Core 9000 series

Italiux · 29 Sep 2018 at 20:27

More 9900K leaks https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-gaming-benchmark/

chrcoluk · 29 Sep 2018 at 20:31

yeah that 9700k looks tasty, the speed binning is close between the 9700k and 9900k with stock clocks only 100mhz diff, usually the stock clocks have a bigger gap. So $100 extra for 100mhz higher stock clocks and 8 fake cores.

Panos · 29 Sep 2018 at 22:32

Journey said:
I don't understand why anyone would compare HEDT, with £300+ motherboards, to a normal desktop chip? Why not just get the Ryzen 2700X, they are <£300, have 8c/16t and will be able to take the newer CPU's due out next year, and the year after that, probably with more cores too.

Some very good boards like the mATX Taichi, are not that more expensive than the good Z370 boards.
Also X399 is a much better platform.

Panos · 29 Sep 2018 at 22:34

Italiux said:
More 9900K leaks https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-9900k-gaming-benchmark/

So is 11% faster than the 8700K. But hold on a sec. There are 34% more cores..... Where the performance's gone?

ToonarmY87 · 29 Sep 2018 at 22:35

Panos said:
So is 11% faster than the 8700K. But hold on a sec. There are 34% more cores..... Where the performance's gone?

Into intels profit margins

Journey · 29 Sep 2018 at 23:28

Panos said:
Some very good boards like the mATX Taichi, are not that more expensive than the good Z370 boards.
Also X399 is a much better platform.

What has Z370 got to do with my quote of the other guys quote? Did you even bother to read the previous comment, it would appear not. I distinctly asked why the person would compare HEDT TR4 to the new incoming 9 series, go back re-read the comments and then respond to that part of the thread.

gavinh87 · 29 Sep 2018 at 23:34

Panos said:
So is 11% faster than the 8700K. But hold on a sec. There are 34% more cores..... Where the performance's gone?

AoTS is very easy to fake, as shown many times before.
Plus its from trolltech

SiDeards73 · 30 Sep 2018 at 08:11

Panos said:
So is 11% faster than the 8700K. But hold on a sec. There are 34% more cores..... Where the performance's gone?

That's Wccftech, your stupid for believing anything on that site.

Panos · 30 Sep 2018 at 08:42

gavinh87 said:
AoTS is very easy to fake, as shown many times before.
Plus its from trolltech

SiDeards73 said:
That's Wccftech, your stupid for believing anything on that site.

Sarcasm is something amiss to both?

Only @ToonarmY87 picked it up

Troezar · 30 Sep 2018 at 08:46

Journey said:
What has Z370 got to do with my quote of the other guys quote? Did you even bother to read the previous comment, it would appear not. I distinctly asked why the person would compare HEDT TR4 to the new incoming 9 series, go back re-read the comments and then respond to that part of the thread.

Factoring in the potentially high price of the 9900K and a decent motherboard why not see what else can be had for that kind of money? A Taichi board and 1900X could be for about £550. A slower CPU but a platform with massive upgrade potential for less money initially. Lots of PCIe lanes, 3xM2 off the CPU etc. Yes if you must have 200+ FPS at 1080p with a 2080Ti the 9900K is the way to go, otherwise there are other options for the money

gavinh87 · 30 Sep 2018 at 09:34

Panos said:
Sarcasm is something amiss to both?

Only @ToonarmY87 picked it up

He didn't pick up on it. He just has the same agenda as you.

ToonarmY87 · 30 Sep 2018 at 09:47

gavinh87 said:
He didn't pick up on it. He just has the same agenda as you.

Did you just assume my gender

Panos · 30 Sep 2018 at 10:52

ToonarmY87 said:
Did you just assume my gender

Troezar · 30 Sep 2018 at 11:00

ToonarmY87 said:
Did you just assume my gender

Lol I take it that was satire, if not the wrong gender is definitely preferable to it!

joedeath332 · 30 Sep 2018 at 16:14

chrcoluk said:
yeah that 9700k looks tasty, the speed binning is close between the 9700k and 9900k with stock clocks only 100mhz diff, usually the stock clocks have a bigger gap. So $100 extra for 100mhz higher stock clocks and 8 fake cores.

+ the cache size if that makes much difference?
i think ill opt for the 9900k as it sure wont be any slower than the 9700k when it comes to anything

easyrider · 30 Sep 2018 at 16:58

chrcoluk said:
yeah that 9700k looks tasty, the speed binning is close between the 9700k and 9900k with stock clocks only 100mhz diff, usually the stock clocks have a bigger gap. So $100 extra for 100mhz higher stock clocks and 8 fake cores.

The 9700k 8 core is comparable with 8700k 6 core 12 threads in cinebench. Seems the HT makes up a lot even though the 8700k has two less cores.

chrcoluk · 30 Sep 2018 at 18:35

easyrider said:
The 9700k 8 core is comparable with 8700k 6 core 12 threads in cinebench. Seems the HT makes up a lot even though the 8700k has two less cores.

cinebench is pretty much the worst possible way to measure expected performance. Yet ocuk members treat it as gospel.

HTT in real world performance doesnt give anything like the performance you think it does, its probably the biggest scam on consumer cpus for a long time.

People on here willing to pay £100, £200, or even more premium for HTT for no real reason other than it looks good in cinebench and its cool to have more threads.

cinebench paints the absolutely best possible picture for HTT, the reason is HTT is moderately useful for software graphics work, it bears almost zero resemblance to consumer workloads yet tons of review sites use it, and its craved upon here.

In the real world, a 8 core cpu vs a 6 core cpu will be 25% faster in multi core workloads. The logical threads arent very relevant.

As an example

XTU 3353 marks 8600k
XTU

3845 marks 8700k
XTU

2249 marks 6700k
XTU 2338 marks 7700k

Thats the other extreme. For consumer workloads like browsing, watching videos, gaming, HTT adds on average 0-10% performance, and it can also decrease performance due to cache thrashing.

easyrider · 30 Sep 2018 at 20:21

chrcoluk said:
cinebench is pretty much the worst possible way to measure expected performance. Yet ocuk members treat it as gospel.

HTT in real world performance doesnt give anything like the performance you think it does, its probably the biggest scam on consumer cpus for a long time.

People on here willing to pay £100, £200, or even more premium for HTT for no real reason other than it looks good in cinebench and its cool to have more threads.

cinebench paints the absolutely best possible picture for HTT, the reason is HTT is moderately useful for software graphics work, it bears almost zero resemblance to consumer workloads yet tons of review sites use it, and its craved upon here.

In the real world, a 8 core cpu vs a 6 core cpu will be 25% faster in multi core workloads. The logical threads arent very relevant.

As an example

XTU 3353 marks 8600k
XTU 3845 marks 8700k
XTU 2249 marks 6700k
XTU 2338 marks 7700k

Thats the other extreme. For consumer workloads like browsing, watching videos, gaming, HTT adds on average 0-10% performance, and it can also decrease performance due to cache thrashing.

I tested an i5 2500k and i7 2700k in my nephews pc and the 2700k got a higher minimum FPS in games...

imginy · 30 Sep 2018 at 21:08

easyrider said:
I tested an i5 2600k and i7 2700k in my nephews pc and the 2700k got a higher minimum FPS in games...

2600k is an i7

easyrider · 30 Sep 2018 at 21:18

imginy said:
2600k is an i7

Yeah typo meant 2500k...anyway he kept the 2700k as it was faster at the same clock speeds...