Intel 9th Gen CPUs revealed

[Bob Gnarley]

Thought for the day:

Remember the 8700k launch, hailed as the new king of gaming cpu's? Overclocking showed that most would hit 5ghz, some 5.1ghz but very few would go further.

It turned out that during the binning process Intel had been cherry picking the best performers to, a few weeks later, become the 8086k which was hailed as the new king of gaming cpu's.

Now that the 9900k has launched, the new king of gaming cpu's, we are seeing thermal issues pretty much across the board with little if any headroom left for o'cing.

What are the chances that, in a few weeks, Intel launch something like "The 9950k special edition" with better thermals and a slightly higher boost. One thing is for sure, if they do it will definitely be hailed as the new king of gaming cpu's.!!


What this launch has showed is that 14nm is just about done with, will be interesting to see where they go from here.

 

[Andy_J]

so @RasmusP Do you not think a Ryzen 2600x is a big enough jump up complete with new mb and faster ram?

 

[RasmusP]

so @RasmusP Do you not think a Ryzen 2600x is a big enough jump up complete with new mb and faster ram?

No!
Not for someone with an overclocked i7 2600k or newer. With an i5: only for games that are nicely multi-threading of if you do rendering work.

Like a summarized: either go with the swap-plug-and-play solution: sell your i5, put the same generation's i7 in and have a nice upgrade for multi-threading games while not spending much money.

Or wait for Ryzen 3!

Or buy 8700k/9700k/9900k with a really bad bang for the buck!

 

[Andy_J]

No!
Not for someone with an overclocked i7 2600k or newer. With an i5: only for games that are nicely multi-threading of if you do rendering work.

But I have seen benchmarks showing the Ryzen 5 2600x almost matching 9700k etc for gaming.

 

[RasmusP]

But I have seen benchmarks showing the Ryzen 5 2600x almost matching 9700k etc for gaming.

Can you post these Screenshots/videos? Because what I have seen is that even in assassins creed, which is my go-to multithreading game, the 8700k shows every ryzen how it's supposed to be done.
In the benchmarks where they match, it's mostly a graphics card or engine limit so your cpu would give similar results.

 

[Andy_J]

Sorry my mistake. Thinking of the 2700x.

 

[RasmusP]

Sorry my mistake. Thinking of the 2700x.

Event the 2700x can't keep up. The problem here is: If you only play multi-threading games, then the 2700 is a really nice option if you don't want to throw money at Intel!
But the fewer threads a game utilizes, the bigger the difference becomes until you reach a game like World of Warcraft, which basically runs on one single thread, making the Ryzen CPUs only 1-2 fps better than your current Intel!
Here is a video that shows lots of games with nicely noted down stats. For the CPU please only look at 720p as at 1440p the graphic card becomes the limit and therefore the difference is only a fluctuation!

Video with 35 games, mainly nice multi-threading

I can't find a video for a game where it would show but I got a friend of mine to run World of Warcraft against my 2600k. Logged in with exactly the same setup, character etc 2 minutes apart from each other 3x to confirm the minimum framerates and it shows exactly what my excel sheet from Cinebench testing shows!

Thing is: this is discussed on Racedepartment so I guess Simracing games are the focus. And they all barely use even a 4 core CPU to its limit!

 

[Turk]

I'm torn/confused. I'm in the market for a new PC, and I want to buy soon. The rational side of my brain says get the i7 8700k with a Z370 board. Because I'm getting the impression that these 9th gen processors will be the only processors that will ever work on the Z390 boards so there's no point even future proofing the motherboard.

I did think of getting the 8700k with a Z390 board so I could upgrade to the likes of the i9 9700k in the future. But then I'm sort of paying twice, and it sounds like there isn't a huge difference in performance so when the time comes to upgrade I'd probably be looking at 10th or 11th gen. Which made me think I should just throw caution to the wind and get the i9 now, bigger numbers are better.

This PC will be used for video, lightroom and photoshop so it will be as much a business purchase as a gaming PC. Lightroom really chugs at the moment. I'll be able to right off some of the cost which may make investing in the i9 more reasonable.

Outside of lightroom and photoshop all I care about is ACC VR performance. I don't care about any other games or sims, or single screen, just ACC in VR.

 

[RasmusP]

I'm torn/confused. I'm in the market for a new PC, and I want to buy soon. The rational side of my brain says get the i7 8700k with a Z370 board. Because I'm getting the impression that these 9th gen processors will be the only processors that will ever work on the Z390 boards so there's no point even future proofing the motherboard.

I did think of getting the 8700k with a Z390 board so I could upgrade to the likes of the i9 9700k in the future. But then I'm sort of paying twice, and it sounds like there isn't a huge difference in performance so when the time comes to upgrade I'd probably be looking at 10th or 11th gen. Which made me think I should just throw caution to the wind and get the i9 now, bigger numbers are better.

This PC will be used for video, lightroom and photoshop so it will be as much a business purchase as a gaming PC. Lightroom really chugs at the moment. I'll be able to right off some of the cost which may make investing in the i9 more reasonable.

Outside of lightroom and photoshop all I care about is ACC VR performance. I don't care about any other games or sims, or single screen, just ACC in VR.

Totally getting you!
How much of a cost difference would be full set (mb+cpu) right now for you between 8700k and 9900k?
The problem is that the 8700k had a 40% price increase in Germany. It's a thing of principles not to buy it right now.
Not sure if the i9 will get cheaper though...
I'd say wait for the 9700k. It should clock higher than the i9, run cooler than the 8700k (hopefully) resulting in a better single thread performance (VR acc!) with the same multithread performance.
Lightroom never uses all of my cpu but it stutters after a lot of processing somehow... So I doubt the i9 will be any better than the i7!

I'd think for your situation (photo editing, not movie rendering/music mixing?) waiting for the i7 9700k or if you can, waiting for ryzen 3 would be the wise thing to do.

If the 8700k is still at a reasonable price in your country, go for that. But this also depends how much more expensive a z390 would be over a z370!

 

[Turk]

Just after realising I got my numbers wrong. I ment the i9 9900k, not 9700k. I see someplace selling them for £589. i7 8700k is £428 on Amazon. I was looking at a motherboard price around £200 no matter which chip I get.

 

[RasmusP]

Just after realising I got my numbers wrong. I ment the i9 9900k, not 9700k. I see someplace selling them for £589. i7 8700k is £428 on Amazon. I was looking at a motherboard price around £200 no matter which chip I get.

I got you since you wrote "i9" in front. But I was mentioning the i7 9700k as a third alternative since it might hit the market as the price of the 8700k while giving you a better VR performance for games at the same performance for Lightroom.

If the Motherboards cost the same, and it's 589 vs 428... I'd go with the i9!
However the 3rd alternative would be an i7 9700k and spending the 170 £ for faster memory!

Here's how lightroom utilizes my 8 thread CPU:
- Repair Tool until it stutters:

- Panorama stitching:

- Mass export:

- overall CPU load for these 3 situations:

Conclusion:
Apart from the mass export, but not really even then, my CPU is never used to its maximum! So I think a higher clocked 9700k will be better suited, especially paired with faster memory, for your needs than the 9900k!

Here's how rendering a video with sony vegas looks like:

- Preview Playback:

- Rendering:

- And again, the overall CPU load:

Conclusion:
As you can see, it's not really used in a better way even for video editing. However this is due to the nvidia GPU support, which takes off some load from the CPU.
However during the preview playback, the CPU is again limited in its single thread performance, not the overall performance!

In the end:
- i9 will give you faster mass export and rendering
- overclocked i7 with faster memory will provide a better workflow though with slightly slower export!

 

[RobertR1]

Just after realising I got my numbers wrong. I ment the i9 9900k, not 9700k. I see someplace selling them for £589. i7 8700k is £428 on Amazon. I was looking at a motherboard price around £200 no matter which chip I get.

Get the 8086k off amazon. It’s cheaper and binned. You can run it at 5ghz all core on air without delidding easily.

Add an ASUS Z390 Strix-E and you’re set if you ever wanted to upgrade to a 9900k in the future.

 

[Turk]

I got you since you wrote "i9" in front. But I was mentioning the i7 9700k as a third alternative !

I didn't even know that chip existed.

Get the 8086k off amazon. It’s cheaper and binned. You can run it at 5ghz all core on air without delidding easily.

I only found out about this one recently, I'll look into it thanks.

 

[RasmusP]

I didn't even know that chip existed.

I only found out about this one recently, I'll look into it thanks.

Updated my post a little. And yeah, if you don't have to pay a lot more for the 8086 k it's the best mix at the moment for you

I didn't even know that chip existed.

The 9xxx series comes again with i7 and i5 but the new high end chip got a fancy "9" in front so Intel can grab more money from their consumers and make them pay an extra fee for hyperthreading!

So it was, since years, like that:
i5 , no HT
i7, with HT
both with the same core count and the i9 was an entirely different series!

Now it's:
i5, no HT
i7, no HT but 2 more cores
i9, HT, same core count to the i7

 

[RobertR1]

The 8086k seems to have gone back up in price on amazon.co.uk sadly. I got it for 393 so it will dip below 400 but likely bumped up due to 9900k supply and in part, reviews.

 

[RasmusP]

The 8086k seems to have gone back up in price on amazon.co.uk sadly. I got it for 393 so it will dip below 400 but likely bumped up due to 9900k supply and in part, reviews.

Regarding prices.. I didn't really look for the i5 8600k and 9600k. They are really cheap in comparison while for pure gaming they probably have identical performance or even better performance due to higher overclocking possibilities!
Have a look at the review of Guru3D: LINK
Single Thread with stock clocks (i5 = 4.6 GHz, i7 = 4.9 GHz, i9 = 5 GHz):
i5: 199 points
i7: 210 points
i9: 216 points
(8700k 194 points)
(Ryzen 2700x 180 points)
Looking at the evened out performance at 3.5 GHz they all have 150-153 points. So basically identical. The Ryzen 2700x has 148 btw.

Now when you scale this to the i5 9600k probably being able to run 5 GHz+ on all cores on air cooling... for 300€ btw here in Germany it changes the picture!

Multithreading is a completely different story of course but for pure gaming, especially for non AAA games, it's the same performance for half the price.

However the i7 8700k was available for around 350€ last year in Germany so I really won't give Intel any money for their sh*tshow...

The only benchmark, again only with stock clocks that somehow shows how the performance would be in rF2, ACC, AC1 etc etc is the Deus EX benchmark:

i7 9700k: 157 fps (two more cores raise performance quite a bit if not throttling!)
i9 9900k: 147 fps (probably throttling down due to TDP limit compared to the i7!)
i5 9600k: 147 fps (not throttling, but only 6 cores and a lower stock turbo clock..)
i7 8700k: 136 fps (not sure why so much lower. Probably turbo clocks)
Ryzen 2700x: 108 fps (tells quite a story eh?!)

Prices at Caseking (nice store, featuring a lot of der8auer stuff):
i7 9700k: 549€
i9 9900k: 699€
i5 9600k: 329€
i7 8700k: 499€
Ryzen 2700x: 329€

Combining the Deus EX benchmark with the prices, since it's the closest to sim racing real life performance, this the "bang for the buck":
i7 9700k: 3.50 €/fps
i9 9900k: 4.76 €/fps
i5 9600k: 2.24 €/fps
i7 8700k: 3.67 €/fps
Ryzen 2700x: 3.05 €/fps

Making the it 9600k a better deal over the Ryzen 2700x! However if you do any multithreading at all, like playing lots of AAA games, rendering a lot, streaming while playing, the 9700k is the better suiting CPU to be future proof!
And if you only play modern games with nice multi threading and don't care for the last fps in older games or simulations: get the Ryzen!

Sorry if someone feels like I'd be just spamming. I'm just noting down my process of research, hoping it helps you guys to decide on a suiting CPU for your needs without spending too much money

@Andy_J my latest calculations and overviews might be interesting for you. If not just ignore it

 

[RobertR1]

@RasmusP Good research on your part.

For me, the core elements are something I try to get 5-6 years out of (case/PSU/cpu/RAM/mobo/SSD). At the time when the sandy bridge chips came out, there wasn't much between the 2500k and the 2600k and by most accounts the 2500k was a better buy at the time due to it's ability to clock higher, run cooler while hyper threading was more of a choke point than a benefit. What I started looking at was the future what would that performance gap be like in years 3/4/5. I had guessed that hyper threading would start showing it's worth and extend the usable life of the 2600k by another year or two. That actually worked out well for me.

I could always be wrong but it's the same principal I'm using here for the 9900k having 2 additional cores, 2 HT's and additional cache. The 8086k goes toe to toe now but I can see that gap stretching into the future. Normally, this would be more straight forward but the supply issues have skewed the picture heavily. I currently have a 9900k on order which would be a delta of 100gbp if it came in on time to replace the 8086k. For me, that 100gbp stretched over the years and getting 1-2 years of extra mileage is worth it. However, beyond that, it starts being an unreasonable cost for me to be comfortable with.

I'm not overly concerned about today's performance as in reality, any high end chip will do. It's the years 3/4/5 and the trends that make me think.

 

[RasmusP]

@RasmusP Good research on your part.

For me, the core elements are something I try to get 5-6 years out of (case/PSU/cpu/RAM/mobo/SSD). At the time when the sandy bridge chips came out, there wasn't much between the 2500k and the 2600k and by most accounts the 2500k was a better buy at the time due to it's ability to clock higher, run cooler while hyper threading was more of a choke point than a benefit. What I started looking at was the future what would that performance gap be like in years 3/4/5. I had guessed that hyper threading would start showing it's worth and extend the usable life of the 2600k by another year or two. That actually worked out well for me.

I could always be wrong but it's the same principal I'm using here for the 9900k having 2 additional cores, 2 HT's and additional cache. The 8086k goes toe to toe now but I can see that gap stretching into the future. Normally, this would be more straight forward but the supply issues have skewed the picture heavily. I currently have a 9900k on order which would be a delta of 100gbp if it came in on time to replace the 8086k. For me, that 100gbp stretched over the years and getting 1-2 years of extra mileage is worth it. However, beyond that, it starts being an unreasonable cost for me to be comfortable with.

I'm not overly concerned about today's performance as in reality, any high end chip will do. It's the years 3/4/5 and the trends that make me think.

I absolutely get your thoughts! The problem for me is that when I bought the 2600k in 2011 it was 210 to 245 euros! I5 to i7.

Now it's a little bit more of a difference...
Also for me the performance gap between them really only shows in battlefield 1, assassin's creed and the Witcher 3.

I'm wondering how long it's gonna take to use 6 cores to their full extend... It feels like a reached plateau to be honest somehow.

So I'm all with you with spending 20% more money on the i7 and from that, 20% more on the i9 but sadly it's a looooot more


I don't agree with your last statement though. Throw VR and 90 fps in Assetto corsa at the CPUs and you'll see that no ryzen cpu can maintain them when running a few too many AIs or hud apps!
Also a 4.9 GHz haswell i7 isn't enough!

The 8700k gets the job done, so does probably the the 8600k. But at the moment you need coffee lake single thread performance for quite a lot of games if you go VR or many AIs.

In this case I have the feeling that getting the 9600k and upgrading in 6 years will be cheaper and overall better than spending the humongous amount of money for the i7 or i9.

It's a difficult subject though! I totally agree!

 

[BP]

Well...after all that, I gave up on waiting...decided to get an 8700K instead and cancelled the Amazon pre-order ...that and the 2080 should pair very well together I'd imagine.

Will use the money saved to possibly go liquid cooling (if I can get over my fear of liquid cooling, that is ). The extra 2 cores/4 threads would have been nice for music production stuff, but I'm sure i won't lose any sleep over it once everything is up and running.

Any suggestions on cooling? Was gonna stick with the Phanteks, but Amazon really screwed up: they mailed it to me in a box with ZERO PADDING. Pieces broke off and to add insult to injury, it looks like they sent me a returned item! Certain parts that shouldn't have been assembled already were, plus couple cables and possibly screws are missing ...I got them to give me an instant refund and put that towards the 8700K (fingers crossed they put some kind of bubble wrap over the damn thing).

Anyways, besides possibly buying the same Phantek cooler from Newegg instead, I've been looking at the Alphacool Eisbaer series since it's an AIO that's actually serviceable and seems to cool pretty well. My case can take up to a 420mm radiator on the top.

 

[Turk]

The 8086k seems to have gone back up in price on amazon.co.uk sadly. I got it for 393 so it will dip below 400 but likely bumped up due to 9900k supply and in part, reviews.

The problem with Amazon is they have options and they don't seem to stick to any particular option so the price can swap and change just by reloading the page. I added the 8086 to a wish list yesterday and it said it was £388, today I go back and it's £420. I had to go in and see a list of sellers and pick the cheap one (not the prime one). The 8086 is actually cheaper than the 8700k at the moment.

I think I might go with the 8086K on a z390 board. Will probably make the purchase over the weekend.

Will use the money saved to possibly go liquid cooling (if I can get over my fear of liquid cooling, that is ).

I've been looking at the liquid cooling too, it's a lot easier than it was the last time I built my PC. I was looking at the Corsair H100i, £100+ seems to be the middle of the road price.