Intel Core i9-9900K 5GHz Tested with Cinebench R15

So I just looked up a 2700x and it will do 1828 stock to 1964 at 4.4GHz.

The 8700k stock is above 1400.

The 9900k will break 2100 maybe stock?

So is this worth the difference in price?

Ryzen 2700x $319 / i7-9900k $??? ($500+?)

The value proposition vs the best. Quite a fight.
 
Advil said:
So I just looked up a 2700x and it will do 1828 stock to 1964 at 4.4GHz.

The 8700k stock is above 1400.

The 9900k will break 2100 maybe stock?

So is this worth the difference in price?

Ryzen 2700x $319 / i7-9900k $??? ($500+?)

The value proposition vs the best. Quite a fight.
Click to expand...

Highest end, or bleeding edge has almost never had any sort of real "value". It's for those who want the best, or have specific uses or goals in mind, or just want the e-peen.

Nothing wrong with that either btw.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Right tool for the job and all, right?
Click to expand...

Hey, if it does what you want it to, go for it.

I know back in the day I spent some STUPID amounts of money for that last 5FPS so I could stay over 60FPS, and I am talking double or more the cost of something that would do 50-55FPS. Many people would say it was a waste for all of 8-9% gain.
 
This chip looks to make sense for someone who doesn't want compromises.

If you want a system with top notch per core performance, AND a decent amount of cores, this is it.

Looks like it will keep up with the fastest 4C/8T chips Intel has for loads where per core performance really matters (games!) while still having enough cores to do some light HEDT work (but nowhere near a Threadripper)

I really want my next system to have an AMD chip, but this one does seem right up my alley.

If it drops at $500, that's not crazy out there. I spent $600 on my i7-3930k 7 years ago.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Hey, if it does what you want it to, go for it.

I know back in the day I spent some STUPID amounts of money for that last 5FPS so I could stay over 60FPS, and I am talking double or more the cost of something that would do 50-55FPS. Many people would say it was a waste for all of 8-9% gain.
Click to expand...

I did too- and though I didn't have the definitions (no one did...), what I was after was shorter maximum frametimes. Even then we knew that we could hit 60FPS and gameplay could still be choppy. Most of the time you could alleviate this by aiming significantly higher, but not always.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If you want a system with top notch per core performance, AND a decent amount of cores, this is it.
Click to expand...

That's how I landed at the 8700k, with no complaints about the 6700k I had at the time. And since I needed to build a server...

[and at that time, Ryzen was a shit-show of incompatibility]
 
Advil said:
So I just looked up a 2700x and it will do 1828 stock to 1964 at 4.4GHz.

The 8700k stock is above 1400.

The 9900k will break 2100 maybe stock?

So is this worth the difference in price?

Ryzen 2700x $319 / i7-9900k $??? ($500+?)

The value proposition vs the best. Quite a fight.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to be around $400 to $450.

There are rumors that Intel has been mass producing these CPU's for weeks and weeks now to make sure the market is properly saturated throughout the Christmas season. There is a chance the price could be $399 or even lower, maybe. I really don't know.

For me personally, I'm totally ok with paying the extra $100 to $150 for the 9900K. Intel still stands out in many areas over AMD so for me, that's worth the money. Those of you on a budget, the AMD is still a great CPU it seems.
 
I'll be going with a 9900k simply because I have a 8700k currently and its a drop in replacement. If I were contemplating a whole new build with a 2700x (with upgrade path to 3700x(?)) It would be a difficult decision.
 
I think barring something really changing my mind I'll hold with my 8700k until we see the 7nm Ryzen.

If by some twist of fate AMD can put out 7nm chips next year and Intel can't then it's going to get really, really interesting because the IPC difference between them may evaporate by sheer clock speed and die shrink.

We shall see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Got Meltdown & Spectre fixed with those or are they still selling bugged CPU's at Intel ?
 
BitMaster said:
Got Meltdown & Spectre fixed with those or are they still selling bugged CPU's at Intel ?
Click to expand...

You mean like..fixed [H] with no performance loss? No. It's firmware & OS fixes with a performance hit. And to me, the latest exploit against Intel's hyperthreading kinda makes the 9900K a 9700K with a special cost premium.

153473_Intel_Security.jpg


Image stolen aggregated from DeathFromBelow's [H] post here
 
clockdogg said:
You mean like..fixed [H] with no performance loss? No. It's firmware & OS fixes with a performance hit. And to me, the latest exploit against Intel's hyperthreading kinda makes the 9900K a 9700K with a special cost premium.

View attachment 104043

Image stolen aggregated from DeathFromBelow's [H] post here
Click to expand...


the real choice becomes clear,
 
Thinking my 4770K is an endangered species.....

Do I need this? Gods no. But has that ever stopped me before? Oh Gods no..... ;)
 
clockdogg said:
You mean like..fixed [H] with no performance loss? No. It's firmware & OS fixes with a performance hit. And to me, the latest exploit against Intel's hyperthreading kinda makes the 9900K a 9700K with a special cost premium.

View attachment 104043

Image stolen aggregated from DeathFromBelow's [H] post here
Click to expand...


My post was a joke..LoL. I would never consider a 9900k or ANY of their CPU's for now, actually I am fighting for an Epyc Srv vs. a Xeon buiilt Dell atm.... I want that AMD !!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top