Intel Core i9-9900K Spotted on SiSoftware Sandra Database

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Numbers for Intel’s upcoming 8-core, 16-thread i9-9900K were published on SiSoftware’s Official Live Ranker earlier this week. The part managed an average score of 281.22GOPS in the Processor Arithmetic benchmark, putting it between the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (285.14GOPS) and Intel Core i9-7900X (279.90GOPS). In comparison, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X is listed with a score of 239.16GOPS. Numbers for the Processor Multi-Media benchmark are also available on the site.

Update 9/4/18: Sandra's developer passed this along to us this morning.

Just wanted to clarify those 7900X and 1950X in Sandra’s database.
TDLR: those “Intel Core i9-7900X” scores are with 10-threads (see “10T” as capacity) i.e. just using cores and not SMT; the 20-thread result is higher (see “20T” capacity) at average of 337.53GOPS.
Similarly the “AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16-Core” scores are with 16-threads (also “16T” as capacity) thus again not using SMT. The 32-threads core is higher.
As you know in Sandra you can easily benchmark from the drop-down list “all threads” or just “all cores” or “single thread”. This is what has happened here you have 2 entries – one with all threads used, one with just cores used depending on what people have submitted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like AMD, but it looks like intel has the advantage here; 180 vs 140w, 16 vs 10 cores, for a 5.24 GOPS difference
 
I'm sure it will be a beast.

Just worried about the price.
 
It's all going to come down to price and use case. For me, I game at 1440p so my 2700X isn't bottle necked there and the rest of what I use it for it's perfect.
 
Esstee said:
I like AMD, but it looks like intel has the advantage here
Click to expand...

Nunu said:
patch stuff up and see where it lands after...
Click to expand...

Intel Security.jpg
 
Esstee said:
I like AMD, but it looks like intel has the advantage here; 180 vs 140w, 16 vs 10 cores, for a 5.24 GOPS difference
Click to expand...

Right...or go ahead and use 32 vs 20 and it’s more of a ~100 GOPS difference.

The fuck is a gop anyways and why should I care.
 
I was on Intel person and before that I was an amd person.

Now I'm a bang for my buck person who looks at cost and heat.

If the 9700k can use avx long enough to encode a movie without requiring a 340mm water cooler than sweet!

If it goes Chernobyl on me than I'll take the hit and go amd.

That's why I left the piledriver chips.

I mostly encode, game and edit audio.

What ever will work cheap, not and offer decent speed wins.

Only moved from my 3930k to the 6850 because I got it for 140$
 
What about the new ones found? Are those included in those graphs?
 
Agree that different tasks come with different penalties.

But I don't understand the defensiveness, these chips are known to have the vulnerabilities and can only be patched with software. Waiting for the hardware fix which Intel has already stated has minimal performance hit is right around the corner.

Buy it if you want but if you plunked down a bunch of change on nvme or other fast storage, you're not getting your monies worth.
 
  • At high res gaming, the ipc difference here is meaningless. Add streaming and other multitasking plus a modern and secure design - the winner is clear. Go wide, more cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
The 9900K will come out at a price comparable to AMD's 8 core CPU's. Otherwise, there will have been no point or reason to even release it. There are already other 8 core options on the market from Intel. So no, the 9900K will not come out at $499 - 599 - 699, etc. That would be pointless and would do absolutely nothing to persuade consumers to purchase Intel over AMD.

The point of the 9900K is to stop the bleeding caused by the 1700x / 2700x. I think the price that's being reported is $450. I guess we will see here shortly.

Oh and the 9900K will have superior performance, interconnect speeds, latency, etc etc over anything AMD has. Cores do not get me excited for the simple reason, it doesn't make anything I do faster.

I'm pretty sure my 9900K @ 5Ghz across all cores, 32GB of DDR4 3466 and my RTX 2080 Ti will be taking names.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Cores do not get me excited for the simple reason, it doesn't make anything I do faster.

I'm pretty sure my 9900K @ 5Ghz across all cores, 32GB of DDR4 3466 and my RTX 2080 Ti will be taking names.
Click to expand...

Then why are you willing to spend the equivalent of a typical monthly payment on a new car for a 100MHz boost and 2 more cores over the 2 year old CPU you already have?
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
DeathFromBelow said:
Then why are you willing to spend the equivalent of a typical monthly payment on a new car for a 100MHz boost and 2 more cores over the 2 year old CPU you already have?
Click to expand...

Then why? Well, I have my delidded 8700K already sold to someone for $400? Which includes me installing the CPU for him. What's $50 dollars + tax?

I'm not like a lot of you guys, i don't build systems to keep them short or long term. As soon as I build something it goes up for sale. it takes as little as a week ( not very often ) to a month or two to sell my personal system. Not always but most of the time. I'm constantly moving my personal systems and upgrading along the way. The only investment is time which I have plenty of. What's 3 or 4 hours of running around, or ordering, waiting a few days and building something? It's nothing to me and has never been a hassle.

Any of you could have pulled your board / cpu and memory and sold it or lined it up for a sale with only a slight investment needed to upgrade ( if that's your thing ) I'm constantly doing this. The cost to do this is always break even, or a slight amount of money out of pocket. It really isn't a big deal. Like I said, just a few hours of my time placing ads, buying the new parts and assembly.

I like having the newest shit. It's a rather easy concept / simple logic. You guys are more than welcome to keep your stuff and determine what works for you. be the judge of yourself, not others. What gets me excited is the newest stuff and that may not be the case for you.

Btw, I don't ever have car payments .... I'm cash and carry and I flip cars as well on occasion.
 
Update 9/4/18: Sandra's developer passed this along to us this morning.

Just wanted to clarify those 7900X and 1950X in Sandra’s database.
TDLR: those “Intel Core i9-7900X” scores are with 10-threads (see “10T” as capacity) i.e. just using cores and not SMT; the 20-thread result is higher (see “20T” capacity) at average of 337.53GOPS.
Similarly the “AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 16-Core” scores are with 16-threads (also “16T” as capacity) thus again not using SMT. The 32-threads core is higher.
As you know in Sandra you can easily benchmark from the drop-down list “all threads” or just “all cores” or “single thread”. This is what has happened here you have 2 entries – one with all threads used, one with just cores used depending on what people have submitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top