![]() It matched or even bettered far more expensive CPUs in some cases. It's a match for many HEDT CPUs in certain scenariosįollowing on from my last point, one of the reasons it’s a great all-round CPU and an interesting fact to come out of the mass of benchmarking, is that several high-end desktop CPUs – traditionally the content creation workhorses of the CPU world – appear very expensive compared to the Core i9-9900K. The fact both the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K have big chinks in their armour when pitched against the Core i9-9900K means that the new flagship is one of the best all-rounders we’ve seen – it’s great at everything and that’s undoubtedly why Intel feels it can charge a premium for it. It was 40 percent slower in HandBrake, and its score in Cinebench of 1,397 compared to 2,039 for the Core i9-9900K speaks for itself - the new CPU is a huge amount faster when it comes to content creation and 3D modelling and in some cases gaming too. The opposite is true for the Core i7-8700K, which performs similarly in games but trails by a huge margin in multi-threaded tests. The Core i9-9900K has a lead in several game titles too, and while using fast memory can help close the gap with AMD CPUs, you're still looking at around five to 10 percent, more in some cases, even with 3,400MHz memory. ![]() Dealing with an hour-long video file, then, this would have equated to an extra 14 minutes of encoding time and nearly half an hour for a two-hour movie. In HandBrake, the Ryzen 7 2700X, despite having the same number of cores and threads, was 23 percent slower than the Core i9-9900K, taking 74 seconds compared to 60 seconds in our benchmark using a one-minute video file. In fact, it's noticeably quicker than both CPUs in a range of tests. That's not to say the Core i9-9900K isn't faster, though. ![]() You simply don't see the kind of scaling with CPUs as you might do with other PC hardware. For instance, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X isn't twice as fast as the Ryin games or multi-threaded tasks, despite costing around twice as much. The former costs half as much, but to expect twice the performance or even 50 percent more performance just because it costs twice as much is flawed reasoning. It's a lot faster than any other mainstream desktop CPU in nearly everythingĪ lot of criticism aimed at Intel's flagship CPU was focussed on its performance relative to its closest competitors - AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Intel's own Core i7-8700K. With that in mind, here are three reasons I love the divisive Core i9-9900K. However, the Core i9-9900K surprised me in a few areas, and on reflection it's difficult to pick holes in its performance, meaning that in some ways it does go a long way towards justifying its price tag. To some degree that's true, and it's why there are plenty of comments out there focusing on the price and just how ridiculous it may seem for a mainstream CPU. They seem like insurmountable odds when you consider the latter offers great multi-threaded performance and the former keeps up with the Core i9-9900K in most games. Intel's new eight-core flagship costs a whopping £600, which is £200 more than the Core i7-8700K and £300 more than the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. Only Nvidia's RTX series of graphics cards have divided opinion more than Intel's Core i9-9900K this year, and for the most part pricing is behind much of the negative feeling towards both products.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |