With the introduction of the Core i9-9900K, it enters a new area as a bridge between the ‘extreme’ Core i9 and the ‘mainstream’ Core i5 models. The Core i7-9700K outperforms the previous generation Core i7-8700K with eight full cores but no Hyper-Threading (and i7-8086K by extension). The high pricing hasn’t altered, with the 9700K basically taking over the 8700K’s $374 price point. Get to know a complete intel i7 9700k processor in depth review here.
Slightly improved performance in the same socket at the same price? That isn’t really thrilling, but increases in CPU performance are getting more difficult. That may not seem to be the case when looking at AMD’s Ryzen CPUs, which were a significant advance over the company’s earlier processors, but the leap was assisted by the fact that AMD’s FX-series had fallen well behind Intel’s Core processors. With the slowing of process node developments, 5-10% gains in core performance are expected per generation.
However, the Core i7-9700K has a few benefits over the beefier i9-9900K. For one thing, it doesn’t use as much electricity, which means it doesn’t become as hot.
That final point seemed to be a reason for jubilation at first, and I heard tales of liquid-cooled 5.3GHz overclocks from the upcoming 9th Generation CPUs. In actuality, in my experience, the actual clock speed headroom hasn’t changed much. I also need a -2 AVX offset since anything higher than 4.9GHz caused AVX workloads to fail, and even 4.9GHz tended to trigger overcurrent protection.
Intel I7 9700k Processor In Depth Review
Part of the difficulty with the solder TIM, I believe, is that the total package height hasn’t increased, which means Intel need a significant quantity of solder between the die and the heat spreader.
Intel Core i7-9700K Test Configuration
My Core, i7-9700K testbed, is the same as my Core i9-9900K testbed. It contains the most recent Nvidia 416.34 drivers for the GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition, all current game versions, and the Windows 10 October 2018 update. (I manually upgraded before Microsoft canceled the release and happily haven’t had any problems.) I tested ten games at 1080p’ultra’ resolution, which is normally maximum quality, but occasionally with AA or other settings reduced. The purpose is to stress CPU constraints in-game performance while still maintaining suitable hardware settings.
I’ve updated all of the software suites to the most recent versions for non-gaming testing. All tests are based on publicly available real-world’ apps, which are slanted toward multithreaded workloads. Cinebench 1T is the sole single-core benchmark, and it continues to offer a fair representation of each core performance.
Performance of the Intel Core i7-9700K in gaming
Starting with gaming performance, the Core i7-9700K is behind the Core i9-9900K by a hair. I retested a couple of games to validate performance on the 9900K, and the findings are consistent here. The 9700K is around 1% slower than the 9900K at stock, and the difference when overclocked is negligible.
Even when comparing different CPUs, the variations in gaming performance with a GTX 1080 Ti are minimal. Even when the Ryzen APUs are excluded from the evaluation, there is only a 20% benefit to using the fastest CPU over a more modest setup. If you increase the resolution to 1440p, the difference will be less than 10%.
The Core i7-9700K is somewhat quicker than the 8700K and slightly faster than the 2700X. However, if you’re mainly creating a gaming PC, I’d recommend one of Intel’s CPUs.
Application performance of the Intel Core i7-9700K
Things don’t change much when we switch to non-gaming multithreaded application benchmarks. In most benchmarks, the Core i7-9700K still outperforms AMD’s Ryzen 2700X, with Cinebench and H.264 encoding still preferring the 2700X.
Because many tasks are performed exclusively in a CPU’s L1 or L2 cache, memory latency and other considerations are less important. Cinebench is an excellent example of this kind of test. The process of compressing/decompressing files differs. Although the built-in 7-zip test isn’t nearly as complicated as actual data and often relies a lot more on a CPU’s cache, compressing/decompressing bigger collections of files may result in a lot of pseudo-random memory accesses. Games, on the other hand, operate with bigger data sets and rely more on memory performance and latency. Not surprisingly, Intel’s CPUs do well in both tests.
According to Fortune Business Insights™, The urban air mobility market size was USD 2.90 billion in 2020. The market is projected to grow from USD 3.01 billion in 2021 to USD 8.91 billion in 2028 at a CAGR of 16.77% during the 2021-2028 period.
The challenge is determining the worth of these application benchmarks. When was the last time you had to wait on your CPU for a CPU-intensive application? Although video editing may drain even the most powerful computers, I typically do all of my ‘job’ on a 4-year-old laptop with much inferior technology. I use my desktop PCs for gaming and video, but because of the convenience of mobility, I use a laptop for almost everything else. Basically, you should think about your normal workloads and bottlenecks carefully.
At best, gaming performance would be a secondary factor. However, the usefulness of application benchmarks is becoming more difficult to explain for the majority of customers.
I prefer to utilize two aggregate charts to help me see the broader picture. The first, which is available by default, is for multithreaded CPU scaling. This graph assigns equal weight to the Cinebench nT, H.264, H.265, VeraCrypt, and y-cruncher results.
The second graph examines the whole range of CPU performance. It covers the results of all individual CPU tests (including Cinebench 1T and the 7-zip built-in benchmark).
In terms of overall performance, it is 8% quicker than the i7-8700K and 9% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X. Those are minor improvements, but they are consistent with what I’ve grown to anticipate from each new generation of CPUs. Next year, we’ll see whether the 3rd Gen 7nm Ryzen components can break that pattern.
The Core i7-9700K divides the high-end market.
Intel’s high-end consumer market ultimately serves as a bridge between two choices. On the one hand, there’s the Core i9-9900K, which has slightly faster clock speeds and Hyper-Threading for better performance in highly threaded tasks, but with greater power consumption that necessitates beefier cooling. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Core i7-9700K, which offers almost comparable gaming performance (you won’t notice the difference) and lower, more manageable cooling needs. Aside from the cost, both are excellent CPUs, and if you’re putting up a new high-end gaming PC, they should be on the top of your choice. But which is superior?
The answer is mainly dependent on the person. If you seldom perform video editing or other intensive multithreaded tasks, save the $100-$200 you’d pay on the CPU upgrade and liquid-cooling system. So, purchase the Core i7-9700K instead—and put any spare money toward a better graphics card. Any variations in-game performance are often under the margin of error. It is less than 1% and well below the 5-10% threshold that you’d notice without conducting a benchmark. However, if you plan on doing any video editing or other CPU-intensive jobs, I’d pay the additional money and purchase the speedier processor.
Even with a GTX 1080 Ti, anything from an i3-8100 (i5-6500) and above will perform well in most games, especially at 1440p. The same is true for Ryzen processors: Ryzen 5 1600 and later should be sufficient.
Building a new PC also puts the expense into perspective. The Core i7-9700K, with reasonable cooling, costs about $450—that’s half the price of a Ryzen 7 2700X, yet the 9700K is just 12 percent quicker in games! You don’t simply purchase a CPU; you also need to know which motherboard is best for i7 9700k, RAM, storage, a chassis, a power supply, and, most importantly, a powerful graphics card.
Outside of gaming, the Core i7-9700K performs similarly to the i7-8700K in terms of overall performance. It’s around 10% quicker and almost the same price. It’s also somewhat quicker than a Ryzen 7 2700X, albeit not by much for most people. Saving $100 and choosing for the Core i5-9600K is another possible choice for those seeking the greatest value. You can buy any motherboard or processor from TechproLine at a low price.
The beautiful thing about current CPUs is that we have a lot of options. AMD and Intel provide a variety of alternatives for every market, with costs ranging from roughly $100 to $1,000. Increased AMD rivalry has aided Intel’s ‘generous’ core counts. We don’t need the more costly ‘enthusiast platform’ motherboards and more RAM to acquire a 6-core or 8-core CPU. Also, with 8-core now becoming ‘mainstream,’ there’s a larger possibility that future programs and games will start using those additional cores.I hope that from this intel i7 9700k processor in depth review, you get enough know-how of this processor.