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
Gaming: F1 2018
Aside from keeping up-to-date on the Formula One world, F1 2017 added HDR support, which F1 2018 has maintained; otherwise, we should see any newer versions of Codemasters' EGO engine find its way into F1. Graphically demanding in its own right, F1 2018 keeps a useful racing-type graphics workload in our benchmarks.
Aside from keeping up-to-date on the Formula One world, F1 2017 added HDR support, which F1 2018 has maintained. We use the in-game benchmark, set to run on the Montreal track in the wet, driving as Lewis Hamilton from last place on the grid. Data is taken over a one-lap race.
| AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List | ||||||||
| Game | Genre | Release Date | API | IGP | Low | Med | High | |
| F1 2018 | Racing | Aug 2018 |
DX11 | 720p Low |
1080p Med |
4K High |
4K Ultra |
|
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
| F1 2018 | IGP | Low | Medium | High |
| Average FPS |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 95th Percentile |  |
 |
 |
 |
Our final (ed: and most British) benchmark is another game that’s not GPU-bound right out of the box, so it gives the CPUs something to do. At 1080p Medium we see the 9900K and 9700K take the top spots, though along with the 8700K it’s all noise, as evidenced by the fact that the 9700K edges out the 9900K. Dropping down to 720p forces the CPUs farther apart, at which point the 9900K takes the top spot, with the 9700K following. The net result here is that the 9900K is about 13% ahead of the 8700K.
Past that however, once we get to any kind of 4K settings (entirely reasonable for this game), the game becomes much more strongly GPU-bound. So these CPU performance differences are mostly on the theoretical side of matters.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
GreenReaper - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
The answer is "yes, with a but". Certain things scale really well with hyperthreading. Other things can see a severe regression, as it thrashes between one workload and another and/or overheats the CPU, reducing its ability to boost.Cache contention can be an issue: the i9-9900K has only 33% more cache than the i7-9700K, not 100% (and even if there were, it wouldn't have the same behaviour unless it was strictly partitioned). Memory bandwidth contention is a thing, too. And within the CPU, some parts can not be partitioned - it just relies on them running fast enough to supplky the parts which can.
And clearly hyperthreading has an impact on overclocking ability. It might be interesting to see the gaming graphs with the i7-9700K@5.3Ghz vs. i9-9900K@5.0Ghz (or, if you want to save 50W, i7-9700K@5.0Ghz vs. i9-9900K@4.7Ghz - basically the i9-9900K's default all-core boost, but 400Mhz above the i7-9700K's 4.6Ghz all-core default, both for the same power).
NaterGator - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Any chance y'all would be willing to run those HT-bound tests with the 9900K's HT disabled in the BIOS?ekidhardt - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Thanks for the review!I think far too much emphasis has been placed on 'value'. I simply want the fastest, most powerful CPU that isn't priced absurdly high.
While the 9900k msrp is high, it's not in the realm of irrational spending, it's a few hundred dollars more. For a person that upgrades once every 5-6 years--a few hundred extra is not that important to me.
I'd also like to argue against those protesting pre-order logic. I pre-ordered. And my logic is this: intel has a CLEAR track record of great CPU's. There hasn't been any surprisingly terrible CPU's released. They're consistently reliable.
Anyway! I'm happy I pre-ordered and don't care that it costs a little bit extra; I've got a fast 8 core 16 thread CPU that should last quite a while.
Schmich - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
You have the numbers anyway. Not everyone buys the highest end and then wait many years to upgrade. That isn't the smartest choice because you spend so much money and then after 2-3 years you're just a mid-ranger.For those who want high-end they can still get a 2700x today, and then the 3700x next year with most likely better performance than your 9900k due to 7nm, PLUS have money over PLUS a spare 2700x they can sell.
Same thing for GPU except for this gen. I never understood those who buy the xx80Ti version and then upgrade after 5 years. Your overall experience would be better only getting the xx70 but upgrading more often.
Spunjji - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link
This is what actual logic looks like!Gastec - Sunday, November 4, 2018 - link
Basically "The more you buy, the more you save" :-\shaolin95 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Exactly. I think the ones beating the value dead horse are mainly AMD fanboys defending their 2700x purchaseeva02langley - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Sorry, value is a huge aspect. The reason why RTX is such an issue. Also, at this price point, I would go HEDT if compute was really that important for me.It is not with 10-15% performance increase over a 2700x at 1080p with a damn 1080 TI that I will see a justified purchase.
Arbie - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
Gratuitous trolling, drags down thread quality. Do you really still need to be told what AMD has done for this market? Do you even think this product would exist without them - except at maybe twice the already high price? Go pick on someone that deserves your scorn, such as ... Intel.Great_Scott - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link
What a mess. I guess gaming really doesn't depend on the CPU any more. Those Ryzen machines were running at a 1Ghz+ speed deficit and still do decently.Intel needs a new core design and AMD needs a new fab.