Today we can finally show you how Intel's new octa-core 9th-gen processors perform. On hand for testing we have the Core i9-9900K, an 8 core/16 thread processor that operates at 3.6 GHz, boost as. Only compatible with their 300-series chipset-based motherboards, the Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz Eight-Core LGA 1151 Processor from Intel is designed for gaming, creating, and productivity. It has a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz and comes with features such as Intel Optane Memory support, AES-NI encryption, Intel vPro technology, Intel TXT, Intel Device Protection with Boot Guard, and Intel VT-d.
Core i7, the boss wants to talk to you.
The good news: you got a promotion and a bump from six cores up to eight cores in Intel’s 9th generation CPU lineup. Woo-hoo! The bad news: Turn in your Hyper-Threading, because the cool feature that gave you virtualized CPU cores and about 30 percent more performance is gone.
Yup. If you’re freaked out about the Core i7 losing a premier performance-boosting feature that it’s offered since, well, there was a Core i7, you may well be right to be concerned. But you may not be, too, depending on how you use your computer.
Intel first introduced Hyper-Threading on consumer CPUs with the Northwood-based Pentium 4 in 2002. It works by splitting a single physical core into a two logical cores. Since most compute threads don’t consume 100 percent of a CPU’s resources, Hyper-Threading lets the unused resources do work as well. Hyper-Threading, of course, is Intel’s fancy pants name for simultaneous multi-threading, which AMD also began employing with its Ryzen chips.
Although Hyper-Threading’s performance boost has been around for 16 years, it hasn’t always been tapped into. No Core 2 CPUs ever used the feature, for example, and Intel’s Atom CPUs have had it off and on.
It’s all about the thread count
The real tension with Intel’s 9th-generation mainstream lineup isn’t necessarily whether or not Hyper-Threading gets deleted—it’s the overall thread count.
When Intel removed Hyper-Threading on the 8th-gen Core i3, few raised a fuss because they ended up with a true quad-core CPU (four cores, four threads), an improvement over the 7th-gen Core i3, which was a dual-core with Hyper-Threading (two cores, four threads.)
Mentioned in this article
The 9th-gen’s Core i7 shift doesn’t look as good at first glance, though. The 8th-gen Core i7-8700K ($380 on Amazon) features six cores with Hyper-Threading for a total of six cores and 12 threads. The new Core i7-9700K gets eight cores and eight threads. On paper, that looks like while Intel charged $359 for 12 threads on the Core i7-8700K, its replacement will cost $374 for eight threads.
![9700k 9700k](/uploads/1/2/4/7/124735712/579700322.jpg)
Why it matters: Core i7-9700K vs. 8700K
Paying more to end up with fewer compute threads sounds like a recipe for disaster, but it’s not so straightforward. The 9th-gen Core i7-9700K has a 100MHz slower base speed and a 200MHz higher Turbo Boost compared to the 8th-gen Core i7-8700K. Intel also added a more efficient solder thermal interface material to the 9th-gen CPU, which could lead to higher clock speeds on more of the cores, more of the time.
It’s entirely possible the Core i7-9700K will generally outperform the Core i7-8700K in games and applications that aren’t heavily multi-threaded, which could justify the loss of Hyper-Threading and lower thread count. But yes, it’s also entirely possible that we’ll see the older Core i7-8700K outperform its successor in more multi-threaded workloads.
What’s likely to trigger consumers though is the lack of a performance bump at the same price as before. When Intel introduced the Core i7-8700K, it was a significant performance boost, jumping from the Core i7-7700K’s four cores and eight threads up to six cores and 12 threads. Intel asked for $54 more for the 8700K, but it felt like a discount for the amount of performance from Intel. This time, the Core i7-9700K could yield a much smaller performance increase over Core i7-8700K, yet cost slightly more.
You might want to wait for independent reviews of the Core i7-9700K to see where the chips fall rather than preordering the processor.
All eyes on Core i9
Mentioned in this article
The biggest performance boost occurs at the top of the 9th-gen lineup with the new Core i9-9900K ($530 preorder on Amazon). Intel’s new flagship mainstream processor packs eight cores with Hyper-Threading for a total of 16-threads. Intel declared the Core i9-9900K the “best gaming CPU in the world,” and even though we haven’t tested the chip yet, we don’t doubt that’ll wind up being true. But it’ll also cost more, with a list price of $488 and real-world pricing crossing the $500 barrier.
To comment on this article and other PCWorld content, visit our Facebook page or our Twitter feed.
If you have around $350 to spend on a powerful eight-core mainstream processor, you currently have two options; See the head-to-head of the Core i5-9600K and Ryzen 5 2600X
Intel's Core i7-9700K or See the head-to-head of the Core i5-9600K and Ryzen 5 2600X
AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Intel's Core i7-9700K
Antony LeatherHowever, they're both very different in terms of specifications.The Ryzen 7 2700X has Simultaneous Multithreading, to it has twice as many threads as it does cores (8/16) while the Core i7-9700K doesn't have Intel's own version - hyper-threading, so it has eight cores and eight threads - decided less horsepower for multi-threaded workloads.
On the flip side, the Intel CPU has much higher frequencies. In fact, even its all-core boost of 4.6GHz is higher than the 4.3GHz maximum boost of the AMD CPU - something that could well help it in games and lightly-threaded benchmarks, but is it enough for it to make up the deficit it has in threads? Finally, there's cache. The AMD CPU wins here with double the L2 cache and 33% more L3 cache.
Intel Core i7-9700K | AMD Ryzen 7 2700X | |
Cores/threads | 8/8 | 8/16 |
Maximum boost freq | 4.9GHz | 4.3GHz |
L2 Cache | 2MB | 4MB |
L3 cache | 12MB | 16MB |
Manufacturing process | 14nm | 12nm |
TDP | 95W | 105W |
Testing
I used 16GB dual-channel Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz DDR4 memory with both CPUs, Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! Edition graphics card, along with a Samsung 512GB 960 Evo SSD, Corsair H100i RGB Platinum cooler, and Corsair RM850i PSU. I used MSI's MEG Z390 Ace motherboard for Intel CPUs and for AMD CPUs, Gigabyte's X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming. I used the latest build of Windows 10 with both Spectre and Meltdown security patches installed.
MSI's new MEG Z390 Ace motherboard was used to test Intel CPUs
Antony LeatherAMD Ryzen 7 2700X overclock: 4.25GHz
Intel Core i7-9700K overclock: 5.1GHz
Results
Games
While it was a win for Intel here, the difference was barely noticeable in this GPU-dependant game with less than 2fps being added the minimum and average frame rates. As it's such an easy game to run I also up the resolution to 1440p.
Another GPU-bound game, the results here were within the margin of error across the board, while the slightly higher result for the stock speed Ryzen 7 2700X might be due to its stock boost frequency being higher than the all-core overclock I achieved.
Far Cry 5, on the other hand, appears to love cores and frequency and leans a bit more on the CPU, but here, the higher frequencies on offer by the Intel CPU won the day, with a sizeable lead over AMD.
Ashes of the Singularity was another case of higher frequencies being preferred and even the Core i7-8700K managed to beat the Ryzen 7 2700X
Deus Ex is one game I've seen substantial gains on AMD CPUs using faster memory than the 3,000MHz kit I used here, but all things being equal, the Core i7-9700K has a commanding lead at stock speed and when overclocked.
Swinging back to GPU-bound tests now and the Unigine Superposition scores were within the margin of error for both CPUs. Some games will respond like this too, especially at higher resolutions, but some do still see better performance from Intel CPUs.
Content creation
Now we're getting into multi-threaded workloads and Premier Pro saw both AMD and Intel win here. At stock speed the Ryzen 7 2700X was fastest, but once overclocked, the Intel CPU's massive frequency advantage was enough to see it pass the AMD CPU, offering a 10% performance boost. In this short 4K video project, that was akin to 20 seconds, but with longer exports you're looking at an additional minute of processing time for every 10 minutes it takes to export the video.
Interestingly, HandBrake didn't see the same gains from overclocking the Intel CPU, at least it wasn't able to beat the Ryzen CPU. Instead, once overclocked the Intel CPU matched AMD's 8-core, while at stock speed the Ryzen 7 2700X had a sizeable lead.
PCMark 10's image editing test usually favors AMD CPUs and it was no different here, with the Ryzen 7 2700X beating the Core i9-9900K never mind the Core i7-2700X.
Single core performance is usually a good indicator of how a CPU will perform in lightly-threaded workloads or anywhere that all cores and threads aren't being fully utilized and despite plenty advances in software and games with multi-threaded workloads such as DX12, this is still a very important benchmark to gauge how fast your CPU will be less multi-threaded software. Again, Ryzen CPUs benefit from using faster memory here, but the Core i7-9700K still offers much better performance, largely thanks to its higher frequencies.
The tables are turned when we switch to the multicore mode in Cinebench, though, as the Ryzen 7 2700X is second only to the mighty Core i9-9900K and is much faster than the Core i7-9700K. Even overclocking the latter still didn't see it match the AMD CPU's stock speed score.
Power consumption
Below are the final tests which are power consumption - probably the least significant ones here partly due to the fact that's often not of primary concern to PC enthusiasts but also because there's very little difference between the AMD and Intel CPU. Both drew around 230W under load at stock speed and 300W or so when overclocked - certainly nothing to warrant buying one over the other.
Conclusion
What's the best gaming CPU?
As the Core i7-9700K costs noticeably more than the Ryzen 7 2700X, to win this fight it needs to be noticeably quicker too. In the more CPU-bound game tests, this was certainly true. Far Cry 5, Ashes of the Singularity and Deus Ex all point at the Intel CPU being worth the extra cash if don't want your frame rate to take a hit due to CPU choice. However, this isn't always the case, as we saw in World of Tanks and Shadow of the Tombraider, even at 1080p, which is not only the most popular gaming resolution by far, but is also the most likely to reveal any CPU-bound tendencies.
Not only this, but opting for 3200MHz or 3466MHz memory can improve performance with AMD systems too, and for often not a lot more cash. If you play a wide range of games, then paying the premium for the Intel CPU is probably wise, especially at lower resolutions or if you have a reasonably powerful graphics card. If, though, you just play a handful of titles regularly and they're very GPU-bound like Shadow of the Tombraider or in my case being a big World of Tanks fan, then CPU choice, at least amongst the 6 and 8-core CPUs I tested here, makes next to no difference. The trouble in recommending the Core i7-9700K, though, is that the Core i7-8700K is just as fast here and costs $40 less, meaning it's perhaps a better choice, although obviously not an eight-core CPU.
What's the best content creation CPU?
Thankfully, this part is a bit easier as there's just one test where the Core i7-9700K beat the Ryzen 7 2700X, which was in Adobe Premier Pro when it was overclocked. Everywhere else, the extra threads on offer from the AMD CPU mean it's by far the better choice. It's noticeably slower or only as fast as the AMD CPU in other tests, meaning there's little point paying the extra for the Core i7-9700K - its lack of hyper-threading really hurts it against AMD's flagship.
Best overall CPU?
Clearly, there are drawbacks to both CPUs here. The Core i7-9700K is quicker in some games, but there are many titles where it offers no advantage over AMD. It's also lacking in several content creation tests and has no advantage in power consumption either. The Ryzen 7 2700X has no problems in content creation, but it's still a little slow in some games both old and new. In short, there is no clear winner.
If content creation and casual gaming are your things, then the Ryzen 7 2700X is not only the cheaper option but where multi-threaded performance is concerned, it's very often faster too. However, if you'll mostly be gaming, then the Core i7-9700K is the better option, although you won't see noticeable gains in all games. Thankfully, it's no slouch when it comes to content creation either.