Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Performance & Power Efficiency Of The Core i7 990X vs. Core i9 9900K

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Performance & Power Efficiency Of The Core i7 990X vs. Core i9 9900K

    Phoronix: The Performance & Power Efficiency Of The Core i7 990X vs. Core i9 9900K

    With my initial Core i9 9900K benchmarks out there following Friday's embargo expiration, for some weekend benchmarking fun I decided to pull out the old Core i7 990X to see how it compares to the new 9900K... The Gulftown and Coffeelake processors were compared not only on raw performance but also overall power consumption and performance-per-Watt.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27002

  • #2
    i9 9900X???? First page...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mphuZ View Post
      i9 9900X???? First page...
      Yes. The only reference on the first page is: "Granted the announced but not yet released Core i9 9900X X-Series CPU will be more akin..."

      That is all publicly known: https://ark.intel.com/products/18912...p-to-4-50-GHz-
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        That's a rather fun look back at the performance improvements over the last nearly 8 years of intel core uarch and process improvements. 2-4x times the performance for 1/3 - 1/2 the power budget.

        Imagine how much better it would have been if AMD didn't misstep with the big cat cores

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by boxie View Post
          That's a rather fun look back at the performance improvements over the last nearly 8 years of intel core uarch and process improvements. 2-4x times the performance for 1/3 - 1/2 the power budget.
          And the 9900K is half the price of the 990X.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            About a year ago a bought a used Xeon x5680 for 50 USD or so, I overclocked it a little to get 6 cores at 3840 MHz and tripple channel 1604 MHz (12GB). I feel that it is still plenty fast and am using it on a daily basis. The performance of my machine would be slightly better than the i7-990x in the article (but not by much) and I would be more interested in a different comparison with modern hardware. How much would i have to spend on new hardware to get the same level of performance?

            Comment


            • #7
              I would have loved to see an i7-8700(K) as well in the benchmarks, so we could compare decade old 6 cores to current 6 cores.

              Comment


              • #8
                Very interesting comparison. Thank you Michael.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Typo:

                  Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                  the legendary Wolfensterin: Enemy Territory,

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But if we compare gen-to-gen improvements, then we get: Sandy Bridge (E) was about +20-40% perf compared to Westemere (the same number of cores, the same price), added AVX instructions. "9th gen" Coffee Lake Refresh to Coffee Lake to Kaby lake to Skylake is 0-10% improvement in perf (per core), the same Skylake micro-architecture is used since 2015 And ~ the same 14 nm node technology. Nothing new: we see no AVX512 in 9900K, the same AVX2 since Haswell...To me this looks disappointing - no good reason to upgrade smth newer than Haswell. And if not AMD we'd still be at max 4C/8T in desktop (non-HEDT) platforms...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X