Whether Intel acknowledges it or not, since the launch of AMD's first-generation "Summit Ridge" Ryzen processors (spearheaded by the excellent Ryzen 7 1800X), the two companies have been in the midst of a Core War.
With the launch of the $499 Intel Core i9-9900K, Intel now has a shot at claiming the mainstream-CPU productivity crown from AMD.
Although raw performance isn't the only factor to use to determine which components to buy, it is an important one.
And without a doubt, on that front, Intel scores a definitive win with the eight-core Core i9-9900K.
That said, while this epic mainstream processor delivers killer scores on benchmark testing, and is a top-flight pick for performance-minded PC gamers and content creators, you'll need to factor in a decent thermal topper for this chip—and some extra budget for both that and the chip itself.
It's the priciest desktop CPU of recent memory on a mainstream, rather than specialized enthusiast, platform.
But oh, is it ever a good one.
Honest, Objective Reviews
Daxdi.com is a leading authority on technology, delivering Labs-based, independent reviews of the latest products and services.
Our expert industry analysis and practical solutions help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.
The Whole i9 Yards
If you've purchased an Intel Core processor (or a pre-built laptop or desktop) at any point in the last decade, you know how Intel segments its products into Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 families.
With the "Nehalem" microarchitecture, which launched in 2008, Intel began offering Hyper-Threading on its Core i7 chips, but not on the Core i5 ones.
With Hyper-Threading, by letting each core handle up to two threads on these higher-tier processors, users realized approximately 30 percent better performance per core, depending on the application.
For this reason, the Core i7 processors were a good deal more powerful than the Core i5s, especially when running highly threaded software.
But with the 9th Generation Intel Core Processors, Hyper-Threading is no longer a standard feature on the Core i7s.
Intel already has a tier of processors above the Core i7s, which it introduced in May 2017, with the Skylake-X HEDT (High-End Desktop) processor family, the leading chip of which is the formidable, multi-kilobuck Core i9-7980XE Extreme Edition.
This first wave of Core i9s was designed specifically for well-heeled extreme enthusiasts and pro content creators.
The core counts with the Core X-Series Core i9 processors start at 10 and go up to 18, with Hyper-Threading a standard feature, but all of these chips require a pricey Intel X299-based motherboard, and the Core i9-line chip prices themselves start at a cool $1,000 with the Core i9-7900X ($999.99 at Newegg) .
Apart from access to these supercar-speed processors, support for four-channel main system memory and lots of extra PCI Express lanes (to accommodate multiple video cards or PCI Express-based SSDs) are the reasons that buyers might opt for the X299 platform.
In contrast to the Core i9 chips of Intel's Core X family, the Intel Core i9-9900K is the first i9 processor to become available on Intel's mainstream desktop platform, and it'll work in significantly more affordable Z370 motherboards, though a BIOS update will be required.
This chip also offers two more cores than the former mainstream flagship chip, the six-core Core i7-8700K ($351.46 at Amazon) .
When you look at the rest of the Core i9 processors in Intel's stack, it's easy to see the Core i9-9900K as a bit of a middle ground—extreme silicon, to be sure, but designed to appease enthusiasts with no need for Core X's spare PCI Express lanes and quad-channel memory.
On the other hand, the $499 list price on the Intel Core i9-9900K (retail prices at the time I wrote this started at $530 and went up even higher) is a harder pill to swallow if you were expecting this chip to be a straight-up replacement for the Core i7-8700K.
Instead, Intel is launching the $385 Core i7-9700K as the top-end Core i7 processor for the 9th Generation, and although it has eight cores, Hyper-Threading is not a supported feature.
The core and thread jump from the Core i7-7700K to the Core i7-8700K is measurable in almost everything you do with your PC, but Intel doesn't seem keen to tread the same path this time.
Are there instances where the Core i7-8700K, with its six cores and 12 threads, will outperform an eight-core/eight-thread Core i7-9700K? Perhaps, though we suspect these will be the exception rather than the rule.
I'll save that discussion for that processor's review, assuming I can get my mitts on one.
And what about AMD? At eight cores and 16 threads in their flagships, AMD and Intel may have achieved core parity on their respective front lines now, but AMD is once again wielding price as its greatest weapon.
Before we talk about how Intel competes, however, let's take a close look at what you get with the Core i9-9900K.
The Guts of 9th Gen Core
Although the Core i9-9900K looks just like all the rest of the LGA 1151 processors Intel has manufactured, there's something new (well, new since the days of "Ivy Bridge") under the hood.
Instead of using silicon-based paste between the processor's die surface and the glued-on heat spreader, Intel is bringing back bonded metal, or solder.
This Soldered Thermal Interface Material (STIM) is considerably more capable when it comes to pulling heat away from the die when the CPU is under load.
With a decent CPU cooler attached, STIM can help keep your processor running cooler.
Like the present of an unlocked multiplier, this new feature is a wink from Intel directly to overclockers, who've created a whole cottage industry around delidding Intel processors to replace the paste TIM with something more thermally conductive.
It's also worth noting that all of AMD's AM4-based processors, with the exception of its "Raven Ridge" chips, rely on bonded metal between the die surface and the heat spreader.
The Core i9-9900K is built on Intel's umpteenth revision of the 14nm process (dubbed here "14nm++").
However, the chip giant has managed to fit two more cores with similar clock speeds into the same package.
I'll take a closer look at the Core i9-9900K's real-world power situation later on.
The Intel Core i9-9900K is a 95-watt TDP processor that features eight cores and 16 threads, and it's built on an LGA 1151 package.
This processor belongs to the Intel "Coffee Lake-S" family, and it has a 3.6GHz base clock and a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 5GHz.
Like the Intel Core i7-8086K Limited Edition ($691.76 at Amazon) I recently reviewed, this 5GHz Boost clock applies only when a single core is active.
In my tests, this processor boosted up to 4.7GHz when all cores were active.
Other features include 16MB of Intel Smart Cache that's available to all eight cores, a dual-channel memory controller, and Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics with a 350MHz minimum and 1.2GHz maximum GPU frequency.
With the exception of the Smart Cache, the rest of these features are the same on the Core i7-8700K.
The memory controller is rated to support up to DDR4-2666 memory, and Intel Extreme Memory Profile support means that Z370 and Z390 motherboards can support memory speeds beyond 4,000MHz.
The processor has 16 PCI Express lanes available for discrete graphics cards, and the integrated UHD Graphics 630 processor (the same graphics engine as on the Core i7-8700K) supports overclocking with an unlocked multiplier.
When you slot this chip into a Z370 or Z390 motherboard, you'll also get unlocked base clock and memory ratios, support for per-core overclocking, and adjustable voltages.
You may not be terribly inclined to use the UHD Graphics 630 for gaming (I was unable to test it because my system's MSI MEG Z390 ACE motherboard does not feature a graphics output) but it's not just some useless vestigial lump of silicon.
With Intel Quick Sync Video Technology, this portion of the chip can rapidly convert HEVC 10-bit (H.265) video files and encode/decode premium 4K Ultra HD content, for instance from Netflix.
This chip also supports the AVX2 instruction set, Intel Optane Memory, and Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0.
Intel is also launching a slightly-tweaked Z390 chipset to go with the 9th Generation Core processors, though if you already have a Z370 motherboard, there's not a lot to get excited about.
The upticks from Z370? Z390 features an integrated USB 3.1 Gen 2 controller for up to 10Gbps ports, and integrated Intel Wireless-AC with support for Gigabit Wi-Fi speed.
That said, not all Z390 motherboards will necessarily ship with said ports and Wi-Fi capabilities, but at the high end, Z390 motherboards equipped with an Intel Wireless-AC 9560 adapter will support theoretical data rates up to 1,733Mbps.
Also, know that, as mentioned in passing earlier, not all Z390 boards will necessarily have video outputs that will let you use Intel's integrated graphics.
Shop with care if that matters to you.
(See our preview of Z390 motherboards from Asrock and MSI.)
Testing Stock Performance
On paper, the Intel Core i9-9900K looks to be a powerful processor, but to see just how it compares to the other muscle-car chips currently on the market, I ran a passel of tests to determine how it handles a host of workloads at its default settings.
For my test setup, I installed the Intel Core i9-9900K into the MSI MEG Z390 ACE ATX motherboard mentioned earlier, and populated two of the DIMM slots with 16GB of dual-channel G.Skill Sniper X DDR4-3400 memory.
For the Windows 10 boot drive, I relied on the 240GB Crucial BX300 6Gbps SATA SSD.
I installed the components into an Alpine White EVGA DG-77 case and used the Fractal Design Celsius S36 closed-loop liquid cooler to flush heat away from the processor's STIM-fused integrated heat spreader.
Keep in mind, like many of Intel's enthusiast-centric processors, the Intel Core i9-9900K does not include a stock CPU cooler in the box, so you'll need to have one on hand or buy one.
For our game testing, I supplemented the Core i9-9900K with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 ($549.00 at NVIDIA) , operating at the Founders Edition clocks.
To compare this processor's scores with that of other chips currently on the market, I included in the charts below scores for several chips mentioned earlier: the six-core/12-thread Intel Core i7-8700K and Core i7-8086K Limited Edition, and the 10-core/20-thread Intel Core i9-7900X, as well as the eight-core/16-thread Intel Core i7-7820X ($649.99 at Amazon) .
The first two are on the same platform as the Core i9-9900K and will work with Z370 motherboards, while the two Core X-Series chips (the ones ending in "X") rely on X299.
For the AMD side of the aisle, the competitors are the mainstream-flagship eight-core/16-thread AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, the step-down six-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 2600X, and for kicks and context, the much costlier 16-core/32-thread Ryzen Threadripper 2950X.
Cinebench R15
Maxon's 64-bit Cinebench R15 is a CPU-centric test that lets us gauge both the single-core and multicore performance of the various processors I tested.
The resulting scores are test-specific numbers that represent the processor's performance while rendering a complex CPU-intensive image.
This is considered a synthetic benchmark.
In the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded subtest, more cores tend to return higher scores.
Despite this, the Core i9-9900K scores more in line with the much pricier 10-core Core i9-7900X ($999.99 at Newegg) .
The eight-core Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-7820X are neck-and-neck, and the trio of six-core processors brings up the rear.
The Cinebench R15 single-threaded test is oblivious to more than one core, so megahertz matters most here.
As you'd expect, the two 5GHz Intel processors take the top spots, but the Core i9-9900K has a slight edge.
iTunes 10.6 Conversion Test
The iTunes 10.6 Encoding Test is tragically single-threaded, which means that more cores simply don't make a dent on these workloads.
This test is designed to illustrate the performance you might expect when running legacy software that doesn't scale well across more than one core.
The iTunes encoding test is a bit like Cinebench R15's single-threaded test, where sheer one-core clock speed plays a big role.
The Core i9-9900K once again comes out on top, but the rest of the Intel chips aren't far behind.
All three of AMD's processors finish the encoding task 16 seconds or more behind the slowest Intel processor, the Core i9-7900X.
Handbrake 0.9.9
Handbrake is a classic (and popular) workstation application that is used to convert videos between formats.
Typically, the more threads and cores a processor has, the better it will perform in this utility.
I loaded up a 12-minute-long open-source 4K movie titled Tears Of Steel and used the software to convert it into a 1080p MPEG-4 video.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X ($779.85 at Amazon) is a force to be reckoned with when it comes to Handbrake renders, but the Core i9-9900K comes in second place, beating even the about-a-grand Core i9-7900X.
The AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($421.98 at Amazon) clocks in almost a full minute behind the Core i9-9900K.
POV-Ray 3.7
This benchmark is another one that's generally considered synthetic; however, the highly threaded nature of the utility is getting to be more and more representative of the applications available today.
(The benchmark tasks the processor with rendering a complex photo-realistic image using ray tracing.) I ran POV-Ray using both the multi-threaded "All CPUs" setting and the hamstrung "One CPU" setting.
POV-Ray's single-threaded workload seems to favor Intel's processors, and the Core i9-9900K has an impressive run once again to claim the top of the chart.
The multi-threaded POV-Ray doesn't deliver such one-sided results, however, with the Threadripper chip predictably taking the top spot by a huge margin.
Just 11 seconds separates the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X's fourth-place finish from the Core i9-9900K in third place.
Blender 2.77a
Another of the real-world benchmarks I used is Blender, a popular open-source 3D rendering application that people far more creative and talented than I use to craft 3D visual effects, animations, and models.
Our test file consists of a cartoonish flying-squirrel render that takes less than a minute to complete with most modern processors.
In Blender, the only processor that took more than 25...
