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
mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
Tell that to AutomaticTaco, his posts read like a shill mission atm.PG - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
How is the 2600X beating the 2700X in Ashes ?How is the 1800X beating the 2700X in AES?
2700x results are too low in some areas.
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!eastcoast_pete - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
@Ian / Anandtech: With the high premium over the MSRP for a 9900K, the difference vs. an 8700K is easily $ 200 as of now. So, here a suggested comparison that even stays in the Intel family: A comparison of a system with the 9900K with the (obligatory) high-end air cooler (so, another $ 100) vs. an 8700K based system at the same price point. Both with the identical graphics card (1080 GTX or 2070), but with the money saved with the 8700K then spent on delidding, a nice liquid cooler AND really fast DDR4? I believe that latter could really make a difference: While Intel's memory controller specifies rather slow DDR4 RAM, it's well known that one can effectively make use of much faster DDR4 RAM, and that has been shown repeatedly at least for the 8700/8700K. So, in a dollar-for-dollar matched comparison, would the 9900K then still be the king of the hill? I, for one, doubt it.eastcoast_pete - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
I have to recall my own comment, after checking prices at Newegg and Amazon. The current Intel 14 nm shortage has now also driven 8700/8700K prices far above their MSRP. This invalidates the performance/price = value equation my comment was based on, although the 8700K is still notably less than the even more overpriced (and out of stock) 9900K. Right now, building an Intel i7 rig is really questionable, unless one really, really wants (thinks one needs) those last few fps in some games and has plenty of money to burn. Assuming one uses the same video card, a Ryzen 2700 (or 2700x) setup with 16 GB of fast DDR4 RAM is cheaper, and if overclocking is on your mind, spend the difference to an 8700 (K or not) on a good liquid cooling setup.mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link
For gaming, what it effectively does is push the "on the same budget" equation firmly into the camp of buying a 2700X and using the saving to get a better GPU. Only time this wouldn't apply is if someone does not have any kind of budget limit, but that has to be a tiny and largely irrelevant minority.SaturnusDK - Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - link
If you're planning to have a decent GPU and game at 1440p or higher then absolutely no Intel CPUs, at any price point, at the moment makes sense to buy. The 2700X is less than $300 at the moment, about half the price of a 9900K, and the 2600 is $160 at the moment, about half the price of a 8700K. Both AMD CPUs match or is only marginally behind the respective core/thread Intel equivalent at double the price.coburn_c - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Under the Mozilla Kraken label you have a power consumption graph.Rumpelstiltstein - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
"Intel Core i9 9900K: The fastest gaming CPU"Uh, really Intel? Looks like that's the 9700K.
The Original Ralph - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Looks like all this might be a moot point for awhile: Amazon hasn't started shipping, Newegg is not only stating "out of stock" but "NOT AVAILABLE" and B&H photo is showing availability date as "JAN 1, 2010" - i kid not. Suspect there's an issue with intel deliveries