Intel’s i9-9900K CPU brings us 8 cores and 16 threads to their mainstream lineup, but
AMD got there first some time ago.
Let’s compare the new 9900K against the Ryzen 2700X to see what kind of a fight it
can put up at a lower price point in gaming and various applications.
Let’s start with the specs.
Both are 8 core 16 thread parts, one of the main reasons I was so interested in comparing
the two against each other, however as we can clearly see the Ryzen chip is running
at lower clock speeds.
Both chips are also unlocked so we’ll cover overclocking too, and they’re both using
soldered thermal interface material, something Intel has finally gone back to with their
9th generation.
It’s probably not worth paying any attention to the listed TDP either, as this will change
once they start boosting up.
To see how these differences practically affect games and applications I’ve tested them
both in as identical systems as possible.
Aside from the differences in CPUs, the only difference is of course the motherboards.
For the 2700X I’m using an MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard, and for the 9900K
I’m using an MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon motherboard, both with the latest BIOS versions
available at the time of testing.
Otherwise the rest of the system specs are exactly the same.
I’ve got 16GB of T-Force Night Hawk CL16 memory running at DDR4-3200 which was kindly
provided by Team Group, and for the graphics I’m using my EVGA FTW2 1080 as it’s the
best graphics card I’ve got available.
Yes there are better graphics cards out there, I don’t own any and I haven’t bought one
just to do testing with, if you’ve got a problem with this feel free to send me a better
one.
For the cooling of both CPUs I’m 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
I’ve just swapped out the motherboards and CPUs as required, as apples to apples as I
could make it.
With that in mind let’s check out the games first, followed by CPU specific benchmarks
afterwards.
I’ve tested all games at 1080p and most at 1440p where it made sense.
Unlike my 9900K vs 8700K comparison I haven’t bothered with 4K, as we saw there was near
zero difference as ideally I’d be using a 2080Ti for that.
Otherwise the same Nvidia drivers, Windows updates and game updates were installed, with
no overclocking applied at this point.
I’ll also note that I had separate clean Windows installations for each platform, the
same one was not used between them.
MCE was disabled on the 9900K and Precision Boost Overdrive was not enabled on the 2700X.
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 only a 0.8% improvement to average frame rates
with the 9900K, though a larger 5.3% improvement to 1% lows, although at every other setting
level the frame times are faster on the 2700X, and for the most part the averages are pretty
close between the two chips until the lower setting levels.
Fortnite was tested using the same replay, at 1080p there’s not too much difference
at max settings as we’re more GPU bound, just a 2.6% improvement to average FPS at
epic settings, but this gap widens further apart as we lower the setting levels down.
Moving up to 1440p the results move in closer together as we start to become more GPU bound
and the difference in CPU starts to matter less, again almost no different at max settings
while the 9900K pulls further in front at the lower levels.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested using the built in benchmark, and at 1080p the results
weren’t really that far apart at medium settings or above with the 9900K averaging
4% above the 2700X at the highest settings, though this rises to 19% better at the lowest
settings due to less GPU limitations.
At 1440p the results move in closer together as expected, with the 9900K just 3% ahead
of the 2700X at the highest settings and 8% ahead at the lowest settings.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark tool, and at 1080p
the 9900K is out in front again as expected, performing 6% better in average FPS at max
settings, increasing to a 12% improvement at low settings.
At 1440p all frame rates drop back a little, once again squeezing closer together as we
start relying more on the GPU.
At this resolution the 9900K is just 2% ahead of the 2700X at max settings, increasing to
11% ahead at low settings.
Far Cry 5 was again tested using the built in benchmark, and at 1080p the 9900K was further
ahead compared to other games tested so far, 16% ahead of the 2700X at ultra settings increasing
up to 21% better average frame rates at low settings.
At 1440p the results get much closer together due to the graphics becoming the bottleneck,
with the 9900K now only 2% ahead of the 2700X at ultra settings and just 3% ahead at low
settings, so quite different compared to 1080p.
Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range, and is a good example of the CPU not
really making very much difference at all.
The game caps out at 300 FPS which we’re able to hit with both CPUs at high settings
or lower, although the frame times are a little better with the 9900K, although realistically
I think 250 FPS 1% lows are already insane enough and are possible with either CPU.
At 1440p the results are again extremely close together, especially at epic settings, while
the 9900K has a lead on the 2700X in 1% lows which rises up as the settings get lower.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark, and the differences at 1080p
between the two CPUs weren’t as high as I was expecting in this game.
The 9900K was just 3% ahead of the 2700X at ultra settings in terms of average frame rates
and 1% lows.
At 1440p the results are still pretty close together, no major differences with either
CPU and you can clearly get a great experience with either.
CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical benchmark, and at 1080p the 9900K was providing a 19%
improvement to average frame rates over the 2700X with all settings maxed out, and a 12%
boost to 1% lows, something that’s probably important for competitive players, and this
difference rises further apart at lower setting levels.
At 1440p there’s still some fair differences between the two, less so in terms of 1% lows
but the gaps in averages are still a fair way apart, with the 9900K 13% ahead in terms
of average frame rates at max settings.
Dota 2 was only tested at 1080p, and I’ve used an intense replay which does no represent
real game play, so expect higher frame rates actually playing the game, this is supposed
to represent a worst case scenario.
Even with all settings maxed out the 9900K is almost 20% ahead of the 2700X, so again
like CSGO for competitive players that need all the frames they can get the Intel CPU
may make more sense.
PUBG was tested using the same replay, and at 1080p there’s very minor differences
at ultra settings, but bigger changes at lower settings.
At very low settings for example, the 9900K is 32% ahead of the 2700X for the 1% low result,
and 23% ahead on the averages, so definitely nicer if you’re playing competitively, though
realistically for the casual player I think the 2700X is still delivering fairly high
frame rates.
At 1440p we’re pretty much looking at the same results, just lower frame rates all around,
with the 9900K just 4% better than the 2700X at ultra settings on the average frame rates,
but a larger 13% improvement at very low settings.
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 a fair improvement seen with the 9900k, performing 16% ahead
of the 2700X at ultra settings in the averages and 21% better for the 1% lows, though as
a game that I don’t personally think needs a high frame rate to enjoy either CPU would
be plenty.
At higher resolutions like 1440p there’s less of a difference between the two as the
GPU starts to take over the majority of the work, with the 9900K now just 8% ahead of
the 2700X at ultra settings on the averages, and 9% better in terms of 1% low results.
The Witcher 3 wasn’t seeing too big of a difference between the two CPUs in the averages,
but the frame times are much better with the 9900K, as shown by the 1% lows.
At ultra settings for instance, although the averages are very close with the 2700X actually
just ahead, there’s a huge 43% improvement to the 1% low.
A similar result was also noted at the 1440p resolution, the averages are fairly close
together, but at ultra settings the 1% lows with the 9900K are 26% ahead of the 2700X,
a pretty big difference.
Ghost Recon was tested with the built in benchmark, and I only bothered testing 1080p as even
at this resolution we’re already fairly GPU bound, there’s not much difference between
the two CPUs at all setting levels compared to most other games, with the 9900K 3.5% ahead
of the 2700X in average frame rates at ultra settings, and just 2% faster for the 1% low
results.
As expected the 9900K is coming out ahead in pretty much all tests, primarily due to
the higher clock speeds.
With that said though, I still think in all of the games tested we’re seeing nice frame
rates with the 2700X, definitely still playable, I think I’d have a hard time telling you
in a blind test which was which, though I don’t think I’m particularly sensitive
to high frame rates so that might just be me.
If you’re looking at playing at high settings or higher resolutions then the CPU starts
to matter less and less, you’d be better off putting your money into better graphics
instead.
In the games tested at max settings there was also a larger boost to the frame times,
shown as the 1% low results, with the 9900K over the 2700X, at least compared to averages.
While I could have tested more CPU specific games I wanted to test a range of different
titles to try and give a more real world sample size including games people actually play,
rather than focusing on things like turn times in civilization 6.
As for overclocking I was able to get my 2700X to 4.2GHz on all 8 cores at 1.35 volts while
I could only get my 9900K to 4.9GHz on all 8 cores at 1.36 volts.
I was able to push to 5GHz at 1.44 volts, but didn’t really want to run that on such
an already hot chip, however it is worth mentioning that I may have just been unlucky in the silicon
lottery, as others are able to get 5 or 5.1GHz with voltages I can’t even boot into Windows
with.
Let’s see how overclocking affected gaming, we’ll start with Ashes of the Singularity.
I’ve retested it at 1080p and we can see that although the 9900K has better averages
here, the 2700X actually has higher 1% lows, although the overclock on the 9900K makes
a larger difference compared to the overclock on the 2700X.
Fortnite was retested at all setting levels with these overclocks applied to both CPUs,
and you’re going to have to excuse the rainbow colours, there’s a lot of data and only
so many choices.
Anyway, I’ve got the 2700X at stock in reds, 2700X overclocked in greens, 9900K at stock
in purples, and 9900K overclocked in blues.
For the most part overclocking doesn’t seem to really be helping the 2700X at epic or
high settings, while the 9900K is seeing more benefit here.
At epic settings the overclock on the 9900K is improving average frame rates by 4.4% but
perhaps more importantly an 8.5% improvement to the 1% low.
Pretty similar when we move up to 1440p, though the overclock on the 2700X is even less useful
this time around, while the overclock on the 9900K is giving us an improvement at all setting
levels, with again similar 4% average FPS increase at epic and 8% boost to 1% low.
Larger improvements to the frame times seem to be typical as we start to become more GPU
bound at higher resolutions and setting levels.
These are the percentages that the 9900K was ahead of the 2700X in this particular game
at stock, we can see the difference lessens at 1440p as we start becoming more GPU bound.
Here are the differences with both CPUs overclocked, in general the gap starts to widen further
apart with the 9900K performing better when overclocked, at least in this specific game.
Now let’s check out some CPU specific benchmarks, I’ve tested both CPUs at stock speed and
with the overclocks previously mentioned.
Starting out with Cinebench at stock speeds the 9900K is scoring 15% higher than the 2700X
at stock speeds in the multicore test, and then with the overclocks applied to both CPUs
the gap lowers very slightly to 14.6%.
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 12% faster than the stock 2700X, but this lowers to around a 7% difference
once overclocking both of them, as the 2700X is seeing a bigger performance boost out of
the two while overclocked in this test.
For the first time I’ve also tested using warp stabilizer, an effect in Adobe Premiere
that’s used to stabilize shaky footage.
In this test we’re actually seeing slightly worse performance with the 2700X overclocked
and this was consistently the case, at first I thought this may have been due to the overclock
reducing single core speeds, but that should be happening on the 9900K too, and the overclock
is boosting performance there.
Blender was tested using the BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and there was minimal difference
from the 9900K once overclocking it, just a 3% boost in the BMW test for example, while
this is doubled to 6% of an increase in the same test when overclocking the 2700X.
At stock speeds the 9900K is completing the classroom benchmark 22% quicker than the 2700X
at stock, and 17% faster when it comes to the BMW test at stock.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds.
At stock speeds the 9900K is 8% ahead of the stock 2700X for compression, and just under
4% ahead in decompression.
Once both are overclocked the 9900K jumps out to 11% ahead in compression, but interestingly
is only just 2% ahead in decompression, as the 2700X overclocked is actually beating
the stock 9900K in this decompression test.
Veracrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and at stock the 2700X
was 16% ahead of the stock 9900K for encryption, and 12% ahead for decryption.
Strangely though in this test the results of the 2700X drop down with the overclock
applied, and there’s almost no change to the 9900K once overclocked.
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 4K task just 12% faster than the stock 2700X,
and 21% better on the 1080p file.
With both overclocked the gap widens a little, with the overclocked 9900K now completing
the 4K task 13% faster than the overclocked 2700X, and still 21% faster with the 1080p
file.
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 22% quicker than the 2700X,
and then same results between the two with overclocks in place.
The V-Ray benchmark gave us very similar results to what we just saw in Corona, the overclock
on the 2700X improves performance by 6%, and around a 5% improvement to the 9900K once
overclocked.
PCMark 10 is a benchmark that performs different tests that cover a variety of tasks performed
in the workplace.
At stock speeds the 9900K is 16% ahead of the 2700X, but then once both are overclocked
the 9900K is almost 21% ahead.
I’ve attempted to summarize this information here to try and give you an idea of the differences
in these specific applications tested.
This first graph shows how much the 9900K at stock was ahead of the 2700X at stock,
on average the 9900K was 12% better in these tests.
If we then go on to compare the overclocked 9900K against the overclocked 2700X this rises
slightly to the 9900K now being 13% better.
Remember that this is only based on my results in the applications I’ve 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 running a Blender
benchmark with an ambient room temperature of 20 degrees celsius.
I’ve included two readings in purple and red with the three fans on my 360mm AIO running
at different speeds.
This was required as the 9900K would thermal throttle while overclocked otherwise, it gets
pretty warm compared to the 2700X under the exact same cooling, so worth keeping in mind
as you’ll probably need good cooling for the 9900K, especially if you’re planning
on overclocking.
I’ve measured total system power draw from the wall and the results actually weren’t
too different.
The only changes to the system are the motherboard and CPUs, otherwise the exact same Blender
benchmark was running on both, and in my test the 9900K was just a couple of watts ahead.
In terms of performance per watt, the 9900K does appear to have a clear advantage here,
at least based on my own numbers that I’ve recorded.
For updated pricing for either CPU check the links in the description.
In the US the 2700X currently goes for around $305 USD on sale, while the 9900K is about
$580 USD, so a larger 90% increase in price there.
In terms of value, the 2700X is the clear winner here.
On average in the games tested we’re seeing a 7% improvement at 1080p and 3% at 1440p,
which at least to me doesn’t justify a 90% price premium.
To be fair this is the difference at max settings where we may be more GPU bound, but I figure
if you’re buying either of these CPUs you’ll probably be looking to play with higher settings.
The applications tested faired a little better than the games, with a 12% performance boost
on average with the 9900K.
If we look at the performance in terms of dollar per frame we see some interesting results.
I’ve used my Fortnite data as it’s the only game I tested all settings with and without
overclocking, and at max settings the 2700X is giving us a much better dollar per frame
value compared to the 9900K, though this gap closes quite a bit at the lower setting levels,
as in this particular game at least the 9900K frame rate was very high, but this will of
course vary between games.
It’s also important to remember that the 9900K doesn’t come with any cooling, the
dollar per frame figure is based on CPU price only.
You have to pay more money still to get a decent cooler with the 9900K, as we’ve seen
even with my 360 all-in-one cooler it still gets quite warm, especially once overclocked.
Granted I did test my 2700X with the same cooler just to keep things even, it does come
with a capable air cooler which you can still use even while overclocked.
Intel are advertising the 9900K as “the best gaming CPU”, and while strictly speaking
they’re not wrong in terms of raw performance, but it’s losing in pretty much all other
areas such as thermals and value for money.
The i9 is basically what you’d pick if money isn’t an issue or if you just want the best
performance over anything else, you can pretty much do it all there and fast, while the 2700X
is still a very capable chip and much better value for the money, though not quite as fast
in most games and applications.
So which of these two CPUs would you guys pick?
The 9900K or 2700X?
Let me know your thoughts down in the comments, and don’t forget to subscribe for future
tech videos like this one.