Intel's Core i9-9900K: Technically The Highest Performing Gaming CPU

When Intel announced the new processor lineup, it billed the Core i9-9900K as the ‘world’s best gaming processor’. Here’s Intel’s Anand Srivatsa, showcasing the new packaging for this eight core, sixteen thread, 5.0 GHz giant:

In actual fact, the packaging is very small. Intel didn’t supply us with this upgraded retail version of the box, but we were sampled with a toasty Core i9-9900K inside. We sourced the i7-9700K and i5-9600K from Intel’s partners for this review.

With the claim of ‘world’s best ever gaming processor’, it was clear that this needed to be put to the test. Intel commissioned (paid for) a report into the processor performance by a third party in order to obtain data, which unfortunately had numerous issues, particularly with how the chips it was tested against were benchmarked, but here at AnandTech we’ll give you the right numbers.

For our gaming tests this time around, we put each game through four different resolutions and scenarios, labelled IGP (for 720p), Low (for 1080p), Medium (for 1440p to 4K), and High (for 4K and above). Here’s a brief summary of results:

  • World of Tanks: Best CPU at IGP, Low, Medium, and top class in High
  • Final Fantasy XV: Best CPU or near top in all
  • Shadow of War: Best CPU or near top in all
  • Civilization VI: Best CPU at IGP, a bit behind at 4K, top class at 8K/16K
  • Ashes Classic: Best CPU at IGP, Low, top class at Medium, mid-pack at 4K
  • Strange Brigade DX12/Vulkan: Best CPU or near top in all
  • Grand Theft Auto V: Best CPU or near top in all
  • Far Cry 5: Best CPU or near top in all
  • Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Near top in all
  • F1 2018: Best CPU or near top in all

There’s no way around it, in almost every scenario it was either top or within variance of being the best processor in every test (except Ashes at 4K). Intel has built the world’s best gaming processor (again).

On our CPU tests, the i9-9900K hit a lot of the synthetics higher than any other mainstream processor. In some of our real world tests, such as application loading or web performance, it lost out from time to time to the i7 and i5 due to having hyper-threading, as those tests tend to prefer threads that have access to the full core resources. For memory limited tests, the high-end desktop platforms provide a better alternative.

While there’s no specific innovation in the processors driving the performance, Intel re-checked the box for STIM, last used on the mainstream in Sandy Bridge. The STIM implementation has enabled Intel to push the frequency of these parts. It was always one of the tools the company had in its back pocket, and many will speculate as to the reasons why it used that tool at this point in time.

But overall, due to the frequency push and the core push, the three new 9th Generation processors sit at the top of most of our mixed workload tests, given the high natural frequency, and set a new standard in Intel’s portfolio for being a jack of all trades. If a user has a variable workload, and wants to squeeze performance, then these new processors will should get you there.

So now, if you are the money-no-object kind of gamer, this is the processor for you. But it’s not a processor for everyone, and that comes down to cost and competition.

At $488 SEP, plus a bit more for 'on-shelf price', plus add $80-$120 for a decent cooler or $200 for a custom loop, it’s going to be out of the range for almost all builds south of $1500 where GPU matters the most. When Intel’s own i5-9600K is under half the cost with only two fewer cores, or AMD’s R7 2700X is very competitive in almost every test, while they might not be the best, they’re more cost-effective.

The outlandish flash of the cash goes on the Core i9-9900K. The smart money ends up on the 9700K, 9600K, or the 2700X. For the select few, money is no object. For the rest of us, especially when gaming at 1440p and higher settings where the GPU is the bigger bottleneck, there are plenty of processors that do just fine, and are a bit lighter on the power bill in the process.

Edit: We initially posted this review with data taken with an ASRock Z370 motherboard. After inspection, we discovered that the motherboard used intentionally over-volts 9th Generation Core processors in our power testing. While benchmarking seems unaffected, we have redone power numbers using an MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC motherboard, and updated the review accordingly.

Overclocking
Comments Locked

274 Comments

View All Comments

  • DominionSeraph - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    The 8700k is also pulling 150W while the 8086k is 95W. Something's not right there.
  • _mat - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link

    There can be two reasons why that is the case:

    1) The mainboard settings for Power Limits were different.
    2) The 8086K ran into Power Limit 1 while the 8700K was not.

    Whatever is the case here, it is no doubt that the 8086K did run into Power Limit 1 after the "Time Above PL1" (= power budget) was depleted. The 95 Watts are exactly the specified TDP of the CPU and Intel recommends this as Power Limit 1 value.

    So the problem here is that the Power Limits and Current Limits of the mainboard are not properly documented and seem to differ between the test candidates. While the 8086K obviously had Power Limits in place, the 9th gen CPUs were benched with no limits at all (only temperature limit at 100 °C on a core).

    Also, the whole page on power consumption needs rework. The TDP does matter depending on the board and its default settings.
  • ballsystemlord - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    Ian! Many of your tests ( Y-Cruncher multithreaded, apptimer, FCAT - ROTR, WinRAR ), are taking too short of a time. You need some differentiation here! Please make them harder.
  • R0H1T - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    >In case the previous comment was missed.

    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?
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    "Intel has promised that its 10nm manufacturing process will ramp through 2019, ..."

    Ian, what promises did Intel make 2 years ago about what they would be supplying now?
  • eastcoast_pete - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    My guess is that Intel is now printing those promises in 10 nm font size (easily readable with a standard electron microscope). See, they moved to 10 nm by 2018!
  • ballsystemlord - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    Actually, fonts are measured in points. So, it's 10pt, and it's rather legible.
    But, as for products, I don't see any either.
  • darkos - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    nice review, but: please add a flight simulation such as x-plane and prepar3d or fsx. this is an area that is sadly, missing from your reviews.
  • kasboh - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    Do I see it correctly that there is little benefit of HyperThreading with 8 core CPUs?
  • eXterminuss - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    I am quiet shocked to see that Anandtech is using a vastly outdated and in parts plainly wrong description for World of tanks:
    1. The enCore engine ist being used in world of tanks for quiet a while now (10 month)
    2.World of tanks is a free to play game, no elements hiden behind a paywall, e. g. no more features for a paying customer than for a freelooter.
    3. Since the outadted EnCore benchmark was used, i would have at least expected to see the Results of that benchmark being posted aswell.
    Sincerly yours,
    eXterminuss a World of Tanks Player

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now