[ad_1]
Whether Intel recognizes it or not, since the launch of the first-generation Ryzen processors "Summit Ridge" (piloted by the excellent Ryzen 7 1800X), both companies are at the heart of a fierce war. With the launch of the Intel Core i9-9900K processor at $ 499, Intel is now poised to claim the crown of productivity of AMD's consumer processors. Although gross performance is not the only factor to use to determine the components to buy, this is an important element. And without a doubt, on this front, Intel wins a final victory with the Core i9-9900K eight-core. That said, while this epic mainstream processor offers impressive scores in benchmarking, and is a first-rate choice for performance-conscious players and content creators, you need to consider a decent thermal toppler for this chip, as well as some budget for that and the chip itself. This is the most expensive desktop processor of recent memory on a mainstream platform rather than for a dedicated follower. But oh, is it still good?
The set I9 Yards
If you bought an Intel Core processor (or a pre-built laptop or desktop) at any point in the last decade, you know how Intel is segmenting its products into Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 families. With the microarchitecture "Nehalem" launched in 2008, Intel began to propose hyper-threading on its Core i7 chips, but not on those Core i5. Thanks to Hyper-Threading Technology, allowing each core to handle up to two threads on these top-level processors, users achieved approximately 30% higher performance per core, depending on the number of threads. ;application. For this reason, Core i7 processors were much more powerful than Core i5s, especially when running highly threaded software. But with 9th-generation Intel Core processors, hyper-threading is no longer a standard feature of Core i7s.
Already Intel at a range of processors over the Core i7, introduced in May 2017, with the family of Skylake-X HEDT processors (high-end desktop computers), whose main chip is the awesome Core i9-7980XE Extreme Multi -kilobuck. This first wave of Core i9 has been specifically designed for extreme enthusiasts and professional content creators. The most important calculations with Core i-Core Core X-Series processors range from 10 to 18, with Hyper-Threading being a standard feature, but all of these chips require an expensive Intel X299-based motherboard and a Core i9 chip. Prices themselves start at $ 1,000 with the Core i9-7900X. In addition to access to these ultra-fast processors, support for four-channel main system memory and many additional PCI Express channels (to accommodate multiple video cards or peripherals) PCI Express-based SSDs) are the reasons why buyers can opt for the X299 platform.
Unlike Core i9 chips in the Intel Core X family, the Intel Core i9-9900K is the first i9 processor to be available on the Intel processor main stream This desktop platform will work with Z370 motherboards significantly more affordable, although a BIOS update is required. This chip also offers two more cores than the old main chip, the Core i7-8700K six-core.. When you look at the rest of the Core i9 processors in the Intel stack, it's easy to see the Core i9-9900K as a bit of a deal – an extreme silicon, of course, but designed to appease enthusiasts do not need Core X PCI Express spare channels and quad-channel memory.
On the other hand, the $ 499 price list on the Intel Core i9-9900K processor (the retail price at the time I wrote it started at $ 530 and even rose further) is a pill more difficult to swallow if you expected this chip to be a replacement for the Core i7-8700K. Instead, Intel launches the Core i7-9700K at $ 385 as a high-end Core i7 processor for the 9th generation. Although it has eight cores, Hyper-Threading Technology do not a supported feature. The Core i7-7700K Core i7-8700K core and threads are measurable in almost anything you do with your PC, but Intel does not seem to want to follow the same path this time. Are there any cases where the Core i7-8700K, with its six cores and 12 threads, will outperform an eight-core / eight-threaded Core i7-9700K? Maybe, although we suspected that it will be the exception rather than the rule. I will keep this discussion for this processor review, assuming I can get my mittens on one.
And what about AMD? With eight cores and 16 threads in their flagship products, AMD and Intel may have reached base parity on their respective front lines, but AMD is using the price as the primary weapon again. Before talking about Intel's competition, let's take a closer look at what you get with the Core i9-9900K.
The bowels of the 9th generation core
Although the Core i9-9900K looks like all the rest of Intel's LGA 1151 processors, there's something new (well, new since "Ivy Bridge") under the hood. Instead of using a silicon-based paste between the surface of the processor die and the heat sink glued, Intel brings back bonded metal, or solder. This welded thermal interface material (STIM) is much more capable of removing heat from the die when the CPU is under load. With a decent processor cooler, STIM can help your processor run cooler.
As the present of an unlocked multiplier, this new feature is a wink from Intel directly to overclockers, who have created a whole cottage industry around the will of Intel processors to replace the TIM paste by something more thermally conductive. It is also worth noting that all AMD AMD processors, with the exception of its "Raven Ridge" chips, rely on a metal bonded between the die surface and the heat sink.
The Core i9-9900K is built on the ninth revision of Intel's 14nm process (here called "14nm ++"). However, the chip giant has managed to integrate two other cores with similar clock speeds into the same casing. I will take a closer look at the actual power situation of the Core i9-9900K later.
The Intel Core i9-9900K processor is a 95-watt, eight-core, 16-threaded TDP processor based on a LGA 1151 package. This processor belongs to the Intel "Coffee Lake-S" family and has a basic clock. 3.6 GHz and a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 5 GHz. Like the Intel Core i7-8086K Limited Edition processor I've recently reviewed, this 5GHz Boost Clock only applies when a single core it's active. During my tests, this processor grew up to 4.7 GHz when all the cores were active.
Other features include 16 MB of Intel Smart Cache available for eight cores, a dual channel memory controller, and Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics cards with a minimum frequency of 350 MHz and a maximum frequency of 1.2 GHz. With the exception of the Smart Cache, the other features are the same on the Core i7-8700K. The memory controller is designed to support up to DDR4-2666 memory and Intel Extreme memory profile support means that Z370 and Z390 motherboards can support memory speeds greater than 4,000 MHz .
The processor has 16 PCI Express channels for discrete graphics cards and the integrated UHD Graphics 630 processor (the same graphics engine as the Core i7-8700K) supports overclocking with an unlocked multiplier. When you insert this chip into a Z370 or Z390 motherboard, you also get unlocked basic and clock reports, overclocking support by heart and adjustable voltages.
You may not be very inclined to use the UHD Graphics 630 for gaming (I was unable to test it because the MSI MEG Z390 ACE motherboard in my system does not have a graphics output), but this is not the case. is not just a useless piece of silicon. With Intel's Quick Sync video technology, this part of the chip can quickly convert 10-bit HEVC video files (H.265) and encode / decode 4K Ultra HD premium content, for example from Netflix. This chip also supports the AVX2 instruction set, Intel Optane memory and Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 technology.
Intel is also introducing a slightly modified Z390 chipset to support the 9th generation Core processors, though, if you already have a Z370 motherboard, you do not have to get excited. The increases of Z370? The Z390 has a built-in USB 3.1 built-in 2 controller for up to Integrated 10Gbps and Intel Wireless-AC ports with Gigabit Wi-Fi speed support.
That being said, all Z390 motherboards will not necessarily ship with the ports and Wi-Fi features mentioned, but at a high level, Z390 motherboards equipped with an Intel Wireless-AC 9560 adapter supports theoretical data rates up to 1733 Mbit / s. Also be aware that, as mentioned earlier, not all Z390 cards will have video outputs that will allow you to use Intel's integrated graphics cards. Shop carefully if it is important to you. (See our overview of Asrock and MSI Z390 motherboards.)
Inventory performance test
On paper, the Intel Core i9-9900K processor seems to be a powerful processor, but to see how it compares to other muscle car chips currently on the market, I've done a series of tests to determine how it handles a multitude of workloads. at its default settings.
For my test setup, I installed the Intel Core i9-9900K processor in the MSI MEG Z390 ACE ATX motherboard mentioned previouslyand equipped two of the 16GB DIMM slots of G.Skill Sniper X DDR4-3400 dual channel memory. For the Windows 10 boot drive, I relied on the 240GB Crucial BX300 6Gbps SATA SSD drive. I installed the components in a White Alpine EVGA DG-77 case and used the Celsius S36 closed loop liquid cooler from Fractal Design to evacuate the heat from the processor's integrated STIM fusion heat splitter.
Do not forget that, like many CPUs focused on Intel enthusiasts, the Intel Core i9-9900K processor does not include a central processor cooler, so you need to have one or buy one. For our game tests, I have completed the Core i9-9900K with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, running on Founders Edition clocks.
To compare the scores of this processor with those of other chips currently on the market, I have included in the charts below the scores of several previously mentioned chips: the Intel Core processor with six cores / 12 threads i7-8700K and Core i7-8086K Limited Editionand Intel Core i9-7900X 10 cores / 20 threads, as well as the 16-core / 16-core Intel Core i7-7820X processor. The first two are on the same platform as the Core i9-9900K and will work with Z370 motherboards, while the two Core X-Series chips (those ending in "X") are based on X299.
For the AMD side of the aisle, the competitors are the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X eight-core and 16-core consumer., the Ryzen 5 2600X six-wire / 12-wireand for fun and context, the much more expensive 16-core / 32-wire Ryzen Threadripper 2950X.
Cinebench R15
Maxon's Cinebench R15 64-bit is a CPU-centric test that allows us to evaluate both the single-core and multicore performance of the different processors I've tested. The resulting scores are test-specific numbers that represent processor performance while rendering a complex image that requires a lot of CPU resources. This is considered a synthetic reference.
In the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded subtest, more cores tend to return higher scores. Despite this, the Core i9-9900K is closer to the much more expensive Core i9-7900X.. The Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-7820X eight-core are neck-to-neck, and the trio of six-core processors sit at the back.
The Cinebench R15 single-threaded test does not include more than one core, which is why megahertz counts the most here. As expected, the two 5GHz Intel processors occupy the top spots, but the Core i9-9900K has a slight advantage.
ITunes 10.6 Conversion Test
The iTunes 10.6 encoding test is tragically single-threaded, which means that a larger number of cores simply do not hinder these workloads. This test is designed to illustrate the performance you can expect when you run legacy software that does not work well on multiple cores.
The iTunes encoding test is a bit like the single-threaded test of Cinebench R15, in which the clock speed at a heart plays an important role. The Core i9-9900K reigns, but the rest of the Intel chips are not far behind. The three AMD processors finish the task of encoding at least 16 seconds behind the slowest Intel processor, the Core i9-7900X.
0.9.9 Hand Brake
Handbrake is a classic (and popular) desktop application used to convert videos between different formats. In general, the more threads and cores a processor has, the better it will work in this utility. I've uploaded a 12-minute open source 4K movie titled Tears of steel and used the software to convert it to MPEG-4 1080p video.
The Threadripper AMD Ryzen 2950X is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to Handbrake restitutions, but the Core i9-9900K comes in second place, even beating the very big Core i9-7900X. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X clocks in almost a minute behind the Core i9-9900K.
POV-Ray 3.7
This landmark is another that is generally considered synthetic. However, the busy nature of the utility is starting to become increasingly representative of the applications available today. (The performance test asks the processor to render a complex photo-realistic image using ray tracing.) I performed POV-Ray using the multitasking parameter "All Processors" and the parameter "A processor" blocked.
The POV-Ray single-threaded workload seems to favor Intel's processors, and the Core i9-9900K once again has an impressive run to take the lead. Multithreaded POV-Ray, however, does not provide such one-sided results, with the Threadripper chip predictably taking first place at a very large margin. Just 11 seconds separate AMD Ryzen 7 2700X from the Core i9-9900K in third place.
Mixer 2.77a
Another real world reference I've used is Blender, an open source 3D rendering app that is much appreciated by users, much more creative and talented than me for creating visual effects, animations, and 3D models. Our test file consists of a cartoon caricature in flying squirrel that takes less than a minute to complete with most modern processors.
In Blender, the only processor that took more than 25 seconds to render our test image was the Ryzen 5 2600X. The rest of the processors were successful between 22 and 18 seconds. The Core i9-9900K clocked the fastest time, while the Ryzen 7 2700X was just 4 seconds behind him.
7-Zip file compression
7-Zip is a popular file compression utility that includes built-in compression / decompression testing. This is a real test that typically uses as many cores and threads as your processor can offer.
A quick look at our results and it's immediately obvious that 7-Zip loves multicore processors. While the 16- and 10-core processors occupy first and second places, the Core i9-9900K is the fastest eight-core processor tested. The Intel six-core chips (Core i7-8700K and Core i7-8086K Limited Edition) left the AMD Ryzen 5 2600X in the dust.
The ultimate game processor (with an asterisk)
Due to time constraints and hardware availability, I limited myself to three processors: the Intel Core i7-8086K Limited Edition Processor, the Intel Core i9-9900K Processor and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Processor. The first has six cores, but it shares the Core i9-9900K's Boost 5GHz clock, and the AMD processor has the same number of cores as the subject of this review. The component doing the real The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 card represents a heavy burden for the game.
For platform comparisons to be the best possible, I used the same graphics card, as well as the same memory kit, running at the same frequency (3400 MHz) and with the same timings. I've been using tests in Far Cry Primal (in the high graphic preset) and Rise of the Tomb Raider (DX11, in the Very High Preset) at three resolutions: 1080p, 1440p and 4k. I've also run the benchmark tests, whether in stock or overclocked, and I've occasionally noticed a slight improvement in the performance of our efforts (though not always).
After reviewing the limited edition of the Core i7-8086K, I was skeptical that the Intel Core i9-9900K could surpass its gaming performance even with a proper Boost Clock. But the numbers do not lie. At stock and overclocked settings, the i9-9900K scored 138fps and 140fps in the 1080p Far Cry Primal and Rise of the Tomb Raider tests, respectively. The Core i7-8086K was exactly there, but the AMD platform only handled 106 Frames per second per second (fps) in Far Cry Primal and 132 Frames per second per Rise of the Tomb Raider . This represents a 26% deficit for AMD's Far Cry Primal platform. In Rise of the Tomb Raider, the difference between the two platforms is less apparent. the AMD chip is only 6.6% behind Intel at 1080p. Although both platforms have generated frame rates higher than 100 frames per second, this offset is not inconsequential.
But what happens when we pass the resolution at 1440p? When the processor becomes less bottleneck and the graphics card has a little space to work, the difference disappears almost completely. Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X, Far Cry Primal was 2% faster on the Core i9-9900K platform. In Rise of the Tomb Raider at 1440p, the difference between stock settings was less than one frame per second. At 4K resolution, in both games, the Intel and AMD platforms behaved the same way.
So, to summarize: yes, Intel's Core i9-9900K is dominant in games, as long as your resolution and the choice of graphics card are such that the processor becomes a bottleneck. (In general, this will be a problem mainly in 1080p.) The tests that I did were by no means exhaustive and, depending on the game, there will be gains for Intel and gains for AMD . If you only play on your PC, you can record hundreds buying a Ryzen 5 2600 six-core, a Core i5-8600K or a Core i5-9600K and pouring that extra money into a thicker graphics card or a monitor with a higher resolution or a high refresh rate. Additional images from the Intel platform will allow you to not offer the desired experience to increase resolution and / or refresh rate. The demographic group consisting only of games will not find much interest in the i9-9900K compared to other high-end processors. Fortunately for content creators, extreme multitasking and the rest of us, savvy users, this processor speeds up virtually all the tasks that await you.
Overclocking
For starters, I loaded the BIOS menu of the MSI MEG Z390 ACE motherboard and raised the multiplier to 50. After a series of reboots and tests, I opted for a basic voltage setting 1.33 V, which remains modest enough to be maintained long term should I choose to make this speed a permanent setting.
Back in Windows 10, with 5 GHz on all cores operating stably and in reasonable temperature thresholds, I ran Cinebench to see the performance benefits. The Intel Core i9-9900K processor has grown from 2,063 (multi-threaded) and 218 (single-threaded) to 2,188 and 222, respectively. My overclocker has reduced each second Blender and iTunes encoding tests, 20 seconds on the Handbrake result, 4 seconds on the result of the multi-threaded POV-Ray test and 3 seconds on the result of the POV test. -Ray to a single thread. My results in the games do not show much improvement overall, but I realized 4 fps more in Rise of the Tomb Raider in 1080p, and 2 fps more in the result of the play at 1440p.
Power and thermal test
When Intel says that the Core i9-9900K has a 95-watt TDP, it has virtually no impact on the amount of energy consumed by that chip, even at the stock level. At the time I had tested the Core i7-8086K Limited Edition six-core, another chip with a 5 GHz boost clock, the 95-watt TDP was not far from the total power consumption of 103 watts that I had seen in the system stability test of AIDA 64. When I have overclocked the Core i7-8086K for that it works out At 5 GHz on all cores, the power consumption has risen to 141 watts. With its stock parameters, the Core i9-9900K running the AIDA 64 system stability test provided 165 watts. Do not forget: it is predefined performance. You will likely encounter loads similar to these in real-world computing scenarios.
Despite this amount of energy, the Fractal Design Celsius S36 (the previously mentioned closed-loop liquid cooler, equipped with a 360 mm radiator) was able to keep the processor running between 65 and 75 degrees C. When I overclocked the Core i9-9900K at 5GHz on all cores, power consumption increased by 10 watts, but temperatures soared in the mid-80s, with peaks in the years 90. I have no problem running a system that sometimes peaks in the 90s. If I do something with this computer that takes hours, however, I would go back to the stock settings. If your computer runs regularly with heavy loads, you may need a custom liquid cooling system with a higher heat capacity than a simple compact liquid cooler. If you plan to run an air cooler, I do not recommend overclocking the Intel Core i9-9900K unless you equip it with a high-end air monster such as one of the Socket 1151 models from Noctua.
When I learned for the first time that Intel was using STIM between the matrix and the Core i9-9900K heat spreader, I thought it was okay. was an example of Intel really listening to the community of enthusiasts. After working with the chip for a few weeks, however, I concluded that nothing less would have been a non-strategist.
9th generation: always the goods
Although it is an iterative refinement, the Intel Core i9-9900K processor is no less a marvel of modern silicon engineering. The fact that she does what she does, even though she was built on the same manufacturing node as the previous Coffee Lake processors, is puzzling. Given Intel's ongoing difficulties with the 10-nm process, few people would say that Santa Clara's chip maker is at the cutting edge of its game, but this processor would not exist if some of the best and most some of the brightest in the world were not changed. and iterating on an already solid platform.
If anyone thought that AMD's second-generation Zen was going to be the hard blow that would put Intel in the place of the oppressed in the mainstream group, then this person just does not know very much Well Intel. This processor is not suitable for everyone, but for those who can afford it and the serious cooling needed to overclock, the Intel Core i9-9900K processor will not disappoint players, content creators and extreme multitasking who expect their processor in a single GPU system to make all this and do it well. That said, Intel's 8th-generation microprocessors compatible with Hyper-Threading Technology and the second-generation AMD second-generation Ryzens continue to offer superior value to those who can live with a hardware device. a notch or two below the edge of attack and with a single video card.
Source link
