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

  • AutomaticTaco - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    Revised. TDP is still some generic average not true max. Regardless, not 220w.
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen...

    The motherboard in question was using an insane 1.47v
    https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/105342741705...
    https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/105339755111...
  • dezonio2 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    I would love to see overclocking performance of the 9600k. It would show exactly how much of a difference the upgraded TIM makes if compared to 8600k.
  • emn13 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    That power consumption seems pretty crazy. Going from 4.5 to 5Gz for +56% powerdraw? or worse, from 5.0 to 5.3GHz for 6% clock boost and +40% powerdraw?

    This proc looks like it makes sense at 4.5GHz; beyond that - not much. I mean going from 4.5 to 5.3 isn't nothing - 18% more clocks! But that's going to translate into less-than-that performance gain, and even 18%, while admirable and all, is often not actually all that noticeable - unlike that powerdraw, which you'll likely notice in terms of noise and effort to get the system cooled at all.

    I don't know; this proc looks... cool... but borderline. I'm not sure I'd buy it, even if money were no object (and since I'd consider this for work - it basically isn't).
  • Tkan2155 - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    Yes bill add up this prepare big wallet . amd can overclock higher but it's better at stock . intel is going over limit because they want to show the world they are the best
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    But then, the candle that burns twice as brightly burns half as long. :)
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    In regards to TDP, I say use your own methodology and ratings if Intel and AMD can’t arrive at a standard measure. Based on how the i9 truly performs in this regard, the 95W rating is just shy of disingenuous. When real world values are applied it does change where this CPU sits in regard to its overall value. Lots of performance? Yes, but it comes at a significant cost. These CPUs aren’t like GPUs, where the cooling solution is designed to match the limits of the GPU. No, Intel doesn’t even bundle a cooler, because they know they have nothing to offer to hit boost speeds, and let’s be real—it’s the boost speeds that help sell this product and yield bragging rights.
  • pavag - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    It doesn't have a price/performance chart, so it is hard to tell how justifiable is to spend on this processor, compared to alternatives, and that's the main purpose of reading this kind of articles.

    Here is one from TomsHardware, for reference:
    https://img.purch.com/r/711x457/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLm...

    It makes clear that is little to gain from a cheap i5-8400 to an i9-9900K, and it also tells which processors are better performing at a given price, or cheaper at a given performance. At least from an average FPS gaming viewpoint.
  • WinterCharm - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Well written. Great article, and I enjoyed it thoroughly :)
  • Machinus - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Can you test the power draw and temperatures of the 9900 with HT disabled, and compare that to the 9700 under the same conditions?
  • Felice - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    Ryan--

    Any chance of you doing the same run with the 9900K's hyperthreading disabled? A lot of gamers find they get better performance without hyperthreading.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now