Friday, October 12th 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:
The entire testing data follows:
Source:
Principled Technologies (PDF)
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).
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:
322 Comments on New PT Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster than 2700X at Gaming
its telling all and everything.. close anyway why 9900,9700 and 9600 and 8700 intes cpus are better. and must remembe 8700 is 6-core.
66% pricier is not teh point. ,except if you CANT buy once of 3-5 year best cpus....if you cant stay budget PC.
we still took about little more 100 dolalrs and it not ruin r€al gaµ€ play€rs budg€t,but that 12% speed can make gaming lower level.
sure amd2700x is lower rpice,ITS ONLY WAY TO TRY SELL IT......slower productalways trying sell lowers price...bcoz its loosers choice.
and suddenly,amd use that politics everywhere and always.... like 'its not bestmfastest and best tech..but its cheaper... like BMW vs skoda
- end -
66% higher price IS the point. Why it's even in the title of this thread!
Maybe it's all about the fact that someone can spend less on a CPU to have more money left to spend on a GPU.
Better GPUs make a huge difference in gameplay, don't they?
My Ryzen 7 1700X system more than ticked all of the boxes.
Gaming was fluid with the pair of 1070Ti cards running SLI.
It was also fluid with a pair of GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 8GB cards in Crossfire.
Benches were higher with the GTX cards, but Gaming was the same.
I'm waiting for those.
I believe that they will be a lot better, at good prices. They'll probably hit the market fairly soon after CES happens.
Also, the current batch of Ryzen CPUs will go down in price afterward.
Look Here for the scoop.
Beyond that, there is always something else out there that's worth buying.
Ryzen-7 2700X is probably a fine CPU. Reviews are very good.
I had a 1700X and it was good to go for gaming. (with decent GPUs)
I have one of those Red Devil Vega-64 cards here. I've been waiting to get a second one for crossfire to use it. Today I had a box come in from Newegg.
I bought a second Vega-64 card (Gigabyte for $400.00 ) last week and plan to set them up together later on tonight.
I suppose the 3000 series Ryzen will be great. I must say I'm impressed with my 2700X. For now, I don't need to change it but if I will get a good deal on the new Ryzen I will get it.
No thanks.
HT yields more than 20% performance increase.
www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=HT-Core-Scaling-Xeon-SKL
Take your garbage elsewhere.
12% gain doesnt justify 66% price hike.Longer than that
I bought the Gigabyte card because it was dirt-cheap compared to buying another Red Devil card.
Maybe later I'll find a deal on another Devil
I'm going to be using the pair of them in an i9-7900X box because it already has a large (1300W) PSU in it. There is a pair of GTX-1080 FE cards running SLI inside of it now and I want to run a few benches before and after the swap. I imagine the 1080s are quicker.
I have my eye on a 34" Freesync screen that a friend is going to sell after Christmas, so these two Vega cards will get to stretch a little.