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

  • deil - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Very nice. All I wanted to know. 220 W on 95 TDP LOL.
  • AutomaticTaco - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Note the revised table. The need for the revision was due to the first motherboard they tested with being severely over-voltage. Not only is it lower the better news, to me at least, is the Overclock at 4.7GHz and 4.8GHz actual reduce the power consumption and operating temperature.
  • Spunjji - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    Good to see it's "only" 166W on a 95W TDP instead :D
  • Cellar Door - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Ryan what is your opinion on the 9700k vs 8700k?
  • Icehawk - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    I was “worried” I would be bummed that I bought an 8700 but the price:perf and delta between them ileaves me feeling just fine.

    I too would like to see the 9900 run w/o HT - it *should* perform like a 9700 but would be interesting to see if there are any oddities.
  • SaturnusDK - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Good review. Too bad the subject is pretty lackluster.

    To sum up the 9900K in one word: Meh!
  • eva02langley - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    The CPU is going for 540$+ and the motherboard Toms used is a 600$ motherboard.

    Performance are awesome, handown, but this is not a 2700x competitor. The only these thing are having in common are the number of cores/threads and their platform.

    At this price, I would get a 2950x, hand downs.
  • eva02langley - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Performance are awesome, hand down, but this is not a 2700x competitor. The only things these two are having in common, are the number of cores/threads and their mainstream platform... however the Z390 is more expensive than the X499 which offer way better specs.
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    In the UK is 9900K is closer to the equivalent of $800. Outside the US the absolute cost levels are often a lot worse. Where I am, the 2700X is half the price of a 9900K, the saving being more than enough to afford a much better GPU.
  • Total Meltdowner - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    Good, F U foreigners wanted out superior tech.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now