Intel’s i9-9900K CPU brings us 8 cores and 16 threads to their mainstream lineup, but
how does it compare to the old king from the 8th gen, the i7-8700K?
To find out I’ve tested both CPUs in 10 different games at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions
as well as a number of other applications to help you decide which to pick, or find
out if it’s worth upgrading.
Let’s start with the difference in specs.
The obvious difference is of course the core counts, with the 8700K having 6 cores 12 threads
while the newer 9900K features 8 cores 16 threads.
While the i9 has a slightly lower base clock speed it’s got higher turbo boost speeds,
and although both are based off of Intel’s 14nm Coffee Lake architecture the 9th generation
features soldered TIM which should help cool those extra cores compared to the paste that
was used in the 8th gen.
To see how these differences practically affect games and applications I’ve tested them
both in the same system.
I’m using the MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard which supports both 8th and 9th
gen Intel CPUs, so no need to swap boards.
I’ve got 16GB of T-Force Night Hawk CL16 memory running at DDR4-3200 which was kindly
provided by Team Group, hopefully the extra RGB boosts our performance, and for the graphics
I’m using my EVGA FTW2 1080 as it’s the best graphics card I’ve got available.
I’m cooling the CPUs using my Fractal S36 360mm all in one liquid cooler with the same
Noctua NT H1 thermal paste, so the exact same PC was used for testing both the 8700K and
9900K CPUs, as apples to apples as things come.
With that in mind let’s check out the games first, followed by CPU specific benchmarks
afterwards.
I’ve tested all games at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions using these Nvidia drivers
with the same Windows and game updates installed, and no overclocking has been done at this
point.
Let’s start with Ashes of the singularity, because what kind of CPU comparison video
would be complete without it?
At 1080p with max settings there was just a 3% improvement to average frame rates with
the 9900K, although a larger 11% improvement to the 1% low.
Moving on to 1440p there’s now minimal differences between the higher setting levels as the graphics
start taking more of the load, so our CPU difference is only clear at high settings
or below.
At 4K this extends further with only low settings now showing a clear performance difference
between our two CPUs.
Fortnite was tested using the same replay, at 1080p there’s basically no difference
at high or epic settings presumably as we’re GPU bound, but at medium or low there is quite
a large improvement, although realistically around the 300 FPS mark anyway I don’t think
this matters.
Stepping up to 1440p saw the medium results come in much closer together, just like the
higher settings, while only minimum settings now see an obvious improvement.
At 4K it basically doesn’t matter which CPU you’re using as the graphics becomes
the bottleneck, resulting in very similar performance at all setting levels.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built in benchmark, and at 1080p the results
were very close together, with the same results reoccuring from both CPUs at some setting
levels.
At 1440p the 9900K is anywhere from one to three frames per second ahead of the 8700K,
or a 3% improvement at max settings, so nothing very interesting, and then at 4K the results
are all within 1 frame of each other, again no practical difference between CPUs observed
at this point.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark tool, and at 1080p
the bulk of the differences are seen at the lower setting levels as these are typically
less GPU bound, just a 1% boost to the averages with the 9900K at max settings but then this
changes to a 10% improvement at low settings.
At 1440p the results start squeezing up closer together, just a small 4% improvement at low
settings now with the 9900K otherwise no major differences worthy of note.
At 4K I noticed that with the 9900K although it was just barely ahead in terms of average
frame rates the frame times were consistently down in this test, honestly not sure what
the deal was, there were no resource issues that I could detect so I’m not sure if the
game at this resolution didn’t like something about the 9900K.
Far Cry 5 was again tested using the built in benchmark, and at 1080p we were finally
seeing some obvious if small gains from the 9900K, performing 5% ahead of the 8700K at
ultra settings, and this percentage rises further as we drop down in settings.
At 1440p the average frame rates are much closer together now, but there’s more of
a difference in the 1% lows now with the 9900K improving them by 5% at ultra settings.
At 4K we’re very GPU bound and there’s no real practical difference observed at any
setting level, although all 9900K results are just slightly ahead.
Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range, and keep in mind the game has a frame
rate cap of 300 frames per second, and while at 1080p we’re averaging this at low to
high settings it’s worth noting the 9900K is giving us better frame times, shown by
the 1% lows.
At 1440p there’s basically no difference in terms of average frame rates regardless
of setting level, though the 9900K does seem to slightly improve the 1% lows again.
At 4K while the averages are close together the 1% lows are again actually down on the
9900K, similar to what we saw in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.
CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical benchmark, and at 1080p the 9900K was providing a 3%
improvement to average frame rates at max settings, a 6% boost at medium, and a 7% increase
at minimum.
Going to up 1440p these differences change to the 9900K now being ahead by 2% at max
settings and 7% for the rest.
At 4K once again there’s hardly any difference between all setting levels, with the largest
at minimum settings now just being a 3% improvement with the 9900K.
PUBG was tested using the same replay, and at 1080p just a small 3% improvement to average
frame rates with the 9900K, and this rises to 5% at very low settings with larger improvements
to 1% lows than the averages, granted at this resolution they’re high enough at most settings
anyway.
At 1440p the averages creep closer together while the 1% lows remain further apart, but
again no major differences to justify paying more for the 9900K so far.
At 4K it’s the same story, just even closer together in terms of averages as we’re dependent
on my 1080 graphics.
Watch Dogs 2 was tested as I’ve found it to be a game that uses quite a lot of CPU,
and while at 1080p there’s only a 1% improvement to averages with the 9900K this rises as we
lower the settings, right up to a 19% boost at low settings.
At 1440p it’s the same story we’ve seen again and again, results closer together as
the CPU plays less of a critical role at higher resolutions with just a 4% improvement with
the 9900K at low settings now.
Once again at 4K we’re basically all dependent on the graphics again and the differences
in CPU aren’t counting for much.
Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark, and I only bothered testing 1080p as even
at this resolution we’re already GPU bound, where the results are extremely close together
regardless of CPU due to a graphical bottleneck, it may be more interesting with more powerful
graphics like a 2080Ti though but unfortunately the 1080 is the best I’ve got.
As we’ve seen as we step up in resolution and setting level there’s less of a gap
between the two CPUs as the 1080 graphics card becomes the bottleneck, this is why in
the games tested at 1080p there appears to be the biggest performance improvement, then
less so at 1440p and even less at 4K.
If you’re planning on playing games at higher resolutions you’d generally be better off
putting the money towards better graphics instead.
As I suspected there’s no major differences in gaming between these two CPUs, at least
from the range of games tested here, I think for most games the 6 cores on offer with the
8700K will be enough for a while yet, otherwise we’re only seeing small boosts with the
9900K due to the clock speed differences, which as we’ll now see aren’t even that
much once we overclock the 8700K.
To be fair we may have seen larger differences at 1440p and maybe even 4K if I did have a
better graphics card, unfortunately I don’t have 2080Ti’s laying around so have to work
with what I’ve got.
As for overclocking I was able to get my 8700K to 5GHz on all 6 cores at 1.36 volts while
I could only get my 9900K to 4.9GHz on all 8 cores at the same 1.36 volts.
I was able to run the 9900K at 5GHz on all cores at around 1.4 volts and while most of
my tests passed some failed so I ended up stepping back down to 4.9GHz.
In terms of how overclocking effected gaming I’ve only retested one game, Ashes of the
Singularity at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K with the high setting preset.
There’s a larger difference at the lower resolutions as expected due to being less
GPU bound, but realistically not too much of a difference, it will of course vary between
game and overclocks will depend on the silicon lottery anyway and will vary between chip
to chip.
Now let’s check out some CPU specific benchmarks, I’ve tested both CPUs at stock speed and
with the overclocks previously mentioned.
I’ll also note that in these tests we’ll see a bigger jump in performance between stock
and overclocked with the 8700K, as we’re effectively increasing the all core speed
by 700MHz, while the 9900K is only increasing by 200MHz.
Starting out with Cinebench we’re seeing slightly better single core performance with
the overclocked 8700K as expected owing to the higher 5GHz overclock that I was able
to get, but when it comes to multicore the extra two cores in the 9900K push it out in
front.
Between the two CPUs at stock the 9900K is performing 49% better in the multicore test,
or 31% better between them both with overclocks applied.
Adobe Premiere was tested using the newest CC 2019 version, I’ve just exported one
of my laptop reviews at 1080p using the built in high bitrate preset, and the 9900K is completing
the task over 20% faster than the stock 8700K, but this shrinks to around a 10% difference
once overclocking the 8700K.
Blender was tested using the BMW and Classroom benchmarks and we’re starting to see the
same pattern emerge, where there’s minimal difference between the 9900K at stock and
overclocked with larger difference once overclocking the 8700K, though still a fair improvement
with the 9900K’s two extra cores.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, and those extra two cores in the 9900K
are helping out in decompression tasks with a 42% improvement at stock speeds, and a 31%
improvement between the overclocked speeds as the bigger overclock on the 8700K closes
that gap.
Compression speeds on the other hand are only seeing an 18% improvement at stock speeds
between both CPUs.
Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and not too much of
a performance difference in this workload, a 9% and 15% increase for decryption and encryption
speeds respectively with the 9900K at stock over the 8700K at stock.
Handbrake was used to convert a 4K video to 1080p, and then a separate 1080p file to 720p.
At stock speeds, the 9900K is completing the 1080p task 47% faster than the stock 8700K,
although if we overclock both the difference lowers to 30%.
The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render a scene, and fairly similar results to what
we’ve already seen, with the 9900K at stock completing the task over 30% quicker than
the 8700K, and this is a good example illustrating how the overclock on the 8700K is giving us
a bigger boost compared to the 9900K’s overclock.
The V-Ray benchmark gave us very similar results to what we just saw in Corona, with no major
difference between the 9900K at stock or once overclocked.
I’ve attempted to summarize this information here to try and give you an idea of the differences
in these specific application tested.
This first graph shows how much the 9900K at stock was ahead of the 8700K at stock,
on average the 9900K was 23% better in these tests.
If we then go on to compare the overclocked 9900K against the overclocked 8700K this lowers
to the 9900K being just under 15% better, as the 8700K is able to close the gap with
its better overclock, but remember this is only based on my results in the applications
I tested, and is even specific to my overclocks I was able to gain on my chips.
These are the temperatures of both CPUs at stock and while overclocked at idle and while
running a Blender benchmark with an ambient room temperature of 20 degrees celsius.
I’ve included two readings in red and purple with the three fans on my 360mm AIO running
at different speeds, in order to avoid thermal throttling while overclocked I did have to
run the fans quite loud, but it still seemed to be up to the job.
It’s also worth remembering while overclocked both have the same 1.36 volts applied which
should further help in this comparison.
I’ve measured total system power draw from the wall, and I recently got a new power meter
so this should actually be accurate.
These are the results of the system at idle, and then while under heavy CPU load during
a Blender benchmark.
As expected the 9900K uses more power as it’s got those two extra cores, however there’s
a larger difference between stock and overclocked on the 8700K as there’s a larger clock speed
change there.
Just for fun I’ve also briefly tested the 9900K with two of its cores disabled, essentially
making it a 6 core 12 thread CPU just like the 8700K.
To attempt to even the playing field I’ve also capped them both to 4.5GHz on all 6 cores.
We can see that under this somewhat apples to apples test the 9900K is using slightly
less power, and is also running a little cooler in the same Blender test, likely due to the
soldered TIM which should help it cool better compared to the paste between the die and
IHS in the 8700K.
With both CPUs essentially the same, I’ve retested Cinebench and taken the averages
from 5 runs, and the 9900K was slightly ahead in multicore performance in this test, so
perhaps an indication of small IPC improvements over the the 8th gen, granted this is only
a 0.67% improvement, but the 9900K was consistently in front.
Likewise I’ve also rerun the Blender benchmarks, and the 9900K was again only just ahead here,
but honestly too close within margin of error territory to call it.
For updated pricing for either CPU check the links in the description, here in Australia
at the time of recording an 8700K is going for $589 AUD, while the 9900K is going for
$859 AUD, so a 45% higher cost.
In the US the 8700K currently goes for around $370 USD, while the 9900K is about $530 USD,
so a similar increase here of 43%.
In games you’re definitely not going to see this much of an improvement, but in some
CPU specific workloads it may be possible as we’ve seen.
To be fair I do expect the 9700K to be a closer comparison to the 8700K, but I still think
it’s pretty crazy that the price difference is so much just to get 8 cores.
Especially when you compare it to AMD’s Ryzen 2700X, but I’ll save that analysis
for the upcoming 2700X vs 9900K video, I wanted to do it first but wasn’t able to get my
hands on a last minute 2700X so I ended up buying one and now I’m waiting for it to
arrive, so don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss that.
Intel are advertising the 9900K as “the best gaming CPU”, and while strictly speaking
they’re not wrong in terms of performance, as we’ve seen here there’s negligible
improvement in games over the 8700K, kind of hard to justify that 45% higher price.
I couldn’t see myself buying this if I was looking at building a gaming machine, there
are much better choices out there for the money, but if money isn’t a problem and
you really do want the best, then the 9900K might be for you.
If you’re currently running an 8th gen system the 9th gen may appear attractive as after
a BIOS update you can simply put in the new CPU and away you go, honestly I think in most
cases though the price difference isn’t worth it unless you’re really going to be
doing something that actually utilizes the extra cores.
If you’re just gaming then it doesn’t really seem like the 9900k is worth it at
its current price and you’d most likely be better off putting that money into a GPU
upgrade, especially if you play at resolutions above 1080p or use higher settings.
Let me know which of these two CPUs you’s pick and why down in the comments, and don’t
forget to subscribe for the Ryzen 2700X and Intel 9900K comparison, as well as future
tech videos like this one.