Ridiculously fast but better than the Ryzen 7 2700X of AMD in games?

[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

The last 18 months have been a fuzzy activity of both

Intel
and

AMD
as each wrestles with ever-increasing numbers of hearts and hearts, frequencies and a growing number of processors in their stacks of products. However, today, the market for conventional desktops has taken a dramatic turn, Intel has once again increased the number of its flagship products, launching the Core i9-9900K 8-core and 16 threads against the Ryzen 7 2700X from AMD.

The launch of Intel has been tainted by some regarding preboot test results, but today, I can finally reveal just how fast Intel's new flagship product is and if you have to buy it.

Characteristics

I should add that the price of the three processors in the 9000 series above is based on the pre-order price, which was common on Newegg when I wrote this, but I will update the prices if they change significantly during the first week of launch. For the moment, let's talk about prices and specifications. It is pretty obvious that the Core i9-9900K that I am testing today is extremely expensive. That's almost $ 200 more than the Core i7-8700K and nearly $ 300 more than the AMD's 27,200X Ryzen 7, which also offers 8 cores and 16 wires.

The specifications have also changed significantly in the stack of Intel products. We now have two 8-core processors, but if the Core i9-9900K has hyper-threading, which gives it 16 threads, the Core i7-9700K only has 8 threads on its 8 cores, but n is not hyper-threading. It seems that Intel is moving away from hyper-threading with its Core i7 desktop processors, although it still means a faster processor, in fact especially in multithreaded workloads, than the Core i7-8700K, at the similar price. This is a step forward towards the Core i5-9600K, which has only 6 cores and 6 threads.

The Core i9-9900K, in addition to two more cores compared to the Core i7-8700K, also receives 4 MB of additional L3 cache and it should be noted that the Core i7-9700K has less memory cache per core than his two brothers Core i9 and Core i7-8700K. I hope that I will soon examine the Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K. Some significant advantages of the Core i9-9900K compared to the Core i7-8700K and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X are however the speed frequencies. Unlike the old Intel 6-core processor, the new Core i9 can reach 5 GHz on not one, but two cores at a time in turbo boost. It also has a 4.7 GHz boost monster, which is 400 MHz faster than the Core i7-8700K, 700 MHz higher than the Core i9-7900X and about the same on the Ryzen 7 2700X depending on the global payload. So, in multi-tasking tasks such as 3D modeling and video editing, it should be a beast.

Welding is back with thicker processors

Intel is reintroducing the weld with all new K and X series processors, including the three 9000 Series processors listed above and the seven new X Series models expected later this year. Intel had abandoned the weld as the material between the processor heat sink and the processor core returned with Ivy Bridge processors on its consumer platform. Since, the removal of the heatsink and the application of high performance thermal paste are very popular. The welded processors seemed to be much hotter, with severe temperature drops after unlocking. This is a good move from Intel, although the jury does not know how much impact it will have. I managed to reach 5 GHz when overclocking with my Core i9-9900K and the temperatures seem slightly lower than those of my Core i7-8700K. Therefore, since the new processor has two cores, it seems to work small cooler.

Intel also used thicker processor substrates with its 9th generation processors. The sand-colored plate in which is located the nucleus under the thinned-out heat spreader with Skylake, published in 2016. However, many reports mention the bending of the substrate under the pressure of some processor coolers, such as the shows the picture below via PC Gamer. This should now be a thing of the past.

Z390 Chipset

Many Z390 motherboards are already available, but you do not need to use any of the three ninth generation Intel processors because they are also backward compatible with the chipsets that support the latest generation of 8th generation Coffee Lake processors , such as the Z370 and B360. . The Z390 chipset however adds some features, namely the built-in support of WiFi 802.11ac and the USB 3.1 Gen 2 standard, but other than that, there is no reason to upgrade. If you intend to use a 9th generation processor in an older motherboard, you will probably need to update its BIOS, which may mean using an 8th generation processor, depending on whether the card has or not a USB BIOS flashback. .

Performance

Common test hardware included a Corsair RM850i ​​power supply, a Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD and a Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! graphics card with a NZXT Kraken X42 cooler, while I was using an X52 cooler for high-end desktop processors. I used a 3000 MHz memory with identical timings on all systems. The only difference was that a dual-channel 16GB kit was used with traditional platforms and a 32GB quad-channel kit with high-end platforms. The game's benchmarks were a mix of built-in benchmarks that, in my opinion, were sufficiently consistent to allow time-tested tests and trials using World of Tank and Ashes of the Singularity. The cue points for content creation include both timed cue points and built-in test results, which are indicated in each chart. I must add that not all processors are in all graphics for the simple reason that I do not have access to all computers, namely the Core i7-8080K, which I got with a short-term loan it a few months ago. I can not re-test in some of my new benchmarks.

Overclocking

There does not seem to be much margin with the Core i9-9900K with my own sample and those of several other enthusiasts with whom I've spoken, reaching a limit around 5 GHz, with much more voltage needed to climb higher where I've been experiencing excessive temperatures too. In the end, I settled on the 5GHz frequency with a vcore of 1.26 V, which is generally what I used with the Core i7-8700K. The temperatures here were also a bit lower with the new processor, despite the fact that it has two extra cores. However, 300 MHz is a fairly poor overclocking margin and I guess it's just because Intel has reached the limits of this 14nm architecture and manufacturing process (14nm ++), all the more so that we have welded heat sinks again.

Creating and rendering content

As 4K content becomes more and more common, the time needed to export a project becomes a problem. This test examines the export of a project combining several short 4K video clips to which some basic effects are applied. The time required for export is indicated above. Surprisingly, the Core i9-9900K is comparable to the Intel Core i9-7900X at stock speed – a processor that costs hundreds of dollars more and has two extra cores. It is also 17% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X a little faster than the 1920X Threadripper.

The PC Mark 10 image editing test seems to appeal to AMD processors. This is the only test where the Ryzen 7 2700X surpasses the Core i9-9900K. I want to emphasize that this is probably not the case for all image retouching tests. So I will do some research soon and hope to include more popular applications such as Gimp or Lightroom.

HandBrake, the famous video coding application, loves hearts, so it's not surprising to see both Threadripper processors at the top of the chart. However, despite a four-core deficit, the Core i9-9900K still matches the Threadripper 1920X and once again beats the Core i9-7900X until it is overclocked. It is also 18% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X and 31% faster than the Core i7-8700K.

Cinebench is a real-world 3D modeling application and its software is good for hearts and threads. AMD has a decisive advantage here: the Threadripper 1920X convincingly surpasses the Core i9-9900K, while the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 13% slower. The Core i9-7900X is again slower than the Core i9-9900K until the old one is overclocked.

Single-core performance can also be measured in Cinebench, and it is not surprising to see the Core i9-9900K at the top of the chart, as well as the rest of Intel's processors, which enjoy a significant advance in frequency per second. report to AMD.

Thu

Far Cry 5 Performance

I've added some new tests to my tests this time, including Far Cry 5. It's worth noting that there was a lot of variation here between the processors at 1,920 x 1,080, so if you like high speeds, the graph is quite revealing. AMD has difficulties here, as does the Core i9-7900X until it is overclocked, and points to Far Cry 5, favoring only high frequencies and slightly threaded performance. Even so, the main Intel processors that I tested were pretty dominant, with a minimum frame rate of 26% faster compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Processor-related games are quite rare and in most cases, this kind of gap is also rare, and many games do not seem to see any gains between the processors I've tested here, World's eNcore reference. of Tanks being one of them. .

Shadow of the Tombraider has also not brought much more performance between the cheapest and most expensive processors, even with these modest settings that allow the graphics card to run quite easily.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is another game that still has an advantage for Intel over AMD. But it's also a game that sees the day improve with the Ryzen 7 2700X, which works even better with faster memory than the one used here. However, the Core i9-9900K did not extend the lead I had seen with the Coffee Lake processors, but rather among them. No gain here.

The latest game test is Ashes of the Singularity, another game in which AMD seeks to improve Ryzen's performance. Intel enjoys a 22% advantage in the processor benchmark using the same memory here, but again, this gap is reduced faster memory with AMD Ryzen processors.

The overlay benchmark is more related to the GPU but I still like to include it in the processor benchmarking. There is virtually no difference between the processors I tested and only the 1920X Threadripper and the Core i9-7900X are outside the margin of error in scores with somewhat weak results.

Power consumption is generally well below the priority list of PC enthusiasts. The Core i9-9900K consumes much less power than the Core i7-8700K and about 50W more than the Ryzen 7 2700X under load, probably up to its much higher boost frequencies. As I managed to add 300 MHz to the frequency of the whole heart when overclocked, the power consumption has increased by about 30 W.

Conclusion

I can not help but be impressed by the Core i9-9900K in that it is just a monstrously powerful processor. Thanks to its high acceleration speeds and its 4.7 GHz capacity out of the box, it is superior in games that offer processor-related performance, which does not just mean that it is much faster than the Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X. , but managed to enhance the Intel Core i9-7900X 10-core Intel processor during multithreaded tests such as HandBrake, Adobe Premier Pro and Cinebench. Not only is this processor much more expensive and has two extra cores, but the cost of the platform is also more expensive with more expensive motherboards and memory. The problem is compounded by the fact that the outstanding performance of the stock speed of the Core i9-9900K can be achieved by the inexpensive motherboards of the previous generation, making its call much wider, all the more so that, unlike Ryzen processors, you do not need a discrete graphics card if you do not play either.

While the Core i9-9900K seems to be a better option than the Core i9-7900X, if you do not need quad-channel memory or additional PCI-E channels, its price is obviously not an excellent choice. picture elsewhere. Although the creation of games and content was between 12 and 26% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X, this obviously does not justify the fact that the AMD chip can be purchased at $ 300, which is a little more than half the current price of pre-order the Intel processor.

The scale of performance with the price argument, however, is silly for the simple reason that it rarely works – never, the Ryzen 2700X of AMD is not 50% faster in the games as the Ryzen 5 2600X, for example, although it costs 50% more. However, while there are big gaps between Intel and AMD flagship brands, the fact that the Core i9-9900K currently costs around $ 600 means that the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K have much better value for games (especially 8700K) and content creation.

There is another processor that also convinces at its current price: the AMD Threadripper 1920X, which is why I added to my product line of reference. You can currently get it for around $ 400, a savings of $ 150 to $ 200 compared to the pre-order price of the Core i9-9900K. A cheap X399 motherboard, a 16GB quad-channel memory and the Threadripper 1920X currently cost $ 845 on PCPartpicker. However, a similar system with a decent Z370 motherboard for overclocking the Core i9-9900K costs $ 874, and it's with Amazon's new $ 529.99 processor price hit just before the release of this article (by the way, it was also out of stock). You are considering more than $ 900 with previous prices. Of course, the Intel processor is much faster in games, but for a pure content creation system, the Threadripper processor is a strong argument.

I hope that this downward trend will continue for Intel. $ 600, that's too much, but it goes under $ 500, although $ 200 more than the Ryzen 7 2700X, you get a significantly faster processor than any other traditional processor for the content creation and who also wins the first place in each game. The fact that you can use it with a relatively cheap motherboard if you do not want to be overclocked is also attractive. Of course, if this big premium is worth paying, it depends on your needs and your budget, but the Core i9-9900K is without a doubt the fastest traditional desktop processor ever built.

">

The last 18 months have been a fuzzy activity of both

Intel
and

AMD
as each wrestles with ever-increasing numbers of hearts and hearts, frequencies and a growing number of processors in their stacks of products. However, today, the market for conventional desktops has taken a dramatic turn, Intel has once again increased the number of its flagship products, launching the Core i9-9900K 8-core and 16 threads against the Ryzen 7 2700X from AMD.

The launch of Intel has been tainted by some regarding preboot test results, but today, I can finally reveal just how fast Intel's new flagship product is and if you have to buy it.

Characteristics

I should add that the price of the three processors in the 9000 series above is based on the pre-order price, which was common on Newegg when I wrote this, but I will update the prices if they change significantly during the first week of launch. For the moment, let's talk about prices and specifications. It is pretty obvious that the Core i9-9900K that I am testing today is extremely expensive. That's almost $ 200 more than the Core i7-8700K and nearly $ 300 more than the AMD's 27,200X Ryzen 7, which also offers 8 cores and 16 wires.

The specifications have also changed significantly in the stack of Intel products. We now have two 8-core processors, but if the Core i9-9900K has hyper-threading, which gives it 16 threads, the Core i7-9700K only has 8 threads on its 8 cores, but n is not hyper-threading. It seems that Intel is moving away from hyper-threading with its Core i7 desktop processors, although it still means a faster processor, in fact especially in multithreaded workloads, than the Core i7-8700K, at the similar price. This is a step forward towards the Core i5-9600K, which has only 6 cores and 6 threads.

The Core i9-9900K, in addition to two more cores compared to the Core i7-8700K, also receives 4 MB of additional L3 cache and it should be noted that the Core i7-9700K has less memory cache per core than his two brothers Core i9 and Core i7-8700K. I hope that I will soon examine the Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K. Some significant advantages of the Core i9-9900K compared to the Core i7-8700K and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X are however the speed frequencies. Unlike the old Intel 6-core processor, the new Core i9 can reach 5 GHz on not one, but two cores at a time in turbo boost. It also has a 4.7 GHz boost monster, which is 400 MHz faster than the Core i7-8700K, 700 MHz higher than the Core i9-7900X and about the same on the Ryzen 7 2700X depending on the global payload. So, in multi-tasking tasks such as 3D modeling and video editing, it should be a beast.

Welding is back with thicker processors

Intel is reintroducing the weld with all new K and X series processors, including the three 9000 Series processors listed above and the seven new X Series models expected later this year. Intel had abandoned the weld as the material between the processor heat sink and the processor core returned with Ivy Bridge processors on its consumer platform. Since, the removal of the heatsink and the application of high performance thermal paste are very popular. The welded processors seemed to be much hotter, with severe temperature drops after unlocking. This is a good move from Intel, although the jury does not know how much impact it will have. I managed to reach 5 GHz when overclocking with my Core i9-9900K and the temperatures seem slightly lower than those of my Core i7-8700K. Therefore, since the new processor has two cores, it seems to work small cooler.

Intel also used thicker processor substrates with its 9th generation processors. The sand-colored plate in which is located the nucleus under the thinned-out heat spreader with Skylake, published in 2016. However, many reports mention the bending of the substrate under the pressure of some processor coolers, such as the shows the picture below via PC Gamer. This should now be a thing of the past.

Z390 Chipset

Many Z390 motherboards are already available, but you do not need to use any of the three ninth generation Intel processors because they are also backward compatible with the chipsets that support the latest generation of 8th generation Coffee Lake processors , such as the Z370 and B360. . The Z390 chipset however adds some features, namely the built-in support of WiFi 802.11ac and the USB 3.1 Gen 2 standard, but other than that, there is no reason to upgrade. If you intend to use a 9th generation processor in an older motherboard, you will probably need to update its BIOS, which may mean using an 8th generation processor, depending on whether the card has or not a USB BIOS flashback. .

Performance

Common test hardware included a Corsair RM850i ​​power supply, a Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD and a Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! graphics card with a NZXT Kraken X42 cooler, while I was using an X52 cooler for high-end desktop processors. I used a 3000 MHz memory with identical timings on all systems. The only difference was that a dual-channel 16GB kit was used with traditional platforms and a 32GB quad-channel kit with high-end platforms. The game's benchmarks were a mix of built-in benchmarks that, in my opinion, were sufficiently consistent to allow time-tested tests and trials using World of Tank and Ashes of the Singularity. The cue points for content creation include both timed cue points and built-in test results, which are indicated in each chart. I must add that not all processors are in all graphics for the simple reason that I do not have access to all computers, namely the Core i7-8080K, which I got with a short-term loan it a few months ago. I can not re-test in some of my new benchmarks.

Overclocking

There does not seem to be much margin with the Core i9-9900K with my own sample and those of several other enthusiasts with whom I've spoken, reaching a limit around 5 GHz, with much more voltage needed to climb higher where I've been experiencing excessive temperatures too. In the end, I settled on the 5GHz frequency with a vcore of 1.26V, which is usually what I used with the Core i7-8700K as well. The temperatures here were also a bit lower with the new processor, despite the fact that it has two extra cores. However, 300 MHz is a fairly poor overclocking margin and I guess it's just because Intel has reached the limits of this 14nm architecture and manufacturing process (14nm ++), all the more so that we have welded heat sinks again.

Creating and rendering content

As 4K content becomes more and more common, the time needed to export a project becomes a problem. This test examines the export of a project combining several short 4K video clips to which some basic effects are applied. The time required for export is indicated above. Surprisingly, the Core i9-9900K is comparable to the Intel Core i9-7900X at stock speed – a processor that costs hundreds of dollars more and has two extra cores. It is also 17% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X a little faster than the 1920X Threadripper.

The PC Mark 10 image editing test seems to appeal to AMD processors. This is the only test where the Ryzen 7 2700X surpasses the Core i9-9900K. I want to emphasize that this is probably not the case for all image retouching tests. So I will do some research soon and hope to include more popular applications such as Gimp or Lightroom.

HandBrake, the famous video coding application, loves hearts, so it's not surprising to see both Threadripper processors at the top of the chart. However, despite a four-core deficit, the Core i9-9900K still matches the Threadripper 1920X and once again beats the Core i9-7900X until it is overclocked. It is also 18% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X and 31% faster than the Core i7-8700K.

Cinebench is a real-world 3D modeling application and its software is good for hearts and threads. AMD has a decisive advantage here: the Threadripper 1920X convincingly surpasses the Core i9-9900K, while the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 13% slower. The Core i9-7900X is again slower than the Core i9-9900K until the old one is overclocked.

Single-core performance can also be measured in Cinebench, and it is not surprising to see the Core i9-9900K at the top of the chart, as well as the rest of Intel's processors, which enjoy a significant advance in frequency per second. report to AMD.

Thu

Far Cry 5 Performance

I've added some new tests to my tests this time, including Far Cry 5. It's worth noting that there was a lot of variation here between the processors at 1,920 x 1,080, so if you like high speeds, the graph is quite revealing. AMD has difficulties here, as does the Core i9-7900X until it is overclocked, and points to Far Cry 5, favoring only high frequencies and slightly threaded performance. Even so, the main Intel processors that I tested were pretty dominant, with a minimum frame rate of 26% faster compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X.

Les jeux liés aux processeurs sont assez rares et dans la plupart des cas, ce genre de fossé est également rare, et de nombreux jeux ne semblent pas voir de gains entre les processeurs que j&#39;ai testés ici, la référence eNcore de World of Tanks étant l&#39;un d&#39;entre eux. .

Shadow of the Tombraider n’a pas non plus apporté beaucoup plus de performances entre les processeurs les moins chers et les plus chers, même avec ces paramètres modestes qui permettent à la carte graphique de fonctionner assez facilement.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided est un autre jeu qui présente toujours un avantage pour Intel par rapport à AMD. Mais c&#39;est aussi un jeu qui voit le jour s&#39;améliorer avec le Ryzen 7 2700X, qui fonctionne encore mieux avec une mémoire plus rapide que celle utilisée ici. Cependant, le Core i9-9900K n’a pas prolongé l’avance que j’avais vue avec les processeurs Coffee Lake, mais plutôt parmi eux. Aucun gain ici.

Le dernier test de jeu est Ashes of the Singularity, un autre jeu dans lequel AMD cherche à améliorer les performances de Ryzen. Intel bénéficie d&#39;un avantage de 22% dans le benchmark du processeur en utilisant ici la même mémoire, mais encore une fois, cet écart est réduit plus rapidement mémoire avec les processeurs AMD Ryzen.

Le benchmark de superposition est davantage lié au GPU mais j&#39;aime quand même l&#39;inclure dans le benchmarking du processeur. Il n’ya pratiquement aucune différence entre les processeurs que j’ai testés et seuls les Threadripper 1920X et Core i9-7900X se situent en dehors de la marge d’erreur dans les scores avec des résultats quelque peu faibles.

La consommation électrique est généralement bien inférieure à la liste des priorités des passionnés d’ordinateurs personnels. Le Core i9-9900K consomme beaucoup moins de puissance que le Core i7-8700K et environ 50W de plus que le Ryzen 7 2700X sous charge, probablement jusqu’à sa fréquences de boost beaucoup plus élevées. Comme j’ai réussi à ajouter 300 MHz à la fréquence de tout le cœur lorsqu’on est overclocké, la consommation électrique n’a augmenté que de 30 W environ.

Conclusion

Je ne peux m&#39;empêcher d&#39;être impressionné par le Core i9-9900K en ce sens qu&#39;il s&#39;agit simplement d&#39;un processeur monstrueusement puissant. Grâce à ses vitesses d&#39;accélération élevées et à sa capacité de 4,7 GHz à sortir de la boîte, il est supérieur dans les jeux qui offrent des performances liées au processeur, ce qui ne signifie pas seulement qu&#39;il est beaucoup plus rapide que le Core i7-8700K et Ryzen 7 2700X. , mais est parvenu à améliorer le processeur Intel Core i9-7900X 10 cœurs d&#39;Intel lors de tests multithreads tels que HandBrake, Adobe Premier Pro et Cinebench. Non seulement ce processeur est-il beaucoup plus coûteux et comporte-t-il deux cœurs supplémentaires, mais le coût de la plate-forme est également plus coûteux avec des cartes mères et de la mémoire plus coûteuses. Le problème est aggravé par le fait que les performances exceptionnelles de la vitesse de stock du Core i9-9900K peuvent être atteintes par les cartes mères bon marché de la génération précédente, ce qui rend son appel beaucoup plus large, d&#39;autant plus que, contrairement aux processeurs Ryzen, vous n&#39;avez pas besoin d&#39;une carte graphique discrète si vous ne jouez pas non plus.

Alors que le Core i9-9900K semble être une option plus avantageuse que le Core i9-7900X, si vous n’avez pas besoin de mémoire quad-channel ni de voies PCI-E supplémentaires, son prix ne constitue évidemment pas un excellent choix. image ailleurs. Bien que la création de jeux et de contenus ait été entre 12 et 26% plus rapide que le Ryzen 7 2700X, cela ne justifie manifestement pas le fait que la puce AMD peut être achetée à 300 $, ce qui représente un peu plus de la moitié du prix actuel de le processeur Intel.

L&#39;échelle de performance avec l&#39;argument de prix, cependant, est idiote pour la simple raison que cela fonctionne rarement – jamais, le Ryzen 2700X d&#39;AMD n&#39;est pas 50% plus rapide dans les jeux que le Ryzen 5 2600X, par exemple, bien qu&#39;il coûte 50% de plus. Cependant, bien qu’il existe de gros écarts entre les marques phares d’Intel et d’AMD, le fait que le Core i9-9900K coûte actuellement près de 600 $ signifie que le Ryzen 7 2700X et le Core i7-8700K ont une bien meilleure valeur pour les jeux (en particulier 8700K) et la création de contenu.

Il existe un autre processeur qui convainc également au prix actuel: le Threadripper 1920X d’AMD, c’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai ajouté à ma gamme de tests. Vous pouvez actuellement vous en procurer pour environ 400 USD, soit une économie de 150 à 200 USD par rapport au prix en pré-commande du Core i9-9900K. Une carte mère X399 bon marché, une mémoire quad-channel de 16 Go et le Threadripper 1920X coûtent actuellement 845 $ sur PCPartpicker. Cependant, un système similaire avec une carte mère Z370 décente pour l’overclockage du Core i9-9900K coûte 874 $, et c’est avec le nouveau prix du processeur à 529,99 $ d’Amazon qui a frappé juste avant la publication de cet article (d’ailleurs, il était également en rupture de stock). Vous envisagez plus de 900 $ avec les prix précédents. Bien sûr, le processeur Intel est beaucoup plus rapide dans les jeux, mais pour un système de création de contenu pur, le processeur Threadripper constitue un argument de poids.

J&#39;espère que cette tendance à la baisse se poursuivra pour Intel. 600 $, c&#39;est trop, mais s&#39;il descend au-dessous de 500 $, bien que 200 $ de plus que le Ryzen 7 2700X, vous obtenez un processeur nettement plus rapide que tout autre processeur traditionnel pour la création de contenu et qui remporte également la première place dans chaque jeu. . Le fait que vous puissiez l’utiliser avec une carte mère assez bon marché si vous ne voulez pas être overclocké est également attrayant. Bien sûr, si cette prime importante vaut la peine d&#39;être payée, cela dépend de vos propres besoins et de votre budget, mais le Core i9-9900K est sans aucun doute le processeur de bureau traditionnel le plus rapide jamais conçu.