives instructions on how to compile with Windows, along with a 400k file download for the repo.
In our test, using Google’s instructions, we use the MSVC compiler and ninja developer tools to manage the compile. As you may expect, the benchmark is variably threaded, with a mix of DRAM requirements that benefit from faster caches. Data procured in our test is the time taken for the compile, which we convert into compiles per day.
Pushing the raw frequency of the all-core turbo seems to work well in our compile test.
3DMark Physics: In-Game Physics Compute
Alongside PCMark is 3DMark, Futuremark’s (UL’s) gaming test suite. Each gaming tests consists of one or two GPU heavy scenes, along with a physics test that is indicative of when the test was written and the platform it is aimed at. The main overriding tests, in order of complexity, are Ice Storm, Cloud Gate, Sky Diver, Fire Strike, and Time Spy.
Some of the subtests offer variants, such as Ice Storm Unlimited, which is aimed at mobile platforms with an off-screen rendering, or Fire Strike Ultra which is aimed at high-end 4K systems with lots of the added features turned on. Time Spy also currently has an AVX-512 mode (which we may be using in the future).
For our tests, we report in Bench the results from every physics test, but for the sake of the review we keep it to the most demanding of each scene: Ice Storm Unlimited, Cloud Gate, Sky Diver, Fire Strike Ultra, and Time Spy.
The older Ice Storm test didn't much like the Core i9-9900K, pushing it back behind the R7 1800X. For the more modern tests focused on PCs, the 9900K wins out. The lack of HT is hurting the other two parts.
GeekBench4: Synthetics
A common tool for cross-platform testing between mobile, PC, and Mac, GeekBench 4 is an ultimate exercise in synthetic testing across a range of algorithms looking for peak throughput. Tests include encryption, compression, fast Fourier transform, memory operations, n-body physics, matrix operations, histogram manipulation, and HTML parsing.
I’m including this test due to popular demand, although the results do come across as overly synthetic, and a lot of users often put a lot of weight behind the test due to the fact that it is compiled across different platforms (although with different compilers).
We record the main subtest scores (Crypto, Integer, Floating Point, Memory) in our benchmark database, but for the review we post the overall single and multi-threaded results.
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.