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
Test Bed and Setup
As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible.
It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
| Test Setup | |||||
| Intel 9th Gen | i9-9900K i7-9700K i5-9600K |
ASRock Z370 Gaming i7** |
P1.70 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
| Intel 8th Gen | i7-8086K i7-8700K i5-8600K |
ASRock Z370 Gaming i7 |
P1.70 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
| Intel 7th Gen | i7-7700K i5-7600K |
GIGABYTE X170 ECC Extreme |
F21e | Silverstone* AR10-115XS |
G.Skill RipjawsV 2x16GB DDR4-2400 |
| Intel 6th Gen | i7-6700K i5-6600K |
GIGABYTE X170 ECC Extreme |
F21e | Silverstone* AR10-115XS |
G.Skill RipjawsV 2x16GB DDR4-22133 |
| Intel HEDT | i9-7900X i7-7820X i7-7800X |
ASRock X299 OC Formula |
P1.40 | TRUE Copper |
Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
| AMD 2000 | R7 2700X R5 2600X R5 2500X |
ASRock X370 Gaming K4 |
P4.80 | Wraith Max* | G.Skill SniperX 2x8 GB DDR4-2933 |
| AMD 1000 | R7 1800X | ASRock X370 Gaming K4 |
P4.80 | Wraith Max* | G.Skill SniperX 2x8 GB DDR4-2666 |
| AMD TR4 | TR 1920X | ASUS ROG X399 Zenith |
0078 | Enermax Liqtech TR4 |
G.Skill FlareX 4x8GB DDR4-2666 |
| GPU | Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests) |
||||
| PSU | Corsair AX860i Corsair AX1200i |
||||
| SSD | Crucial MX200 1TB | ||||
| OS | Windows 10 x64 RS3 1709 Spectre and Meltdown Patched |
||||
| *VRM Supplimented with SST-FHP141-VF 173 CFM fans ** After Initial testing with the ASRock Z370 motherboard, we noted it had a voltage issue with the Core 9th Gen processors. As a result, we moved to the MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Edge AC for our power measurements. Benchmarking seems unaffected. |
|||||
We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds. Some of this hardware is not in this test bed specifically, but is used in other testing.
| Hardware Providers | |||
| Sapphire RX 460 Nitro | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X OC | Crucial MX200 + MX500 SSDs |
Corsair AX860i + AX1200i PSUs |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| G.Skill RipjawsV, SniperX, FlareX |
Crucial Ballistix DDR4 |
Silverstone Coolers |
Silverstone Fans |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
Ian Cutress - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
Emn13: Base code with compiler optimizations only, such as those a non-CompSci scientist would use, as was the original intention of the 3DPM test, vs hand tuned AVX/AVX2/AVX512 code.just4U - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
The only problem I really have with the product is for the price it should have come with a nice fancy cooler like the 2700x which is in it's own right a stellar product at close to 60% of the cost. Not sure what intel's game plan is with this but It's priced close to a second gen entry threadripper and for it's cost you might as well just make the leap for a little more.khanikun - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
I'm the other way. I'd much rather they lower the cost and have no cooler. Although, Intel doesn't decrease the cost without the cooler, which sucks.I'm either getting a new waterblock or drilling holes in the waterblock bracket to make it fit. Well I just upgraded, so I'm not in the market for any of these procs.
brunis.dk - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
no prayers for AMD?ingwe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
I don't see the value in it though I understand that this isn't sold as a value proposition--it is sold for performance. Seems to do the job it sets out to do but isn't spectacularly exciting to me.jospoortvliet - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link
Given how the quoted prices ignore the fact that right now Intel CPU prices art 30-50% higher than MSRP, yes, nobody thinking about value for money buys these...DanNeely - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Seriously though, I'm wondering about the handful of benchmarks that showed the i7 beating the i9 by significant amounts. 1-2% I assume is sampling noise in cases where the two are tied, but flipping through the article I saw a few where the i7 won by significant margins.Ian Cutress - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Certain benchmarks seem to be core-resource bound. In HT mode, certain elements of the core are statically partitioned, giving each thread half, and if only one thread is there, you still only get half. With no HT, a thread gets the full core to work with.0ldman79 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
I'd love to see some low level data on the i5 vs i7 on that topic.If the i5 is only missing HT then the i7 without HT should score identically (more or less) with the i5 winning on occasion vs the HT enabled i7. I always figured there was a significant bit of idle resources (ALU pipelines) in the i5 vs the i7, HT allowed 100% (or as close as possible) usage of all of the pipelines.
I wish Intel would release detailed info on that.
abufrejoval - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Well I guess you should be able to measure, if you have the chips. My understanding has alway been, that i7/i5 differentiation is all about voltage levels with i5 parts needing too much voltage/power to pass the TDP restrictions rather than defective logic precluding the use of 'one hyperthread'. I find it hard to imagine managing defects via partitions in the register file or by disabling certain ALUs: If core CPU logic is hit with a defect it's dead, because you can't isolate and route around the defective part at that granularity. It's the voltage levels on the long wires that determine a CPUs fate AFAIK.It's a free choice between a lower clock and HT or the higher clock without HT at the binning point and Intel will determine the fate of a chips on sales opportunities rather than hardware. And it's somewhat similar with the fully enabled lower power -T parts and the high-frequency -K parts, which are most likely the same (or very similar) top tier bins, sold at two distinct voltage levels yet rather similar premium prices, because you trade power and clocks and pay premium for efficiency.
Real chips defects can only be 'compensated' via cutting off cache blocks or whole cores, but again I'd tend to think that even that will be more driven by voltage considerations than 'hairs in the soup': With all this multi-patterning and multi-masking going on and the 3D structures they are lovingly creating for every FinFeT their control over the basic structures is so great, that it's mainly the layer alignment/conductivity that's challenging the yields.