Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The real 9900k Test

I figured out how to get 3000MHz ram to work with 4 sticks, but for the test I ran 2x16GB

 

So I will spoil this for everyone who is not subscribed to my channel.  I got my hands on a 9900k today paired with a 1080 TI FTW and I am quite disappointed.  The only gave that I any gains was GTA V.  Just a few things to note.  I do real world gaming test which includes Discord, HW Monitor, GPU-Z, MSI AB, Chrome with 4 tabs open including YouTube.  I tweaked GPU settings after a few runs to try and remove any GPU Bottleneck and gain some separation.  Also the Cryorig R1 cannot handle the 9900k at 5.0GHz, so I left the auto boost function as I did XFR2 for the Ryzen chip too.  It ran all cores at 4.7GHz with 2 cores hitting 5.0GHz.  My 2700x was hitting between 4050-4100 all core with boosts up to 4.3GHz.

 

Here were the specs:

 

Ryzen 7 2700x
Asus X470 Pro
Cryorig R1 Universal
2x16GB @ 3000MHz (Corsair LPX)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI FTW
Seasonic Focus Gold 850W
Full tower Phanteks case (forget the model)

 

vs

Intel I9-9900k


Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master
Cryorig R1 Universal
2x16GB @ 3000MHz (Corsair LPX)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI FTW
EVGA G3 650W 80+ Gold
Fractal Design Meshify

Using a Samsung external SSD.

 

Results:

 

Rise of the Tomb Raider (1440p max settings, Motion Blur off)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 118.25
I9-9900k: 118.98

 

GTA V (1440p, max settings, AA & Motion Blur off)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 119.02
Intel I9-9900k: 138.56

 

Ghost Recon Wildlands (1440p Very high)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 85.23
Intel I9-9900k: 90.09

 

For Honor (1440p Max Settings)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 124.92
Intel I9-9900k: 126.89

 

Ashes of the Singularity (1440p Extreme - CPU portion of GPU Test)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 112.3
Intel I9-9900k: 121.8

 

FF XV (1440p High Settings)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 7982
Intel I9-9900k: 8130

 

Time Spy (CPU Portion only)
Ryzen 7 2700x: 30.91
Intel I9-9900k: 37.31

 

Cinebench SC:
Ryzen 7 2700x: 175
Intel I9-9900k: 213

 

Cinebench MC:
Ryzen 7 2700x: 1827
Intel I9-9900k: 2025


I am quite disappointed as I was hopeful with that HUGE SC difference.  The 9900k is about 16% faster but 21% higher single core performance.  But in reality that did not translate in these games.  Unfortunately I did not have time to test WoW.  Wish I did.  But there were a few outliers, his case had better cooling than mine and his power supply is better too.  But if anything that should have shifted the difference his way.  I expected that the 2700x would have gotten smoked by 25-30% to be honest.  I also did not realize that many games with enough GPU power, I could push 1440p 144Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Games aare mostly gpu bound, however, on games like csgo 1080p, it can get severely single core bound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Firewrath9 said:

Games aare mostly gpu bound, however, on games like csgo 1080p, it can get severely single core bound

But as I have mentioned many times, that is not relevant.  The question is, if you're gaming on a 9700k/9900k at 1440p, how much better is it when pushing for 100+ FPS.  The answer is it's really not.  Look at the MC Cinebench difference, less than 10% but 16% higher clock speeds.  Even GTA was not a big difference that I was expecting.  Neither was Ashes.  The main take away for me was, I recommended Intel for 144Hz gaming, well clearly Ryzen can easily do it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

well because the gains are only significant at 1080p or below? This has been the case even for the 8700k when going against 2nd gen Ryzen 7, explained using GPU bottleneck.

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

well because the gains are only significant at 1080p or below? This has been the case even for the 8700k when going against 2nd gen Ryzen 7.

Well then, I cannot even recommend Intel anymore then.  In the real world, they offer no real advantage over AMD except not as good multitasking performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Snaeb said:

In the real world, they offer no real advantage over AMD except not as good multitasking performance.

That's the point isnt it? For example, remember how Premiere Pro's Quicksync export acceleration shook Ryzen fanboys? 8700k beat 2700x easily despite less multicore performance. With the 9900k, it should benefit from advantages on both sides at once (with a price of these two CPUs in one as well)

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jurrunio said:

That's the point isnt it? For example, remember how Premiere Pro's Quicksync export acceleration shook Ryzen fanboys? 8700k beat 2700x easily despite less multicore performance. With the 9900k, it should benefit from advantages on both sides at once (with a price of these two CPUs in one as well)

the 9900k is beating my customers 1950x in Adobe, hence why we changed the platform.  I just really expected even in a real world test, to see 20-25% increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×