R7 2700X Vs. i7-6900K Vs. i9-9900K | Stock and Overclock | New Games Benchmarks

Mai bas yah background music sunne aata hu bahut awesome hai yaaar😋😋😋😋😋

Nobody don't use 2080ti for 1080p so this benches are stupid and pointless !! Why not 480/720p testing then because cpu stress there are bigger and Intel would have 150% more fps but again pointless like this ones too because nobody everyday plays on this shitty resolutions with 2080ti

Intel good value xd

But why I7 6900K suck???

You can all thank to AMD. Otherwise 9900k would cost 1 200 bucks.

remember every intel cpu mentioned here takes way more power than the 2700X even at oc, hey electricity is cheap not free.

Три полоски

So if you see these results it is clear that you dont need to upgrade if you already have an i7 6900k. All these CPUs are great for rendering, multitasking, streaming and gaming. But if you want to buy one of them now it is completly dumb to go with the i7 6900k that should be obvious to both intel and amd users, but it is also dumb in my oppinion to go with the 9900k. It is overpriced and from what I heared it is having heating problems. There is also the fact that you need to buy a expensive Z mainboard to overclock the i9 9900k. Let's say you get a ryzen 7 2700 instead of the 2700x (because they are basically the same CPU just with diffrent clocks). But since every ryzen CPU is unlocked you can OC the 2700 to the speeds of the 2700x so you safed money there. There is also the fact that you can even overclock with a cheaper b450 motherboard. Another plus for AMD is that they have good stock cooler that you can even use to OC. So you safe such a ton of money by going with AMD.

I9 wins, but with heavy losses.
Ryzen 2 will put it out of his misery...

9900k oc to 5.2GHz can fry egg 🤒

If people dont have 600 for a cpu... wait for zen 2. If you do... still wait for zen 2 its not long. If its better get that. If not 9900k will still likely drop. If you are one of these ridiculous anti amd people. Wait again for zen 2. And for intel to likely rush out another chip to beat it. And pay for that chip instead... for 600-800 likely but still. All options its wiser to wait 1Q.

If its a gaming chip or all rounder you want for 60 fps for a few years.. 2600 is the best choice by far for the 149 it costs. The i3 8100 is good too but being so closly priced to a 2600 with 6 cores 12 threads is not a good thing for it.

3570K vs. 9700K

Also because of black friday in UK the 1920x 12 core and a threadripper x399 MB cost the dame as the 9900k on its own...

Ну и что?Стоит 9900к более чем 2-х кратной переплаты?
Я всем говорю...Берите райзен!Пока на него ценник адекватный!!!
А интел пусть банкротится за свою жадность!

1 like = 1 prayer for AMD 😥

Yeah, could you, please, make a 1440p comparison? Thanks.

I love my i5 8600k beats all the ryzen series processors in gaming..

And then they say the i9-9900k gives 0 extra FPS...

Амд лучше

Only 1080p??

Hurdur Rysen have a 2000 cores have a better performance LOL uh3uh3uh33uh3 Cry more amd fanboys
R7 1700 lose for my 4790K in games haha

Dude 100$ for 10fps more is ridiculous also who plays at 200fps????. 60fps are more than enough

Go AMD Go, beat the ugly Intel :D

Intel wins

Price/performance... Ryzen wins

Winner: 8700k

The 9900k is better. Inc crybaby broke people

Sadly, amd lost at raw clockspeed

What is intel's strategy for pricing? Do they care about being competitive?

AMD win.

Holy shit the random numbers are so fake and everyone believes lmao

lol...expensive one is sucks cpu between and cheapest one is best one when you look at Hz and price...rip intel

song name plz

2700x still a beast because his price dude

Just so people know these tests where tested on the 6900k without the use of quad channel memory. I've done these tests on my 5960x and going from dual channel to quad will bring the benchmark numbers up about 5 to 10 percent more than shown here.

I have three 4k monitors so for me The difference would be 0%.

Core i7-6900K was the first "non-extreme" desktop 8-core CPU from intel. It was released in Q2'16 (according to intel). Core i9-9900K was released about 2.5 years (!!!) after that and as one sees has comparable overclocking potential and almost the same performance / frequency ratio. Not to speak of the fact, that no 6- or 8-core intel CPUs would ever exist for the mainstream platform if it weren't for AMD Ryzen release. We would have now another sh*tty 4-core "refresh" of the same ancient architecture (which is actually sandy bridge, no meaningful architecture changes were made since that). One could say "it's business and all, no hard feelings" and would be right. But one shouldn't buy the same sh*t over and over again without clear understanding what one gets for his money. And as it gets obvious anybody who has any good 8-core or at least fast 6-core CPU (some of which are already 2.5 and more years old) and a good cooling solution (for OC) by buying i9-9900K gets nothing for his money. NOTHING

so my $1100 i7 6900k now not even close to $485 i9 9900k feel sad to see this.

i9 9900k in 5.0GHz, this is more hot than hell

6900K turbo at 4.7Ghz is hilarious. pls do your research well.

i have 9900k @5.2 ghz both core and avx 24/7. sitting @1.375V. love it.

What the hell is wrong with the 6900K scores? My 5960X scores higher than that in CB at 4.5Ghz. Are you not using quad channel RAM? O_o

It's surprising how comparable the 6900k and 9900k are.

You got really lucky with that 6900k. I’ve been able to get mine to 4.5Ghz, but it wasn’t Prime95 stable, so I backed it down to 4.4Ghz.
I’m on a custom loop using a D5 pump, 480mm rad in push/pull (8x 120mm fans at 2000rpm), and Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut Liquid metal.
I’m not happy with the thermals, so I decided I’m going to lap the IHS and waterblock soon. Hopefully that will make a difference.

Oh, I should note that my Cinebench R15 scores seem to be better than yours. Not sure why tho. At 4.4Ghz I get 1908, and at 4.5Ghz I got like just over 2000 (2003 I believe).
You should be doing far better at 4.5Ghz than you are.
I recommend disabling the Spectre/Meltdown mitigation... I know my scores took a dive after updating with that (so I used InSpectre to disable it all).

Why is that i7 6900k so expensive?

Спасибо.

specs typo, 6900k stock sustained turbo is 3.7, not 4.7

quad channel?

Hi all ! I have a Machinist X99-MR9A Pro motherboard, I got an i7 6900K processor Frequency: 3.2 GHz, Turbo Clock: up to 3.7 GHz, Boost 3.0 up to 4.0 GHz with turbo boost unlock gives 3.5 GHz without 3.2 GHz but should 3.7 GHz and even 4GHz per core - what can be done to make the boost work correctly on this Machinist X99-MR9A Pro motherboard? or a link where there is info?