**UPDATED: 3DMARK RESULTS** Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K CPU Performance Leaks *+Release date rumour*

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Interesting... Too bad they decided to do away with HT on i7.

Gotta have something to add for the next generation, all new HT on i7. Innovation right there .

[silberdrachi]

So what exactly is the differentiation between i3/5/7/9 now if it has nothing to do with number of cores or hyperthreading?

[Dylanc1500]

18 minutes ago, silberdrachi said:

So what exactly is the differentiation between i3/5/7/9 now if it has nothing to do with number of cores or hyperthreading?

The name.

[TetraSky]

23 minutes ago, silberdrachi said:

So what exactly is the differentiation between i3/5/7/9 now if it has nothing to do with number of cores or hyperthreading?

As far as I can tell, i9 is what i7 was. i7 is new i5 but with more cache and more core.

i5 is still i5, same with i3.
Basically, making their crap more confusing for consumers.

[RobbinM]

Why does it have to do with i3/5/7/9 numbering?

It's just conveniant for normies at the store, figuring out what system probably is faster than the other.

The i5 is faster than i3. i7 is faster than i5 and i9 is faster than i7. It's really simple.

Comparing it with previous generation is just giving yourself a headache, and nobody does that at a retail store because they cannot buy the old generation so that information is obsolete.

[Princess Luna]

i9 is running on z370

[RobbinM]

Yes. So if you just bought an i7 8700k, you might be able to flip it for good money and upgrade to i9 if you'd want.

I'm waiting for high-end Z390 to pop up as well. Asrock Taichi anyone?

[DildorTheDecent]

>Geekbench

 

It's a no from me.

[Tech Enthusiast]

It sure sounds like a winner.

Will be interesting if other benchmarks confirm these results.

Also, like those prices. Was expecting much higher.

[ZacoAttaco]

1 hour ago, RobbinM said:

Why does it have to do with i3/5/7/9 numbering?

It's just conveniant for normies at the store, figuring out what system probably is faster than the other.

The i5 is faster than i3. i7 is faster than i5 and i9 is faster than i7. It's really simple.

True, but it also distinguished certain features only available or certain versions, you always knew the i7 had HT. Now the discussion is really purely of speed and i9 will be the series with more features like HT.

 

How come they're all so power hungry as well? They're all 95W TDP? I understand for the i9 but why is the i5 just as hungry?

[RobbinM]

Core i series have been named randomly in the past, so I don't make assumptions on specifications solely on the i5/i7 name. If you want to buy something and you're into tech, you're going to look it up anyway. For people that don't bother to look it up, the i3/5/7/9 naming scheme is enough to indicate tiers speedwise. Take a look at the Xeon series and make an assumption of their specifications based on the model number, it's impossible. 

 

Also, TDP isn't an indicator of possible power consumption. It means Thermal Design Power and stands for the amount of energy the chip itself is rated to dissipate by the manufacturer. This means that i9 is rated for the same heat dissipation as the i5. It does not mean that it will use the same amount of power, it is just stating the possibility that it can dissipate the same amount of power without going out of spec.

[ZacoAttaco]

31 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

Core i series have been named randomly in the past, so I don't make assumptions on specifications solely on the i5/i7 name. If you want to buy something and you're into tech, you're going to look it up anyway. For people that don't bother to look it up, the i3/5/7/9 naming scheme is enough to indicate tiers speedwise. Take a look at the Xeon series and make an assumption of their specifications based on the model number, it's impossible. 

 

Also, TDP isn't an indicator of possible power consumption. It means Thermal Design Power and stands for the amount of energy the chip itself is rated to dissipate by the manufacturer. This means that i9 is rated for the same heat dissipation as the i5. It does not mean that it will use the same amount of power, it is just stating the possibility that it can dissipate the same amount of power without going out of spec.

You're right, the i3,i5,i7 is good for just glossing over, but yeah if you are building a custom system, you should really do research into what you're buying, you shouldn't impulse buy CPUs

 

Also, thanks for the clarity on TDP So it can dissipate the same amount of heat, but they don't necessarily draw the say amount of power. So you'd want the same cooling solution for both i9 and i5? Ignoring any OCs or anything.

[RobbinM]

Glad I could help 

[Nowak]

Don't get why the i7 couldn't stay as a 6c12t SKU, a la Coffee Lake

[NumLock21]

Geekbench is not a reliable benchmark, wait for Cinebench.
Out of curiosity, I it on my cpu at stock settings, based of 3.5GHz and turbo to 3.8GHz.

single core: 4247

Multicore: 21435

 

OCed to 4.4GHz

SC: 4715

MC: 24083

Was looking at cpu usage, during test it was barely doing anything, it occasionally went full load, but for like half second before it went back to idle where cpu was running only a 1.1GHz. 

Again wait for Cinebench, for some accurate results.

[pas008]

3 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

>Geekbench

 

It's a no from me.

 

28 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Geekbench is not a reliable benchmark, wait for Cinebench.
Out of curiosity, I it on my cpu at stock settings, based of 3.5GHz and turbo to 3.8GHz.

single core: 4247

Multicore: 21435

 

OCed to 4.4GHz

SC: 4715

MC: 24083

Was looking at cpu usage, during test it was barely doing anything, it occasionally went full load, but for like half second before it went back to idle where cpu was running only a 1.1GHz. 

Again wait for Cinebench, for some accurate results.

Agreed with both

How is geek bench even worthy to note considering the lopsided results at times

 

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

Agreed with both

How is geek bench even worthy to note considering the lopsided results at times

 

Because new tech always seems to get these huge jumps in the program for some reason. Oddities in memory I/O seem to be more important for it than anything else.

[NumLock21]

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

Agreed with both

How is geek bench even worthy to note considering the lopsided results at times

 

Because they know the Inturd 9700K can't beat a Intel 8700K at Cinebench, otherwise they would have proudly leaked that already.

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Because they know the 9700K can't beat a 8700K at Cinebench, otherwise they would have proudly leaked that already.

Think they leak gb because of it hardly means anything just like phone shit

[IAmAndre]

6 hours ago, 2Buck said:

AMD better hope that Zen 2 is amazing, because Intel will match them in thread count, with a massive clock speed difference. Now of course the 2700x is over 100$ cheaper, but still, the majority don't care, they just see performance numbers and these will rip and tear.

I haven't compared the numbers but the fact that is R7 is $100 cheaper and can be used on a $100 cheaper motherboard can make AMD very competitive.

[Guest]

So the architecture is Kaby lake? I am le big confuse

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I haven't compared the numbers but the fact that is R7 is $100 cheaper and can be used on a $100 cheaper motherboard can make AMD very competitive.

Not to the people that can afford the extra cash. The latency advantage Intel holds is undeniable. Everything feels so much snappier and more responsive, and that's without even setting foot in a game.

[JoeCoke]

1 hour ago, IAmAndre said:

R7 is $100 cheaper and can be used on a $100 cheaper motherboard can make AMD very competitive.

I know, but a lot of people tend to see performance VS. performance, regardless of price. Some people only care who has the better performer. Hell, I've read on this very forum where people have said "REAL ENTHUSIASTS DON'T CARE ABOUT PRICE!!!". It's sad, but true. Most with common sense will factor in price when comparing two parts, but too bad common sense isn't too common, some will see 8 cores vs 8 cores and Intel will be faster.

 

Which is why Zen 2 needs to be great for AMD.

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, Leinad4400 said:

Not to the people that can afford the extra cash. The latency advantage Intel holds is undeniable. Everything feels so much snappier and more responsive, and that's without even setting foot in a game.

Just fyi that has veeeeeeery litttle to do with core-to-core latency. Its has way more to do SSD speed and max clockspeed.

 

Even then the difference between them in day to day tasks is as far as i know unnoticable.  

 

If there is a core-to-core latency affected workload then there will be a crippling of performance (also bandwidth has a major role aswell, see the 2990wx) though very few workloads are affected. 

 

Yes the core-to-core latency advantage intel holds is undeniable due to the ringbus, but that advantage sadly gets less and less due how the ringbus works. Eventually the meshbus on the skylake X is better. From what i can gather the effects of this latency is not as you describe it

[Mooshi]

Hmm...my R5 1600 still gives me decent frames for the games I play, funny how that didn't suddenly stop with this announcement.

 

Really hard to get excited over synthetics when you still have solid performance. Those with the current gen Intel chips also shouldn't feel the need to jump ship. Maybe in 2020 things will get truly exciting!