Intel... What the hell are you doing?

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

I am not doubting the 9900K is probably the best gaming processor there is. However, if you're doing some benchmarks for comparison. Don't nerf the competition

The specs used in Intel testing, or the paid testing as it more is.

The testing is done at 1080P with a 1080Ti to highlight CPU bottlenecks. For some of the Intel platform testing, the XMP profile is enabled, then the speed is lowered to 2633MHz, while AMD platform has a higher RAM speed at 2933Mhz however no XMP profile enabled. Meaning it ends up with CL19 and overall much looser timings than the comparative Intel(CL15 or 16 I think) platform it is used to test against. From what I gather other places, the game mode option is used on the AMD platform. That helps 2990WX, but not 2700X.

This leads to 9900K having 50% stronger performance in some games compared 2700X.

Do you think this testing will backfire on Intel?

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

17765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 225

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By BassMan
Member since 2002 • 17765 Posts

No, it will not backfire as I already ordered a 9900K. People know what to expect. 8700K with higher clocks and 2 more cores. That being said, any benchmarks should be done fairly and I don't appreciate the shady shit.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@BassMan said:

No, it will not backfire as I already ordered a 9900K. People know what to expect. 8700K with higher clocks and 2 more cores. That being said, any benchmarks should be done fairly and I don't appreciate the shady shit.

It would have won fair and square. The higher clocks plus better IPC would make sure of that. So this is so extremely unnecessary.

Avatar image for urbangamez
urbangamez

3511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 urbangamez
Member since 2010 • 3511 Posts

@horgen: i don't know, i think it will, intel had nothing new to show other than, we made the 8700 faster, but the 9700k will only have 8 cores bcuz games are not using all these threads, so we only gave the 9900K hyperthreading and its for gamers for $579.99...….. huh?

but im biased towards amd when it comes to cpu's...….. so.... grain of salt

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@urbangamez said:

@horgen: i don't know, i think it will, intel had nothing new to show other than, we made the 8700 faster, but the 9700k will only have 8 cores bcuz games are not using all these threads, so we only gave the 9900K hyperthreading and its for gamers for $579.99...….. huh?

but im biased towards amd when it comes to cpu's...….. so.... grain of salt

That's not a lie. The AMD ryzen are for many people good enough, however for those that want the best, Intel is the way to go. I'm guessing they are trying to make up for the lesser volume sold by earning more per CPU sold. Hence why i9 has been introduced and i7 nerfed.

Oh and the AMD 2700X was only using 4 cores in the testing paid by Intel.

Avatar image for urbangamez
urbangamez

3511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By urbangamez
Member since 2010 • 3511 Posts

@horgen said:
@urbangamez said:

@horgen: i don't know, i think it will, intel had nothing new to show other than, we made the 8700 faster, but the 9700k will only have 8 cores bcuz games are not using all these threads, so we only gave the 9900K hyperthreading and its for gamers for $579.99...….. huh?

but im biased towards amd when it comes to cpu's...….. so.... grain of salt

That's not a lie. The AMD ryzen are for many people good enough, however for those that want the best, Intel is the way to go. I'm guessing they are trying to make up for the lesser volume sold by earning more per CPU sold. Hence why i9 has been introduced and i7 nerfed.

Oh and the AMD 2700X was only using 4 cores in the testing paid by Intel.

techpowerup has posted an update. the new revised testing done by PT shows that the 9900K is 66% pricer but just 12% faster than 2700X, but they corrected only half their mistakes for the new test. if this keeps up the lead might just shrink to single digits, which makes me wonder what the lead will be over the 8700K and the 8086K link.

this only makes the gains made by amd with the 2700X impressive, but I will admit as an amd fan they still have a long ways to go before im satisfied with their chip performance. amd should not celebrate they have to come with a super cpu on 7mm next year, because intel wont stand for this with their new 10mm if they can get the wafer situation sorted out.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@urbangamez said:
@horgen said:
@urbangamez said:

@horgen: i don't know, i think it will, intel had nothing new to show other than, we made the 8700 faster, but the 9700k will only have 8 cores bcuz games are not using all these threads, so we only gave the 9900K hyperthreading and its for gamers for $579.99...….. huh?

but im biased towards amd when it comes to cpu's...….. so.... grain of salt

That's not a lie. The AMD ryzen are for many people good enough, however for those that want the best, Intel is the way to go. I'm guessing they are trying to make up for the lesser volume sold by earning more per CPU sold. Hence why i9 has been introduced and i7 nerfed.

Oh and the AMD 2700X was only using 4 cores in the testing paid by Intel.

techpowerup has posted an update. the new revised testing done by PT shows that the 9900K is 66% pricer but just 12% faster than 2700X, but they corrected only half their mistakes for the new test. if this keeps up the lead might just shrink to single digits, which makes me wonder what the lead will be over the 8700K and the 8086K link.

this only makes the gains made by amd with the 2700X impressive, but I will admit as an amd fan they still have a long ways to go before im satisfied with their chip performance. amd should not celebrate they have to come with a super cpu on 7mm next year, because intel wont stand for this with their new 10mm if they can get the wafer situation sorted out.

Isn't the architecture in 9th gen Intel the same as the one in 6th gen? So the difference should be minimal between 8700/8086 and 9900K.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@horgen said:

Isn't the architecture in 9th gen Intel the same as the one in 6th gen? So the difference should be minimal between 8700/8086 and 9900K.

The 9th gen lga 1151 is coffeelake-s based while the HEDT 9th gen are just skylake-X based. With gaming the i9 9900k is only going to to be a few percentage points ahead of the 8700 because of clockrate... not because of the extra two cores or four threads really being there. Because right now and into the next year games are not going to strain a 12 threaded cpu fully. Now with non gaming workloads the i9 9900k should beat the 2700x almost in everything but it really worth it for the average streamer/gamer?, no not really. For the streamer/gamer 2700x is very good option for nearly half the price in some cases and provides at least 80% of the performance of the 9900k in most games.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@04dcarraher said:
@horgen said:

Isn't the architecture in 9th gen Intel the same as the one in 6th gen? So the difference should be minimal between 8700/8086 and 9900K.

The 9th gen lga 1151 is coffeelake-s based while the HEDT 9th gen are just skylake-X based. With gaming the i9 9900k is only going to to be a few percentage points ahead of the 8700 because of clockrate... not because of the extra two cores or four threads really being there. Because right now and into the next year games are not going to strain a 12 threaded cpu fully. Now with non gaming workloads the i9 9900k should beat the 2700x almost in everything but it really worth it for the average streamer/gamer?, no not really. For the streamer/gamer 2700x is very good option for nearly half the price in some cases and provides at least 80% of the performance of the 9900k in most games.

Going by Wikipedia the performance per MHz is the same as for Kaby Lake, which again is the same as Skylake. So it is the fourth time releases the same architecture.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

Somewhat relevant. Comparing 8700K and 2700X with the RTX 2080Ti. The difference will probably be only a few percent more with 9900K instead of 8700K. Also these are stock settings for the CPU.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for howmakewood
Howmakewood

7693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 Howmakewood
Member since 2015 • 7693 Posts

everyone knows it'll be faster, but they need to somehow justify the price increase over 8700k at least

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@howmakewood said:

everyone knows it'll be faster, but they need to somehow justify the price increase over 8700k at least

Hello. It's two, TWO, extra cores dude.

Avatar image for howmakewood
Howmakewood

7693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Howmakewood
Member since 2015 • 7693 Posts
@horgen said:
@howmakewood said:

everyone knows it'll be faster, but they need to somehow justify the price increase over 8700k at least

Hello. It's two, TWO, extra cores dude.

yeh but you need to still sell that those make a big difference in games

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@horgen said:

Going by Wikipedia the performance per MHz is the same as for Kaby Lake, which again is the same as Skylake. So it is the fourth time releases the same architecture.

yea they are virtually the same when it come to ipc.

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

17765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 225

User Lists: 0

#15 BassMan
Member since 2002 • 17765 Posts

There is still a big difference in performance between Intel and AMD in older games with poor multi-threading. That is the reason I don't really consider the AMD CPUs much. I don't want to be taking a hit on my older games. Try playing something like Stalker: Lost Alpha mod and you will see how the single thread bottleneck comes into play. Even somewhat recent games like Far Cry 4 show this bottleneck as well. The higher IPC and clock speed of Intel help power through this.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts
@BassMan said:

There is still a big difference in performance between Intel and AMD in older games with poor multi-threading. That is the reason I don't really consider the AMD CPUs much. I don't want to be taking a hit on my older games. Try playing something like Stalker: Lost Alpha mod and you will see how the single thread bottleneck comes into play. Even somewhat recent games like Far Cry 4 show this bottleneck as well. The higher IPC and clock speed of Intel help power through this.

Its not AMD's Clockrate nor IPC that is the issue with those older games with Ryzen . Its the SMT and lack of support for those older titles. You can fix those issues by setting a game's core affinity or disabling SMT to get those older games to play nice.

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

17765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 225

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By BassMan
Member since 2002 • 17765 Posts

@04dcarraher said:
@BassMan said:

There is still a big difference in performance between Intel and AMD in older games with poor multi-threading. That is the reason I don't really consider the AMD CPUs much. I don't want to be taking a hit on my older games. Try playing something like Stalker: Lost Alpha mod and you will see how the single thread bottleneck comes into play. Even somewhat recent games like Far Cry 4 show this bottleneck as well. The higher IPC and clock speed of Intel help power through this.

Its not AMD's Clockrate nor IPC that is the issue with those older games with Ryzen . Its the SMT and lack of support for those older titles. You can fix those issues by setting a game's core affinity or disabling SMT to get those older games to play nice.

You can not always fix the issue with tweaking affinity and such. Anyway, I just fired up Stalker Lost Alpha and that game is fucked. When it is not maxing out a single core, you still can't get a good frame rate when looking in certain areas. It is like it can't handle the draw calls and there is just shit optimization.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

Lets not forget Crysis... Which really wants a single or dual core clocked at 6+GHz.... I think ARMA are the same.

Avatar image for sovkhan
sovkhan

1591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 sovkhan
Member since 2015 • 1591 Posts

Doesn't surprise me at all!!!

Been forever Amd, Cyrix Nexgen guy because of this shit.

That and the few fps more are not so important in my book.

What worse it wasn't even necessary!, but hey it's Intel after all!!!