Saturday, October 13th 2018

New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

Principled Technologies (PT), which Intel paid to obtain some very outrageous test results for its Core i9-9900K eight-core processor launch event test-results, revised its benchmark data by improving its testing methodology partially. Initial tests by the outfit comparing Core i9-9900K to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and 2990WX, sprung up false and misleading results because PT tested the AMD chip with half its cores effectively disabled, and crippled its memory controller with an extremely sub-optimal memory configuration (4-module + dual-rank clocked high, leaving the motherboard to significantly loosen up timings).

The original testing provided us with such gems as the i9-9900K "being up to 50 percent faster than 2700X at gaming." As part of its revised testing, while Principled Technologies corrected half its rookie-mistakes, by running the 2700X in the default "Creator Mode" that enables all 8 cores; it didn't correct the sub-optimal memory. Despite this, the data shows gaming performance percentage-differences between the i9-9900K and the 2700X narrow down to single-digit or around 12.39 percent on average, seldom crossing 20 percent. This is a significant departure from the earlier testing, which skewed the average on the basis of >40% differences in some games, due to half the cores being effectively disabled on the 2700X. The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).
This whopping 12.3% gap between the i9-9900K and 2700X could narrow further to single-digit percentages if the 2700X is tested with an optimal memory configuration, such as single-rank 2-module dual-channel, with memory timings of around 14-14-14-34, even if the memory clock remains at DDR4-2933 MHz.

Intel responded to these "triumphant" new numbers with the following statement:
Given the feedback from the tech community, we are pleased that Principled Technologies ran additional tests. They've now published these results along with even more detail on the configurations used and the rationale. The results continue to show that the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K is the world's best gaming processor. We are thankful to Principled Technologies' time and transparency throughout the process. We always appreciate feedback from the tech community and are looking forward to comprehensive third party reviews coming out on October 19.
The media never disputed the possibility of i9-9900K being faster than the 2700X. It did, however, call out the bovine defecation peddled as "performance advantage data."

The entire testing data follows:
Source: Principled Technologies (PDF)
Add your own comment

281 Comments on New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming

#1
Metroid
I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.
Posted on Reply
#2
MrAMD
It costs having the best of the best. Bang for buck goes out the window when all you care for is the most bang.
Posted on Reply
#3
ShurikN
Doesn't this make the 9900K look kinda... mediocre. You can get a 8700K for MUUUUCH less money if all you care is high FPS
Posted on Reply
#4
Skar78
Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in? :D
Posted on Reply
#5
Tsukiyomi91
I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.
Posted on Reply
#6
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
"Skar78 said:
Am I the only one who expects an 2800X as soon as the real performance is in? :D
Very likely. AMD is still at 105W TDP and has the freedom of increasing TDP headroom to 125W (it's not bound by some 95W MSDT "barrier" unlike Intel). So it could give Pinnacle Ridge >5.00 GHz boost+XFR clocks, a higher memory divider enabling DDR4-3600, and some other tweaks.

"Metroid said:
I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.
I can confirm we will have a day-one review.
Posted on Reply
#7
ShurikN
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.
But you do need to spend a LOT of money on proper cooling if you are going for that 5GHz all core. And that will be much more expensive than memory for Ryzen.
At which point you are no longer looking at a $530 CPU but a $650-700 one.
Posted on Reply
#8
Tsukiyomi91
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
Posted on Reply
#9
Skar78
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
Not about the money - but if the gap would be closer i would consider 2800X just to show the finger to intel.
Posted on Reply
#10
Zubasa
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.
Posted on Reply
#11
Tsukiyomi91
thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.
Posted on Reply
#12
ShurikN
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
Which is why I said the 8700K is a much better buy. Stock vs stock. Once you get into overclocking, the original price/performance ratios go down the drain.
You can spend the leftover money for a better GPU.
"Zubasa said:
No need to fiddle around in the UEFI, or do you?
One of the first thing people buys Intel K-version CPUs is to go in the UEFI and try to overclock it to 5Ghz+, that is like the biggest advantage Intel has, sheer clock speeds.
Not to mention run all the stress tests to make sure the OC is stable.
Great point.
Posted on Reply
#13
Robcostyle
I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
-and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.

Rich people pay more for better service or good - and NEVER for the same stuff available for every, just in order to show they have more money.
All in all, PC gaming is a leisure - and it shouldnt be considered as a major part of your expenses. This price hike tactics just initially false, from very beginning
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
thing is, where's the 2800X? not here yet right? so, who's at the top for mainstream platform now? still Intel. Until AMD has a new processor to show at the table, I'm not buying their claims.
They made no claims about 2800X.
Posted on Reply
#15
ratirt
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
I've bought 2700X already and didnt even consider Intel as anything worth attention :)'Besides with this price points they can use it themselves.
Posted on Reply
#16
StrayKAT
"Robcostyle said:
I like how this greedy bluegreen couple tries to rip you for extra cash, just preteding to be “exclusive”, higher quality or better perfomance-
Hell, even that, they are so unconfident in doing all that advertising, torning between all they’re flushing, resulting in a complete mess about “what their product really is”
-and you know whats the most pretty in all this? THEY ARE NOT PREMIUM. They are not made from better materials than other stuff in semicond. market, they wont last longer, they dont have premium options. Hell, do Intel and ngreedia know what does PREMIUM means??? If they’ll sell their CPU’s in some Ferrari kind of shop, with cup of coffee and a manager kissing ur arse just to buy their stuff - that I will call premium over AMD. Nit just silly ~10% perfomance gain.

Rich people pay more for better service or good - and NEVER for the same stuff available for every, just in order to show they have more money.
All in all, PC gaming is a leisure - and it shouldnt be considered as a major part of your expenses. This price hike tactics just initially false, from very beginning
I don't think you need to bundle them together (bluegreen).

In my eyes, all computers are fairly cheap. They used to be $5000+. And they weren't even workstation class.
Posted on Reply
#17
Nkd
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
If I'm already spending well over $2k, why I wanna skimp out on the processor? I would pick the 9900K over the 2700X coz its obvious that 1.) it clocks at 5GHz, 2.) it beaten the 2700X in more than half of the benchmarks, whether botched or honest & 3.) it's an Intel product. You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
yep and game at 1080p with all that expensive hardware. So doesn't that defeat the purpose of having ultra high end hardware if you are going to cap it to 1080p? lol
Posted on Reply
#18
dgianstefani
The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.

Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.

And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.
Posted on Reply
#19
dj-electric
"Metroid said:
I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.
9900K was never meant to meet good price to performance ratios.
I don't think anybody doubts that the 2700X has a much higher price to performance ratio.
Posted on Reply
#20
Metroid
"ShurikN said:
Doesn't this make the 9900K look kinda... mediocre. You can get a 8700K for MUUUUCH less money if all you care is high FPS
That would only be true if the 9700k would not exist. It's already proven that hyper threading adds more heat than performance and in the end may be possibly open for attacks. I was all for hyper-threading in the past, nowadays is not needed anymore.
Posted on Reply
#21
Zubasa
"dgianstefani said:
The big difference between comparing the 9900k and 2700x at stock speeds is the Intel option can OC to another 500mhz minimum, while the 2700x is basically running at its max frequency already. So take that 12% advantage and make it around 20% after tweaking.

Ryzen at 4.2ghz all core vs Intel at 5.3 is a bit more than 12% I think.

And that's going with 8700k levels of OC. It's entirely possible the 9700/9900 can do 5.5.
These CPUs are still Coffee Lake, generally when 2 cpus are on the same process, the higher core-count CPU often OC a bit less due to the extra heat output.
Also there are varience between each core in the same chip, you you might be somewhat limted by how far the worse core can go.
Yes you can OC each core individually but that is an awful lot of work for dubious gains.
So it remains to be seen how well these chips actually OC.
Posted on Reply
#22
noel_fs
"Tsukiyomi91 said:
I think for folks who would go balls to the walls spec for their beastly gaming PC, I don't think they even care about price at this point. So far as I know the i9-9900K is capable of clocking 5GHz on all 8 cores thanks to the soldered IHS, unlike the i7-8700K where you need to delid it in order to reach the same level of performance. Same core & thread count as the R7 2700X but has way higher turbo boost frequencies & sustains it better. Also, you don't need to spend more money on Ryzen-optimized RAM kits... even a typical 2666MHz DDR4 RAM kit does the job.
You do not need ram optimized kits.
Posted on Reply
#23
_Flare
and where will it end up in this Chart ? i´m curious
Posted on Reply
#24
m4dn355
PT and intel reputation are already shaken
Posted on Reply
#25
HTC
"btarunr said:
The bottom-line of PT's new data is this: the Core i9-9900K is roughly 12 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X at gaming, while being a whopping 66% pricier ($319 vs. $530 average online prices).
As a fellow TPU member put it in an unrelated (GPU card) topic, the fastest comes with a premium ... :rolleyes:

As i replied in that same topic, there's premium, and theres "premiumed" premium ...

@ the very least, these "new performance numbers" are much more inline with what we'd expect before that whole "PT botched job".
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment