Intel Core i9-9900K 3DMark Time Spy benchmark results appear

by Mark Tyson on 30 July 2018, 11:11

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qadvyi

Add to My Vault: x

An Intel Core-i9 9900K powered PC system appeared in the 3DMark Time Spy’s database this weekend. Thai overclocker Tum Apisak shared the system configuration via his Twitter feed, and linked to the 3DMark Time Spy results in the official online database. Apisak shared both 3DMark Time Spy CPU-only and combines scores with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. Naturally the system, featuring Intel's yet-to-launch consumer flagship 8C/16T CPU, achieved impressive results.

As reported by NoteBookCheck, the Intel Core i9-9900K based system achieved a CPU-only score of 10,719 and a combined score of 9,862 with the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. These scores are put into perspective by comparing (CPU-only) results of 7,918 for the Intel Core i7-8700K, while the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X scores 9,147 points all systems at stock clocks).

Directly above you can see the system configuration used by Apisak. Understandably, the CPU wasn't recognised by the benchmark but it could see that the CPU had 8C/16T and base/boost clock speeds of 3.1GHz / 5.0GHz. The Thai overclocker used an Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming motherboard for his benchmark runs, and you can see that a Gigabyte Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti was installed.

The above provides a good preliminary idea of the respective performance of the new Intel Core i9-9900K. What might be more interesting to some is the performance of the non-hyperthreading 8C/8T Core i7 chips and other more mainstream parts - along with the pricing. It looks like we won't have to wait that long until we can more thoroughly test the 9th gen Intel Core processors in HEXUS labs.

HEXUS Forums :: 18 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by Tabbykatze - Mon 30 Jul 2018 11:29
Interesting results, I would really like to see the 9900k and 2700X do a head to head at 4GHz to really show how the two perform.

Nice to see that the 2700X appears to reasonably within 10% of the 9900K so will anticipate real world clocks and performances :)
Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH - Mon 30 Jul 2018 11:46
The CPU might be an ES as it is running at 3.1GHZ instead of the purported 3.6GHZ though.
Posted by Tabbykatze - Mon 30 Jul 2018 11:52
CAT-THE-FIFTH
The CPU might be an ES as it is running at 3.1GHZ instead of the purported 3.6GHZ though.

That's true, there have been some rumours about that in these reports
Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH - Mon 30 Jul 2018 12:01
Tabbykatze
That's true, there have been some rumours about that in these reports

Although TBH I seriously doubt the 8C/16T version is going to be faster in gaming than the 8C/8T version and whether the 6C/12T CFL CPUs will be much slower than the 8C/8T CPUs.

Its a bit like the 6C/12T Ryzens agains the 8C/16T ones. Most of the differences seem to be down to clockspeed.
Posted by Iota - Mon 30 Jul 2018 12:09
CAT-THE-FIFTH
The CPU might be an ES as it is running at 3.1GHZ instead of the purported 3.6GHZ though.

Probably right.

Interesting to see the CPU score and comparison though, considering it can run ~16% faster than the 2700X it achieves a score ~17% higher. Really goes to show the improvements AMD have made in terms of IPC and the stagnation of Intel trying to push as much out of the old architecture. Pinch of salt obviously, considering it is likely an engineering sample being compared.

Dread to think how much Intel is going to try to charge for this though, I imagine it'll be a bit higher than ~17% difference :vacant:

SEE NEWER »