• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

9700k vs 9900k Gaming

If there is no IPC improvement but people are seeing the 9 series do better clock for clock vs the 8 series, perhaps the in silicon fixes for spectre and meltdown are having a small performance impact.
Or maybe the STIM is allowing the CPU to run cooler and more efficiently at a given clock vs the toothpaste.

Then again, it could be that those with 9 series outperforming 8 series simply have better silicon this time around.

If the latter is true then it could also work in reverse, and in the case of performance loss they might just have a CPU at the very low end of the binning process.
 
8600K overclocks at 5.2-5.3, specially if you do not OC the Ring (which you should) hit 5.4 if delided.
All benchmarks are based on 8600K at stock boost speeds of 4.3ghz compared to 4.6ghz of the 9600K. ofc there is a difference there.

Mentioned the ring overclocking. A 10-15% overclock on ring will give better perf than an extra 4% OC on the core over the 5Ghz.
 
Panos said:
8600K overclocks at 5.2-5.3, specially if you do not OC the Ring (which you should) hit 5.4 if delided.
All benchmarks are based on 8600K at stock boost speeds of 4.3ghz compared to 4.6ghz of the 9600K. ofc there is a difference there.

Mentioned the ring overclocking. A 10-15% overclock on ring will give better perf than an extra 4% OC on the core over the 5Ghz.
Click to expand...

What tests did you use to test the ring performance? I couldn't find any substantial increase during my admittedly limited testing.
 
gavinh87 said:
What tests did you use to test the ring performance? I couldn't find any substantial increase during my admittedly limited testing.
Click to expand...

Is commong knowledge since Intel broke the link between Ring & Core speed, however Gamers nexus did a video few months back on the 8700K.
Also is directly related to your ram speed.

There were a lot of thread last year this time, comparing KB to CFL performance and the effect of ring bus speed.
 
Panos said:
Is commong knowledge since Intel broke the link between Ring & Core speed, however Gamers nexus did a video few months back on the 8700K.
Also is directly related to your ram speed.

There were a lot of thread last year this time, comparing KB to CFL performance and the effect of ring bus speed.
Click to expand...

Would you mind linking it? I cannot find anything. Genuinely interested as my own testing showed almost 0 difference.
 
gavinh87 said:
Would you mind linking it? I cannot find anything. Genuinely interested as my own testing showed almost 0 difference.
Click to expand...

I will try to find the gamers nexus video but here is an article

https://translate.google.com/transl...attention-aux-overclockings-automatiques.html

Thats the FPS difference between stock Ring bus and 4.4Ghz overclock on 8700K. Memory and single thread heavy games benefit greatly from just the 10% overclock.
Assuming you have good ram (3200+) it improves the performance. 4.7Ghz for Ring is optimal, 5Ghz Ring and 5Ghz core is similar to Kabylake at 5Ghz. (Kabylake, Skylake etc have linked Core-Cache speed).

Also was common knowledge on the X99 platform that to be able to achieve same perf clock for clock with mainstream, had to overclock the cache (uncore). On the contrary Mesh overclocking does nothing.

l2lg53h6isrz.jpg


Wz9VpKw.png
 
hedgey said:
nah. 8600k cant catch a 9600k, even my cpu is slower in benchmarks clock for clock. id wait for prices to settle first. I mean, ive seen a 9600k for £265 imported.
Click to expand...
What do you mean can't catch? The i5-9600K has slightly higher stock clocks but if you're overclocking (which you should be with K chip really), they are the same chip really. IPC is the same.
 
Panos said:
I will try to find the gamers nexus video but here is an article

https://translate.google.com/transl...attention-aux-overclockings-automatiques.html

Thats the FPS difference between stock Ring bus and 4.4Ghz overclock on 8700K. Memory and single thread heavy games benefit greatly from just the 10% overclock.
Assuming you have good ram (3200+) it improves the performance. 4.7Ghz for Ring is optimal, 5Ghz Ring and 5Ghz core is similar to Kabylake at 5Ghz. (Kabylake, Skylake etc have linked Core-Cache speed).

Also was common knowledge on the X99 platform that to be able to achieve same perf clock for clock with mainstream, had to overclock the cache (uncore). On the contrary Mesh overclocking does nothing.

l2lg53h6isrz.jpg


Wz9VpKw.png
Click to expand...

Cheers
 
TechPowerUp 9700K review

Oops, looks like Intel put the slogan on the wrong CPU. 8 degrees cooler than 8700K and 18 degrees cooler than 9900K at max power.
The lack of HTT is a boon rather than a bane as the processor has fewer PPCs than the i7-8700K, and hence, its boost-clock application headroom is spread across just 8 PPCs instead of 12. This translates to better sustainability of clock speeds north of 4.50 GHz, and approaching 4.90 GHz. Gamers couldn't have asked for a better scenario.

Across the 720p and 1080p gaming tests, the Core i7-9700K ends up faster than even the Core i9-9900K for the reason I explained above. The lead is rather slim at around 1–2 percent, but it's there. Even in GPU-limited resolutions such as 1440p and 4K UHD, the i7-9700K ends up a tiny bit faster, but the differences are insignificant. Games that are heavily multi-threaded, such as "Civilization VI", still show the i7-9700K ahead. It is hence safe to conclude that the i7-9700K—not the Core i9-9900K—is the fastest gaming processor.
Click to expand...
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom