Intel's Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K processors are at record lows right now. With the price cuts, the introduction of Comet Lake-S and the consistent pressure from AMD's Zen 2 chips, Intel's Coffee Lake chips have been just going downhill.

In August, Intel had issued price reductions up to 25% on some of its most popular 9th Generation models. For this occasion, however, it might just be retailers trying to rid themselves of the remaining Coffee Lake processors. As per CamelCamelCamel's data, the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K have dropped to $359.99 and $289.99, respectively.

Even at $359.99, the Core i9-9900K isn't that great of a bargain. The Core i7-10700K is faster than the Core i9-9900K in both general and gaming performance and only costs $20 more. The Core i9-9900K, on the other hand, is on the dying LGA1151 platform. The only reason that we can see for someone to pick up a Core i9-9900K is if the person already owns a LGA1151 motherboard and wants to upgrade from a slower processor, say like a Core i3. If you're starting from scratch, it's just a better decision to roll with the Core i7-10700K and LGA1200 platform, which is ready for PCIe 4.0 when Rocket Lake drops.

The Core i5-10600K is on par with the Core i7-9700K when it comes to gaming performance, However, the Core i7-9700K is still a bit ahead of the Core i5-10600K for single-and multi-thread workloads. 

A few months ago when the Core i7-9700K costed $339.99 and the Core i5-10600K went for $262, the latter would have been the easy pick. However, the Core i7-9700K now sells for $289.99, and the Core i5-10600K retails for around $280 when there's no promotion. 

Once again, the Core i7-9700K should be a good option for existing LGA1151 owners that want a decent processor without having to shell out money for another motherboard. If you're putting together a system for the first time, you'd be better served with Comet Lake or AMD's Zen 2 offerings. However, if time isn't of the essence, it's even better to wait for Zen 3, which AMD will announce on October 8.

If you're an Intel fan, you should check out this deal on the i7-9700K processor available from Best Buy. It usually runs for $349 but is currently listed on Best Buy's website for just $289. Not only do you get the CPU, it also comes with a free digital copy of Marvel's Avengers Standard Edition.

The Intel i7-9700K is an octa-core CPU with 8 threads total. It includes 12 MB of integrated cache. While operating normally, it can reach speeds up to 3.6 GHz. Take advantage of turbo mode, however, and you're looking at speeds as high as 4.9 GHz.

You will need an LGA 1151 socket to use this processor. Make sure your motherboard is compatible and includes the appropriate socket before securing your purchase.

If you want to get in on this deal, you need to act soon—the offer is listed without confirmation on how long the sale will last. Visit the Intel i7-9700K product page on Best Buy to get started. For more CPUs, check out our list of Best CPUs for 2020.

Intel’s Gamer Days celebration is kicking off just in time for the Tiger Lake announcement tomorrow, which means new deals on Intel CPUs. You won’t find any of the newer Comet Lake chips in this sale, but if you’re willing to step down a generation, you can snag the still-excellent Intel Core i7-9700K processor for $299.99 (officially down from $409.99).

Of course, the Intel Core i7-9700K has been going for closer to $370 for a while now at various outlets, but given that this remains one of the best cpus on the market, $299.99 is still a great deal for it. In our review for the i9-9700K, it topped our VRMark benchmark and was near the top in our 3DMark benchmark, plus came in first or second place in almost all of our game benchmarks. On our GTX 1080-equipped test system, that meant frame rates like 116.6 fps in Civilization VI and 142 fps in Hitman, both games being on their highest settings.
 

Performance like this is still plenty relevant, even with new CPU generations always looming on the horizon. Though, if you’d like to up your game even more, the Intel Core i9-9900KF is also currently on sale for $429.
 

The number of cores on a processor is very important. At the end of the day, the cores, combined with frequency and architecture, dictate the amount of performance the chip can deliver. However, while having more of anything is typically better, not everyone needs a ton of cores or can put them to good use. Times have changed, and now it's common to find mainstream processors with up to 16 cores, such as the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, but that healthy ration of cores, and the higher price point, isn't for everyone.

Assuming that you're looking for an octa-core chip, there are two formidable offerings on the market.

The Ryzen 7 3800X, codename Matisse, represents Team AMD. The processor is equipped with eight cores and 16 threads. On the other hand, we have the Core i7-9700K (codename Coffee Lake) chip, Intel's first Core i7 part that lacks Hyper-Threading technology. As a result, the Core i7-9700K checks in with eight cores and eight threads. The reason why we pick the Core i7-9700K for over the Core i9-9900K for this comparison is because the price tag on the former is the closest to the Ryzen 7 3800X.

To help you pick one, we put the octa-core processors from both chipmakers through a seven-round face-off, based on their features, overclocking, coolers, motherboards, performance, and value. If you're looking for a processor in a different price band, be sure to check out our Best CPUs page.

Features

AMD taps into TSMC's 7nm FinFET manufacturing process for the Ryzen 7 3800X. The eight-core, 16-thread chip leverages the latest Zen 2 microarchitecture and packs 32MB of L3 cache. The octa-core chip ticks along with a 3.9 GHz base clock and a 4.5 GHz single-core boost clock.

Like AMD's other Zen 2 products, the Ryzen 7 3800X arrives with native support for DDR4-3200 memory modules. The processor provides users with up to 16 speedy PCIe 4.0 lanes to take advantage of the latest SSDs and graphics cards, but it lacks integrated graphics.

The Core i7-9700K is still on Intel's 14nm process node and Coffee Lake microarchitecture. Unlike the Ryzen 7 3800X, the Core i7-9700K is limited to eight cores and eight threads. Intel bestows the octa-core processor with 12MB of L3 cache and base and single-core boost clock speeds up to 3.6 GHz and 4.8 GHz, respectively.

The Core i7-9700K has a dual-channel memory controller that officially maxes out at 128GB. However, the Ryzen 7 3800X is a step ahead of the Core i7-9700K in terms of memory speed support. The Ryzen 7 3800X plays fine with DDR4-3200 memory out of the box while Intel guarantees the Core i7-9700K up to DDR4-2933. The Core i7-9700K also comes equipped with Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 graphics solution.

Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 7 3800X has twice the thread count of the Core i7-9700K. The AMD chip also comes with 166% more L3 cache, which comes in handy for workloads that are sensitive to cache capacity. It1s other strong attributes include support for PCIe 4.0 and the DDR4-3200 standard. In Intel's case, the Core i7-9700K does come with integrated graphics, a must if you don't have a discrete graphics card, but that alone isn't enough to warrant a win over the Ryzen 7 3800X.

Motherboard Options

The Ryzen 7 3800X supports AMD's long-lived AM4 socket that resides on AMD 300-, 400-and 500-series motherboards. It's true that the only way to enjoy the benefits of the PCIe 4.0 interface is with the a newer 500-series motherboard, but there are still a plethora of options to choose from if you don't need the faster transfer speeds. In terms of pricing, the cheapest compatible motherboard for the Ryzen 7 3800X is available for $55, while the most affordable X570-based motherboard starts at $145.

The Core i7-9700K snaps into the LGA1151 socket as long as it is built around Intel's 300-series chipset. Although the LGA1151 has provided housing for two previous generations of chipsets, Coffee Lake processors aren't backward compatible with prior chipsets. In terms of pricing, budget Intel 300-series motherboards sell for as low as $55, while Z370 and Z390 models start at $115.

Coffee Lake is likely the last generation of processors that will grace the LGA1151 socket. Intel is expected to introduce the new LGA1200 socket for its upcoming Comet Lake chips. This means that those buying a LGA1151 motherboard today are basically investing in a moribund platform.

On the contrary, AMD, which has always provided better inter-generational support, has committed to the AM4 socket until 2020. Therefore, the next-generation Ryzen 4000-series parts are rumored to slide into the AM4 socket. Barring any significant changes, the new processors should be backward compatible with 500-series motherboards.

Winner: AMD. Both platforms offer a wide range of options for consumers. There are inexpensive models that cost almost nothing, and impeccably engineered models that command eye-watering prices. Nevertheless, if the rumors are true, the AM4 platform still has one last breath.

Overclocking Potential

Both the Ryzen 7 3800X and Core i7-9700K come with unlocked multipliers that enable support for manual overclocking. Notwithstanding, Intel continues to have the upper hand in overclocking.

AMD has affirmed in the past that the chipmaker maximizes its Ryzen 3000-series processor for the best performance right out of the box. That's a clever way of saying that the Zen 2 chips don't have much manual overclocking headroom, but that's because the company exposes nearly the full performance of the processors at its stock settings. 

While AMD advertises the Ryzen 7 3800X with a 4.5 GHz boost clock, the chip only hits that frequency on a single physical core, and like we see with most boost algorithms, under very specific conditions. Our experience with the Ryzen 7 3800X confirms AMD's statements. We could only get our Ryzen 7 3800X sample stable at 4.3 GHz on all cores with a 1.42V Vcore and an Auto Load-Line Calibration (LLC) setting.

Intel markets the Core i7-9700K with a 4.9 GHz boost clock, which is also the boost for a single core as well, although it can hit this frequency on any given core. The all-core boost for this model is 4.6 GHz. It's important to mention that, unlike previous processors, the Core i7-9700K uses a solder-based thermal interface material (STIM). In theory, this helps with heat transfer and increases headroom for overclocking. Our Core i7-9700K sample could sustain a 5.1 GHz overclock across all eight cores with a 1.345V Vcore and the LLC setting on automatic.

Winner: Intel. AMD's Zen 2 microarchitecture and TSMC's 7nm FinFET manufacturing process are still in diapers compared to Intel's incessantly-optimized 14nm node, so it's not surprising that that the first Zen 2 chips have little manual overclocking headroom. The Core i7-9700K is simply superior for manual overclocking.

Cooling Solutions

Neither the Ryzen 7 3800X or Core i7-9700K are space heaters. You can get by with moden aftermarket cooling solutions of either the air or liquid variety. 

The Ryzen 7 3800X has an official TDP (thermal design power) rating of 105W. If you already own an AM4 motherboard and are upgrading to the Ryzen 7 3800X, you can reuse the same CPU cooler as long as its cooling capacity meets the Ryzen 7 3800X's requirement. In any event, AMD includes the capable Wraith Prism cooler with the Ryzen 7 3800X.

The Core i7-9700K comes with a 95W TDP, apparently 10W less than the Ryzen 7 3800X, but these companies measure TDP based on entirely different criteria. The TDP value on Intel processors can be a bit misleading as the number represents the power consumption at the base clock speed. Once the chip's boost clock kicks in, the actual power consumption is a lot higher. In our review, the Core i7-9700K pulled up to 200W when pushed to the limit.

Winner: AMD. At peak loads, the Ryzen 7 3800X draws significantly less power in comparison to the Core i7-9700K. Consequently, its cooling requirements aren't as steep as the Core i7-9700K. Unlike Intel, AMD continues to bundles its stock coolers even with its high-end SKUs. Unless you're overclocking to the edge, the Wraith Prism will serve you well. 

Intel doesn't include a stock cooler with the Core i7-9700K, which forces consumers to spend extra cash on an aftermarket cooling solution even if they don't plan on overclocking.

Gaming Performance

The Core i7-9700K and Ryzen 7 3800X aren't specifically aimed at gamers only. However, streamers and gaming content creators could find some very good value in the aforementioned octa-core chips due to their generous core counts.

The gaming results are in Intel's favor. Whether it be a big or negligible difference, the Core i7-9700K beats the Ryzen 7 3800X in all our gaming tests.

Winner: Intel. Hands down, the Core i7-9700K is the better gaming processor overall. If you use your processor primarily for gaming, the Core i7-9700K is a good choice.

Productivity Performance

The Ryzen 7 3800X might fall behind the Core i7-9700K in gaming, but it excels in other areas where having more cores is an advantage. 

Thanks to its SMT (Simultaneous multithreading) capability, the Ryzen 7 3800X beats the Core i7-9700K in just about every multi-core workload, including general productivity, rendering, encoding and compression.

Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 7 3800X's multi-core performance is an absolute force to reckon with. The Core i7-9700K's lack of HyperThreading is exposed in workloads that reward more cores. However, the Core i7-9700K holds its own in single-core workloads. 

Value Proposition

The Ryzen 7 3800X currently sells for $339.99, which works out to $42.50 per core. Meanwhile, the Core i7-9700K costs $369.99, or $46.25 for each core. On a pure price-to-price comparison, the Ryzen 7 3800X results in a better deal.

Since the Ryzen 7 3800X comes with a stock cooler, you only need to buy an AM4 motherboard if you don't own one. The big problem is that AMD doesn't have any motherboards outside of the X570 stack that support PCIe 4.0. The X570-based motherboards significantly increases the overall cost: You'll spend between $145 to $700 for a motherboard.

Rolling with the Core i7-9700K implies investing not only in a motherboard but also an aftermarket CPU cooler. Although you can get away with pairing the chip with a low-end 300-series motherboard, you probably want to shell out for a Z370 or Z390 motherboard for their added features. Z370 offerings retail for roughly $115 and $470, while Z390 retails between $115 and $965. A half-decent cooler to keep the Core i7-9700K's temperatures in check will set you back another $30, at the very least.

Winner: AMD. In general, it's slightly cheaper to put together a system around the Ryzen 7 3800X. Once AMD and its motherboard partners releases more affordable 500-series products, you'll get more bang for your buck.

The Bottom Line

If you're looking for a chip that can chew through a wide range of both threaded workloads and still handle gaming adeptly, Ryzen 7 3800X is the better pick of the two. AMD's octa-core offers cutting-edge features, like PCIe 4.0 support, and delivers exceptional performance in multi-core workloads. If you're looking for a processor for work, the Ryzen 7 3800X is hard to pass by. Ultimately, the Ryzen 7 3800X's biggest competitor comes from within AMD's own stable: The Ryzen 7 3700X is a very capable processor that brings the lion's share of the 3800X's performance, but at a lower price point. Keep that in mind at checkout. 

The Core i7-9700K has two things going for it: The processor really shines in gaming and is a fun to overclock. We don't expect anyone to pick up a Core i7-9700K just to play games, so gaming performance ultimately takes the backseat. At stock settings, the Core i7-9700K is not even close to catching the Ryzen 7 3800X in multi-core workloads. The chip, when overclocked to 5.1 GHz, closes the performance gap in some situations. However, neither we or Intel can guarantee that every sample can hit that frequency.

Meanwhile, if you're looking for more general recommendations, check out our guide on how to buy a CPU.  

Overall Winner: AMD

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Test System and Configuration

Update (11/30/2019): This deal is sold out. Please check out our Cyber Monday Ryzen deals page or Cyber Monday CPU deals page for current AMD and Intel processor sales.

Without a new architecture or improved processor node on its near-term horizon, the only real way Intel can stay competitive with AMD at this point is on price. And at just $299 at Best Buy, Intel’s eight-core i7-9700K is a sweet early Black Friday CPU deal that’s tough to ignore. 

This CPU is still our pick for the best gaming CPU, and Best Buy is selling it for about $20 less than any previous price we see on PCParkPicker. If you’re gaming at high resolutions, your CPU doesn’t matter as much. But at 1080p, this chip delivers the best frame rates we tested to date. That makes it a good fit in particular if you have a high-refresh monitor and you’re looking to squeeze every frame possible from your graphics card.

 Note that the Core i7-9700K lacks hyperthreading, so the eight physical cores here are all that’s available for multitasking. So if you do a lot of video editing or other highly threaded tasks along with gaming, something like an AMD Ryzen 3600 (with six cores and 12 threads) might be a better bet. But if gaming is your primary concern, this is the best CPU you can buy --at the lowest price we’ve seen yet. 

Intel's powerful Core i9 family recently displaced Core i7 as the company's mainstream desktop flagship. Mainstream is relative, though. The Intel Core i9-9900K sells for more than $500, requires a high-end cooler, a beefy motherboard, and really needs to be paired with lots of fast memory. It's prohibitively expensive for all but the most affluent enthusiasts.

Core i7-9700K, on the other hand, lands right where we expect to find any other high-end, unlocked, Core i7 CPU. It even boasts a number of improvements compared to the previous generation. Like Intel's Core i9-9900K, the i7-9700K includes eight physical cores. However, it doesn't benefit from Hyper-Threading. That doesn't bother us much. After all, some software performs notably better on physical cores rather than logical ones, and the two-core increase compared to the Intel Core i7-8700K largely offsets the loss of Intel's simultaneous multi-threading technology.

Given the Core i7-9700K's lofty peak frequencies, improved multi-core Turbo Boost ratios, eight-core configuration, and solder-based thermal interface material that improves heat transfer and overclocking, Intel's latest Core i7 is an all-around winner and, at publication time, tops our list of the best gaming CPUs. However, AMD has intervened in the following months, releasing a new lineup of ultra-competitive Ryzen 3000 chips, with the Ryzen 5 3700X taking the helm as the best value-focused chip in this price range. 

Pricing is a bit of a problem, though. The Core i7-9700K sells for $385 if you can find one available at Intel's suggested retail price. Meanwhile the competing AMD Ryzen 7 2700X retails for $329. The Ryzen also comes bundled with a capable cooler, whereas Intel makes you pay for a high-end thermal solution. The Core i7-9700K is faster than Ryzen in games, no doubt. But budget-limited builders might go the Ryzen route in order to afford a faster graphics card. And AMD's CPU still holds the advantage in some threaded application workloads.

For the enthusiasts among us who have some breathing room in their budgets, Core i7-9700K is a much smarter choice for gaming than the pricey Core i9-9900K, serving up similar performance at a significantly lower price.

Intel Core i7-9700K

The $385 Core i7-9700K lands between the $500+ Core i9-9900K and the $263 Core i5-9600K in Intel's line-up. Like all new K-series processors, the -9700K is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ process. It includes an integrated UHD 630 graphics engine, sports unlocked ratio multipliers for easy overclocking, and supports dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory. Intel also responded to increasing RAM density by doubling memory capacity support up to 128GB. The -9700K also includes in-silicon mitigations for the Meltdown and L1TF (Foreshadow) vulnerabilities.

Previously, Intel's Core i7 series included Hyper-Threading technology, allowing four- and six-core models to execute eight or 12 CPU threads simultaneously. Intel axes Hyper-Threading from the 95W Core i7-9700K, though. The company instead gives you an extra two cores. Assuming a 15-20% uptick from HTT under ideal conditions, we'd hypothesize that an 8C/8T -9700K should be faster than the 6C/12T -8700K in most workloads. Then again, we already have the benchmark results to back our supposition.

The Core i7-9700K includes 12MB of L3 cache, just like Intel's Core i7-8700K. But given a higher core count, that actually adds up to less cache per core than Intel's previous designs. Unfortunately, the company deliberately disabled on-die SRAM to keep Core i7-9700K from coming too close to Core i9-9900K's performance.

Core i7-9700K's solder-based thermal interface material (STIM) improves heat transfer between Intel's die and heat spreader, facilitating headroom for two more cores without violating a 95W envelope at base clock speeds. Intel does cap its Core i7-9700K at a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, which is 100 MHz less than Core i7-8700K's base clock rate. But when you consider that the company enables higher Turbo Boost frequencies across the board, all while adding those extra cores, it's hard not to be impressed.

Just bear in mind that a 95W ceiling doesn't apply to Turbo Boost clock rates. Even in its stock configuration, Core i7-9700K begs for at least a 130W cooler. The eight-core die hides beneath the same heat spreader used on previous-gen six-core models. So, even with the STIM, thermal density presents challenges. If you plan on overclocking, open- or closed-loop liquid cooling is preferred. A beefy heat sink/fan combination won't give you much headroom (though it should be fine for stock operation, unlike Intel's Core i9-9900K).

Core i7-9700K drops into existing 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update, though Intel's partners also have a slew of Z390-based motherboards available. And whereas Core i9-9900K does require a top-of-the-line PSU for optimal performance, Core i7-9700K is a bit more forgiving.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Benchmark Hierarchy

MORE: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs Intel Core i7-9700K: Which CPU Is Better?

Power Consumption

Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky. But as long as your 12V supply (EPS) readings, motherboard power supply sensor values, and voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we're using pure package power to avoid possible influences from our motherboard. Results from the PWM controller are very reliable if you take them as averages over a few minutes.

We conducted this round of limited testing in our U.S. lab, and our results are not directly comparable with numbers from the Germany lab used in previous reviews.

Core i7-9700K doesn't use as much power as the Core i9-9900K. It even draws less power overclocked than a stock Core i9-9900K in both non-AVX and AVX stress tests. Bear in mind that the overclocked Core i7-9700K and i9-9900K CPUs employ AVX offsets that step down to 4.8 GHz during our Prime95 stress test.

We did notice some errant power results from our Ryzen samples, possibly due to the motherboard's sensor loop. Until we determine the cause, we're withholding Ryzen power numbers. As you can see from our previous testing, AMD's Ryzen family generally uses a lot less power than Intel's comparable models.

Overclocking

We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i7-9700K sample. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.1 GHz overclock with a 1.345V Vcore and an Auto Load Line Calibration setting. It kept the chip at 70-74°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did lead to failed stress tests, even though there was thermal headroom to spare. To circumvent that issue, we set the AVX offset to -3, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.1 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 88-91°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

According to Silicon Lottery's latest statistics, 28% of Core i7-9700Ks the company tested can reach 5.1 GHz or greater (though it only uses a -2 AVX offset and a higher 1.362V Vcore setting). As of 10/28/18, Silicon Lottery reports that all Core i7-9700Ks it tested can maintain 4.9 GHz or greater. Expect similar results from your sample, provided you score a nice chip.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board sells for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

MSI's motherboard imposes a 100.8 MHz base clock. Its extra 0.8 MHz serves to push overclocks even harder, though our motherboard review team would probably call it cheating. Consequently, our 5.1 GHz overclock is actually 5.14 GHz. Stock frequencies aren't spared, and there is no way to adjust the BCLK down to remove MSI's self-awarded advantage. Meanwhile, we are waiting on a solution from MSI that should allow us to dial in an exact 100 MHz BCLK.

It's also noteworthy that AMD has launched its Ryzen 3000-series processors. The updated Ryzen line-up employs a smaller 7nm process that should confer power and price benefits. It'll also wield the new Zen 2 microarchitecture, which is expected to boost performance while Intel remains mired in a derivative of the seven-year-old Skylake design. These chips have now taken our Best CPUs list by storm, so be sure to head there for a list of the latest leading processors.

The MSI MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors. It also comes with a few nifty accessories like an M.2 PCIe riser card and an HDMI streaming card.

Comparison Products

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Core i7-9700K's eight physical cores can't keep up with Ryzen 7 2700X during the DX12 and DX11 CPU benchmarks. Even overclocked to 5.1 GHz, Intel's chip lands behind the 4.2 GHz Ryzen.

In the DX12 test, Core i7-9700K offers a nice step forward from its predecessor, the Core i7-8700K. That's despite losing Hyper-Threading Technology. As we can see, though, Ryzen's implementation of simultaneous multi-threading serves up a bit more performance.

UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS. Core i7-9700K posts a surprisingly strong frame rate, beating the overclocked -9900K. Our interpretation is that this benchmark runs best on physical cores, rather than getting split off onto logical processors.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. The stock -9700K and Ryzen 7 2700X essentially tie during the test, with the latter offering a slightly better 99th percentile score. As expected, given the i7-9700K's much higher overclocking headroom, Intel's processor pulls ahead after tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

The Ryzen processors trail due to their lower per-core performance, determined by instruction-per-clock (IPC) throughput and frequency. Intel's Coffee Lake microarchitecture already dominates in comparisons of IPC, but bolstering it with higher clock rates extends the design's lead.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Core i7-9700K leads in this test as well, which typically favors physical cores over simultaneous multi-threading.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the Warhammer 40,000 benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading.

Intel's careful excision of Hyper-Threading, along with the addition of two extra cores and higher clock rates, gives Core i7-9700K an advantage over its predecessor. But once we overclock both CPUs, the difference between them is imperceptible.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5

There is almost no difference between Intel's flagship Core i9 and the two i7s in our test pool. Upgrading from a Core i7-8700K to the -9700K won't provide much speed-up in most games.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

Core i7-9700K establishes a sizable lead over AMD's fastest processors, but we're not surprised in light of this game's penchant for Intel architectures.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Intel's Core i7-9700K tops the chart in Hitman thanks to an aggressive 5.1 GHz overclock. Interestingly, the -9700K also lands ahead of Core i9-9900K at its stock settings.

The Core i5-9600K is a real winner in its default configuration, too. And that's before we take overclocking into account.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see much difference between the fastest and slowest CPUs. We test at 1920x1080. But at a high enough resolution, most games are limited by your GPU. Plan accordingly if you're running into a bottleneck.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends, but HTT clearly helps push the Core i9-9900K out ahead of the i7-9700K.

Again, Core i7-8700K offers similar performance as the newer -9700K.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

Core i7-9700K challenges the i9-9900K across our Creative Cloud suite, essentially tying Intel's "mainstream" flagship in the overall index and carving out an impressive lead after overclocking. A combination of Intel's per-core performance advantage and eight real execution cores drives results we wouldn't have imagined a couple of generations ago.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most browser-based benchmarks, single-threaded performance reigns supreme. These tests expose the trade-offs you make for an all-core overclock, particularly with the second-gen Ryzen processors.

Core i7-9700K is impressive even at its stock settings, mostly matching the i9-9900K. Intel's flagship does eke out a win in the Motion Mark test, which is a measure of how effectively the CPU can push the graphics subsystem.

Overclocking turns the tables though, and Core i7-9700K dominates at its 5.1 GHz clock rate.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Single-core performance drives responsiveness in most applications, so Intel's processors stack up in the expected hierarchy based on their frequencies.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload responds well to available resources, so AMD's Ryzen family pops back up near the top of our chart. Core i7-9700K trails the Ryzen 5 slightly, but overclocking helps get it above Ryzen 7 2700X.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so the eight-core CPUs from Intel and AMD lead the field. Still, AMD's SMT-equipped Ryzen 7 2700X sets itself apart from Core i7-9700K. Even after tuning, Intel's top-end Core i7 lags the Ryzen chip.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X shows the value of eight cores armed with simultaneous multi-threading technology through our parallelized rendering workloads. The Ryzen CPU comes out ahead in the Cinebench, LuxRender, and Blender benchmarks.

Meanwhile, Core i7-9700K trails AMD, but does offer a slight step up over the previous-gen -8700K in stock form. After overclocking, Core i7-8700K surprisingly beats the -9700K in our Corona and LuxRender tests. 

Single-threaded workloads, rendering or otherwise, continue to be dominated by Intel's capable architectures.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a lightly-threaded workload. No surprise: an overclocked Core i7-9700K leads convincingly.

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 7 2700X is competitive in the compression test, but really shines through our decompression task.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test for measuring the effect of AVX instructions. We dialed back the Core i7-9700K's all-core AVX frequency to 4.8 GHz after overclocking, so its single-core y-cruncher score at stock settings is faster than the tuned configuration. That's a result of the 4.9 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin.

Core i7-9700K beats the Ryzen 7 2700X during our HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions. Meanwhile, the 2700X is more competitive in our H.264 benchmark. Notice that the tuned -9700K outpaces Intel's stock configuration, despite our 4.8 GHz AVX offset. That's because the stock setup drops to an all-core 4.6 GHz under full utilization.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel’s decision to arm its Core i7 line-up with eight cores makes sense, given a new eight-core, 16-thread Core i9-9900K flagship. But of course, the company had to pare its Core i7-9700K back to keep it from nipping at the i9-9900K's heels. Gone is Hyper-Threading, along with a bit of L3 cache. Nevertheless, two extra cores, higher Turbo Boost frequencies, and solder-based thermal interface material all combine to facilitate better performance in lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads compared to Core i7-8700K.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. Bear in mind that we tested with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080 to alleviate graphics-imposed bottlenecks. Differences between our test subjects would shrink at higher resolutions.

As you can see, Core i7-9700K and Core i9-9900K are very similar when it comes to gaming. You certainly wouldn’t notice a difference between them in the real world at 2560x1440 or 3840x2160. Intel's Core i7-9700K certainly has enough horsepower to push the fastest graphics cards available. Saving a bit of money by skipping the -9900K, the expensive motherboard you need to drop it on, and super high-end cooling should help fund a better graphics card.

Intel’s Kaby Lake and first-gen Coffee Lake processors excelled in gaming benchmarks and lightly-threaded application workloads due to compelling per-core performance. But the arrival of AMD's Ryzen forced Intel to reconsider its strategy. Ryzen’s big core counts and inclusion of simultaneous multi-threading translated into substantial advantages in parallelized tasks. Today, Core i7-9700K's eight cores and aggressive Turbo Boost frequencies narrow the gap. Ryzen 7 2700X is still a great CPU for heavily-threaded applications, but its lead isn't as large. Moreover, the -9700K maintains a commanding lead in single-threaded apps, making it a well-rounded performer.

The Core i7-9700K’s extra on-die resources and higher multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies are enabled by Intel's solder-based thermal interface material. This STIM also helps relax the chip's cooling requirements, making it possible for a heat sink and fan to handle stock operation. High-end closed-loop liquid coolers should provide enough headroom for most overclocking efforts. And unlike Core i9-9900K, you don't need to sink big bucks into a premium power supply.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X remains competitive, particularly in measures of performance per dollar (value). Core i7-9700K is faster in games, but again, the 2700X should provide a similar experience if you match it up to a mid-range graphics card or run at the high resolutions that bottleneck even top-end GPUs. Ryzen 7 2700X is also attractive for builders with limited budgets, who want to spend the money they save on a gaming card on the higher-end of the GPU hierarchy.

Core i7-9700K doesn’t warrant an upgrade if you already own an -8700K or even -7700K. But if you're building a new PC, there's no reason to compromise by seeking out the older Core i7-8700K. To be sure, Intel's Core i7-9700K is the new mainstream performance leader for enthusiasts with money to spare. If heavily-threaded productivity applications are commonplace on your desktop, there might be reason to invest in Core i9-9900K. Otherwise, avid gamers and overclockers will find Core i7-9700K to be a well-balanced chip that doesn’t disappoint.  

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

In yet another sign of the mounting pressure from AMD's Ryzen 3000-series chips, the company announced today that it would drop the pricing of its graphics-less F-series chips up to 20%, marking the first time the company has reduced pricing on existing chips in recent memory.

Intel's F-Series chips come with disabled internal graphics due to manufacturing defects that would normally render the chips unusable. The F-Series chips arrived with no formal announcement from the company in December 2018 as the company was mired in the throes of its continuing shortage of 14nm production capacity. At the time of release, the chips came with absolutely no discount over their full-featured counterparts. 

Selling these chips allowed for the company to boost production, though the company never formally announced that the chips would remain a part of its strategy. As part of today's announcement, the company also said it would add F-Series chips to its long-term roadmaps, meaning enthusiasts will have budget options in the next generations of Intel's processors. 

Integrated graphics do come in handy for QuickSync, troubleshooting, or if your graphics card fails, but under most conditions, the disabled graphics unit doesn't have an impact. As we've seen in our own testing, these chips offer the same levels of performance as their fully-equipped counterparts, simply because they feature the same architecture and 14nm process.

The price cuts impact both the unlocked "KF" and locked "F" models. For reference, this is the first time we've seen the far right column used in Intel's pricing guide.

Although the F-series chips officially sported the same recommended prices as Intel's fully-functional models, they've been a little cheaper in practice. Those savings have normally fallen in the $20 range. It's hard to tell if Intel's reduction in official pricing will result in further savings at retail, but it's logical to expect retail pricing to drop further.

Intel's response to AMD's Ryzen onslaught has typically been sluggish, largely because the company hasn't resorted to cutting prices on existing models. Instead, the company has slowly added more cores to its processor families with the release of new models, with those increased core counts equating to lower per-core pricing. The company has also added more features to some of its chips, like exposing more PCIe lanes for the downstream models. These price cuts seem to mirror a DigiTimes report earlier this year, though the cuts didn't include all of the 9th-gen models. In either case, it's encouraging to see Intel try a more direct pricing tactic to improve its value proposition.

The price cuts are effective today for Intel's 9th-generation F-Series processors that are already in the market.

Zotac today announced the release of two updated versions of its Mek Mini compact PC, the GM206SC5R0B with an Intel Core i5-9400F CPU and Zotac Gaming GeForce RTX 2060 Super graphics card and the GM207SC7R0B with an i7-9700K and Zotac Gaming GeForce RTX 2070 Super. Both builds fit the now familiar 10.27 x 5.35 x 10.19-inch (260.8 x 136 x 258.8mm) Mek Mini micro-tower chassis and rely on two external power bricks (2x 230W for the Core i5 and 2x 330W for the Core i7 models).

We don't have any word on pricing or availability yet, but considering that these are current models, the first answer should be “soon.” Current pricing on the previous (non-Super) Core i5/RTX model is $1,300, so align your expectations accordingly. Bundled versions with keyboard and mouse will be available at additional cost.

Newegg's latest sale, timed with Amazon Prime Day, has brought some of our favorite processors to all-time low prices.

• Get Intel Core i7-9700K for $349.99
• Get AMD Ryzen 7 2700 for $149.99

The Intel Core i7-9700K, our favorite gaming CPU, is $349.99. It offers excellent gaming performance, solder TIM for imrpoved thermal transfer and strong single-threaded performance.

The Ryzen 7 2700 is $149.99, or 50% off of MSRP. It's a great price for a last-gen processor that works with a wide variety of motherboards with AM4 sockets. It comes with an Wraith Spire LED cooler as well.

For more savings, check out our list of best Amazon Prime Day deals and best pc hardware deals overall as well as dedicated lists of current sales on ssds, cpus, gpus, gaming laptops and Raspberry Pi stuff.

Both AMD and Intel have compelling consumer CPU platforms. In a previous article, we compared AMD’s second-generation Ryzen against Intel’s new 9th generation Core processors to see which platform deserves to capture your hard-earned money. Looking at the company lineups as a whole, we concluded that the Intel Core i9-9900K is the fastest consumer-class CPU available for almost anything, although the CPU Benchmarks hierarchy has changed quite a bit since then. 

However, many people—even enthusiast gamers—can’t justify spending $499 (£432.59) on their processor. Presumably, most people shopping for a higher-end consumer CPU would be more inclined to consider a less-expensive option than a Core i9-9900K, like Intel’s Core i7-9700K or AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X.

To help you choose, we put the two popular processors through a seven-round face-off, based on their features, overclocking, coolers, motherboards, performance and value.

Features

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is an eight-core 16-thread 3.7GHz processor, with a top stock Precision Boost speed of 4.3GHz and a 105W TDP. It is AMD’s top-of-the-line Ryzen processor -- at least until the Ryzen 3000 CPUs arrive with a new Zen 2 architecture, reportedly later in 2019.

AMD’s second-generations Zen architecture features support for DDR4-2933 memory, whereas first-generation Ryzen platform officially supports DDR4-2667. The new architecture also includes improvements to AMD’s SensMI suite, which dynamically adjusts the performance of the CPU to ensure maximum performance efficiency.

SenseMI consists of five components: Pure Power monitors temperatures, voltages and currents, and adjusts the power delivery in real time to limit power usage; Precision Boost dynamically adjusts the CPU’s frequency in 25MHz increments to match the performance needs of the current task; XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) works with Precision Boost to unlock a higher clock ceiling if ample cooling is detected.

The Ryzen 7 2700X features AMD’s second-generation Precision Boost 2, which can address core clocks individually, and it includes XFR2 technology, which now unlocks up to 7 percent more headroom.

After trailing AMD's eight-core 16-thread Ryzen CPUs in core count for a couple of generations, Intel gave its Core i7 and Core i9 9th generation CPUs the same eight physical cores. Unfortunately, the new Core i7-9700K doesn't support Hyper-threading (that technology went to the new i9-9900K only), which means that it has half as many threads as its AMD competitor.

The Core i7-9700K features a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, which can reach a boost clock of 4.9GHz in single threaded applications, 4.8GHz across two cores, or 4.7GHz across four cores, and 4.6GHz on all eight cores. Intel’s 9th Generation Core architecture supports DDR4-2666 memory speeds, which is somewhat lower than the new Ryzen platform. Although, you should have no trouble running much faster memory. We ran DDR4-3466 for our i7-9700K review.

Intel’s 9th generation Core processors now also feature solder-based thermal interface material (STIM), which in theory should improve heat dissipation. The improved thermal interface doesn’t enable much extra headroom for overclocking, but it allowed Intel to add two extra cores without deploying a smaller manufacturing process. These new chips are built on the same 14nm++ manufacturing process as the 8th generation CPUs.

Winner: AMD. In a matchup between the Core i7-9700K and the Ryzen 7 2700X, we have to give AMD the slight edge because both platforms offer dynamic core clock adjustments, but Ryzen features eight cores and 16 threads, whereas Intel’s i7 doesn’t offer thread doubling like AMD.

Motherboard Options

Intel’s 9th generation Core processors share the Intel 300-Series chipsets with the 8th generation processors, which means you have several possible motherboard options to pair with a Core i7-9700K.

Intel’s H310 is the company’s budget-class 300-series chipset. It technically supports the top-tier Core i9-9900K, but it forgoes features such as Optane memory support, PCIe 3.0, and more than two DIMMs for memory to keep the costs down. The Intel B360 (and iterative B365), H370 and Q370 chipsets offer varying features for different situations, but you shouldn’t even consider those options with the Core i7-9700K, because none of them let you overclock.

Intel doesn’t allow you to overclock your processor unless you have a motherboard equipped with one of Intel’s top-tier Z-series chipsets. The Z370 (with the latest BIOS installed) supports the new Core i7-9700K, but the new Z390 chipset offers additional features such as native USB 3.1 Gen2 ports and integrated Wireless-AC 2x2 160 MHz WiFi hardware.

AMD also offers a wide selection of chipset options for different use cases. The A300 and A330 chipsets are meant for budget-minded consumers who require just the bare minimum. The B350 and B450 chipsets are performance-oriented options that don’t support multi-GPU configurations. And the X370 and X470 are the high-performance options with all the bells and whistles, including support for dual-graphics card configurations.

AMD doesn’t limit overclocking to the top-of-the-line hardware, though. Every Ryzen processor comes unlocked from the factory, and you can overclock them with any motherboard with any chipset, save the lowest-end A320. However, we wouldn’t expect to see the same kind of performance gains as you would with an enthusiast-grade X470 motherboard.

Winner: AMD offers the better platform for motherboard choice. Intel’s options are restrictive and somewhat elitist, which arbitrarily raises the entry costs for Intel-based setups.

MORE: AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel 9th Gen Core: Which CPU Deserves Your Money?

MORE: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 vs. Intel Skylake-X: Battle of the High-End CPUs

Overclocking Potential

Intel and AMD both support overclocking, but each company has a different philosophy about the practice. All AMD Ryzen processors come unlocked from the factory, which means you can take the cheapest Ryzen CPU and push it to new limits. Intel, on the other hand, restricts overclocking to the expensive K-variants of its CPU lineup.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X features a base frequency of 3.7 GHz, and we managed to get another 500MHz out of our sample before hitting the voltage limitations. Intel’s Core i7-9700K starts at a lower base frequency of 3.6GHz, but it’s not uncommon to hit 5GHz or more on all eight cores.

More importantly, overclocking an Intel CPU nets a substantial performance increase in most tasks, whereas overclocking a Ryzen CPU doesn't offer much in the way of noticeable performance gains because AMD's Precision Boost 2 technology already dynamically pushes the CPU to its performance limits, provided you have a capable motherboard and cooler. 

Winner: Intel. With higher maximum clock speeds and more performance gains, an Intel Core i7-9700K offers better overlocking potential.

Cooling Solutions

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X includes the company’s top-of-the-line “AMD Wraith Prism cooler, which features four copper heat pipes and a downward firing fan. The Wraith Prism also offers two modes; “L” mode is rated for 116w and operates at 2,800 rpm, and “H” mode can dissipate 124w of heat and operates at 3,600 rpm. And for the RGB fans out there, the Wraith Prism also features three RGB zones which you can control independently.

The Wraith Prism isn’t the most powerful cooler available, but it certainly gets the job done. In our tests, the cooler kept all eight cores of the Ryzen 7 2700X below 83 degrees Celsius even under our most extreme load tests. Most workloads don’t push your CPU to its limits like our stress tests, so you would likely see somewhat lower average temperatures. You could even manage a moderate overclock on the stock cooler.

However, the Wraith Prism’s performance comes at the expense of sound. AMD said the cooler should produce approximately 39dB of noise, which is true at idle. But under full load, we recorded 44dB coming from the bundled heat sink solution.

The extra noise that the Wraith Prism produces isn’t enough to knock it off the podium in this matchup, though. Intel doesn’t even offer a stock cooler for the Core i7-9700K, which means you must factor in the cost of a cooler when budgeting.

Winner: AMD, without question. Although, you should consider an aftermarket cooler if you wish to overclock your CPU to its fullest.

Gaming Performance

If raw gaming performance is what you’re after, the choice is abundantly clear: Intel’s Core i7-9700K tramples the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X in almost every game we tested. And in several cases, the i7 with stock clock speeds outpaced our overclocked Ryzen 7.

We previously named the Core i9-9900K the fastest gaming CPU we’ve ever tested. But the Core i7-9700K provided essentially the same performance in our latest round of gaming performance tests. The new i7 squeezed out an extra frame or two per seconds in Hitman, Grand Theft Auto V and Civilization V.Project Cars 2 and Ashes of the Singularity are the only games in our test suite that favor the i9’s extra logical threads.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is no slouch when it comes to gaming performance, but the Ryzen CPU doesn’t compete on the same level as Intel’s latest offerings. In fact, Intel’s Core i5-9600K often outperforms the Ryzen 7 2700X in our game lineup.

That said, the Ryzen 7 2700X still falls within the upper range of the best gaming CPUs that we’ve tested over the years. And keep in mind that once you start raising your gaming resolutions above 1080p resolution, these performance difference tend to shrink as the GPU becomes the bottleneck. When gaming at 4K resolution with the same high-end graphics card, frame rates between the Intel and AMD CPUs here tends to be about the same.

Winner: Intel. Intel’s Core i7-9700K is the best overall gaming CPU. The i9-9900K may outperform it in some cases, but the extra costs overshadow the small performance delta. AMD’s CPUs aren't as competitive at the highest level of gaming performance.

Productivity Performance

The battle between Intel’s Core i7-9700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X gets much more interesting when you factor productivity into the equation. AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is better at certain tasks, such as rendering with Cinebench and Blender and compressing files with 7-Zip. However, some tasks, such as encoding with Lame or Handbrake, run faster on Intel’s Core i7-9700K.

Intel’s latest CPUs also favor Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite by a considerable margin.

Winner: Tie. Both Intel’s Core i7-9700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X offer ample performance for day-to-day productivity work. AMD's higher number of threads give it in the advantage in some applications, while Intel's higher clock speeds help in others.

Value Proposition

While its true that Intel’s Core i7-9700K offers more raw performance than AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X, AMD’s chip offers the better value overall because of its dramatically lower price. When you factor in the cost of a motherboard and cooler, a PC based on Intel’s Core i7-9700K can easily cost $130 more than a system equipped with an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($329/£299.99). For most consumers, the extra performance you get with the i7-9700K isn't worth the money.

Intel’s Core i7-9700K currently carries an MSRP of $385 (if you can find one), but these chips are in short supply and are currently selling for closer to $420 (£499 in the UK) and you need a Z370 or Z390 motherboard to go with it to unlock the CPU’s true potential.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is much cheaper, and these CPUs have been available for a while, so you shouldn’t have trouble getting one at a reasonable price. At press time, we found the 2700X selling for as low as $295 in the U.S. and £295.99 in the UK. What’s more, AMD’s decision to enable overclocking on most chipsets means that you can pick up a compatible motherboard for well under $100, or £80. We even found a couple of B350 boards for under $60 in the U.S. and under £50 in the UK. You can expect to pay $100 and up for a Z370 motherboard in the U.S. and usually more than £90 in the UK.

Winner: AMD. The Ryzen 7 2700X offers much better performance for the money, especially when you factor in the cost of a cooler and motherboard.

The Bottom Line

Intel’s Core i7-9700K excels in two areas that AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X can’t touch: raw gaming performance in games and overclocking potential. If you’re after the absolute highest frame rates in your games, then the choice is clear: The i7-9700K is stronger in most games than a Ryzen 7 2700X. And if eking out the most performance by overclocking is important, you should stick with Intel's platform.

However, Intel’s hardware comes with a hefty price premium. Not only is the CPU quite a bit more expensive than AMD’s option, the Z370 and Z390 motherboards that you need for overclocking are also costlier than AMD’s alternatives. And to top it off, you also need an aftermarket cooler for the i7 processor, which widens the price gap even further. And, as of this writing, Intel’s new processors are in short supply, so if you manage to find one, you’ll probably pay significantly more than the MSRP for it.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X is a much more reasonable option for most people. With its eight cores and 16 threads, it should have no trouble crunching through any task you throw at it, including video rendering, audio encoding, image editing, file compression and modern gaming. Intel’s chip is faster in some tasks, but we’d rather run AMD’s platform and spend the extra $100 (£80) or more on other components than brag about a few extra FPS in our favorite games.

Overall Winner: AMD

While AMD's current flagship Ryzen chip definitively wins this battle, those who don't need to build or buy a new system now might want to wait and see what both Intel and AMD have up their respective silicon sleeves later in 2019. To get caught up on the next round of the seemingly unending CPU battle, check out the following features:

Intel Comet Lake CPUs: Rumors, Release Date, All We Know

AMD Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs: Rumors, Release Date, All We Know About Ryzen 3

MORE:AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?

MORE: AMD vs. Intel: Which PC Build is Better for Under $500

MORE: CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

Update 1/13/2019: Added pricing information. We have in-depth coverage of pricing here. 

Original article:

Intel held its CES 2019 keynote here in Las Vegas and announced that it would soon release new 9th-Generation processors that span from the Core i3 to the Core i9 families. Curiously, the company didn't announce the models or specifications during its keynote.

The company's post-keynote press release lists the new Core i5-9400, and shortly thereafter, we found the new Intel Core i9-9900KF, Core i7-9700KF, Core i5-9600KF, Core i5-9400F, and Core i3-9350KF listed on the company's official site.

These processors surfaced in listings at Norwegian and Finnish retailers in late December, tipping us off that Intel had a new line of 9th-Gen Core products coming to market. Several of these new models lack the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 iGPU, as denoted by an "F" suffix on the product name. The Core i5-9400 stands as the only new locked model. These chips come packing the same 14nm process and Coffee Lake microarchitecture as their other 9th-Generation counterparts.

The incredibly complex chip manufacturing process isn't perfect, so many processors come off the production line with defects. Intel can simply disable cores on a chip, instead selling it as a lower-end model, if a defect lands in a core. It stands to reason, then, that selling chips without integrated graphics would allow Intel to sell chips with defects in the graphics units. That would certainly help as Intel grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity. It is unlikely that these new chips come with a die that lacks integrated graphics, largely due to the expense of designing and fabricating an entirely new die. We've reached out to Intel for more information.

Deactivating the GPU has other benefits, too. The disabled unit could also serve as 'dark silicon,' which is unused silicon that absorbs heat from surrounding chip structures, thus improving thermal performance. That could open up more headroom for longer boost duration or higher overclocking capability. Or, more likely, it will allow enthusiasts to buy a new chip without integrated graphics at a lower price point than the full-featured models.

Aside from the $182 Core i5-9400F, Intel's newest listings do not include pricing, so we'll have to wait until the products come to retail to learn if there is a price reduction associated with the removal of the integrated graphics units. Aside from the deactivated (or removed) graphics units, the Core i9-990KF, i9-9700KF, and i5-9600KF all feature the same core counts, threads, base and boost frequencies, TDPs, and cache allocations of the existing "non-F" models.

Intel also brought its new Core i5-9400 to bear. This new processor features six cores and threads and operates at a 2.9 GHz base frequency that jumps up to 4.1 GHz on a single core. Unlike the "F" models, this processor comes with the integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine. It also features a 65W TDP, meaning this processor serves as the replacement for the popular Core i5-8400, but it comes with an extra 100 MHz of base and boost clock overhead. This model, as identified by the lack of a "K" suffix, isn't overclockable. The Core i5-9400F is identical but lacks integrated graphics.

The Core i3-9350K comes with four cores and threads. This processor operates at a 4.0 GHz base clock rate and boosts to 4.6 GHz on a single core. Aside from the lack of integrated graphics, this chip differs from the others with its lower DDR4-2400 support, but relatively high 91W TDP. This chip obviously fills the role of the previous-gen Core i3-8350K, but it appears that Intel has no plans to launch an equivalent with integrated graphics.

The Core i3-8100F slots in at the bottom of the stack with four cores and threads, a static 3.6 GHz frequency, and 6MB of L3 cache.

Intel lists the processors as available in the first quarter of 2019 but hasn't provided a firm release date.

Recent rumors claim that Intel is planning to expand its 9th-generation family of Intel Core processors with up to six new chips that lack the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 (GT2) iGPU, as denoted by an "F" suffix on the product name.

Now major Norwegian and Finnish computer hardware retailers have listed four unannounced Intel 9th-generation Coffee Lake Refresh processors: The Intel Core i9-9900KF, Core i7-9700KF, Core i5-9600KF, and Core i5-9400F.

The Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K, Core i3-9350K, and Core i5-9400 have purportedly been chosen to receive the treatment.

It's not unusual to find an Intel HEDT (High End Desktop) or Xeon processor without integrated graphics. The reasoning being that if a consumer has the budget to pick up one of those chips, they would probably pair it with a discrete graphics card. However, it's pretty rare to see a mainstream Intel processor that doesn't have onboard graphics. The last time Intel released a chip of this class without integrated graphics was back in the good old Sandy Bridge days with the Intel Core i5-2550K. That chip didn't have an iGPU and was 100MHz faster than the Intel Core i5-2500K. However, the processor never caught on, and Intel stopped the practice.

The incredibly complex chip manufacturing process isn't perfect, so many processors come off the production line with defects. Intel can simply disable cores on a chip, instead selling it as a lower-end model, if a defect lands in a core. It stands to reason, then, that selling chips without integrated graphics would allow Intel to sell chips with defects in the graphics units. That would certainly help as Intel grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity. It is unlikely that these new chips come with a die that lacks integrated graphics, largely due to the expense of designing and fabricating an entirely new die.

Deactivating the GPU has other benefits, too. Like the other units on a chip, the integrated graphics unit consumes power, and thus produces heat. The disabled unit could also serve as 'dark silicon,' which is unused silicon that absorbs heat from surrounding chip structures, thus improving thermal performance. That could open up more headroom for higher boost clocks, longer boost duration, or overclocking capability. 

The list prices are likely placeholders, so you should take them with a grain of salt. According to the Norwegian retailer, the Core i5-9400F could go for $255.15. The Core i5-9600KF, on the other hand, can possibly cost between $188.34 to $355.70, while the Core i7-9700KF is expected to have a $528.17 price tag. The Core i9-9900KF could set you back anywhere from $511.26 to $684.07.

Both retailers expect to have the new processors in stock by January 3, 2019 which could mean that Intel will announce the chips in a couple of weeks.

Spanish media outlet El Chapuzas Informático today published a review of the upcoming Intel Core i7-9700K octa-core processor, detailing reported performance results. The review is a first of its kind and should be taken with a grain of salt as it it was published before Intel has even announced an official release date for the new processor.

El Chapuzas Informático looks to confirm what we expected all along. Its Intel Core i7-9700K is an eight-core processor that lacks Hyper-threading capabilities. The chip is clocked at a modest 3.6-GHz base clock, but it's capable of boosting to 4.9 GHz on a single core or 4.6 GHz on all cores. It also has 12MB of L3 cache, 16 PCIe lanes, Intel HD Graphics 630 and a 95W TDP (thermal design power). The Core i7-9700K comes with support for the typical mix of instructions set, such as MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EMT64, VT-x, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3 and TSX. So no surprises there.

The Spanish media paired the Intel Core i7-9700K processor with an unreleased, high-end Z390 motherboard (probably an Asus or MSI, judging by the color and design of the VRM heatsinks and rear I/O cover), a pair of G.Skill TridentZ DDR4 modules at 3,600MHz and an MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming Z graphics card.

As tradition dictates, El Chapuzas Informático began its review with a mix of synthetic benchmarks. The Core i7-9700K came out on top on wPrime's single-threaded test, beating Intel's own i7-8700K and AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X. However, it fell behind the Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X in wPrime's muli-thread test. As a matter of fact, the Core i7-9700K was no match for the Ryzen 7 2700X or even Ryzen 7 1700X in Cinebench 15 or AIDA64's memory test. The processor did manage to edge out the Ryzen 7 2700X in the x264 benchmark; however, the difference was small and within the margin of error. So, it could have been a fluke. 

The Core i7-9700K topped the synthetic graphics benchmarks and real world gaming charts as expected. But to be fair, the Core i7-9700K was only marginally faster than the i7-8700K in gaming; however, it was likely bottlenecked by its GTX 1070 graphics card. El Chapuzas Informático got its engineering sample to 5 GHz on all eight cores by bumping the voltage up to 1.4V. Unfortunately, the Spanish media failed to mention if the processor was completely stable.

We look forward to fully testing Intel's new 9000 series processors when they launch, likely later this fall.

Eurocom, famous for producing heavily engineered laptops, is planning to update its Sky X4C, X7C and X9C laptops to support Intel's upcoming Core i9-9900K processor, 128GB of memory and possibly Turing-based graphics cards.

One of the most common topics that comes up in the laptops versus desktop debate is upgradability. People don't like investing thousands of dollars on a high-performance laptop only to see it become outdated in two or three years. Eurocom has always been a firm believer of providing its customers with products that are upgrade-friendly.

Eurocom's updated Sky X4C, X7C and X9C laptops feature a LGA1151-based socket (just like the one that you would find on a conventional motherboard). As a result, they will support Intel's soon-to-be-released Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K processors based on the Coffee Lake microarchitecture and manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ process. The Intel Core i9-9900K is an octa-core processor with hyper-threading operating with a 3.5GHz base clock and a 5GHz single-core boost clock. According to various internet leaks, the Intel Core i7-9700K is also an octa-core chip but without hyper-threading. It's expected to feature a 3.6GHz base clock and a 4.9GHz boost clock on a single core. Both models will reportedly come with Intel's UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics that functions at 350MHz with a burst frequency in the range of 1.2GHz.

The Sky C line of laptops will also incorporate a second-generation Mobile PCI Express Module (MXM 3) that will allow users to easily swap out the graphics card for one of their choice. Eurocom's newsletter detailing the upcoming laptops makes reference to supporting next-generation Nvidia MXM3 upgradeable GPUs. It's probably not a coincidence that Nvidia announced its GeForce RTX 20 Series of graphics cards on Monday, and Eurocom sent out its newsletter today. But only time will tell if the these modules include 20-series cards, and when they will arrive. 

The Sky X4C is Eurocom's 15.6-inch offering and has capacity for a single graphics card. The company also offers the 17.3-inch Sky X7C for consumers who need more landscape space. And for the hardcore enthusiasts, there's also the 17.3-inch Sky X9C that houses up to two graphics cards in an SLI configuration.

All three models will be available around October 2018, which also suggests that Intel could launch the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K processors around the same time.

It’s a tough time to be a PC builder or gamer. Graphics-card prices are astronomical, RAM sits in a similar celestial orbit, and HTC’s new Vive Pro VR headset will set you back $1,200 if you don’t have an existing set of sensors and accessories for HT's previous-generation headset. If you want to play on the leading edge, or anywhere close to it, it will cost you.

Indeed, from the PC-component perspective, about the only thing working in favor of increased performance and affordability at the moment is the CPU market.

The Lay of the CPU Land

The launch of AMD’s Ryzen chips last year, which brought eight-core CPUs into the mainstream for the first time, was followed later by Intel’s six-core Core i7-8700K. All of a sudden, the number of cores and threads available for your computing dollar was never better.

And that ratio may get better still—AMD’s next-generation Ryzen chips are expected to arrive in April. Leaked reviews of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600 seem to indicate that they are a decent upgrade over the initial Ryzen chips from 2017—especially when it comes to the latency issues that plagued last year’s Ryzen chips in some games.

What’s Intel’s Next CPU Step?

With new Ryzen processors about to roll out, our interest--of course--turns to what Intel will offer up as a response, and as a replacement for chips like the Core i7-8700K. (That key "mainstream flagship" CPU debuted just about six months ago, in early October of 2017.) Let’s take a look at what we know (or at least what we think we know) about the putative Core i7-9700K, and what it will need to compete with AMD’s increasingly tough competition.

Multiple rumors and leaks strongly indicate that the ostensible Core i7-9700K will sport eight CPU cores and 16 threads, in contrast to the six cores and 12 threads on the Core i7-8700K. If this turns out to be true, it will be a first for Intel on a mainstream-grade CPU platform—as opposed to the enthusiast-targeted Core X-Series platform, which goes all the way up to 18 cores (if you can afford to drop a couple of grand on a CPU). But the eight cores on the Core i7-9700K, if that turns out to be accurate, only just matches what AMD has to offer in terms of cores and threads on its mainstream Ryzen CPUs; it doesn’t surpass the competition.

10 Nanometer (or Not)?

Of course, a shift to the long-promised 10nm process node would help Intel move further ahead of AMD without necessarily adding more cores. But that’s looking increasingly unlikely with Intel’s next round of desktop chips. Intel’s Gregory Bryant (senior vice president and general manager of the Client Computing Group) proclaimed at CES 2018, back in January, that 10nm chips were shipping to customers. But documents released weeks later seem to confirm that those 10nm “Cannon Lake” parts that shipped in 2017 were low-power, dual-core parts without integrated graphics. These aren’t the Cannon Lake chips that enthusiasts and gamers are looking for.

In fact, it’s looking likely that the Core i7-9700K will be a so-called “Coffee Lake Refresh” chip built around Intel’s 14nm++ process. Why do we say that? For starters, we have heard persistent rumors and leaks around an upcoming Z390 chipset. Most recently, a listing for "motherboard-specific sensor info for MSI B360/H310/H370/Z390-Series," showed up in a recent AIDA64 update. (AIDA64 is a benchmark and diagnostic suite often used to test pre-release hardware.)

What a Chipset Tells Us

We now know that the other 300-series chipsets mentioned above are real—in fact, we’ve tested a few motherboards based on them. So there’s no reason to think that a Z390 chipset won’t arrive soon—at Computex 2018 in July, perhaps.

Now, the “3” in the Z390 name almost certainly indicates that the chipset is aimed at Coffee Lake CPUs, just like the other 300-series chipsets. What does that tell us? If Intel knew it was going to have 10nm "Cannon Lake" desktop chips ready sometime in 2018, it seems extremely unlikely—though certainly not out of the question—that the company would be launching yet another high-end chipset for its current-generation processors halfway through the year.

If we were placing bets, we’d put our chips (pun intended) on the likelihood that Z390 was designed specifically for a line of Coffee Lake Refresh chips, which would include the Core i7-9700K. Alternately, the Core i7-9700K could be a limited stop-gap between chip generations, just like the pair of "Devil’s Canyon" chips were back in 2014.

Can Intel Push Coffee Lake Higher?

Of course, even assuming all the above leaks and assumptions are true, there is quite a lot we still don’t know about Intel’s future mainstream flagship chip. This wikichip page has a fairly detailed spec list based on existing leaks and rumors. It may prove to be accurate, but it doesn’t say anything about clock speed—base clocks or turbo-boost rates. And if the Core i7-9700K is indeed a Coffee Lake chip that doesn't end up featuring architecture or major process-node changes, clock speed (plus core count) would tell us most of what we’d need to know about the performance of this upcoming chip.

That said, the Core i7-8700K already has a top Turbo Frequency (at stock settings) of 4.7GHz. It seems likely that, for Intel to set the new chip apart from its predecessor, the stock Turbo clocks would have to hit 5GHz or higher. If Intel can do that, while pushing up the base frequency to about 4GHz and keeping thermal demands in the same 95-watt range of the Core i7-8700K, that indeed would be impressive.

A Lot Comes Down to Pricing

Of course, we don’t know what Intel or AMD will charge yet for their next-generation CPUs. AMD has been extremely price-aggressive since the launch of Ryzen last year, often undercutting Intel’s comparable parts by a significant amount. With its finances now solidly in positive territory for the first time in years, AMD may continue to pressure Intel on chip prices. After all, the CPU underdog is making money and gaining market share with this strategy. So why change it?

But CPU prices aside, Intel also faces problems of affordability when it comes to the platform as a whole. AMD’s AM4 boards have been out for a year, and the company says that new CPUs will be backward-compatible with existing AM4 boards (after a BIOS update, of course). Intel’s chips, meanwhile, have not been backward-compatible with previous-generation boards in recent years. And on top of that, Team Blue only just released its lesser 300-series chipsets, after six months of essentially forcing consumers interested in 8th-Generation Core processors to overspend on motherboards—particularly upgraders and builders who don’t care about overclocking, Optane storage, or multiple-graphics-card setups.

Intel Has Options

So, where does Intel stand in the desktop CPU space with next-generation chips like the Core i7-9700K, and what does it need to do to gain ground on its newly resurgent competitor?

Offering more cores for less money would be a good start. That seems unlikely in the short term. Offering up more-affordable motherboards that work with more than one processor generation wouldn’t hurt, either. Both tactics seem to be working for AMD, and Intel clearly has the coffers to cut its margins thinner than AMD can.

Another interesting option for Intel to compete in today’s world of ever-overpriced graphics cards would be a socketed version of the "Kaby Lake-G" CPU that we just tested in the Intel NUC 8 VR. A custom build around a Kaby Lake-G chip would allow many users to game without the added expense of a graphics card, as well as making truly compact mainstream gaming systems more viable than they have been in the past. Given the rise of titles like Fortnite and Overwatch—which aren’t that graphically demanding—the market could be ripe for just that kind of system. And Intel clearly has some kind of designs on the GPU market, as evidenced by the company’s hire of AMD’s Raja Koduri late last year.

But while Koduri is certainly an interesting hire, a socketed Kaby Lake-G is extremely unlikely, given that AMD makes the Vega graphics in those chips. It was surprising to see AMD selling Intel its graphics silicon for comparatively low-volume products such as the new Intel NUC and high-end convertibles like the Dell XPS 15 Convertible. But we highly doubt that AMD is desperate enough to cut into its own core desktop-CPU and graphics businesses by helping Intel compete against itself and its own socketed graphics-equipped products, like the "Raven Ridge" AMD Ryzen 5 2400G.