Core i7-9700F vs Core i9-9900T

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i7-9700F vs Core i9-9900T FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i7-9700F vs Core i9-9900T: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i7-9700F

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($323 MSRP vs $423 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.8 vs 31.2 PassMark/$ ($323 MSRP vs $423 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (13,165 vs 13,208).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 16 MB).
❌85.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 35W.

Core i9-9900T

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 65W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 31.2 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($423 MSRP vs $323 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i9-9900T better than Core i7-9700F?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-9700F is ahead with a 6.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-9900T pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark. Core i9-9900T also has the bigger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i9-9900T is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i9-9900T is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i7-9700F is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i9-9900T comes in 31.0% more expensive on MSRP at $423 MSRP versus $323 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-9700F is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 6.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-9700F is also 30.5% better value on MSRP (40.8 vs 31.2 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i9-9900T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 33.3% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 12 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-9700F vs Core i9-9900T Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i7-9700F

The Core i7-9700F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 13,165 points. Launch price was $323.

Core i9-9900T

The Core i9-9900T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 13,208 points. Launch price was $439.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700F packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Core i9-9900T's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.7 GHz on the Core i7-9700F versus 4.4 GHz on the Core i9-9900T — a 6.6% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700F (base: 3 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i7-9700F uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i9-9900T uses Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700F scores 13,165 against the Core i9-9900T's 13,208 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i9-9900T. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700F vs 16 MB (total) on the Core i9-9900T.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Core i9-9900T
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.7 GHz+7%	4.4 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+43%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	16 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
PassMark	13,165	13,208

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1151 socket with PCIe 3.0.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Core i9-9900T
Socket	LGA1151	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-9700F was priced at $323, while the Core i9-9900T came in at $423. On launch pricing ($323 vs $423), Core i7-9700F was $100 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700F delivers 40.8 pts/$ vs 31.2 pts/$ for the Core i9-9900T — making the Core i7-9700F the 26.5% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-9700F	Core i9-9900T
MSRP	$323-24%	$423
Performance per Dollar	40.8+31%	31.2
Release Date	2019	2019

Search Core i7-9700F on Amazon

Search Core i9-9900T on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.