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

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

#51
notb
HTC
As a fellow TPU member put it in an unrelated (GPU card) topic, the fastest comes with a premium ... :rolleyes:
That's me! :-D
@ the very least, these "new performance numbers" are much more inline with what we'd expect before that whole "PT botched job".
No, they don't.
I wonder how many of you actually went through the data provided. ;-)
In some games the gap actually shrunk by as much as half. In some titles Creator Mode had no positive effect. There are games where "Game Mode" worked better after all.
Putting aside CS:GO and PUBG (200fps+), arguably the 3 most popular titles on the list look like this: (the gap before and after)
WOW: 32.7% -> 29.8%
Civ VI: 22.9% -> 16.9%
Fortnite: 22.7% -> 16.3%

And as another TPU fellow member mentioned, @btarunr may have issue with glass tint, which becomes very visible occasionally.
This time it's comparing "up to 50 percent" to "12.39 percent on average", which is just sad.

In fact "up to 50%" still stands .
Furthermore, it was said that the gap was seldom larger than 20%. If I counted correctly, in 10 out of 37 test. 27%... Anyone can judge if it's "seldom enough" for him.
BTW: If we set the threshold at 15%, it would be 17 out of 37.
Posted on Reply
#52
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
StrayKAT
I imagine most things were more expensive back then because we didn't rely on near-slave labor. I don't think that's progress.
Most definitely no. It's part of it sure, but mostly it's because that's just how it works. Transistors used to be pretty exotic and complicated, now they aren't.
Posted on Reply
#53
Vya Domus
Tsukiyomi91
You don't need to fiddle around in the UEFI just so you can squeeze whatever performance there is in it, like AMD.
Except if you want to get that 5 Ghz overclock. :p
Posted on Reply
#54
DeathtoGnomes
Frick
By that metric no progress is meaningful. RAM isn't expensive, SSDs cost/storage ratio has no impact at all and there's literally no such thing as a polluting car.
only now you figured this out? I've been saying that for decades!
Posted on Reply
#55
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
DeathtoGnomes
only now you figured this out? I've been saying that for decades!
I have no idea what you mean.
Posted on Reply
#56
Xx Tek Tip xX
And your z370/90 board becomes useless next gen, at this stage your paying as much as a HEDT platform.
Posted on Reply
#57
lexluthermiester
Intel hired this firm to make their new CPU look good. This shady and/or incompetent crap did the exact opposite. I've been recommending Ryzen to most of my clients who don't specifically ask for Intel. Much better performance/price ratio. Looks like nothing is going to change.
Posted on Reply
#58
Xx Tek Tip xX
lexluthermiester
Much better performance/price ratio.
Even better price-performance ratio for those needing 8 cores now.
Posted on Reply
#59
lexluthermiester
Xx Tek Tip xX
Even better price-performance ratio for those needing 8 cores now.
Thing is, that is with multi-threading. AMD is kicking Intel in the jimmies with Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#60
Xx Tek Tip xX
lexluthermiester
AMD is kicking Intel in the jimmies with Ryzen.
They are, however it's going to take a long time before the market evens out - that'd probably happen with zen 2
Posted on Reply
#61
RealNeil
Metroid
I'm waiting the reviews here at techpowerup, price-performance ratio.
^^^This^^^

Trusted site reviews are what I prefer reading.
This is one of my trusted places to read about new technology.

I can wait for it.
Posted on Reply
#62
Animalpak
How many ugly figures and controversy for my next CPU :shadedshu::wtf:
Posted on Reply
#63
Xx Tek Tip xX
RealNeil
Trusted site reviews are what I prefer reading.
Same, I only trust techpowerup - I take others with a pinch of salt.
Animalpak
How many ugly figures and controversy for my next CPU :shadedshu::wtf:
What do you expect? It's a 8700k + 2cores 4 threads and soldered for over twice the price in the UK - you'd be mad to pay this much on a mainstream processor.
Posted on Reply
#64
BarbaricSoul
StrayKAT
They used to be $5000+.
When was this? My 3930k system, when it was top/near-top of the line, including the $750 780ti it had when new, $450 motherboard, and the 30" 2560*1600 I paid $700 for used, (this was before 4k, when 2560*1600 was the highest resolution you could get), my system never priced out higher than $3500.
Posted on Reply
#65
jmcosta
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.
yeah I was a bout to say the same, for those that are looking for performance at this price point it doesn't really matter if its 100-200€ more or less. Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol
There are folk that want to save and its understandable to choose AMD instead since they have a great cost performance ratio.

anyway
Hopefully the i9 will have a excellent overclock ability, without a absurd thermal or power throttle
Posted on Reply
#66
ShurikN
jmcosta
Many will spend over 2K just in GPUs lol
You've misspelled "very few"
Posted on Reply
#67
Prima.Vera
I want some benches not at 720p but at 1440p and 2160p. Please.
Posted on Reply
#68
jmcosta
ShurikN
You've misspelled "very few"
true, the general consumer. I just meant to say within a group that pursuit performance.
Posted on Reply
#69
Xx Tek Tip xX
Prima.Vera
I want some benches not at 720p but at 1440p and 2160p. Please.
Of course intel will use 720p - watch as 1440p and especially 2160p the difference is minimal
Posted on Reply
#70
efikkan
Insinuating that i9-9900K vs. 2700X are the "only" relevant choices for gaming, when the fact is that several cheaper Intel models will still beat the 2700X in gaming. Basing articles on such false comparisons is unfortunate bias, professionals should know better.

i9-9900K is certainly a good CPU, but 8 cores for gaming have no use unless you're doing dual streams or similar.
Posted on Reply
#73
theonek
this intel is made for fans only....
Posted on Reply
#74
Xx Tek Tip xX
It's going to be interesting on the used market - 8700k's are typically found around £250 whilst preorders for the 9900k sit at £600 - Very poor value to have the "best" - whilst having a minimal performance boost.
Posted on Reply
#75
BarbaricSoul
efikkan
it did not say 8 threads was a minimum.
Really? Second sentence from the article-
First of all is the fact that Capcom lists as minimum an Intel Core i7-4770, paired with 8GB of RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760.
If the minimum recommendations for the game is a 4c/8t CPU, the game requires 8 threads. If it didnt require 8 threads, they would have listed the i5 4670 as the minimum. And since Intel's newest i7 is a 8c/8t cpu (9700k), 8 threads, whether from 4 or 8 cores, is starting to become the norm. Some games have been able to use more than 4 threads for quite some time now, with some of those using every thread you provide it. Face it, building a gaming system with less than 8 threads/cores is not very advisable these days.

And yes, I am very aware of the difference between a thread and a core.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment