Intel's i9-9900K Is Only 12% Faster than AMD's 2700X at Gaming, but 66% Pricier

GHRTW

n00b
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
42
When having proper RAM timings with 2 sticks installed, Ryzen will be closer than 10% to 9900K. Not worth to get the latter for almost double the money. Especially when Ryzen platform is future proof with Zen 2 cpus incoming in 2019 that will get very close or even above Intel offerings in all workloads.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,140
Uh, YOU posted your false nonsense first with no facts. Where’s your proof HPE is “dropping” XEONs? You got called out on that twice and still haven’t provided any proof. We’re all waiting for this great industry insight you have.
I did not post anything except wanting proof of what you are saying. You are confusing me with the other guy.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,411
When having proper RAM timings with 2 sticks installed, Ryzen will be closer than 10% to 9900K. Not worth to get the latter for almost double the money. Especially when Ryzen platform is future proof with Zen 2 cpus incoming in 2019 that will get very close or even above Intel offerings in all workloads.

What do they need to correct?

Screen Shot 2018-10-14 at 9.17.13 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-14 at 9.17.13 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-14 at 9.17.13 PM.png
    76.7 KB · Views: 0

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
I am still (somewhat) proudly running a 2500k. Never bought into the HT fad when it comes to low latency applications which is what games are, so I got that instead of paying good money for a 2600k.

I thought my sarcasm was as obvious as the other guy's but apparently it is not.
It is hard to believe at this point someone could still be so ignorant about hyper-threading in video games. The difference is night and day with hyper threading on a quad CPU in most modern games. A 2600 k is a hell of a lot more relevant today than the 2500 k and anyone that has a clue about modern gaming knows that.
 

LGabrielPhoto

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,157
Gamers, as this CPU is obviously aimed at gamers since the test results are all games. Obviously a 9900K is good for productivity as well.
Exactly why I was hoping to get a combination of 2700x and 8700k in one CPU. The fact is for some programs like Photoshop or even Premiere (when using the 8700k IGPU), even the 8700k outperforms the 2700x and that is not taking into consideration that ones normally OCes max to about 4.2 and the other to 5Ghz. If the 9900k can OC to 5Ghz (all cores of course) then it will be my perfect CPU for a long time.

When having proper RAM timings with 2 sticks installed, Ryzen will be closer than 10% to 9900K. Not worth to get the latter for almost double the money. Especially when Ryzen platform is future proof with Zen 2 cpus incoming in 2019 that will get very close or even above Intel offerings in all workloads.

You are forgetting the OC capabilities of both CPUs...if 9900K is able to hit 5Ghz all cores, the gap will increase.


Yes, but that is only 12% in gaming performance, I would bet it isn't 12% better in other non gaming tasks.
At least for most ofthe programs I will be using,like Photoshopt and Premiere, the advantage of the 9900k should be even higher considering the 8700k was already performing better in some areas.

That is why the 9900k is an interesting option for me.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
It is hard to believe at this point someone could still be so ignorant about hyper-threading in video games. The difference is night and day with hyper threading on a quad CPU in most modern games. A 2600 k is a hell of a lot more relevant today than the 2500 k and anyone that has a clue about modern gaming knows that.

I was a 2500k owner, and in the first few years of ownership, that money saved was much better spent elsewhere.

I can't speak for the person you're replying to, and I feel that your criticism of their post is spot on.

But regarding the 2500k- I'd say that most of us didn't expect that CPU to remain relevant for 5+ years. I personally expected to upgrade in two or three.

And when I finally did, the CPU was topped out, and I grabbed a hyperthreaded quad-core. Lernt my lesson ;).
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Given the diminishing returns of cores beyond 4, the 9700K with 8 real cores is interesting. With nearly the came clocks I'll be curious if real software tests show the 9700K and 9900K not all that different.

It really is!

The fun part is that the 8600K (and now 9600K) have six hardware threads, and give the 8700K a run for its money in games, sometimes being faster than the 6700k/7700k and never being slower enough to be booted from consideration. I expect the 9700K, when run at the same clockspeeds, to be the 9900k's equal for gaming. And since it will certainly be more than competent for other workloads, I expect it to be pretty popular.
 

xacid

n00b
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
50
Yeah, like I’m right in the middle of buying a bunch of Gen10 servers right now.
Been in tons of roadmap mtgs, Cascade Lake mtgs etc...

I think it's on this guy.

Maybe I misspoke - Few articles I've read mentioned HPE moving to amd. But after finding another few they are more so recommending them over intel mainly due to supply of intel chips.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
704
Some of these comments are funny. Many things cost a great deal of money you can question if they are worth that value. A Kiton suit costs $8,000, a Gucci T-shirt costs $600 you can look at the fabric and craftsmanship and see they are better than what you find at Macy’s. Value is determined by what you get for your money for logical people 12% increase in performance does not correspond to 60% in cost. Feel free to spend as much as you want, the same with custom loop water cooling just don’t look down your nose when people question the worth.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
5,110
Some of these comments are funny. Many things cost a great deal of money you can question if they are worth that value. A Kiton suit costs $8,000, a Gucci T-shirt costs $600 you can look at the fabric and craftsmanship and see they are better than what you find at Macy’s. Value is determined by what you get for your money for logical people 12% increase in performance does not correspond to 60% in cost. Feel free to spend as much as you want, the same with custom loop water cooling just don’t look down your nose when people question the worth.

I agree with you about not looking down noses- but I disagree with your examples. I've seen plenty of designer wear that, while comparatively expensive, does not denote quality one bit.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Some of these comments are funny. Many things cost a great deal of money you can question if they are worth that value. A Kiton suit costs $8,000, a Gucci T-shirt costs $600 you can look at the fabric and craftsmanship and see they are better than what you find at Macy’s. Value is determined by what you get for your money for logical people 12% increase in performance does not correspond to 60% in cost. Feel free to spend as much as you want, the same with custom loop water cooling just don’t look down your nose when people question the worth.
I agree with you about not looking down noses- but I disagree with your examples. I've seen plenty of designer wear that, while comparatively expensive, does not denote quality one bit.

There are those that do look down their nose at others- I see no place for them here.

However, I will state that value and utility matter. For some, 12% isn't worth it. I get it. It's not worth it to me either!

For others it may very well be. I've already explained in this thread why I find the 9900k attractive, and there are situations where it gets closer to a performance ideal while still not being fast enough.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
5,110
There are those that do look down their nose at others- I see no place for them here.

However, I will state that value and utility matter. For some, 12% isn't worth it. I get it. It's not worth it to me either!

For others it may very well be. I've already explained in this thread why I find the 9900k attractive, and there are situations where it gets closer to a performance ideal while still not being fast enough.
With particularity, there were some statements like, you're not [H]ard if you question the value of the i9. That, I disagree with. I'm a big softy, anyways - not [H] at all. Nevertheless, I find value to be a legitimate metric.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
With particularity, there were some statements like, you're not [H]ard if you question the value of the i9. That, I disagree with. I'm a big softy, anyways - not [H] at all. Nevertheless, I find value to be a legitimate metric.

With respect to this particular community, that statement is fair, in my opinion ;). That said, relatively speaking, I'm not that [H]ard either...

But I get the two sides here. The main point is that while the extra performance comes with a cost, it's not particularly egregious (i.e. Extreme Edition pricing), which means that the top end for gaming is at least accessible, and further, the 9900K takes the performance lead in a consumer socket across the board.
 

gulguran

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
264
I still have the tape, lol.

I used to have to load a 16k program into a pdp11 with no console, that was a piece of test equipment.

Everytime the power failed. :)

I finally noticed the chick from accounting I went to lunch with could do it perfectly, in about 10 minutes, so we started diversifying some jobs. :)

This was in 85, lol.

Nice, heh I just got that pidp 11/70 retro clone I missed that thing so much too :)
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,791
What CPU do you guys think would be most likely paired with the 2080 Ti? Another factor you should NOT consider is cost factor. If someone drops $1300 for a GPU, dropping an additional $200 for a 9900K is probably not a problem.

I'll be down at Microcenter early Friday morning to get the 9900K.

Hoping to get 5.1+ Ghz on all 8 Cores under load and stable.
 

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
5,110
What CPU do you guys think would be most likely paired with the 2080 Ti? Another factor you should NOT consider is cost factor. If someone drops $1300 for a GPU, dropping an additional $200 for a 9900K is probably not a problem.

I'll be down at Microcenter early Friday morning to get the 9900K.

Hoping to get 5.1+ Ghz on all 8 Cores under load and stable.
Luck! Let us know!
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,958
What CPU do you guys think would be most likely paired with the 2080 Ti? Another factor you should NOT consider is cost factor. If someone drops $1300 for a GPU, dropping an additional $200 for a 9900K is probably not a problem.

I'll be down at Microcenter early Friday morning to get the 9900K.

Hoping to get 5.1+ Ghz on all 8 Cores under load and stable.
Do the 9900K with your 2080 TI. It’s what I’m doin. Sadly I might get the i9 before the TI at this rate. eVGA has been delayed on the FTW3s, but they said they’ll start shipping en masse this week. We’ll see. Not holding my breath.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,774
NY Scalpers will eat up.this chip nobody will get one. The chip has lower TDP 95 watts vs 105 watts. Gaming has never improved in one generational jump its all about programs like video encoding.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,669
I wonder how the 9900K will help the 2080 Ti when Shadow Of The Tomb Raider running with RT at 1080p is getting 45fps with mostly max settings?

Plus who cares what the 9900K gets at 1080p? The comparison in itself is utterly pointless and has no practical or even logical reason to conclude that it will make a significant impact on your gaming experience.

What is the percent difference at 4K? or even 1440p? 2%? 0% or does it show AMD starting to go ahead like previous benchmarks has shown before at higher resolutions? If one or you want to spend the money on a 9900K great, have fun but some trying to justify it by worthless game benches not reflecting real usage cases for that level of hardware seems pointless and a big waste of time. Reality - the 9900K will not add anything significant over your gaming experience over a 8700K or even a 7700K and for most even an I5 or lower end Ryzen. The 9900K will increase CPU heavy loads that uses the cores and could be the use case except AMD trumps them big time with ThreadRipper.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
I wonder how the 9900K will help the 2080 Ti when Shadow Of The Tomb Raider running with RT at 1080p is getting 45fps with mostly max settings?

Plus who cares what the 9900K gets at 1080p? The comparison in itself is utterly pointless and has no practical or even logical reason to conclude that it will make a significant impact on your gaming experience.

What is the percent difference at 4K? or even 1440p? 2%? 0% or does it show AMD starting to go ahead like previous benchmarks has shown before at higher resolutions? If one or you want to spend the money on a 9900K great, have fun but some trying to justify it by worthless game benches not reflecting real usage cases for that level of hardware seems pointless and a big waste of time. Reality - the 9900K will not add anything significant over your gaming experience over a 8700K or even a 7700K and for most even an I5 or lower end Ryzen. The 9900K will increase CPU heavy loads that uses the cores and could be the use case except AMD trumps them big time with ThreadRipper.
Maybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,669
Maybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.
Yes, also not to deter Intel nuts to make the same claims or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation. Well if RT on the RTX is very CPU dependent then ThreadRipper for sure will be the CPU to own ;)
 

cdr_74_premium

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,578
Maybe you should keep up with tech better as ray tracing is going to be a bit cpu dependent too. And who gives a shit about spending a little more for the best gaming cpu made when you are already spending quite a bit to get the best gaming experience? It will be so ironic next year if AMD ends up having the better gaming cpu with next gen Ryzen and charging more for it. I am pretty sure the AMD nuts will change their tune when its their team doing the same thing as Intel.

Why? If the answer to price/performance becomes Intel, so be it.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Yes, also not to deter Intel nuts to make the same claims or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation. Well if RT on the RTX is very CPU dependent then ThreadRipper for sure will be the CPU to own ;)
You can probably forget that as they will optimize it around desktop cpus so 8/16 threads will be where its at.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Why? If the answer to price/performance becomes Intel, so be it.
I dont care either way but its hilarious to see the bitching about the relatively small price difference in a high end gaming build. AMD can and should charge more if they get the upper hand but many around here think only the big evil Intel does that.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,669
You can probably forget that as they will optimize it around desktop cpus so 8/16 threads will be where its at.
Than AMD has nothing to worry about, AMD multi-threading per core is better than Intel's Hyper Threading. You take the performance of one core using two threads, AMD catches up to Intel.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Than AMD has nothing to worry about, AMD multi-threading per core is better than Intel's Hyper Threading. You take the performance of one core using two threads, AMD catches up to Intel.
Not in gaming it doesn't.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,921
Exactly why I was hoping to get a combination of 2700x and 8700k in one CPU. The fact is for some programs like Photoshop or even Premiere (when using the 8700k IGPU), even the 8700k outperforms the 2700x and that is not taking into consideration that ones normally OCes max to about 4.2 and the other to 5Ghz. If the 9900k can OC to 5Ghz (all cores of course) then it will be my perfect CPU for a long time.



You are forgetting the OC capabilities of both CPUs...if 9900K is able to hit 5Ghz all cores, the gap will increase.
Last time an Intel chip was said to overclock easily to 5Ghz, it turns out only a small fraction of chips sold could hit those speeds. The vast majority only hit 4.8Ghz at best. I really doubt that's different for the 9900K.



At least for most ofthe programs I will be using,like Photoshopt and Premiere, the advantage of the 9900k should be even higher considering the 8700k was already performing better in some areas.

That is why the 9900k is an interesting option for me.
I've not seen many Adobe benchmarks to know how much of a difference there is, but I do know that Adobe products don't tend to scale with CPU cores.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
I really doubt that's different for the 9900K.

Why?

This is 14nm revision VI, right? Shouldn't Intel have learned how to get the clocks up?

or get stuck on single thread silliness fixation.

Let's be clear: when it comes to gaming, single-thread/single-core performance matters. If it didn't, we'd have all switched to Ryzen already. It's just the nature of the workload, and it's something that Intel has been working on quite a bit longer than AMD.

Plus who cares what the 9900K gets at 1080p?

I do get tired of this shitty argument. While many actually do game at 1080p, they usually aren't doing it on top-end hardware. I play League of Legends at 1080p on my ultrabook, and I get 60FPS at that!

The reason tests are done at 1080p is that this keeps the test reasonably relevant while also minimizing the GPU. This is particularly useful for simulating what a GPU upgrade might look like, so benchmarking a 9900K with a 2080Ti at 1080p might show us how a hypothetical 2180Ti could perform. It's part of the value argument, showing that the CPU 'has legs'.

What does that mean?

Well, it means that down the road, the 9900k will still be faster than a 2700X ;).
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,791
The 9900K at stock benches faster than an overclocked 2700x. Now, when you overclock that 9900K to 5.1Ghz on a high-end air / AIO water cooler, you're at like ... what? 20% faster than a 2700x?
 

UrielDagda

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
2,844
Since 80% of my game time is WoW, if I were to upgrade, it'd be Intel. 30% framerate difference is huge.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,289
If I’m going to spend that kind of money on a cpu, it’ll be a Threadripper. Because cores.

;)
 

MADNOD

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
95
Systems running the 9900K will be cheaper overall that the usual i9s due to Z390 boards, so i get its "value" proposition, however what i don't get is why the 9700K is not having HT.

As for CPUs in general, the top of the line are not the best bang for the bucks anyway, these are for people who wants to have the fastests, regardless of the price/performance ratios. it is given that a balanced gaming PC is a far better platform for gaming that one that is skewed toward one component.

AMD has a golden opportunity with the 9700K , i hope that Zen 2 brings good performance and clock increase to the platform.
 

madcap magician

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
328
Claiming the "price is too damn high" on hardware is not "[H]ard". I thought this was a place where bleeding edge overclockers and hardcore gurus reside. Come on!!! lmao.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,791
If I’m going to spend that kind of money on a cpu, it’ll be a Threadripper. Because cores.

;)

yeah huge WOW dude here, ex wow dude. But, have the new xpac. Just cancelled. I can tell you that with my current 8086K at 5.2ghz and a 2080 Ti ... I can max everything and it's butter smooth. Very much over the 1080 Ti I had. And I know that sounds sketch but very true.
 
Last edited:

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
Just as a curiosity what is the bottleneck at 1440 in your system? 2600k is very long in the tooth, at least at 1080p you would get significantly higher frames with a new i7. 1440p I'm not sure. I have a 4790k that is the bottleneck in mostly all of my shooters at 1080p (paired with v64).

I would love to see 1440p 144hz, but probably not until my next build in a year or two.

As for sweet spots, that varies from person to person. Ive been so spoiled by over 2000 hours of CS:GO that I could honestly tell you if the framerate is under 200. In less competitive games i dont mind 100fps, but I do notice the blur when I move fast.

Games I mostly play are FPS such as Tomb Raider's, Metro's, Crysis 1-3, Doom, KCD, WItcher 2-3, MEA. I've got roughly 100-200 games but these are the ones I mostly play/replay. My frames listed are just from memory but honestly anything under 60 usually triggers eye/neck cramps(lol). The thing about 1440p is that it's the crossover for where most work is shifted over to the GPU. At 1080p I doubt this 2600k(BTW for more specs on that rig it's in my profile) would do very well. At 1440p the 1080TI is picking up the slack. With KCD and SOTTR I finally got to see some semi-regular spikes in the 60-70% range on the CPU, otherwise it's neaarly always on the GPU. Usually that CPU averages 25-45%. The only settings I usually turn off are motion blur and lens flares. I firmly believe in as much visual detail and clarity as possible. KCD, SOTTR, ROTTR, Metro Last Light(AA SMAAx4) average 50-70 fps. Most other games are ~ 60 min but average 70-110 depending on the game.

Yeah the 2600k is starting to show its age but many people with them or 2500k will still tell how well they continue to age. The real trick is pairing the right GPU and display to balance the load. The 1080TI/1440p combo is pretty much the end of the road for this rig but that road still has some miles ahead and pushing almost 10 years of high end gaming has been a good trip.
 

kamxam

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
1,797
I still say wait for the [H] Review. I'd rather have multiple reviews for the facts than base everything on ONE companies review.
Is it much faster than the AMD offerings? Is it worth the price difference? Probably not, but sometimes you've gotta splurge.
I'm getting the 9900K. Why? Cause i can... :sneaky:
(As for the reason, i can afford it, it's what i like to work with, and it used to mean something here to be [H]ard)
 
Top